Nothing changes

Rochdale, the town where children of all genders were at risk because institutional blindness, corruption and fear of racism or the authorities had child abuse happening on almost an industrial scale.
Mail.

In May 2012, nine men were jailed for horrific abuse committed against teenage girls in the town. It made headlines all round the world.
When the father of one of the victims called me to tell me how his daughter’s cries for help had been ignored by the authorities I started to make my own enquiries. I spoke to the director of children’s services, Cheryl Eastwood, and was staggered by her attitude. She implied that young girls who were being systematically raped were making lifestyle choices and said that this kind of abuse was ‘a new phenomenon’ on which they [social services] hadn’t received guidance. You don’t need guidance from central government to know that when someone is reporting being raped it’s seriously wrong, I told her.
A few weeks earlier, a police officer had told me fellow officers had suggested the victims on council estates should have been drowned at birth. It also emerged that when one of the girls reported her abuse to a police officer, the officer yawned.
The cover-up of abuse by Cyril Smith (former Rochdale MP), the failed police investigations into his crimes, had ensured the public cry of outrage that needed to be heard was silenced.
For Smith’s young victims it was because they were bad boys from troublesome backgrounds who needed disciplining.
For the young girls who were victims of grooming gangs it was because they were bad girls from troublesome backgrounds who were making lifestyle choices.

This is what happens when the people in power decide that they know best, this is what happens when dogma trumps decency. When protecting the perpetrators because of their position or religion or colour of their skin became far more important than protecting the victims of their abuse.
Yet not one single prosecution will be brought against the council, its social services department, the Liberal Democrat Party who connived with the police to cover up Smith's crimes, the police or anyone else connected to the wholesale abuse who ignored it or actually hid it deliberately because to them the victims were lesser breeds and deserved (somehow) what was happening to them.
Even today Rochdale and those in power there are in denial of what happened, there has been no apologies and there are still ongoing attempts to sweep things under the carpet. Those who ignored the victims were even allowed to leave taking golden handshakes with them and are still at work elsewhere in the same business.
These people ruined kids lives as much as their abusers did, yet they've gotten away scot free, the next scandal comes along and they hope we forget. The corruption goes all the way to the top and won't stop until we hang them all.

Big brother is blocking you

The Daily Mail is as ever going into it's usual orgiastic 'we've saved the world from paedogeddon' with the announcement that an internet provider is going to automatically block people from stuff they think we don't want to see rather than give us the choice...
Mail. (usual caveats)

BT has announced all new customers will have parental control filters switched on when they subscribe to its broadband service.
The company has offered the free Parental Controls service for a number of years, but this is the first time new customers will have to actively choose whether to turn the filters off.
During the set-up process, a box that turns on the controls - which block a number of sites including pornography, those containing self-harm and violence as well as hate sites - will be automatically ticked.
Subscribers will then have to actively turn the blocks off and instead decide what level of protection - if any - they require.
The company will also extend its filter service to all internet devices including games consoles and tablets. Previously parents could only block potentially harmful sites on desktops and laptops.
BT will also be contacting all of its existing customers from the start of next year, forcing them to make a choice about the level of controls on their broadband.

Whilst not a case of Big Brother is watching you, it's definitely a case of big brother is making damned sure you don't see anything they don't want, unless you switch it off and then have the whole world know you as a pornographer, for if you do switch the filters off, BT will bloody well know about it...
Not that at the moment it's difficult to get around the filters, a quick Google will tell you how and the use of a VPN or proxy server will do the job quite adequately too. Which does seem to suggest that the kids will be OK whilst the parents will be confused as to why they can't watch the Robin Thicke 'Blurred Lines' video on youtube any more.
The thing with this sort of creeping authoritarianism is that people become accustomed not to think for themselves. Parents will assume the internet filter is in place and doing its job without as ever actually checking what their little darlings are up too.
In the end it ought to be our responsibility to monitor what our kids watch, not BT's or the states or especially the Daily Mail's.

Can't we just let them be kids?

Back in the 60's when I was growing up we had the Moors murders, I don't personally remember reading about it, though I do sort of remember a change of attitude in the adults around me. It was probably there before but an emphasis was placed in not going off with strangers of being careful. The phrase I sort of remember was never to trust anyone if they offered to show me puppies. I suspect that child molesters and others who meant kids harm were far more wise to this ploy, but that's how it was done. As it is, evidence came to light that kids were in far more danger from family members than the general public, but that's by the by too.
Mail. (Usual caveats)

Children as young as three are to be taught how to use the internet safely.
A government campaign to highlight the ‘dark side’ of the web will also target men who take ‘risks’ when shopping and chatting online.
Ministers have vowed to ‘crack this problem’, warning too many people are reckless when posting personal information on websites.
Officially children under the age of 13 are not supposed to use sites like Facebook.
But with toddlers frequently using web-linked devices like iPads, the government says educating them about the risks cannot start too soon.
Very young children will be told how to managing their ‘online identity’ and why they should not put ‘inappropriate’ information on the internet.
Teenagers studying their GCSEs should also be taught about card fraud and the risk of identity theft.
‘For some aspects of it, you cannot go too early,’ a senior official told The Guardian.

Yes I know there's a dark side to the internet and that it has enabled those who mean our children no good at all a means to communicate with like minds. But three years old? Surely this should be something that parents are doing anyway? (I know, I know nanny state etc) I rather doubt many three year olds will be chatting online and giving out their personal information along with credit card numbers anyway. I know some 3 year olds who can spell their names, but that's about the limit anything else is likely to be paint programs and hunt the hidden object.
Too many times the government and others have used the 'for the cheeeldren' meme as a way of wasting our money, removing our liberties and generally irritating people who actually do know better. But what they don't seem to want is for children to be children. They appear to want them to grow up long before they mature. I know that some fear that ignorance is bliss exposes children to risk, but statistically, they'd do far better to keep their kids away from adult family members than computers.
I know that the age of innocence has gone, I know that there are dangers out there for kids. But the government really are not helping here, they rarely do.

Infantilism

No this isn't aimed at the general public, though God alone knows I've run across an increasing number who appear to have opted out of thinking for themselves and allowing the state to do their thinking for them. Still you can always rely on the EU to come up with some idiotic standard only to have companies fall over themselves to comply...
Mail.

A kickabout in the park might leave many dads suffering after their exertions, but it could have deadly consequences for toddlers – according to EU officials.
Toy footballs now have to be stamped with a warning that they are a choking hazard for the under-threes, despite the balls being bigger than an adult’s head.
The brightly coloured plastic balls with a circumference of 25in – just under the size used in the Premier League – come with the caution: ‘Warning! Not suitable for children under three years. Choking hazard.’
One manufacturer, Bellco Sports, which sells tens of thousands of its £1 balls every year in high streets all over the UK, confirmed it has had to comply with the EU regulations and brand them with the warning.
The balls bear the CE mark, which stands for Conformité Européene – translated as European Conformity – to show that they comply with EU legislation and are passed as meeting ‘harmonised levels of safety’.

My granddaughter is two and I rather doubt her ability to swallow a full sized football, even a deflated on, she was far more likely to have choked on a little green ball of death sprout over Christmas and we had far more in the way of choking hazards around than footballs, most of us wouldn't even recognise a football as a choking hazard. Still that's the way the EU works, someone has justified their (excessive) salary by producing such a ridiculous rule and is probably laughing themselves all the way to the bank at the manufacturers for falling into line to put it on the footballs.
Are we expected to take such rulings seriously? Well try not taking one seriously and see what happens if you don't, swinging fines as an example of opening broadsides springs to mind, imprisonment may also be mentioned.
Sadly though our own governments are not above infantilising the populace so leaving the EU may not protect us from the control freaks in charge.
Still, it would be a good start...

Access denied, denied

Why do some people believe it's the job of the state to do everything for them? Take online porn, there are some people out there who actually believe that the government should get involved to block access to various sites so they don't have to do it themselves. It's the classic 'for the cheeeldren' meme that's so popular amongst the hard of thinking and the devoid of discipline that seems to permeate some areas of society...
Mail.

One of the most pressing anxieties of responsible parents is how to stop their children from accessing pornography on the internet.
Nearly three-quarters of nine to 16-year-olds in Britain go online daily. Growing numbers of three and four-year-old children are accessing the net.
So preventing them from stumbling across or even choosing to download internet porn is a very real problem.

If you're that bothered put a password on the pc and don't let your little darlings access it out of your sight... Simples.
Well apparently not, some people believe the government should do it for them...

There is cross-party support for tougher online controls, reflecting acute parental anxiety.
In a consultation exercise, half of parents said they wanted some content blocked automatically.
So the Government’s proposals, which were slipped out quietly a few days ago on the Department for Education website as if it didn’t want anyone to notice, have left many frankly baffled.
For it said that while access to internet porn would be banned in public places, no such ban would apply to private use.

Ooh apparently someone in the government actually gets it that what you do in your home is your responsibility. That includes monitoring what your kids actually see and do, rather than say simply letting them get on with it in an out of sight out of mind attitude that some parents believe is responsible parenting.
There are a host of programmes out there which can block access to porn (and other stuff) you just have to google it and it practically leaps out at you. Of course that means actually having to do it yourself which means that for some people it's not a good idea. they'd rather the nanny state did everything for us automatically.
These are the people who I believe think that the internet is some sort of babysitter bit like the tv, used to be (and possibly still is)
Perhaps these people ought to be examined to see if they are actually fit to be responsible parents, because if they want the state to do it for them, then clearly they are not...

Walk on by...

It seems odd that the MSM should be surprised that 2/3rds of us would walk on by if we witnessed a group of teenagers drinking and verbally abusing passers-by in the street. Unfortunately that's the type of society we now live in, where teens have been brought up to believe they are untouchable, after all, they have been brought up to know that adults can't touch them nor it seems criticise them...
BBC.

Two-thirds of the public would walk on by if they saw a group of teenagers drinking and verbally abusing passers-by in the street, a survey suggests.
Only 6% of the 1,784 people in England, Wales and Scotland surveyed by YouGov said they would definitely intervene. A further 21% said they probably would.
The think tank Policy Exchange paid for the survey and called for "citizen police academies" to be set up.
They could offer lessons in making citizens' arrests, it said.
The survey found that, among those questioned, people in Scotland were the most likely to step in, while those in London were the least likely.

The reasons, though not stated being that many of these teenage gangs would be likely to set about anyone who interfered and/or spend time making their lives a misery by constant hounding, vandalism, abuse etc. should they know where the adults live knowing fine well the police and councils will do sod all about it...
Social engineering by politicians and other do gooders in the UK has brought about a feral class of teens who know no restraints save what their own peers and gang culture will permit and any outsiders simply do not count. Not all teens by any means, but we have created a society where their rights appear to transcend all others, at least in the teens eyes anyway.
So now most adults will ignore a group of teens misbehaving and the media (and politicians no doubt) are surprised. Nor would adults being trained to deal with confrontation be the answer, I suspect only the knowledge that if they stepped out of line society would come down on them like a ton of bricks might work, though those days are now gone.
Those with any sort of moral authority (police, doctors, teachers) have now pretty much removed themselves from the areas in which they work, not that I blame them. However society will not change unless this issue is addressed, you cannot give one section more or less immunity from facing the consequences of their actions and expect it to grow up and mature in a manner that is civilised and tolerant.
You need to start as you go on with action bringing a just and fair reaction, sadly this does not happen and we have a situation now where a sort of siege mentality has built up in adults who would rather ignore bad behaviour than take the chance it will spread the them and theirs, because the powers that be have pretty much allowed it to develop over the last few decades.

Apparently we just don't understand

The Rotherham fostering case meanders on this week with a fightback lead by a Labour councillor telling us all that if we knew the full details of the case we'd understand the decision, whilst the Council are keeping a report of the case secret, so we can't understand all the details which lead to the decision.
Telegraph.

A senior councillor in Rotherham has accused people of "wading in to pass judgement" on the Ukip fostering row without "any real knowledge" of the case.
Josephine Burton, a cabinet member at Labour-run Rotherham metropolitan borough council, told a member of the public that she was "disappointed" by coverage of the case.
The parents at the centre of the row said they felt "slandered and besmirched" after social workers took three ethnic minority children from their care because they were members of the UK Independence Party.
"As a teacher you will know how frustrating and unhelpful it is when people “pronounce” about Education without any real knowledge of what happens and how it works, apart from the fact that they went to school. The Press, so far, has not reflected this situation very accurately, and that is very disappointing."
Mrs Burton yesterday defended the decision by a social services director to remove the children from the foster parents' care.
Rotherham metropolitan borough council yesterday failed to apologise to the couple and refused to release the findings of an internal report into the case.

It's also been announced elsewhere that whilst looking after the children's cultural and ethnic needs and interests (Which apparently anyone who is a member of UKIP can't) the family have been split up by the councils social services, thus compounding the original decision with insult to boot.
It does appear that the Labour controlled council do not appear aware of the maxim about holes and stopping digging as they just can't seem to help themselves where it comes to appearing callous and ignorant.
If the kids had gone as a group to eastern European ethnic foster parents then fine, but, the council social services moved them with less than 20 mins notice, split the kids up, and potentially slandered the foster parents who had an impeccable record to boot simply because they belonged to a political party that opposes immigration, not immigrants though, something which appears to have escaped the notice of the council and social workers.

Appears to say it all

 Truly this one is going to run and run...

Problem is it's taking away the scrutiny of Rotherham social services other major failing, the grooming of under age girls by muslims.

Ignoring the obvious

The Pakistani community at the heart of the grooming scandal comprises but a tiny percentage of the muslim community as a whole, yet they figure large in all the current investigations into grooming cases. Yet in the supposed report by The Office of Children's Commissioner into child abuse in the UK, guess who really doesn't get a mention...
BBC.

Thousands of children are sexually abused by gangs and groups in England each year, according to a report.
The Office of Children's Commissioner study says there were 2,409 victims in the 14 months to October 2011 - but the true number is likely to be far higher.
The report also identifies 16,500 children who were at "high risk of sexual exploitation" in 2010-11.
However, the government has questioned the methodology of the report, describing parts of it as "hysterical".
The report's authors insisted their tone was "measured", and some of the most harrowing details of child abuse had been left out.
The deputy children's commissioner, Sue Berelowitz, said the evidence indicated the perpetrators "come from all ethnic groups and so do their victims, contrary to what some may wish to believe".
She cautioned the "model" of Asian men preying on white girls was just one of "a number of models".

The problem of course being that all the 'other models' know what they are doing is wrong, which sadly muslim males of Pakistani origin do not accept. Nor does she explain why figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian being the code word in the media for muslims of Pakistani origin and a terrible slur on the billions of law abiding Asians in the world. Indeed, this total equals 27 per cent of offenders and far in excess of the proportion of Asian people in the community at large, which is 6 per cent (of whom 3% would be male? and an even lesser percentage adult males)
So whilst I can accept that there may be a number of models ranging from lone white males downloading child porn and acting on impulse, the fact that over a quarter of the sex crimes committed were by one tiny community should be ringing massive alarm bells to the Children's Commissioner, but apparently they aren't, it's just one problem amongst many. Nor does the fact that these males are using their religion and culture to justify their vile crimes seem to have crossed her radar either.
The abuse is widespread, our cowardly government aided and abetted by the liberal left in the name of multiculturalism, political correctness and community cohesion have caused those who should have prevented it or sounded the alarm to be silenced.
We have been betrayed by these people!

Figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html#ixzz2Cqs7TENl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html#ixzz2Cqs7TENl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html#ixzz2Cqs7TENl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html#ixzz2Cqs7TENl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Figures in the report state that out of 1,514 perpetrators identified, some 415 were Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236045/Anger-sex-abuse-report-Sue-Berelowitz-turns-blind-eye-Asian-gangs.html#ixzz2Cqs7TENl
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

More money grabbing

Cleggy boy is at it again, his latest idea to dip his hands ever deeper into our pockets to subsidise child care.
Telegraph.

Nursery fees could be subsidised by the state after Nick Clegg promised he would work to end the “nightmare” of high child care bills.
The Deputy Prime Minister said it was absurd that hundreds of thousands of women felt it was not worth returning to work after having a baby because child care was so expensive.
In the first of a series of “informal” emails to party supporters, the Liberal Democrat leader disclosed that he would be lobbying in Whitehall for more money to be spent on reducing the cost of nursery places.
One policy likely to be considered is increasing the state-funded free child care allowance for three- and four-year-olds from 15 hours a week to 25.
The Lib Dems are expected to press for changes in talks with David Cameron and George Osborne ahead of the Chancellor’s autumn Budget statement next month.
Currently, an estimated one million women who could work are not doing so, partly because child care costs in Britain are among the highest in Europe.
Parents are spending up to £15,000 a year on nursery fees, while part-time child care in London costs up to £130 a week, recent figures suggest.

He'd actually do better to look at exactly why the UK's child care costs are the highest in Europe, rather than as is the usual socialist solution to rob Peter to pay Paul.
There are several reasons for high childcare costs, the minimum wage, the cost of building rent and insurance and the cost of CRB registration for staff turnover. No doubt there are others, but those are the main ones I can think of.
Yes the reason childcare costs are so high is because the state has made them high, not because childcare provider are (necessarily) greedy. That plus the current UK trend of more or less insisting that dual income is a necessity in order to afford ever more new thins (or simply make ends meet) means that women need childcare provision, yet are wondering why they bother as the extra work they do unless they are really well paid simply covers the childcare costs.
So what is Cleggs solution? Well he wants to shake the magic money tree to subsidise the costs, rather than remove the legislation which makes it so expensive. He wants the taxpayer, many of whom do not have kids in childcare to subsidise those who do.
Is anyone else out there sick of their taxes going to pay for people not to work or paying for the childcare costs of those who do?
Clegg really doesn't get it, or if he does he doesn't care, after all he's stinking rich.
IT'S MY MONEY YOU GREEDY BASTARDS, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF IT!
Clear enough?

Coming out of the woodwork

The Saville inquisition holds very little interest for me at the moment, other than as a prime example of how being dead removes the threat of libel and slander counter-litigation from the legal system.
I've been aware of the issues involved festering around for several years now on various debate boards, though I was a tad surprised it took this long for the MSM to become involved, normally they're only weeks behind, not years as in this case. The other thing that doesn't really surprise me is just how many 'new' cases have come to light after the initial allegations were made.
BBC.

A hospital in Leeds has received two complaints of sexual assault by Sir Jimmy Savile dating back to the 1970s.
Leeds General Infirmary (LGI) said the complaints had been made after allegations Savile sexually assaulted teenage girls became public.
It added it was "shocked" and would co-operate with police.
The Metropolitan Police said its investigation into allegations against Savile would include hospitals where he had volunteered.

Apart from wondering why only now are they complaining and thinking compo culture you have to wonder just how such allegations were kept from the public eye for so long or just where the cover up (if there is one) will lead and whether it will actually open a massive can of worms or degenerate as these things often do into damage limitation.
Still it's worth comparing the Saville case with the ongoing muslim grooming scandal, this issue had been raised with the police over the last ten years, with hints of it going back a lot further if you check out the case of the UK's youngest mum having been the rape victim of a muslim cabby.
This time the cover up in the name of community cohesion was blatant by police, social workers and the powers that be, the same ones now getting involved in the Saville case.
You can't help but wonder if it is that the Saville scandal was allowed to hit the MSM when the full details of the muslim grooming scandal were beginning to emerge with additional cases coming up in Telford, Oxford, Rochdale, Birmingham and Rotherham, with further investigations ongoing in several other towns and cities.
Because Saville is dead speculation can be rife about the allegations, with the muslim grooming scandal details are still sketchy and are being pushed back off the front page by the Saville story.
The more suspicious minded of us are wondering if this is a coincidence...
Somehow I think not.

Should know better

I cannot think of many worse things than losing a child or loved one in circumstances which might have been preventable, particularly by medical staff. I'd also expect the medical staff to at least have the common sense not to rub salt into a wound. But I'd be wrong...
Mail.

Hospital hail ‘good news’ in email blunder as father drops fight for justice after their bungle led to the death of his baby son

• Trust's customer services employee Angela Peil wrote to colleague it was 'good news' that James Titcombe was stepping back from his inquiries

• Second time grieving father has unearthed inappropriate messages regarding his quest to find out what happened when his son died

• Baby Joshua Titcombe bled to death nine days after he was born at Furness General Hospital, Cumbria

• Coroner accused hospital staff of a 'cover up' regarding Joshua's care

A grieving father discovered that senior hospital staff dealing with the investigation into his baby's death exchanged 'deeply offensive' emails celebrating the end of his quest for justice. James Titcombe wrote to tell staff at the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust (UHMBT) that he was 'stepping back' from his personal investigations in the death of nine-day-old son Joshua in November 2008. He found that Angela Peil, who worked in customer services at the trust, greeted the news by emailing Angela Oxley, head of midwifery, writing: 'Good news regarding James T'.
Mrs Oxley replied: 'Has JT moved to Thailand? What is the good news?'
Mr Titcombe, whose wife Hoa is from Vietnam, unearthed the emails as part of a Freedom of Information request.

It just beggars belief that these people are in charge of care over us and can be so callous. A man grieving over the loss of a child really doesn't need to find out that those potentially responsible for the death are treating his withdrawal from enquiries as 'good news'
It also is a shining example of where the Freedom of Information Act (something the government regards as a grave inconvenience and wants to be rid of) is of benefit to the public and can be used to unearth the real motives of those involved in decision-making.
There's the usual mealy mouthed apology about standards of course along with lessons will be learned. But nothing will bring back the child, nor ease the anguish of Mr. Titcombe that somehow or other a conspiracy of neglect, blame shifting and silence surrounding the death of his son was in place and those involved saw his potential withdrawal as good news on a par with him emigrating to Thailand.

Porn

What is it with the education industry in the UK that they try to involve themselves ever more in the minutiae of how people 'should' think 'should' behave and 'should' live their lives, even down to matters of  sex and primary school kids.
Mail.

A primary school has shown its young pupils a sex education video which was deemed so steamy it was removed from sale after a government minister intervened.
The Living and Growing DVD - branded 'cartoon porn' - has caused uproar around the UK for its graphic sex scenes using cartoon couples.
In one scene a naked cartoon couple chase each other around a bedroom with a feather before having sex, and include an animated scene of ejaculation.
The films include a section aimed at children as young as five, asking them to name the body parts on a drawing of a naked man and woman.
It has received such strong criticism from parents and even government minister Nick Gibbs that the Channel 4-produced DVD was removed from sale.

Now I have no objection to sex education, however I'm a great believer of keeping kids as kids for as long as possible as well. Why Westbury Leigh Primary School in Wiltshire, should decide to show a film about sex to children from as young as four up to the age of twelve is beyond me, I simply don't see any need at all for this, it's not like the kids should even be 'practising' anything they see in the dvd as it is. From what I can tell, the school decided to show it to ten year olds, some six years before they are even legally allowed to indulge in sex (yes I know it goes on but we shouldn't encourage law breaking) it's not even as if the film is some sort of 'Stranger Danger' type of warning either.
Certainly a good grasp of biology with regards to kids changing to adults will help, but we shouldn't be telling them just how the actual mechanic work until say at least the entire class is fourteen and approaching the stage where they should really know. Not that I'd expect it to come as a surprise to a lot of fourteen year olds, it's amazing what you can find on the internet, however I still believe that kids should remain kids for as long as possible and if that means keeping them out of the hands of those who want to make them sexually aware from a very young age then I believe it's a price worth paying.
It may not be possible to go back (as yet) to an age of innocence, but attempts like this to sexualise our kids do not help at all.

The poison in our midst

Finally we get to see the justice in action when it comes to the grooming of underage girls by sexual predators, though if you read the BBC report, you'd never guess the man's race or religion save only that it's fairly obvious from the name.
BBC.

The jailed leader of a Rochdale sex ring has received a further term of 22 years for 30 child rape charges.
Shabir Ahmed, 59, of Oldham, was one of nine men convicted of sex offences against children at Liverpool Crown Court in May.
He was not named at the time because he faced further charges, but was jailed for 19 years.
Ahmed was convicted at Manchester Crown Court in June of raping and sexually abusing a girl for more than a decade.
His sentence will run concurrently with the earlier one.
Judge Mushtaq Khokhar was forced to have Ahmed removed from the dock before passing sentence because he was persistently interrupted by the defendant.
Before his ejection, Ahmed shouted: "It's all lies. It's all concocted by the police."

Whilst I believe the police are perfectly capable of fitting someone up, I somehow doubt these days that they'd try it with anyone not of a white persuasion, the politically, multiculturally clap trap that surrounds us these days will have made sure that this guy is bang to rights guilty (and probably overwhelmingly so) so long has this abuse been carried out in the Islamic communities of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent and ignored or tolerate by police and politicians in the name of 'diversity' and 'community cohesion'
It's a pity that his sentence will run concurrently though, it really ought to run serially as he's also facing a lot of other charges. Personally I wouldn't have a problem if he never saw the light of day again, just a pity we have to feed and house him really.
Nor despite the best efforts of the state, the judiciary and the MSM is this the end of the matter, much as they would wish it. More and more of these cases are coming to light (Oxford, Telford, Blackpool, Dewsbury etc) to give a lie to the fact that somehow or other these are isolated cases and that somehow or other the race/religion og the perpetrators isn't somehow a factor. After all if you're brought up in a community which treats its own women as second class citizens and sees all outsiders as either prey or irrelevant, then you'd see other women as easy meat to be used and abused as they see fit.
Sooner or later the lies and abuse will catch up with these communities, tolerance only goes so far.

Collective punishment

It's a favourite of those in authority. Can't be arsed to deal with a minor problem, opt for a blanket ban.
Telegraph.

A primary school has banned children from playing football at break-time during Euro 2012 to stop fights - and has asked them to play chess instead.
Pupils have been told kickabouts and all other ball games are off limits at playtime during the tournament.
Instead, staff at Hall Road Primary, in Orchard Park, Hull, hope pupils will skip and play with outdoor chess sets.
Deputy head teacher Kristina Frary said the ban was needed to prevent injuries and allow staff to get on with teaching.
She said: "Passions are running high, especially with the Euro 2012 football tournament. Potentially, that's why children are wound-up.
"We have had a sequence of fall-outs and they were all centred around football.
"It was only a small number of incidents - maybe half a dozen - but we have decided to have a break."

So instead of being prepared to deal with a half a dozen incidents, all the kids who want to play football have to suffer? Wouldn't it have just been easier to 'sin bin' the ones who can't control themselves and to let the rest enjoy the pleasure of kicking a ball about to let off steam?
I do wish the powers that be would just leave us alone, to see that in life as in sport there are winners and losers. To allow small disputes like these to be treated as a breach of the rules, rather than as an excuse for collective punishment.
Kids are competitive, kids fight, you punish the guilty, not the innocent.
What''s so bloody hard about that?

First name Mickey, surname Mouse

Plans are afoot to force mothers to name the father's of their children on the birth certificate. Though how they propose to make mothers tell the truth is another matter entirely.
Telegraph.

Fathers could be forced by law to be named on their baby’s birth certificate under plans being drawn up by ministers to boost their role in family life.
The controversial move is one of a range of options being considered by David Cameron, who is keen to help promote fathers’ feelings of responsibility for their infants.
At the moment, only the mother’s name must be officially registered. If there is no father’s name on the certificate, he will be described as “unknown”.
It is estimated that around 50,000 births are registered in Britain every year without the father’s name being recorded.
In an intervention to mark Fathers’ Day, coalition sources said enforcing the move by law was one of the options being studied, along with an alternative of tightening existing guidelines to “encourage” more fathers to sign birth certificates.

Now I'm all for fathers paying their way for their kids, however i can see a whole raft of problems coming from this proposed legislation including the main one of the mother not knowing who the father is, or simply lying in the case of possible infidelity. After all, that's what happened in the past with all those milkman kids.
Also disconcerting is the method they intend to make use of...

Sources said that the requirement for fathers to be named could be introduced using a law which was passed under Labour but never brought into effect.
The 2009 Welfare Reform Act contains a provision for requiring mothers to name fathers, threatening them with a £200 fine and seven days in prison for perjury if they gave a false answer.

Ah yes, how terribly apt that the coagulation should attempt an attack on the right to silence with a law introduced by the past masters of removing rights the Labour Party. Of course it will likely turn out that it's one rule for us and another rule for them...

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, did not sign the birth certificate when his son Daniel was born in 2009 – claiming he had been “too busy”. His duties at the time included attending a climate change summit in Copenhagen as energy secretary.

Climate change instead of proudly proclaiming you're the father of your son. Yes, that's Labour to the core as well.
This is simply another attack on our ancient rights by the powers that be. Instead of reducing the size of government, they seek to reduce their income by removing our rights.

It's a start

Back in January I posted that you wouldn't read about a certain trial in the MSM. At the time the judge had made it clear that any attempt by the MSM or indeed as it turned out blogs and debating boards to even mention the trial or defendants would bring down the wrath of the law via a contempt of court summons.
Various blogs immediately pulled the content and stringent rules prevented any mention in a lot of debate boards too. Still, the story was too big to be hidden and eventually the Daily Mail broke cover (they at least could afford to test the water) and it was game on, so to speak as a plethora of other linked cases hit the news at pretty much the same time, all with the same modus operandi and all concerning the grooming of underage girls be members of a certain religion of peace from the same ethnic national group.
Well the trial is over though still not all the details have emerged.
BBC.

Nine men who ran a child sexual exploitation ring in Greater Manchester have been jailed.
The men from Rochdale and Oldham, who exploited girls as young as 13 were given sentences ranging from four to 19 years.
They were found guilty of offences including rape and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.
Liverpool Crown Court heard the group plied five victims with drink and drugs and "passed them around" for sex.
The girls were abused at two takeaway restaurants in the Heywood area of Rochdale by the men aged between 24 and 59. The takeaways are now under new management.
The 59-year-old ringleader, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was also convicted of two rapes, aiding and abetting rape, sexual assault and trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. He was sentenced to 19 years in prison.
The eight other men are:

• Kabeer Hassan, 25, of Lacrosse Avenue, Oldham, was sentenced to nine years for rape and three years, concurrently, for the conspiracy conviction.
• Abdul Aziz, 41, of Armstrong Hurst Close, Rochdale, also convicted of trafficking for sexual exploitation, received a nine year sentence.
• Abdul Rauf, 43, of Darley Road and Adil Khan, 42, of Oswald Street, both of Rochdale and also convicted of trafficking a child within the UK for sexual exploitation, received six and eight years respectively.
• Mohammed Sajid, 35, of Jephys Street, Rochdale, also convicted of one count of rape, sexual activity with a girl under 16 and trafficking for sexual exploitation, was jailed for 12 years.
• Mohammed Amin, 45, of Falinge Road, Falinge, also convicted of sexual assault, received a five-year jail term.
• Hamid Safi, 22, of Tweedale Street, Rochdale, also convicted of trafficking girls for the purposes of sexual exploitation, has been sentenced to four years. He will be deported to Afghanistan at the end of his sentence.
• Abdul Qayyum, 44, of Ramsay Street, Rochdale, was jailed for five years.

Two of the defendants on trial were acquitted.

The BBC are as ever coy about the ethnicity of the men along with the link via religion too, though the names and the pictures in the article are a dead giveaway, however they are Muslims of Pakistani origin simply following their cultural mores which is to treat their own women in general as second class citizens and all other women as prey. The Judge did say this, however the BBC conveniently blanked this out...
Telegraph.

Judge Clifton told them: "All of you treated (the victims) as though they were worthless and beyond respect."
"One of the factors leading to that was the fact that they were not part of your community or religion.
"Some of you, when arrested, said it was triggered by race.
"That is nonsense. What triggered this prosecution was your lust and greed."

Telegraph.

Martin Narey, former chief executive of children's charity Barnardo's, said there was "troubling evidence" that Asians were "overwhelmingly represented" in prosecutions for street grooming and trafficking of girls in towns such as Derby, Leeds, Blackpool, Blackburn, Oldham and Rochdale.

For Asians of course read Muslims of Pakistani origin. As again the powers that be attempt to hide the obvious.
I'd still like to know why the ringleader cannot be named especially as he's already branded the judge and jury ‘racist’ and was eventually barred from returning to court.
Naturally the race industry is out in force today saying we shouldn't brand a whole community for the actions of these men. However trials in Birmingham, Telford and Oxford have already shown that when it comes to the underage grooming of girls, there's only one group involved, male Muslims of Pakistani origin.
Says it all really.

Well it finally broke

Despite a judicial order silencing the MSM and blogs, despite the claims it might prejudice the trial and give grounds for appeal, despite the media free for all on the Lawrence trial being an example of the hypocrisy involved, the Daily Mail finally got around to telling us about the trial of the alleged Rochdale paedophiles in Liverpool.
Mail.

A group of 11 Asian men plied girls as young as 13 with drink and drugs so they could use them for sex 'several times a day', a court heard today.
The five girls, who were aged between 13 and 15 when the alleged abuse began, were passed around by the men 'who acted together to sexually exploit the girls', a trial at Liverpool Crown Court was told.
The offences are said to have happened in and around Rochdale, Greater Manchester, in 2008 and 2009. All the girls were from broken homes and one was in care.
Liverpool Crown Court heard that some of the girls were raped and physically assaulted and some were forced to have sex with 'several men in a day, several times a week'.
Opening the case, prosecutor Rachel Smith said: 'Some of you may find what you are about to hear distressing. The events and circumstances described by the girls are at best saddening and at worst shocking in places.
'No child should be exploited as these girls say they were.'
Miss Smith said the girls were given alcohol, food and money in return for sex but that there were times when violence was used.
'There were also occasions on which one or more of the girls were so incapacitated by alcohol and/or drugs that they were incapable of having any control over whether or with whom they had sexual intercourse,' she said.
The court was told that some of the defendants paid the girls and took payments from other men to whom they supplied the girls for sex.
Kabeer Hassan, 24, Abdul Aziz, 41, Abdul Rauf, 43, Mohammed Sajid, 35, Adil Khan, 42, Abdul Qayyum, 43, Mohammed Amin, 44, Qamar Shahzad, 29, Liaquat Shah, 41, and Hamid Safi, 22, are on trial at Liverpool Crown Court charged with conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children under the age of 16.
They have all pleaded not guilty along with a 59-year-old man who cannot be named for legal reasons.

 Of course the usual "Asian" label is used to disguise the fact that the men are Muslims of Pakistani extraction. No self respecting Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Buddhist or Hindu or any other country or religion in Asia actually does this except for those who hold Islam to be their main religion.
Yet still the state tried to gag the media and blogs through a contempt of court decree, though you can be assured patriot groups were protesting outside the courts against those alleged to have destroyed our childrens lives. Yet despite the media frenzy that usually occurs when groups like the EDL protest, you'd never know they were there, though the UAF made its usual appearance to stand in support of the accused paedophiles.
Still, finally it's out in the open, though this blog and others did mention it back in January. Though many were silenced by the contempt order, still at least the Daily Mail can probably take the heat if any is now forthcoming.
Seems the BBC have broke it too, still no mention of the M or I words though

Unintended consequences

The Criminal Records Bureau, brought by the previous government and tightened up after the Soham murders (as they were unlikely to have caught Huntley) is one of those weird areas which seemed like a good idea at the time, but however is now an area in which local councils have latched onto to check anyone who might come into contact with children. Not just unsupervised, but anyone, anywhere who just might come into contact.
Telegraph.

Burger sellers, tree surgeons and lift engineers are being forced to have “unnecessary” criminal record checks despite new laws to stop invasive vetting, according to a new report.
The Manifesto Club, campaign group against over-regulation, will today claim the Government’s promise to scale back vetting to “common sense levels” is not working.
It has found local councils continued to request vetting for thousands of people who rarely come into contact with children in a “frenzy" of checking by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) last year.
Local authorities are only meant to vet those who work unsupervised with children, but the report found beach cleaners, park rangers, data entry clerks and reception staff are still routinely being checked in some areas.
Some councils require any worker who enters a place of education, even during the holidays, to have checks.
This means lift repairmen, asbestos monitors, solar panel installers and sewage engineers have all been vetted before they can work on school sites.

The CRB also highlights any criminal offences, even those which have lapsed under the Rehabilitation of Offenders act in which people do not have to declare a criminal conviction if they are not asked, or have to declare it in most cases after 10 years anyway. So it's often been used to ferret out the criminal past of people who would be no danger whatsoever to children, but who have offended in the past and had them removed or prevented from doing their jobs, after all in most cases an act committed say for high jinks whilst drunk whilst embarrassing should not prevent you from eventually getting on with your life, yet if you know a prospective employer will ask for a CRB check, you might as well simply not bother applying.
You'd think that only a criminal record of violence or abuse of children would be highlighted, but you'd be wrong, even the standard disclosure which is primarily for positions involving regular contact with children or vulnerable adults, but can also be used for some other professions of high responsibility (for example, accountancy). Standard Disclosures reveal details of any convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings the applicant has received, regardless of length of time since the incidents; together with details of whether that person is banned from working with children or vulnerable adults (if these details have been requested). That's just the standard one, so you can see why the voluntary sectors are struggling a bit, one mistake on your part involving the law, and you might as well not bother trying.
Yes, we need a system to keep our kids safe from predators, but only from predators. Anything else is simply the business of the person applying for a job and doing their best to put the past behind them.

Lessons no doubt will be learned...

I've occasionally had a go at social workers in the past for not spotting things, though I do accept that current regulations and workload makes for an environment where mistakes can and do happen, that's not to excuse gross misconduct such as in the case of Sharon Shoesmith and various others who have let children down where they knew there was a problem and did nothing.
Still you'd think that after the Baby P case, social services would be quicker to act, of course as ever, you'd be wrong
Daily Mail.

The parents of a newborn baby left with horrific injuries and fractures all over her body walked free from court today, despite admitting child cruelty charges.
The unnamed infant was just 23 days old when doctors discovered she had suffered multiple breaks to her legs, knees, ribs, right wrist and right hip.
MRI scans showed the baby girl had also sustained a skull haemorrhage and trauma to her brain tissue.
But her parents were spared jail at Bristol Crown Court today, despite pleading guilty to child cruelty on the basis of neglect - because a judge blamed social services for the ordeal.
The court heard that a social worker had warned her bosses that the couple were incapable of caring for their child, but her fears were ignored.
Judge David Ticehurst sentenced the youngster’s father and mother to two-year community orders each, last December.

I'm not sure what the judge was taking when he didn't lock the couple up and throw away the key, though to my mind forcible sterilisation might just have been an option too, though sadly that's apparently against the rules too. But once again a social services dept was warned by one of their own and did nothing and a child suffered. Yes I know that we often scream out against social services and family courts for being over zealous, but that's often enough because they have acted in secret without the parents being represented by solicitors and the evidence considered from an opposing point of view. In this case there was certainly enough warning to allow the creaking mechanism of social services to lurch into action and at least put the child into care pending a full investigation.
As ever, they didn't, expect the usual excuses and platitudes...

A spokesman said today: 'This is a terrible case where a three-week-old baby suffered significant injuries while in the care of her parents.
'This area of social work is an extremely challenging one, where complicated individual circumstances have to be considered when making any judgement about parenting.'We have already carried out a full review of our procedures in light of this case.'

Oops too late, still I'm sure lessons will be learned...

Not.

Checks and balances

Before governments became so obsessed by what we think and do and all the unnecessary checks that the busybodies put into the systemwhen women who'd had a baby wanted to go back into the jobs market they could usually find a minder, often enough a family member, but occasionally a neighbour, essentially someone they trusted. Sometimes it cost them a few quid, but the whole point of doing it was so that yes they could work, but yes at the end of the day they had something to show for working. Even the registered childminders for all they weren't cheap, were still affordable, at least until health and safety regulations, followed by the now mandatory CRB checks came into force. The end result has of course been inevitable...
Express.

THE soaring cost of childcare forced 32,000 working mothers to quit their jobs in the past year, a study revealed yesterday.

Women working part-time and earning on average £8,557 are £98 worse off at the end of the month if they have to pay nursery charges.

Research by insurers Aviva found that 32,000 mothers left work to look after their children while their husbands become the sole earners.

The study also found that those in full-time work, earning an average of £17,513, have just £120 left over after paying for childcare, which can cost around £385 per month.

For children under two this soars to £729 a month.

Yep, if you can't find family or friends, you're buggered as the price you pay now goes way above what you earn if you're in the low paid sector/minimum wage area of the market. It means even if you want to work you're better off on benefits looking after your kids. Of course if you work you lose other housing and income support benefits too such is the system that has been foisted upon us.
The governments insistence on Criminal Record Bureau checks on anyone who comes into contact with kids has pushed the costs up as this cost is now factored into any payments working mums shell out, plus if you have a high turnover of staff, each new member needs a check, whether they were approved at their old place of work or not.

What the end result of this will be I do not know, it may be that more stay at home mums means better educated and behaved kids, it might even lead to the regeneration of our society back into a self help one. I doubt that was the original intention of the government though, it was all purely another attempt to dip their hands into our pockets. But as ever in these things, they've pushed it too far and some unintended circumstances has kicked in. They're losing workers in the jobs market, but kids are seeing more of their mums.
Might be a light at the end of the tunnel after all, only time will tell.