coaches engaging in legal ***ual activity

[John2]

I have merely disagreed with your repeated assertion that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children.

I'd appreciate if you could quote exactly where you think I have repeatedly made the assertion that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children?

We've had a number of threads recently where I address large posts where you have misrepresented my position and then you just do a vanishing act.

[Brin]

I'd appreciate if you could quote exactly where you think I have repeatedly made the assertion that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children?

We've had a number of threads recently where I address large posts where you have misrepresented my position and then you just do a vanishing act.

He's watching Corry.

[KerrAvon]

I'd appreciate if you could quote exactly where you think I have repeatedly made the assertion that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children?

We've had a number of threads recently where I address large posts where you have misrepresented my position and then you just do a vanishing act.

Ok, John, I was happy to leave this as I can’t be bothered with the bickering on here, but you clearly don’t want to let it lie.

Lets have a look at ‘a huge reason’ why the abuse went on for so long and the ‘common position of the public’ in post 59:

A huge reason the child abuse scandal in Rotherham went on for so long was because these vulnerable young girls were perceived as "p*ki sh*ggers" - a commonly used term to suggest they were choosing these relationships consensually. White working class people in Rotherham judged these girls back then as being consenting participants, not as victims. This was the common position of the public and the authorities, it is why the abuse was tolerated back then. We (rightly) give the authorities a hard time, but many of the people now most vocally outraged were just as guilty as perceiving these victims as in some way "asking for it".

Let’s have a look at post 98 to see who was called out for not being as outraged as they should have been and who is guilty for failing to protest at a decision not to prosecute some men in 2001.

Bit of selective amnesia there stovic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1323397.stm

This is a news story from 2001 that made national headlines. Can you honestly say the town was as outraged at this as it should have been? Where were all the protests in the streets then when none of the men were prosecuted?

You say you had no idea what was going on - but clearly we had warnings, just the prevailing view at the time wasn't to view the children as victims but as participants. Everyone who carried on with their lives as if nothing happened after that story is guilty to some extent of doing that. That was the time to protest.

I'm the same age as Sammy Woodhouse. I went to Clifton. I definitely remember the pejorative term "p*ki sh*gger" having use. I was naive and unaware to the implications of what it meant, but I got the jist. I almost certainly had school mates who were victims. If this expression was in such widespread use, the local parents and teachers would have been aware. The problem is these were usually kids that were troubled, and they were not seen as victims at all. It wasn't until the 2010s that finally changed.

In post 101 your returned to theme of a lack of outrage, which you attribute to Rotherham ‘collectively as a town’ (although, in fairness, this post may be based upon some confusion in your mind over the meaning of the word ‘coercion’).

Your theory falls apart when later that year it was announced nobody was facing charges, there was no outrage then.

Even the guardian's reporting of the time illustrates how attitudes have shifted:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/...liquechrisafis

"The case is understood not to have involved coercion"

A 12 year old girl couldn't identify a father out of 5 men and none of them had a positive DNA test - and the "left wing" guardian said the 12 YEAR OLD hadn't been coerced!? And collectively as a town we accepted this attitude, these were not seen as victims, its there in black and white.

If you want to make yourself feel better that when these warning emerged you dismissed them as not realising the scale of the problem, or perhaps you only found it outrageous when discovering the race of the assailants, that's up to you. But we definitely had warnings that the people of Rotherham did not get upset about until it was way too late.

In post 103, you told us that the ‘the town’ failed to treat the 12 yr old in the 2001 case as a victim and speculate that had ‘the town’ not done that the authorities would have treated ‘it’ differently too.

OK, so you only think a 12 year old being treated in this way is only worthy of the town's outrage if only we had known there were more instances like it. Got it.

Maybe if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit the other authorities would have treated it differently too. This was a society wide failing.

I'll reiterate my point. At the time people barely raised an eyebrow because these girls were not seen as victims by practically anyone.

In post 105, you move on to the collective guilt of the townsfolk in failing to treat victims as victims:

All of which misses my point. These children were not even seen as victims back then in the way someone who gets murdered would be. This is something the townsfolk were collectively guilty of.

Even now, in 2020, we have people going to the trouble of asking why victims of these sorts of crimes "don't say no" which to some appears to be suggesting they are in some way responsible.

Please let me know if I have misrepresented you by quoting you.

The position seems fairly clear to me. You are arguing that ‘collectively as a town’, the ‘townsfolk’ of Rotherham knew what was going on (because of a 2001 news report about a single girl and that you heard the expression "p*ki sh*gger" at Clifton School – but did not tell your parents and may or may not have told a teacher – you don’t seem to know).

Armed with the knowledge of what was going on, your argument continues that the town was collectively guilty of failing to see the children as victims and Maybe if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit the other authorities would have treated it differently too. This was a society wide failing.

So there you have it John . I have no doubt that you are well meaning and am perfectly happy to accept that you ‘misspoke’ (which is another reason why I was happy to leave it alone). But the ordinary and natural meaning of your words is that you hold the whole town responsible for the failure to act – 'a society wide failure’.

If you had said, ‘a number of people both inside and outside the authorities had some knowledge of what was going, but failed to see the victims and victims’, I would have nodded in agreement – I’ve made the same point on here a number of times - it was at the heart of the failure by the authorities to act - but in ascribing knowledge to the whole two and alleging society wide failure, you have gone too far and risk letting the people who do bear responsibility off the hook.

[John2]

Lets have a look at ‘a huge reason’ why the abuse went on for so long and the ‘common position of the public’ in post 59

A 'huge reason' is not the same as complicity.

A child might accidentally start a fire that burns down a house through some level of inexperience or awareness. The word complicit infers a level of "unlawful or moral" wrongness according to the dictionary definition. The child has not necessarily done anything unlawful or immoral, they may have just been inexperienced and naive. But if you see the child messing around with matches again, you might hastily remind them of what happened the last time! Obviously this example falls apart as the fire was an arson, and the child was instead accusing the person whose house was getting burned down of being the arsonist while turning a blind eye to the arsonist.

I repeatedly made the point that the issue I was raising was one the subject of victim blaming.

Every single quote you just shared is in reference to victim blaming, on which you have said:
"I have never suggested that it didn’t and doesn’t take place. I’m sure that it did and does."

Let's look at the key extracts:
"judged these girls back then as being consenting participants, not as victims"

"the prevailing view at the time wasn't to view the children as victims but as participants"

"these were not seen as victims"

"if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit"

When you said I was accusing the town of "complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children" I now see where you may have picked up the word complicit. But it was actually being used to refer to how the girl was being perceived (complicit in choosing to engage in these activities)

For the benefit of the doubt for exactly what I was referring to, I added this line to that very same post!:

"I'll reiterate my point. At the time people barely raised an eyebrow because these girls were not seen as victims by practically anyone."

And the key line from the final quote:

"These children were not even seen as victims back then"



These clearly all refer to victim blaming, do you at least accept this is the point I have been consistently making?

I don’t particularly mind if you ‘accept it’ or not. John. I have not misrepresented you at all – I have merely disagreed with your repeated assertion that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children. It’s an assertion which is unfair, manifestly wrong and, frankly, absurd.

I think to suggest I've been saying repeated asserting that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity [as opposed to victim blaming] in the industrial scale abuse of children is an assertion which is unfair, manifestly wrong and, frankly, absurd.

[KerrAvon]

A 'huge reason' is not the same as complicity.

A child might accidentally start a fire that burns down a house through some level of inexperience or awareness. The word complicit infers a level of "unlawful or moral" wrongness according to the dictionary definition. The child has not necessarily done anything unlawful or immoral, they may have just been inexperienced and naive. But if you see the child messing around with matches again, you might hastily remind them of what happened the last time! Obviously this example falls apart as the fire was an arson, and the child was instead accusing the person whose house was getting burned down of being the arsonist while turning a blind eye to the arsonist.

I repeatedly made the point that the issue I was raising was one the subject of victim blaming.

Every single quote you just shared is in reference to victim blaming, on which you have said:
"I have never suggested that it didn’t and doesn’t take place. I’m sure that it did and does."

Let's look at the key extracts:
"judged these girls back then as being consenting participants, not as victims"

"the prevailing view at the time wasn't to view the children as victims but as participants"

"these were not seen as victims"

"if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit"

When you said I was accusing the town of "complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children" I now see where you may have picked up the word complicit. But it was actually being used to refer to how the girl was being perceived (complicit in choosing to engage in these activities)

For the benefit of the doubt for exactly what I was referring to, I added this line to that very same post!:

"I'll reiterate my point. At the time people barely raised an eyebrow because these girls were not seen as victims by practically anyone."

And the key line from the final quote:

"These children were not even seen as victims back then"



These clearly all refer to victim blaming, do you at least accept this is the point I have been consistently making?



I think to suggest I've been saying repeated asserting that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity [as opposed to victim blaming] in the industrial scale abuse of children is an assertion which is unfair, manifestly wrong and, frankly, absurd.

I find myself reminded of another reason why I was happy to let this go. When posters start using dictionary definitions, you almost invariably know they are in trouble. That being said, whilst you have got it out, out might want to look up ‘coercion’.

You can try all you like to twist and turn and word count this away, but you insisted on this, John, so you can have it.

Your position can be summarised in this way:

1. Everyone knew or should have known what was going on because of the 2001 article and that you had heard the expression "p*ki sh*gger" at Clifton School (but may not have told anyone – you don’t seem to know);
2. Knowing what was going on the ‘townsfolk’ were ‘collectively guilty’ of not seeing the children concerned as victims; and
3. Maybe if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit the other authorities would have treated it differently too.

I have no idea where you are going with your analogy of a child setting a fire. It is not even remotely relevant to any issue in this thread. You are alleging that the ‘townsfolk’ of Rotherham were aware of what was going on and were ‘collectively guilty’ of not seeing the children concerned as victims. You are further alleging that had ‘the town’ had a different attitude, the authorities might have treated it differently too.

If we are truly going to resort to dictionary definitions, it beggars belief that you are unable to see how you can escape from the notion that you are alleging ‘moral wrongness’ on the part of the ‘townsfolk’.

I don’t doubt that your primary concern was victim blaming. I have not sought to argue otherwise and, as I have said, can agree with you to a significant degree on that issue alone. My issue is with your attempt to engage in 'community blaming' implying a high level of knowledge and moral wrongness on the part of 'the townsfolk' without a shred of evidence to demonstrate that it is justified. By doing that you risk letting those who are actually at fault off the hook.

[John2]

Your position can be summarised in this way:

1. Everyone knew or should have known what was going on because of the 2001 article and that you had heard the expression "p*ki sh*gger" at Clifton School (but may not have told anyone – you don’t seem to know);
2. Knowing what was going on the ‘townsfolk’ were ‘collectively guilty’ of not seeing the children concerned as victims; and
3. Maybe if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit the other authorities would have treated it differently too.

OK, the summary is helpful as its easier to address.

1. I think this is where I have my main gripe. The claim that I suggest everyone should have known the nature and extent is not one that I have made.
In post #98 I said:
"You say you had no idea what was going on - but clearly we had warnings."

I am acknowledging that we had no idea the scale of what was going on, but I'm just pointing out the fact that we did have warnings. Do you agree that is a fair interpretation of what I am saying?

You also seem to be suggesting I'm claiming everyone in the town knew the word p*ki sh*gger was being used, but I very explicitly clarified how far I saw awareness of that term being known when in post #98 I said "If this expression was in such widespread use, the local parents and teachers would have been aware." - this does not refer to the whole town. Do you agree that is a fair interpretation of what I am saying?

As an aside we know for a fact some local parents knew what was going on, here's a quote from this article:
https://inews.co.uk/news/rotherham-c...ns-iopc-387359
"A complaint by the child’s father, upheld after a five-year investigation, heard the officer described the abuse as “P*** shagging”"

On point 2: Again, the only things I have referred to the townsfolk collectively knowing about are the news stories of the time (I shared more than the 1 story btw) - so point 2 is only a reference to the things we did know about. You acknowldge there was widespread victim blaming of the stories we did know about - so are you also guilty of the thing you are accusing me of?

The townsfolk did know there were stories of 12-year-olds having *** with multiple men aged up to 26. And I shared evidence including from the local MP that at the time these girls were viewed as willing participants who needed to learn personal responsibility.

In post #101 I refer explicitly to the town only being aware of these publicised cases, and I recognise that we weren't aware of the full extent of the abuse (I'm actually saying this is a reasonable thing to find consolation in if you read it as intended):
"If you want to make yourself feel better that when these warning emerged you dismissed them as not realising the scale of the problem, or perhaps you only found it outrageous when discovering the race of the assailants, that's up to you. But we definitely had warnings that the people of Rotherham did not get upset about until it was way too late."

On this backdrop, my issue was in post #109 where you claimed "I don't buy into your idea that the whole of Rotherham should have known what was going on." - because this is something I never claimed, or I had at the very least clarified any ambiguities around the scope of p*ki sh*gging" by the time you levelled this accusation. Can you quote it if there is something you believe invalidates this assertion?

I only ever claimed that the wider town knew about these very public news stories, and I only ever spoke about the attitude in the context of what we did know that victim blaming was widespread. Is sharing this fact that white working class people were guilty of widespread victim blaming of these girls back then a culturally sensitive claim that I shouldn't be making?



A couple of other questions. If you acknowledge that wider society often didn't view 12-year-olds having *** with people up to the age of 26 as being victims and rather saw them as participants, do you think this can be described in some way as a societal failing?

You've also completely ignored the strong disparaging assertions you have made about my political views, a straw man which you invoked to blame 'politics like mine' for the the failings of authorities that led to this scandal. Its rather ironic you did this in a context of trying to call me out on misappropriating the blame don't you think?

[millersrus]

A 'huge reason' is not the same as complicity.

A child might accidentally start a fire that burns down a house through some level of inexperience or awareness. The word complicit infers a level of "unlawful or moral" wrongness according to the dictionary definition. The child has not necessarily done anything unlawful or immoral, they may have just been inexperienced and naive. But if you see the child messing around with matches again, you might hastily remind them of what happened the last time! Obviously this example falls apart as the fire was an arson, and the child was instead accusing the person whose house was getting burned down of being the arsonist while turning a blind eye to the arsonist.

I repeatedly made the point that the issue I was raising was one the subject of victim blaming.

Every single quote you just shared is in reference to victim blaming, on which you have said:
"I have never suggested that it didn’t and doesn’t take place. I’m sure that it did and does."

Let's look at the key extracts:
"judged these girls back then as being consenting participants, not as victims"

"the prevailing view at the time wasn't to view the children as victims but as participants"

"these were not seen as victims"

"if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit"

When you said I was accusing the town of "complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children" I now see where you may have picked up the word complicit. But it was actually being used to refer to how the girl was being perceived (complicit in choosing to engage in these activities)

For the benefit of the doubt for exactly what I was referring to, I added this line to that very same post!:

"I'll reiterate my point. At the time people barely raised an eyebrow because these girls were not seen as victims by practically anyone."

And the key line from the final quote:

"These children were not even seen as victims back then"



These clearly all refer to victim blaming, do you at least accept this is the point I have been consistently making?



I think to suggest I've been saying repeated asserting that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity [as opposed to victim blaming] in the industrial scale abuse of children is an assertion which is unfair, manifestly wrong and, frankly, absurd.

Many years ago, whilst waiting for a taxi behind Rotherham bus station after a night out . a fight started. Two groups of blokes, but just 2 were fighting for whatever reason. The groups did not get involved.
One bloke was getting a proper beating. The bloke winning had had enough of hitting the other guy. The bloke getting the beating however would not stop, kept coming, got hit, fell down, got up and came again. The guy with the sore knuckles was showing remarkable restraint and dishing out the minimum to defend himself. He was asking the battered blokes mates to get hold of him and take home and save him from further punishment. The battered blokes mates did eventually step in and save him from himself.

[wendun]

Many years ago, whilst waiting for a taxi behind Rotherham bus station after a night out . a fight started. Two groups of blokes, but just 2 were fighting for whatever reason. The groups did not get involved.
One bloke was getting a proper beating. The bloke winning had had enough of hitting the other guy. The bloke getting the beating however would not stop, kept coming, got hit, fell down, got up and came again. The guy with the sore knuckles was showing remarkable restraint and dishing out the minimum to defend himself. He was asking the battered blokes mates to get hold of him and take home and save him from further punishment. The battered blokes mates did eventually step in and save him from himself.

Reminds me of Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai. It is a well-known aspect of conflict that the losing side finds it more difficult to end hostilities.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Many years ago, whilst waiting for a taxi behind Rotherham bus station after a night out . a fight started. Two groups of blokes, but just 2 were fighting for whatever reason. The groups did not get involved.
One bloke was getting a proper beating. The bloke winning had had enough of hitting the other guy. The bloke getting the beating however would not stop, kept coming, got hit, fell down, got up and came again. The guy with the sore knuckles was showing remarkable restraint and dishing out the minimum to defend himself. He was asking the battered blokes mates to get hold of him and take home and save him from further punishment. The battered blokes mates did eventually step in and save him from himself.

Sounds like the knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail