Paedophile gang not dealt with by both the Police and social services.

Lord-Jaffa · 14 Jan 2020 at 15:10

Dis86 said:
Nobody will be prosecuted. Nobody will be sacked. The lefties will forget about it because those committing the crimes are their favourite persecuted demographic. Everyone else, like those at the time who whistle blew will be called racist and ignored. More young girls will suffer.

How dare you, bigot.

Efour · 14 Jan 2020 at 15:23

Imagine if the bigoted view was actually true?

Hotwired · 14 Jan 2020 at 15:34

Dis86 said:
You've answered your own question.

Those further down the ladder should be letting it known to those further up what's going on. If they then don't receive the money it's clean where the decision was made. That's who you blame. If those further up weren't made aware they cannot act.

You think these organisations don't CONSTANTLY go cap in hand to their minister in Whitehall with all the problems the budget cuts cause?

Appointments at the very top of the organisation are political and if you're not cutting back your department until it fits the budget you're going to be out because you have two jobs at that level and one of them is to implement government policy while the other is to run the organisation.

Right there in the article we've got the initial attempt at a police investigation fighting over resources, space and staff with murder investigations and it looks like the murders won out. There's also mention of a social worker voicing concerns about their side being overwhelmed if they tried to take on all the children they had concerns about.

No question has been answered. The budget cuts are from the government. The organisations cut services or try to half-ass as many as they can with the reduced budget. I have doubts ground level staff can be blamed. Oh and the government issued the budget cuts because the country is broke.

So when services fail and the inquiry comes back to say an attempt was made and then got cancelled for budget reasons you would blame... who?

We've got about half a dozen people trying to sell a non-article or inquiry supported line which suggests they're bringing an agenda and not reading the article at all.

Terminal_Boy · 14 Jan 2020 at 15:39

The various constabularies appear have the funds to investigate hurtful words on the internet, but not crack down on a nonce gang run by the usual suspects.

Yeah, that’s totally a budget driven decision.

Raz · 14 Jan 2020 at 15:39

Money and manpower would have been found if the victim backgrounds had been from higher up in the social ladder.

VincentHanna · 14 Jan 2020 at 15:40

Terminal_Boy said:
The various constabularies appear have the funds to investigate hurtful words on the internet, but not crack down on a nonce gang run by the usual suspects.

Yeah, that’s totally a budget driven decision.

Your comparing funding in 2003 against funding now.

Social media didn't even exist then.

Dis86 · 14 Jan 2020 at 15:43

Hotwired said:
You think these organisations don't CONSTANTLY go cap in hand to their minister in Whitehall with all the problems the budget cuts cause?

Appointments at the very top of the organisation are political and if you're not cutting back your department until it fits the budget you're going to be out because you have two jobs at that level and one of them is to implement government policy while the other is to run the organisation.

Right there in the article we've got the initial attempt at a police investigation fighting over resources, space and staff with murder investigations and it looks like the murders won out. There's also mention of a social worker voicing concerns about their side being overwhelmed if they tried to take on all the children they had concerns about.

No question has been answered. The budget cuts are from the government. The organisations cut services or try to half-ass as many as they can with the reduced budget. I have doubts ground level staff can be blamed. Oh and the government issued the budget cuts because the country is broke.

So when services fail and the inquiry comes back to say an attempt was made and then got cancelled for budget reasons you would blame... who?

We've got about half a dozen people trying to sell a non-article or inquiry supported line which suggests they're bringing an agenda and not reading the article at all.

You've again answered your own question...blame is to be correctly apportioned to those responsible. What's hard to grasp about that? If it was a serving minister you blame them! That's who.

DrToffnar · 14 Jan 2020 at 15:46

Hotwired said:
You think these organisations don't CONSTANTLY go cap in hand to their minister in Whitehall with all the problems the budget cuts cause?

Appointments at the very top of the organisation are political and if you're not cutting back your department until it fits the budget you're going to be out because you have two jobs at that level and one of them is to implement government policy while the other is to run the organisation.

Right there in the article we've got the initial attempt at a police investigation fighting over resources, space and staff with murder investigations and it looks like the murders won out. There's also mention of a social worker voicing concerns about their side being overwhelmed if they tried to take on all the children they had concerns about.

No question has been answered. The budget cuts are from the government. The organisations cut services or try to half-ass as many as they can with the reduced budget. I have doubts ground level staff can be blamed. Oh and the government issued the budget cuts because the country is broke.

So when services fail and the inquiry comes back to say an attempt was made and then got cancelled for budget reasons you would blame... who?

We've got about half a dozen people trying to sell a non-article or inquiry supported line which suggests they're bringing an agenda and not reading the article at all.

This.

Some of the replies here are... well, bizarre.

Lord-Jaffa · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:00

It amazes me the lengths people will go to defending the police for not prosecuting actual disgusting violent sexual crimes. Someone along the chain has made a decision NOT to prosecute this, they should be imprisoned themselves also.

deuse · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:07

usual suspects then :mad:

And a police cover up. And I wager that some was involved.

Greebo · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:10

Lord-Jaffa said:
It amazes me the lengths people will go to defending the police for not prosecuting actual disgusting violent sexual crimes. Someone along the chain has made a decision NOT to prosecute this, they should be imprisoned themselves also.

Because you dont have the resources to investigate and prosecute every thing. So in this case it seemed 2 murders took priority. On your basis the police chiefs should have dropped one of the murder cases and allocated resources to these sexual crimes. I assume you would then be perfectly happy for a murderer to run around free?

Hotwired · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:13

Dis86 said:
You've again answered your own question...blame is to be correctly apportioned to those responsible. What's hard to grasp about that? If it was a serving minister you blame them! That's who.

I've spelled out how far it can go. You want someone sacked, you want someone prosecuted.

But I don't see anyone holding a smoking gun. I see a chain of lose-lose decisions being made out of necessity starting with the government saying we're broke, lets make some massive reductions in expenses.

It's really this simple, who do you blame when there isn't enough resources to follow up every report of a potential crime. Just because we have retrospective vision it doesn't mean it was so crystal clear at the time.

I can see people gagging for a name to string up and tear down, I see massive incomprehension as I explain they probably can't ever have one because this is simply expected failure when resources to perform a job are cut.

NVP · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:37

Dis86 said:
like those at the time who whistle blew will be called racist

Did this actually happen?

Evangelion said:
It was easier to let the crimes continue and avoid upsetting the Asian community.

I always thought this excuse was simply people trying to save their own arses and they were not actually afraid of offending anyone, it was simply incompetence and oversight.

Dis86 · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:38

Hotwired said:
I've spelled out how far it can go. You want someone sacked, you want someone prosecuted.

But I don't see anyone holding a smoking gun. I see a chain of lose-lose decisions being made out of necessity starting with the government saying we're broke, lets make some massive reductions in expenses.

It's really this simple, who do you blame when there isn't enough resources to follow up every report of a potential crime. Just because we have retrospective vision it doesn't mean it was so crystal clear at the time.

I can see people gagging for a name to string up and tear down, I see massive incomprehension as I explain they probably can't ever have one because this is simply expected failure when resources to perform a job are cut.

Right...I'll try again. Someone, an individual ultimately makes a decision of where resources are allocated throughout the whole country. That would be the PM as first lord of the treasury. They them have many tiers beneath them but all can report upwards about significant issues theyre facing and extra, emergency,l funds can be made available should the situation be deemed to warrant it. Knowing this was happening people should have been asking for the resources to counter it. Either they didn't ask or the person who chooses where resource goes decided to spend it elsewhere. So that's who you look at. It may go all the way to the top, it may not. That needs to be investigated. An individual is ultimately responsible. That individual could be Blair, Brown or Cameron. Or it could be Susan or Frank in child services or the police. Either way someone, somewhere made a conscious decision to not push this further by either omission of information or funds.

Lord-Jaffa · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:41

Greebo said:
Because you dont have the resources to investigate and prosecute every thing. So in this case it seemed 2 murders took priority. On your basis the police chiefs should have dropped one of the murder cases and allocated resources to these sexual crimes. I assume you would then be perfectly happy for a murderer to run around free?

Oh sorry I forgot that they are only capable of looking into one incident at a time LOL, my bad, even if this laughable excuse was true, the crimes weren't a one off and were continuing for years, there is absolutely no excuse for this. I know you enjoy crying into your cheerios over budget spending by the conservatives, but it doesnt excuse refusing to investigate ongoing mass rape and abuse of children. A senior police official should be in prison for decisions like these, who are they to decide who is allowed to continuously break the law or not, just do your job. Maybe if they stop dressing up as rainbow Easter eggs for LGBT events they could actually remove dangerous animals from their city.

Dis86 · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:44

NVP said:
Did this actually happen?

I always thought this excuse was simply people trying to save their own arses and they were not actually afraid of offending anyone, it was simply incompetence and oversight.

Yes.

NVP · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:52

Dis86 said:
Yes.

Able to convince me with, say, a source?

Colonel_Klinck · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:54

Tom_ed1987 said:
They did nothing to protect them because they were institutionally crippled ~~at the thought of appearing 'racist'~~ by decades of budget cuts to social services and the police.
To not risk offending a minority community was prioritised for decades over the literal lives of innocent children.

Fixed that for you.

Threepwood · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:55

Efour said:
Imagine if the bigoted view was actually true?

Which is? Could you spell it out?

Dis86 · 14 Jan 2020 at 16:57

NVP said:
Able to convince me with, say, a source?

Read the Rotherham investigation reports. I believe the one by Alexis Jay is probably the most detailed as it included the findings of earlier reports.