kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
Yep fair enough.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Huddersfield child sex inquiry
- Thread starter laughing gravy
- Start date
Yep fair enough.
happy daze
Well-Known Member
ThanksYep fair enough.
Not really he is accusing me of wanting mob mentality and chucking people of buildings, post 798 have a read mate.
They have been found guilty by a court now. Are we not able to say 20 blokes gang raping girls is fucking shocking?
Until the court found them guilty you won’t find a post from me where I say anything against the innocent but now they are guilty I am allowed to speak up for the girls. We are post trial now ric you know?
What’s post 798? There have only been 142 posts in this thread, unless I’m missing something?!
kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
What’s post 798? There have only been 142 posts in this thread, unless I’m missing something?!
Sorry his post 125. You saw it you liked it.
Anyway we are friends now
Adidas Sharston
Well-Known Member
Also all 20 will be locked up in the same prison so they can all have a nice laugh together.
Each one should be locked up in a different prison.
I agree mate, stick a few in forest bank, Salford is lovely this time of year. Hope these cunts enjoy a kick about.
Sorry his post 125. You saw it you liked it.
Anyway we are friends now
Glad you’re friends now. Still maintain at no point was he “speaking up” for the perpetrators though.
Bill Walker
Well-Known Member
Yes having just read the thread I agree that @happy daze didnt do that, sounds like he hates the 'vigilante' language, people do get riled up at these kind of crimes though, I watched the BBC news about this result and found the whole thing unbelievable really, imagine if it was your daughter.Glad you’re friends now. Still maintain at no point was he “speaking up” for the perpetrators though.
I see the ring leader got life with a minimum of 18 years ? I think (I always think) life should mean life. As in life. Like Brady & Hindley.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Talking about this yesterday before the game. While the blame lies squarely on those who carried out these terrible offences you can also legitimately ask what (apart from prosecute the perpetrators after the event) society has done to protect the vulnerable victims. Then spoke to one of the guys that sits in front and he and his wife are foster carers. They do some fantastic stuff but he was telling me he also works on a voluntary basis with victims of domestic abuse, particularly the children.
A case he came across involved a woman who was put into council accommodation after escaping domestic abuse. She had 2 kids and was put into a 4-bedroom house, meaning the kids had their own rooms. But because there were only three of them, she was charged bedroom tax of £60 a month for the spare room. Then it was decided that the two kids could share a room (they were teenagers) so she had 2 spare rooms, meaning she was paying £100 a month. To help pay that, he had a part-time job cleaning in a pub but while she was out cleaning, the two kids were unsupervised and got up to no good. As a result they were taken off her and put into care, which cost the state £4000 a week. He said they were basically good kids who probably wouldn't have got into trouble if she'd been there to supervise them.
Beside the iniquity of the bedroom tax putting them in this situation this is a ridiculous waste of scarce resources (cash and carers) and has created a problem that needn't have been so. It just annoyed me so much that no one thought "Have we got this right?". I wonder how many of the victims of grooming gangs could have been kept out of their clutches if we'd applied some intelligence to the issue of protecting vulnerable kids?
A case he came across involved a woman who was put into council accommodation after escaping domestic abuse. She had 2 kids and was put into a 4-bedroom house, meaning the kids had their own rooms. But because there were only three of them, she was charged bedroom tax of £60 a month for the spare room. Then it was decided that the two kids could share a room (they were teenagers) so she had 2 spare rooms, meaning she was paying £100 a month. To help pay that, he had a part-time job cleaning in a pub but while she was out cleaning, the two kids were unsupervised and got up to no good. As a result they were taken off her and put into care, which cost the state £4000 a week. He said they were basically good kids who probably wouldn't have got into trouble if she'd been there to supervise them.
Beside the iniquity of the bedroom tax putting them in this situation this is a ridiculous waste of scarce resources (cash and carers) and has created a problem that needn't have been so. It just annoyed me so much that no one thought "Have we got this right?". I wonder how many of the victims of grooming gangs could have been kept out of their clutches if we'd applied some intelligence to the issue of protecting vulnerable kids?
johnnytapia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 10,701
The local authority will only place children in care when there is a clear and present danger to their well-being. The costs of care, as you point out, are enormous, one of the reasons the threshold is incredibly high. Statistically, a child/young adult is in far greater danger when placed in a care home. I don't doubt the veracity of your conversation PB, but the above facts don't equate to children being put in care. I think there's more to this than what you were told.Talking about this yesterday before the game. While the blame lies squarely on those who carried out these terrible offences you can also legitimately ask what (apart from prosecute the perpetrators after the event) society has done to protect the vulnerable victims. Then spoke to one of the guys that sits in front and he and his wife are foster carers. They do some fantastic stuff but he was telling me he also works on a voluntary basis with victims of domestic abuse, particularly the children.
A case he came across involved a woman who was put into council accommodation after escaping domestic abuse. She had 2 kids and was put into a 4-bedroom house, meaning the kids had their own rooms. But because there were only three of them, she was charged bedroom tax of £60 a month for the spare room. Then it was decided that the two kids could share a room (they were teenagers) so she had 2 spare rooms, meaning she was paying £100 a month. To help pay that, he had a part-time job cleaning in a pub but while she was out cleaning, the two kids were unsupervised and got up to no good. As a result they were taken off her and put into care, which cost the state £4000 a week. He said they were basically good kids who probably wouldn't have got into trouble if she'd been there to supervise them.
Beside the iniquity of the bedroom tax putting them in this situation this is a ridiculous waste of scarce resources (cash and carers) and has created a problem that needn't have been so. It just annoyed me so much that no one thought "Have we got this right?". I wonder how many of the victims of grooming gangs could have been kept out of their clutches if we'd applied some intelligence to the issue of protecting vulnerable kids?
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
If that is the case why does anyone talking about ethnic issues feel they are treading on eggshells. Any discussion is always started with I am not a racist but. In this case the authorities were reluctant to investigate for fear of stirring up racial tensions. Not my words, but those of Mark Eastam on the BBC,hardly the bastion of right wing extremism. You see it on the TV in those police chases where they are reluctant to persue cars in to a Gypsy encampment.
In all fairness, Tyson Fury might be sat there eating his 18th Greggs of the morning. Hard to blame them imo.