Re: Rotherham : Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:40 pm  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... c-end.html Two years ago it was merely an honour killing that killed her daughter. But she's been all over the media since the Rotherham report saying that her daughter was a child abuse victim. If she can't decide whether the guy who killed her was her first love or just one of the guys who were sexually abusing her, how are the police supposed to know about it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... c-end.html Two years ago it was merely an honour killing that killed her daughter. But she's been all over the media since the Rotherham report saying that her daughter was a child abuse victim. If she can't decide whether the guy who killed her was her first love or just one of the guys who were sexually abusing her, how are the police supposed to know about it?

Re: Rotherham : Tue Sep 16, 2014 2:37 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115984/Is-Britains-white-honour-killing-victim-The-happy-headstrong-girl-17-love-racial-divide-tragic-end.html

Two years ago it was merely an honour killing that killed her daughter. But she's been all over the media since the Rotherham report saying that her daughter was a child abuse victim. If she can't decide whether the guy who killed her was her first love or just one of the guys who were sexually abusing her, how are the police supposed to know about it?

Yeh, let's have a pop at a bereaved mothers whose daughter was murdered in appallingly heinous way.

Look, I haven't seen deatils of the case previously but surely it's possible to be both, and having googled a different report also in your publication of choice, it seems she almost certainly WAS groomed and a victim of child sex abuse AS WELL as being a murder victim:

Laura Wilson, 17, was murdered for bringing shame on the families of two Pakistani men who had used her for sex.
It was later revealed that social workers had known for six years that the white teenage mother was at clear risk from predatory Asian gangs, and had received information about certain adults suspected of targeting her from the age of 11.
Laura, 17, had been groomed by a string of British Pakistanis before she was stabbed and thrown into a canal to die for informing her abusers' families of the sexual relationships.

Her killer Ashtiaq Asghar, who was 18 at the time, was given a life sentence and will serve a minimum of 17-and-a-half years after he pleaded guilty to murdering Laura in October 2010.

In 2012, the council's Safeguarding Children Board published a serious case review but key passages which reveal they knew she was at particular risk from 'Asian men' had been blocked out with black lines.

The council went to court in an attempt to tried to suppress the hidden information after a uncensored copy of the report was leaked to the Times newspaper but they abandoned legal action.

The uncensored report confirms that Laura, identified as Child S, had dealings with 15 agencies and identified 'numerous missed opportunities' to protect her.

It states that she eventually became 'almost invisible' to care professionals.
The hidden information included the knowledge that at the age of 13 Laura and a friend had been given alcohol by men at a takeaway who then asked what she would give them in return.

She had also been referred to a child sexual exploitation project just three months after her 11th birthday. Another censored passage reveals that Laura had been 'mentioned' during a 2009 police inquiry that eventually led to the conviction of five Pakistani men for sex offences against three underage girls.
While the published report mentioned the fact that a friend, who Laura knew when she was 10, was 'thought to have become involved in sexual exploitation', it concealed the succeeding passage which read: 'with particular reference to Asian men'.

Re: Rotherham : Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:58 pm  

A rather unpleasant story has come to light in Bradford, where the council has had to pay £160k for failing to protect a young girl raped by her own father. The news paper report skirts around the race/religion of those involved. Political correctness?

Re: Rotherham : Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:02 pm  

Done the right thing, finally

Done the right thing, finally

Re: Rotherham : Tue Sep 16, 2014 6:54 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

A rather unpleasant story has come to light in Bradford, where the council has had to pay £160k for failing to protect a young girl raped by her own father. The news paper report skirts around the race/religion of those involved. Political correctness?

Call me irrational if you like but I keep getting this feeling that I'd probably never invite you to a dinner party at mine.

You do seem like a particularly odious individual, probably a re-incarnation of a former poster

Re: Rotherham : Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:25 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

A rather unpleasant story has come to light in Bradford, where the council has had to pay £160k for failing to protect a young girl raped by her own father. The news paper report skirts around the race/religion of those involved. Political correctness?

Why do you feel it is necessary to state what race/religion it is? Does it somehow increase the gravity of the crime if the perpetrator is from a particular section of society?

Re: Rotherham : Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:42 am  

LeagueDweeb wrote: A rather unpleasant story has come to light in Bradford, where the council has had to pay £160k for failing to protect a young girl raped by her own father. The news paper report skirts around the race/religion of those involved. Political correctness? Do you mean this story, which doesn't skirt around anything. It simply doesn't mention it. Or are you implying "Bradford must mean darkies" to suit your ridiculous agenda?

LeagueDweeb wrote: A rather unpleasant story has come to light in Bradford, where the council has had to pay £160k for failing to protect a young girl raped by her own father. The news paper report skirts around the race/religion of those involved. Political correctness? Do you mean this story, which doesn't skirt around anything. It simply doesn't mention it. Or are you implying "Bradford must mean darkies" to suit your ridiculous agenda?

Re: Rotherham : Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 pm  

LeagueDweeb wrote:

A rather unpleasant story has come to light in Bradford, where the council has had to pay £160k for failing to protect a young girl raped by her own father. The news paper report skirts around the race/religion of those involved. Political correctness?

You have no idea whatsoever of the race/religion of this man.

Nor does his race nor religion have anything even remotely to do with the offences of serial rape.

That aside, you either somehow fail to grasp that the press are prohibited from publishing anything that might identify the victim, so cannot publish any such irrelevant details even if there were a point in doing so, or more likely you do know this, but are just attention seeking.

Re: Rotherham : Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:06 pm  

Chris28 wrote: Do you mean this story, which doesn't skirt around anything. It simply doesn't mention it. Or are you implying "Bradford must mean darkies" to suit your ridiculous agenda? I suppose he could've linked to This Story but although it doesn't state the accused's religion, he does look a bit white to me. Mind you, I don't reckon "White, professional paedophile" would fit his agenda

Chris28 wrote: Do you mean this story, which doesn't skirt around anything. It simply doesn't mention it. Or are you implying "Bradford must mean darkies" to suit your ridiculous agenda? I suppose he could've linked to This Story but although it doesn't state the accused's religion, he does look a bit white to me. Mind you, I don't reckon "White, professional paedophile" would fit his agenda

Re: Rotherham : Wed Sep 17, 2014 3:58 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Yeh, let's have a pop at a bereaved mothers whose daughter was murdered in appallingly heinous way.

Look, I haven't seen deatils of the case previously but surely it's possible to be both, and having googled a different report also in your publication of choice, it seems she almost certainly WAS groomed and a victim of child sex abuse AS WELL as being a murder victim:

Agree in principle but taking Rotherham alone 1400 is an extraordinary number and suggests a series of interlocking social phenomena over and above a predisposition within a community, a tacit silence within that community plus a murky explicit/implicit conspiracy between community 'leaders' councillors, social services and police, overlaid with huge dollops of incompetence.

This looks like 2 sides of a perfect storm. A huge group of white working class girls, uniformly classed as 'vulnerable'.

A breathtakingly large group of predominantly Pakistani Muslim men disposed to 'groom' them and in a significant number of cases, sold them, threatened to kill them, beat them, raped them and then taken them to other towns where other men had sex with them.

There are huge research questions here over and above the conduct of the police and social services. We have stumbled across a disturbing subcultural phenomena whereby girls are behaving in an extraordinary way, despite many of them almost certainly having prior knowledge of the behaviour of these men. Rotherham isn't that big. I heard white boys calling white girls 'w*g meat' as early as 2000.

This isn't merely about failing apparatchiks or certainly isn't victim blaming. Something deeply profound in respect of the identity of these girls has mutated. Simply saying they are vulnerable to somebody paying them attention and buying them a kebab is hopeless. 13 year old working class girls are bright, feisty, complicated and in some cases very difficult. This is reckless, oppositional behaviour and must be seen as a statement of some sorts be it to parents or whoever.

In my experience 'vulnerable' invariably means very very very angry. What's happened to them before they meet these men is as important as the cultural coda of Pakistani Muslim men, and any predisposition to regards certain females as utterly disposable.

It is deeply, deeply disturbing.