Juddian:
The problem is no one is raising the issue.
[…]
Says something when little girls can be abandoned to scum and our police service sit back and do nothing, our councils and social services and MP’s follow suit, all protecting their precious careers.
The police even arrested fathers who tried to get their girls back, and in one superb example of Robert Peel’s finest, when they raised a house and found one drunk and naked young girl and many older men (i don’t have the right term for them) i wonder what the police did…yes they arrested the girl 
But that’s not the true account of it, is it? The evidence shows that in fact lots of people on the ground were raising the issue - parents, carers, social workers, police officers - the issue is not that nobody knew about the issue, but that nothing was being done about it. Almost certainly what has happened since all the publicity and the reputational threats to those at the highest level, is that money has poured in for social work, and police work, and covert investigations, and so on, something that beforehand nobody would spare the resources for.
You mention about the girl who was arrested - she was arrested for drunk and disorderly. What I’d suggest in the circumstances was that she gave a great deal of stick to the police who attended. Probably because they intended, quite rightly, to remove her from the situation for her own good. And the truth is that the police were probably attending a house party with lads in their 20s, with music on, telly on, and in the context of being drunk and giddy she had probably taken her own clothes off. And when she’d sobered up in the cells and was asked “what were you doing there?”, she says “zb off and mind your own business”. And in all likelihood, as a local police officer, you’ve dealt with this girl 50 times before, and 50 others like her, and you’ve got the social workers’ numbers on speed dial.
What do you do differently?
There’s no firm evidence she was supplied with drink - she could well have shoplifted her own. There’s no evidence of ■■■■■■ activity. There’s a dozen drunk lads, none of whom are in loco parentis, and don’t have any legal obligation to try and shape her behaviour or reprimand her for mere impropriety. And you’ve got a troubled girl off the rails, who wants you out of her face.
It’s not as straightforward as just thinking everyone in the room ought to have been doing time, and the poor girl who was led astray goes home to a loving family.
Even if new laws were drafted that criminalised the situation in some way and successfully deterred the congregation of such kids with any “older men” at drunken parties, the reality is that vulnerable kids will just seek out similar people their own age to get drunk with and have ■■■ with, and do it in the woods or back alleys, because the motive to seek out friends and mutual affection and to do something interesting with your time (and to make money to fund something interesting) still remains.
And then because you’ve got kids roaming the streets and hanging around in odd places in the middle of the night, without even the faintest presence of adults, it’s not just abusive relationships you’ve got to worry about but abductions and stranger attacks (and thus the temptations and opportunities created for a different, and really far more serious, kind of criminal), or just getting drunk and choking to death on their own sick, or tripping over and smashing their heads on a kerbstone with nobody around.
Don’t anyone ever dare say those girls were complicit, they were children, they cannot be complicit the choice is not theirs to make.
But this sort of rhetoric is not helpful. The fact is that teenage girls can and do make choices. That’s not to make excuses for anyone, far from it. But it’s a very real complexity in these types of cases, in terms of coming up with a solution, when it is the abuser (or more often, some unsavoury and degenerate social circle) that has the ongoing cooperation of the victim, and the authorities do not have the cooperation of the victim at all.
We’re not talking about a 15 year old girl and her 16 year old boyfriend here who get carried away and end up having an intimate relationship, this was grown men (though one could hardly call them men) of foul character taking advantage of and bullying and forcing themselves by ■■■■ of young girls, having no respect whatsoever for common decency.
Bullying and force may be a feature of some of these cases - especially where convictions have been gained - but you’re mistaken to think that is the usual and overall character of the wider problem with troubled kids, especially institutionalised kids.
So, you have a problem with TR, well who else would you prefer to raise these issues, because apart from the BNP (now more or less defunct), Britain First (who’s two leaders they’ve prosecuted on similar issues and jailed, hope that makes you happy) and one or two bloggers and online personalities, there is no one else.
The Britain First couple were jailed for breaking the law and harassing unconnected people (I hesitate to even just use the phrase “innocent people”, because that could be taken to imply that there was rumour of wrongdoing that fell short of convictable evidence - they were actually harassing unconnected people).
If I led a mob around to your house and threw a brick through your window screaming “■■■■■■”, and yet it turned out you were no such thing, would you forgive me if I claimed to be acting “in the interests of free speech”, or would you demand that I be sent down?
True history will be kind to TR, the one rewritten by the state won’t be, without the likes of Nick Griffin and TR (the latter would have nothing to do with the former or his party) then just how far would things have gone, the public would not know because the MSM was complicit in the cover ups.
Was the MSM complicit in a cover-up? I thought it was in fact the MSM that disclosed the story, and battled the authorities that were trying to cover-up their previous inaction over the cases (but not concealment)?
What you should be asking is why did the police, councils and the govt all cover up the activities of these child ■■■■ gangs for so long, and why are any of these people still in their jobs.
It says something for Rotherham electorate (and no doubt others) when they voted soon after for more of the same, but that’s what happens in a society that can no longer think for itself.
This video is Andrew Norfolk, chief investigative reporter from The Times, speaking about his long term investigations into this issue, its worth 20 minutes of anyone’s time.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZMQXeCdL0WU
Well worth a watch. And if you listen closely, you hear a picture painted about these girls lives. Stuck in slum housing rebadged as private “solo care homes”, hundreds of miles away from their home towns - presumably no established friends, no old neighbours or familiar faces, a totally unfamiliar place. And then wonder why they’re out all night drinking.
