Beyond belief rotherham council!

[helloitsonly 10]

 

How can this actually be allowed? the law must be changed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435473/Rotherham-Asian-sex-gang-victim-pregnant-15-rapist-slams-council-custody-row.html

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Heads should roll over this debacle. What more can you say.

 

Angel1

[OneSon 10]

Absolutely disgusting. 

[K1Machine 10]

Its Rotherham council. Im not in the least bit surprised.

Having had dealings with these morons I can say hand on heart they tried every trick in the book to ruin my daughters life and almost succeeded too,

She has been left with emotional scars that she may never recover from yet these people seem to be almost unaccountable to anyone and are continuing to destroy childrens and their their families lives.

Best of luck to the young women. I think she is going to need it.

[Guest]

As often seems to be the case, the reporting of this has been rather sensationalist. The Daily Mail link provided states "A council was last night criticised as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘perverse’ after it offered a prison inmate access to a son he fathered by raping a teenage girl". 

 

Instead, what actually happened is that the individual in question was informed (as required by law) of their right to apply for access/involvement with the child. The individual has not, as reported, been given access to the child. Further down the page the article does go on to say that he in fact opted not to have any contact with the child. Whether or not the law should be changed is a separate issue, but the Council appear to have acted in accordance with the law as it stands. 

 

There is an article below that some of you may find an interesting read. 

 

http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/was-a-council-acting-perversely-over-its-decision-to-offer-a-jailed-rapist-a-chance-to-see-his-victims-child/

 

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Guest

[Guest busdriver1]

4 minutes ago, Sheffield87 said:

As often seems to be the case, the reporting of this has been rather sensationalist. The Daily Mail link provided states "A council was last night criticised as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘perverse’ after it offered a prison inmate access to a son he fathered by raping a teenage girl". 

 

Instead, what actually happened is that the individual in question was informed (as required by law) of their right to apply for access/involvement with the child. The individual has not, as reported, been given access to the child. Further down the page the article does go on to say that he in fact opted not to have any contact with the child. Whether or not the law should be changed is a separate issue, but the Council appear to have acted in accordance with the law as it stands. 

 

There is an article below that some of you may find an interesting read. 

 

http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/was-a-council-acting-perversely-over-its-decision-to-offer-a-jailed-rapist-a-chance-to-see-his-victims-child/

 

 

You have spoilt a good rant with FACTS please do not do so. It is not in the spirit of this forum.

[*Wallace* 333]

^^^^ What he said.

[Guest makapaka]

24 minutes ago, Sheffield87 said:

As often seems to be the case, the reporting of this has been rather sensationalist. The Daily Mail link provided states "A council was last night criticised as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘perverse’ after it offered a prison inmate access to a son he fathered by raping a teenage girl". 

 

Instead, what actually happened is that the individual in question was informed (as required by law) of their right to apply for access/involvement with the child. The individual has not, as reported, been given access to the child. Further down the page the article does go on to say that he in fact opted not to have any contact with the child. Whether or not the law should be changed is a separate issue, but the Council appear to have acted in accordance with the law as it stands. 

 

There is an article below that some of you may find an interesting read. 

 

http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/was-a-council-acting-perversely-over-its-decision-to-offer-a-jailed-rapist-a-chance-to-see-his-victims-child/

 

 

Excellent post.

 

people need to know the facts.

[helloitsonly 10]

1 hour ago, Sheffield87 said:

As often seems to be the case, the reporting of this has been rather sensationalist. The Daily Mail link provided states "A council was last night criticised as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘perverse’ after it offered a prison inmate access to a son he fathered by raping a teenage girl". 

 

Instead, what actually happened is that the individual in question was informed (as required by law) of their right to apply for access/involvement with the child. The individual has not, as reported, been given access to the child. Further down the page the article does go on to say that he in fact opted not to have any contact with the child. Whether or not the law should be changed is a separate issue, but the Council appear to have acted in accordance with the law as it stands. 

 

There is an article below that some of you may find an interesting read. 

 

http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/was-a-council-acting-perversely-over-its-decision-to-offer-a-jailed-rapist-a-chance-to-see-his-victims-child/

 

i think most would agree that the right to even " apply" for access is abhorrent? no doubt more EU law ECHR?

 

[truman 10]

5 minutes ago, helloitsonly said:

i think most would agree that the right to even " apply" for access is abhorrent? no doubt more EU law ECHR?

Well accoring to the Telegraph "We do understand that the legal requirements can cause upset to those involved and so we welcome a debate around this issue, which applies across England and Wales"

 

So if it only applies to England and Wales I can't see it being an EU thing..unless Scotland has some sort of exception clause..

[helloitsonly 10]

2 minutes ago, truman said:

Well accoring to the Telegraph "We do understand that the legal requirements can cause upset to those involved and so we welcome a debate around this issue, which applies across England and Wales"

 

So if it only applies to England and Wales I can't see it being an EU thing..unless Scotland has some sort of exception clause..

no idea but i will put money on it being something to do with ECHR?

[truman 10]

1 minute ago, helloitsonly said:

no idea but i will put money on it being something to do with ECHR?

It may be but if Scotland have opted out then it's the Westminster Government you need to be looking at...