Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rotherham child rape gangs: At least 1400 victims

at the time it came out those who had spoken up were quick to say so. I seem to recall more than the 2 women smokeandsteam mentioned. Almost invariably workers 'at the sharp end' iirc. These concerns then not taken forward by higher up, or the police. And thats where I think the class angle ties in with the same police inaction. The PC Brigade was a cast iron deflector though. I bet there were even a few criminally negligent twats who did think 'better not look raciist'. But everyone involved? 1400 kids? Are we really to believe the sheer amount of people involved in the agencies orgs and policing would rather cover up abuse of the vulnerable than look racist? Cos thats what we are being asked to swallow here.

I think your first point is right - there were junior grades/frontline staff who sussed what was going on (mind you, how could you miss it?) and fed it up the chain where it was ignored/buried/whatever.

I think your second point doesn't make sense. If everyone knew - 'the sheer amount of people involved in the agencies' - which I agree with then why was nothing done?
 
Denial rather than conscious covering up.
ahhh, denial rather than seeing and going 'fuck that I have a job to keep and if I look racist I'll be out on my ear'. Thats the one problem I've had most with this 'pc' angle. There simply can't be that many venal worms who'd actively cover up abuse rather than look racist. If there were then hell/handbasket etc
 
ahhh, denial rather than seeing and going 'fuck that I have a job to keep and if I look racist I'll be out on my ear'. Thats the one problem I've had most with this 'pc' angle. There simply can't be that many venal worms who'd actively cover up abuse rather than look racist. If there were then hell/handbasket etc
Yes, denial, with a view to some sort of vague greater good in a person's head, which ends up letting hundreds of children be horrendously abused for years and years.. That's better than letting it go on because of simple jobsworth self-interest is it? I don't really see why.
 
Yes, denial, with a view to some sort of vague greater good in a person's head, which ends up letting hundreds of children be horrendously abused.. That's better than letting it go on because of simple jobsworth self-interest is it? I don't really see why.


believable does not equal better.

Also I'm pretty sure the class angle would have played into the denial aspect for some 'you know what those girls are like. Lies and drugs etc' so they could rationalise it. yuk.
 
I think your first point is right - there were junior grades/frontline staff who sussed what was going on (mind you, how could you miss it?) and fed it up the chain where it was ignored/buried/whatever.

I think your second point doesn't make sense. If everyone knew - 'the sheer amount of people involved in the agencies' - which I agree with then why was nothing done?
Eh - have you actually read anything about Rotherham ?

Nothing done ? Are you mad ? This went on for well over a decade. There were reports that were buried and ignored, and then there were reports that led to 'action', seminars held, policies established, joint working parties between the various agencies and the Police set up, quarterly reports received. There's an enormous list of it in the Jay report. And none of it led to any significant change. Along with the inaction, every kind of 'action' was taken from bad decisions over difficult stuations through to actual corruption and complicity. Some of this 'action' was incompetent, stupid and self-defeating, some it was just for show, some of it was actively sabotaged. But good or bad it didn't deal with the problem. That's precisely what is so awful about Rotherham - it didn't get as bad as it did because 'nothing was done'.

We only know as much as we do about CSA in Rotherham because there were people and projects who kept records and who raised concerns. One of the most alarming things is that most places in the UK do not have a 'Risky Business' project as there was in Rotherham. Without the records they kept before they were deliberately wound up, much of the belated Police investigations taking place would be impossible. That Includes the trial that's just ended. If there is a CSA problem on the scale of Rotherham elsewhere we won't know about the bulk of it because the records aren't there to start with.
 
Eh - have you actually read anything about Rotherham ?

Nothing done ? Are you mad ?

I read the Jay report when it came out. From what I remember she was scathing about schools, the CPS, the police and social services. I've already highlighted the work that Risky Business did earlier.

Clearly we have different definitions of action.
 
Last edited:
Yes, denial, with a view to some sort of vague greater good in a person's head, which ends up letting hundreds of children be horrendously abused for years and years.. That's better than letting it go on because of simple jobsworth self-interest is it? I don't really see why.

Denial, in the psychoanalytic sense, is an unconscious process, that results in people not seeing what's in front of their eyes. We all do it all the time.
 
I think it's more complicated than than 'not wanting to look racist'.

....

I think what happened in Rotherham is at least partly a larger-scale version of that kind of thinking. Denial rather than conscious covering up.


.....well its arguable that in fact something that simple might have some sort of behavioural impact on some people ......recall this 2006 thread concerning Nick Griffin ending up in court ...

...OK its a nationally known neo-nazi who was saying alot of other inflammatory stuff but might not someone conclude that discretion was the better part of valour as regards certain issues from picking up the media noise, headlines & bare facts surrounding the case as it was reported :

Do you support the prosecution of Nick Griffin?

The charges arose out of speeches made in Keighley in 2004 which were secretly filmed by BBC journalist Jason Gwynne for a documentary on the party.

Giving evidence on the third day of his re-trial, Mr Griffin said the speeches were intended to "get people involved" in the party.

But he said he changed the theme of his speech after being approached by a woman who told him that young white girls were being given alcohol and drugs by groups of older Muslim youths.

When asked by his barrister, Timothy King QC if he was trying to direct hatred at Asians as a whole he said he was not.

He said: "This isn't a racial thing. It's not an Asian thing. It's a cultural and religious thing."

BBC NEWS | England | Bradford | BNP and leader 'no longer racist'
 
I'm not totally sure what your point is - there isn't any parallels between what Nick Griffin said there and what's being discussed on the thread is there?
 
...not particularly profound beyond the idea that someone coming from a slightly naive perspective might form the opinion or mis-apprehension that raising the issue of grooming in public might land you in court......the idea that adherence to what is broadly termed "political correctness" might have a chilling effect on speech or behaviour seems to be largely dismissed on here....picking up on your quote may have been inappropriate apols if so...
 
class angle I buy straight away. Always have. Fears of being called racist on the parts of the police and pols? Well its a claim. An arse covering one. But its in the annals of truth now.

It's more publicly-acceptable than "we couldn't be arsed to protect those working class girls" from the cops, and "we're protecting our majorities/seats/wards" from the pols.
 
This Shelley and Karen, the procurers. It may be wrong to say so in all sorts of ways but it's true: It really hurts my head to think about them, about how they were able to do this stuff, I find it really impossible to comprehend.
 
This Shelley and Karen, the procurers. It may be wrong to say so in all sorts of ways but it's true: It really hurts my head to think about them, about how they were able to do this stuff, I find it really impossible to comprehend.
Nothing new about the phenomenon, though. Remember Margot Metroland in Decline and Fall? But she was posh and got away with it.
 
This Shelley and Karen, the procurers. It may be wrong to say so in all sorts of ways but it's true: It really hurts my head to think about them, about how they were able to do this stuff, I find it really impossible to comprehend.
They got away with it for a while as they were part of it, The same as they all did. What's esp difficult about them being part of it?
 
They got away with it for a while as they were part of it, The same as they all did. What's esp difficult about them being part of it?
Exactly, that's why it's awkward to admit to the fact that I find those two sticking out in my mind, in the list of those convicted.
My difficultly is of course because they are women but that just makes it more embarrassing to admit really. Maybe I like the idea that the worst things we do to each other generally depend upon a foundation of othering / dehumanisation, and in the case of these women that just doesn't seem to apply in any easy way?
 
I always find people like this almost unfathomable. So base. Such grim regard for people, as if just lumps of meat to do as they will to. Very difficult to understand. I can understand many if not most criminal actions on some level, but not really this sort of thing.
 
I suppose its simple - if you hate/disregard someone enough, you can end up abusing them with ease. But then I hate hitler, bit i don't think I could torture him or sexually abuse him. Confused.
 
Back
Top Bottom