Do you want to discuss boring politics? (23 Viewers)

[tisza]

They have to do everything in their power to persuade Baroness Casey to run this inquiry and then give her the tools to do the job properly.
It's blatantly clear these women & children have been let down by successive Govts, multiple authorities, the police and other organisations that are supposed to have believed them and protected them. It took nearly 10 years from when the first cases were reported in 2001 to actually get convictions in 2010.
It had to be a national inquiry because it does seem highly unlikely that these cases were limited to just the 7/8 towns/cities that have made the headlines so far. We already know that over another 500 people have been charged since last summer and are awaiting trial.
Get it done properly, get it done as quickly as is feasible and put in place structures that mean it cannot happen again.

 

---

[SBAndy]

They have to do everything in their power to persuade Baroness Casey to run this inquiry and then give her the tools to do the job properly.
It's blatantly clear these women & children have been let down by successive Govts, multiple authorities, the police and other organisations that are supposed to have believed them and protected them. It took nearly 10 years from when the first cases were reported in 2001 to actually get convictions in 2010.
It had to be a national inquiry because it does seem highly unlikely that these cases were limited to just the 7/8 towns/cities that have made the headlines so far. We already know that over another 500 people have been charged since last summer and are awaiting trial.
Get it done properly, get it done as quickly as is feasible and put in place structures that mean it cannot happen again.

Forgive my ignorance but what difference is there between a report and an inquiry?

 

[tisza]

Forgive my ignorance but what difference is there between a report and an inquiry?

Report is delivered on the results of the inquiry

 

[chiefdave]

Unless I’ve misunderstood the point, I think it’s a cop out from or on behalf of the various authorities Dave. The fact is if the perpetrator is refusing to answer I’m sure there’s ways and means to find or accurately assess ethnicity/heritage. These are criminal investigations afterall

There obviously wasn’t a willingness to do this before, hopefully there is now.

It may well be a cop out but how many reports & enquiries do we need to sort this problem out. It was a recommendation of the last inquiry, hasn't been implemented, its now been raised again but we're looking at 5 years plus of another inquiry.

Its not just in these type of cases either. Try and get stats for referrals to Prevent and you'll find something like 2/3rds have no ethniticy recorded. Look across all categories of crime and it's the same story. Even when missing people are reported there's huge percentages with no recorded ethnicity, surely would be helpful when you're looking for a simple answer.

So either there's an easy solution that has been ignored time after time, which gives little confidence this time will be any different. Or it's a lot harder to implement than we imagine. In either case I'm not sure we benefit from years of delays.

One victims group is now talking of taking legal action because the recommendations from the last inquiry haven't been implemented. That alone could put a freeze on any action while that works its way through the courts and we all know how slow the process of trying to get a judicial review is.

We need action, not more reports and inquiries telling us the same thing over and over again.

 

[Ashdown]

They have to do everything in their power to persuade Baroness Casey to run this inquiry and then give her the tools to do the job properly.
It's blatantly clear these women & children have been let down by successive Govts, multiple authorities, the police and other organisations that are supposed to have believed them and protected them. It took nearly 10 years from when the first cases were reported in 2001 to actually get convictions in 2010.
It had to be a national inquiry because it does seem highly unlikely that these cases were limited to just the 7/8 towns/cities that have made the headlines so far. We already know that over another 500 people have been charged since last summer and are awaiting trial.
Get it done properly, get it done as quickly as is feasible and put in place structures that mean it cannot happen again.

What a load of utterly filthy vile bastards, driven by a religion that degrades, controls and terrorises women in general! It shouldn’t be happening anywhere but in Britain really ?!?!

 

[shmmeee]

I just can’t get over the fact that one single law change that as far as I can see would have zero downsides and zero opposition would have stopped almost all of this. People over x age (18/21/25/whatever) cannot legally have sex with under 16/18 (AoC really should be 18 TBH). Thats it. Doesn’t matter is the child thinks her rapist is her boyfriend. We arrest the rapist and explain what grooming is to the child. Simple.

Why. Over a decade after this shit came to light has there not even been a discussion on this? Sidesteps all the race arguments and removes the ability for police or social services to turn a blind eye because “consent”. Who out there thinks a 14/15 year old with a 30 year old is ever a safe and consensual relationship?

Just absolutely baffled why this isn’t even a topic for debate in something we’ve been talking about for 15 years now.

 

[tisza]

I just can’t get over the fact that one single law change that as far as I can see would have zero downsides and zero opposition would have stopped almost all of this. People over x age (18/21/25/whatever) cannot legally have sex with under 16/18 (AoC really should be 18 TBH). Thats it. Doesn’t matter is the child thinks her rapist is her boyfriend. We arrest the rapist and explain what grooming is to the child. Simple.

Why. Over a decade after this shit came to light has there not even been a discussion on this? Sidesteps all the race arguments and removes the ability for police or social services to turn a blind eye because “consent”. Who out there thinks a 14/15 year old with a 30 year old is ever a safe and consensual relationship?

Just absolutely baffled why this isn’t even a topic for debate in something we’ve been talking about for 15 years now.

But by law the Age of consent remains 16.

 

[shmmeee]

But by law the Age of consent remains 16.

Yeah but no one wants to prosecute a 15 and a 16 year old having sex with each other. So the guidance has allowances for consent. But if you read the report Casey is saying that those allowances were used to ignore much older men with underage girls and still are.

AoC is 18 where there’s a position of trust. It’s fuzzy when both are similar ages. There’s no reason not to do as Casey recommends and make it clear that those allowances are not for huge age gaps with much older partners.

I’ll be honest the whole AoC thing makes me squeamish. I feel no one wants to talk about teenage sex so it’s avoided and we’ve ended up where legal children can have sex and get married but can’t say start an OnlyFans or fuck a Policeman or vote. Make it all 18 IMO, have a Romeo and Juliet clause that allows say a 2-3 year age gap. No exceptions.

 

[tisza]

Yeah but no one wants to prosecute a 15 and a 16 year old having sex with each other. So the guidance has allowances for consent. But if you read the report Casey is saying that those allowances were used to ignore much older men with underage girls and still are.

AoC is 18 where there’s a position of trust. It’s fuzzy when both are similar ages. There’s no reason not to do as Casey recommends and make it clear that those allowances are not for huge age gaps with much older partners.

I’ll be honest the whole AoC thing makes me squeamish. I feel no one wants to talk about teenage sex so it’s avoided and we’ve ended up where legal children can have sex and get married but can’t say start an OnlyFans or fuck a Policeman or vote. Make it all 18 IMO, have a Romeo and Juliet clause that allows say a 2-3 year age gap. No exceptions.

Opens a whole new area of discussion. Kids exposure to porn at increasingly younger ages , increasing insistence by some in positions of influence/ authority that kids are no longer kids but young adults so can make their own decisions. Groups saying if gender decisions can be made at an early age then so can consensual sex decisions at an early age, if kids are now learning so much about sex before AOC then they are in a position to make their own "informed" decisions having it and so on. AOC in several EU countries is already only 14.

 

[Captain Dart]

I'm sure you'll all love what Cummings has to say.

View attachment cummings_1750112698796.mp4

 

[shmmeee]

Opens a whole new area of discussion. Kids exposure to porn at increasingly younger ages , increasing insistence by some in positions of influence/ authority that kids are no longer kids but young adults so can make their own decisions. Groups saying if gender decisions can be made at an early age then so can consensual sex decisions at an early age, if kids are now learning so much about sex before AOC then they are in a position to make their own "informed" decisions having it and so on. AOC in several EU countries is already only 14.

OK but literally none of this has anything to do with the issue of grown ass men fucking kids.

 

[tisza]

OK but literally none of this has anything to do with the issue of grown ass men fucking kids.

But it does. There's enough confused thinking out there that let's perpetrators "take advantage" of the system. Casey has just admitted in an interview that some of these perpetrators were waiting until victims were over 13 because apparently it is more difficult to get a rape conviction. Cases not being followed through because 13/14/15 year old think they are consensual partners and can't be convinced they've been taken advantage of. If the law is 16 then how is it more difficult to pursue a rape charge with 13/14/15 year old victim? Surely a key question for any inquiry to investigate.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You want the criticism to be politically motivated so you don’t have to defend the nonsense he’s saying.

This basic fact is just incorrect. Some countries have a politicised civil service (USA, Australia, Canada and Germany) and there is an expectation that senior civil servants offer their resignation as part of the transfer of power in some countries.

Our civil service code is designed so that the civil service is professionally apolitical. The impartial advice given to ministers is supposed to be expressly unbiased and data driven. Hence, they have jobs for life because they’re supposed to be above party politics.

There are arguments to politicise the civil service, but you’d be radically changing how it works.

A few things to consider:

MPs say Whitehall civil service is working badly | YouGov

MPs are most likely to agree that Whitehall is too risk averse, slow, and inflexible

yougov.co.uk

Can Labour tame the Civil Service?

unherd.com

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/politicisation-of-the-civil-service/

 

[dutchman]

I just can’t get over the fact that one single law change that as far as I can see would have zero downsides and zero opposition would have stopped almost all of this.

I don't see why the British should have to change their laws because certain groups of immigrants chose to take advantage of them?