Badlittlepup

I can't tell what his ethnicity is from that picture. Could be mixed race, could be Pakistani, could even be Somali. If the victim couldn't say with confidence what ethnicity he was surely it would be better just to put the picture out and let it speak for itself? If they named an ethnicity and it was wrong it might stop him being caught. There was a rape in a similar place a couple of years ago, but that guy's in prison now.

I avoid getting a cab whenever possible. Won't use City at all because one of their cab drivers nicked a phone off me. I needed to go into my husband to get the money for the fare and he refused to let me go and locked the doors. I didn't have any money so didn't know what to do and he said, 'Well give me your phone so I know you're going to come back'. Didn't feel like I had any choice so I gave him the phone, he promptly drove off with the phone and City didn't want to know. I would say I've had unwanted sexual advances or the cab driver trying to chat me up about 1 in 5 times I've got in a taxi and on one or two occasions it's turned nasty when I've made it clear I'm not interested. Bear in mind I'm in my 30s and wearing a wedding ring it must be pretty unpleasant for young girls. Also I've noticed fairly frequently you get drivers who have absolutely no idea where even the simplest destinations in Sheffield are and speak almost no English. I don't really believe that they are the licence holders and suspect that sometimes the licence holders let their cabs out to unlicenced drivers when they're not on the road. I've also seen a hell of a lot of dangerous driving. I suspect that the council is fully aware of these problems, but I think they probably ignore them for the same reasons they ignored the grooming scandals, which incidentally have often involved cab drivers. ---------- Post added 11-11-2014 at 20:16 ---------- I would never let a child of mine use a cab. They're nowhere near old enough yet but when they're old enough to go out I intend to go out whatever the time at night and collect them. Of course I will wait round the corner so their mate's don't see me. ---------- Post added 11-11-2014 at 20:24 ---------- What's happening in that video? It's hard to follow.

Well considering it's already been reported in the press it's one I feel confident to make. But unlike some people I actually bother reading and informing myself about things before commenting on here.

Yep. He has admitted himself that he stood at the urging of David Blunkett who's deputy he was at Sheffield Council. He is very, very much linked to people who were in government when Rotherham was allowed to happen. Believe me, this man will be most concerned with continuing the cover up and minimizing the crimes. ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 19:41 ---------- Incidentally he has already mislead the electorate. His website trumpted his role of on the Youth Crime Board but completely failed to mention that he was Blunkett's deputy and the deputy leader of Sheffield Council, another council which has questions to answer about's it's handling of the affair.

'England First' don't exist as a political party and haven't for a long time. You probably mean 'English Democratics' and are mixing them up with 'Britain First'. Not the same people.

There's a report in the Star today which says 75% of crimes are going unsolved. I have a feeling that many of the 'cleared up' crimes will be those reported by companies, or committed against companies, rather than the man on the street. The police have effectively stopped investigating most crimes committed against ordinary people. Regarding 'the highest level': I suspect people quite high up in the last Labour government may have been aware of this problem and sanctioned the cover up. It chimes too closely with the aims of that government not to have their fingerprints all over it.

Yeah, cos Ireland's tax and economic system is working out rilly well at the moment right?

Hi Jas Don't know anything about taxi drivers. But would it be possible for you to find a childminder who does a pick up from his school who would be able to take him? If you could collect him from there them perhaps you could go home in a taxi together which might be a bit safer. I know the council offer help trying to find a suitable childminder with the necessary hours/pick up location so it might be worth giving the council a ring as they might be able to help you find someone who would suit or give you recommendations about the travel arrangements. Also, would it be worth asking around at school to see if any other parents travel the same route? If you offer them some petrol money then they might be prepared to take your child to the child minders in the evening.

Sorry Mr Bloom, I thought you were referring the entire case rather than counselling. Counselling would normally be under the remit of the NHS, not the Council. And mental health services in general are terrible. It's sad but not surprising.

I'm totally with the school. They have a ban on jewellery and that includes all types of brooches which is what these are. It's very sad that there relative is so unwell and having been through the same thing at the same age I feel desperately sad for them and I do understand that the family might feel angry and helpless at the moment, but I think they are directing their anger in the wrong direction. If one child is allowed to wear one charity item the school will be awash with charity jewellery. And it seems to be symptomatic of a lot of parents attitudes to schooling these days. My child hasn't turned up/done their homework/worn the correct uniform/been at school on time/behaved themselves in class. But their kids are always the special one who has some kind of special circumstances that mean they are the only one who shouldn't obey the rules. And they're brought up with this attitude. Make an excuse, you're the special one, you don't have to obey the rules. But when you have lots of parents telling their kids they're the special one who doesn't have to obey the rules you end up with a school half made up of 'special ones' you end up with chaos. I have to say, when I was in this situation I was allowed to take time out from class and go to the library if I was feeling upset with permission from the teacher. But I wasn't allowed (nor expected to be allowed) to break uniform rules.

Nope. Definitely Labour's fault. The entire area in South Yorkshire had Labour MPs, Labour councillors, a Labour police commissioner, the services which should have prevented this were overseen by Labour governments and councils. The first grooming trial was in 2010 and they stories have been progressively breaking since then. Or to put it another way: six months after Labour were removed from government. This is not a coincidence and the last Labour governments involvement with the cover up needs to be investigated thoroughly. Remember, this was happening nationwide, it wasn't one area, it was nationwide, and all the cases were ignored. I would be amazed if there was no collusion on a national level given that crimes were ignored nationwide.

I'm not a Labour voter anyway. And after the mess Labour have made in Sheffield, Rotherham - and I'm sure we will discover elsewhere too - I don't think they can be trusted with the post. I have other reasons for not wanting to vote for this guy though. Looking at his background, he was a vicar in leafy Walkley, he lives in a nice development with fabulous views, and he has been in a middle class professional career most of his life and a job that tends not to attract the worst elements of society unless you're in a tough inner city parish. I really don't think this man would have the first clue how crime or antisocial behaviour would affect someone up on Deerlands or in Manor. I just can't see him having the requisite knowledge of the darker side of life to have any idea what it's like. I think he is just another comfortable middle class Labourite who doesn't actually have any idea what life is like for the less well off. I also wonder about his religion in the job. Purely because Anglicanism in particular is very concerned with forgiveness, being non-judgemental, no censuring and giving second chances. All of these are very noble aims in the right place. But I'm not sure that the police service is one of them. Retribution is an important part of the justice system and I'm not sure how that would fit in with an Anglican mindset.

Exactly. And as another poster says this is exactly the arguments the police and social services used to ignore the abuse. That the girls were slags, that they were from bad families and the abuse was the result of bad parenting and bad behaviour. The abuse was committed by the abusers. The authorities failed to deal with it. The blame starts and ends in those two places. ---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 14:09 ---------- Still blaming the parents. Without anything to back it up.

As others have pointed out. You very much made a sweeping statement, you have attacked the people who were the victims of these crimes and now you are throwing your toys out of your pram because someone has stood up to you. I apologise if you find the words difficult to understand, I am also sorry you feel you need to attack the method of delivery because you are not capable of effectively responding to the message. ---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 12:24 ---------- It contradicts the left wings entire Raison d'etre though doesn't it? The left wings core support is people who vote for them because they always have done and don't know any better. They're still stuck in the logic of the 1980s where Labour was the party of the working class. Aside from them, most of the people who vote for Labour are middle class, university educated people. They subscribe to the credo that all white people are inherently powerful and oppress and exploit vulnerable brown people who are inherently powerless. The problem with this though, is that they assume all white people are like them. They assume all white people can afford to own their own houses in 'naice' areas where these sort of things don't happen, that they can move away if they are faced with problems, that they will work in senior jobs and have influence and be able to send their children to decent schools in predominantly white areas. But an awful lot of white people have absolutley no power at all. They are stuck in a council house they can't move from (I doubt very much whether any of these councils would have entertained moving away from groomers as a reason for a move - more likely to have dismissed it as 'racism' about daughters relationships. Often they may work in poorly paid jobs and have little savings to facilitate moving away or protecting their children. Their children may well be attending poor schools where most of the children have difficulties so support is hard to get. Plus, as we now know, the authorities who should have been assisting them were refusing to help. Look back at the Stephen Lawrence case. The police where racist in that case because they immediately assumed it was a crime related black on black crime and blamed his innocent friend Dwayne as they viewed all young black men as worthless criminals. That was one young man. And it still rumbles on today. Yet 1,400 girls in Rotherham and now we have been told 400 minimum young women in Sheffield have been victims of serious offences which were ignored by the police in a decision which may well have been heavily influenced by race - and the left wing says nothing. Protects it's own. Denies it's happened. Because their prime concern is to protect the primary narrative of their position on race - white people are always oppressors and non-white people are always powerless victims who need protection from authority which is inherently white. And they are determined to hush up anything which shows that white people can sometimes be the powerless victims of powerful non-white people. Because that just entirely explodes every single atom of their dogma - and their priority IS their dogma. Not the victims. ---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 12:26 ---------- The discussion is about the abuse. Your insistence that we focus on 'those who let the girls down' rather than those who committed the crimes is yet another tactic to deflect from those who committed the crime and point the blame at other people. You're just attempting to have that point shut down so you can merrily go on pointing the finger at other people without anybody else pointing out that the blame for these offences starts and ends with the people who committed them. As far as the cover up goes, that starts and ends with those who took part in a cover up. And that was the police. Not parents.

I didn't call you a liar. Obfuscator would probably be a better term. And yes I would call you that. I don't think you can genuinely complain that you think that makes you hard done by when you have just said that the parents of these children are to blame that other people abused them when they were let down by the very authorities who were supposed to protect them. Perhaps if you are going to be so oversensitive about what people say about you it might be wise not to make such sweeping allegations about the victims of crimes? And yes, you are obfuscating, like many other people on this forum who are determined to blame anybody and everybody apart from the people who committed the abuse. I've said it before and I'll say it again. What happened in Rotherham and Sheffield has been akin to what happened in the middle of last century in America where white people could dish out beatings and lynchings safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't be investigated because their colour provided them immunity from prosecution. People who are trying to divert the blame from the people who committed these crimes are akin to the people who colluded with those crimes and blamed those victims because they 'shouldn't have consorted with white women.'

I know one girl who was trafficked from Sheffield to Bradford and she came from a decent background. Victim blaming is a BIG problem in these cases. Even if you have poor parents that does not justify someone sexually abusing you. Nobody is responsible for these crimes apart from the people who committed them. I was thinking about this last and it occured to me we already have laws in place to deal with these kind of cases at the very start. We're just not enforcing them. I'm talking about the age of consent. The age of consent for boys and girls is 16. It is illegal to have sex with anyone under this age. But it's only enforced very rarely these days. I think we need to go back to enforcing this law. Girls under 16 go into hospital and have babies and nobody is prosecuted. I think it should be announced that the age of consent law is going to be more rigourously enforced in future and then follow that through, prosecute anybody over the age of 16 who has sex with an under 16. None of this 'oh we were in a relationship business', or 'she wanted to do it'. If any adult has sex with an under 16, that's it, prosecuted. It would get rid of most of the excuses that the police used to ignore these cases. The girls wanted to do it, they were in relationships. It would also mean that fingers of 'racism' couldn't be pointed if it was enforced across the board. ---------- Post added 23-10-2014 at 09:12 ---------- I like the way you say you are 'in no way...defending SYP'. Because we all know who you're defending really don't we? Your yet another of the crowd who are desperate to pin the blame on anybody who doesn't have a brown face.

The crimes are equally disgusting. But as far as I can see there is no evidence that the authorities colluded to cover up with his offences or that the victims in his case made complaints and were ignored. There's also the fact that most of the circumstances which allowed this man to abuse are no longer relevant. Since the Soham murders checks on those who work with children are much harsher and child safeguarding measures are in place which mean that a leader of a group of children would find it very hard to be alone with one child to allow the abuse to occur. He also appears to have committed these crimes alone, rather than as part of a group and there don't appear to be cultural issues in play. There's no suggestion people knew he was doing it but ignored it. The fact white people commit abuse doesn't mean that debate on Rotherham, the cover up and the reason behind it should be silenced.

I had a really unpleasant experience with the SWP in the early nineties. I was 12 and I had been in Manchester to see my dying grandfather. He died the following day, I was only 12. I lived in London at the time and me and my brother (15) had travelled back to London on our own leaving my Mum with her Dad. We had been given a little money for the journey but we were only children so only enough for a sandwich and a drink. At Victoria I went to queue up for a sandwich while my brother went for a burger. These SWP people turned up with banners about supporting the striking Liverpool dockers. One woman who was very fat, round and short with a bobble hat on, milk bottle glasses and hairs coming out of her nostrils basically came over and started threatening me and demanding I give her my sandwich money. She was literally twisting my arm, I was really scared. My brother came back and she carried on so I gave her some change - she literally threw it back at me, one of the coins went in my eye and quite hurt me. I was upset anyway and it was a horrible thing to happen. Always hated them since then.

Really sad to hear that White Rose, thoughts with your family.

I have seen some posts from teachers on Facebook which have been a bit worrying. They are all absolutely adamant that this has not happened and that anybody complaining about this is 'racist'. Now it's completely possible that's correct. But teachers shouldn't be making the assumption that it's untrue without investigating it thoroughly first and also waiting for the outcome of the police investigation. When will people learn after Rotherham? You can't just point fingers and scream racism when someone non-white British is accused of an offence without properly investigating what has happened.

But if they knew what it was why would they have done it? I'm wondering if it was either someone who attacked it because she was non-white or someone who objected to the arrest of the person who has been charged with this?

Has it been defaced randomly? Or does it appear to have been done deliberately because of what it represents?

It's the tip of the iceberg. I know of a girl (who is neither white nor Pakistani Muslim) who went missing once in 2009 aged 14 and twice in 2010 aged 15 went missing and was trafficked to Bradford for sex. No prosecutions made. A quick google of 'missing Sheffield girl found in Bradford shows how many girls it's happened to over a long period. Loads of hits, loads of different girls.

I noticed the usual suspects had disappeared. Probably gone off to the shisha cafe thread to confidently assure people that on the basis of skin colour they can announce that the noise is all within reasonable limits despite only having driven past once at 11am in the morning when it was shut. And anybody who says otherwise is racist. ---------- Post added 11-10-2014 at 09:10 ---------- Very well noticed..

Sorry Mr Bloom, I misunderstood your post.