Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:14 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

This btw is in no way apologist stuff for those authorities, but pointing out that their job is impossible, and so they have to do it and take the flak, since if no child is ever abused, they will still not be able to show that the reason is the "preventative" steps they took.

...and of course in the current economic situation a council department who cannot show tangible evidence that they do something or produce something is the sort of department primed up for budget slashing, or doing away with altogether - how on earth would you prove that if you weren't there then 1400 children might have been abused by people who you can't identify because they haven't done it because your department was there ?

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:07 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Its still a great improvement from the pre-1976 days

As the C4 program I watched last night about the 70's so spectacularly highlighted. ITV still managed to show the feature length "On The Buses" film at the weekend. Women bus drivers! An outrage ITV executives can all still identify with obviously.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:39 pm  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-30191100

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-30191100

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:38 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But, the situation is one of very many where, if "something had been done" at the time, before offences were committed, with the justification that "we are doing x, y and z to prevent young girls from being groomed etc", there would self-evidently never be any proof that they had saved a single person from anything. The criticism aimed at the authorities then would be that their actions were unnecessary, as the problem was imaginary, or at best, grossly disproportionate.

This btw is in no way apologist stuff for those authorities, but pointing out that their job is impossible, and so they have to do it and take the flak, since if no child is ever abused, they will still not be able to show that the reason is the "preventative" steps they took.

The only reason it is easier to "do something" now is because eventually gangs of men have been exposed, prosecuted and convicted and so the early victims have basically paid the price for becoming the justification for subsequent action, as nobody can any longer say "it never happens".

So are you suggesting the perpetrators being Asian had no influence on the prevention and the outcomes in Rotherham?

On your first paragraph I don't think that stacks up - if we take health (another straw man Mr Fish) we know if we exercise, eat better etc it reduces the chances of us getting the ailments such as diabetes. We cannot identify which people that have benefitted - people still get diabetes even if they do all the right things and visa versa - but we know it is not imaginary - doesn't stop us peddling the message.

There was enough evidence early doors to suggest this was an issue that needed sorting, the fact it got as big as it did - if indeed it did - was because it wasn't nipped in the bud.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:45 am  

cod'ead wrote: As if by magic Comedian Kate Smurthwaite gives her opinion on free speech Another tree hugger - hopefully we are someway off the tyrannical regime that runs Saudia Arabia!! Perhaps she should practise what she preaches - no wonder Mr Fish holds in such high esteem!!

cod'ead wrote: As if by magic Comedian Kate Smurthwaite gives her opinion on free speech Another tree hugger - hopefully we are someway off the tyrannical regime that runs Saudia Arabia!! Perhaps she should practise what she preaches - no wonder Mr Fish holds in such high esteem!!

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:51 am  

cod'ead wrote:

It's over on the correct thread

Try there

Just point my in the right direction or simply copy and paste, surely that isn't beyond you is it?

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:57 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: Just point my in the right direction or simply copy and paste, surely that isn't beyond you is it? Just how difficult would it be to actually find it yourself? Bottom of page one of this board There are only two pages in the thread so even you might not find it too taxing to read

Sal Paradise wrote: Just point my in the right direction or simply copy and paste, surely that isn't beyond you is it? Just how difficult would it be to actually find it yourself? Bottom of page one of this board There are only two pages in the thread so even you might not find it too taxing to read

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:00 am  

cod'ead wrote: Just how difficult would it be to actually find it yourself? Bottom of page one of this board There are only two pages in the thread so even you might not find it too taxing to read If you have managed a contribution then it will not be too taxing for anyone else on here

cod'ead wrote: Just how difficult would it be to actually find it yourself? Bottom of page one of this board There are only two pages in the thread so even you might not find it too taxing to read If you have managed a contribution then it will not be too taxing for anyone else on here

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:03 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So are you suggesting the perpetrators being Asian had no influence on the prevention and the outcomes in Rotherham?

Er, no. What on earth made you think that? However this is not different in kind from the cases of group perpetrators of other abuse, such as privileged members of a seaside club, or staff or clergy in a boarding school; child sexual abuse is rife, and the Asian grooming cases, whilst vile, are just one branch of a truly massive problem.

Sal Paradise wrote:

On your first paragraph I don't think that stacks up

As is your right, but you are (plainly) wrong. If I take preventative action, I think it's obvious that I can never actually prove I actually prevented anything. The best I can do is point to statistics.

Sal Paradise wrote:

- if we take health (another straw man Mr Fish) we know if we exercise, eat better etc it reduces the chances of us getting the ailments such as diabetes. We cannot identify which people that have benefitted - people still get diabetes even if they do all the right things and visa versa - but we know it is not imaginary - doesn't stop us peddling the message.

Why would you want to introduce straw men, and how is this relevant?

Sal Paradise wrote:

There was enough evidence early doors to suggest this was an issue that needed sorting, the fact it got as big as it did - if indeed it did - was because it wasn't nipped in the bud.

If you really believe that grooming can be "nipped in the bud" then you're naive. I would say the opposite. I would say that, in grooming just as in other forms of child sexual abuse, all we will ever do is spend a lot of money in prosecuting a small percentage of offenders, but the problem was, and will remain, endemic. I would say that child sexual abuse whilst not as prevalent as drug abuse is a problem of a similar type, it is too widespread and takes too many forms for anything else other than some sort of a lid being kept on it, and making life more difficult for the perpetrators. You talk as if you think Rotherham was some sort of isolated island of abuse that popped up out of a crime-free sea, and because nobody bothered to catch it, it grew. It wasn't.

Re: Katie Hopkins At It Again : Wed Nov 26, 2014 2:06 pm  

Not sure if already posted, but from today's DE online: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/540313 ... rown-Medal

Not sure if already posted, but from today's DE online: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/540313 ... rown-Medal