Grooming latest

Episodes of this nature always requires 'scapegoats' and 'heroes' who are prepared to stand up and be counted before the 'problem' can be brought into the public forum for rational discussion. The lady in question has been pilloried for the sake of political expediency. She is almost exactly correct in her statements and written extracts whilst forgetting to add the 'sexual' and financial aspects that help drive these clandestine crimes to proliferate almost with impunity - until just recently. Like the Cyril Smith era of paedophilia (and the hundreds that got away with it) somebody somewhere eventually gets listened to and somebody else takes up the mantel of retribution and exposure and 'society' wakes up from its usual somnolent posture and starts to demand action. These groomers have been around in larger and larger numbers for well over 30 years. I can quote you action for action of young Pakistani's (albeit in smaller numbers) from the 1970's, before I left Rochdale, so believe me when I tell you it's nothing new (only then there were white lads involved as well). Care home boys and girls have always been targeted as 'easy meat'. T'is the way of the world. The weakest go to the wall - and nobody cares. It's unimportant in the greater and wider scope of things.

It's a long episode, more than 30 years.

Sarah Champion may be correct in what she says, but, some truth and facts don't seem acceptable or relevant on the agenda of politics. There are other things to consider.

Mr. Blair explained in his recent radio 4 interview, that he had no idea about Iraq as a country before attacking it, and was completely surprised by the events that followed. Our politicians seem to have, or need, very little knowledge about other countries and cultures.

It's actually longer than 30 years. I write in one of my books (Ower Dabbling - I think) of an episode of Pakistani lads and two white girls which took place in around 1964 in which I was involved. The girls were over 16 and thus not classed as acts of paedophilia. Booze and drugs were involved and money was exchanged. The Pakistani's (aged around 20 -30) has targeted the girls knowing they were of loose morals and easy 'meat'. I would imagine that the numbers grew as the 'lads' told their 'mates' until the 'ring' became quite a large one. It was eventually stopped by the girl's neighbours who reported the large numbers of Pakistani men visiting the house on the 'council estate' to the police. From that - - - over the decades it has been 'honed' to perfection and secreted away amongst the Pakistani fraternity and their 'own' premises - which makes it harder to 'spot' to the indigenous white population. But to say - it's a new phenomena is incorrect but no doubt suits the 'powers that be'.
As for politicians being 'in the know' - that's a joke. Few if any live in amongst the real world or have had proper jobs or had to live amongst the dross of our humanity. Few if any have any real knowledge of our own country let alone anywhere else. Blair -as a matter of course - was 'warned' by people in the 'know' of the dangers of invasion and its possible aftermath and in his arrogant conceit choose to ignore the warnings. THAT if anything else was the real crime. No war should ever be fought to win if one cannot win the peace thereafter. Lessons could easily have been learned from the Second World War and the efforts that went into planning the peace (from 1942 onwards). There was and is no excuse for 'bad planning' in such vital enterprises and even less excuse for arrogant disregard. Blair's legacy of arrogance (and Bush's) has served the world with 50 years of rampant cruelty, bestiality and human obscenity which could have been so easily avoided. Trouble is - once the milk has been spilt - it's all too late.

Tony Blair. Hmmm.

The world has changed so much since the 60's, and the grooming business has morphed with it, into what it is today.  As a meeting point between cultures, the grooming gang business, with all the evils involved, is entirely destructive.

Those relying on political correctness to suppress information, thinking investigation of grooming gangs would lead to political instabilities, make themselves part of the problem.

For those in power - starting at local council level - it's a trade off. Social unrest and stigmatisation as opposed to adaptation to new anti-social situations (i.e. cover-up). If it can be successfully swept under the carpet for a decade or two it let's the power-brokers off the hook with a 'not me gov' excuse. Alternatively it's a shedding of files and the eye's of the blind and a 'never heard of it gov' excuse. Either way it's the way of the 'State' protecting itself and remaining 'lily-white' so to speak.
Indeed they are a big part of the problem. Ostriching is never the province of the brave and courageous as opposed to that of the bureaucrats. The 'Establishment' just aren't made of that kind of human material and never were.

The 'pretend it isn't happening and it will go away' approach to the problems of life works for much of the time, but not really ideal, as these 'oh dear it isn't going away' sort of things do tend to accumulate.

It works in as much if you can hide the problem for long enough it won't affect you personally. To show your head above the parapet isn't the smartest thing to do - best leave it to some other 'mug'.

That's ok if you have a parapet, but they do get crumbly and need fixing every now and then.

In most cases where you have 'whistle-blowers' it's the poor whistle-blower who suffers the most. It's the old adage -nobody likes a grass - and unfortunately it exists today just the same as it has always done. Both Rotherham and Rochdale 'exposures' and the women that 'stuck their necks out' have been vilified through their respective local councils and in both cases efforts made to malign them and their work. There is no real protection for people who want to 'out' criminal or bad practices - if you stick your head above the parapet the chances are you will get it chopped off. And therefore the dirty little secrets proliferate and fester without proper exposure. The 'State' must survive and thus gives protection to all its 'servants' along the line unless one of them wants to take up self-destruction by way of 'honesty' whereupon the 'State' will ensure (depending upon the severity of the need for secrecy) that person disappears or suffers the consequences of disloyalty by fair means of foul.

Yes, the group response to 'whistle blowing' on problems, or other criticisms of group activities or 'norms' by 'pecking' at the 'offender' seems to be an automatic social response. Perhaps an evolutionary social reflex developed when 'cavemen' formed hunting groups.

Indeed. But whilst 'grouping' gave a sense of security it also fostered 'warring' as group began to distrust group and sought to remove the perceived threat or covert their possessions. The human animal cannot be trusted for he is in essence a 'beast' of the worst order. One who betrays the group or attempts to injure another group (by blowing a whistle) is considered untrustworthy regardless of the moralities involved and therefore must be 'outlawed' for the groups safety as the collective security is thus perceived to be at constant threat from such 'saintly' individuals. And you wonder why or how these 'delicate' situations are allowed to fester for decades before anything is done.

Real-time brain scans, show many functions happen without concious effort or awareness.
How a group of human brains interact isn't so easy to document, but much of the decision making and actions of a group may be similarly automatic.
Some individuals instinctively tune in to the processes of group mentality, and can direct the group, including themselves, to adopt attitudes, opinions, and narrative, perhaps without even being aware they are doing it.
How exactly this is done is a mystery, but malicious gossip seems to be used to either force an individual to conform to group-think, or be excluded.
https://rochdaletalk.forumotion.co.uk/t976-grind-them-down-wear-them-down-and-get-them-to-believe-they-shouldn-t-be


p.s. Science can explain many of the wunders of the universe, but, when it comes to understanding and explaining human behaviour, especially of the more problematic and destructive kind, science seems a bit flakey.

The sub-concious is far more active throughout than the 'concious' - er - yes - otherwise we would die before we lived. Thus the 'con artists' prey upon this well known fact to inculcate all others around him to enable their own 'ends' as they lay out across their 'scheme' to embed their sequence of 'ploys' in order to capitalise on all the rest. Group think - is certainly along those lines. Par example - mass hysteria -. But as regards the principle point, i.e. grooming gangs and whistle blowers and the like I would suggest a much more logical reasoning - fear and personal security - as the motives for inaction as has been seen over the past decades. This will go on until the authorities can be seen to be more robust in their determination to protect and even encourage whistle-blowing as something less than a threat to their own personal securities. If this was what you were getting at.

'Whistleblowers' and, in the case of grooming, victims, parents, social workers and others protesting against child abuse, are not only ignored but vilified, sacked, and generally punished by the larger group or organisation(s) for speaking up.
It seems odd that inbuilt social 'exclusion' reflexes of groups work to make problems worse rather than better. Maybe a problematic quirk of evolutionary history, like appendixes. Different societies have different ways of excluding those who threaten the status quo, the method, as above, is probably quite mild by comparison.

'You don't want the truth because you cannot handle the truth', would I suggest answer your confusion. Yes. It's better to know the truth but the ongoing consequences and 'fall-out' can be worse than the lie and therefore most consider the pain not to be worth the effort. Whistle-blowers usurp that 'truth' by putting it all out there and making you handle it. That angers those who only want a quiet life - always and providing it is not happening to them.