Politics

[Christmas Tree 4834]

 

Can I ask why you had to?

 

Also, try an English course as well if you've the time.

 

But really though, that's sickening and, (I hope), a rare event. Do these bastards not have some kind of shred of humanity hidden somewhere in them to either get professional help or just do the world a favour and do themselves in? (Same goes for these who go on killing sprees then turn the gun on themselves).

Basically following the Rotherham case, local authorities are trying to get as many people who may "witness" behaviour to be as clued up as possible so that if they see potential warning signs they can contact police / social.

 

They're doing the same course for traders who they reccomend like sparkys, plumbers etc.

 

Basically it's a lot more common, particularly trafficking kids around by gangs, than you think.

[Makom 0]

Social services aside, I'd say there's probably more people in local authorities who "witness" child abuse because they're touching their own kids, than would ever likely happen to notice a kid being trafficked around the country. And who the fuck seriously needs an awareness course to be able to spot that? Only the most clueless people, surely? As is usual in the media, the rare cases of snatchings and stranger danger get all the headlines (and thus drive public 'policy'), when in reality the vast majority of child abusers know their victims because they're either related, or are long time family friends. As good as it was that the Saville case has led to lots of awereness and led to many victims receiving justice, it's also sadly fed this myth.

[Christmas Tree 4834]

Social services aside, I'd say there's probably more people in local authorities who "witness" child abuse because they're touching their own kids, than would ever likely happen to notice a kid being trafficked around the country. And who the fuck seriously needs an awareness course to be able to spot that? Only the most clueless people, surely? As is usual in the media, the rare cases of snatchings and stranger danger get all the headlines (and thus drive public 'policy'), when in reality the vast majority of child abusers know their victims because they're either related, or are long time family friends. As good as it was that the Saville case has led to lots of awereness and led to many victims receiving justice, it's also sadly fed this myth.

Alas the "myth" seems to be no myth.

 

In Rotherham, a girl told a fellow "victim" that she was going to call the police. This got back to one of the traffickers who along with others, got 10 of the girls they were controlling, into a van and drove them too a local wood. The girl who had been going to contact the police was put in a circle of the other girls and doused in petrol. Each of the other girls were ordered to strike a match....

 

Thankfully the 12 year old wasn't set alight however the traffickers had got their warning across.

 

Eventually one girl did speak up and the Rotherham enquiry began. 1400 kids were abused / sexually exploited. The entire council sacked etc etc.

 

According to the council leaders / police at our course, all the information we were given is evidence based and relates to real cases up and down the country. It is quite widespread in a lot of communities and quite often involves groups of men (and women).

 

I think a lot of us are lucky enough to lead fairly sheltered lives and I must admit being sceptical before attending.

 

However it does appear to be a lot more common, particularly involving girls aged 10-15.

 

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention it as we do sometimes think of this subject with regard to the much publicised politicians / celebrities or the lone wolf bogey man, when in fact it's much more common place within all our communities involving gangs. (According to my course).

[Monkeys Fist 43078]

Mrs. F. has to deal with this on an almost day-to-day basis in her job. ( She's a housing support officer in Smallville).

One of the worst cases involved a family, the grandfather of which was abusing the granddaughters, who were also being abused by their uncles.

The uncle/niece abuse took place on a quid pro quo basis, apparently because " you don't touch your own kids, man!", so they swapped with their brothers.

Fucking unbelievable.

 

Edit: of the many cases she's dealt with, well over 90% of the abuse was not "stranger danger" but family members.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3974]

Alas the "myth" seems to be no myth.

 

In Rotherham, a girl told a fellow "victim" that she was going to call the police. This got back to one of the traffickers who along with others, got 10 of the girls they were controlling, into a van and drove them too a local wood. The girl who had been going to contact the police was put in a circle of the other girls and doused in petrol. Each of the other girls were ordered to strike a match....

 

Thankfully the 12 year old wasn't set alight however the traffickers had got their warning across.

 

Eventually one girl did speak up and the Rotherham enquiry began. 1400 kids were abused / sexually exploited. The entire council sacked etc etc.

 

According to the council leaders / police at our course, all the information we were given is evidence based and relates to real cases up and down the country. It is quite widespread in a lot of communities and quite often involves groups of men (and women).

 

I think a lot of us are lucky enough to lead fairly sheltered lives and I must admit being sceptical before attending.

 

However it does appear to be a lot more common, particularly involving girls aged 10-15.

 

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention it as we do sometimes think of this subject with regard to the much publicised politicians / celebrities or the lone wolf bogey man, when in fact it's much more common place within all our communities involving gangs. (According to my course).

What course who ran it?

[Monkeys Fist 43078]

Sunderland Council- Don't Fuck Your Kids level 1.

[Christmas Tree 4834]

What course who ran it?

Northumbria police / local council.

[Christmas Tree 4834]

Nichola Sturgeon, best first minister in my lifetime.

[Howmanheyman 33852]

Thought she was very good tonight despite some laughable questions from Mr South-East.

[Makom 0]

Hadn't been taking much notice of her up to now, but she's certainly managing to avoid Alec Salmond's habit of being able to make good points re. SNP's objective's while also being a massively smug knob about it. It's only just dawned on me though - she's the Scottish First Minister and isn't actually standing as an MP in Westminster - so what the fuck's she doing presenting herself as the person who would be calling the shots regarding what any future SNP-Lab relationship would look like? Does the SNP constitution make it clear that she's top dog over Salmond even at Westminster, or is he ultimately going to be the person taking the lead? I wouldn't put it past the crafty git....

[Monkeys Fist 43078]

Nichola Sturgeon, best first minister in my lifetime.

Still manages to fuck up her name.

[PaddockLad 17661]

Still manages to fuck up her name.

There's only been four others

[Christmas Tree 4834]

Thought she was very good tonight despite some laughable questions from Mr South-East.

She's been very good all the way through and would probably romp home if she was Labour leader.

[Christmas Tree 4834]

Hadn't been taking much notice of her up to now, but she's certainly managing to avoid Alec Salmond's habit of being able to make good points re. SNP's objective's while also being a massively smug knob about it. It's only just dawned on me though - she's the Scottish First Minister and isn't actually standing as an MP in Westminster - so what the fuck's she doing presenting herself as the person who would be calling the shots regarding what any future SNP-Lab relationship would look like? Does the SNP constitution make it clear that she's top dog over Salmond even at Westminster, or is he ultimately going to be the person taking the lead? I wouldn't put it past the crafty git....

She's leader of the party so will call all the shots. Don't have to be an MP to be leader of a party, see greens or ukip.

[Makom 0]

Aye, but do you know? That's the logical answer, yes, but Salmond is a crafty git.

 

And anyway, who even has a favourite First Minister? It's like having a favourite cardigan, or a favourite lamp.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3974]

Aye, but do you know? That's the logical answer, yes, but Salmond is a crafty git.

 

And anyway, who even has a favourite First Minister? It's like having a favourite cardigan, or a favourite lamp.

I know and Nicola will be in charge of negotiations but it will be along party manifesto pledges. No formal coalition means no giving up on pre electionpromises like the lib dems.

[Makom 0]

Aired last night: Panorama 'Who's Going to Win the Election' - Richard Bacon w/ Nate Silver.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/six-lessons-nate-silver-uk-election/

 

Super-nerd Nate Silver famous for nailing the last two US elections, embarrassing both pollsters and pundits, admitted he doesn't have a scooby for the UK election, beyond the fact it won't be a Tory or Labour majority, and the aftermath could be "extremely messy".

 

Most interestingly:

 

"Since 1979, the final U.K. polls have missed the spread between the Labour and Conservative vote by an average of 4 percentage points....It wouldn’t take that much of a late polling shift to make sorting out the election aftermath easier. If the Conservatives beat their current polls by a couple of percentage points, they’ll be close enough to a majority that they could form another coalition with the Liberal Democrats. If Labour beats their polls by the same amount, they’ll have the plurality of seats, and Ed Miliband should have lots of options for how to form a government."

I saw the panorama and he made some good points, namely that UKIP's support won't translate into seats and the LibDem slump won't translate into a wipeout. But if you're a follower of UK political punditry, or even just reasonably intelligent, that was hardly news.

Disappointing really, the way Panorama trailed this, I was led to believe he was going to give an actual forecast (e.g. 75% chance of Labour getting X seats, SNP getting Y, etc, etc), but he didn't, and it turns out he didn't even try, as he didn't really do all that well in forecasting the 2010 election http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/uk-forecasting-retrospective/

What he's actually done is partner with some UK academics, and they've given an actual forecast, although since they don't really have the same reputation as Nate does (AFAIK), it could be nonsense. FWIW, here it is:

http://electionforecast.co.uk/

Con 281

Lab 268

SNP 49

Lib 26

DUP 9

Plaid 4

UKIP 2

SDLP 2

Green 1

Other 8

If this is right, it shows the SNP royally fucking everything up, because nobody can reach 323 (326 minus speaker and Sinn Fein) through a simple 2 party alliance. This outcome will result in either a Conservative minority government unable to pass anything without the full support of the Lib Dems and major Labour/SNP defections (15+), or a Labour one unable to pass anything unless it has the full support of the SNP and can attract 6 other votes on top of that. So basically a zombie administration, guaranteed by law to last 5 years because you now need 2/3s of MPs to vote for an early election.

Bastard Scots, turning us into a basket case of a country like Belgium or Italy, just because they don't like Trident or the bedroom tax. Sack up you skirt wearing tossers, and take one for Team GB!

[Christmas Tree 4834]

I don't think anyone has a scooby doo how this will pan out, particularly the pollsters. There are two big unknowns.

 

1. How many people will buy the SNP scare factor and stick with the team that's delivery good economic results.

 

2. How well the Milliband turnaround has gone. I think they have so far played this campaign perfectly. Milliband has looked relaxed and assured, their retail offers (such as no stamp duty etc) have been spot on and Ed Balls has been hidden away.

[Gemmill 46034]

What did you make of those GDP figures, CT? Slipping back into recession?

[Christmas Tree 4834]

What did you make of those GDP figures, CT? Slipping back into recession?

i think we are seeing an economic shudder at the prospect of Red Ed getting in.

[Gemmill 46034]

How can that even be a possibility after the Tories knocked it out of the park over the last 5 years?

[Makom 0]

How on Earth is Milliband running a perfect campaign? He's done nothing, nada, zero, to ensure he ends up with a majority. He's coasting along in the safety zone. His campaign has either already accepted that they will be wiped out in Scotland, or they're working on the obviously false assumption that a mansion tax or stamp duty change makes his offering look radically different to Gordon Brown in the swing constituencies.

[Christmas Tree 4834]

How can that even be a possibility after the Tories knocked it out of the park over the last 5 years?

How can Labour ever get voted in when Every a Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it took over???

 

Voters are mugs.

 

If Labour get in this time, the conservatives should do a basil fawlty style "fuck it. That's it, you're on your own. Don't come crying to us in 5 years time when the economy needs fixing once again. That's it, fuck off".

[Gemmill 46034]

I'm gonna go ahead and say "chomp".

[Christmas Tree 4834]

How on Earth is Milliband running a perfect campaign? He's done nothing, nada, zero, to ensure he ends up with a majority. He's coasting along in the safety zone. His campaign has either already accepted that they will be wiped out in Scotland, or they're working on the obviously false assumption that a mansion tax or stamp duty change makes his offering look radically different to Gordon Brown in the swing constituencies.

1. There's sweet FA he can do about Scotland. It's gone.

 

2. He could have continued with his awkward angry persona of the last 5 years. He's visibly changed. He's calm even coming over cool.

 

3. From non doms to zero contracts and no stamp duty to rent controls, their message has been beautifully delivered to outstep the Tories "ed is shit" campaign.

 

4. He knows SNP can't hurt him much or they will risk letting Dave in.

 

I think they've played an absolute spotless campaign.