>More than a thousand children in Telford were sexually exploited over decades amid the failure of authorities to investigate “emboldened offenders”, an independent inquiry into the scandal has concluded.
>The three-year independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation (IICSE) found that abuse was allowed to continue for years and children, rather than perpetrators, were often blamed.
>Issues were not investigated because of nervousness about race, the inquiry’s final report said, and teachers and youth workers were discouraged from reporting child sexual exploitation.
The poor lad from the Muslamic Ray Guns video tried to warn us and now we're having a second helping of crow pie after Rotherham.
>However, the report states that following the convictions, authorities failed to understand the importance of maintaining focus in this area and “by 2015 both the council and [West Mercia police] provision for child sexual exploitation [CSE] had in some ways gone back almost a decade”.
>“Even after Operation Chalice, police and the council scaled down their specialist CSE teams to virtual zero – to save money,” Crowther concluded.
So do other council have rape gangs running wild or is it just a mysterious Telford thing?
>>38932 I don't know if that's true. Intra public schoolboy buggery was all the rage, might still be, I can't say, and was seen as entirely permissable for reasons I can't even begin to fathom. I think the rationale for allowing these two kinds of child sexual exploitation is probably very different, but ultimately it's the same idea that "sometimes kids can be raped and that's a-okay!". My understanding is that until the 1990s there was always at least one teacher at any school who in every sense couldn't be trusted around the girls, but inexplicably still was, and again I can't say if that's still the case or not. I don't know, I'm just letting thoughts fall out of my head and onto my keyboard now.
As for the OP, the one thing I can't get my head around is this point about how the authorities were worried about being labled racists. Because surely whatever internal moral code you have that is afraid of racism, must also be anti-child abuse, right? Unless what they really mean is "we'd have to do a load of work if we turn over this rock", although I have to say that's not something I'd considered synonymous with racism before.
Do you remember the 2010s at all? It was a different and much more naive time, before Brexit and the rise of right wing populism in general. Back then it was much easier to dismiss people like the Muslamic Ray Gun lad as merely reactionary, racist bigots, not worthy of consideration or engagement.
And there's a hint of truth to that, of course- They were a bit racist. But there's also the fact they were right. They weren't just making up silly fibs to justify hatred, they were reacting to real things that were really occurring in their communities. We can't ignore that now, because we're living in the consequences of ignoring it then.
Which is where class comes into it. You have to wonder what the agenda was here, when the consequences have so evidently been so dire. Immigration is both a goldmine of cheap labour, and the most effective way of undercutting the bargaining power of the working class, and our elites have enjoyed reaping the benefits of over several waves throughout the 20th century. Immigration was something our elites were not prepared to discuss. Thus the media narrative was enforced that immigration good, anyone with even the most rational and balanced concerns over it is a neo-nazi, and that's that. Cut and dry, no room for deviation.
The charge that authorities were "afraid of looking racist" is really a reflection of the climate of the time. Much like you can be cancelled by the woke illuminati today for saying women don't have willies, back then, the wrongthink you had to avoid at all costs was the implication that immigrants can be anything but wonderful hardworking cherubs of pure, wholesome salt of the earth decency. Questioning that made you a BNP skinhead certified webmaster, and you wouldn't have any friends.
The current cursed apocalyptic timeline we live in is exactly what people like me and classwarriorlad have always tried to warn the rest of you about. You can patronise and belittle people like the Muslamic Raygun lad all you want, but you're only shooting yourself in the foot when you do so. Neoliberalism got too confident in its grip on power, and sowed the seeds of its own downfall in the rise of a new populism.
>>38934 >Immigration was something our elites were not prepared to discuss. Thus the media narrative was enforced that immigration good, anyone with even the most rational and balanced concerns over it is a neo-nazi, and that's that. Cut and dry, no room for deviation.
You're a moron.
>>38936 I wouldn't call the gutterpress a discussion with the elite. It pretty much goes without saying that the views of the country were largely ignored by the political establishment and we got Brexit as a result.
>>38937 Come off it. I think there's merit to your earlier post, but you can't pretend like New Labour shut down debate around immigration when they were, in reality, one of the main reasons it came to dominate the headlines. They were perfectly happy to throw asylum seekers under the bus and the biggest papers in the country lapped it up, until Labour lost control of the monster it created and it ate them alive.
Besides, laplanderstani migrants seem far more likely to end up starting a small business, working in a relative's small business or buying up a street of properties and becoming another bastard landlord than being "cheap labour". I'll admit this is purely annecdotal, so if anyone can tell me what usually becomes of them I'm all ears. Eyes? Whatever.
>the only media outlet saying anything was the single most populist right wing one, the one that literally supported the Nazis, printing overblown hyperbole
>>38938 We had successive governments that completely failed to suppress mass immigration and the most honest exchange we got was Brown calling someone a bigot. There was no national debate on immigration and our government even went further than required under EU Law to get Eastern European immigrants in to do our washing machines.
I make no claim to being the otherlad.
>Besides, laplanderstani migrants seem far more likely to end up starting a small business, working in a relative's small business or buying up a street of properties and becoming another bastard landlord than being "cheap labour". I'll admit this is purely annecdotal, so if anyone can tell me what usually becomes of them I'm all ears. Eyes? Whatever.
You've got it a bit backwards and it's become reflected in our politics. Indian immigrants were the business class and moved into commercial areas that now make up a sizeable percent of Tory voters, laplanderstani and Bangladeshis moved into the industrial heartland and went Labour. The cycle is self-sustaining as immigrants exert gravity on each-other so you end up with minority communities that are generationally poor and isolated.
Covid and Brexit should've long since proven that immigration suppresses wages so it seems a bit silly to argue. Should we turn our attention back to the whole rape thing?
>laplanderstani migrants seem far more likely to end up starting a small business, working in a relative's small business or buying up a street of properties and becoming another bastard landlord than being "cheap labour".
Laplanderstanis are only a very small proportion of the migrants we've had over the last couple of decades. The vast majority have been eastern European (which I won't complain about, I'm shagging one and she's fitter than any British bird I've ever met).
Overall though I think it's very hard to dispute that the dominant mainstream viewpoint in those days, the "right way of thinking", was that you had to be pro-migrant and if you weren't you were an EDL gammon with a British bulldog tattooed on your sunburnt beer-belly wearing a Man U shirt. That still goes on to this day, it's just that the pendulum has swung around to the populist right wing side holding the upper hand over the neoliberals. (The left doesn't come into it at all, by the way, because we haven't had one since the 70s.)
It's all divide and conquer, and in a state of affairs like this, nobody is listening to the case for class based politics. So whoever wins, we lose.
>>38934 >they were reacting to real things that were really occurring in their communities
Funny how that only applied to things done by brown men from the Arctic, though.
>>38938 It's remarkable how well new Labour managed to whitewash themselves as being a nice bunch of liberals who made the error of developing a soft spot for immigrants, all things considered.
(You'll never guess which ministerial post this nice man held under Gordon Brown.)
That's an unproveable statement. For all you know there's plenty of overlap between the muslamic rayguns cadre and the normal white folk Facebook pedo vigilante network. Furthermore, even if you could give evidence that they only cared about brown noncing, that doesn't excuse the noncing, it's just whataboutism.
Read the inquiry reports on Telford and Rotherham. Complaints by victims were dismissed because the girls involved were perceived as "slags" and "prostitutes". The police were afraid of kindling the kind of tensions that led to race riots in Oldham, Bradford and Harehills in 2001. Community concerns were dismissed by politicians and senior police officers as racist conspiracy theories. Investigating these crimes was simply inconvenient and nobody in a position of power actually cared about the victims.
None of this would have happened if the victims were middle class. Class created the conditions that made these girls vulnerable to exploitation; classism gave the authorities the motive and opportunity to sweep these crimes under the carpet. If anything, the racial element was a convenient misdirection, drawing attention from all the ways in which working class people were systematically ignored and mistreated.
>>38942 In fairness, class based politics doesn't really offer many direct answers on immigration. It's all well and good to go "ah, immigration lowers wages for local workers", but it's a half-done class analysis that leaves it at that without considering the other side of the balance sheet: that it represents a pay increase for the migrant on the other side of it. You wind up either falling back to "regardless, the working class worldwide should topple their capitalist bosses" or putting on some blinders as an excuse to look only at the national economy.
I think the thing is more that when your perspective is rooted in class analysis, it's easier to take the blinkers off over the more emotional, feelings rooted stuff, that generally results in the "muslamics are rapists and fanny mutilators" versus "ooh this is mean and wacist" stalemate.
The issue most working class people individually have with immigrants is not that they're brown or that they're stealing jobs they otherwise wouldn't want or whatever. It's that they can't get doctor's appointments, their kids can't get houses, services and communities in general are overcrowded. Those tensions exacerbate the more emotional, rhetorical side of the debate, in part because those people aren't quite articulate enough to really voice their concerns in ways that the middle class cultural gatekeepers find acceptable.
If we'd have been able to have the conversation about if we ought to invest more in services to accomodate a growing population or else think about slowing down the inflow of migrants, and acknowledge that they are, whichever way you slice it, at least related; we would be in a much better place today.
Of course, we didn't have that conversation because neither side of the debate at the higher echelons of power actually wanted to frankly confront things that involve spending more money and keeping poor people's lives comfortable.
>In fairness, class based politics doesn't really offer many direct answers on immigration.
You get a lot closer to having answers if you acknowledge that immigration doesn't benefit everyone. Immigration probably is positive-sum, but there are clear externalities and it's totally unfair to just dump those externalities on the people least able to bear them. Even if you don't morally object to that on a utilitarian basis, the political and societal risks should be fairly obvious.
IMO the emotive dichotomy described by >>38951 is really just a bourgeois smokescreen - it's convenient for the kind of people who describe themselves as anti-racist if the working class blame immigrants rather than blaming them.
It's convenient to caricature people as racist morons, rather than recognising that the kind of people who bear the negative externalities of immigration have also been denied the kind of education that would allow them to phrase their concerns in acceptable middle class language. It's convenient to divide-and-rule the council estates rather than addressing the underlying issues. The BNP weren't anti-establishment, they were allowed to flourish as a containment strategy. Someone who is trying to TEK ARE CUNTRY BACK from the immigrants isn't trying to take it back from the people who actually stole it. I think buy-to-let bastards quietly breathe a sigh of relief every time someone blames the housing crisis on immigration.
>>38951 >their kids can't get houses
That's a middle-class problem. Class has nothing to do with it. Have you tried not being a class-obsessed reductionist? And when you take into account that it affects every social class, why is only one class racist and why is that excusable?
>Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called for a full national public inquiry into the UK's "rape gangs scandal".
>It comes after Home Office minister Jess Phillips rejected Oldham Council's request for a government-led inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation - saying the council should lead it instead. Her decision, taken in October, was reported by GB News on Wednesday and then picked up by Elon Musk on his social media platform X, and several senior Tories.
>Shadow Home Office minister Chris Philp told the BBC the time had come for a national inquiry, with powers to "compel witnesses to come forward", to get "to the truth". The Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA), external, which published its final report in 2022, knitted several of these inquiries together alongside its own investigations.
>Professor Alexis Jay, who led the inquiry, said in November she felt "frustrated" that none of its 20 recommendations to tackle abuse had been implemented more than two years later. "It doesn't need more consultation, it does not need more research or discussion, it just needs to be done."
>In a post on X, shadow safeguarding minister Alicia Kearns urged Phillips to release "the ethnicity data" the Conservatives had begun collecting, about people arrested for and charged over child sexual exploitation and grooming. Asked why the Tory government had not conducted a national public inquiry into such gangs, Philp pointed to IICSA but added "I don't think it was, frankly, as comprehensive on this topic as it should have been".
>Philp said: "We need a proper national inquiry to look at all of these issues across all of the towns affected. And I'm afraid to say there are something like 15 to 25 different towns involved, covering thousands and thousands of victims." Questions about the conduct of local authorities, the police and social care needed answering on a national scale, he argued. Philp also did not rule out the inquiry looking at the role of Sir Keir Starmer, who was director of public prosecutions from 2008 to 2013.
>Responding to Badenoch, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said: "Talk is cheap. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to launch an inquiry. The establishment has failed the victims of grooming gangs on every level."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4xnv02nr0o
If you're wondering what twitter looks like, it seems people are just quoting wholesale from the report and claiming the events are still happening.
>>42001 FFS, do another inquiry and this time find every senior Labour politician personally responsible for it. Do another after that if you have to. Do three! If that's what it takes! How fucking hard is this shit?
Fighting the power against rapey migrants in Britain, while he's simultaneously arguing the case for more immigrants to the States because that "Americans are too retarded to do skilled jobs". Interesting.
Honestly he gets too much credit as a modern day Bond villain type of character threatening democracy and the like. He's just a fucking mong a lot of the time.
>>42004 Do swarms have a 'mentality'? Consciousness and egregore may both be emergent behaviour but I'm not sure the degree of intent in the latter qualifies as a mind at the degrees of complexity we've seen so far.
I don't want to defend Farage because he's a knobhead, but there's a perfectly logical position in there, summarised by the "Australian points-style" cliche - let in plenty of doctors and engineers to fill skills shortages, but send home the unskilled migrants who just undercut wages for proles. That's quite a popular position. It's perfectly fair to disagree with that position or argue that it's disingenuous, but pretending that it doesn't exist or that it's somehow contradictory is to concede by default. The man on the street knows who Farage wants to send back and it's got very little to do with race; they are equally likely to be Poles, Albanians, Bangladeshis or Nigerians.
>>42001 It absolutely is still happening, unless you can come up with a perfectly reasonable excuse for why I've twice in recent months spotted a car with 3 swarthy gentlemen and a 14~ year old white girl driving around my town.
That's a completely sensible and logical position, which is why it's the last thing any government, least of all a right wing government, would do. A right wing government represents the interests of capital and as such pushing down wages for the proles is exactly what they want. The position Farage et al claim to be in favour of is what the left should have been supporting for the last 40 odd years. It's a position Corbyn would privately, if reluctantly, agree with. It's a sign of how topsy turvy our politics has become and how much the discourse over this subject has become less of a poisoned well and more like the fucking coolant tank at a nucealr reactor undergoing meltdown.
>>42006 Trouble is that we no longer attract doctors and engineers, anyone that skilled and looking to move can find better elsewhere. We shat all over the common wealth and Europe, so apart from the language what do we offer these mythical high skilled people that want to come here?
They've finally done it: they've found a white paedophile ring with no eskimos in it. A bunch of drug addicts in Glasgow kept a bunch of children, some so young they were still in nappies, in their abusive drug den that was nicknamed "the beastie house".
The story is massively grim, of course, but I bring it up because I hope we all keep our eyes on the tabloid headlines tomorrow. If it was really about protecting children, I'm sure the papers will be outraged once again. If they aren't as angry this time, we can confidently conclude that they only ever cared about the previous horror stories because the perpetrators were eskimos.
Sky News has just started its Press Preview programme while I was typing the above, and most headlines are about the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. But there are also headlines about Deepseek AI knocking a trillion dollars off US share prices by being better than all the overvalued American AI companies, some bollocks about extremism, and apparently prostate cancer is now the most common form of cancer. I don't think any newspaper has the white paedophiles on the front page.
>>42080 She didn't look nearly that big on The Guardian, but maybe she's been stress eating since the mugshot. Being a child abuser does tend to suggest a certain lack of self-discpline that is likely co-morbid with looking like otherlad's ex faintly "lovecraftian".
