Rotherham child rape gangs: At least 1400 victims

[toggle]

With the law being all fair and just and all that malarkey.

and the fact that the people who make and interpret it aren't misogynist, unlike brown people. and the swp.

 

[Citizen66]

Not that it matters. Fucking hell, Kenneth Clarke was hauled over the coals in the national media for saying something similar. Do you live in a cocoon Grandma Death ?

 

[Grandma Death]

the main point i'm trying to make is that 'mixed signals' ins't a reason why someone accidently rapes.

it is a justification used by rapists to deny that they are actual rapists after they have been caught out raping.

I agree completely-but would you agree that a drunken perpetrator who has impaired judgement is a different context to a pre meditated rape by a complete stranger? Both scenarios are clearly rape but you'd agree there are different contexts?

 

[Citizen66]

Here it is Grandma Death , some mail from Earth to Jupiter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13436429

 

[Grandma Death]

Not that it matters. Fucking hell, Kenneth Clarke was hauled over the coals in the national media for saying something similar. Do you live in a cocoon Grandma Death ?

Ken Clarke said some rapes were more serious than others-he didnt say ALL rape was bad-as I clearly did

 

[Citizen66]

Ken Clarke said some rapes were more serious than others-he didnt say ALL rape was bad-as I clearly did

You're kind of saying one to disguise the fact you're saying the other.

 

[Citizen66]

Anyway, this is a massive unneeded derail really. I don't have any beef with you Grandma Death so we should get back to the topic of your racism?

 

[Grandma Death]

You're kind of saying one to disguise the fact you're saying the other.

I'll put it in bold for you because clearly you and the rest of the mob didnt quite get it:

...ok offending of this nature. So you'd argue misogyny is a feature of ALL rape. So someone who is drunk, has impaired judgement, misreads the signs-rapes someone...thats misogyny? I mean all rape is wrong regardless of the circumstances but to suggest misogyny is a feature of ALL rapes ignores the contexts of some rapes.

Being drunk impairs your judgement and makes you do all sorts of idiotic things-driving for example. Some people drive drunk and go on to kill people whilst drunk. Doesnt make them bad drivers does it?

Misogyny isnt a feature of ALL rapes. ALL rapes aren't the same. The reasons, motives, contexts etc will differ from offence to offence. Male on Male rape for example. Grooming gangs. Paedophilia gangs..the list goes on.

ALL rape is rape. There is NO excuse for it and never will be. But clearly there are different context to the offence-and to describe it as such doesnt make me a rape apologist

 

[Grandma Death]

Anyway, this is a massive unneeded derail really. I don't have any beef with you Grandma Death so we should get back to the topic of your racism?

Listen Citizen 66 I was a regular poster here once-and I stopped posting. The interactions on the last few pages has made me realise why I rarely post here now. You may call it a 'derail' I call it bullying and deeply offensive to me-I am not and never will be a rape apologist. I am also pissed off with you making light of a serious subject.

Im out of this thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

On your bike you twat. You wanted to hear about the different levels of rape-then toddled after somebody liking their post and Ive given it to you. Even now when Ive shown you sentencing guidelines that recognises in law there are different contexts you simply cant back down. Even after I clearly said ALL rape was wrong.

Just like the figures over false allegations of rape where I was 1% out you hounded me in that thread and split hairs over it. Consider this my last reply to you you utter cunt.

i only wish it was

 

[Das Uberdog]

Grandma Death was saying that in some instances rape occurs without it being intended or understood as rape on behalf of the rapist... that's actually quite current 'common sense' amongst the most right on sections of 3rd wave feminism. trying to peg it as rape apologism is, frankly, gutter politics. if anything you could construe it as the opposite. not to mention the fact that this thread, which imo is actually incredibly important, has now been totally derailed.

 

[Citizen66]

Being drunk impairs your judgement and makes you do all sorts of idiotic things-driving for example. Some people drive drunk and go on to kill people whilst drunk. Doesnt make them bad drivers does it?

Misogyny isnt a feature of ALL rapes. ALL rapes aren't the same. The reasons, motives, contexts etc will differ from offence to offence. Male on Male rape for example. Grooming gangs. Paedophilia gangs..the list goes on.

ALL rape is rape. There is NO excuse for it and never will be. But clearly there are different context to the offence-and to describe it as such doesnt make me a rape apologist

Being drunk whilst driving makes you as culpable as when you mow down and kill someone deliberately, yes. You know the likelihood of it happening but you just went and did it anyway.

If I disagree with you and smash a glass in your face it's okay because I was pissed? Well maybe not ok, but there's a 'different context to it'. Shut up. You'd be fucking livid and wouldn't buy that as an excuse at all.

You were asking for it though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Being drunk whilst driving makes you as culpable when you mow down and kill someone as someone who did it maliciously, yes..

I don't think so. But that doesn't make me a drunk driving apologist.

 

[Citizen66]

I don't think so. But that doesn't make me a drunk driving apologist.

I guess the difference is murder or manslaughter. Makes no odds to the poor fucker killed though ey?

 

[Wilf]

Yvette Cooper calling for Shaun Wright to step down later this afternoon.
Labour will be shitting bricks.

Still hasn't gone. Astonishing.

 

[bmd]

Still hasn't gone. Astonishing.

Innit. The brass neck of the utter wanker. How he believes he can operate with any authority whatsoever is mystifying.

 

[Wilf]

Innit. The brass neck of the utter wanker. How he believes he can operate with any authority whatsoever is mystifying.

Indeed. If you set on one side the rather more important issue of his role in the scandal itself, it's utter stupidity to think he can ride this out and deal with other agencies when they are all telling him to go. Rob Ford-esque.

 

[Lurdan]

Good grief

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...l-try-to-prove-victims-are-lying-9697859.html

The police force at the centre of the Rotherham child abuse scandal has been accused by inspectors of a cultural disregard for victims of crime with officers actively trying to disprove allegations of some of the most vulnerable.

The findings by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) heaped further pressure on the police and crime commissioner for South Yorkshire, Shaun Wright, who is facing demands to step down over his role in the collective failure of the council’s leadership to deal with child abuse in the town.

Last night his deputy commissioner Tracey Cheetham announced her own resignation – and piled on the pressure by saying “it would have been the right thing” for Mr Wright to resign as well.

In a further blow to the force, the HMIC report highlighted significant under recording of crimes sent to its specialist units by other agencies. “This level of under-recorded crime is a significant cause of concern and is a matter of material and urgent importance, particularly as some of these relate to violence and sexual assault against vulnerable children,” said the report.

It said that the force’s public protection unit – which deals with hate crime, domestic abuse and sex crimes – spent a “great deal of time trying to disprove the word of the victim from the outset, rather than record the crime”.

It added: “This culture of dealing with reports of crime shows a disregard for victims and is unacceptable; it hides the true extent of the picture of crime from the force and is particularly concerning when the offences investigated by this unit are often of the most serious nature and victims are often the most vulnerable.”

It said there was an “inherent risk” that vulnerable victims had been left unprotected or at risk of suffering from further crimes.

 

[Citizen66]

Although I'm not disagreeing that he should go, hanging him out to dry won't actually alter the system that allows this shit to happen.

 

[comrade spurski]

Grandma Death was saying that in some instances rape occurs without it being intended or understood as rape on behalf of the rapist... that's actually quite current 'common sense' amongst the most right on sections of 3rd wave feminism. trying to peg it as rape apologism is, frankly, gutter politics. if anything you could construe it as the opposite. not to mention the fact that this thread, which imo is actually incredibly important, has now been totally derailed.

Unintentional rape? Didnt understand he was committing rape?
Rape is rape...if you do not have permission to have sex then it is rape...yet you spout that shit and have the front to get indignant...fucking hell...you have some fucked up views

 

[Lurdan]

Sorry, I formatted that badly - the bit that struck me was this :

It said that the force’s public protection unit – which deals with hate crime, domestic abuse and sex crimes – spent a “great deal of time trying to disprove the word of the victim from the outset, rather than record the crime”.

 

[Sprocket.]

Still hasn't gone. Astonishing.

The sad thing is his refusal to step down has overshadowed the horror and disgrace of the offences for the last forty eight hours.
Forget the victims let's prattle on about this self centred twat!

 

[Orang Utan]

I'll put it in bold for you because clearly you and the rest of the mob didnt quite get it:



Being drunk impairs your judgement and makes you do all sorts of idiotic things-driving for example. Some people drive drunk and go on to kill people whilst drunk. Doesnt make them bad drivers does it?

Yes it fucking does. It makes them very very bad drivers.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I guess the difference is murder or manslaughter. Makes no odds to the poor fucker killed though ey?

Nothing makes any odds to the poor fucker killed. It having been an accident caused by mechanical failure through no fault to the driver wouldn't either.

 

[Citizen66]

Nothing makes any odds to the poor fucker killed. It having been an accident caused by mechanical failure through no fault to the driver wouldn't either.

So you do see a difference between planned rape and someone making a 'mistake' when pissed then?

Moreover, does a victim see a difference (which is my point)?

 

[Lurdan]

The HMIC inspectors report is here :
http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov...crime-data-integrity-south-yorkshire-2014.pdf

I'd assumed this was something to do with the follow up to the report into SYP's response to child sexual exploitation which Shaun Wright asked the HMIC to produce last year but that still seems to be under consultation. This is one of a series of reports about Crime Data Integrity which the HMIC have compiled for every force.

Accuracy of crime recording
We examined 152 incident records and found that 117 crimes should have been recorded. Of the 117 crimes that should have been recorded, 89 were. Of the 89, 3 were wrongly classified and 9 were recorded outside the 72-hour limit allowed under the HOCR.

(...)

We examined 53 reports that were referred from other agencies directly to the force’s specialist departments. Of the 34 crimes that should have been recorded, 18 had been recorded. All 18 had been correctly classified, but 8 were recorded outside the 72-hour limit allowed under the HOCR. This level of under-recorded crime is a significant cause of concern and is a matter of material and urgent importance, particularly as some of these relate to violence and sexual assault against vulnerable children. (...)

We also found that in some cases of more serious crime, an ‘investigate-to-record’ process was being implemented; [This means that the police do not record the incident as a crime at first, but instead investigate the matter in order to establish whether a crime has been committed]. This was particularly evident in the public protection unit, with a great deal of time spent trying to disprove the word of the victim from the outset, rather than record the crime in compliance with the NCRS and HOCR and then take the appropriate action as the investigation progressed.

This culture of dealing with reports of crime shows a disregard for victims and is unacceptable; it hides the true extent of the picture of crime from the force and is particularly concerning when the offences investigated by this unit are often of the most serious nature and victims are often the most vulnerable.

(...)

There is an inherent risk that a significant number of reported offences of a serious nature have not been recorded and that vulnerable victims have, as a consequence, been left unprotected or at risk of further offending.

(...)

No-crime
No-crime refers to an incident that was initially recorded as a crime but has subsequently been found not to be a crime on the basis of additional verifiable information.

(...)

Our audit of the 17 rape no-crime decisions, found that 13 complied with the NCRS and HOCR.

This isn't historic data - it's about their current performance. Clearly the expression "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" isn't part of the management style.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So you do see a difference between planned rape and someone making a 'mistake' when pissed then?

Moreover, does a victim see a difference (which is my point)?

I'm not qualified to say. I would guess that the trauma caused by the different scenarios could be very different, though, yes.

fwiw I think posters have been taking each other the wrong way on both sides here.

 

[Citizen66]

I'm not qualified to say. I would guess that the trauma caused by the different scenarios could be very different, though, yes.

But one being worse than the other is entirely based on the effect on the victim, as opposed to sentencing guidelines, surely?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But one being worse than the other is entirely based on the effect on the victim, as opposed to sentencing guidelines, surely?

Effect on the victim plus intention to harm, I would have thought. If there was a clear intention to harm, that makes it morally worse in my book.

 

[Citizen66]

Effect on the victim plus intention to harm, I would have thought. If there was a clear intention to harm, that makes it morally worse in my book.

Why though?

Different people have different levels of coping with something. I can understand why sentencing works that way. But that wasn't what we were discussing. It was suggested that there's varying levels of rape and the sentencing guidelines back this up. But sentencing guidelines aren't tailored to the effect something has had on someone's life. Yes we can say it's worse to stalk a woman at knifepoint and drag her into a field. But that doesn't mean that forcing yourself on a woman in a comfortable surroundings somehow isn't as bad. I'm struggling to understand why people aren't getting this. Try telling a date raped woman that at least it didn't happen in a dark lane. Just wtf.