Monday, 30 March 2015

LibDem Election Candidate and Councillor Arrested on Paedophile Charges

When I asked Oxfordshire county councillor Roz Smith to comment on the blatant promotion of paedophilia in the schools curriculum during LGBT so-called "History Month" she refused to answer any questions.


She refused to examine what was being taught or why criminals, paedophiles, drug-addicts and mass murderers were all being presented as heroes to children. She merely told me it was her philosophy that "people should be allowed to live as they wish". Not normal people of course - they get tried in secret courts and sent to prison, it's only the twisted weirdos who can "live as they wish" according to the LibDems.
Here is an example of her philosophy in practice.


Liberal Democrat candidate Jason Zadrozny photographed during the 2010 election campaign.


Jason Zadrozny the LibDem candidate in Ashfield has had to withdraw after police arrested him on paedophile charges. He is still a councillor.
Remind you of anyone?



Cyril Smith, LibDem MP for Rochdale, molested countless boys in care homes for over forty years, with full knowledge of police and many inside the political establishment. He enjoyed beating them as well as carrying out sexual perversion. One of his victims, whose complaints were not believed, is said to have committed suicide.

Roz Smith voted for  - and got  - a 14% rise in her own pay as a county councillor last year.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cop-who-found-cyril-smith-5360557
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3002157/Policeman-investigated-Cyril-Smith-says-ashamed-cover-up.html
http://www.anorak.co.uk/415963/news/westminster-paedophiles-how-police-sergeant-don-mackintosh-and-the-church-saved-cyril-smith-in-stockport.html/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-31964255
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/10796546/Cyril-Smith-admitted-spanking-and-touching-boys-but-I-let-him-stay-says-Lord-Steel.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10767079/Sir-Cyril-Smith-should-be-stripped-of-his-knighthood-says-Nick-Clegg.html

A Liberal Democrat candidate in a very close marginal seat has been arrested over allegations of child abuse.
Jason Zadrozny was fighting to win Ashfield against Labour shadow minister Gloria de Piero, who won by only 192 votes in 2010.
However, Zadrozny, who denies the allegations, has now withdrawn his candidacy, leaving the Liberal Democrats without a contender in a key seat with just weeks to go before the election.
The arrest of the Lib Dem hopeful, who is also a councillor, was first reported by the Mansfield and Ashfield Chad.
In a statement, Zadrozny said: “I am today withdrawing my candidacy as a prospective parliamentary candidate for the Ashfield and Eastwood constituency.
“Yesterday I was questioned by Nottinghamshire police about historic allegations, some of which are over 10 years old.
“I am in full cooperation with the police and vehemently refute the allegations. I have spent the last 10 years championing the cause of the Liberal Democrats both locally and nationally and I do not want this allegation to detract from the real issues facing local residents in the upcoming elections.
“Therefore I will step down with immediate effect as the party’s prospective parliamentary candidate to spend my time clearing my name.”
A Nottinghamshire police statement said: “The 34-year-old was arrested yesterday and questioned about an allegation of buggery and gross indecency with a male under 16 between September 2003 and April 2004, sexual activity with a child between May 2004 and December 2007 and an allegation of meeting a child under 16 following sexual grooming from May 2004 and December 2007.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/26/lib-dem-candidate-arrested-suspicion-child-sexual-abuse-jason-zadrozny?CMP=share_btn_fb

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

All This Fuss for a Murderer - Richard III Undoubtedly Killed the Little Princes in the Tower.

What is all this mummery and tomfoolery about the funeral of Richard III? Has the Archbishop of Canterbury really got nothing better to do than to flap around in purple robes waving a crook and insisting that Richard III wasn't one? After the battle of Bosworth Field, Richard's body was taken by Franciscan monks and buried in their monastery grounds. It's not their fault it ended up five hundred years later as a car-park. That could happen to anyone. But the point is that he did get a proper Christian burial. And a state funeral is way over the top, for a man who was quite definitely a murderer. 



     I'm not just saying that because of Shakespeare's play, and I have no prejudice at all against people who suffer from scoliosis. I'm sure it was tough for Richard having a crooked back and being ridiculed for it. It is very important to doubt whatever we are told, and look for historical proof. When we do so, all of it seems to me to point to Richard being as guilty as hell.  
     The Richard III Society is, to serious historians, what the Flat Earth Society is to serious scientists - a joke, On TV, Philippa Langley of the R3-Soc was unconvinced by the strong circumstantial evidence put forward by David Starkey. But Starkey was cut short by Jon Snow before he could state a quarter of the evidence there is against Richard III. 
     Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was the younger brother of King Edward IV, who deposed Henry VI after defeating him in the War of the Roses. Edward married the beautiful widow Elizabeth Woodville and had three children, so he was well provided with heirs. Moreover, there was another brother, George, who was also older than Richard. He too had children, who preceded Richard in the order of succession. Richard was only seventh in line to the throne, yet he maneouvred in such a way as to seize power within three months of Edward IV's death. All that cannot be coincidence.
    When Edward IV died, in April 1483, he left two sons, aged twelve and ten. There was no particular reason why the elder, Prince Edward should not be crowned. Earlier kings had been crowned even younger. But wily uncle Richard declared himself Lord Protector, and immediately ordered the princes' tutors and guardians to be sent away to the North of England. He had his nephews lodged in the Tower of London, which was not a royal residence. It was a prison.
     Two months after Edward IV's death, a sermon was preached in London, declaring that his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid, and therefore both boys were illegitimate. They could no longer claim the right of succession. Nor could their elder sister Elizabeth, who was aged sixteen. This was awfully convenient for Richard as it brought him three steps nearer to the throne. And it seems to have been done on his orders.
    The next person to be got out of the  way was George, Duke of Clarence. We all remember that in the play he was drowned in a butt of Malmsey  - the sweet white wine that came from the tiny peninsula of Monemvasia in Greece. Lovely place, it looks like a Christmas pudding. The fact is that three days after the sermon, Richard had his brother George arrested and stripped of his rank by "attainder", a sort of disgrace that was only supposed to fall on those convicted of a capital crime. It is true that George had once wavered in his support for the Yorkist line. He had changed sides during the Wars of the Roses and fought with Warwick the Kingmaker in one famous battle. This was the pretext for now accusing him of treason, though all that was twenty years ago and their brother Edward had held no grudge, after he came to the throne. In Richard's eyes, George's worst crime was that of coming ahead of Richard in the line of succession. 
    George never had a trial; he had no lawyers, no defence and no rights as defined under Magna Carta. Once he was in prison, George did not live very long. Whether it was Malmsey, or sherry, or just water, he certainly did find his way into a barrel head down, and feet up. George's children were barred from the succession by the terms of their father's attainder, denied all rights of inheritance then bundled out of the way hurriedly. The huge estates that George had owned were appropriated by their kindly uncle, Richard.
    So with three more claimants eliminated, in June 1483 Richard had Parliament declare him King, and he was crowned later that year.
    The two young princes simply disappeared. What happened to them? Why were their mother and their sister not allowed to visit them or know what happened? If they had died from some illness or natural cause, there was no reason why Richard should not have said so, quite openly. The bodies could have been inspected, and a funeral held. But it never was. A doctor was visiting them often, in the Tower, so if they died of an illness why was this never diagnosed, recorded or confirmed by that doctor? They were in the Tower of London, under strict guard, so nobody else apart from Richard could have killed them or ordered their murderIt is quite possible that the two princes were simply left to starve to death.
    It was pretty obvious to most people in England in 1483, if not to Philippa Langley, that this string of coincidences was more than suspicious, it shrieked guilt at the top of its voice. Richard had managed to grab power by pushing everybody else out of his way in the space of three months. 
       The universal belief that Richard was guilty was the major factor that toppled him from the throne. The family of Elizabeth Woodville and the other leading nobles could not stand by and let the usurper get away with his crimes. They led a rebellion and Henry Tudor, a distant cousin, provided them with the claimant they needed to depose Richard in 1485.
        If Richard III did not order the murder of the two little princes, only one other person could conceivably have done so, and that is Henry Tudor, who became Henry VII.  Yet shortly after he became king, he married Princess Elizabeth, their sister. Would she, or her mother, have agreed to this if they had the faintest suspicion of Henry being the murderer? I think not.
        Richard was a villain. He had it coming, he so had it coming.
        In 1789, two bodies were found that are very likely to be those of the two murdered princes. They were discovered inside the vault of Edward IV and his wife, in St George's Chapel, Windsor. There were two children's coffins with them, bearing the names of two royal children who had died in their father's lifetime. But the remains of these two bodies were found elsewhere in the vault. Somebody had replaced them with two others, which have never been identified. In 1789, no means existed to identify these skeletons, already by then three hundred years old. Perhaps it is time for some DNA testing to be carried out on them, and if one of them is indeed the murdered King Edward V, I think he should get the state funeral, not his frightfully wicked uncle, Richard III.














Elizabeth,11 February 1466 – 11 February 1503  She was four years older than her brother Edward, Prince of Wales Edward V (2 November 1470 – c.1483)[1] was King of England from his father Edward IV's death on 9 April 1483 until 26 June of the same year. He was never crowned, and his 86-day reign was dominated by the influence of his uncle and Lord Protector, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who succeeded him as Richard III on 26 June 1483; this was confirmed by the Act entitled Titulus Regius, which denounced any further claims through his father's heirs. Edward and his younger brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York were the Princes in the Tower who disappeared after being sent to heavily guarded royal lodgings in the Tower of London. Responsibility for their deaths is widely attributed to Richard III, but the lack of any solid evidence and conflicting contemporary accounts suggest four other primary suspects.

When Edward IV died, Prince Edward was aged twelve, and his elder sister Elizabeth was already aged sixteen,


Friday, 20 March 2015

The Evil Power of Britain's Secret Courts - Woman Gaoled for Helping Her Father

In a free country there should be no secret courts and nobody should be kept in a so-called "care-home" against their will.

Wanda Maddocks and her father John

Wanda Maddocks was gaoled by a SECRET COURT for rescuing her own father from a council care home where he was unhappy and neglected. 
John Maddocks, 80, had always said to his family ‘Don’t you ever put me in a care home’ and Wanda never forgot those words.
But in 2009 when he was suffering from dementia caused by Alzheimer's Disease, he was put into a local council care home in Stoke-on-Trent. He got depressed in there and told his three sons who lived nearby, and Wanda, who ran a property firm in Turkey, that he was being ignored and neglected. So in December 2010 Wanda and her brothers Ivan, 55, Wayne, 54, and Eden, 49, took him out of the council home and put him on a plane to Turkey so that she could look after him.
To their amazement, when they returned to the UK to sort out his finances, the local council forced him to return to the home. When Wanda Maddocks challenged the authority in 2012, she was the first person in Britain to be secretly jailed by the Court of Protection.

She served six weeks of a five-month sentence, locked up with killers and drug dealers in HMP Foston Hall, Derbyshire. Mr Maddocks died in hospital in January 2013.

Even though her father is now dead, she is still facing criminal charges. THIS IS TYRANNY.

North Staffordshire coroner’s court in Stoke-on-Trent heard Mr Maddocks was taken to Stadium Court care home in Stoke after he collapsed at home while his daughter was living in Turkey.
The former property developer and grandfather was then moved to two other homes in quick succession. Wanda, 52, of Hanley, Stoke-on- Trent, told the inquest: “My dad always said to me, ‘Don’t you ever put me in a care home’ and I never forgot those words.
There was a fair amount of disagreement between myself, social services and the city council. “I thought it was better for him to be in the sunshine in Turkey rather than in a care home. “They said he was too aggressive to be in the community and he had put his fist up.” So why was he forced to be there?
The battle over her father’s care started back in 2009 when the one-time painter and decorator was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. Wanda was running a property business in Turkey and her brothers Ivan, 55, Wayne, 54, and Eden, 49, lived nearby and saw him regularly.
The disagreements started over the care her father was given at home and later in care. He was “depressed”, she said, and she became convinced his needs were not being met. 
It was then his children began to hatch a plot. On Boxing Day 2010 they sneaked him out of the home and within hours he was on a plane to southern Turkey.
Wanda said: “Two of my brothers got him out through the fire doors and they passed him to me and I took him to Turkey. “It was the great escape.”
But when they flew back to Britain in February 2011 Mr Maddocks was taken into Abbots House care home on the order of the Court of Protection which ruled that his dementia left him so vulnerable the council had a duty of care over him.
Stoke-on-Trent social services then made the pensioner subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards order and took the family to court to take over his affairs.
The businesswoman became the first person to be jailed by the “secret court” which settles the affairs of those deemed too ill to make their own decisions.
She was imprisoned for contempt of court for repeatedly breaking orders not to interfere with her father’s life at his care home.
During her ordeal she was subjected to a gruelling secret legal battle, at the end of which she was put into a prison van and forbidden from speaking to a solicitor.
Wanda claimed her only crime was an act of compassion towards the father she loved.
But staff told the inquest that Mr Maddocks was being cared for "in the right place at the time". Care worker Amanda Cain said: “We were able to meet Mr Maddocks’s needs. At times he was aggressive but that could be very short-lived.”
The inquest continues. 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/564900/Woman-jailed-rescuing-father-from-a-care-home

Thursday, 12 March 2015

No, Ms Trollope, Mr Darcy was not in the Slave Trade.

Well, this is the first I've heard that there is a Literary Festival in Dubai  - but clearly its line-up is nothing like so distinguished as that of the Oxford Literary Festival. Why? Because they have got Joanna Trollope to talk a lot of twaddle about Jane Austen, and it is what you might describe as New-Historicism-Lite.
It seems that Trollope has been dwelling on the guilty past of the British Empire by suggesting that Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy, the heroes of Pride and Prejudice, made their money in the slave trade, and she calls this the "dark underbelly" of Jane Austen's novel.
  I am surprised that she has even ventured to bring up the subject of slavery in Dubai, one of those well-heeled gulf states that has a large population of underpaid foreign workers with no rights as citizens. Not very tactful of her!
  Ms Trollope has been paid by a publisher to write updated versions of Austen's novels. She will not be the first, and will probably not be the last. There are already many literary ventures along the lines of Pride and Prejudice: The Wild and Wanton Edition, by Michelle Pillow. Though Trollope may make a lot of money doing this, she is still no critic. I suspect that she has mixed up Pride and Prejudice with Mansfield Park. In the latter, there is a tenuous thread to slavery as Sir Thomas Bertram, the heroine's uncle, owns an estate in the West Indies where slave labour was used.
   But it is quite wrong and clumsy to try to take that and impose it on Pride and Prejudice. For a start, Mr Darcy has not made his money himself at all  - he has inherited a large estate in Derbyshire where, we are told, he has many tenants. He is a member of the landed gentry, and would undoubtedly feature in Burke's reference tome if he were anything but fictional. 

DARCY, Fitzwilliam, Esq. b.1782. Only son of George Darcy of Pemberley, Derbyshire, and his wife Lady Anne Fitzwilliam, second daughter of the Earl of ---- .   Educated Harrow, Cambridge. Magistrate for county. M.P. for Chesterfield 1815. Knighted 1825.

Trollope does not understand that in Jane Austen's time there was a landed gentry who could live off the proceeds of their English estates, with no colonial activity. Income tax was introduced in 1798, as a temporary measure to finance the war against Napoleon, but the highest rate was only 10%.
    "What built Pemberley?" asks Trollope in dreadful English. "Pemberley was built, one imagines, on proceeds of the coal mines in Derbyshire. What was the life of an eighteenth-century coal-miner like? Not very nice." Not very nice?  - New Historicism doesn't get any "liter" than that.
Actually until the 1840s there were very few coal mines in Derbyshire, and they were very small, just little village pits. Pride and Prejudice was published in 1813.  Pemberley is already old enough for Darcy's father to have lived there. If Mr Darcy senior was the enterprising kind, he might have invested in limestone quarries, lead mines, water-powered cotton-mills, silk mills, stocking-factories, or even a porcelain factory, all of which existed in Derbyshire in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. He may also have invested in and profited from toll-roads going across his land. I notice that Ms Trollope's view of history gives the British no credit for their pioneering in road construction or any of these enterprises.   


Arkright's Mill - Cromford 29-04-06.jpg

Cromford Mill in Derbyshire

As for Mr Bingley, the clue is in the name. The Bingley Lock is a prominent feature of the Leeds to Liverpool canal, one of the biggest projects of the early Industrial Revolution in the North of England. People who invested in canals got rich very fast. The Bingleys are a family who have not been wealthy for very long, which is why Mr Bingley looks up to his friend Darcy, and takes his advice, while Miss Bingley regards him as a very desirable catch. 
    How do all the other rich people in Jane Austen's novels come by their money? Most of them are landed gentry. There is Sir John Middleton in Sense and Sensibility, with a large estate in Devonshire, large enough for him to be able to find a spare cottage for the homeless Dashwoods turned out of their house in Sussex. There could be valuable timber on his estate and I imagine that his family have encouraged lace-making and the manufacture of woolen blankets. There is Lady Catherine de Bourgh with her grand and somewhat vulgar house in Kent, Rosings. There is something so smug about her that I adduce that she has large investments in government bonds. And then there is Mr Knightley in Emma, whose father has left him the delectable Donwell Abbey. He seems to take a close interest in his tenant farmers, such as Robert Martin, and may be trying to encourage them to maximize return on their lands. It was an age of farming innovation.
How many stocks and shares had Lady Macbeth? Speculation about what lies behind the details of a fiction is a form of fiction in itself. But there is plausible fiction and then there is glaring fallacy. Joanna Trollope's accusations about Jane Austen belong in the second category.  




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2989062/Did-Mr-Darcy-make-fortune-slave-trade-Romantic-hero-profited-misery-says-author-modernised-Jane-Austen-s-classic-work.html

Monday, 9 March 2015

How to Object to the Planning Application for Alterations to Holy Trinity Church Headington Quarry

A notice has appeared pinned to the post at the top of the footpath from Quarry Road to Holy Trinity Church, informing local people that a planning application has been formally submitted and we can comment on it, on the City Council's website. Somebody  - (and it wasn't me)  - has scrawled on the notice "Say No!"
   Whoever it was, is expressing the prevalent view. The plan is just not popular and Quarry residents have many misgivings about its feasibility, viability and appropriateness for this spot. There is the issue of desecrating graves - then there is also the subsidence issue  - the parking issue - and there are many more. Building on the north side would ruin the beautiful C.S.Lewis Narnia window which is one of the main attractions and features of the church.

Here is the link:- 

http://public.oxford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NJX5M8MFIY800

So far all the comments submitted are against the proposal.
Mine is as follows.
I am a parish councillor for Quarry and Risinghurst. I attend the church as a parishioner.
There is very strong local feeling in the community against this plan, and I urge you to reject it. If pushed through, the result could be a long-term estrangement and resentment between the church and the village.
On January 22nd I attended the meeting organised by the Holy Trinity Preservation Group at the Mason's Arms. There were upwards of fifty people, all local residents, and when a show of hands was taken and not one person at the meeting was in favour.
The new plan is not very different from the one proposed two years ago and while it appears smaller (no precise measurements are given) it is still sited in an area on the north side of the church where there are many relatively new graves. The claim that these would not be affected by building work is just not very plausible. These are the family graves of local residents. They don't want the graves of their parents, husbands, wives, children and in some cases grandchildren built over, dug up or trampled on by people using a new northern entrance to the church.
Quarry is an area with ACUTE problems of subsidence and underground instability due to the quarrying over centuries. If builders start to dig, they may disturb the church and cause structural damage.
The extension to the nearby school encountered severe problems which make this scheme reckless and inadvisable. If the church needs a new meeting room, why don't they build it at the bottom of the vicarage garden where suitable site is available?
The space there is used for absolutely nothing at present. There is also the option of making more use of the community room in the primary school, which is just outside the churchyard gates on the eastern side.
The plan offered by the vicar is far too big and involves unacceptable changes to the interior of the building. Tourists who come to see C.S. Lewis's church appreciate it being essentially as it was in his time. The plans would ruin the beautiful memorial window which is on the North wall and needs light to be seen properly and function as a window. This is one of the loveliest features of the church.
It is absolutely stupid to rip out purpose-built choirstalls, and turn them into foldable ones, creating unnecessary chores and a need for storage space. Just leave them alone! It is also stupid to build an extension to the chancel, with a step that would just create a trip hazard. A church is not a theatre.
To rip out the two front pews would be absolutely wrong too, as the church is short of seating space and is often very full at services, funerals and weddings. The front pews are needed by deaf people. Pews are on the whole better than chairs as children can fidget in them without knocking them over. And they don't need a storage room in an extension!
With cushions they can be made comfortable.
The current plan includes a meeting-room, a large "choir room" (as well as the existing vestry), two toilets, a baby-changing room, two storage areas, a flower preparation room and a lobby. That is far too large and ambitious. If the parish council is determined to steam-roller ahead and build on this area despite the strength of local feeling against it, I suggest just building ONE room, where the current plan says "choir room". This space could include a toilet without steps. The current WC could be turned into a small kitchenette. All you need is a sink and the space to stand a kettle and a tray. It doesn't have to be cordon bleu.
If parents in church need to take their baby out because it is crying, they can at present just take it into the porch, where there is seating and which by the way, does NOT need glass doors. (Glass doors could be vandalised, as glass bus stops so often are) People don't need to bring prams inside the church and they certainly don't need a purpose-built changing room.
As for the idea of building storage cupboards at the west end of the church, that would only add to the clutter and the over-crowding in a small space. Reducing seating is perverse. All of it is needed. I suggest that the interior of the church is left alone.
Future generations with good taste may much regret the loss of beautiful choirstalls and pews that are part of the essential Victorian design.
Local parishioners certainly feel that way.
Once further word about parking. There is no vehicle access to the church from the West side, only a footpath through from Quarry Road. That would make this an unsuitable site either for building work or for frequent use as a parish hall. The only vehicle access is from Trinity Road, where there is no public parking space. A few cars are tolerated there at times of funerals and weddings, but it is an ongoing problem. Turning this area into a parish hall that would be used for a wide variety of purposes would just not work as there is no space for parking. Cars might park on the slope outside the nursery school, which is dangerous and obstructive. Far better to hold events at the Coach House where there is a car park.
Many at the recent meeting also expressed the view that this extravagant plan is a waste of money that could be spent on many worthy, and needy, causes. That is a view I share.





Sunday, 8 March 2015

International Day of Women - Whatever that means. Women Have been Undefined.

Today is supposed to be International Women's Day - but what is a woman? Human Rights Watch recently announced that people are entitled to "choose their own gender" and that gender is different from sex. If you don't have to be a biological female to be a woman, what the hell does it mean? The truth is that gender has never been more than a linguistic convention for describing someone's sex. To divorce it from sex leaves it meaning nothing more than a taste for wearing high heels and nail varnish. That is an insult to real women, what we  are, what we do and what we feel.
That is the real "war on women".
A gender without any meaningful connection with your physical sex is as much use as a dislocated knee-cap, or a floating retina. Yet this absurdity is now rife and going unchallenged. There seems to be a sort of Marfan syndrome, a disconnectedness, spread by mindless trendies.


You are female from the moment of conception. Landed with the XX chromosome combination, you will have a womb, ovaries and the outward organs of a female. You will menstruate, and if you get pregnant, lactate. Your voice will remain relatively high-pitched, while those of men deepen, Your hair will be more abundant than that of a man and distributed in different parts of your body. That is because Nature intends us to be able to tell the sexes apart. You can bear children, which is difficult, joyous, painful, amazing, onerous, but infinitely rewarding. You can also get raped, which I believe is something no man can ever truly understand.
Nobody is "born in the wrong body". If you are female in sex you can only appropriately be described with the feminine gender and anything else is a lie . No surgery or artificial hormone treatment can change your sex. They are risky, often harmful and result in sad, sterile eunuchs who are never satisfied and go on spending their lives having one cosmetic surgery after another.

If you are a woman, you should not have to compete in sport again men, That is not fair, Even if they falsify their sex, they are still men and have an unfair advantage, They are taller, stronger and faster. Venus and Serena Williams would not be famous if they had to play against Andy Murray and Novak Djokavic. But if you are a woman, Nature may give you the fantastic voice of Anna Ntrebko or Alyona Kistenyova. 
   
Let this be the resolution for International Women's Day: to acknowledge, recognize and respect what a woman is, and stop undermining it.



Monday, 2 March 2015

Labour-run Oxford is the New Rotherham - Andrew Smith defends useless social services

Serious Case Review slams police failure in serial abuse of Oxford girls

by Sandra Laville for the Guardian Sunday 1 March 2015


"In Oxford the grooming, sexual torture and trafficking took place in the Cowley area of the city, in churchyards, parks, a guesthouse and empty flats procured for the purpose of drugging the girls and handing them around to be gang raped and brutalised."
Some of the 300 victims, mostly girls in care, were exploited for more than eight years despite repeated calls for help to authorities. 
The numbers are likely to be an underestimate.
Thames Valley Police are criticised in the report for failing to act on repeated calls for help.


More than 300 young people have been groomed and sexually exploited by gangs of men in Oxfordshire in the past 15 years, a damning report into the failures of police and social services to stop years of sexual torture, trafficking and rape will reveal, the Guardian has learned.

The victims, mostly girls, come predominantly from the city of Oxford, increasing concerns that the grooming and exploitation of vulnerable young people by groups of older men is not confined to the inner cities. One senior investigative source said: “If you think you haven’t got a problem in your city or town, you are just not looking for it.”

Police and social services in Oxfordshire will be heavily criticised for not doing enough to stop years of violent abuse and enslavement of six young girls, aged 11-15, by a gang of men. Such was the nature of the abuse, suffered for more than eight years by the girls, it was likened to torture. All of the victims had a background in care.

A serious case review by the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Children’s Board, to be published on Tuesday, will condemn Thames Valley police for not believing the young girls, for treating them as if they had chosen to adopt the lifestyle, and for failing to act on repeated calls for help.

Oxfordshire social services – which had responsibility for the girls’ safety – will be equally damned for knowing they were being groomed and for failing to protect them despite compelling evidence they were in danger. One social worker told a trial that nine out of 10 of those responsible for the girls was aware of what was going on.

The serious case review has put a figure on the numbers exploited to give an idea of the scale of the problem. The report will say more than 300 young people have been subjected to grooming and abuse between 1999 and 2014 in Oxfordshire alone.

The attempt to quantify the scale of abuse mirrors the work of the Jay report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, which said 1,400 young people had been subjected to grooming and abuse between 1999 and 2013.

An insider said the report was “brutal” in its condemnation of Thames Valley police and Oxfordshire social services.

Weeks before the publication of the serious case review, the chief executive of Oxfordshire county council, Joanna Simons, announced she would be stepping down in the summer, a move questioned by the Oxford East MP Andrew Smith, who said he was “concerned at the decision and how it had been taken”. [That's the Andrew Smith whose election manifesto says he's "on your side". On your side if you're a grooming gang or useless social services bureaucrat. ]

The council said she would not be replaced and the authority was reorganising its management structure. In a joint message with the council in January, Simons said that in order to protect frontline services, the authority would be making changes to its top team which would involve the departure of the chief executive.

The case echoes the child exploitation scandals in Rotherham, Rochdale and Derby involving gangs of men of Asian background targeting white girls in care. In Oxford, however, the grooming, sexual torture and trafficking took place on the streets of the Cowley area of the city, in churchyards, parks, a guesthouse and empty flats procured for the purpose of drugging the girls and handing them around to be gang raped and brutalised.

A 12-year-old victim was branded by the men and, when she fell pregnant, subjected to a backstreet abortion in a house in Reading. Over six years, she was repeatedly raped by groups of men in what she described as “torture sex”.


Key findings in the serious case review will expose how police officers and social workers did not listen to the girls when they spoke of the abuse they were suffering, did not believe them and dismissed them.

The girls and some of their abusers crossed the police and social services radar multiple times. In 2006 alone, the police received four complaints from the young girls about the men, with their accounts corroborated in some cases. One victim reported the abuse twice to police in 2006. She told officers: “They are doing it to other girls, little girls with their school uniforms on.”

There were thousands of contacts between both agencies and the girls and they were reported missing at least 450 times. One victim, known as Girl C, has spoken of how her foster mother reported her missing 80 times.

The number of young people identified by the report – more than 300 – as victims of child sexual exploitation in the last 15 years is considered a robust figure because the girls have all been spoken to by police or social services.

But the numbers are likely to be an underestimate. Figures from Thames Valley police reveal that 220 of the 2,000 child abuse cases reported across the force in 13 months from July 2013 to August 2014 involved child sexual exploitation.

Nearly 700 children and young people suspected of being at risk of exploitation have been referred to new specialist police and social services units in Thames Valley between November 2012 and November 2014; 250 in Berkshire, 237 in Buckinghamshire and 206 in Oxfordshire.

It was not until 2011 when DCI Simon Morton trawled through missing persons reports, health records and social services data that Thames Valley police began to link the girls’ repeated patterns of going missing, returning and going missing again with the activities of the men – some of whom were known to police for drug crimes.

After a groundbreaking two-year investigation, Operation Bullfinch, seven men – including two sets of brothers – were convicted at the Old Bailey in May 2013 of 43 offences, which included trafficking, forcing girls into prostitution, procuring an illegal abortion, rape and physical violence.

Brothers Akhtar and Anjum Dogar, Bassam and Mohammed Karrar, Kamar Jamil, Zeeshan Ahmed and Assad Hussain, who were all from Oxford, were given sentences ranging from a minimum of seven to 20 years in prison.

>>English Democrats say : Had enough yet? Time to break the mould and stop voting for the old parties. Re-train the police and social services: at the moment they are not fit for purpose.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/01/gangs-abused-hundreds-of-oxfordshire-children-serious-case-review?CMP=share_btn_tw


Comments on topic are welcome but any abusive, aggressive or threatening messages will be reported to the police as harassment, together with your full name and details.