Unsure what you mean? Do you think the entire scandal is about only what these particular 7 men did?
A single successful prosecution is a drop in the bucket. This scandal is about ongoing abuse of tens of thousands of girls, with cases starting as early as the 1970s (but with numbers burgeoning from the 90s to today). No one has claimed t…
Unsure what you mean? Do you think the entire scandal is about only what these particular 7 men did?
A single successful prosecution is a drop in the bucket. This scandal is about ongoing abuse of tens of thousands of girls, with cases starting as early as the 1970s (but with numbers burgeoning from the 90s to today). No one has claimed that there have never been *any* investigations or prosecutions, but that the *vast majority* of the abuse was covered up and ignored by police & government.
Wikipedia is not a great place to get info on this case. It looks like it's been edited a lot recently, so maybe it's now better than it was, but when I read it a few months ago it was way off the mark.
I'm not disputing the sentences, I'm making a general point that wikipedia is not a good source on this issue and has until very recently presented it as an overblown moral panic.
I'm sorry. From the context, I assumed you were the person I had just replied to, reading the reply but forgetting that I was responding to a comment that mentioned sentencing. Instead, it appears you interjected without even finding out what was being discussed.
It is a discussion board. It is for everyone to participate. Your comment to LCDR was unclear. If you meant it to be an untouchable private conversation, you should have reached out to LCDR personally instead of exposing yourself to hurtful, triggering requests for clarification by the unwashed mob.
Unsure what you mean? Do you think the entire scandal is about only what these particular 7 men did?
A single successful prosecution is a drop in the bucket. This scandal is about ongoing abuse of tens of thousands of girls, with cases starting as early as the 1970s (but with numbers burgeoning from the 90s to today). No one has claimed that there have never been *any* investigations or prosecutions, but that the *vast majority* of the abuse was covered up and ignored by police & government.
I said very specifically that I was referring to your comments about sentencing. I just picked a news story emphasising that sentencing has not been universally lenient. If you want more examples, look at the last column in this table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#Summary_of_convictions
Wikipedia is not a great place to get info on this case. It looks like it's been edited a lot recently, so maybe it's now better than it was, but when I read it a few months ago it was way off the mark.
Are any of the sentences incorrect?
I'm not disputing the sentences, I'm making a general point that wikipedia is not a good source on this issue and has until very recently presented it as an overblown moral panic.
You replied to LCDR’s comment, not mine, I did not make a sentencing comment. You seem to be getting jumbled up here.
I'm sorry. From the context, I assumed you were the person I had just replied to, reading the reply but forgetting that I was responding to a comment that mentioned sentencing. Instead, it appears you interjected without even finding out what was being discussed.
It is a discussion board. It is for everyone to participate. Your comment to LCDR was unclear. If you meant it to be an untouchable private conversation, you should have reached out to LCDR personally instead of exposing yourself to hurtful, triggering requests for clarification by the unwashed mob.
This is not a good excuse for making a comment that ignored what you were replying to.