h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No, really. Not only mad, but damn well destructive http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089
"Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist"

I despair

ah yes, the fear of something that probably won't happen. That sums up modern England for me. (cf. letting my girls go to the playpark in my mum's village, alone, at the ages of 8 and 7... and the neighbours asking if I was worried they'd be kidnapped, killed or worse. And then getting all indignant when I told them that strangers aren't as dangerous to small children as family members...)

*and breathe*

District Commander for Rotherham, Ch Supt Jason Harwin said: "Firstly I'd like to start by offering an unreserved apology...yeah as if that is going to do any good...apology for liverpool,saville, jersy...the list could go on and on...plus there are/is bound to be stuff that has been "covered up" and will never see the light of day.

"""The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."""" not suggesting for an instant that the Prime Minister (1979–1990) had any influence in all these cover ups mandates or any such behaviour traits by the top level management culture of not rocking the boat then has resulted in these (using the term very loosely)"managers" instructing those informing on early reports gaining higher positions of power maintaining the "best not rock the boat" attitude that is now resulted in the state of britain today..

It's amazing how conspicuous by its absence this story is from my Twitter timeline, a news story you'd think would instigate hand-wringing you could measure on the Richter scale, and yet I follow several people and organisations who, by their posts, I take to consider themselves the right-onest of the right-on and who spit nails the moment anything outrages them, including the recent speculation about child abuse going on in the government. Could it be they're exhibiting the same reticence to criticise minorities as the people who let this continue? If so, they're every bit as despicable.

It might not appear on your twitlist, but it is splattered all over mine

Given the way the press are usually all over even a sniff of anything like this... unless it involved Jimmy Saville, I'm beginning to wonder what / who else is about to fall out of the woodwork this time.

I'm a bit curious to see where this story goes once it gets beyond the pointless apologies and firings. Will there be a good look at the community? There is an unavoidable cultural aspect to this story. What is it about this community that condoned this behaviour by their silence? I know nothing of this community so I'm not trying to make any particular point here. I'm just very curious as many people must be about how such a rampant... thing could go on so long. Right now the focus is on the authorities that should have intervened but didn't. And that deserves a long hard look and some serious consequences. But that community has a lot to answer for as well.

Then the community at large, there and elsewhere should take a good look inwardly. Why do suspicions of child abuse go unreported? I must admit, I've seen a family ignore child abuse. It seems like maybe people hope someone else will do something, or maybe they just ignore the problem and tell themselves that if they don't see the actual abuse maybe it's not really happening. Or maybe they are afraid that somehow it might get worse if they say something.

No one wants to talk about such a horrid subject, but we're going to have to.

From what I've read so far, I'm not sure the community at large knew much about it at all, so the 'community' who allowed it to continue *are* the authorities who should have intervened. I don't know right now - maybe it'll come out that people in the wider community knew about it and also did nothing. I have heard that juniors reported it to seniors and were largely told to ignore it or go away. At least the juniors have their arse (partly) covered.

I think a significant part of it might be the chance of being wrong, being seen to be wrong and then being pilloried in the news media for being wrong. The press is one of the most profoundly unpleasant, mean-spirited, black-hearted, despicable beasts I know of. No-one wants to have happen to them what happened to... I've forgotten his name, bloke questioned by police about the murder of a teenage girl, treated as a creepy suspect by the newspapers, name and picture splashed all over the front pages, turned out he was innocent, had his life turned upside down by the news reports (and given the stupidity of some people could easily have been the subject of vigilantism), won substantial damages against several news organisations. Or the leader of Harringay council who was scapegoated over the Baby P case after media frenzy and hysteria, and subsequently fired, but who was recently awarded hundreds of thousands of pounds for wrongful dismissal.

Because of that, I have a certain amount of sympathy if there was the genuine doubt about what was happening, but if the reason they did nothing was simply that they didn't want to offend, two things should be thrown - the book (at them) and the key (away, after they've been locked up).

People in authority *are* going to have to stop dismissing the claims of kids and people who say they've been abused.

But its the length of time this has been allowed to go on, the number of "victims", its not as if like J.S cas where it was mostly one perpetrator, but given that in "In November 2010, five men were convicted" 1,400 children exploited, not counting those who did not report it outside the family, we are looking at maybe three times that number....

Many of those who should have dealt with earlier reports(*1997-20010) would have moved on to other jobs, they should face the music, and be sacked and face possible prison sentences for perverting the course of justice as that is what they have done, perhaps then it may make others think before they dismiss such complaints now and in the future

Well, it's Rotherham. It is not known (to me) as a hotbed of neighbourliness and has a lot of social issues related to umemployment and all that brings. Remember how close it is to Sheffield - Sheffield isn't all that these days but is managing to reinvent itself. Rotherham hasn't managed to pull itself up at all. That means housing is cheaper etc etc...

On the C4 news last night Jon Snow was interviewing a few people, some from "the communities affected" (ok - Muslims). There was also the wife of a local business owner - she was absolutely clear that the council are to blame for this, their inaction and mismanagement over many years has lead to the place being what it is. She pointed out that school buildings are falling down but the councillors went on a hugely expensive trip somewhere - that kind of thing.

Basically the chief of police and the police commissioner don't have the confidence of the people they serve. I'm not sure they should go now, before they have answered to those people and tried to clear up the mess - but I am clear that at some point they have to go, and that when they do it should be under a very black cloud with no bonus and no pension arrangements beyond the very basic.

face possible prison sentences for perverting the course of justice

To be honest Sho, I rarely give any credence to vox pops I see or read on the news. People are more ill-informed and prejudiced than I can remember, and new organisations will usually pick the most prejudiced and sensationalist to report or broadcast, more than they used to I think, which makes people think that's how they have to be if they want to get on TV as a vox pop. A self-perpetuating situation.

It's not always true and perhaps the people Jon Snow (who I have some respect for) were painting a truthful picture, but mostly people just rant and complain indiscriminately when a microphone's shoved under their nose, and and if that gets heard often enough people eventually come to think of it as fact and therefore that's what *I* should complain and rant about too.

Another reason not to trust vox-pop interviews is you can't be sure the reporter isn't editing the interview out of context to purposely mislead the viewers. The following story shows an abhorrent case of editing out an interview of a 4 year old black boy in Chicago to make him look like a thug in training.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
The following is a transcript of what the station aired June 30th.

Boy: “I’m not scared of nothing.”

Reporter: “When you get older are you going to stay away from all these guns?”

Boy: “No.”

Reporter: “No? What are you going to do when you get older?”

Boy: “I’m going to have me a gun!”

Anchor Steve Bartelstein ended the story saying, “that was scary indeed.” Co-anchor Susan Carlson exclaimed, “hearing that little boy there, wow!”

After the story ran July 21, the Maynard Institute received another video that contained the rest of the boy’s interview. The sender said he was blurring the video and reduced its quality to try and protect the youth. Here is that transcript.

Reporter: “Boy, you ain’t scared of nothing! Damn! When you get older are you going to stay away from all these guns?”

Boy: “No.”

Reporter: “No? What are you going to do when you get older?”

Boy: “I’m going to have me a gun!”

Reporter” “You are! Why do you want to do that?”

Boy: “I'm going to be the police!”

Reporter: “Okay then you can have one."
<<<<<<<<<<

http://mije.org/health/tv-station-takes-four-year-old-childs-quote-context

That's another good reason. Editing makes an enormous difference.

And people say such stupid things anyway when being vox popped, like the 'bomb going off' comment I remarked on somewhere else (most people who say 'It was like a bomb going off' have never hear a bomb going off). There was a similar one yesterday in a story where a lorry ploughed into a building* http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-28934111 "It look "like a bomb had hit"" and "I heard a screeching and saw this lorry coming towards us. I just ran out of the way. It was frightening really."

Well, I suppose it would be

*Stories of vehicles hitting buildings seem to have proliferated recently. I wonder if drivers are getting more careless or BBC news is just desperate for any story to fill their pages, or both.

I seem to be dropping letters this morning more than Manchester United drops places down the table

*Stories of vehicles hitting buildings seem to have proliferated recently. I wonder if drivers are getting more careless or BBC news is just desperate for any story to fill their pages, or both.

It's still August, Low news flow due to Politico's on Holiday.
Severe case of "Don't drop the dead donkey we need to fill page 14"

By 'recently' I mean in the past 12 months.

There's another aspect to the worth of vox pops that I've just been reminded of.

In the case of the recent trouble in Ferguson, much has been made of the militarisation of the police, all kinds of debate and discussion and hand-wringing about how it's come to this. All kinds of questions have been asked about it it, except one.

Now, I get most of my news from NPR and the BBC, plus a little from the Grauniad website. I listen to Morning Edition every morning and All Things Considered most afternoons. I consider the BBC and NPR to be fair and unbiased, as much as it's possible to be, at least over the big stories. The BBC has lost a lot of my respect in the past few years but that's another story.

Any road up. In all these discussions about police militarisation the focus has, without fail, ignored a side of the argument that I would have considered fundamental to it and one which any intelligent and respected news organisation would have looked at - has any of the militarisation actually come about as a response to what's on the streets? Are cops doing it as a way to protect themselves from escalating criminal violence? If criminals are tooling themselves up with bigger and more powerful guns, and more of them, isn't it reaction to reality that makes the cops want more protection?

I realise that it's not quite as simple as that, but it has to be a factor. I remember the first of the Brixton riots when all the cops had to defend themselves with against rocks and Molotov cocktails was dustbin lids. That ain't right. A few years later there were riot squads with helmets and shields. That's a reaction to something that happened. But a riot squad always looks intimidating and inflames the passions and anger of some. So what do you do? Take the gear away from the cops and leave them in danger again? They know what they sign up for when they become a cop but they should be able to go home to their family in one piece at the end of a shift.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear why vox pops made me think of that. By ignoring that aspect of the militarisation of the police, news organisations are further distorting the argument, and thus failing to give people a balanced picture, which in turn means that, given the chance if interviewed, they're more likely to give an emotional instead of an intellectual response, or at least one which hasn't been considered in light of all the possibilities. In other words they're more likely to rant. Which I guess is always good copy

Normally I wouldn't be that keen on a Vox Pop but in the Rotherham case it was a live interview and clearly not edited because the woman had an awful time articulating herself on occasion and that would have definitely been edited out.

also I know Rotherham and have relatives there - their feelings about the authorities there are pretty much blanket condemnation - and my family in the city aren't bleeding heart liberals like me

It sounds like she might have been one of the more worthwhile ones, Sho. Vox pops are often little more than a soundbite, or a... is the written equivalent a textbite?

Meanwhile, opinionated pieces by people who've never been within a country mile of Ferguson, or being profiled, harassed, bothered by the police (ie, trendy white liberals) are being spread by other trendy white liberals, reinforcing the old adage that if you say something enough times it'll eventually come to be thought of as fact.