Has "legal advice" ever been accepted by a court as a reason not to
prosecute ?
For example:
We know our client had a statutory duty to <whatever> however because
they took "legal advice" they decided not to bother. Now they are before
the court can you let them off please ? After all, it wasn't their fault
the advice was bollocks. And they can't be blamed for following it.
Can they ?
There has been some discussion recently in a politics Facebook group I
follow about grooming.
I think one of the real difficulties is local councils getting practical legal advice. I don't know if they use staff solicitors or external solicitors but when asked for advice many solicitors will give advice that results in the absolute safest result to avoid their client, and
themselves, from being sued.
I can easily imagine a situation here where a council was told there was a danger of being sued for race discrimination so best just not to follow things up. The proper advice should have been that if there is a
possibility of an offence having been committed then it should be investigated in the usual way without regard to race/religion whatever.
I was responsible for instructing our solicitor when I worked and I had
one simple rule. He was never allowed to say "no", he always had to say
"no because". Allowed us to achieve some really good results.
Any thoughts?
On 19 Jan 2025 at 15:17:49 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
There has been some discussion recently in a politics Facebook group I
follow about grooming.
I think one of the real difficulties is local councils getting practical
legal advice. I don't know if they use staff solicitors or external
solicitors but when asked for advice many solicitors will give advice that >> results in the absolute safest result to avoid their client, and
themselves, from being sued.
I can easily imagine a situation here where a council was told there was a >> danger of being sued for race discrimination so best just not to follow
things up. The proper advice should have been that if there is a
possibility of an offence having been committed then it should be
investigated in the usual way without regard to race/religion whatever.
I was responsible for instructing our solicitor when I worked and I had
one simple rule. He was never allowed to say "no", he always had to say
"no because". Allowed us to achieve some really good results.
Any thoughts?
I know that the alt-right have latched on to this issue because of the "fear of racism" but an at least equal cause of not investigating these crimes is the evidential problem of proving "grooming" when at least some of the girls are over sixteen and others claimed to be. Compounded by the prejudices of at least some police officers that the girls instigated their own lifestyle as prostitutes and no crime was involved. Certainly that was the attitude of authorities through most of the last century. Reading the whistleblowers accounts, the problem of the girls being held accountable for their own behaviour and being unwilling (in fact because of intimidation) to accept help
from social services was a big problem, especially if the police did not see an obvious provable crime. Obviously the council themselves cannot investigate
and prosecute sexual offences. There is evidence that white criminals, who are
statistically more common than Asian except perhaps in some Northern town, were not investigated either.
I think the CPS rather than council legal departments could do more to encourage investigation of "grooming" offences. Old fashioned violence and intimadation may be more easily proved than "grooming". Once this is done, the
risk of being accused of racism tends to disappear. In any case, there is no evidence at all that any honest members of the majority of society, Asian or otherwise, ever complained of racism in these investigations. Corrupt local businessmen, gangsters and some corrupt councillors may have done in private but there is a remarkable shortage of public complaints of racism in the investigation of sexual crimes.
There has been some discussion recently in a politics Facebook group I
follow about grooming.
I think one of the real difficulties is local councils getting practical >legal advice. I don't know if they use staff solicitors or external >solicitors but when asked for advice many solicitors will give advice that >results in the absolute safest result to avoid their client, and
themselves, from being sued.
I can easily imagine a situation here where a council was told there was a >danger of being sued for race discrimination so best just not to follow >things up.
On 19 Jan 2025 15:17:49 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Councils use both internal and external solicitors, depending on circumstances.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 20:43:44 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 15:17:49 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Councils use both internal and external solicitors, depending on >>circumstances.
But is their advice a magic shield against legal action ?
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 20:43:44 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 15:17:49 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Councils use both internal and external solicitors, depending on
circumstances.
But is their advice a magic shield against legal action ?
On 20/01/2025 in message <vml8hu$p0c6$21@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 20:43:44 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 15:17:49 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Councils use both internal and external solicitors, depending on >>>circumstances.
But is their advice a magic shield against legal action ?
My thoughts are that such advice would be ultra conservative and ultra
safe and so might have prevented the appropriate department (?child protection) from involving the appropriate authority (?police).
"Computer says no" might be a joke but from some press reports can often prevent people doing the right thing.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 20:43:44 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 15:17:49 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Councils use both internal and external solicitors, depending on
circumstances.
But is their advice a magic shield against legal action ?
On 19/01/2025 15:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 15:17:49 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
There has been some discussion recently in a politics Facebook group I
follow about grooming.
I think one of the real difficulties is local councils getting practical >>> legal advice. I don't know if they use staff solicitors or external
solicitors but when asked for advice many solicitors will give advice that >>> results in the absolute safest result to avoid their client, and
themselves, from being sued.
I can easily imagine a situation here where a council was told there was a >>> danger of being sued for race discrimination so best just not to follow
things up. The proper advice should have been that if there is a
possibility of an offence having been committed then it should be
investigated in the usual way without regard to race/religion whatever.
I was responsible for instructing our solicitor when I worked and I had
one simple rule. He was never allowed to say "no", he always had to say
"no because". Allowed us to achieve some really good results.
Any thoughts?
I know that the alt-right have latched on to this issue because of the "fear >> of racism" but an at least equal cause of not investigating these crimes is >> the evidential problem of proving "grooming" when at least some of the girls >> are over sixteen and others claimed to be. Compounded by the prejudices of at
least some police officers that the girls instigated their own lifestyle as >> prostitutes and no crime was involved. Certainly that was the attitude of
authorities through most of the last century. Reading the whistleblowers
accounts, the problem of the girls being held accountable for their own
behaviour and being unwilling (in fact because of intimidation) to accept help
from social services was a big problem, especially if the police did not see >> an obvious provable crime. Obviously the council themselves cannot investigate
and prosecute sexual offences. There is evidence that white criminals, who are
statistically more common than Asian except perhaps in some Northern town, >> were not investigated either.
I think the CPS rather than council legal departments could do more to
encourage investigation of "grooming" offences. Old fashioned violence and >> intimadation may be more easily proved than "grooming". Once this is done, the
risk of being accused of racism tends to disappear. In any case, there is no >> evidence at all that any honest members of the majority of society, Asian or >> otherwise, ever complained of racism in these investigations. Corrupt local >> businessmen, gangsters and some corrupt councillors may have done in private >> but there is a remarkable shortage of public complaints of racism in the
investigation of sexual crimes.
I may have missed something but I would have expected our journalists,
the more intelligent ones anyway, to write an intelligent analysis of
Alexis Jay's report and thereby refute some of the allegations made by
the blowhard Elon Musk and the right wing mob in the UK.
https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham
quote (as an example)
In October 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time, Keir Starmer, revised the CPS guidance on child sexual exploitation to set
out a clear, agreed approach which prosecutors would take to tackle
cases of child sexual abuse. A list of stereotypical behaviours
previously thought to undermine the credibility of young victims was
included to dispel the associated myths when bringing a prosecution.
These included:
ï‚· The victim invited sex by the way they dressed or acted
ï‚· The victim used alcohol or drugs and was therefore sexually available
ï‚· The victim didn't scream, fight or protest so they must have been consenting
ï‚· The victim didn't complain immediately, so it can't have been a sexual assault
ï‚· The victim is in a relationship with the alleged offender and is therefore a willing partner
ï‚· A victim should remember events consistently
ï‚· Children can consent to their own sexual exploitation
ï‚· CSE is only a problem in certain ethnic/cultural communities
ï‚· Only girls and young women are victims of child sexual abuse
ï‚· Children from BME backgrounds are not abused
ï‚· There will be physical evidence of abuse.
unquote
On 19 Jan 2025 at 17:31:01 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
In October 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time, Keir
Starmer, revised the CPS guidance on child sexual exploitation to set
out a clear, agreed approach which prosecutors would take to tackle
cases of child sexual abuse. A list of stereotypical behaviours
previously thought to undermine the credibility of young victims was
included to dispel the associated myths when bringing a prosecution.
These included:
ï‚· The victim invited sex by the way they dressed or acted
ï‚· The victim used alcohol or drugs and was therefore sexually available
ï‚· The victim didn't scream, fight or protest so they must have been
consenting
ï‚· The victim didn't complain immediately, so it can't have been a sexual >> assault
ï‚· The victim is in a relationship with the alleged offender and is
therefore a willing partner
ï‚· A victim should remember events consistently
ï‚· Children can consent to their own sexual exploitation
ï‚· CSE is only a problem in certain ethnic/cultural communities
ï‚· Only girls and young women are victims of child sexual abuse
ï‚· Children from BME backgrounds are not abused
ï‚· There will be physical evidence of abuse.
unquote
A journalist could point out:
1. Most (not all) sexual offences are against young, vulnerable women and girls
2. Whether it is described as rape, grooming or trafficking most offences (nearly 90%) are by white men.
3. Much of it is organised crime rather than individual acts.
So while gangs of Asian men who indulge in this behaviour should certainly be rounded up and prosecuted, that is not the whole story.
On 20/01/2025 in message <vml8hu$p0c6$21@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 20:43:44 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 15:17:49 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Councils use both internal and external solicitors, depending on >>>circumstances.
But is their advice a magic shield against legal action ?
My thoughts are that such advice would be ultra conservative and ultra
safe and so might have prevented the appropriate department (?child >protection) from involving the appropriate authority (?police). "Computer >says no" might be a joke but from some press reports can often prevent
people doing the right thing.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 17:31:01 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[…]
In October 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time, Keir
Starmer, revised the CPS guidance on child sexual exploitation to set
out a clear, agreed approach which prosecutors would take to tackle
cases of child sexual abuse. A list of stereotypical behaviours
previously thought to undermine the credibility of young victims was
included to dispel the associated myths when bringing a prosecution.
These included:
ï‚· The victim invited sex by the way they dressed or acted
ï‚· The victim used alcohol or drugs and was therefore sexually available >>> ï‚· The victim didn't scream, fight or protest so they must have been
consenting
ï‚· The victim didn't complain immediately, so it can't have been a sexual >>> assault
ï‚· The victim is in a relationship with the alleged offender and is
therefore a willing partner
ï‚· A victim should remember events consistently
ï‚· Children can consent to their own sexual exploitation
ï‚· CSE is only a problem in certain ethnic/cultural communities
ï‚· Only girls and young women are victims of child sexual abuse
ï‚· Children from BME backgrounds are not abused
ï‚· There will be physical evidence of abuse.
unquote
A journalist could point out:
1. Most (not all) sexual offences are against young, vulnerable women and
girls
2. Whether it is described as rape, grooming or trafficking most offences
(nearly 90%) are by white men.
Are you saying that white men are over- or under-represented on a per head
of population basis?
How does such data break down regarding other ethnicities, e.g. Pakistanis
at 2.8% of the population?
3. Much of it is organised crime rather than individual acts.
So while gangs of Asian men who indulge in this behaviour should certainly be
rounded up and prosecuted, that is not the whole story.
It certainly doesn’t seem to be the whole story, does it?
On 20 Jan 2025 at 13:23:08 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 17:31:01 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>[…]
In October 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time, Keir >>>> Starmer, revised the CPS guidance on child sexual exploitation to set
out a clear, agreed approach which prosecutors would take to tackle
cases of child sexual abuse. A list of stereotypical behaviours
previously thought to undermine the credibility of young victims was
included to dispel the associated myths when bringing a prosecution.
These included:
ï‚· The victim invited sex by the way they dressed or acted
ï‚· The victim used alcohol or drugs and was therefore sexually available >>>> ï‚· The victim didn't scream, fight or protest so they must have been
consenting
ï‚· The victim didn't complain immediately, so it can't have been a sexual >>>> assault
ï‚· The victim is in a relationship with the alleged offender and is
therefore a willing partner
ï‚· A victim should remember events consistently
ï‚· Children can consent to their own sexual exploitation
ï‚· CSE is only a problem in certain ethnic/cultural communities
ï‚· Only girls and young women are victims of child sexual abuse
ï‚· Children from BME backgrounds are not abused
ï‚· There will be physical evidence of abuse.
unquote
A journalist could point out:
1. Most (not all) sexual offences are against young, vulnerable women and >>> girls
2. Whether it is described as rape, grooming or trafficking most offences >>> (nearly 90%) are by white men.
Are you saying that white men are over- or under-represented on a per head >> of population basis?
I've no idea. All I am saying is that to protect victims more white than other
perpetrators need to be caught. I have no interest in pursuing whether some races are more likely than others to commit such crimes. I leave that to the populists and racists. Let us, as Jay said, have a victim-oriented approach and catch whoever is doing it in each instance.
How does such data break down regarding other ethnicities, e.g. Pakistanis >> at 2.8% of the population?
3. Much of it is organised crime rather than individual acts.
So while gangs of Asian men who indulge in this behaviour should certainly be
rounded up and prosecuted, that is not the whole story.
It certainly doesn’t seem to be the whole story, does it?
Very oracular - I have no idea what you mean.
On 19 Jan 2025 at 17:31:01 GMT, "The Todal" wrote:
On 19/01/2025 15:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 15:17:49 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
There has been some discussion recently in a politics Facebook
group I follow about grooming.
I think one of the real difficulties is local councils getting
practical legal advice. I don't know if they use staff solicitors
or external solicitors but when asked for advice many solicitors
will give advice that results in the absolute safest result to
avoid their client, and themselves, from being sued.
I can easily imagine a situation here where a council was told
there was a danger of being sued for race discrimination so best
just not to follow things up. The proper advice should have been
that if there is a possibility of an offence having been committed
then it should be investigated in the usual way without regard to
race/religion whatever.
I was responsible for instructing our solicitor when I worked and I
had one simple rule. He was never allowed to say "no", he always
had to say "no because". Allowed us to achieve some really good
results.
Any thoughts?
I know that the alt-right have latched on to this issue because of
the "fear of racism" but an at least equal cause of not
investigating these crimes is the evidential problem of proving
"grooming" when at least some of the girls are over sixteen and
others claimed to be. Compounded by the prejudices of at least some
police officers that the girls instigated their own lifestyle as
prostitutes and no crime was involved. Certainly that was the
attitude of authorities through most of the last century. Reading
the whistleblowers accounts, the problem of the girls being held
accountable for their own behaviour and being unwilling (in fact
because of intimidation) to accept help from social services was a
big problem, especially if the police did not see an obvious
provable crime. Obviously the council themselves cannot investigate
and prosecute sexual offences. There is evidence that white
criminals, who are statistically more common than Asian except
perhaps in some Northern town, were not investigated either.
I think the CPS rather than council legal departments could do more
to encourage investigation of "grooming" offences. Old fashioned
violence and intimadation may be more easily proved than "grooming".
Once this is done, the risk of being accused of racism tends to
disappear. In any case, there is no evidence at all that any honest
members of the majority of society, Asian or otherwise, ever
complained of racism in these investigations. Corrupt local
businessmen, gangsters and some corrupt councillors may have done in
private but there is a remarkable shortage of public complaints of
racism in the investigation of sexual crimes.
I may have missed something but I would have expected our
journalists, the more intelligent ones anyway, to write an
intelligent analysis of Alexis Jay's report and thereby refute some
of the allegations made by the blowhard Elon Musk and the right wing
mob in the UK.
https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-
inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham
quote (as an example)
In October 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time, Keir
Starmer, revised the CPS guidance on child sexual exploitation to set
out a clear, agreed approach which prosecutors would take to tackle
cases of child sexual abuse. A list of stereotypical behaviours
previously thought to undermine the credibility of young victims was
included to dispel the associated myths when bringing a prosecution.
These included:
ï‚· The victim invited sex by the way they dressed or acted
ï‚· The victim used alcohol or drugs and was therefore sexually
ï‚. available
ï‚· The victim didn't scream, fight or protest so they must have
ï‚· been consenting
ï‚· The victim didn't complain immediately, so it can't have been a
ï‚· sexual assault
ï‚· The victim is in a relationship with the alleged offender and
ï‚· is therefore a willing partner
ï‚· A victim should remember events consistently
ï‚· Children can consent to their own sexual exploitation
ï‚· CSE is only a problem in certain ethnic/cultural communities
ï‚· Only girls and young women are victims of child sexual abuse
ï‚· Children from BME backgrounds are not abused
ï‚· There will be physical evidence of abuse.
ï‚·
unquote
A journalist could point out:
1. Most (not all) sexual offences are against young, vulnerable women
and girls
2. Whether it is described as rape, grooming or trafficking most
offences (nearly 90%) are by white men.
3. Much of it is organised crime rather than individual acts.
So while gangs of Asian men who indulge in this behaviour should
certainly be rounded up and prosecuted, that is not the whole story.
On 19:18 19 Jan 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 17:31:01 GMT, "The Todal" wrote:
On 19/01/2025 15:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 15:17:49 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
There has been some discussion recently in a politics Facebook
group I follow about grooming.
I think one of the real difficulties is local councils getting
practical legal advice. I don't know if they use staff solicitors
or external solicitors but when asked for advice many solicitors
will give advice that results in the absolute safest result to
avoid their client, and themselves, from being sued.
I can easily imagine a situation here where a council was told
there was a danger of being sued for race discrimination so best
just not to follow things up. The proper advice should have been
that if there is a possibility of an offence having been committed
then it should be investigated in the usual way without regard to
race/religion whatever.
I was responsible for instructing our solicitor when I worked and I
had one simple rule. He was never allowed to say "no", he always
had to say "no because". Allowed us to achieve some really good
results.
Any thoughts?
I know that the alt-right have latched on to this issue because of
the "fear of racism" but an at least equal cause of not
investigating these crimes is the evidential problem of proving
"grooming" when at least some of the girls are over sixteen and
others claimed to be. Compounded by the prejudices of at least some
police officers that the girls instigated their own lifestyle as
prostitutes and no crime was involved. Certainly that was the
attitude of authorities through most of the last century. Reading
the whistleblowers accounts, the problem of the girls being held
accountable for their own behaviour and being unwilling (in fact
because of intimidation) to accept help from social services was a
big problem, especially if the police did not see an obvious
provable crime. Obviously the council themselves cannot investigate
and prosecute sexual offences. There is evidence that white
criminals, who are statistically more common than Asian except
perhaps in some Northern town, were not investigated either.
I think the CPS rather than council legal departments could do more
to encourage investigation of "grooming" offences. Old fashioned
violence and intimadation may be more easily proved than "grooming".
Once this is done, the risk of being accused of racism tends to
disappear. In any case, there is no evidence at all that any honest
members of the majority of society, Asian or otherwise, ever
complained of racism in these investigations. Corrupt local
businessmen, gangsters and some corrupt councillors may have done in
private but there is a remarkable shortage of public complaints of
racism in the investigation of sexual crimes.
I may have missed something but I would have expected our
journalists, the more intelligent ones anyway, to write an
intelligent analysis of Alexis Jay's report and thereby refute some
of the allegations made by the blowhard Elon Musk and the right wing
mob in the UK.
https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-
inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham
quote (as an example)
In October 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time, Keir
Starmer, revised the CPS guidance on child sexual exploitation to set
out a clear, agreed approach which prosecutors would take to tackle
cases of child sexual abuse. A list of stereotypical behaviours
previously thought to undermine the credibility of young victims was
included to dispel the associated myths when bringing a prosecution.
These included:
п‚· The victim invited sex by the way they dressed or acted
п‚· The victim used alcohol or drugs and was therefore sexually
п‚. available
п‚· The victim didn't scream, fight or protest so they must have
п‚· been consenting
п‚· The victim didn't complain immediately, so it can't have been a
п‚· sexual assault
п‚· The victim is in a relationship with the alleged offender and
п‚· is therefore a willing partner
п‚· A victim should remember events consistently
п‚· Children can consent to their own sexual exploitation
п‚· CSE is only a problem in certain ethnic/cultural communities
п‚· Only girls and young women are victims of child sexual abuse
п‚· Children from BME backgrounds are not abused
п‚· There will be physical evidence of abuse.
п‚·
unquote
A journalist could point out:
1. Most (not all) sexual offences are against young, vulnerable women
and girls
2. Whether it is described as rape, grooming or trafficking most
offences (nearly 90%) are by white men.
3. Much of it is organised crime rather than individual acts.
So while gangs of Asian men who indulge in this behaviour should
certainly be rounded up and prosecuted, that is not the whole story.
What evidence are you basing your second point?
(You say nearly 90% of rape, grooming or trafficking is by white men.)
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 19:18 19 Jan 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 17:31:01 GMT, "The Todal" wrote:
On 19/01/2025 15:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 15:17:49 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
There has been some discussion recently in a politics Facebook
group I follow about grooming.
I think one of the real difficulties is local councils getting
practical legal advice. I don't know if they use staff solicitors
or external solicitors but when asked for advice many solicitors
will give advice that results in the absolute safest result to
avoid their client, and themselves, from being sued.
I can easily imagine a situation here where a council was told
there was a danger of being sued for race discrimination so best
just not to follow things up. The proper advice should have been
that if there is a possibility of an offence having been committed >>>>>> then it should be investigated in the usual way without regard to
race/religion whatever.
I was responsible for instructing our solicitor when I worked and I >>>>>> had one simple rule. He was never allowed to say "no", he always
had to say "no because". Allowed us to achieve some really good
results.
Any thoughts?
I know that the alt-right have latched on to this issue because of
the "fear of racism" but an at least equal cause of not
investigating these crimes is the evidential problem of proving
"grooming" when at least some of the girls are over sixteen and
others claimed to be. Compounded by the prejudices of at least some
police officers that the girls instigated their own lifestyle as
prostitutes and no crime was involved. Certainly that was the
attitude of authorities through most of the last century. Reading
the whistleblowers accounts, the problem of the girls being held
accountable for their own behaviour and being unwilling (in fact
because of intimidation) to accept help from social services was a
big problem, especially if the police did not see an obvious
provable crime. Obviously the council themselves cannot investigate
and prosecute sexual offences. There is evidence that white
criminals, who are statistically more common than Asian except
perhaps in some Northern town, were not investigated either.
I think the CPS rather than council legal departments could do more
to encourage investigation of "grooming" offences. Old fashioned
violence and intimadation may be more easily proved than "grooming". >>>>> Once this is done, the risk of being accused of racism tends to
disappear. In any case, there is no evidence at all that any honest
members of the majority of society, Asian or otherwise, ever
complained of racism in these investigations. Corrupt local
businessmen, gangsters and some corrupt councillors may have done in >>>>> private but there is a remarkable shortage of public complaints of
racism in the investigation of sexual crimes.
I may have missed something but I would have expected our
journalists, the more intelligent ones anyway, to write an
intelligent analysis of Alexis Jay's report and thereby refute some
of the allegations made by the blowhard Elon Musk and the right wing
mob in the UK.
https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-
inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham
quote (as an example)
In October 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time, Keir >>>> Starmer, revised the CPS guidance on child sexual exploitation to set
out a clear, agreed approach which prosecutors would take to tackle
cases of child sexual abuse. A list of stereotypical behaviours
previously thought to undermine the credibility of young victims was
included to dispel the associated myths when bringing a prosecution.
These included:
?,· The victim invited sex by the way they dressed or acted
?,· The victim used alcohol or drugs and was therefore sexually
?,. available
?,· The victim didn't scream, fight or protest so they must have
?,· been consenting
?,· The victim didn't complain immediately, so it can't have been a
?,· sexual assault
?,· The victim is in a relationship with the alleged offender and
?,· is therefore a willing partner
?,· A victim should remember events consistently
?,· Children can consent to their own sexual exploitation
?,· CSE is only a problem in certain ethnic/cultural communities
?,· Only girls and young women are victims of child sexual abuse
?,· Children from BME backgrounds are not abused
?,· There will be physical evidence of abuse.
?,·
unquote
A journalist could point out:
1. Most (not all) sexual offences are against young, vulnerable women
and girls
2. Whether it is described as rape, grooming or trafficking most
offences (nearly 90%) are by white men.
3. Much of it is organised crime rather than individual acts.
So while gangs of Asian men who indulge in this behaviour should
certainly be rounded up and prosecuted, that is not the whole story.
What evidence are you basing your second point?
(You say nearly 90% of rape, grooming or trafficking is by white men.)
Nearly 90% of men in this country are White, so it's difficult to see what point Hayter was making, other than by saying what he did, he allied a
large %age number of something bad happening, with Whites.
I recall some years ago watching the BBC TV news, and their Home Affairs spokesman was so eager to trash a statistic that he couldn't keep still in his seat.
The bad news was that the HO and just released statistics that showed that 40% of imprisoned violent offenders were from the black community, then
about 2% of the population.
Nearly 90% of men in this country are White, so it’s difficult to see what point Hayter was making, other than by saying what he did, he allied a
large %age number of something bad happening, with Whites.
I recall some years ago watching the BBC TV news, and their Home Affairs spokesman was so eager to trash a statistic that he couldn’t keep still in his seat.
The bad news was that the HO and just released statistics that showed that 40% of imprisoned violent offenders were from the black community, then
about 2% of the population.
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 19:18 19 Jan 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 17:31:01 GMT, "The Todal" wrote:
On 19/01/2025 15:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 15:17:49 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
There has been some discussion recently in a politics Facebook
group I follow about grooming.
I think one of the real difficulties is local councils getting
practical legal advice. I don't know if they use staff solicitors
or external solicitors but when asked for advice many solicitors
will give advice that results in the absolute safest result to
avoid their client, and themselves, from being sued.
I can easily imagine a situation here where a council was told
there was a danger of being sued for race discrimination so best
just not to follow things up. The proper advice should have been
that if there is a possibility of an offence having been
committed then it should be investigated in the usual way without
regard to race/religion whatever.
I was responsible for instructing our solicitor when I worked and
I had one simple rule. He was never allowed to say "no", he
always had to say "no because". Allowed us to achieve some really
good results.
Any thoughts?
I know that the alt-right have latched on to this issue because of
the "fear of racism" but an at least equal cause of not
investigating these crimes is the evidential problem of proving
"grooming" when at least some of the girls are over sixteen and
others claimed to be. Compounded by the prejudices of at least
some police officers that the girls instigated their own lifestyle
as prostitutes and no crime was involved. Certainly that was the
attitude of authorities through most of the last century. Reading
the whistleblowers accounts, the problem of the girls being held
accountable for their own behaviour and being unwilling (in fact
because of intimidation) to accept help from social services was a
big problem, especially if the police did not see an obvious
provable crime. Obviously the council themselves cannot
investigate and prosecute sexual offences. There is evidence that
white criminals, who are statistically more common than Asian
except perhaps in some Northern town, were not investigated
either.
I think the CPS rather than council legal departments could do
more to encourage investigation of "grooming" offences. Old
fashioned violence and intimadation may be more easily proved than
"grooming". Once this is done, the risk of being accused of racism
tends to disappear. In any case, there is no evidence at all that
any honest members of the majority of society, Asian or otherwise,
ever complained of racism in these investigations. Corrupt local
businessmen, gangsters and some corrupt councillors may have done
in private but there is a remarkable shortage of public complaints
of racism in the investigation of sexual crimes.
I may have missed something but I would have expected our
journalists, the more intelligent ones anyway, to write an
intelligent analysis of Alexis Jay's report and thereby refute some
of the allegations made by the blowhard Elon Musk and the right
wing mob in the UK.
https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-
inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham
quote (as an example)
In October 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time,
Keir Starmer, revised the CPS guidance on child sexual exploitation
to set out a clear, agreed approach which prosecutors would take to
tackle cases of child sexual abuse. A list of stereotypical
behaviours previously thought to undermine the credibility of young
victims was included to dispel the associated myths when bringing a
prosecution. These included:
?‚· The victim invited sex by the way they dressed or acted ?‚· The
victim used alcohol or drugs and was therefore sexually ?‚.
available ?‚· The victim didn't scream, fight or protest so they
must have ?‚· been consenting ?‚· The victim didn't complain
immediately, so it can't have been a ?‚· sexual assault ?‚· The
victim is in a relationship with the alleged offender and ?‚· is
therefore a willing partner ?‚· A victim should remember events
consistently ?‚· Children can consent to their own sexual
exploitation ?‚· CSE is only a problem in certain ethnic/cultural
communities ?‚· Only girls and young women are victims of child
sexual abuse ?‚· Children from BME backgrounds are not abused
?‚· There will be physical evidence of abuse. ?‚· unquote
A journalist could point out:
1. Most (not all) sexual offences are against young, vulnerable
women and girls
2. Whether it is described as rape, grooming or trafficking most
offences (nearly 90%) are by white men.
3. Much of it is organised crime rather than individual acts.
So while gangs of Asian men who indulge in this behaviour should
certainly be rounded up and prosecuted, that is not the whole story.
What evidence are you basing your second point? (You say nearly 90%
of rape, grooming or trafficking is by white men.)
Nearly 90% of men in this country are White, so it's difficult to see
what point Hayter was making, other than by saying what he did, he
allied a large %age number of something bad happening, with Whites.
I recall some years ago watching the BBC TV news, and their Home
Affairs spokesman was so eager to trash a statistic that he couldn't
keep still in his seat.
The bad news was that the HO and just released statistics that showed
that 40% of imprisoned violent offenders were from the black
community, then about 2% of the population.
Darrell Huff's book is available on Amazon:
<https://amzn.eu/d/3Aik38j>
On 20 Jan 2025 11:01:35 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 20/01/2025 in message <vml8hu$p0c6$21@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 20:43:44 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 15:17:49 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>wrote:
Councils use both internal and external solicitors, depending on
[quoted text muted]
circumstances.
But is their advice a magic shield against legal action ?
My thoughts are that such advice would be ultra conservative and
ultra safe and so might have prevented the appropriate department
(?child protection) from involving the appropriate authority
(?police). "Computer says no" might be a joke but from some press
reports can often prevent people doing the right thing.
I think you (and many other people commenting on this issue) are
conflating different things. There are two separate issues here:
firstly, the reasons why the grooming gangs were not initially
investigated as they should have been, and, secondly, the response of
local authorities to the recommendations made to them by the police,
CPS and courts after the perpetrators were eventually brought to
justice.
Children's Services is not a regulatory department at the council, it
doesn't have a lead role in investigating offences of this kind. And
the various reports into the grooming scandals have shown no evidence
that councils were in any way attempting to prevent the police from investigating the allegations (which would have been utterly improper,
and in any case would never have been advice given by any competant
legal professional). Rather, the failure of the local authorities was
in not realising that a potential criminal offence needed to be
investigated. And then the police failed to properly investigate those
cases that were passed to them, and the CPS failed to prosecute them.
But there's no evidence that fear of being perceived as racist (or
fear of being sued) was a factor at that stage.
Rather, the main reason why the offences were not properly
investigated to begin with, and then not prosecuted even after they
had been investigated, was because social services, the police and CPS considered the victims to be unreliable witnesses. They were routinely dismissed as "working class trash" and "teenage sluts" who were
regularly engaging in consensual sexual encounters. The possibility
that they had been groomed into consenting was not, at the time, taken seriously. It wasn't fear of being perceived as racist which prevented
the allegations being investigated, it was, quite simply, that nobody believed the victims.
What changed that was, initially, the research undertaken by
journalist Andrew Norfolk following contact from Ann Cryer MP, and
Norfolk's subsequent articles published in The Times[1]. As a
consequence, Nazir Afzal, the CPS Chief Prosecutor for North West
England, instituted a review of all the dropped cases, requested new
evidence from the police and reversed the decisions not to prosecute.
And, as we now know, those prosecutions resulted in convictions and
fully vindicated the actions of Cryer, Norfolk and Afzal.
However, one thing that the court cases and subsequent convictions did
reveal was that the abusers almost all shared a single, specific
ethnic background. And this is where the fear of being perceived as
racist came into it. The ethnicity of those convicted is clearly
relevant data as far as social services are concerned. But to document
that data creates a genuine perceptional risk for local authorities.
On the one hand, to identify a particular ethnic group as having been responsible for a large number of criminal convictions does risk being perceived as racist. And, on the other hand, it also creates a risk
that if only one group is identified, it means that others are more
likely to get away with it.
Neither of those risks is unreasonable; it would genuinely hinder the essential work that social services carry out if they were wrongly
perceived as racist, and it would equally make them more likely to
miss other cases of abuse if they were focussed too closely on one
particular source. However, not documenting relevant data is likely to
create other issues which are just as bad, or worse. So it's not a
simple problem to solve.
Fear of being perceived as racist, however, doesn't necessarily equate
to fear of being sued. You can't sue someone just for "being racist".
A council can, though, be sued if its processes and policies are not
robust enough to prevent people coming to otherwise avoidable harm. So
the question here is not "which policy is most likely to make people
wrongly perceive us as racist?", but "which policy is most likely to
lead to otherwise preventable harm?". And I suspect that in most
cases, the legal advice will be to document all the data, and take the reputational risk. Councillors, however, are politicians, and being
perceived as racist poses an electoral risk - probably more so than
the risk of someone coming to harm, which can usually be blamed on
people further down the food chain. So it's entirely plausible that councillors in certain areas will want to lean on council officers to
prevent certain data getting into published documentation.
[1] Incidentally, if anyone tells you that the scandals were ignored
by "MSM" and were first uncovered on social media, they are either
stupidly ignorant or deliberately lying to you.
Mark
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:lvpr75FiesoU1@mid.individual.net...
Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 19:18 19 Jan 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 17:31:01 GMT, "The Todal" wrote:
On 19/01/2025 15:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 15:17:49 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""
<jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
There has been some discussion recently in a politics Facebook
group I follow about grooming.
I think one of the real difficulties is local councils getting
practical legal advice. I don't know if they use staff
solicitors or external solicitors but when asked for advice many >>>>>>> solicitors will give advice that results in the absolute safest
result to avoid their client, and themselves, from being sued.
I can easily imagine a situation here where a council was told
there was a danger of being sued for race discrimination so best >>>>>>> just not to follow things up. The proper advice should have been >>>>>>> that if there is a possibility of an offence having been
committed then it should be investigated in the usual way
without regard to race/religion whatever.
I was responsible for instructing our solicitor when I worked
and I had one simple rule. He was never allowed to say "no", he
always had to say "no because". Allowed us to achieve some
really good results.
Any thoughts?
I know that the alt-right have latched on to this issue because
of the "fear of racism" but an at least equal cause of not
investigating these crimes is the evidential problem of proving
"grooming" when at least some of the girls are over sixteen and
others claimed to be. Compounded by the prejudices of at least
some police officers that the girls instigated their own
lifestyle as prostitutes and no crime was involved. Certainly
that was the attitude of authorities through most of the last
century. Reading the whistleblowers accounts, the problem of the
girls being held accountable for their own behaviour and being
unwilling (in fact because of intimidation) to accept help from
social services was a big problem, especially if the police did
not see an obvious provable crime. Obviously the council
themselves cannot investigate and prosecute sexual offences.
There is evidence that white criminals, who are statistically
more common than Asian except perhaps in some Northern town, were
not investigated either.
I think the CPS rather than council legal departments could do
more to encourage investigation of "grooming" offences. Old
fashioned violence and intimadation may be more easily proved
than "grooming". Once this is done, the risk of being accused of
racism tends to disappear. In any case, there is no evidence at
all that any honest members of the majority of society, Asian or
otherwise, ever complained of racism in these investigations.
Corrupt local businessmen, gangsters and some corrupt councillors
may have done in private but there is a remarkable shortage of
public complaints of racism in the investigation of sexual
crimes.
I may have missed something but I would have expected our
journalists, the more intelligent ones anyway, to write an
intelligent analysis of Alexis Jay's report and thereby refute
some of the allegations made by the blowhard Elon Musk and the
right wing mob in the UK.
https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-
inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham
quote (as an example)
In October 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions at that time,
Keir Starmer, revised the CPS guidance on child sexual
exploitation to set out a clear, agreed approach which prosecutors
would take to tackle cases of child sexual abuse. A list of
stereotypical behaviours previously thought to undermine the
credibility of young victims was included to dispel the associated
myths when bringing a prosecution. These included:
?,· The victim invited sex by the way they dressed or acted
?,· The victim used alcohol or drugs and was therefore sexually
?,. available
?,· The victim didn't scream, fight or protest so they must have
?,· been consenting
?,· The victim didn't complain immediately, so it can't have been
a ?,· sexual assault
?,· The victim is in a relationship with the alleged offender and
?,· is therefore a willing partner
?,· A victim should remember events consistently
?,· Children can consent to their own sexual exploitation
?,· CSE is only a problem in certain ethnic/cultural communities
?,· Only girls and young women are victims of child sexual abuse
?,· Children from BME backgrounds are not abused
?,· There will be physical evidence of abuse.
?,·
unquote
A journalist could point out:
1. Most (not all) sexual offences are against young, vulnerable
women and girls
2. Whether it is described as rape, grooming or trafficking most
offences (nearly 90%) are by white men.
3. Much of it is organised crime rather than individual acts.
So while gangs of Asian men who indulge in this behaviour should
certainly be rounded up and prosecuted, that is not the whole
story.
What evidence are you basing your second point?
(You say nearly 90% of rape, grooming or trafficking is by white
men.)
Nearly 90% of men in this country are White, so it's difficult to see
what point Hayter was making, other than by saying what he did, he
allied a large %age number of something bad happening, with Whites.
I recall some years ago watching the BBC TV news, and their Home
Affairs spokesman was so eager to trash a statistic that he couldn't
keep still in his seat.
The bad news was that the HO and just released statistics that showed
that 40% of imprisoned violent offenders were from the black
community, then about 2% of the population.
Haven't you've possibly just answered Pamela's question ? Given there
there are statistics indicating that 40% of *imprisoned violent
offenders* are black I can see no reason why there should not be
similar statistics indicating that 90% of *imprisoned sexual/ rape,
grooming or trafficking offenders* are white. Can you ?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 69:53:55 |
| Calls: | 9,814 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,755 |
| Messages: | 6,189,480 |