[Archived] Jack Straw`s comments

[only2garners]

Straws timing is despicable, as this has been going on for the past decade or so here in Blackburn, and hes managed to keep the perpetrators out of jail during that time.

Not according to last night's Newsnight it hasn't. There was an interview with a Blackburn policeman who didn't deny the problem but said that around 80% of such offences were perpetrated by white men.

[thenodrog]

Not according to last night's Newsnight it hasn't. There was an interview with a Blackburn policeman who didn't deny the problem but said that around 80% of such offences were perpetrated by white men.

Be very interesting to see his case file, one way or the other. We have a few coppers on here. Can you shed any light fella's?

[thenodrog]

Be very interesting to see his case file, one way or the other. We have a few coppers on here. Can you shed any light fella's?

It appears Mick Gradwell is willing........

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/comment/8782968.Sex_grooming_debate__What_Straw_said_so_carefully_is_true/

"When I came to Blackburn in the 1970s, one of my main issues was the gangs of Asian men outside the old nightclub on top of the shopping centre who were picking up drunk white girls, specifically to abuse them.

These were cars full of Asian lads in BMWs and Mercedes, offering lifts home to these young women, leading to incidents of rape and sexual assaults.

From the first time I was posted to East Lancashire it has been a problem.

What Jack Straw has said so carefully is true: There is a problem with some members of the Pakistani community targeting young women in this way. In recent years we have seen it specifically with victims aged just 14, 15 or 16-years-old who are out on the streets at night and groomed by predatory gangs.

For people to just come out and call Mr Straw racist is wrong."

Forget the racist allegations why did Jack Straw see fit to wait 35 years to comment on what even in the 70's was an obvious problem?

Whatever Jack Straw is or isn't one thing he has not done is act in the best interests of Blackburn and it's citizens as our democratically elected MP. It's obvious that he's ducked out of confronting an horrendous issue for decades simply to further his own political career. They do say thet Politics is a dirty business and Jack Straw is the living proof of that.

[Rover Down Under]

As an expat I'm somewhat detached from all this so could someone please define / explain what "grooming" is because it sounds like a politically correct word for gang rape to me.

[thenodrog]

........ because it sounds like a politically correct word for gang rape to me.

Grooming is the procurement of minors for rape and gang rape by all ages of men. A precursor to intended rape might be an accurate description if you prefer.

In Blackburn the emphasis appears to be on white girls from 9-15 and muslim men fromm the IndoPak community. Jack Straw (Blackburns Lab MP for 30+ years)used the general term 'Pakistani men'. He may well be right but imo it is too direct and too narrow a reference term.

[Glenn]

Indeed, it's one of the reasons I'm nervously letting this thread run. It's a serious issue, clouded by race, but the race of those involved is inconsequential (other than it makes some people very uncomfortable talking about it for fear of being labelled a racist).

There is a much better (and much wider) description of grooming at http://en.wikipedia..../Child_grooming . I surprised it's not common use in Australia, the media over here use it a lot.

[SouthAussieRover]

Excuse me Glenn but perhaps you should desist from posting until its necessary...

So far no one appears to have labelled each other racist.....unless you are referring to posts that may have been deleted.

[adopted scouser]

It appears Mick Gradwell is willing........

I knew Mick when he had hair ! Poor do when you can only tell it like it is when you're safely in retirement.

[Mattyblue]

To be fair, this shouldnt be called a 'race' issue at all. Saying 'Asian' men is unfairly implicating Hindu, Sikh and even Indian Muslim men, when this is largely a Pakistani Muslim issue. This is an issue of culture and how that culture views women and in partuicular non- Muslim women.

[Glenn]

Excuse me Glenn but perhaps you should desist from posting until its necessary...

So far no one appears to have labelled each other racist.....unless you are referring to posts that may have been deleted.

Awwwww. I was actually enjoying participating in a conversation for once, rather than moderating it. I'll get my coat

[thenodrog]

I knew Mick when he had hair ! Poor do when you can only tell it like it is when you're safely in retirement.

This is the biter bit. Whilst public servants like Gradwell and Straw are being forced to walk on eggshells there is little hope of issues like this being addressed properly and being given the attention that they require. I've said many times that policies like these result in more anti immigrant sentiment than if such issues are discussed openly and freely without fear of repercussion by heavily agenda'd mischief makers.

[thenodrog]

Latest survey results reveal that concerns over immigration are held by 70% of British people. Take into account that the BNP will think privately that the govt is doing an excellent job and that's a fairly sizeable proportion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12362464

"Seven out of 10 people in the UK said their government was doing a poor job in managing immigration - this was behind only the US (73%)".

For what it's worth and in an attempt to be even handed it's not one govt to blame, it's every govt since the Windrush sailed that has been guilty of not implementing proper control and management. The country has not supported or promoted integration enough by far and immigrant 'quarters' have been the result in most towns and cities.

.

[neekoy]

Considering a big percentage of that 70% would likely be immigrants themselves it says a lot....

[thenodrog]

For what it's worth and in an attempt to be even handed it's not one govt to blame, it's every govt since the Windrush sailed that has been guilty of not implementing proper control and management. The country has not supported or promoted integration enough by far and immigrant 'quarters' have been the result in most towns and cities.

Is the wind about to change?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

[Steve Moss]

Is the wind about to change?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

Talk is cheap.

[thenodrog]

Talk is cheap.

Is it? This wasn't cheap. Damned expensive in fact...

"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.....

..... Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after."

[Steve Moss]

I concede that I'm cynical, but politicians are very good about identifying problems but lack substantive follow through.

As an outsider looking in, Cameron appears to be to have a problem on his right. So he gives a speech which [correctly] identifies a problem with immigration and declares 'multiculturalism' dead. Its red meat to conservatives [which I count myself among and which I perceive to be stalwart in upholding Western civilization and the humanistic values it embodies]. It gets him some positive PR amongst that group. Which he'll need as your Parliament will be shortly giving prisoners the right to vote [which he'll decry but justify on financial grounds] and backing off on tax relief [which he'll be distressed about but which he'll also justify on financial grounds]. As a practical matter he'll never have to deliver on his speech, which he'll deplore, as he lacks the votes.

Its the equivalent of preaching a sermon while the church is on fire. The sermon may be great, but what is really needed is men manning a firehose, not rousing speeches.

If Cameron was serious, in my non-expert opinion, he needs to change the rules and d!@n the consequences. Allow generous immigration, but only to those who would materially benefit England and would willingly assimilate, and adopt English culture and Western values. Proponents of Sharia law need not apply.

Do you think he'll follow up with action? Or will you just get more words?

[rebelmswar]

Not a chance in hell.

Damn the consequences went out with the, now extinct, political spine.

Immigration, while necessary, is a very rusty, squeaky, bear trap. One can ask immigrants to assimilate and be labled an insensitive racist, who owns a very thorough and complete World War Two German helmet collection, or ask everyone else to change their values to facilitate the immigrant and be called a slack jawed lib.

There is no answer anymore.

Apathy is policy.

[BiggusLaddus]

If Cameron was serious, in my non-expert opinion, he needs to change the rules and d!@n the consequences. Allow generous immigration, but only to those who would materially benefit England and would willingly assimilate, and adopt English culture and Western values. Proponents of Sharia law need not apply.

Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread, but the problem we have with immigration is the number of tiers in the system and it isn't a problem that we can do anything about without serious consequences.

We can be as strict as we like to non-EU economic migrants (and we are quite strict), but we are not in control of our borders wrt economic migrants from within the EU (who make up the large majority).

Then there are the other types of immigrants who turn up without advance permission. IMO asylum cases take too long to be decided, which is not fair to genuine cases and allows time for less scrupulous claimnnts to strengthen their case by 'interacting' with our native pondlife.

What can we do about it? I would say that the non-EU migrants who qualify by our current rules are the kind of people who will add benefit to the country. Equally many of the EU based migrants will be, as demonstrated by them having the drive to move to a foreign country for work, but the other 'less welcome' EU migrants cannot be refused entry unless we fancy taking a shredder to a couple of boxes of treaties.

Refusing to offer asylum would make us the pariahs of the western world, but perhaps we should be more firm with the current rules. All people claiming asylum are supposed to do it at the first safe country. Many of ours travel through several EU countries to get here - maybe we should return them en-masse to the first EU country that they came to and let them deal with them?

[Steve Moss]

. . . unless we fancy taking a shredder to a couple of boxes of treaties.

[thenodrog]

EU migrants cannot be refused entry unless we fancy taking a shredder to a couple of boxes of treaties.

Refusing to offer asylum would make us the pariahs of the western world, but perhaps we should be more firm with the current rules. All people claiming asylum are supposed to do it at the first safe country. Many of ours travel through several EU countries to get here - maybe we should return them en-masse to the first EU country that they came to and let them deal with them?

[Steve Moss]

. . . your Parliament will be shortly giving prisoners the right to vote [which he'll decry but justify on financial grounds] . . .

I'm not sure whether I called it correctly or not. Parliament said no to allowing prisoners to vote, but the article implies that it is a negotiating ploy? Am I reading this correctly?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8317387/MPs-vote-against-giving-prisoners-the-right-to-vote.html

If a negotiating ploy, it would seem Parliament has folded its hand by conceding in advance they will lose on the issue, that the vote was an effort to influence a better deal (how?), and that they are not willing to pull out of the ECHR.

[thenodrog]

I'm not sure whether I called it correctly or not. Parliament said no to allowing prisoners to vote, but the article implies that it is a negotiating ploy? Am I reading this correctly?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8317387/MPs-vote-against-giving-prisoners-the-right-to-vote.html

If a negotiating ploy, it would seem Parliament has folded its hand by conceding in advance they will lose on the issue, that the vote was an effort to influence a better deal (how?), and that they are not willing to pull out of the ECHR.

I've often said that 3 tiers of government is unecessary and wasteful. If our elected representatives cannot ward off interference from an all gob and briefcase outfit in Brussels over an issue like this then it's pointless having them. Screw the triviallity of bothering over the rights of a few scroats in our gaols our politicians should voting on whether or not we

a. throw out any obligations to a ludicrous (in that there really is no such thing as) human rights charter. or even

b. Cut ourselves off from any European governence. I must say I've lived right through our membership of the Common Market / EEC / EU and I still am not fully aware of any benefits that might have come our way despite us and a couple of other nations virtually funding the entire shabang.

Norway and Switzerland show no real inclination to join the EU and they've not come to much harm have they? The original aim of keeping the peace within Europe was never intended to be abused in this way. The big players in military matters were always us and the Germans so it's our two countries that should be forming our own links and to hell with the rest. How on earth we and Germany ended up subsidising the rest of the continent God only knows.