Grooming gang scandal

I think what is meant is that the 6.5% of the population that is Muslim somehow controls the whole country. And they all approve of paedophilia.

Meanwhile, the 0.5% of the population that is Jewish is persecuted by the state and has no influence at all. They have a hive mind, all unconditionally support Israel and are all like David Kossoff.

Neither of these things is true, but certain people love the narrative as it suits their book.
 
Yes there is!
Evdence from survivors has been questioned and doubted (again).
All driven by Jess Philips department mentioned in the letter.
They are presiding over a future stitch up on a par with the horrizon scandal.
You lot wouldn't recognise unfairness if it wa a bucket of water and thrown over your heads.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Yes there is!
Evdence from survivors has been questioned and doubted (again).
All driven by Jess Philips department mentioned in the letter.
They are presiding over a future stitch up on a par with the horrizon scandal.
You lot wouldn't recognise unfairness if it wa a bucket of water and thrown over your heads.
Click to expand...
While the gov is issuing a statement saying the scope will not be widened, two people on the panel campaign openly for the enquiry to include all child abuse. It’s a mess and the minister needs to get a grip.
 
I've had a bit of a catch-up read but I can't work out what Phillips or her staff are actually supposed to have done to result in the demands for her to go? Can someone enlighten me with specifics on how she is or isn't compromised rather than generalisations?
 
BlueAnorak said:
Yes there is!
Evdence from survivors has been questioned and doubted (again).
All driven by Jess Philips department mentioned in the letter.
They are presiding over a future stitch up on a par with the horrizon scandal.
You lot wouldn't recognise unfairness if it wa a bucket of water and thrown over your heads.
Click to expand...

I’ve been following this quite a bit and this is rubbish. The government aren’t even running this part of the process, it’s being done independently. They are following exactly what Casey recommended.

Evidence hasn’t been questioned, their interpretation of the questions they received has (questions that were always going to br asked and what other victims had asked for) and only after they resigned from the panel.

There are far more victims remaining on the panel than have left it who clearly don’t agree with the sentiments of the four that have.

I’m not a labour voter or supporter but I’ve found this a bit eye opening tbh about how easily public opinion and perception can be influenced. I posted the Hansard link to the entire debate the other day earlier in the chat, it is well worth a read.
 
threespires said:
I've had a bit of a catch-up read but I can't work out what Phillips or her staff are actually supposed to have done to result in the demands for her to go? Can someone enlighten me with specifics on how she is or isn't compromised rather than generalisations?
Click to expand...

She said that they weren’t diluting the inquiry and that there was misinformation being spread. Despite her then saying she was not talking about the victims themselves who resigned spreading misinformation, they took that as her saying they were lying and are now calling for her resignation.
 
M18CTID said:
I would be interested in knowing this too. There are no specifics in that letter stating what Phillips was referring to that she believed was untrue. I'm not saying the signatories are wrong to call her out but I'd like to know what she's being called out for first before diving in.

I absolutely get the frustration from them over the highlighted issues but the trouble with these inquiries is that they can take years and years. This one was only announced some months back so it will be in its infancy. Any tweaks that they're asking for - whether rightly or wrongly - will knock the progress back further.
Click to expand...
As an example of how long enquiries can take, I would venture to suggest Hillsborough.
 
meltonblue said:
She said that they weren’t diluting the inquiry and that there was misinformation being spread. Despite her then saying she was not talking about the victims themselves who resigned spreading misinformation, they took that as her saying they were lying and are now calling for her resignation.
Click to expand...

Right I see, thanks for this. I now see that some participants are saying they'll resign if she is forced to go. What a mess. This is where destroying our level of discourse and stoking division and mistrust has led us to, a point where it's increasingly difficult for virtually anyone in power to take effective action, even on things that should command widespread support. A descent into chaos that suits those who (a) can survive/thrive in a chaotic environment and (b) have nothing productive to offer to fix our myriad problems.
 
threespires said:
Right I see, thanks for this. I now see that some participants are saying they'll resign if she is forced to go. What a mess. This is where destroying our level of discourse and stoking division and mistrust has led us to, a point where it's increasingly difficult for virtually anyone in power to take effective action, even on things that should command widespread support. A descent into chaos that suits those who (a) can survive/thrive in a chaotic environment and (b) have nothing productive to offer to fix our myriad problems.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.
 
KS55 said:
While the gov is issuing a statement saying the scope will not be widened, two people on the panel campaign openly for the enquiry to include all child abuse. It’s a mess and the minister needs to get a grip.
Click to expand...
But the others were complaining about a question that suggested the inquiry might be widened.

Get a grip of that.

No-one wants to be critical of any victim of the gangs, but as a survivor you're not going to make the situation less toxic if you appear at a press conference with Kemi Badenoch.
 

Attachments

  • 1761255590993.png
    1761255590993.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 12
Vic said:
But the others were complaining about a question that suggested the inquiry might be widened.

Get a grip of that.

No-one wants to be critical of any victim of the gangs, but as a survivor you're not going to make the situation less toxic if you appear at a press conference with Kemi Badenoch.
Click to expand...
Is that AI?

I’m dubious about what has come out, and have thoughts of my own but, to see that, raises my heckles.

Can you confirm that this actually happened, Badenoch used a survivor for political means?
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Is that AI?

I’m dubious about what has come out, and have thoughts of my own but, to see that, raises my heckles.

Can you confirm that this actually happened, Badenoch used a survivor for political means?
Click to expand...

theweek.com

Why is the grooming gangs inquiry falling apart?

Some survivors quit oversight panel during a week of ‘disarray’
theweek.com theweek.com

One of those who resigned was shown on TV yesterday with Badenoch - I assumed that happened yesterday but it turns out that was back in June. Fiona Goddard's account of being abused is horrendous but I'm not sure that appearing at a Conservative press conference (in June) then (now) calling for a Labour minister to resign was wise, but Badenoch is certainly not helping detoxify the situation.
 

Attachments

  • 1761258867392.png
    1761258867392.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 2
Last edited:
meltonblue said:
Thing is, which institution that a suitable chair could come from didn’t let at least some of the victims down?

It’s not an inquiry that’s going to have many people both suitable and willing anyway, let alone without disregarding entire institutions.

The other candidate has already pulled out herself. The candidate from the police if you read about him clearly isn’t going to be someone affected by conflict of interests.

I’d add just in general for anyone really interested in it, it’s worth reading the whole Hansard debate today, it’s one of those where reading the full debate shows the commons being less political than some outside of it -

Click to expand...
It’s a difficult one. The amount of corruption throughout government, police and social services is clearly rife. Perhaps not having someone from those 3 institutions.

We can’t ignore the people/ victims who have resigned though and basically only go off people who agree with the government.

The whole things a mess
 
Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:
Is this really needed in this thread. Cheap political points scoring in a thread about child rape, why?
Click to expand...
Nadine Dorries tried it on QT the other night. She made an allegation that Jess Philips had lied. Fiona Bruce was taking advice through her earphone on what Dorries alleged and asked she asked her to back it up which she couldn't. The worst of her allegations were unfounded and proven to be incorrect and were not broadcast.
 
Cheadle_hulmeBlue said:
It’s a difficult one. The amount of corruption throughout government, police and social services is clearly rife. Perhaps not having someone from those 3 institutions.

We can’t ignore the people/ victims who have resigned though and basically only go off people who agree with the government.

The whole things a mess
Click to expand...

No but also we shouldn’t allow a few to dictate either. I don’t think it’s a case of agreeing with the government as they don’t have an official stance aside from wanting to follow exactly what Casey’s recommendations were. If anything, their personal stance seems to be aligned with some of those that have resigned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top