Grooming gang scandal

[hilts]

.

 

[hilts]

Why does there need to be multiple localised inquiries?

Child rape is child rape. Whether it's carried out by X or Y.

The methods they used, the so called "loverboy" method of a handsome boyfriend buttering up victims for gangs or punters isn't isolated to Pakistanis. It's commonly used by Romanian gangsters on teenage victims, Andrew and Tristan Tate bragged about using it on adults.

Do you think areas without large populations of Asian or Pakistani men don't have problems with child sexual abuse and grooming of teenage girls?

The common theme was that these were vulnerable girls involved with the care system.

Who had been dragged up, not brought up, who had chaotic and traumatic upbringings, who had been neglected by their parents, exposed to the adult world at an early age. Who sometimes wanted to act older than their age, before the monsters exploited their vulnerability.

Why waste money on inquiry after inquiry.

Implement the recommendations or do something that will actually change things.

Get experts in the field, senior judges on child protection, senior police officers, specialist child exploitation police officers, senior social workers, directors of children's social care and get them to tell us how we can make the system better and what resources they need.

Yes child rape is child rape but a huge part of these stories was the reason why it was ignored by lots of different professionals whose.job it was to deal with it.

It's like people have actually forgotten the full extent of the stories, there is no reason not to find out as many answers as possible for the victims and future prevention.

The only reason I can see is the establishment want to let these things slowly die away the truth will.look bad for a lot of people.

How many scandals do some people need to live through before they finally have a more cynical view and question things.

Or is just convenient for them on this one at this time to just give it lip service.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Yes child rape is child rape but a huge part of these stories was the reason why it was ignored by lots of different professionals whose.job it was to deal with it.

It's like people have actually forgotten the full extent of the stories, there is no reason not to find out as many answers as possible for the victims and future prevention.

The only reason I can see is the establishment want to let these things slowly die away the truth will.look bad for a lot of people.

How many scandals do some people need to live through before they finally have a more cynical view and question things.

Or is just convenient for them on this one at this time to just give it lip service.

Most of the girls involved were in children's homes.

I would imagine one of the reasons why some girls might have been ignored was because they weren't reliable witnesses.

What I mean by that, is they'd already had a history of criminal justice involvement and dishonesty convictions or they'd already made false accusations about care staff or other children in care or they generally didn't come across as "credible".

Some of the abuse dates back to the 1980s.

Why do you think the establishment cares about covering up abuse of girls by Pakistani men any more than abuse by priests or school masters or care staff?

The establishment generally doesn't give two figs about historic abuse and usually wishes the whole thing would blow over and victims "get over it".

Its not a coverup just a complete indifference by the establishment, unless certain campaigns and campaigners become bloody difficult.

You would hope that the justice system has moved on and is better able to support victims or abuse to give evidence and back it up with physical and documentary evidence.

Do we really need to keep finding out answers when ultimately it's the same answers each time?

Of course victims and families want to find out answers that relate to their own stories but is it necessary to prevent future abuse?

I don't think it is. We already know how to prevent gangs operating, how to disrupt child exploitation and barriers to this.
E.g. inadequate training, not enough time dedicated for training, inexperienced workers, too many cases per individual social worker.

Did we have to investigate every house fire caused by a chip pan fire or did we stop the problem by focusing on the cause as a general problem?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Most of the girls involved were in children's homes.

I would imagine one of the reasons why some girls might have been ignored was because they weren't reliable witnesses.

What I mean by that, is they'd already had a history of criminal justice involvement and dishonesty convictions or they'd already made false accusations about care staff or other children in care or they generally didn't come across as "credible".

Some of the abuse dates back to the 1980s.

Why do you think the establishment cares about covering up abuse of girls by Pakistani men any more than abuse by priests or school masters or care staff?

The establishment generally doesn't give two figs about historic abuse and usually wishes the whole thing would blow over and victims "get over it".

Its not a coverup just a complete indifference by the establishment, unless certain campaigns and campaigners become bloody difficult.

You would hope that the justice system has moved on and is better able to support victims or abuse to give evidence and back it up with physical and documentary evidence.

Do we really need to keep finding out answers when ultimately it's the same answers each time?

Of course victims and families want to find out answers that relate to their own stories but is it necessary to prevent future abuse?

I don't think it is. We already know how to prevent gangs operating, how to disrupt child exploitation and barriers to this.
E.g. inadequate training, not enough time dedicated for training, inexperienced workers, too many cases per individual social worker.

Did we have to investigate every house fire caused by a chip pan fire or did we stop the problem by focusing on the cause as a general problem?

We need a change in the law when it comes to rape convictions. The issue with all rape cases is that they are very difficult to prove unless it's literally the dark alley, grabbed off the street scenario. What I would propose is that rape cases could be tried collectively, by which I mean the jury should be able to take into account the number of independent victims all accusing the same person.

You get these cases where 10 women all have the same story, and yet each individual rape is impossible to prove by itself, most of them won't go to trial, and in the end, the accused only has to answer a single case with pretty ropey evidence. But the fact that there are so many accusers who have never met each other makes it pretty implausible that the person didn't commit the crime. We should have a system that allows the CPS to add the allegations of different accusers together who by themselves might not be strong enough to get a conviction, and create a strong case against someone, and allows juries to consider whether it is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that all 10 of these women who've never met each other just happened to make false accusations against the same man.

This might also encourage more women to come forward, because while there may not be the evidence to convict at the moment, they would know that the accusation would be kept on file and could contribute to the person's conviction in the future.

 

[idahoblues]

I need to take a shower and smoke some weed, I don’t normally do either but for the love of all that is……..

 

[hilts]

Most of the girls involved were in children's homes.

I would imagine one of the reasons why some girls might have been ignored was because they weren't reliable witnesses.

What I mean by that, is they'd already had a history of criminal justice involvement and dishonesty convictions or they'd already made false accusations about care staff or other children in care or they generally didn't come across as "credible".

Some of the abuse dates back to the 1980s.

Why do you think the establishment cares about covering up abuse of girls by Pakistani men any more than abuse by priests or school masters or care staff?

The establishment generally doesn't give two figs about historic abuse and usually wishes the whole thing would blow over and victims "get over it".

Its not a coverup just a complete indifference by the establishment, unless certain campaigns and campaigners become bloody difficult.

You would hope that the justice system has moved on and is better able to support victims or abuse to give evidence and back it up with physical and documentary evidence.

Do we really need to keep finding out answers when ultimately it's the same answers each time?

Of course victims and families want to find out answers that relate to their own stories but is it necessary to prevent future abuse?

I don't think it is. We already know how to prevent gangs operating, how to disrupt child exploitation and barriers to this.
E.g. inadequate training, not enough time dedicated for training, inexperienced workers, too many cases per individual social worker.

Did we have to investigate every house fire caused by a chip pan fire or did we stop the problem by focusing on the cause as a general problem?

Not investigating properly and hoping things go away is a cover up. I don't remember people arguing against bothering with the church or a Saville to get answers, they werent brought up by Elon bloody Musk though.
There seems to be a stronger feeling against another inquiry because of who is asking for it. Me thinks, actually im sure, that if a different govt were in place and a different person brought this up some on here would be posting completely differently. Just like they suddenly love a bit of austerity they now shiver at the thought of an inquiry.
Anyhow If these cases with 1000s of victims were ignored because of the bother it would cause or the reaction of the public then I disagree with you being happy to shrug your shoulders so to speak.
The reasons should be found, published in a inquiry and used as a warning.to others in the future.
No point going round the houses on it though.

 

[hilts]

We need a change in the law when it comes to rape convictions. The issue with all rape cases is that they are very difficult to prove unless it's literally the dark alley, grabbed off the street scenario. What I would propose is that rape cases could be tried collectively, by which I mean the jury should be able to take into account the number of independent victims all accusing the same person.

You get these cases where 10 women all have the same story, and yet each individual rape is impossible to prove by itself, most of them won't go to trial, and in the end, the accused only has to answer a single case with pretty ropey evidence. But the fact that there are so many accusers who have never met each other makes it pretty implausible that the person didn't commit the crime. We should have a system that allows the CPS to add the allegations of different accusers together who by themselves might not be strong enough to get a conviction, and create a strong case against someone, and allows juries to consider whether it is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that all 10 of these women who've never met each other just happened to make false accusations against the same man.

This might also encourage more women to come forward, because while there may not be the evidence to convict at the moment, they would know that the accusation would be kept on file and could contribute to the person's conviction in the future.

There is obvious dangers to this which is why we don't have guilt by numbers.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

We had an enquiry…… it cost £200 million and came up with 20 recommendations, none of which were implemented by the Tories.

Shouldn’t we give those a try first?

Any national inquiry would just be an extension of the cover up. Public inquiries are just a way of kicking the can down the road. The problem is that no recommendations and most legislation is never actually enforced in this country.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

There is obvious dangers to this which is why we don't have guilt by numbers.

Such as?

I get that it's generally not ideal, but in cases like this with a crime that is fundamentally impossible to prove a lot of the time, I think on balance it's probably a good thing.

 

[hilts]

Such as?

I get that it's generally not ideal, but in cases like this with a crime that is fundamentally impossible to prove a lot of the time, I think on balance it's probably a good thing.

Famous person gets accused of rape, as the only onus of proof is now anyone who has gone out with said person.........

He said she said in private is very difficult however replacing with he said they said ain't the best idea.

It probably may sway a jury, but what's the magic number? Is it 2 women with millionaire footballer in the bogs? 3? 4?

Do we have a line up?.m'lud 7 women have said the defendant is a bit rapey but 4 have said he was a perfect gentlemen so we are 3 up.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Famous person gets accused of rape, as the only onus of proof is now anyone who has gone out with said person.........

He said she said in private is very difficult however replacing with he said they said ain't the best idea.

It probably may sway a jury, but what's the magic number? Is it 2 women with millionaire footballer in the bogs? 3? 4?

Do we have a line up?.m'lud 7 women have said the defendant is a bit rapey but 4 have said he was a perfect gentlemen so we are 3 up.

You'd have to take each case on its merits. The whole point is that it would rely on the victims being completely independent of each other. In other words, the accusations have to be made by people who have no connection. It would potentially pair well with anonymity for people accused of rape. It would also still be subject to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' so you could definitely argue that there is far more reasonable doubt that a rich, high-profile person who had previously been accused of rape is more likely to be wrongly accused by multiple independent women than someone who no-one's ever heard of.

But anyway, this thread is about grooming gangs, and to my knowledge, no famous footballers have been part of one. What would you solution be to convict serial rapists who are good at covering their tracks?

 

[hilts]

You'd have to take each case on its merits. The whole point is that it would rely on the victims being completely independent of each other. In other words, the accusations have to be made by people who have no connection. It would potentially pair well with anonymity for people accused of rape. It would also still be subject to 'beyond a reasonable doubt' so you could definitely argue that there is far more reasonable doubt that a rich, high-profile person who had previously been accused of rape is more likely to be wrongly accused by multiple independent women than someone who no-one's ever heard of.

But anyway, this thread is about grooming gangs, and to my knowledge, no famous footballers have been part of one. What would you solution be to convict serial rapists who are good at covering their tracks?

So if the women with the footballer didn't know each other that makes guilt more likely? If someone is rich and famous they get more leeway? Not sure you have thought this through properly, there will be reasons it isn't done this way. You can't replace reasonable doubt just because it's too hard to prove.

I don't have an answer and neither does anyone else, hence the low prosecution rate.

 

[.db.]

There should be a distinction between those drug dealing gangs who groom youngsters to entice them into drug dealing and things like County Lines; and those who groom youngsters so they can rape them.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

So if the women with the footballer didn't know each other that makes guilt more likely?

Undoubtedly, yes. The chances that someone committed a crime are exponentially higher if multiple independent people are credibly accusing them of the same thing. The whole point of 'independent' is that it removes the possibility that they are colluding to frame someone. If someone accused a priest of child abuse, it might be a 'he said, she said' situation. If the same priest moves to another parish on the other side of the country and is accused again by another child, that's a hell of a coincidence. If it happens a third time, you'd have to be crazy to think that he didn't do it. Some of these groomers have tens of women accusing them.

This is very different from, for example, Michael Jackson going through a very high-profile sex abuse trial, getting found not guilty, or having charges dropped, and then someone else accusing him. By definition, there's a chance that the second accuser is influenced by the potential for a big settlement having seen it on the news, however uncommon that is in reality.

And I'm not suggesting for a second that you just have to find X number of women to accuse someone. I didn't for a second suggest that there would be no burden of proof that the accusations are credible. Just like how you can be found guilty of rape in a civil court with a lower burden of proof, not just on the strength of an accusation.

You might be right, it might be a terrible idea. But I haven't really heard from you why it'd be particularly terrible yet.

 

[hilts]

Undoubtedly, yes. The chances that someone committed a crime are exponentially higher if multiple independent people are credibly accusing them of the same thing. The whole point of 'independent' is that it removes the possibility that they are colluding to frame someone. If someone accused a priest of child abuse, it might be a 'he said, she said' situation. If the same priest moves to another parish on the other side of the country and is accused again by another child, that's a hell of a coincidence. If it happens a third time, you'd have to be crazy to think that he didn't do it. Some of these groomers have tens of women accusing them.

This is very different from, for example, Michael Jackson going through a very high-profile sex abuse trial, getting found not guilty, or having charges dropped, and then someone else accusing him. By definition, there's a chance that the second accuser is influenced by the potential for a big settlement having seen it on the news, however uncommon that is in reality.

And I'm not suggesting for a second that you just have to find X number of women to accuse someone. I didn't for a second suggest that there would be no burden of proof that the accusations are credible. Just like how you can be found guilty of rape in a civil court with a lower burden of proof, not just on the strength of an accusation.

You might be right, it might be a terrible idea. But I haven't really heard from you why it'd be particularly terrible yet.

You have, you have just chosen to ignore it. Multiple independent credible people? It comes out pretty quickly when someone gets charged with rape so basing it on the number of accusers usnt sound.. People get prosecuted based on evidence. That is what makes a victim credible.

Convicting someone based on numbers is a shit idea. If there are more people accusing there is more likely going to be more credible evidence. So they get found guilty on evidence.

Can we please move on this is just getting a lot harder to explain to you than it should be.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

You have, you have just chosen to ignore it. Multiple independent credible people? It comes out pretty quickly when someone gets charged with rape so basing it on the number of accusers usnt sound.. People get prosecuted based on evidence. That is what makes a victim credible.

Convicting someone based on numbers is a shit idea. If there are more people accusing there is more likely going to be more credible evidence. So they get found guilty on evidence.

Can we please move on this is just getting a lot harder to explain to you than it should be.

Fair enough. Very much blue sky thinking here. (God, that phrase makes me sound like even more of a wanker)

 

[Blackley_Blue]

LIVE Rochdale sex abuse trial - updates from court

Eight defendants deny various alleged sexual offences against two alleged victims - 'Girl A' and 'Girl B'

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Does that push the percentage up a bit?

 

[KDB Fan]

LIVE Rochdale sex abuse trial - updates from court

Eight defendants deny various alleged sexual offences against two alleged victims - 'Girl A' and 'Girl B'

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Does that push the percentage up a bit?

A 2025 trial for offences between 2001 and 2006 that were first reported well over a decade ago, maybe even contemporaneously.

Another dreadful failure of the police and CPS not to act. How anyone can have blind faith in these organisations, I will never know, especially with all that's come out regarding Southport.

These offences are definitely not just committed by Asian men but the cover-ups seem to involve predominantly Asian men, covered up predominantly by white people wanting to maintain community relations or for political/careerist reasons when all these cover-up do is harm community tensions.

Every single person involved in the cover-up whether that's the police, CPS, Rochdale council should be locked away with the rapists who did this crime and the rest of decent society that finds child rape appalling, can try and live in peace together no matter their race or religion.

 

[Rascal]

I don't discount what you say either but you may want to take a look at this book at some point:

View attachment 143788

The title of Kurzman's book is obviously provocative but he has not been shy about defending his thesis from its many critics. See this link

Q & A on The Missing Martyrs | Charles Kurzman

kurzman.unc.edu

In particular, you might want to take a look at Kurzman's response to Bernard Haykel's question.

Samuel Huntington's famous 'Clash of Civilisations' theory, which underpins the Islam v West narrative, is looked at here:

Has

Published bimonthly and distributed throughout the world, The Fountain Magazine covers themes on life, belief, knowledge, and universe.

fountainmagazine.com

I used to have a whole book on this issue that also looked at his Manichaean theory from an empirical perspective. Unfortunately, I donated it to a charity shop without having read it. Maybe I should reacquire it.

Have you read Peter Oborne's book "The fate of Abraham"?

Thanks for the heads up on Kurzman.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

Have you read Peter Oborne's book "The fate of Abraham"?

Thanks for the heads up on Kurzman.

Bought it a couple of months ago but haven’t read it yet.