What about the Family Guy character 'Mort', a Jewish stereotype who is obsessed with money and the butt of many 'stingy' and 'money-grabbing' jokes. Is this character offensive or a mere jibe at the stereotype's expense?

Heh, expense...

Personally bit bored of people being offended for minor things like Jews love money, they also like murdering Palestinian children, yet, don't seem to be as offended?

While we're on the subject of Jews...Judaism is a religion and people treat jews like a race(obviously because Israel is the only Jewish state).
Is insulting them bigotry or racism?
Seeing as Palestinians can be lumped in the semite group, are Jews anti semitic?

The latest growth-industry is professional grief whores and people who make it their business to 'take offence'.

Its still a great improvement from the pre-1976 days when those who bemoan "political correctness" and "professional grief whores" were free in law to call anyone, any race or any minority whatever the hell they liked, and overtly discriminate against them with impunity - anyone younger than 40 will simply not comprehend what a more liberal approach to human rights can bring - when you take a phone call from a client (as I did one day) asking for you to remove an electrician from their workplace and replace him with one who wasn't black (they didn't use the word "black" though) THEN you will understand better.

It is a vast improvement but it is far from perfect, perhaps the balance has swung too far. The case in Rotherham is pertinent here, kids suffered because police were 'allegedly' afraid to intervene because of the fear of being seen as racists. Surely the protection of vulnerable children has a higher ranking in society than a perception of racism?

From what I've read about Rotherham, it sounds like there were problems with how the Local Authority acted with too much political correctness for want of a better expression. However, the police should have investigated crimes a lot more objectively than they did. I don't know where the blame lies, but the police as a whole seem to have too cosy relationships with a lot of establishments.

Political correctness went mad about 10 years ago, it's currently reaching the certified insane status.

I'm far from PC but I know when and where to tone it down.

But, the situation is one of very many where, if "something had been done" at the time, before offences were committed, with the justification that "we are doing x, y and z to prevent young girls from being groomed etc", there would self-evidently never be any proof that they had saved a single person from anything. The criticism aimed at the authorities then would be that their actions were unnecessary, as the problem was imaginary, or at best, grossly disproportionate.

This btw is in no way apologist stuff for those authorities, but pointing out that their job is impossible, and so they have to do it and take the flak, since if no child is ever abused, they will still not be able to show that the reason is the "preventative" steps they took.

The only reason it is easier to "do something" now is because eventually gangs of men have been exposed, prosecuted and convicted and so the early victims have basically paid the price for becoming the justification for subsequent action, as nobody can any longer say "it never happens".

...and of course in the current economic situation a council department who cannot show tangible evidence that they do something or produce something is the sort of department primed up for budget slashing, or doing away with altogether - how on earth would you prove that if you weren't there then 1400 children might have been abused by people who you can't identify because they haven't done it because your department was there ?

As the C4 program I watched last night about the 70's so spectacularly highlighted. ITV still managed to show the feature length "On The Buses" film at the weekend. Women bus drivers! An outrage ITV executives can all still identify with obviously.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-30191100

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-30191100

So are you suggesting the perpetrators being Asian had no influence on the prevention and the outcomes in Rotherham?

On your first paragraph I don't think that stacks up - if we take health (another straw man Mr Fish) we know if we exercise, eat better etc it reduces the chances of us getting the ailments such as diabetes. We cannot identify which people that have benefitted - people still get diabetes even if they do all the right things and visa versa - but we know it is not imaginary - doesn't stop us peddling the message.

There was enough evidence early doors to suggest this was an issue that needed sorting, the fact it got as big as it did - if indeed it did - was because it wasn't nipped in the bud.

Another tree hugger - hopefully we are someway off the tyrannical regime that runs Saudia Arabia!!

Perhaps she should practise what she preaches - no wonder Mr Fish holds in such high esteem!!

Just point my in the right direction or simply copy and paste, surely that isn't beyond you is it?

Just how difficult would it be to actually find it yourself?

[url=http://viewtopic.php?f=11&t=576039Bottom of page one of this board[/url

There are only two pages in the thread so even you might not find it too taxing to read

If you have managed a contribution then it will not be too taxing for anyone else on here

Er, no. What on earth made you think that?

However this is not different in kind from the cases of group perpetrators of other abuse, such as privileged members of a seaside club, or staff or clergy in a boarding school; child sexual abuse is rife, and the Asian grooming cases, whilst vile, are just one branch of a truly massive problem.


As is your right, but you are (plainly) wrong. If I take preventative action, I think it's obvious that I can never actually [iprove[/i I actually prevented anything. The best I can do is point to statistics.


Why would you want to introduce straw men, and how is this relevant?


If you really believe that grooming can be "nipped in the bud" then you're naive. I would say the opposite. I would say that, in grooming just as in other forms of child sexual abuse, all we will ever do is spend a lot of money in prosecuting a small percentage of offenders, but the problem was, and will remain, endemic. I would say that child sexual abuse whilst not as prevalent as drug abuse is a problem of a similar type, it is too widespread and takes too many forms for anything else other than some sort of a lid being kept on it, and making life more difficult for the perpetrators. You talk as if you think Rotherham was some sort of isolated island of abuse that popped up out of a crime-free sea, and because nobody bothered to catch it, it grew. It wasn't.

Not sure if already posted, but from today's DE online: www.express.co.uk/news/uk/540313 ... rown-Medal

Not sure if already posted, but from today's DE online: www.express.co.uk/news/uk/540313 ... rown-Medal

Let me guess, would a fair summary of whatever it is be:
"desperate publicity whore picks controversial topic to make outrageous statement, for use in "most outraged" competition?"

We must as always agree to disagree - I think you are sticking your head in the sand by saying we cannot provide preventative cures we must wait until the problem is so widespread that actually we have to let it continue (in your words its endemic!!) Given that the majority of child abuse is family related stopping it is possible, the problem is the emotional complexities of the aftermath. I take it you have no children if you had you would not take such a casual attitude. Your last paragraph is just plain wrong.

To say you cannot prove you prevented anything again is just wrong. If we could never prove anything why would we take preventative measures against anything - let's just have a free-for-all. In Bradford we have significant issues of infant problems from those children born out of parents who are cousins. If we banned it and we saw a drop off of these issues that would prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it worked.

But I neither said, nor believe, any such thing! I said the oposite. I said that the social services etc agencies have to press on with their work regardless of the inevitable flak they will get, for the reasons I gave. How could you interpret that as meaning the opposite of what it states?


You say this glibly, but I say it isn't possible. Steps coould and should be taken to do what we reasonably can to identify children at risk and to do what we can to try to safeguard them, but "stopping" such abuse is I'm afraid an impossible and extremely naive belief.




That is just one aspect of many, but I'd say from a child's persective the problem at the top of the list is being sexually abused.


Your claim I have a "casual" attitude is unfounded and completely wrong. Where do you get this from? I have both kids and grandkids though don't really see how that fact is relevant.


On the contrary, it is 100% true. For it to be untrue, you would have to be able to prove that, had you not done X, then Y would have happened. Which is self-evidently impossible. The best you could do is say by doing X, you reduced the risk of Y.

You seem to be struggling with the concept so I'll give an example. Let's say the death of Baby P could have been prevented. With hindsight, the agencies could have done this, or could have done that.

But if they HAD done this, or that, and Baby P were still alive, they could not prove that they had prevented his death.

Is that clear enough.


Is that a serious question? OK, if you went to Sierra Leone, would you take preventative measures against contracting Ebola? If so, why? You could never prove that you would have caught it but for your preventative measures.

The reason why zillions of preventative measures are taken, in all areas and walks of life, and why they are sensible, is hidden in that hypothetical little question.


But you are leaping way off the point again, it's like saying widespread MMR vaccination will reduce MMR, of bleedin course it does! You seem incapable of differentiating between
(a) preventative steps reducing the RISK of some eventuality
(b) proving in any individual case that but for your preventative steps a specific individual WOULD have certainly suffered the eventuality.

You are basically saying there is no way of identifying if certain measures are taken that they will result in the desired outcomes e.g. Baby P? I fundamentally disagree with you.

The issues in Rotherham were well known for years - if it had been nipped in the bud it would have saved hundreds of children from abuse in later years. The fact you can't see that defies belief. The same situation occurred in Keighley and if Anne Cryer had been listened to many young girls could have been prevented from being abused. Surely its common sense if you know the perpetrators and you put them behind bars they cannot abuse anymore. If you don't do something they will just continue with impunity believing they are above the law - why you can't see this I don't know.

Why are we trying to stop IS - because if we don't they will continue with their barbaric campaign, are you saying that we can't say that for definite? If we just let them into Kobani there is not going to be significant bloodshed?

This is the truth. It's something that I think most people have a shaky understanding of. I'm a scientist, if you approach a situation like this from a scientific perspective there is no control. It's not possible to have two identical Baby P's - one experimental (in your example where social services intervene and the child is alive) and one control (where we can see the outcome of non action). If you don't have that then any conclusions are a best guess.

You can apply this to many arguments we have today, politicians in particular seem completely detached from the possibilty that the things they do have no actual effect on the things they claim credit for. Is our economy the way it is because of Tory policy or despite Tory policy? Impossible to know for sure without a control (and other countries just don't count - too many variables and non of them start from the same position).

Only because you seem to be incapable of understanding the point.


But IF it HAD been "nipped in the bud - how could you prove that abuse which never happened had been prevented?

The fact you can't see that defies belief.


Wait - you say a man in prison cannot abuse people outside prison; and you think this is a deep insight? Not, like, "bleedin' obvious" at all?.


Oddly enough, I "get" that deep insight too. Your point is that if the police do not catch a serial offender, he is likely to continue to serially offend. No shiit, Sherlock.

And your phrasing weirdly suggests someone might advocate "doing nothing". Who advocates doing nothing, then? I don't recall anyone suggesting leaving abusers to it. Maybe I missed a post, where was this proposed and by whom?


I suggest you try to get your head round basic comprehension before expanding into eliminating international terrorism

I'm glad I never sent out for popcorn