Many of these going about, he’s bound to have seen them.
The only people I feel sorry for on his side are his daughters.
We all as Dads embarrass our kids 
…but Andy has gone a step further.
driveress:
Not that I condone trafficking or exploitation in any way, but I can’t imagine that any of these girls raised much objection at the time to being escorted to lavish parties, meeting rich, famous and influential people and (presumably) being showered with expensive gifts in return for ■■■■■■ favours.
The girls given drugs, and takeaways, didn`t make much objection at the time in Rotherham either.
Slightly concerning that this post doesn’t equate this kind of exploitative behaviour with exploitation.
The National Crime Agency define Operation Stovewood, their investigation into child ■■■■■■ abuse in Rotherham, as “the single largest law enforcement investigation into non-familial child ■■■■■■ exploitation and abuse in the UK”
Since I wrote one of those lines, I think a little more context is apt.
The less selectively edited version is
Franglais:
The girls given drugs, and takeaways, didnt make much objection at the time in Rotherham either. Champagne and caviar it may be sometimes, but it is just the same: in both alleged cases its older men, and younger poorer kids.
I also wrote:
Franglais:
Careful, or you`ll be joining the ranks of the cops who victim blamed the Rotherham kids too. Bad kids after pocket money. Low morals because they are poor.Pimps need clients. Pimps seek out vulnerable runaway kids.
Franglais:
It means that paying kids or vulnerable youngsters, that getting them high or drunk, is equally wrong no matter if it`s with cheap vodka, or expensive champagne.
Yes, apologies, I got in a muddle about who posted what and even though I read the thread carefully, I was obviously not careful enough. I think I must have pulled your quote from a quote - I thought it had been written by the same poster. I wasn’t going to chip in because I had noted that you had said everything I wanted to say.
driveress:
Yes, apologies, I got in a muddle about who posted what and even though I read the thread carefully, I was obviously not careful enough. I think I must have pulled your quote from a quote - I thought it had been written by the same poster. I wasn’t going to chip in because I had noted that you had said everything I wanted to say.
No worries.
Easy to get quotes jumbled.