Home With Brother Further Down (5) ????A
Crosswords0 min ago
Shameless.....
Answers
//But winning the award doesn't change anything. // At least that is correct. The kids are still raped and traumatised, the Yorkshire plod is still damned, and the award donors are still...….
13:30 Thu 21st Feb 2019
somewhat trenchant comment here
https:/
jesus - if there was anything like that on AB - wdnt the usual suspects be squawking ?
https:/
jesus - if there was anything like that on AB - wdnt the usual suspects be squawking ?
Lifting reams of PC botox from your left wing websites no longer cuts any ice with anyone, gromit. Your day is done.
The reason your mates in the police, who have a well documented record of shame, did anything is because they were exposed in a series of Times articles.
The reason for the articles, Tommy Robinson and the EDL.
The reason your mates in the police, who have a well documented record of shame, did anything is because they were exposed in a series of Times articles.
The reason for the articles, Tommy Robinson and the EDL.
Anyone who has ever had a teenage daughter will know how easy it is to explain to them that their latest boyfriend might not be perfect for them. The girls usually agree and go back to their homework.
In some areas, however, some of them managed to find ways to meet their boyfriends anyway. The parents knew that they could not be reasonably expected to give their daughters any kind of feeling of self-worth or make them feel valued, so they shrugged and called police.
Bizarrely, these unloved teenagers were noticed. There were people sitting on park benches eyeing little girls with bad intent. They gave the girls money, alcohol, drugs, jewellery, even though the girls made it clear they didn't want those things. They just wanted someone to love them.
The men couldn't believe their luck, and took advantage of the situation. They led the girls to think they were in relationships, that their parents were being really uncool by trying to control them. These girls, they said, were strong and powerful, while ensuring they were actually isolated and lost.
The police officers, teachers, social workers, parents all knew this was not good, but what was the crime? Talking to teenage girls is not illegal; grooming them for unlawful sexual activity is (I am neither police nor lawyer, so don't depend on my exact words). Buying children chips and cheese is not illegal, unless it is intended as a coercive and controlling measure. Even taking girls to your house to sleep is not illegal - if the police are notified that a child is a runaway and find them in a man's house with just the two of them present, there is still no crime. What happens is that the police take details of all present and, if they cannot conclude that the child is at risk of significant harm, it is the responsibility of a person with parental responsibility to obtain a court order to remove them from the premises. This can be tricky at two in the morning, but that is not the fault of the police.
This set up stinks. Children were harmed. I don't know the precise details, but I understand some girls were found half naked and intoxicated. Those aberrations should be thoroughly investigated.
The law evolves in response to changing times. The moment a new statute is enacted, peoplecare testing it for weaknesses and loopholes. My prejudices tell me that the privileged exploited loopholes for decades, wealth enabled deals to be done. Members of royal families, to pick an example at random, could avoidcwearing seatbelts or giving way at junctions. Members of rock bands could do strange things with groupies, chocolate bars and fish. Sometimes even drugs.
If a police officer is speaking to a girl of 14-15 who says she is with her friends and has not been coerced, for what crime does he make an arrest? I doubt anybody was happy with the situation, except the abusers, but I'd bet a pound to a pinch of snuff the police officers were dischuffed.
Child abuse exists. The police have corrupt officers, including senior ones. There are extraordinarily inept social workers, and wilfully blind councillors and other political beings. The girls, far from begging to be rescued, would have been doing their level best not to be. Like banging your head against a wall, you only notice how much it hurt when you stop. Money, drugs and alcohol, a lifestyle of swagger, ...
The police did not rape those children, nor did they stand idly by and watch. If anybody here knows better, please explain why you allowed it.
In some areas, however, some of them managed to find ways to meet their boyfriends anyway. The parents knew that they could not be reasonably expected to give their daughters any kind of feeling of self-worth or make them feel valued, so they shrugged and called police.
Bizarrely, these unloved teenagers were noticed. There were people sitting on park benches eyeing little girls with bad intent. They gave the girls money, alcohol, drugs, jewellery, even though the girls made it clear they didn't want those things. They just wanted someone to love them.
The men couldn't believe their luck, and took advantage of the situation. They led the girls to think they were in relationships, that their parents were being really uncool by trying to control them. These girls, they said, were strong and powerful, while ensuring they were actually isolated and lost.
The police officers, teachers, social workers, parents all knew this was not good, but what was the crime? Talking to teenage girls is not illegal; grooming them for unlawful sexual activity is (I am neither police nor lawyer, so don't depend on my exact words). Buying children chips and cheese is not illegal, unless it is intended as a coercive and controlling measure. Even taking girls to your house to sleep is not illegal - if the police are notified that a child is a runaway and find them in a man's house with just the two of them present, there is still no crime. What happens is that the police take details of all present and, if they cannot conclude that the child is at risk of significant harm, it is the responsibility of a person with parental responsibility to obtain a court order to remove them from the premises. This can be tricky at two in the morning, but that is not the fault of the police.
This set up stinks. Children were harmed. I don't know the precise details, but I understand some girls were found half naked and intoxicated. Those aberrations should be thoroughly investigated.
The law evolves in response to changing times. The moment a new statute is enacted, peoplecare testing it for weaknesses and loopholes. My prejudices tell me that the privileged exploited loopholes for decades, wealth enabled deals to be done. Members of royal families, to pick an example at random, could avoidcwearing seatbelts or giving way at junctions. Members of rock bands could do strange things with groupies, chocolate bars and fish. Sometimes even drugs.
If a police officer is speaking to a girl of 14-15 who says she is with her friends and has not been coerced, for what crime does he make an arrest? I doubt anybody was happy with the situation, except the abusers, but I'd bet a pound to a pinch of snuff the police officers were dischuffed.
Child abuse exists. The police have corrupt officers, including senior ones. There are extraordinarily inept social workers, and wilfully blind councillors and other political beings. The girls, far from begging to be rescued, would have been doing their level best not to be. Like banging your head against a wall, you only notice how much it hurt when you stop. Money, drugs and alcohol, a lifestyle of swagger, ...
The police did not rape those children, nor did they stand idly by and watch. If anybody here knows better, please explain why you allowed it.
JF85// The police did not rape those children,//
Well you say that but you don't actually know that, do you?
There have been several allegations that they did join in. If only PC Ali had survived long enough to give evidence at his trial.
//nor did they stand idly by and watch.//
Au contraire. That is exactly what they did.
They did shake off their torpor once in a while to arrest the parents of victims and even the victims themselves.
// If anybody here knows better, please explain why you allowed it.//
Who on earth is that addressed to? The whole crux of the matter is that anybody who was in a position to do anything about it didn't.
Well, apart from sacking whistle-blowers, hounding them from their jobs and holding enquiries into leaks.
Well you say that but you don't actually know that, do you?
There have been several allegations that they did join in. If only PC Ali had survived long enough to give evidence at his trial.
//nor did they stand idly by and watch.//
Au contraire. That is exactly what they did.
They did shake off their torpor once in a while to arrest the parents of victims and even the victims themselves.
// If anybody here knows better, please explain why you allowed it.//
Who on earth is that addressed to? The whole crux of the matter is that anybody who was in a position to do anything about it didn't.
Well, apart from sacking whistle-blowers, hounding them from their jobs and holding enquiries into leaks.
I acknowledged in my post that as was not directly involved and do not represent a police or legal view. Abuse of children is widespread. It would be laughable to assume that any profession is completely free of wrongdoers. My point is that there was no official policy of raping children or assisting in such rapes.
I also volunteered the fact that there were incidents that definitely require further investigation to restore public trust, such as half-naked and intoxicated children.
A few years ago I was involved in a training event for workers new to roles carrying significant access to vulnerable children. A long-serving beat Bobby who had recently taken on a job interviewing vulnerable witnesses was asked why the police did not act when children missing from care were found with unconvicted but suspect adults. He was clear that, as a street officer, he would be assertively dissuading those adults from further contact. There were care workers at the training with jaws on the floor, delighted that their frustration could be about to end. At the follow-up day, six weeks later, that officer was not present and he left the job shortly afterwards.
That was not an area involved in the scandals, but I have been into those places too. Police, social workers and schools were tearing their hair out, but there were no discernible offences. Sometimes things can stink without actually being 5h1t.
My parting question was possibly the clearest I have ever asked. If anybody was there and knew what was happening, why didn't they stop it? As hard as I might try, I cannot find solutions among people who have no clue what the actual problem was.
I also volunteered the fact that there were incidents that definitely require further investigation to restore public trust, such as half-naked and intoxicated children.
A few years ago I was involved in a training event for workers new to roles carrying significant access to vulnerable children. A long-serving beat Bobby who had recently taken on a job interviewing vulnerable witnesses was asked why the police did not act when children missing from care were found with unconvicted but suspect adults. He was clear that, as a street officer, he would be assertively dissuading those adults from further contact. There were care workers at the training with jaws on the floor, delighted that their frustration could be about to end. At the follow-up day, six weeks later, that officer was not present and he left the job shortly afterwards.
That was not an area involved in the scandals, but I have been into those places too. Police, social workers and schools were tearing their hair out, but there were no discernible offences. Sometimes things can stink without actually being 5h1t.
My parting question was possibly the clearest I have ever asked. If anybody was there and knew what was happening, why didn't they stop it? As hard as I might try, I cannot find solutions among people who have no clue what the actual problem was.
