coaches engaging in legal ***ual activity

[rolymiller]

I'd be worried roly, exile seems to have gone off you and is now focusing all his love on honest John.

I'm not the jealous type Stovey and Im sure I can win him back with my charm. I try to win your affection as well but you are a cool customer playing a bit hard to get, a sort of treat em mean keep em keen type..Ive not given up on you yet tho... x

[Stovicmiller]

Think thas got the kerr sidestep shuffle owd lad. Common among the righties. If you can't answer a question either

a avoid it altogether
b get abusive

You've done 2 for the price of one there! Nice one...

The daft thing is I may actually agree with you if you can provide me with evidence he is telling porkys but you aint.

I'm not much of a dancer roly. Has for not answering a question I've had a good teacher, it's you roly.

[Stovicmiller]

It's not abusive to say you're talking *******s. If I said you were a ****, prick ******* then that would be different. But I haven't. I quite like you roly even if you talk *******s sometimes.

[howdydoo]

Whatever happened to the phrase ‘sticks and stones...........’

Some reyt pussies on here.

Generally the one’s who haven’t achieved anything in life.

[rolymiller]

It's not abusive to say you're talking *******s. If I said you were a ****, prick ******* then that would be different. But I haven't. I quite like you roly even if you talk *******s sometimes.

There's chance for us yet then stovey. I shall keep sharpening up my charm offensive to win you over x

[rolymiller]

And I take comfort that it is not ALL of the time...It's a start...

[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.

[KerrAvon]

It appears that people of certain political persuasions are offended when it is pointed out that they are of those persuasions, so in the interests of ‘not causing offence’ and ‘the social cohesion of the board’, I will refrain from doing that.

Building on Johns assertion of a ‘society wide failure’, can you imagine how people of a certain political persuasion would react if a poster blamed the whole ‘Rotherham Muslim community’ for the abuse? I think we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that people of a certain political persuasion would be all over it like a rash, pointing to stories of abuse by white people and making references to the Catholic Church.

In fact, I suspect we don’t have to imagine it, because if we delved into the archives of this site, we would find threads where assertions have been made about the Muslim community as a whole and people of a certain political persuasion have reacted in the manner that I describe. I know, because, I have joined them in doing that.

It is absurd to ascribe guilt to the whole of a group of people for the actions of some members of it. That’s the point that I am making to John, in response to his comment about the whole town.

[KerrAvon]

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...

Thankfully, we will never know what we would have got if Corbyn had made PM.

[WanChaiMiller]

Im just wondering where we stand ***ual abuse of young Thai girls by white Europeans.

This from an ABC News article is 2006. The industry grows year on year. The exploitation of these girls is on an industrial level. We all know someone thats been to Thai on a *** holiday but turn a blind eye.

" The U.S Department of Justice said the growing popularity of the very profitable child *** tourism trade contributes to the problem. A Thai organization called FACE, the coalition to Fight Against Child Exploitation, claimed that 5,000 foreigners come to Thailand each year to have *** with children.

The organization described the average *** tourist as a middle-aged white male from either Europe or North America who often goes online to find the "best deals." One particular Web site promised "nights of *** with two young Thai girls for the price of a tank of gas."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2325416&page=1