coaches engaging in legal ***ual activity

[KerrAvon]

Sorry, but no, I'm not accepting this. You've misrepresented my position a few times recently, I'm not trying to blame the townsfolk for everything. Of course the perpetrators are responsible, and the authorities must shoulder a huge amount of blame for their failings in allowing it to go on at the scale it did, but its nonsense to suggest people didn't realise girls this young were having multiple ***ual partners, and its a matter of recorded fact that the people of Rotherham thought of these girls as being willful participants rather than victims.

On the issue of coercion, a 12 year old cannot consent to ***. If you want to make the legal argument here its surely case open and closed?

Interestingly, the story doesn't end there. The individuals in question did go to jail in 2017. Obviously the police must shoulder some significant blame for this not happening in 2001, but against a backdrop of public indifference.

Rather than take my words for it, lets get words from the actual victim:
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/cse-t...c-abuse-448060

This is how a 12-year-old girl who was being ***ually abused says she was made to feel by her white working class community:
"She described how she was shunned by many in her community who called her worse things than a 'dirty, cheap slag'.


She said: "No-one understood. No-one wanted to understand.

"I felt lost, isolated, trapped, ashamed and completely worthless."

But everyone can stick their fingers in their ears and convince themselves they'd have been horrified "if only they had known"

It actually makes no difference now, there's little to be achieved in feeling guilty about it. Of course nobody realised the extent of it.

The entire reason I make this point at all is because right now, in 2020, people are still questioning why the victims of abuse don't "just say no". I've been reading Sammy Woodhouse's book and its quite horrifying to see how the groomers operated, and of course these girls didn't feel like victims at the time. Maybe if the people in their communities had perceived them as victims rather than sl*gs they might have seen things differently?

All I'm trying to do is politely point out the dangers of victim blaming so we don't make the same mistakes again. I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilty for what happened back then, or blame anyone other than the perpetrators for their actions, just to recognise that we do as a society have an important role in how we perceive the victims of these crimes.

If you want to see the extent of the victim blaming going on back then, there is a whole trove of articles:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-partners.html

After a 12-year old named 5 ***ual partners, this was the response of our local MP:
"Rotherham MP Denis MacShane said he was shocked by the case and called for a drive to instill a better sense of personal responsibility in both children and their parents."

Personal responsibility for children!?

We were victim blaming then, and people are still doing it.

Oh and another article for a seperate case illustrating the attitude of the towns folk to these girls.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ant-again.html

This girl got pregnant at 11 and then again at 14. Here's what the townsfolk had to say:
"One neighbour on a council estate in Rotherham said: 'She is giving out the message that it's OK to keep getting pregnant and the state will just keep paying for it.'"

Sorry, but anyone with their heads in the sand that these girls weren't being victim blamed by the white working class community has selective amnesia. Attitudes were very different.

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.

Earlier on in the thread, you told us that parents and teachers would be aware of the abuse because you heard the expression "p*ki sh*gger" in the schoolyard. You eventually appear to have conceded that you didn’t tell your parents about it, so can we go a bit further with that:

Did you tell a teacher?

And if you didn’t tell your parents or a teacher, how were they supposed to know? Thought osmosis? And even if you had told them was that supposed to immediately tip them off to the fact that widespread and systematic abuse was taking place at the hands of mainly men of Pakistani heritage? That’s quite some inductive leap, John, but that it was is necessary for your argument that the ‘whole town’ bore responsibility to even begin to hold water.

Thanks for the links on victim blaming, but I am not sure how they assist as I have never suggested that it didn’t and doesn’t take place. I’m sure that it did and does. I hinted at it with my reference to the jaundiced attitudes of front line police officers, I have seen it on here and I have encountered it numerous times in my work. They don’t assist you in any way with your argument that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’.

I’d be careful about straying into law, John. That doesn’t help you. The case to which you were referring was reported in 2001. The law applicable at that time was the ***ual Offences Act 1956. It was only with the enactment of the ***ual Offences Act 2003 that the concept of statutory rape was introduced into English law. Under the 1956 Act, consent was a defence to rape no matter what the age of the alleged victim (where there was ostensible consent, the appropriate offence would have been one of ‘unlawful ***ual intercourse' contrary to section 6 of the Act). Once again, I am not sure how trying to make a legal position helps your argument. Coercion is a word that has an ordinary and natural meaning that does not encompass doing something that another person cannot give lawful consent to.

The second point that I made within my post was that by arguing that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ you risk letting the people who do bear responsibility off the hook. Nothing within your large word count dissuades me from that view.

I do wonder what is actually going on here. Is it that is easier to argue that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ than accept the unpalatable truth that your brand of politics bears a good degree of responsibility? The fact is that it was your wing of politics that laid the minefield of political correctness into which some social workers and police officers were not willing to stray. It was your brand of politics that put political correctness and community cohesion above an unpalatable truth.

[KerrAvon]

You sound and type like John.

Blimey. A few weeks ago, Grist was suggesting that John and I are the same person and Exile briefly picked it up and ran with it. I'm starting to wonder if there are only about three people posting on here, each with a stable of usernames with disparate views.

[John2]

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 have not made the "repeated assertion that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children."

I said that "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."

I have stated repeatedly that we were collectively guilty of victim blaming, an important distinction. You acknowledge this is a reasonable assertion.

Can you quote where exactly you think I have stated of we have complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children?

Earlier on in the thread, you told us that parents and teachers would be aware of the abuse because you heard the expression "p*ki sh*gger" in the schoolyard. You eventually appear to have conceded that you didn’t tell your parents about it, so can we go a bit further with that:

Did you tell a teacher?

I have no way of remembering, but there is one particular teacher I had a very good relationship with that I believe it is entirely possible I talked about that incident with, although the man in question was white, not that its relevant. We certainly had very open relationships with teachers about the gossip in the school, that for some students would have extended to their parents and for others wouldn't have. I'm 99% certain that the teachers knew what was going on, if not the scale (nobody did). I'm also confident the teachers would have discussed it with the authorities and the latter is where the failing took place.

And if you didn’t tell your parents or a teacher, how were they supposed to know? Thought osmosis? And even if you had told them was that supposed to immediately tip them off to the fact that widespread and systematic abuse was taking place at the hands of mainly men of Pakistani heritage? That’s quite some inductive leap, John, but that it was is necessary for your argument that the ‘whole town’ bore responsibility to even begin to hold water.

I’d be careful about straying into law, John. That doesn’t help you. The case to which you were referring was reported in 2001. The law applicable at that time was the ***ual Offences Act 1956. It was only with the enactment of the ***ual Offences Act 2003 that the concept of statutory rape was introduced into English law. Under the 1956 Act, consent was a defence to rape no matter what the age of the alleged victim (where there was ostensible consent, the appropriate offence would have been one of ‘unlawful ***ual intercourse' contrary to section 6 of the Act). Once again, I am not sure how trying to make a legal position helps your argument. Coercion is a word that has an ordinary and natural meaning that does not encompass doing something that another person cannot give lawful consent to.

Interesting clarification, thanks. I'm glad the law now reflects how I believe the word should naturally be used in this context.

I do wonder what is actually going on here. Is it that is easier to argue that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ than accept the unpalatable truth that your brand of politics bears a good degree of responsibility? The fact is that it was your wing of politics that laid the minefield of political correctness into which some social workers and police officers were not willing to stray. It was your brand of politics that put political correctness and community cohesion above an unpalatable truth.

Jeez, my brand of politics? You're misrepresenting me again. I was 15 in 2001 when that story came out, I did not have any real political views. I learn and my political views evolve and your wild speculation here is not representative of them at all. My views prioritise safeguarding and the vulnerable and an evidence based approach, its a bit cheap to try and make baseless insinuations around my views.

[rolymiller]

Jeez, my brand of politics? You're misrepresenting me again. I was 15 in 2001 when that story came out, I did not have any real political views. I learn and my political views evolve and your wild speculation here is not representative of them at all. My views prioritise safeguarding and the vulnerable and an evidence based approach, its a bit cheap to try and make baseless insinuations around my views.

Wow Mr Kerr labelling folks? He pulls me up for such things! Mind you he's good at it I remember him labelling the Labour Party at the last election saying we would end up with a Venezuelan style regime if Cobyn got in.

Tha can't use labels in court you would get torn apart if you did Mr Kerr. Yet you represent people in court? All very strange...

[Exiletyke]

Blimey. A few weeks ago, Grist was suggesting that John and I are the same person and Exile briefly picked it up and ran with it. I'm starting to wonder if there are only about three people posting on here, each with a stable of usernames with disparate views.

You're quite right Kerr there was a very brief time that when I looked at your posts & looked at Johns there were certain similarities until I realised John did not puncuate his posts with either overt or covert digs
I have realised that John is a far more intelligent poster than you will ever be because he is honest
My apologies John for even thinking that you & Kerr could be the same person

[Brin]

You're quite right Kerr there was a very brief time that when I looked at your posts & looked at Johns there were certain similarities until I realised John did not puncuate his posts with either overt or covert digs
I have realised that John is a far more intelligent poster than you will ever be because he is honest
My apologies John for even thinking that you & Kerr could be the same person

Do you have to take medication for replying to yourself or your own posts? Just wondered.

[Exiletyke]

Do you have to take medication for replying to yourself or your own posts? Just wondered.

If I knew what you meant I may be able to respond Brin

[flourbasher]

Here is another aspect to consider as a consequence of these crimes.
The victim gets a criminal record and finds it almost impossible to get a job in later life...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53394767

[Stovicmiller]

You're quite right Kerr there was a very brief time that when I looked at your posts & looked at Johns there were certain similarities until I realised John did not puncuate his posts with either overt or covert digs
I have realised that John is a far more intelligent poster than you will ever be because he is honest
My apologies John for even thinking that you & Kerr could be the same person

. You and John should meet, then he could bend over and you could then blow sunshine up his arse.

[rolymiller]

Stovic a word owd lad. Just because a poster agrees with someone on here it doesn't mean to say they want to perform some ***ual act on them as well. John2 and exile might argue you want to do the same when you agree with many of the right wingers on here. Sometimes people do agree with others you do why can't they? Just a thought...