Pledge on sexual grooming is welcomed by Blackburn MP Jack Straw (From Lancashire Telegraph)

The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

Renewed focus ? Its the very least they should be doing /this and previous governments have FAILED young white girls who have been targeted by asian/pakistani groomers lets see some action without political correctness that protects the abusers,
.

sen c ble wrote:
The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

This is correct of course, and families that do this have little to fear. Unfortunately the groomers choose children from families which have deteriorated or have failed in some way. It's these 'vulnerable' children that they prey on which is why the blame should be squarely placed at the door of these sick monsters.

There also needs to be a change in attitude from the authorities, the media and the community. It seems the attitude of some police and care workers seriously failed the children in Rochdale, yet we can also see that some staff at the same agencies were fearful of raising the issue in case they became accused of being racist by their own managers and the media. Finally the local community needs to be more pro-active about this rather than wasting energy on a stupid you tube video.

sen c ble wrote:
The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

The main responsibility lies with the groomers and sex abusers, not the victims.

If I accidentally leave my front door unlocked, there may be some blame on me if I am burgled. But the main responsibility lies with the thief. Decent people would not steal even if they saw my door unlocked.

Janet street Porter stated on QT that she and others knew what was going on in the late 70's with Saville and they all collectively said nothing - makes them just as guilty as him -- people have been complaining about grooming for years long before it became national news and nothing was ever done due to the racism angle in many communities.

Excluded again wrote:

sen c ble wrote:
The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

The main responsibility lies with the groomers and sex abusers, not the victims.

If I accidentally leave my front door unlocked, there may be some blame on me if I am burgled. But the main responsibility lies with the thief. Decent people would not steal even if they saw my door unlocked.

We live in a society much unsafer to 25 years ago and the need for us to be extra protected, when we accept offenders are determined to fulfill their ill ways, is a high priority. The blame may lie at the foot of the offender, but whether they accept and understand the term responsibility has to be questioned. You may suffer the consequences as a result of mistakenly leaving your front door open, but when we are aware that the young vulnerable are lured then educating them, when WE are aware who they target, must be a top agenda.

No mention of the word "Muslim" or "Islam" in Cooper's statement and the Labour Party and all left leaning organisations will pretend that gang grooming is committed by all colours creeds and religions but the Rochdale Derby Oxford Rotherham Telford and Burnley Muslim grooming gang cases the past 18 months tells us differently.

jack daniels wrote:

sen c ble wrote:
The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

This is correct of course, and families that do this have little to fear. Unfortunately the groomers choose children from families which have deteriorated or have failed in some way. It's these 'vulnerable' children that they prey on which is why the blame should be squarely placed at the door of these sick monsters.

The local community has now grown to such a size that it would now be impossible to get the 'word' across to the offenders, because 'they' are no longer maintaining regular contact and neither are they mosque goers where preaching is mostly perfomed. However they will no doubt be fully aware that what it is they do is incorrect, but continue knowing that they can get away with it. An increase in suitable punishment may be a deterrent, but as in all cases will it deter them!

sen c ble wrote:

Excluded again wrote:

sen c ble wrote:
The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

The main responsibility lies with the groomers and sex abusers, not the victims.

If I accidentally leave my front door unlocked, there may be some blame on me if I am burgled. But the main responsibility lies with the thief. Decent people would not steal even if they saw my door unlocked.

We live in a society much unsafer to 25 years ago and the need for us to be extra protected, when we accept offenders are determined to fulfill their ill ways, is a high priority. The blame may lie at the foot of the offender, but whether they accept and understand the term responsibility has to be questioned. You may suffer the consequences as a result of mistakenly leaving your front door open, but when we are aware that the young vulnerable are lured then educating them, when WE are aware who they target, must be a top agenda.

Rubbish! You only THINK we live in a society 'much unsafer to (sic) 25 years ago' because of the reporting of everything nowadays compared to what and how things were reported 25 years ago. There is NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE between the times then and now. Unless you have facts to support your assertion?

Chris P Bacon wrote:

sen c ble wrote:

Excluded again wrote:

sen c ble wrote:
The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

The main responsibility lies with the groomers and sex abusers, not the victims.

If I accidentally leave my front door unlocked, there may be some blame on me if I am burgled. But the main responsibility lies with the thief. Decent people would not steal even if they saw my door unlocked.

We live in a society much unsafer to 25 years ago and the need for us to be extra protected, when we accept offenders are determined to fulfill their ill ways, is a high priority. The blame may lie at the foot of the offender, but whether they accept and understand the term responsibility has to be questioned. You may suffer the consequences as a result of mistakenly leaving your front door open, but when we are aware that the young vulnerable are lured then educating them, when WE are aware who they target, must be a top agenda.

Rubbish! You only THINK we live in a society 'much unsafer to (sic) 25 years ago' because of the reporting of everything nowadays compared to what and how things were reported 25 years ago. There is NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE between the times then and now. Unless you have facts to support your assertion?

Yes I can. There's been times when as a driver many years back I hardly used to lock my car until a theft incident, and in particular the yard shed never had a door and one buffoon decided to knick the lawnmower and several garden tools 10 years ago. Mind you this is my opinion because I never experienced any burglaries or similar events. I may be wrong.

What are you saying CPB' grooming has always existed in Britian, becuase this is what we're discussing?

On child sex abuse and grooming, this country is definitely safer for children and young people than it was 25 years ago.

As the current Jimmy Saville case illustrates (yet again), 25 years ago children and young people who might have complained about abuse and grooming would have been ignored or not believed.

There has been a shift to taking seriously complaints by children and young people, which is why more cases now come to light. Including, sadly, more and more cases from 20-30 years ago because cases were not taken up at the time.

sen c ble wrote:

Chris P Bacon wrote:

sen c ble wrote:

Excluded again wrote:

sen c ble wrote:
The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

The main responsibility lies with the groomers and sex abusers, not the victims.

If I accidentally leave my front door unlocked, there may be some blame on me if I am burgled. But the main responsibility lies with the thief. Decent people would not steal even if they saw my door unlocked.

We live in a society much unsafer to 25 years ago and the need for us to be extra protected, when we accept offenders are determined to fulfill their ill ways, is a high priority. The blame may lie at the foot of the offender, but whether they accept and understand the term responsibility has to be questioned. You may suffer the consequences as a result of mistakenly leaving your front door open, but when we are aware that the young vulnerable are lured then educating them, when WE are aware who they target, must be a top agenda.

Rubbish! You only THINK we live in a society 'much unsafer to (sic) 25 years ago' because of the reporting of everything nowadays compared to what and how things were reported 25 years ago. There is NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE between the times then and now. Unless you have facts to support your assertion?

Yes I can. There's been times when as a driver many years back I hardly used to lock my car until a theft incident, and in particular the yard shed never had a door and one buffoon decided to knick the lawnmower and several garden tools 10 years ago. Mind you this is my opinion because I never experienced any burglaries or similar events. I may be wrong.

What are you saying CPB' grooming has always existed in Britian, becuase this is what we're discussing?

They're anecdotes, not facts. Even the plural of anecdote is not data.

I have no idea what "CPB'" grooming is but you need look no further than the current awareness of the situation of the time than the Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter et al theme of today's papers to see that what you refer to did indeed occur as much 25 years ago.

To repeat, we do not live in more dangerous times (and not 'much unsafer times' as you suggest) than 100, 50 or 25 years ago at all.

sen c ble wrote:
The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

You really do need to change your login id, there is nothing sensible in this post whatsoever. the blame lies with the peodophiles
Why have we suddenly invented a new name for it? Is it to make it more acceptable, all peodophiles should swing, white black asian christian jew or athiest. HANG EM HIGH.

RUinsane wrote:

sen c ble wrote:
The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

You really do need to change your login id, there is nothing sensible in this post whatsoever. the blame lies with the peodophiles
Why have we suddenly invented a new name for it? Is it to make it more acceptable, all peodophiles should swing, white black asian christian jew or athiest. HANG EM HIGH.

Yes I do agree to a certain extent to your comments, but the failure how to TACKLE the paedo/grooming will result in further cases. ....and there is nothing really positive in your post!

sen c ble wrote:

RUinsane wrote:

sen c ble wrote:
The responsibilities lies with the parents to educate and protect their offspring of the dangers they are faced with and to instruct them how to avoid such circumstances lured by attractiveness and to report such cases whether the abuser are family, friend, strangers or even those who have abused their position.

You really do need to change your login id, there is nothing sensible in this post whatsoever. the blame lies with the peodophiles
Why have we suddenly invented a new name for it? Is it to make it more acceptable, all peodophiles should swing, white black asian christian jew or athiest. HANG EM HIGH.

Yes I do agree to a certain extent to your comments, but the failure how to TACKLE the paedo/grooming will result in further cases. ....and there is nothing really positive in your post!

But we seem to have restricted our rights to 'freedom of speech' to the extent that we can't say why we think these cases occur. I think we are all in agreement on this, aren't we? We have hamstrung our very language to a laughable extent that prevents the law that's supposed to protect us from saying who and why these large-scale grooming cases happen. Well I'm going to say that there appears to be one rule for one section of society and a different rule for another. I bet that never happened 25 years ago so in that regard, rather than actual figures, Senny is correct.

Jack straw? against grooming...didnt his 47 year old brother invite a 16 year old round to his house to see "his dog" cos he was feeling depressed...and then phoned her, went to her house and sexually assaulted her, and got put on the offenders register for 5years???
And Im pretty sure this is the same jack straw who passed the law making it illegal for children to speak out against care workers etc even when feel that they are mistreated, and the same guy keeping family courts behind closed doors where even illegal actions of social workers and judges are protected by threats and gagging orders...
I have also heard his own children were in foster care?
What on earth does he know about protecting children...

Shame Jack and co never bothered years ago when apparently they knew it was going on but chose to ignore it rather than upset a certain religion and ethnic minority
It seems young girls are not as important as this to Jack.

Yet again the Telegraph shows its double standards. 22 year old paedophile gets jailed headline. he is white, yet all the ones from a certain ethnicity are called groomers, what are they doing combing the girls hair?. PAEDOPHILES all of them white or asian they are all PAEDOPHILES. Why is the white guy not a groomer? DOUBLE STANDARDS.