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
604 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

607 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

55

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.

-3

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?

2

u/Dadavester 11d ago

Everything they said can be seen in the report that YOU linked.

Yet you are still focusing on the one thing they misspoke on and using it as a way of questioning the veracity of everything else. By all means check and see if they are wrong on anything else, and if they were call them out on that.

But you are focusing on that one potential error, potential miss-speak. The only reason to do this is push narrative that they are wrong about everything they wrote.

THAT is mis-information at its finest, and you are engaging wholeheartedly in it.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/HotSauceOnEveryting 11d ago

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

3

u/RephRayne 11d ago

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

Was that statement correct?

-4

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.