BS: Rotherham 2014

Subject: BS: Rotherham 2014
From: Goose Gander
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 01:32 PM

Rotherham scandal

Anyone willing to discuss this?

---

This shouldn't have been closed.

The following quote is from the article at the link, so people who don't already know about this can have some clue what it's about. Mod.

A former Rotherham care home worker has told the BBC how girls as young as 11 were "brazenly" groomed and abused in the South Yorkshire town.

The man, who worked at children's homes for four years, said girls would be picked up by taxis and abusers made "no attempts to disguise" their actions.

Subject: BS: I'll take that as a No.
From: Goose Gander
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:34 PM

The moderators of this site apparently are not allowing discussion of Rotherham.

Hypocrites and Cowards.

Good Riddance.

Subject: RE: BS: I'll take that as a No.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 04:37 PM

Who or what is Rotherham?

Subject: RE: BS: Rotherham 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:04 PM

I started a thread the other day, with links to BBC sources, but the thread was removed...don't know why.
There were a couple of nasty posts excusing the perpetrators, but the thread was going along quite well???

Subject: RE: BS: Rotherham 2014
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:05 PM

This is still a big news story in the UK, with plenty of questions to be answered.

Subject: RE: BS: Rotherham 2014
From: Goose Gander
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:30 PM

Strange and sad, the reluctance to discuss this topic mirrors the attitudes of officials and community leaders who allowed the abuse to continue for years.

Subject: RE: BS: Rotherham 2014
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:39 PM

Ake, if you didn't have the track record you have, they might have been more generous. But you do, and the line you took was not neutral, so they really had no option - you were clearly foul of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, I would suspect point (2)(c) in particular.
The fact you raise the point again is just begging for further action, this time against you. There is as yet little to debate, the data seems to be conclusive that the Council has much to explain about how the policy of paying for a taxi to be sure the girls get to school without bunking off got extended to paying for knowledge of a more carnal nature, and that the Police have to explain thier policy of oppression of those who complained. We don't know much about their customers, either, and it is to be noted that this is the same force investigating Cliff Richard for similar offences.
The Mods have to walk a fine line between suppression of debate and freedom of speech. Don't make it harder (or easier!) for them by promoting a hate agenda. You are neither judge nor jury in the question of whether the offenders may even have been racially profiling their victims themselves, a question which most obviously will be in the mind of the reviewers.

Subject: RE: BS: Rotherham 2014
From: Goose Gander
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 06:53 PM

We Shouldn't Turn a Blind Eye . . . by Samira Ahmed.

Rahere, your post is bizarre. "The Mods have to walk a fine line between suppression of debate and freedom of speech." Why not just allow debate? What are you afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: Rotherham 2014
From: Brian May
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:06 PM

Yep, well Akenaton and a few of us have been warning of this kind of abuse and that being perpetrated by Muslim extremists and criminal gangs in UK for several years.

We pointed out that the 'bleeding-heart, liberal, must-always-give-them-the-benefit-of the-doubt' proponents were in fact shoring up the kind of abuse and utter contempt for British law that happened in Rotherham.

The ability to report correctly was not present as police and officials were more concerned about not being labelled racists by the PC brigade who have fostered this behaviour by interfering with the ability to report honestly and clearly.

I'm not suggesting for one moment the police and social workers are blameless, but when your society is run by the PC brigade, there are few options. I've been accused of much the same for having the temerity to point out the truth.

Finally, governments are waking up to the risk of this kind of extremism and totally unacceptable behaviour. Sadly, it'll get worse before it gets better.

Is what THEY do honouring to 'the Prophet'? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Rotherham 2014
From: bobad
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:16 PM

What Muslim men in one UK town did to white girls and got away with their crimes because police didn't want to be seen as racist. Even when convicted, the criminals were identified as 'Asian', not Pakistani OR Muslim as if they were from Korea or perhaps Sri Lanka or even Israel, all Asian countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Rotherham 2014
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:25 PM

The problem is that posters in the UK - and the problem is one where UK posters have the data - are bound by a Law which puts quite strong constraints not only on the poster but also on the Cat. However much BS should be freefire, there are times when it must tread carefully, and the Mods obviously felt this was one of them - SRS was already upfront about some of what gives, and got abused for her pains.
Now, what I cannot judge is the extent to which the outage might have been deliberate as a warning that Max and the Mods have the power to pull the plug if you get too far out of line. I think it may not have been quite the "accident" it seems, the status of various DNS servers shows the server was actually powered down deliberately, which suggests it was a practical warning to back up the written ones posted on the debate threads that unless you can persuade Max to sell you the Cat - and for you to take true responsibility for it - then on occasion your right to shoot your mouths off may be limited.
You have the right to be as racist as you like in your thinking, but not to publish it, under a range of Laws against hatred. Other areas can be as constrained, and as was said at the time of the stroppier and ill-tempered arguments a couple of months back, it is time for you to grow up. You are bound by Law, even on the BS, and if you put the Cat at risk by what you post, you must expect the Mods to be firm in their acts.
Or do you want to kill the Cat?

Subject: RE: BS: Rotherham 2014
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Aug 14 - 07:49 PM

I was the idiot who re-opened it because I believed people could discuss the case without the usual racist shit. This was stupid. Why don't you guys start an e-mail list or a Facebook group and stay off Mudcat?