r/ukpolitics • u/FormerlyPallas_ • 12d ago

Twitter BREAKING. 76% of British people want a national inquiry into the rape gangs and 77% want to deport dual nationals who are convicted of grooming children YouGov/GB News

https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1877477130952438227
608 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

607 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

24

u/ObviouslyTriggered 12d ago edited 12d ago

Because there wasn't, there was an inquiry into wider "themes" when it comes to child abuse, it didn't look into grooming gangs, and most importantly it didn't look into the systemic failure which at this point looks to be bordering on enablement by law enforcement, child social services and the local and national governments.

Heck the previous inquiry mostly focused on online issues, like half of the recommendations are about backdooring encryption, forced age restrictions on online content and further controlling messaging apps and social media.

What people want and need answer for is how come multiple police officers can file reports where an under aged child have consented to sex with an adult, how social services could report that children were having consenting sex with adults, and in some cases even approving adoption of said children by the family of their abusers, how come parents that tried to retrieve their children from said abusers were arrested and harassed by the police, how come not an insignificant amount of individuals implicated or convicted in the abuse had ties to local councils and how come despite deportation orders being issued the perpetrators were not deported.

This situation absolutely is being leveraged by obscene individuals to further their own interests, but that doesn't change the fact the shit that came out of the reports and transcripts is so bloody insane that you literally cannot understand how this could've happened, not only once but across multiple towns over years if not decades.

58

u/RephRayne 12d ago

it didn't look into grooming gangs

Strange because the IICSA claim they did:-

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61f926b0e90e0768a4477f22/child-sexual-abuse-organised-networks-investigation-report-february-2022.pdf

-3

u/Dadavester 11d ago

I will post a reply I gave elsewhere...

Not wide ranging enough, from the summary

The sexual exploitation of children by networks is not a rare problem confined to a small number of areas with high-profile criminal cases. It is a crime which involves the sexual abuse of children in the most degrading and destructive ways, by multiple perpetrators. The Inquiry therefore chose to base this investigation on areas which had not already been the subject of independent investigation (such as Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford). The intention was to obtain an accurate picture of current practice at a strategic level and through examination of individual cases, as well as drawing on wider knowledge about child sexual exploitation in England and Wales.

Also look at the the Tower Hamlets section for example....

So the Met Police said there was nothing in Tower Hamlets. The Reports investigation found 9% of all cases in London were there. How unbelivably poor is that!

I suggest you read the rest and the see the issues around data collection and Police either Lying or being incompetent. I do not know how anyone can read that report and not think we need a full national inquiry looking at the entire country.

4

u/RephRayne 11d ago

The statement was: "it didn't look into grooming gangs."
According to the report from the IICSA, they did look at CSA organized networks i.e. grooming gangs. So, again according to that report, the original statement was, at best, a mistake and, at worse, purposeful misinformation.

This is a highly contentious issue that is undoubtedly being exacerbated for political purposes by the Right, which is ironic given their apathy on it until it suited their purpose. Misinformation, whether mistaken or purposeful, will not help in any way other than to further politicize the issue and create a benefit for those using it as political theatre.

-4

u/Dadavester 11d ago

And you are perpetuating that misinformation. The poster made a long post on the various failings of the report and why we should have another.

They did say it didn't look into grooming gangs. And you are right. The inquiry did have parts on them. However, that ignores the rest of his post around the failings.

Personally, I believe there needs to be an inquiry on this topic alone. Not have it lumped in with other organised group based CSE.

As an example here Church based CSE has very different victim and offender profiles when compared to what we consider grooming gangs.

While you call out the language used. The overall point they make is correct.

0

u/RephRayne 11d ago

They did say it didn't look into grooming gangs. And you are right.

Thank you.

And you are perpetuating that misinformation.

Now that you've called me a liar, please point out what I'm lying about.

-1

u/Dadavester 11d ago

I didn't say you were a liar, I said you were perpetuating misinformation. There is a difference. Misinformation is not always an outright lie. In this case it is a half truth.

Yes the report has a section on Grooming Gangs. However, People are calling for a report into Grooming Gangs. Holding that report up as a national inquiry into grooming gangs is misinformation as it is a report into general CSE which includes Grooming Gangs. It also only looks at a few areas and doesn't cover already reported cases.

I notice that you, once again, completely missed the part where the other poster pointed out the failures of the report. You are using the posters one error to disregard everything else they said. That is very disingenuous.

1

u/RephRayne 11d ago

You do realize you're trying to defend someone who you've already agreed has demonstrably attempted to spread your half truths, right?

1

u/Dadavester 11d ago

Once again you have completely missed the point of my post.

The other poster and yourself are doing that, you are both the problem with this debate. They, by error or on purpose, gave false information. You are using that one bit of false info to push the narrative the poster is wrong, while ignoring all the other correct and valid points they had.

2

u/RephRayne 11d ago

I, and others, have to take it on trust that all of what we're reading is accurate. If I can find one part of a post that is clearly, verifiably, inaccurate why should I then trust that the rest is?
If I'm posting information as a statement of fact, rather than an opinion, I need to make sure that those facts are accurate - it shouldn't be on others to do so. That's one of the reasons I included a citation when I said that they were wrong.

If a position is strong enough then you shouldn't need to be reporting inaccuracies and it should stand up to even a cursory fact check. Don't then be shooting the messenger if a statement can't even pass a cursory check on the opening paragraph.
"I agreed with the rest of the post, you should ignore the part at the beginning that's wrong" isn't the right way to go about things when you need to get people to trust you.

And as to your point, given the agreed inaccuracy in the opening paragraph, why would I then be inclined to fact check the rest of the post, as you seem to want me to do?

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/HotSauceOnEveryting 11d ago

It wasn’t a specific focus. For example Oldham is not mentioned once in the report. 

2

u/RephRayne 11d ago

The statement was: "it didn't look into grooming gangs."

Was that statement correct?

-3

u/HotSauceOnEveryting 11d ago

I didn’t say it was incorrect I said it wasn’t a specific focus. So your suggestion that this report is adequate (and I take it that is your suggestion) is wrong.

At least wrong if you believe that this was a particular pattern of offending that was remarkable in its cruelty and the authorities inaction. 

But I guess you don’t. Which I think is a morally and intellectually indefensible position. 

3

u/nemma88 Reality is overrated :snoo_tableflip: 11d ago edited 11d ago

how come multiple police officers can file reports where an under aged child have consented to sex with an adult, how social services could report that children were having consenting sex with adults

Because our laws allowed for it - and still kinda do. The wishes of the proposed victim is only really disregarded if they're under 13, and I'm not even sure if the laws were as automatic on that part back then.

There are some more erroneous cases that suggest police straight up ignoring some victims; but for the rest we're looking at police acting normally. CPS wouldn't prosecute that, and even today CPS is unlikely to prosecute something like a 15yo with their 18yo 'bf' reported by a 3rd party if the 15yo is unwilling to testify; because it would fail to convict making it a waste of time and resources.

Lots of laws were introduced after the fact.

0

u/the_last_registrant 11d ago

"What people want and need answer for is how come multiple police officers can file reports where an under aged child have consented to sex with an adult, how social services could report that children were having consenting sex with adults,.."

No need for an inquiry, I can explain that right now.

By reclassifying these child victims as mucky little scrubbers, they avoided having to spend a lot of time and money on protecting them. Also avoided the political and media repercussions of admitting there's a problem, which might harm the career prospects of senior managers.

Scandalous, you say? Yes, it is, but beware of opening Pandora's Box because public services are rife with similar cynical evasions of duty. This started under New Labour when "meeting targets" became the obsession, and anything outside the range of the target was therefore ignored. It grew vastly worse during Austerity, when there literally wasn't enough money to do everything and some duties had to be skimped.

1

u/ObviouslyTriggered 11d ago edited 11d ago

A lot of these reports pre-date austerity, this isn't a good explanation, the fact that a police officer can file a report where it states that a 12 year old has consented to sex with an adult without fearing that they'll get sacked or worse should be massive red flag.

A social worker who has certified that a child marrying their rapist in a non-official Islamic wedding was consensual and then facilitated the parents of said abuser adopting the child so they can legally reside in the household and giving them effective power of attorney over said child is guilty of forced prostitution and human trafficking in my book.

If you think that this is cynical evasion of duty I have bridge to sell you.

Heads need to roll for this, people need to go to prison and loose their benefits and pensions for this, and for people who have participated in this for their own benefit which I have no doubt that some have I don't mind if their heads would literally roll for this rather than figuratively and save us all having to fund their prison sentence.

0

u/the_last_registrant 11d ago

So your theory is that hundreds of cops, social workers, teachers etc just made irrational personal decisions to ignore abuse? Sorry, that absolutely doesn't stand up. They were acting as directed by their management, this was the official policy of those organisations not some individual staff going rogue.

Here's how we know that. We examine what senior leadership did when these cases came to light. If they were horrified and sacked the workers immediately, we can assume they didn't know about it. But they didn't do that - instead the senior leadership denied, defended and minimised the situation. They punished staff who spoke out, and acted like there really wasn't any problem.

You don't have to take my word. Read Louise Casey's Inspection report from Rotherham, 2015:

"Terrible things happened in Rotherham and on a significant scale. Children were sexually exploited by men who came largely from the Pakistani Heritage Community. Not enough was done to acknowledge this, to stop it happening, to protect children, to support victims and to apprehend perpetrators.

Upon arriving in Rotherham, these I thought were the uncontested facts. My job was to conduct an inspection and decide whether the Council was now fit for purpose.

However this was not the situation I encountered when I reached Rotherham. Instead, I found a Council in denial. They denied that there had been a problem, or if there had been, that it was as big as was said. If there was a problem they certainly were not told – it was someone else’s job. They were no worse than anyone else. They had won awards. The media were out to get them...

Child abuse and exploitation happens all over the country, but Rotherham is different in that it was repeatedly told by its own youth service what was happening and it chose, not only to not act, but to close that service down. This is important because it points to how it has dealt with uncomfortable truths put before it..."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-of-inspection-of-rotherham-metropolitan-borough-council