Modern Slavery Bill
Poverty and Exclusion

Modern Slavery Bill – a glimmer of hope for the victims of child abuse

 

Another day and the revelations of lives wrecked by sexual exploitation continue to grow. A few hundred more unnamed individuals are added to the list – victims let down by those whose job it should have been to protect them. The revelations of child exploitation and abuse in Rotherham last year were horrific enough. And then there was Oxford, and now we have Sheffield to deal with. Surely the question now is: ‘Where next?’

In just over half a year more than 2,000 individuals have been identified as having been subjected to appalling treatment and then neglected by the authorities. It is truly one of the great scandals of our time. The treatment of the most vulnerable and weak is an indication of how civilised and just our society is, and in this matter we have been weighed and found wanting. Behind these faceless numbers are individuals; many with troubled backgrounds and all with searing scars which they will carry for the rest of their lives. Their stories tell of the continual abdication of responsibility by the adults around them, who by their actions and inaction have stripped these children layer by layer of their dignity and self-worth.

Those in care have not been placed there through choice. Most have already had to endure family breakdown, death, parental addictions and domestic violence. Their care providers have not intervened when the children found themselves being exploited. The worst perpetrators of all, who have deliberately set out to abuse and cause harm, have treated them as nothing more than meat to be thrown about to satisfy their own twisted gratifications. Authorities have sought to suppress the truth, and the police have treated them as an inconvenience best ignored.

The message to these mostly young girls is that they are of no value; they are the dregs that weren’t worth protecting. If they were abused, it was their problem.

In the cold light of day this is sickening stuff. It is a reminder of just how fallen humanity is. Self-interest so often comes at the expense of others. If allowed to consume us it can turn to depravity and that depravity can lead to a complete disregard for the ones we have chosen to hate. For those on the outside looking in, apathy and ambivalence can become just as dangerous as the deviant crimes which others perpetrate. There is little for the offenders to fear.

In this appalling mess, hope is in short supply: a hope that things can be different; a hope that the exploitation will end, that institutions will be places of safety and security and authorities will use their power to good effect. Most of all, hope is desperately needed for those who have had any glimmers of it extinguished.

Next Tuesday, one rare glimmer will shine a bit brighter. The Modern Slavery Bill will finally be approved by Parliament. It is the first bill of its kind in Europe, covering not just slavery in this country, but people trafficking, sexual abuse and exploitation, too – all offences which have been identified in Rotherham, Oxford, Sheffield and beyond. It will not solve everything or ease past hurts, but it will provide the necessary structures and resources to pursue those who commit these heinous crimes against children, and provide victims with essential support.

It is a genuine sign of hope, and, like many places where hope springs up, the source has a divine dimension to it. In the last decade Christians have become increasingly passionate about the issue of people trafficking and exploitation both here and abroad. Organisations including International Justice Mission, Stop the Traffik, Hope for Justice and the Salvation Army have been working tirelessly to combat such crimes. But Christians have also been working behind the scenes. A desire to see wrongs righted is of little use unless our laws permit the police and other bodies to take effective action to prosecute and protect. It is in this regard that members of the Conservative Christian Fellowship (CCF) have been instrumental in producing meaningful legislation.

The CCF has worked alongside a number of campaigning organisations, bringing them into Parliament to meet with backbenchers, ministers and secretaries of state. This important work, along with the efforts of Christians on the Left , the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum, CARE and the Evangelical Alliance as well as significant research from the Centre for Social Justice, has allowed the Modern Slavery Bill to gain support across Parliament.

As with all legislation, this Bill has required a great deal of work to ensure it will be fit for purpose. As it has been shaped, the wisdom and expertise of these Christian organisations have been vital in spotting loopholes for traffickers, or highlighting the current gaps in resource for victims. The strength of relationships which have developed between Christian MPs and Christian organisations working in the field, and between both of these and Government ministers, has meant that discussions have been fluent and collaboration valuable. These deepening affiliations have been possible through the ongoing work of the CCF and others. Without the lobbying and persistent work of Christians, the Modern Slavery Bill would undoubtedly have failed to achieved the prominence and fulfilment that it has.

As the darkness of child exploitation and the victims of abuse continues to be exposed, there is a longing for righteous anger. There is an obscene stain on society which needs to be erased, but until those who are in positions of power can see the children for the wounded souls they are, the suffering will continue. The authorities have repeatedly failed in their duty, and we need something more.

When we see the world through God’s eyes, the pain does not disappear. Instead, it cuts to the core. But out of that grief rises hope, because with and through God we see that nothing is impossible. It spurs us on to bring healing and restoration which can result in great things. The Modern Slavery Bill is testimony to that. May it be a divine sign of hope to all those who have been treated with contempt, hatred and disdain that there is a promise of faith and an assurance of security.

  • B flat

    You are right: the authorities have failed in their duty. Their failure in the case of these young people is, as you say, an obscene stain on society. The cause of this failure is what should be sought and clearly identified, and then held up to such public castigation as to bury itself deep under the earth until civilisation again loses its memory by wilful neglect of its heritage.

    Our political class is corrupted by pride and self satisfaction. It is self-serving. Not only children in care, but anyone who is powerless in this society, will find themselves without credence, help, or any official support, if a powerful interest group chooses to prey on them. Is the case of the elderly in care any better? People read this, hear of it and are disquieted, but feel helpless.

    How many worry that our Constitution is relentlessly being deformed by politicians and judges, our ageless Common Law and moral code being ignored, overridden and overturned, Christians being marginalised, even in the Family Courts? There is the strong sense that democratic choice is no longer a reality for us, since power is in the hands of unelected, and often unknown, rulers of political parties and institutions even outside this so-called United Kingdom. Sir Alfred Denning’s Hamlyn Lecture Freedom Under the Law reads like the inventory of a robbery perpetrated against the citizens of this country by their political masters, in my lifetime.
    It is truly an obscene crime, and an outrage of the dignity of every person. Unless this is addressed with real reform, the current lawlessness will lead to breakdown and revolution, with disaster overtaking everyone, especially the useful idiots who have been such strong advocates and agents of the mess they have made of our country.

  • Phil R

    It seems to me that we have enough laws and that what we really need to do is enforce the ones we do have.

    If we are going to introduce new laws then lets make them effective at least. It seems to me that the sight of a few dicks being cut off under Sharia (Or whatever they do) is likely to have a more sobering effect that the threat of (maybe) a (short) prison sentence.

    Another unenforced (able) law will make no difference to these girls. When it comes to trafficking for prostitution I imagine the profits are huge. Money tends to get its own way. For instance look where we are going with drugs. Very soon the vast sums currently made “illegally” (laws not enforced) will be made perfectly legally.

    How soon before there is an isle in our local supermarket for drugs and a franchise for sex upstairs?

    • Doctor Crackles

      Phil, in my understanding these men are protected and would not be brought before any Shariah court. It is the girls themselves who are to blame.

      Personally, given the scale of the abuse and the creed of the abusers I’d like to see the leaders and spokesmen of the Islamic community of Rotherham brought before a tribunal and forced to answer for these crimes.

      • Phil R

        Hang them from a tree then.

        (There are trees in Rotherham?)

        Justice needs to be seen to be done.

        • skeetstar

          Sad fact is that those guilty will be retired early ‘with dignity’, and have a taxpayer funded pension to ensure they continue to live at ease. The first sanction that should be applied to those in Rotherham who were so derelict in their duty, would be the confiscation of all pension rights. Something along those lines would go a long way to focus the attentions of public officials in the future

          • Inspector General

            There is much to be said for leaving the accursed in a room with a revolver as perhaps they, after failing in their duty, can now do the decent thing.

          • Is that a UKIP manifesto pledge, Inspector? Along with reinstating execution?

          • Inspector General

            If you believe Sarky is the master of sarcasm, perhaps you’d like to put in a claim for king of wit.

          • Jack would say it’s better than being witless, what !

        • Dominic Stockford

          There are trees in Rotherham. They have quite a decent football team too.

  • Busy Mum

    Authorities are proactively trying to increase the number of children in care. I know of instances when children/teens have been upset at school and the ‘pastoral support’ staff, without any further info, assume that the cause of unhappiness is problems at home and offer to arrange ‘temporary accommodation’…..

    Authorities are currently surveying school chidren under the guise of ‘public health and wellbeing’, to help determine future spending priorities. Children are told that their answers are anonymous and it is therefore safe and very important to be totally honest. One question is ‘have you ever been groomed?’

    What will a LEA do if and when it learns that anonymous children in its district are being groomed…? They will pour money into ‘the problem’ by teaching the children ‘how to keep themselves safe’. i am sick of living in a society that thinks it does justice by supporting victims rather than punishing offenders.

    • Phil R

      The “named person” proposal in which every child will have person outside the family to look after their “interests”, will exacerbate the problem.

      Clearly these “named persons” will be in an ideal position to advise those looking for vulnerable children to exploit.

      The money on offer is likely to be huge, so the pressure and temptation is also likely to be of the same order.

      • Busy Mum

        Yes – I am keeping abreast of the scheme in Scotland by subscribing to the NO2NP campaign. I will fight it tooth and nail if it arrives – officially – in rural England!

    • Doctor Crackles

      And yet Gillan trusts our agencies and institutions to rectify the situation.

  • Inspector General

    A good post Scott. One of your best to date, and it shows you are worthy to
    appear on Cranmer, whatever your detractors, and that includes this man, have
    said about your whiney lefty style.

    For the Inspector, this highlights amongst the lesser issues – there is no
    greater issue than the protection of our young – that of the nonsense of what we
    know as asylum. This country has learnt in the past few years a most stable
    truth. That if you let third world types into the country, they will of course
    bring with them their third world behaviour, and whether it is Sharia, or just
    gangster activity, it is not acceptable and we don’t have to put up with it.

    Restricting asylum to a one hundredth of the current numbers is the way
    forward, and beyond that, there is something else we must do. When a so called
    refugee is allowed in, it should only be for a fixed period. No permanent right
    of residence is due. When conditions improve in their country of origin, back
    they go. If they’ve started a family here, they take that family out with them.

    One is of the opinion that this strategy will meet with the people’s
    approval. We’ve seen what giving these unpleasants a bag full of rights they
    never deserved has resulted in. Their rape of the host country’s children.

    • Thank you for the approval. It’s not often that I find myself referred to as a whiny leftie, but I do attempt to take all criticism with good grace and thought.

      • Inspector General

        Ah, it’s himself. Look, old fellow, from where this man stands, the greater majority are to his left. So there you have it. Not such a devastating swipe after all, what!

      • The Inspector is this blogs equivalent of ‘Dr No’ on steroids, Gillan.

      • Merchantman

        Gillan; to miss out even mentioning the identity of the largest group of recent perpetrators is to miss the point almost entirely.
        However its entirely appropriate to grant these people asylum since if you think about it that is what this place has become.

    • What you’re overlooking is the rape of children from East Europe and Asia by white males born and raised in this nation, Inspector. There is a ‘market’ for everything – including sexual depravity. Where there is demand, a supply will follow.

      White men from all backgrounds, without scruple, visit brothels and use the bodies of young girls and women forced into prostitution.

      • Inspector General

        One would happily make the rape of children a capital offence in order to protect them. Unfortunately, there are far too many faint hearts around who would shout this man down. Among them yourself, per chance?

        • Hmmm …. just so long as the person performing the deed is without sin – to borrow a concept someone once taught. Now, who was that?

          Do you think it would protect children? It’s more likely to lead to the murder of these children.

          • Inspector General

            See? And you didn’t even have to bring the perpetrators precious ‘human rights’ into it. Don’t you ever come onto to this site saying you’ll consider anything to protect children, because it’s quite clear that you won’t.

          • Jack has spend 40 years of his life doing so, Inspector.

          • Phil R

            Hong Kong repealed capital punishment 25 or so years ago

            a few years later the number of murders had increased over 4 fold

          • Jack is referring to UK homicide statistics.

        • carl jacobs

          Hanging possesses no “rehabilitative” component doncha know. To which the less enlightened among us reply “Yes! That’s the whole point. It is however a just punishment for certain crimes. And it is extraordinarily effective in preventing re-offense.

          • Inspector General

            To be able to say to a victim “That man who raped you when you were a child. They hanged him at one minute past nine today. It’s over for you. Really over.”

          • Grouchy Jack

            You think? Oh no, silly Jack, you don’t. Execution has no demonstrable benefit for the victims of crime.

          • Doctor Crackles

            To know that he can hurt no one else and cannot taunt the victim any longer are clear benefits for a victim. Coupled to the huge deterrent effect I struggled to understand your opposition Jolie Jack.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Still leaves the harm and without forgiveness by the victim all that’s left is the rage. And execution for the sexual rape of children is more likely to lead to their deaths, rather than a reduction in crime.

          • Inspector General

            YOU and your misplaced compassion is why the murder rate has at least tripled in 50 years.

          • Grouchy Jack

            You are developing a politicians skill – for fabrication and disinformation, Inspector.
            Never let facts get in the way of a ‘good’ populist position, eh.

          • carl jacobs

            Even if this was true (and I wonder what you mean by “demonstrable” benefit) it would not matter. The punishment is assessed according to the nature of the crime and not according to victim benefit. Death is a just punishment for certain crimes. The primary purpose of criminal law is to punish justly; to vicariously exact the required measure of retribution from the criminal. Rehabilitation is a secondary concern. If the crime warrants death, then rehabilitation must take place within the specter of the gallows.

          • But presumably you wish to advocate the taking of a life for a life on the basis of Scripture?

          • carl jacobs

            It is the responsibility of the magistrate to exact the punishment of life for life. Some crimes justly warrant death. So the answer to your question is “Yes.”

          • That’s not a Scriptural defence of execution, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            I don’t need to provide a scriptural defense of execution. You have already admitted it is Scriptural. You have admitted the RCC believes it is Scriptural. You simply prefer to not exercise the punishment for other reasons. There is a valid moral case to be made for that. There is no valid case for asserting that the New Covenant requires abandonment of the death penalty. It doesn’t. Quite the contrary and you know it.

          • The Catholic Church teaches the state has a right and a duty to exercise such power to protect the common good – not for vicarious retribution – and in the modern world, where other means exist for achieving this end, questions whether if it is now necessary.

            We are not living in Palestine in 2000 BC anymore. Slavery, for debt or for captives taken in war, is no longer justified anymore by Scripture.

          • carl jacobs

            Vicarious retribution is necessary to protect the common good, Jack. That is why the state punishes. The alternative is vigilantism.

          • There are more ways to punish and protect the public than killing offenders, Carl. Now you’re suggesting it’s done to satisfy the baser instincts of individual men for revenge? The New Testament certainly addresses that point. There has been no increase in vigilantism in Britain or Europe since executions were stopped.

            The point about Palestine in 2000 BC, is that, unlike planets, fixed in their orbit, the state’s duty to protect the common good can be applied differently according to different contexts and resources available. Back then, what alternatives were there to punish, to deter or to rehabilitate? We don’t send lepers off to colonies anymore or hide the mentally ill away in institutions.

          • carl jacobs

            There are more ways to punish and protect the public than killing offenders

            You are absolutely correct. Very few crimes should warrant the death penalty. But that isn’t the point. Every crime is punished to exact retribution. The sentence, however light or severe, is the measure of retribution imposed. There are people who are sent to prison for punishment even though the state doesn’t really consider them a risk to re-offend. Why? Because retribution must be exacted.

            By your logic, if death is base revenge, then imprisonment is also base revenge. But that is moral nonsense. Punishment is not done to satisfy base instincts. It is done to satisfy justice. You don’t send people to prison to “fix” them. You send people to prison to punish them. That is the NT biblical mandate. The police aren’t here to show mercy. The judge isn’t there to show mercy. The exist to exact punishment for the sake of justice. You know this.

          • Carl. Jack accepts that a Christian understanding of capital punishment rests on retribution for offending the moral order. However, Jack considers that its purpose, in practice, is actually revenge. Execution, like all punishment, is intended to be medicinal, in the sense that it prompts remorse and, because a price is paid, it helps puts the offender right with God. Without this understanding it simply becomes man exacting revenge and is not the State acting as an instrument of God’s justice.

          • The Catholic Church teaches the state has a right and a duty to exercise such power to protect the common good – not for vicarious retribution – and in the modern world, where other means exist for achieving this end, questions whether if it is now necessary.

            We are not living in Palestine in 2000 BC anymore. Slavery, for debt or for captives taken in war, is no longer justified anymore by Scripture.

          • carl jacobs

            We are not living in Palestine in 2000 BC anymore. Slavery, for debt or for captives taken in war, is no longer justified anymore by Scripture.

            On a related note, Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion also have nothing to do with this argument.

          • Inspector General

            We know your position Jack. Now we can walk past you. This country is taking a swing to the right, whether you like it or not. There’s nothing the right like better than law and order and justice. Take note of the last. It has suffered terribly in the last decades.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Looking for a new job, now your finger is no longer on the nuclear button, Carl? Jack hears they’ve reinstated execution by shooting squad in one American state. Might be worth applying.

          • Inspector General

            There just aren’t enough places outside prison for released murderers to stay. It would help if you could put a couple up, now the children have gone.

          • Grouchy Jack

            You’re a single man, Inspector. You could do with the company. You could take them to the ‘Mouse and Wheel’ with you. Why not become a prison visitor and meet with these man and women?

          • Inspector General

            So, as neither of wish to risk our throats being cut it is just as well it’s someone else’s problem…

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            Looking for a new job, now your finger is no longer on the nuclear button, Carl?

            It was a key. Not a button. And your insinuation is disingenuous. If it wasn’t for people like me, you would have been so much blood spatter on the bottom of a Russian boot. So feel free to say whatever you like about my military service. Just be sure you finish with “Thank you.”

            And what does the military have to do with capital punishment, anyways?

            Jack hears they’ve reinstated execution by shooting squad in one American state.

            That would be Utah. It has to do with peculiarities of Mormon doctrine regarding punishment and the literal shedding of blood. I don’t live in Utah. I don’t want to live in Utah. So there is no point in applying.

          • Grouchy Jack

            “And what does the military have to do with capital punishment, anyways?”

            Oh, Jack was referring to your views on mass bombings and the use of nuclear weapons to exact revenge on any nation that uses them, not to the military in general. He would not disrespect the Armed Forces. He’s just sees a connection with your views on capital execution.

            “I don’t live in Utah. I don’t want to live in Utah.”

            You could always commute if you didn’t want to relocate. Jack heard Utah ran out of effective poison for lethal injections which were proving somewhat gruesome to witness, and this is why they have reverted to the far more humane method of death by firing squad. Strap ’em in the chair and pump lead into ’em.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            You accepted the protection that I provided, and then you carp at me for providing it. Unless you want to go naked on principle in a world of nuclear weapons, you have to deal with them. MAD is not an adequate strategy for dealing with them. You can pretend otherwise if it makes you feel better. Just so long as you presume to influence strategy.

          • When has Jack “carped”? All he can say is that in his opinion some of your views about nuking a nation in the Middle East into the ground as a response to a missile being launched, would not constitute a proportionate or moral response. That’s what he was referring to and not the protection afforded by nuclear weapons against the USSR. He also cannot see either a moral or utilitarian justifications for capital executions and especially not one based on vicarious retribution and revenge.

            And, let’s be straight here, you spend a good deal of your time disrespecting Jack’s career without any understanding of it.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            I said that I would destroy Iran if Iran destroyed Israel. That’s a far cry from a “missile being launched.” How is that not necessary?

            That’s what he was referring to and not the protection afforded by nuclear weapons against the USSR.

            But it’s all of one piece, isn’t it? The two subjects are the same. They aren’t different. The protection afforded you is the protection afforded the Israelis. If you don’t follow though, you lose the ability to deter. I didn’t pretend to be willing to turn that key, Jack. It wasn’t a big bluff.

            you spend a good deal of your time disrespecting Jack’s career without any understanding of it.

            I don’t know much of anything about your career, Jack. You were a counselor of some sort, I believe for sex abuse or sex crimes. That’s all I know. I don’t have any idea when I could have disrespected it. I understand the value of re-habilitation, if that’s what you are referring to. But I am not going to prioritize it over punishment. Neither I am going to apply the Sermon on the Mount to the Officers of the Law.

          • Jack owes you an apology, Carl. He should not have personalised the discussion in the way he did. So apologies. Jack will try to stick with the arguments in future.

          • carl jacobs

            Taint no big thing, Jack. We all write stuff we regret. I certainly have. Six hours from now, I will have forgotten this even happened. I was concerned about that ‘disrespect’ statement. I try very hard to be respectful – even to Linus. So if I have not achieved that, I want to know how. I can’t fix what I don’t know.

          • It was a comment made the last time we engaged in a debate about capital punishment to the effect that psychology and psychiatry was rubbish – or words to that effect, anyway. Of course, the recollection may be mistaken. Just get weary of attacks on those serving on the frontline in an equally fierce battle, that’s all.

          • Jack should visit Mundabor more regularly. Miss a day or two and see what happens. You may find this an interesting article.

            https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2015/03/12/death-truth-and-us/

          • DanJ0

            “I don’t know much of anything about your career, Jack. You were a counselor of some sort, I believe for sex abuse or sex crimes.”

            I’m pretty sure that’s just some of his trolling bollox given his apparent knowledge, or lack of it, of psychotherapy etc. I sincerely hope so anyway. I’m an engineer and I know more about it. Jeez, it doesn’t bear thinking about what damage he’d have caused to people who are already victims if it isn’t bollox. :O

          • Grouchy Jack

            What an ignorant little troll you repeatedly prove yourself to be, Danjo.

            Nothing to say on the substance of the article? The sexual exploitation of innocent children in a world that has lost its moral compass and where the fulfilment of desire is the idol of the secularists and atheists.

            Then, what could you say that would hold together as a coherent argument? Best stay silent or you’ll just make yourself look more ridiculous.

          • DanJ0

            I have nothing exceptional to say about it. Like everyone else, I’m disgusted by what’s happened. I don’t feel the need to post just to keep my visibility up, or to exploit it to push a religionist or far-right agenda. The issue is getting the attention it deserves now and naught I say here will change that one way or the other. But don’t let me stop you pretending yet again to be all Roman Catholic about it when you’re surely as godless as me in real life, Troll Jack.

  • magnolia

    Good law; great post.

    It is unbelievable how in this country you are at present able to get more months in prison for lying about a speeding ticket, which is of course reprehensible, than you can for traumatising a young person, possibly for life. It does not represent the will of the people at all. Dominic Grieve was excellent at swiftly referring some of the very silly sentences passed by Judges, but it would have been good if the judicial culture was such that these slips were far less likely to begin with. Sometimes the sentencing guidelines have also been at fault.

    We are in danger of going down in history as the opposite of the Victorian reformers who travelled vigorously in the direction of making life safer and pleasanter for children, and guarding them from commercial and sexual exploitation

    • Inspector General

      It may not put off many future incidents from our unwanted guests, but one sees no problem at all for an asylum whatever having a deportation order waiting for him on completing his prison term. It’s natural justice, of course.

      • magnolia

        I think the Australians would do just that, and they have a greater land mass to lose these people in!

      • Phil R

        With no right of abode in the UK. The prison term could be anywhere.

        Elephant Island springs to mind

    • Phil R

      “lying about a speeding ticket”

      That is a crime against the state.

      In the brave new world far more serious you see.

      • Dominic Stockford

        It was in fact conspiracy, so that involves working together in order to deliberately and knowingly flout the law. That deserves decent punishment.

        Which doesn’t mean the subject of this blog doesn’t deserve even greater punishment.

  • Uncle Brian

    Gillan, you say that the Modern Slavery Bill “will provide the necessary structures and resources to pursue those who commit these heinous crimes against children.” You seem to be suggesting that at the time of the Rotherham affair, there were no laws on the statute books under which the offenders could have been prosecuted. Is that the case? I thought it was officials deliberately turning the blind eye – in which case they’ll be able to carry on doing the same thing under the new law, won’t they?

    • Inspector General

      Good point Brian. It would be hard to imagine that the authorities didn’t
      have any idea what was going on, but all were terrified of breaching our race
      relations acts or upsetting our PC government departments. Crucifixion by these political masters stopped anybody speaking up. Now, if we had UKIP firmly in the government, these good people would have felt more secure in coming forward earlier. UKIP of course, doesn’t give a toss for niceties like ‘allowances’ for non native behaviour. And a good thing too…

      • Uncle Brian

        That’s an interesting point you’ve raised, Inspector. The “political masters” who did the crucifying at Rotherham – what kind of penalties would they have been letting themselves in for, if the Modern Slavery Bill had been in force at the time?

        It’s evidently not enough to prosecute the rapists and paedophiles alone. There has to be a way to deter their facilitators. When officials choose not to enforce the law, are they themselves in breach of some other law, or they acting within their legal rights? There’s something there that needs to be cleared up, I think.

        • Dominic Stockford

          This idea has briefly raised its head, but just as quickly been stamped down again. The idea that officials who have failed to do their job being legally responsible isn’t popular among those who populate the political world. Probably because they are their own mates who are ultimately responsible.

          And when one was taken to task, Sharon Shoesmith, the courts quickly let her off and gave her compensation. “I mean, the idea of it, that the head of social services should be sacked when social services grossly fails people? Whatever next” (Satire, that last quote, in case you hadn’t…)

          • Uncle Brian

            Yes, Dominic, I have no doubt you’re describing the situation exactly as it is. Which brings us back to my first question: once the Modern Slavery Bill is duly enacted and in force, won’t officials still be legally entitled to choose not to enforce it and carry on turning the blind eye?

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Much of the child exploitation and abuse has apparently been carried out by men of Third World origin. Bearing in mind that all Christian denominations give their blessing to Third World immigration, the very least this country can expect is that Christian organizations will pick up the pieces of the lives they have helped to shatter by their support for mass immigration, diversity and multiculturalism. An admission of guilt would be welcome, too. Something like, ‘By giving our imprimatur to the destruction of Britain’s social fabric, we have committed a grievous sin against the British people.’

    • Inspector General

      Things are changing Mr R. The Labour party invested heavily in bringing
      aliens to this country to give them a hard core socialist vote for all time. It
      is somewhat ironic now that as their numbers increase, and consequently their behaviour impinges further on us, that they will be the death of socialism as we know it, to be replaced with a new realism. And to cap it all, with the de facto Islamic party Respect around, the Labour party are having to come to terms with the aforementioned eternal support from these people now coming to an end.

      • Uncle Brian

        Eight weeks from today the election results will be in. Where will that leave Miliband? Will he be PM? Deputy PM under Cameron? Or
        an also ran, hounded out of office and replaced by … By whom? Harriet Harman? What’s your forecast, Inspector?

        • Inspector General

          Completely up for grabs Brian. One thing that is a definite though, the ladies won’t be voting en masse for Milliband. he lacks wow factor, so one is reliably informed, unlike that wretch Blair in 1997. Farage has the working man on his side. But what may well decide it is the expected turnout of around 20% of the electorate who haven’t voted for years. Presumably because there hasn’t been in their opinion, anything worth voting for, until now.

    • Do not misappropriate this scandal for your own narrow political ends.

      The sexual abuse of children and young women sold into prostitution is most certainly not restricted to ‘them’ i.e. those from ethnic minority groups. It is something men from all backgrounds engage in and is a shocking indictment of our Christian culture. Young girls are regularly brought here by gangs from Eastern Europe and Asia for the sexual pleasure of white British men.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ Happy Jack—Perhaps you missed the word ‘much’ in my comment; I know that child abuse is not wholly confined to Pakistanis. My ‘narrow political ends’ would ensure Britain remained a Christian country. Yours facilitate the strangling of British Christianity by Islam. Well done, thou good and faithful servant.

        • Any opportunity you have to bang your drum, Mr R.

          The figures come from the National Referral Mechanism indicate a total of 1,746 people from 112 different countries were highlighted as potential victims of trafficking in 2013 – up 47% on the previous year. People were thought to have been trafficked for various reasons, including sexual exploitation and labour.

          Nearly two thirds of those referred were female (1,122) and around a quarter (450) were children. In total, the number of cases involving UK-born victims in 2013 rose 173% to
          90; of those, 63 were children, an increase of 186% on 2012.

          56 minors from the UK were flagged up as potential victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation in 2013 – a rise of 155% on 2012. The NCA data suggested the number of foreign children identified as potential victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation in the UK also rose by 11%, to
          88. The most common nationality or country of origin for child victims of trafficking (not just for sexual abuse) was Vietnam, followed by the UK and then Albania.

          The NCA figures show an increase in the number of UK-born adults who were victims of trafficking. The 27 adults
          flagged up in 2013 represent a 145% increase compared with the previous year. Albania was the most common nationality or country of origin for all referrals, followed by
          Nigeria and Vietnam. There was a 53%
          rise (to 581 people) in potential trafficking for sexual exploitation for all the adult referrals.

          http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/117-nrm-statistics-july-to-sept-2013/file

      • CliveM

        Correct.

        Was Rochdale caused by immigrants? Was the blind eye turned towards Saville? How about the current investigation into a parliamentary peodophile ring?

      • Inspector General

        Don’t foist your heartfelt regrets onto Rottenborough the message bringer, there’s a good Jack. One also takes exception to your defilement of Christian culture. Surely you mean anti Christian culture, as brought to us by anti Christians, be they home grown secularists or muslims from all and sundry countries as well as atheist Eastern European criminals on the make.

        • “One also takes exception to your defilement of Christian culture. Surely you mean anti Christian culture, as brought to us by anti Christians, be they home grown secularists or muslims from all and sundry countries as well as atheist Eastern European criminals on the make.”

          And pray tell who do you think avail themselves of this ‘service’? No demand – no supply.

          The sexual exploitation of the young, most especially female children, is as old as man and transcends particular cultures and ethnic groups. The abuse of children in Christian churches (all of them) by men who identify as Christian testifies to the root cause being lust.

          This most certainly is not a foreign or secular import.

          • Inspector General

            Homosexual priests aside, do you really think people who identify as Christian go in for child sex?

          • Clearly they do, Inspector.

          • Inspector General

            One suggests you change the company that you keep…

          • One meets all sorts, Inspector. You’d be surprised at the capacity of man to deceive himself and others. Perhaps you should research the subject matter more diligently rather than confining your judgement and condemnation to homosexuals and Muslims.

          • Inspector General

            Could do with DanJ0’s opinion of your final sentence. One does not condemn homosexuals per se. They can do whatever they like in private, but there is concern about the massive over influence they have on society.

    • Dominic Stockford

      The Christian Party does not have such open arms to unlimited immigration from anywhere. And many Free Church people, not part of denominations, would also take a similar position.

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ Dominic Stockford—That’s good to hear. Thank you.

  • Well written Gillan – especially the last paragraph.

    “Certain realities in life can only be seen through eyes cleansed by tears,”
    (Pope Francis)

    People ask what is this ‘thing’ called ‘social justice’ and what has it to do with the Christian Church. Ending the exploitation of children is a demonstration of it. There are children in the world who live on the streets struggling to find food to eat, being drawn into drug use and being preyed on by adults looking to exploit and abuse them. Many are transported here to satisfy the depraved sexual urges of men.

  • carl jacobs

    Yes, by all means, pass a law. How about you start by re-criminalizing any sexual relationship between an adult and a minor. How about you establish a sentence of forty years for that crime. Then police won’t have to worry about consent. They won’t have to worry about the “appropriateness” of the relationship. Don’t kid yourself. The hidden problem in this situation is the commodification and devaluation of sex.

    Re-orienting sexual morality to a foundation of consent has made personal gratification the penultimate purpose of sex. That attitude is inherently objectifying. It makes other people into objects to be used. They may be willing objects, but they are objects none the less. By lowering the age of consent, you make minors into fit objects of sexual gratification for adults. You allow adults to act on their sexual desires. And then you expect police to parse out the difference be between “appropriate” and “inappropriate” behavior. You want them to understand when consent isn’t really consent, even though it looks like consent. That’s why the perpetrator’s vulture jackal slithering reptile defense lawyer could go into court and call a victim a “slag” to her face.

    Who were the victims? Poor lower-class girls from broken families who had troubled backgrounds. Where is Dad? He’s gone. Where’s Mom? Dealing with life as a single Mom, an angry teenager and not a lot of money. These girls get identified, and carved out. They get flattered and gifted. And then they find themselves in over their head. So they seek help, and have trouble finding anyone to take them seriously. Why? Because “It’s just sex.” The victims have trouble separating themselves from the angry girl who did consent. How then do you prosecute? And it’s not like adults look at older men having sex with girls as an inherent crime anymore. Age of consent laws are arbitrary. Is there really that much difference between 16 and 15? This attitude was endemic among authorities.

    If you want to stop this, then don’t strut about with slavery bills. Put the structural boundaries around sex back into place. Subordinate consent as the determining factor. If you catch a 30 year-old man having sex with a 15 year-old girl, then throw his ass in jail forever, and ruin his life. Don’t pay any attention to what the minor girl says about how she consented. It shouldn’t matter. Of course, none of this will happen. The culture now generally views sex as a trivial and incidental matter. Consent is king. “It’s just sex, after all.” So you pass slavery bills that will fix nothing.

    Tell me again how the new sexual morality is harmless.

    • “I want, therefore I am.”

      People want to fulfil their desires and have the power, control, and freedom to do so. There’s a market for everything in this day and age. If our consciences bother us, no problem. We’ll just reframe morality to justify our behaviours.

      • carl jacobs

        I’m surprised, Jack. I expected you to wax eloquent about the moral necessity of rehabilitation.

        • Jack doesn’t entirely your support your solutions, Carl. He does however, agree with the underlying sentiment and analysis.

          You want society to put the “structural boundaries around sex back into place.” He agrees with this. You are familiar with Catholic teaching in this area, so Jack will not restate it.

    • Doctor Crackles

      Carl, there’s a herd of elephants in this particular room. The vile consequences of the sexual revolution is the largest.

    • Dominic Stockford

      How about stopping the new laws designed to ‘teach’ (sexualise) children in primary schools as young as four years of age – is that not grooming too?

      How about stopping handing out condoms to under age children – that simply ‘normalises’ sexual activity for them.

      How about standing up for Secondary School Head Teacher who bars a play full of filth from their school, even though it is on the Scottish Education Board’s list of acceptable plays.

      How about ceasing the intervention of Stonewall in primary schools with their claims to be opposing homophobic bullying, when in fact they are simply trying to normalise what God teaches is wrong, wrong, wrong. (The NIV even translates that section, Romans 1, with unusual vigour, using the word ‘depraved’ – well done them).

      How about, how about, how about…

      If I had no faith in Christ Jesus, if I did not know that there was a better place to which I am to go, if I did not believe with all my heart that He is coming again in glory on the clouds of heaven to judge this fallen and filthy world, I would simply cry – all day – every day – until I stopped caring about anything or anyone any more.

      • Doctor Crackles

        Dominic, yes we are grooming our children, because society demands moral-free, non-procreative sex. The Rotherham girls (and boys) are the unfortunate by product of the Fifty-Shades society, which was the ‘how’s ya father’ society that cultured pathogens such Saville. We were a disgrace even before the Pakistanis started to abuse our youth.

        Re Stonewall and homophobic bullying. This is the Trojan horse to get homosexual-paedophile activists into schools.

    • Phil R

      Adding to the Bible is equally as sinful as subtracting from the Bible.

      It does not work either

      • carl jacobs

        Phil

        What exactly am I adding?

        • Phil R

          Carl

          Inappropriateness of large age differences for relationships between men and women. (By implication marriage)

          You are also setting the minimum age to 16 (Also by implication marriage)

          Now we may all agree that your additions are reasonable.

          But that is us. Not God.

          • carl jacobs

            Phil

            With proper legal permission, a minor can get married. I can’t actually envision a circumstance where that is a good idea. But it actually complements my point. The law would require permission. It demonstrates that minor children are held legally incompetent to make some decisions.

            I’m not talking about age difference. I am talking about age of majority. I would legally prevent a minor child from being able consent to sex with a legal adult. There are all sorts of things a minor child cannot legally consent to do. Sex with an adult should be on the top of this list.

          • Phil R

            I agree with a lot of what you say.

            However on whether a minor should get married you are again making non scriptural judgements based on your personal feelings and cultural upbringing.

            Your arrogance in the first paragraph is not just unbiblical. It is offensive.

          • carl jacobs

            Phil

            Your arrogance in the first paragraph is not just unbiblical. It is offensive.

            Most of what I wrote in that first paragraph is simply statement of fact. The only possible candidate I can see is …

            I can’t actually envision a circumstance where that is a good idea.

            Getting married at 17 is a really bad idea. At that age, you are still five to seven years from functional adulthood. That is a prudential judgment. It’s exactly the advice I gave my children. And it was surrounded in the observation that the years 18-20 are the most dangerous years of life. That’s when you have the power to act as an adult without having yet achieved the wisdom to act as an adult. If you think that’s arrogant, then I will live with it. I call it “Being a good father.”

            The law has established this thing called the Age of Majority. You are not empowered to act on you own behalf until you reach it. This has nothing to do with Scripture. It is simply a legal recognition that children can’t be treated as adults. So there is going to be some age before which an individual can’t legally get married without permission. Even you would agree with that, I hope. At which point we have established fundamental agreement. So then we are just haggling over boundaries.

            Seems to me you must have a dog in this fight. The idea that minors should defer marriage is not controversial.

          • Phil R

            I will declare an personal interest

            my wife was a minor when we married. My elder sister married on her 16th birthday. No shewas not pregnant. My brother in law was the same age. Neither had any qualifications. They have now been married over 35 years and are are sterling millionaires.

            A girl in our church married at 16. We were the only ones from our church to attend the wedding.

            Finally there was a couple that we knew some 20 years ago and are still married.

            He was 52 and she was 22. They had been married for 4 years at the time we knew them with a 3 year old girl. She was a south American beauty. She told my wife that “This should not work but it does” my wife as a similar age and they got on well.

            I was waiting for the affair but my wife said it will not happen and they will stay together because she is committed.

            It seems my wife was right.

            What do you say to my marriage and the other three above?

            Disgusting?

            We should have laws to stop this sort of thing happening?

          • carl jacobs

            Phil

            I didn’t say that it was morally wrong for a minor to get married. I said it was unwise. You are the only person to use the word “disgusting.” Yes, you can present instances where such marriages work, but I am not going to commit the fallacy of generalizing from that particular. Getting married at 17 is a terrible idea. It doesn’t matter if you make it work. It is still a terrible idea. Marriage is an adult endeavor. There aren’t any 17 year-old adults. It takes time and experience to grow up. Now, you will say “But that is offensive!” I don’t care, Phil. It’s the truth. There is no law that says the truth has to be inoffensive. Do you have children? Would you honestly advise your own daughter to follow this path you have taken? Because I can’t imagine any father doing so. It’s a father’s job to guide with wisdom – especially wisdom derived from bad decisions.

            If someone my age marries someone my daughter’s age, I am going to look askance at it. That’s may not be an unnatural relationship but it is a distorted relationship. However, they are both adults, and it is none of my business. They aren’t doing anything wrong, so I would keep my counsel to myself. But I would advise my children to avoid such a decision because it will come with inherent problems. Again, that is a prudential judgment. Would you advise your daughter to marry a man 30 years her senior? I cannot conceive a father giving that advise.

            I have been married 30 years. My wife and I made a terrible decision to get married. We didn’t know each other well enough and got married too fast. We made it work, but it caused us terrible problems. Frankly, we should have been divorced 25 years ago. The fact that we made it work doesn’t make the original decision a good decision. This is what I mean by guiding your children. You tell them the poor choices you made in the hope that they will choose a wiser path, and spare themselves the pain. This isn’t a moral issue. But it becomes a moral issue when people regret the bad decisions they have made, and want to escape the obligations.

            And that is the usual outcome with marriages contracted at a very young age.

          • Phil R

            Carl

            Your view is a worldview based on your view of what works best in your society

            What you are saying is I know better than God.

            Just like all the liberal posters here who you regularly tear apart.

            A Christian marriage is far more than just the age of those concerned.

            You worry about divorce? My wife nearly died in a bush hospital in Africa when she was 20

            it was touch and go for two days and hundreds of people prayed for her.

            Many prayed all night. Including a guy I had insulted only days before.

            Humbled ? Absolutely

            when she relapsed a few days later they did 8th all over again

            life and faith is far more than numbers of candles on your cake

          • carl jacobs

            And for the record, I would push the age of majority back to 21.

          • Phil R

            And for the record.

            your views are not Christian

    • DanJ0

      “How about you start by re-criminalizing any sexual relationship between an adult and a minor.”

      It’s already criminalised. We have a very good Sexual Offences Act in the UK in my opinion. It distinguishes between children under the age of 13 (for paedophilia) and children age 13 or over but under the age of 16. It also distinguishes between young adults under the age of 18 based on their being subject to authority or care from someone 18 or over. I wouldn’t change any of that.

      • carl jacobs

        I wrote:

        start by re-criminalizing any sexual relationship between an adult and a minor

        Definition of ‘any’ employed: Whichever of a specified class might be chosen

        • CliveM

          Carl

          Sorry could you give an example not covered by the act DanJo mentioned. I’m being a bit slow here!

          • DanJ0

            He’s using minor formally to mean someone below the age of majority in legal terms, which is 18 in the UK. So, an 18 year old cannot have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old because a 17 year old is formally a child in those terms.

          • Grouchy Jack

            “So, an 18 year old cannot have a sexual relationship with a 17 year old because …. blah, blah, blah … “

            It’s highly unlikely the CPC would consider it to be in the public interest to prosecute in such circumstances unless drugs, exploitation, or use of force or manipulation was suspected. That’s what the authorities in Rotherham failed to investigate. In case its overlooked, it also means a 16 year old cannot be sexually seduced by an adult aged 20, 25, 35, 45, 55, etc.

            What healthy, well balanced man or woman wants a mature, lasting and intimate sexual relationship with a child of 16 years of age? Or is it okay now for adults to have sex with 16 year olds simply for the sake of sexual gratification?

          • DanJ0

            The fundamental question is: Do you think it should be criminalised on that basis? Are you arguing for a raising of the age of consent to the age of majority?

          • Grouchy Jack

            Yep ….

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            It’s highly unlikely the CPC would consider it to be in the public interest to prosecute in such circumstances

            That’s the problem. Translate that attitude down to little girls in Rotherham. That’s why nothing was done. Authorities didn’t see an actual crime. They saw a consensual act that might have been technically in violation of the Law. Or they saw consent. What people are trying to do is carve out some way to make consent non-consensual. The Law says a 16 year-old may consent. But then the ugly truth comes out and so people try to psychologize consent out of the equation. They want it both ways.

          • Jack thinks what happened is that the crimes were never investigated by the agencies charged with protecting these girls.

            Standard child protection procedures would have required notification to the police by social services of a crime (or vive versa) and a joint interview with a social worker. Thereafter, there would have been a multi-agency conference involving all the agencies who knew the girls and a representative from the CPS. This system was bypassed – repeatedly.

            The use of professional discretion on the part of police or social services might be acceptable but repeatedly?! There was more going on here that perceptions about the age of consent and moral relativism. This didn’t help but having read the reports, there’s no doubt other significant cultural and political factors intruded – i.e. Islam and the Labour Party. The biggest failure by the professionals was not listening to the children and not paying sufficient attention to them. The climate created by the politically accountable Councillors compounded this.

            All that said, you’re still left with the issue about what to offer an emotionally damaged teenage girl intent on repeatedly absenting herself from a children’s home where she doesn’t want to be and who absconds and places herself in moral and physical danger. The facilities and resources required to contain such children just do not exist. Add the dismissal of sexual activity as something not to be too concerned about and criminal gangs intent on exploiting this have a rich harvest to pick.

          • Miles Christianus

            An 18 year old can legally have sex with a 17 year old unless it’s in a very unlike situation where it’s an abuse of a position of trust. However, a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old is statutory rape.

          • DanJ0

            That’s what I was getting at. In the abuse cases listed in the article, the victims were children in the normal sense of the word i.e. under 16. They were legally unable to consent under our existing Sexual Offences legislation. Carl Jacobs was using minor in the formal sense so that a child is someone under 18 years of age i.e. under the age of majority, and I misunderstood that. By the way, we don’t have an offence of statutory rape here in the UK. That’s an American thing as far as I know. A 16 year old having sex with a 15 year commits a sexual offence rather than rape even though the 15 year cannot legally consent.

          • Miles Christianus

            I was using an American term for Carl’s benefit. The latter case would in any event hardly ever be prosecuted as it would rarely seem to be in the public interest to do so. The distinction has to be made by what is “legal” (hard, fast, rule-bound), what is “just” (harder to define) and what is “right” (now in the realms of subjectivity)

          • carl jacobs

            My solution has the advantage of being what an Engineer would call “clean.” There is no ambiguity involved. The whole idea behind an “age of consent” is to push public permission for sex below the age of majority. Why do that? We generally restrict minors from making decisions that are considered too significant in terms of consequence. What then do we teach about sex with age of consent laws? Only that sex is trivial – for a child is allowed to make decisions about it.

          • carl jacobs

            Clive

            You put a boundary around something to protect it. You protect something because you value it. The current law sets apart consent for protection because that is what the makers of the Law (and by extension the culture beneath the law) valued. It sees sex as incidental to the primary question of human autonomy. I am suggesting that the boundary be placed around sex – that human sexual behavior needs to be set apart to protect it from degradation.

            It can’t happen, of course. Cultural attitudes would have to change first. So sixteen year-old girls get passed around by 35 year-old men for group sex, and people say “But it was consensual.” It always returns to the same origin – the modern presumption that sex has no essential relational component. Sex without relationship is nothing be me getting off. So what’s the difficulty with the 16 year-old and the group sex? So long as her consent wasn’t violated the modern world can’t say. No matter how degrading the sex.

          • CliveM

            Carl

            Sorry for the delay in responding, but had to think about this. If I understand you and DanJo then whilst I dont agree with their behaviour, I don’t see that criminalising will achieve anything (17/18). I would support a graduated age of Consent however in an attempt to protect were there is a big power imbalance.

            It wouldn’t be re-criminalising as the bahaviour described has never been criminalised in the UK.

        • DanJ0

          You’re taking the formal definition of minor. I see what you’re advocating now. Blimey.

  • len

    The phenomenon of ‘slavery’ in this present day and age is almost incomprehensible to me.
    What conditions have made it possible for this to happen?.
    The whole subject of the abuse of children has seemingly only come to light recently and it seems almost endemic right through society right from those at the top right down through society. Some serious questions need to be asked how child abuse and the abuse of of young girls has been allowed to continue and why no authorities have acted despite been alerted on numerous occasions?.
    The secular moral code of’ political correctness’ has been used to protect the perpetrators of crime rather than protect the victims as has the Bill of Human Rights .
    Once we have thrown away the concept of’ moral absolutes ‘it would seem that anything is possible if a law can be passed to make it’ legal ‘to do so…
    I suspect the most outrageous sexual offences will become’ legal’ in time to come if we do not radically alter the course we have become set on……

  • Doctor Crackles

    Gillan, the Psalmist says:

    Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.

    You put your trust in agencies and legislation and even the cursed institutions, which caused these girls to be sold and destroyed. You speak of human depravity, but this bill will do nothing to reduce depravity. It may not even mitigate it.

    The is no cure for Britain except the Lord brings it about.

    Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah?

  • preacher

    It’s good to see another law being drafted to protect the young, naive & vulnerable. But if it’s not enforced & acted upon, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on.
    It seems that there’s a vast cover up going on, with powerful people being protected by high officials & politicians. Couple this with the so called debate about the lowering of the so called ‘ Age of consent ‘ & the debate over the age that children should start sex education in primary schools & the course being set is worryingly clear. Even the term ‘sex education’ baldly states what the topic is about, not about love & morality between husband & wife & the bond of a growing family, but about the selfish no strings attached, emotionless gratification of those whose perversions demand the corruption of the young & vulnerable.
    Laws already exist to protect these victims. Enforce them without fear or favour, make the sentences longer & include those that have colluded to pervert the course of justice, then we as a country will have started back on the road to redemption rather than the road to perdition that we currently tread.

    • When Jack was a nipper the term used for sex was “the marital act”. How times have changed.

      • Uncle Brian

        A joke from what must have been around the same time. A BBC newsreader: “The murder victim was a young woman. Her head was found in a plastic bag buried in her own back garden. One leg was in a ditch and the other one in a neighbouring ploughed field. The torso was in a suitcase at the bottom of the river. Both her hands had been cut off, evidently to avoid identification by her fingerprints. The police surgeon who examined the remains said the body had not been interfered with.”

  • Dominic Stockford

    I may have missed it below, but the answer to the question posed…

    “Surely the question now is: ‘Where next?’”

    …is that we already know – Rochdale, Reading, Nine Elms Guesthouse (Richmond upon Thames), Bryn Estyn (North Wales), and on, and on…
    Others can add to the list.

    This is no gradual uncovering – much of it is already there, but simply untouched by an uninterested media, and a frightened set of political parties.

    • Miles Christianus

      Part of my job involves working with the police. The issue at hand goes on everywhere, even where you’d least expect it – But as you implied, if it’s not front page, it doesn’t exist.

  • carl jacobs

    Interesting. Where have all the atheists gone?

    • “Where have all the atheists gone, their time is passing?
      Where have all the atheists gone, not long to go?
      Where have all the atheists gone?
      Their consciences pricked them everyone.
      Oh, will they ever learn?
      Oh, will they ever learn?”

      • sarky

        Where did all the christians go?
        Did they all go for a jog?
        Or did science and evolution expose their lies?
        Now they’re all hiding on this blog!

        • Miles Christianus

          Look up “doggerel”

          • sarky

            Bit harsh 🙂

          • Miles Christianus

            Soz. Take it as “poetry that is irregular in rhythm, often used for cmic effect.” 😉

          • sarky

            More like Pam Ayres 😉

        • magnolia

          Also look up scansion and rhythm while you’re about it..

    • sarky

      Modern slavery bill – something I think we can all agree on.

      • carl jacobs

        Except this isn’t about slavery, is it? It’s about the chickens of the sexual revolution coming home to roost.

        • sarky

          Are you suggesting that sexual exploitation and slavery only started in the 60’s? Or that the sexual revolution created an environment in which it could prosper?
          Newsflash, exploitation and slavery have always being with us (just read your bible)
          Sex sells and while it does there will be those willing to exploit others for money.
          What happened in Rotherham and is still happening around the country is a national disgrace and hopefully we are taking the first steps towards dealing with the problem. Interestingly the perpetrators come from a culture that is as morally against the sexual revolution as you are. Religious people are just as morally corrupt as the non religious.
          It’s very easy to blame the sexual revolution, or secularists, or different cultures for what has happened, when what each and every one of us needs to do is take a long hard look in the mirror and ALL work together to remove this evil from our society.

          • carl jacobs

            No, sarky, I’m suggesting that the problem described has nothing to do with sexual slavery. The problem wasn’t ignored for lack of knowledge. The problem was ignored because adults didn’t see a problem with the sexual behavior involved. They thought it “consensual.” How have we got to a place where people think it perfectly normal for a 35 year-old man to have sex with a 16 year-old girl?

          • sarky

            We haven’t!

          • carl jacobs

            They why weren’t these girls taken seriously? Why did the authorities treat them like ‘bad girls who got what they asked for?’

          • sarky

            Thats the crux of the matter. The police behaved appallingly and have admitted as much. The fact that the police failed to act isn’t a sign that this sort of behaviour is accepted, it isn’t.

          • carl jacobs

            The police failed to act because they saw no actionable behavior. Why did they see no actionable behavior? You are deliberately avoiding the point.

          • sarky

            I’m avoiding nothing. My understanding is that at the time the police were concentrating on burglaries and violent crime, so pretty much just ignored the problem as it didn’t fit within one of their ‘targets’.
            Again you are trying to make out this behaviouris seen as acceptabe when it just isn’t. Theresa May has been speaking today and has said that abuse is now woven into the very fabric of society and that the investigations into abuse are going to make very uncomfortable reading. This isnt about acceptance, how can the majority accept something that they are not even aware is going on? If you don’t believe me just look at the outpouring of public anger since all this was exposed.

          • DanJ0

            I’m betting that if I was found in bed with a 14 year old lad and he or his parents complained then I’d be looking at a stretch in prison, and deservedly so too.

          • And a young person aged 16 years?
            Jack understands you wouldn’t do this but there are plenty of older men – of all orientations – that would and given the chance, do. How can it be right?

          • DanJ0

            I wouldn’t legislate to try to stop it. At what age of the adult does it become a moral problem? 18? 19? 20? 21? 25? 30? 40? I think that most 16 year olds understand what they are doing with their own bodies. They need to feel empowered to say no, is all.

          • sarky

            What I’m saying is you wouldn’t put yourself in that position and nor would the majority because they understand that it is just plain wrong and not acceptable under any circumstances.

          • Pope Paul VI did predict this: “abuse is now covertly woven into the very fabric of society.”

            He didn’t foresee the decline of morals, not the speed with which women, let alone young girls, would become sex objects for the pleasure of men.

          • Uncle Brian

            Yes, it is. Not by you, maybe, and not by a lot of us who turn up here regularly at Cranmer’s. But by the police, by local authorities, and by Parliament it is fully accepted. As Carl Jacobs said in one of his comments yesterday, the default setting is to wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, “It’s just sex.”

            Did the police really “behave appallingly”? How appallingly? Appallingly enough for some of them to have been sentenced to prison terms? To have been fined? To have lost their jobs? Or just to be told that they’ve been very naughty boys and they mustn’t do it again?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Interestingly the perpetrators come from a culture that is as morally against the sexual revolution as you [Carl Jaoobs] are.

            You miss an obvious difference. Christians do not think that promiscuity is OK for men provided it is with women who are not even nominally Christians. The perpetrators in Rotherham and other towns think that it is OK for moslem men, not women, provided it is with women or girls who are infidels.

          • sarky

            Exactly, the perpetrators thought it was ok. They were just trying to justify their actions. The muslim community were just as disgusted.

    • Miles Christianus

      Still posting on the last thread

    • The Explorer

      Linus has been letting me have it on the previous thread. I think I’ve finally joined Happy Jack and The Inspector on Linus’ special hate radar.

      • carl jacobs

        I told Linus once that if he didn’t change his behavior, he would eventually alienate the readership of the weblog, and find himself ignored.

      • Miles Christianus

        Although I think I’m yet to join this august number, Linus suggested that my teeth were strangling my brain, or some such.

        • The Explorer

          It sounds like you qualify for heavy-machine-gun fire, but for The Inspector, Happy Jack and me he’s wheeled out Big Bertha. Mine was along the lines of who needs the devil with one as uncharitable as me around?
          We could, of course, ask him to rank us in order of detestation; but if he thought that would oblige us he’d probably refuse.

          • Miles Christianus

            Let’s be careful out there. As Lewis asserted, we’re operating in enemy territory 😉

          • CliveM

            Oh you know I think he only says these things to show us how much he loves us……………………

            Anyway beware the mark of the beast, I boast a whole row of 6’s.

          • The Explorer

            That’s true. You are hereby awarded a most-hated -by-Linus medal! Wear it with pride!

          • CliveM

            I hope we’re not going to squabble over this………….

          • The Explorer

            I think we should confine the membership of the MHBL Club to seven. Membership at any given time subject to level of attack.
            Two criteria.
            1. Level of vituperation.
            2. Frequency of vituperation.
            Lots of candidates for Criterion One. Two is the decider.
            Addendum. Women allowed. No more than one American or Canadian male at a time..

          • CliveM

            Seems a bit elitist to me ;0)

          • The Explorer

            Seven is the biblical number for completeness. And remember: it’s a shifting population. Not necessarily the same seven. And the rank order changes. I’m sure The Inspector will be back at No 1 very soon.

    • APRODEFA

      They are blogging in the Irish Times in favor of so called same sex marriage.
      There is a referendum on the issue coming soon.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Like Jack, when I was a nipper, grooming was having my hair combed, my clothes brushed and shoes shined. Other wise it was the Groom brushing the horse.
    How would these kids know what being ‘groomed’ was, or have you had the ‘Talk’.

    A new law needs more officials to enforce it. There’s enough trouble with care workers already. Making decisions of where a child should be placed. Instead of loving Grand Parents, they put a child with a pair of Gays.

    This thing in Scotland about the ‘named person’ who isn’t named as far as you can know. It is all too much Big Brother. Too much Government, not enough good sense in society to watch out for each other.

    • Inspector General

      On the subject of adoption, the Inspector was astounded to hear some years
      back that if he was so placed to consider giving a child a home he would be
      turned down. This is apart from being even then, beyond the upper age limit.
      Because one so enjoys tobacco, even if undertaking to only smoke outside the house, the carcinogenic compounds would still emanate from his clothing. He has since considered this a blessing, as when the social services bod would come to visit, the petrol exhaust fumes from their vehicle might well cause said child to drop dead on the spot, which would rather irritate yours truly.

      • The cats wouldn’t have helped the application either, Inspector.

  • Royinsouthwest

    One thing that Gillan seems to have missed, like most commentators on this subject, is the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in creating a climate of opinion in which police officers, social workers and local councillors think it is better to ignore abuse perpetrated by members of ethnic/religious minorities than to tackle it and be thought racist.

    The membership of the EHRC needs to be thoroughly purged. In fact, holding politically correct views should be a disqualification when it comes to membership of such bodies or to holding any job with “equality” or “diversity” in its title. Instead we want people with common sense who can be trusted to do their jobs properly.

    • Phil R

      The EHRC needs to be abolished

  • There were four very clear prophetic statements in Humanae Vitae – the encyclical that rocked the Catholic world back in 1968.

    Infidelity and moral decline – The Pope noted that the widespread use of contraception would “lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.”

    A loss of respect for women – the Pope argued that “the man” will lose respect for “the woman” and “no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium” and will come to “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” The Pope understood that the Church’s teaching on contraception is designed to protect the good of conjugal love. When spouses violate this good, they do not act in accord with their innate dignity and thus they endanger their own happiness. Treating their bodies as mechanical instruments to be manipulated for their own purposes, they risk treating each other as objects of pleasure.

    An abuse of power – the Pope observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place a “dangerous weapon… in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.”

    Unlimited dominion – the Pope warned that contraception would lead man to think that he had unlimited dominion over his own body. Individuals would become convinced of their rights to control their own bodies and.reproduction.

    Pope Paul VI has been proven correct on every count. Indeed, while outlining the major themes, he failed to see the full extent of the implications of the widespread acceptance and use of contraception and the separation between sex, conception and the raising children in a life long marriage.

    • sarky

      Did he also forsee the spread of AIDS due to the Catholic churches view on contraception?

      • Sexual immorality caused AIDS – not the absence of contraception.

        • sarky

          Maybe, but lack of contraception caused it to spread.

          • Royinsouthwest

            It would not spread very easily without promiscuity.

          • sarky

            When you see pictures of healthy people dying of AIDs and children being left orphaned do you not question the morality of teaching that the use of condoms is bad?

          • Royinsouthwest

            I actually agree with the use of condoms. I also think that sexual promiscuity and anal intercourse should both be discouraged.

          • sarky

            Thats a very naive world view.

          • You’re a parent, Sarky. What do you think?

          • sarky

            Its naive in that no matter how much you discourage it, it’s still gonna happen! In which case it’s better to be safe than sorry!

          • Miles Christianus

            That’s not to say that it shouldn’t be discouraged, like any other risky activity. And I’m not talking bungee jumping.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            That doesn’t make it naive. What is naive is to imagine that sin does not have consequences.

          • sarky

            All actions have consequences.

          • APRODEFA

            it’s better to be safe than sorry!

            Safe sex is a myth. Look at the CDC statistics.

          • APRODEFA

            Your comment contradicts itself.

            Empirically, promoting condoms increases both promiscuity and disease rates. One coital act with an infected partner increases the risk disease from zero to some finite amount. By the binomial theorem each successive act further increases the risk (to 1 in the limit)-just like Russian roulette.

          • Did it? Think again.
            Men in Africa don’t use condoms because they don’t like using condoms. It’s the same in Britain.

          • APRODEFA

            This situation is counter intuitive since there are two factors working in opposite directions.

            1. The reduction in virus transmission probability per coital act when condoms are used, but increasing to 1 as the number of such acts becomes large.

            2. The increase in transmission rate in the population due to increases in promiscuity encouraged by the promotion of condoms.

            Depending on circumstances, one or other factor will predominate. If a population is already maximally promiscuous, the effect of the second factor will be zero. Unfortunately, in this case, the reduction in transmission probability per coital act will be counterbalanced by the fact, that the limit as n –> infinity of repeated condom roulette is virus transmission with probability 1. As a result, residual virus transmission rates will remain relatively large. This explains why the infection rates of certain populations (e.g. MSM) is more than 1000% of the average.

            For less promiscuous populations, the second factor can theoretically outweigh the first. In such populations, the promotion of condoms will increase the infection rate.

            Another important sub population are families who want children. Some among us forget that a primary purpose of sex is procreation. Woman who want children can hardly be expected to employ so called “safe” sex especially if their husbands do not tell them of their HIV status.

            In none of the possible scenarios does the promotion of condoms STOP the AIDS epidemic. This can only be done by a combination of abstinence, monogamy and “quarantine” for those who are amoral enough to knowingly play condom roulette with their partners –who are often not even be aware that their partner is infected.

          • sarky

            Abstinence, monogamy and quarantine?? Lets be honest that’s wishful thinking on your part. As for increased promiscuity due to condom promotion, show me the evidence! There have been countless studies done that show use of condoms would cut the infection rate. Your way of thinking is dangerous.

          • CliveM

            Sarky

            Show us the evidence. APRODEFA has at least quoted a study, so far you’ve only provided assertions?

            If I’m honest I probably side with the use of condoms in this area, however I find the results of the research quoted interesting.

      • Ivan M

        May I know which idiot maintains that the use of condoms by the sodomites lessened the chances of getting AIDS? The fact that it is the abuse of the rectum itself, that contributes the lion’s share of the plague. I don’t know how you approach anal abuse, but I can assure you that apart from the “safe sex” allegedly practised in the pornography “industry” hardly any one else does consistently. It lessens the pleasure, and therefore the whole point of it.

        • sarky

          Erm you do know that aids is endemic amongst the hetrosexual community don’t you?

          • APRODEFA

            The rate is more than 1000% higher among MSM.

          • Ivan M

            And you do know that there are straight people that play for the other team don’t you?

          • sarky

            Then their not straight are they?????

      • APRODEFA

        According to Dr. Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies,

        “There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates,”

        “This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

        • Ivan M

          Precisely. As in going for speed with better brakes on a motorcycle. Fatalities are not reduced. Taken at face value Dr Green’s explanation shows the sagacity of the Catholic Church.

        • sarky

          This is not borne out by other studies I have seen.

      • APRODEFA

        Yes, he did clearly forsee what would happen:

        Country Religion % Aids Infection
        Burundi 62% Catholic 6%
        Angola 38% Catholic 3.9%
        Ghana 63% Christian 3.1%
        Uganda 33% Catholic 4.1%
        Botswana 5% Catholic 37.3%
        South Africa 6% Catholic 21.5%

        Guess where condoms are most promoted.

    • Inspector General

      Point 4 is unquestionably medieval, even for you!

      • Transsexuals? Transgenderism? IVF with sperm and egg donors? Surrogate wombs? Mixing cells from 3 ‘parents? Abortions?
        The list will go on, Inspector.

        • Inspector General

          You may have a point about transsexuals. Too much damn oestrogen in the drinking water, apparently. The rest is man’s natural corruption when separated from God’s truth.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Mr Scott, while I share your analysis of the plight of these children, and I share your profound wish for them to be treated with fairness and justice, I do not share your expectation that this bill will make any significant difference. I wish it would make a difference, but I see some problems. Firstly, I don’t think the problem is simply about lack of legislation, and legislation is only effective if it is enforced. Our authorities are so intoxicated with political correctness and deceit that I don’t believe thtey are capable of getting tough on those involved

    Secondly, while I condemn the behaviour of the authorities in these cases, it is clear that there has been an almost total deflection away from the underlying problem of culture. While organisations like the BBC hammer away at the police and social services, nobody dares to address the cultural fault-line which has allowed the perpetrators to (mostly) get away with it. These abuse cases, frequently involving men of Asian origin, are symptomatic of the failure of a multi-cultural society, and a difference in attitudes towards women and girls in particular. Nobody wants to address that, it is too sensitive.

    The problem of the authorities could be dealt with by some judicious sackings by the Government. there was no political will to do it. Indeed, we now have a political and justice system that puts multi-culturalism before almost anything else, even to the point of breaking it’s own laws on gender-selective abortion because of fear of offending “minorities”. I’m not holding my breath waiting to see any improvement in the near future.

    • IanCad

      Couldn’t agree more. We have laws enough and spare.
      PC & MC have to be slapped down hard.
      A very good comment.

  • Ivan M

    Society in the UK s being engineered with the long term goal of making sexual immorality of the type foreseen by the Marquis de Sade the norm. Abuse of children is the inevitable result of the breakdown of the authority of the father over his children. In the last analysis the only defence that the weak have, in a society governed by the pleasure principle, is the atavistic impulse for one’s own blood relations.

    • Ivan M

      Many of these children could have found shelter with good Christian couples, but this went against the priorities of the engineers in the social welfare organs, whose concern for the welfare of the abused was incidental to their goal of cleansing society of the last drams of Christian love and decency.

      It is no surprise that they left the field open to the predators from other tribes almost all Pakistani Muslims. It is the anything but Christians mentality of the Left at play. To understand what happened in places such as Rotherham it far better to read anthropologists such as Chagnon, than all the hand-wringers in the Guardian