Grooming latest

The money might be better used on a programme of re-education in the mosques and re-educating the Imams that the law in this country states quite categorically that sex with children under 16 is a 'crime' and all incidents of such behaviour will carry a prison sentence and addition to the sex crime register and that such behaviours only put at risk the rest of the Muslim community from the hot-heads amongst the indigenous population. It's in their own interests to assimilate as the world moves towards a more populist nationalist condition. But what do I know.

Fast, decisive deportations would send the educational message you describe.

Of course, the safety and well being of the deportee has to be investigated, but quickly, not dragging on for years in an expensive legal quagmire that sends all the wrong signals.

We can only deport the criminal - not his family. Depriving the family of one of its own is against one's human rights therefore if a family man deportation isn't on the cards - unless the family are prepared to waive their human rights - which of course the won't.

Either deportation is a functioning part of the UK legal system, or isn't. We get the impression harmless people are deported, dangerous people are not. If the deportation system fails, undermining public safety and confidence, reform or replace it with something else, but what, longer prison sentences?

Doubtful whether longer sentences here for foreign nationals are more humane or useful than deportation to a safe country.

The point about education in mosques is relevant, but may be counter-productive, they are unlikely to accept outside opinion preached at them.

The "impression" and the actuality rarely match...

Indeed -very much like perception and actuality. In fact a bit like 'life' really when you come to think of it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/04/senior-judge-slams-lawyers-obstructing-rochdale-child-sex-grooming/

This sort of news report could be just making things up, trying, for some reason, to convince us that the deportation system is weak and being abused. To distinguish such impressions or realities from perceptions, we can only decide for ourselves.

As regards the law it's all about 'money'. Has nothing to do with justice. None of them care the outcome only that the longer they 'play' the more the 'pay'. If the law isn't working - change it.

"made a mockery of our justice system.”
https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/108492/lawyers-representing-rochdale-grooming-gang-to-be-investigated

The 'law' is always there to be mocked. As it is 'an ass' then it will be ridiculed. These people to which you allude are working within the law, otherwise they would be arrested and charge with an offence'. You may blame them for 'fat-catting' if you so wish but not for 'utilising' the law. Is it right? Of course not. But then neither are a million other things. That's life.

Taking the Mickey is all well and good, but, there is not an infinite supply of Mikey.

Where governments and the 'law' are concerned the 'Mickey' is like the universe - endless. Legislation never keeps up with the 'needs' of the day as all governments act reactively. T'is as ever been so - - - -!

Better late than never. It seems, from the Newcastle cases, that facts are being faced, things said and questions asked that would not have been possible a few years ago. Political correctness didn't make reality go away, but did effectively paralyse social workers, police and law for many years.

The advent of the liberal snowflake across the 90's and onward was bound to eventually show the nonsense of trying to 'evolve' too quickly. The fall-out will be dire. Man is far too arrogant to ever admit he's wrong and the consequences of such become apparent with time. A problem shoved under the carpet from the 70's onwards in order to keep 'order' itself and practised by consecutive governments has at last show itself for what it was - cowardice. But we are speaking here of politicians and faceless mandarins -. What else can one expect? The Asian communities will now have to get to grips with what is essentially a 'Moslem community' problem and culturally Pakistani in order to avoid the back-lash should they continue to ignore it. We shall see. People have to suffer for anything positive to be done - only in this case the consequences could be extremely dire.

Political correctness has proved very effective in changing society. Perhaps in a similar way that Freudian psychology changed society last century. Both feature words, and subconcious links attached to them.

If it's true that P.C. has prevented and delayed belief, investigation and prosecution, allowing the grooming industry to thrive, then P.C. has proved not just irritating, also very damaging.

The sentences of the Newcastle gang didn't classify their crimes as having any racist aspect, causing something of an outcry. Something of a standoff there between common sense and political correctness, which do you prefer?

The grooming gangs work on 'sexual predation' and 'sexual gratification' and are purely for sexual purposes and profit. Racism isn't involved. If they couldn't find the 'easiest' mark they would move on to the next 'easiest' until they found what satisfies their needs. It so happens that loose white girls of very low morality are available for the first choice - that will do nicely thank you says he -. Grooming gangs exist all over the world and always use the 'object' with the loosest morals (due usually to desperation) regardless of what colour or culture they belong to. In the case of British born Asians or otherwise it is easier on their own respective consciences, having been brought up in the belief that Caucasian girls morals are extremely loose and that they therefore have no 'honour', to indulge themselves in their respective predilections on girls of this 'kind'. But direct racism - certainly not for the most part.

Whether racism is "direct" or profound is a legal nicety. Considering the number of criminals involved, there will be a variety of types of racism, some of it "direct", some absorbed and embedded from childhood, profound. Grooming gangs are generally made up of extremely unpleasant criminal individuals, with many disgusting aspects to their characters, racism being just one of them.

One cannot discount racism and you are therefore correct in your analyse - but as before - the main purpose is one of a sexual gratification on a personal basis for the individual concerned. All else is purely additional however offensive or disgusting to the innocent observer.

Part of the story of the grooming scandal, and reason it has been allowed to continue to epidemic proportions, has been the inability of society to believe or 'process' what is happening. Failure of professionals to overcome 'cultural sensitivity' policy, and threats to their jobs. Failure of police to listen properly, understand or take it seriously, to develop policies to deal with new realities. Failure of the law courts to even consider dealing with the problem. All that has been changed or is changing.

Failure to comprehend the racism integral to this crime is ongoing. No 'groomers' have yet been charged with racism as aggravating factor, and have been given inadequate sentences. This next step of comprehending and dealing with the racism of the UK 'grooming' business is a matter of public debate at the moment.

Was the european slave trade shipping africans to work on plantations in the Americas racist? Or just an econonomic matter and motive, seems a comparable question.

Purely money. Quite a number were taken by their own kind and then sold to the slave-traders of mainly European extraction to be shipped abroad. They preyed on the weakest which just happened to be the African whom they considered inferior to begin with. That last snippet is of course racial and where the element of racism comes in. But the main reasoning was huge profits to their own personal pockets. So - given such one could say 95% economics 5% racial and therefore the sanctions for such 'trading' should be reflected in an additional 5% time tariff being added on to sentencing for that particular criminal obscenity -.

Europeans at that time, did consider Africans to be, as you say, "inferior", sub-human actually. Without that deeply embedded racism, the transatlantic slave trade with it's cruelties and consequences would not have been possible.

The realities, statistics, and evidence of the grooming trials, plus statements by the groomers themselves, show the grooming business, with it's cruelties and contempt for human values would not be possible without similarly deeply-held racism.

Perhaps you are pointing out that groomers do not try to be racist. No need to try, the racism evident is so deeply embedded as to be their normality, just as it was for European slave traders dealing in black slaves centuries ago.

Our legal system has had great difficulty dealing with prosecution of groomers. Getting convictions at all has been seen as a great achievement. However, sentences have been far too light. Legal recognition of the actual racism, where it is involved, is useful, it may allow more realistic sentencing.

The 'real' problem isn't one of sentencing. The real problem is their appearance after serving the sentence back in those communities from which they originally came. Deportation cannot be best served as this would break up families or in the case of whole family deportation be both unjust and unlawful. It would perhaps be better practice to when sentencing state as a condition of release that the perpetrator of the crime be 'banned' from their previous community and not allowed back there at any time thereafter or within 100 miles or suffer a return to jail for an indeterminate time.
As for rehabilitation - that's a joke. The vast majority of these criminals are opportunist and therefore not mentally insane and consequently don't actually require rehabilitating. A few years in prison should teach them to be less stupid if future and go and 'pay' for sex if it's that important to them. As you see I have no problem with prostitution other than it would be better decriminalised and properly controlled.

Prostitution is only the start, in itself, comparatively, hardly a problem. Grooming gang networks have been able, over years, to multiply, thrive and diversify. To become much more of a threat to society. The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police said, "We have thrown the kitchen sink at this  .... used every technique available to us, covert and overt." They seem to understand the picture.

On racism within the grooming industry, culturally embedded racism is to be expected in criminals coming from racist cultures. To punish such a criminal for being racist does seem a bit odd. The law might do better to protect victims and communities with your recommended method of perpetrators being banned from geographical areas. The entire UK if possible.

One must remember that when dealing with these 'sorts' of 'crimes' that they are almost primarily of a 'sexual' nature. The term 'paedophile' is bandied around and tends to cloud the issue. Most of the girls in question are young teenagers bordering on 'womanhood' and are 'chosen' because of their fallibilities i.e. young, impressionable, malleable, something which their backgrounds lends itself to. The 'crime' is one of 'mental and physical abuse' i. e. the using of vulnerable people and thus leading to 'rape' as defined under our criminal law but not defined as such under Islamic law where I believe that girls as young as 12 can be defined as suitable for marriage and 14 for conception and child production. - - - Bottom line - - - do these men understand that under 16 years of age with or without consent in Britain is classed as rape? Probably. Does that detract when the lure of sexual gratification is involved? I somewhat doubt it. And I would suggest that whatever nationality was involved under the circumstances presented would have made no difference either. But going to sanctions - - Out of the UK would be deportation and grossly unfair upon wives and children involved. One must never set the children responsible to suffer for the sins of the father - and therefore another 'banning' of sorts must be the order of the day.

Labour M.P. Sarah Champion has resigned over an article she wrote about grooming gangs. Looks a reasonably factual article, maybe too emotive or not expressed in the right sort of language? Obviously discussion about grooming gangs is still a political 'hot potato'.