Rotherham child abuse scandal

Australians need to know who's in their child protective services too.

Those in charge of care services at the time have faced calls to resign.

They include Sonia Sharp, who ran Rotherham's children's services department from 2003 to 2008 and is now in charge of education services in the Australian state of Victoria.

Andrew Collins, an advocate for historical abuse survivors, said Ms Sharp should resign "immediately" from her current job because her position was now "inappropriate".

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28974336" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-so ... e-28974336</a>
 
I find it interesting that today the news is awash with the story of a young boy who the police are now hunting after he was taken without consent, according to them. They have launched a seemingly wide ranging search even though no consent was required, no law has appeared to have been broken and all evidence appears to suggest he is in the care of his parents who as his legal guardians and the company of his siblings. At the press conference the police spokesman was asked if the the parents religious beliefs (it appears his father may be a Jehovah's Witness) were taken into consideration. the police spokesman replied that religious beliefs were irrelevant in a police investigation and their only concern at this point was the safety of the child.

It seems unfortunate the same ethics were not applied to the the religious and or racial considerations in Rochdale/Rotherham etc. where it appears the well being of the children was not the priority. I may be being overly cynical but is the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a history of violent protest have any bearing or is it purely their lack of numbers?
 
Danish Blue said:
I find it interesting that today the news is awash with the story of a young boy who the police are now hunting after he was taken without consent, according to them. They have launched a seemingly wide ranging search even though no consent was required, no law has appeared to have been broken and all evidence appears to suggest he is in the care of his parents who as his legal guardians and the company of his siblings. At the press conference the police spokesman was asked if the the parents religious beliefs (it appears his father may be a Jehovah's Witness) were taken into consideration. the police spokesman replied that religious beliefs were irrelevant in a police investigation and their only concern at this point was the safety of the child.

It seems unfortunate the same ethics were not applied to the the religious and or racial considerations in Rochdale/Rotherham etc. where it appears the well being of the children was not the priority. I may be being overly cynical but is the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a history of violent protest have any bearing or is it purely their lack of numbers?

I can't argue with that at all.

Even though I don't agree with religion determining medical decisions your theory is a sound one.
 
Danish Blue said:
I find it interesting that today the news is awash with the story of a young boy who the police are now hunting after he was taken without consent, according to them. They have launched a seemingly wide ranging search even though no consent was required, no law has appeared to have been broken and all evidence appears to suggest he is in the care of his parents who as his legal guardians and the company of his siblings. At the press conference the police spokesman was asked if the the parents religious beliefs (it appears his father may be a Jehovah's Witness) were taken into consideration. the police spokesman replied that religious beliefs were irrelevant in a police investigation and their only concern at this point was the safety of the child.

All that you've said may be true. But you've been very selective about which parts of the story you've repeated.

I would have thought if you were going to give a summary of this story to people who may not know anything about it, a pretty major point is the fact that the boy was taken from a hospital. Who have said he is in immediate danger of dying if he isn't returned to them today.

I'm also struggling to see even the vaguest link to this story and the thread topic.
 
tidyman said:
Danish Blue said:
I find it interesting that today the news is awash with the story of a young boy who the police are now hunting after he was taken without consent, according to them. They have launched a seemingly wide ranging search even though no consent was required, no law has appeared to have been broken and all evidence appears to suggest he is in the care of his parents who as his legal guardians and the company of his siblings. At the press conference the police spokesman was asked if the the parents religious beliefs (it appears his father may be a Jehovah's Witness) were taken into consideration. the police spokesman replied that religious beliefs were irrelevant in a police investigation and their only concern at this point was the safety of the child.

All that you've said may be true. But you've been very selective about which parts of the story you've repeated.

I would have thought if you were going to give a summary of this story to people who may not know anything about it, a pretty major point is the fact that the boy was taken from a hospital. Who have said he is in immediate danger of dying if he isn't returned to them today.

I'm also struggling to see even the vaguest link to this story and the thread

I concede it maybe tenuous but my general line of thought was why are public officials giving as an excuse for the none prosecution of criminals the fact that it may be offensive to a religious group. Whilst 24 hours later a policeman sits and states that religious beliefs are irrelevant when the safety of a child is in question. Is there not at least some measure of inconsistency here. It isn't a critique of one religious group or another I was merely interested as to why they themselves didn't find it slightly incongruous.
 
dazdon said:
BlueRob01 said:

So, if we say the first two points are true (though personally I feel there are some fairly big assumptions there), but that aside then surely the points regarding the attitudes of authorities, organisations and the establishemt are allowed to happen due to the last point. Society is? All of us.

I'm absolutely positive you are reading another thread because that's twice you've posted something that has no relation to the thread you posted in.


Ha. Either that or anything that doesn't stare you straight in the face or fit in with your simplistic attitude you choose to ignore - or don't understand.
 
Danish Blue said:
tidyman said:
Danish Blue said:
I find it interesting that today the news is awash with the story of a young boy who the police are now hunting after he was taken without consent, according to them. They have launched a seemingly wide ranging search even though no consent was required, no law has appeared to have been broken and all evidence appears to suggest he is in the care of his parents who as his legal guardians and the company of his siblings. At the press conference the police spokesman was asked if the the parents religious beliefs (it appears his father may be a Jehovah's Witness) were taken into consideration. the police spokesman replied that religious beliefs were irrelevant in a police investigation and their only concern at this point was the safety of the child.

All that you've said may be true. But you've been very selective about which parts of the story you've repeated.

I would have thought if you were going to give a summary of this story to people who may not know anything about it, a pretty major point is the fact that the boy was taken from a hospital. Who have said he is in immediate danger of dying if he isn't returned to them today.

I'm also struggling to see even the vaguest link to this story and the thread

I concede it maybe tenuous but my general line of thought was why are public officials giving as an excuse for the none prosecution of criminals the fact that it may be offensive to a religious group. Whilst 24 hours later a policeman sits and states that religious beliefs are irrelevant when the safety of a child is in question. Is there not at least some measure of inconsistency here. It isn't a critique of one religious group or another I was merely interested as to why they themselves didn't find it slightly incongruous.

The cases are chalk and cheese.

The fact that historical abuse has now come to light and the general revulsion of how it was covered up, indicates how society has moved on. The very fact that there is a public appeal for information about a 5 year old child with a brain tumour who needs specialist medical attention, including naso gastricfeeding, who had been taken from a hospital shows how preceptions/attitudes have changed.

Yes the fact that nothing was done in Rochdale/Rotheram is a disgrace but those events were the results of neglet by inaction. Are you saying that the relevant authorities should do nothing to find this boy due to the parents religious beliefs?

Do you know what is involved with battery driven naso gatric feed unit?

You generally need 2 units, one for delivering the feed, the other as a back up whilst been cleaned and charged, the units can then be rotated so the same process can happen. Also the feed is not something you can walk into your local shop and buy. Not only has it htas to be ordered, like any meds, there are different strengths depending on the persons requirements.

Oh and that's not including general items such as gloves, wipes, tissues, sanitizer and aprons to prevent infection. Specific charger for the feed pump as they don't just plug into the mains. Oh and fresh water to flush the feed tube each time the pump is connected. Tap water can not be used due to the additive that is put in.

Then you have the minor fact that all feeds have to be recorded to ensure the person is recieving enough feed.

This is not about certain religous beliefs or race. This is about a 5 years old boy's life who needs some care. In fact The Office of Public Information for Jehovah's Witnesses said in a statement: "There is absolutely no indication, as far as we are aware, that their decision is in any way motivated by any religious convictions.

I'm not blaming the parents but if they had issues about the treatment, why did they not raise them earlier and why did they decide to take their child out of a hospital on a ferry to France?
 
The_Maverick said:
Danish Blue said:

All that you've said may be true. But you've been very selective about which parts of the story you've repeated.

I would have thought if you were going to give a summary of this story to people who may not know anything about it, a pretty major point is the fact that the boy was taken from a hospital. Who have said he is in immediate danger of dying if he isn't returned to them today.

I'm also struggling to see even the vaguest link to this story and the thread

I concede it maybe tenuous but my general line of thought was why are public officials giving as an excuse for the none prosecution of criminals the fact that it may be offensive to a religious group. Whilst 24 hours later a policeman sits and states that religious beliefs are irrelevant when the safety of a child is in question. Is there not at least some measure of inconsistency here. It isn't a critique of one religious group or another I was merely interested as to why they themselves didn't find it slightly incongruous.

The cases are chalk and cheese.

The fact that historical abuse has now come to light and the general revulsion of how it was covered up, indicates how society has moved on. The very fact that there is a public appeal for information about a 5 year old child with a brain tumour who needs specialist medical attention, including naso gastricfeeding, who had been taken from a hospital shows how preceptions/attitudes have changed.

Yes the fact that nothing was done in Rochdale/Rotheram is a disgrace but those events were the results of neglet by inaction. Are you saying that the relevant authorities should do nothing to find this boy due to the parents religious beliefs?

Do you know what is involved with battery driven naso gatric feed unit?

You generally need 2 units, one for delivering the feed, the other as a back up whilst been cleaned and charged, the units can then be rotated so the same process can happen. Also the feed is not something you can walk into your local shop and buy. Not only has it htas to be ordered, like any meds, there are different strengths depending on the persons requirements.

Oh and that's not including general items such as gloves, wipes, tissues, sanitizer and aprons to prevent infection. Specific charger for the feed pump as they don't just plug into the mains. Oh and fresh water to flush the feed tube each time the pump is connected. Tap water can not be used due to the additive that is put in.

Then you have the minor fact that all feeds have to be recorded to ensure the person is recieving enough feed.

This is not about certain religous beliefs or race. This is about a 5 years old boy's life who needs some care. In fact The Office of Public Information for Jehovah's Witnesses said in a statement: "There is absolutely no indication, as far as we are aware, that their decision is in any way motivated by any religious convictions.

I'm not blaming the parents but if they had issues about the treatment, why did they not raise them earlier and why did they decide to take their child out of a hospital on a ferry to France?


Euro Disney?
 
Yes the fact that nothing was done in Rochdale/Rotheram is a disgrace but those events were the results of neglet by inaction. Are you saying that the relevant authorities should do nothing to find this boy due to the parents religious beliefs?

I am pretty sure I didn't say that and I am very sure I don't think it. I think religion should be irrelevant in both case, if a child is in danger find him, if 1400 are protect them. I am glad to hear society in the UK has moved on so dramatically and no public officials now make decisions influenced in any way by religion. In which case it was unfortunate juxtaposioning of the stories.

By the way I know nothing of the medical implications of the boy's condition, that wasn't really the point I was trying to make and I bow to your far greater knowledge.
 
tidyman said:
Danish Blue said:
I find it interesting that today the news is awash with the story of a young boy who the police are now hunting after he was taken without consent, according to them. They have launched a seemingly wide ranging search even though no consent was required, no law has appeared to have been broken and all evidence appears to suggest he is in the care of his parents who as his legal guardians and the company of his siblings. At the press conference the police spokesman was asked if the the parents religious beliefs (it appears his father may be a Jehovah's Witness) were taken into consideration. the police spokesman replied that religious beliefs were irrelevant in a police investigation and their only concern at this point was the safety of the child.

All that you've said may be true. But you've been very selective about which parts of the story you've repeated.

I would have thought if you were going to give a summary of this story to people who may not know anything about it, a pretty major point is the fact that the boy was taken from a hospital. Who have said he is in immediate danger of dying if he isn't returned to them today.

I'm also struggling to see even the vaguest link to this story and the thread topic.

I think what he's saying is that when these children in care were being taken away from care homes and exploited sexually by strangers , the same attention wasn't paid to them by the police and relevant authorities as in this case. Every child matters and why are those in care so easily discarded and not prioritised in exactly the same way ? Every child matters and if those who were too busy protecting their reputations and employment actually gave a damn then maybe, just maybe the same level of care would have been applied
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.