NSPCC refuses to apologise to Braverman
Baroness Casey's landmark review into Britain's grooming gangs published some truly horrific findings on Monday. The damning audit revealed that disproportionate numbers of Asian men were responsible for child sexual exploitation gangs and, shockingly, that the authorities failed to crack down on them for fear of being racist. It has prompted outrage from those who had been vilified for suggesting particular groups of people were more likely to be perpetrators than others – and Mr S is curious about whether the organisations who were quick to cry racism will now retract their criticism.
It seems the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) is not quite there yet. In May 2023, the organisation signed a joint letter – alongside 64 other groups – in which they huffed and puffed about comments made by Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak on grooming gangs, rebutting ex-Home Secretary Braverman's claim that perpetrators of group-based offending were 'almost all British-Pakistani'. (IPSO deemed this to be misleading, but did not uphold the complaint after it accepted the Mail on Sunday's clarification, published some days later. The press regulator added: 'The Committee was not asked to, and did not, make a finding on the general issue of whether these offences are disproportionately committed by British-Pakistani men.') The letter blasted the 'misinformation, racism and division' spread by the politicians and claimed that 'partial, inaccurate or divisive claims' about child sexual abuse undermined crime prevention. The organisations fumed:
We are extremely concerned that recent public communications about child sexual abuse from Government Ministers have been based on misleading information and risk creating division, rather than keeping children safe.
But recent events have altered the accepted facts somewhat. The complex picture by the Casey report suggests that, where ethnicity data was logged (in around a third of the cases of group-based child sexual exploitation) there was an overrepresentation of Asian and Pakistani men. Take Manchester, for example: according to the report, over a three-year period 52 per cent of suspects involved in multi-victim, multi-offender child sexual exploitation cases were Asian compared to 38 per cent who were white. And, as Mr S has written before, Pakistani men are up to five times as likely to be responsible for child sex grooming offences than the general population, according to figures from the Hydrant Programme, which investigates child sex abuse. Around one in 73 Muslim men over 16 have been prosecuted for 'group-localised child sexual exploitation' in Rotherham, research by academics from the universities of Reading and Chichester has revealed.
None of this is enough to make the NSPCC row back, however. Instead the organisation pointed Mr S towards its statement made on Monday in response to Baroness Casey's review, which said:
Any child can be a victim of child sexual exploitation and adults who commit these horrific crimes come from different backgrounds and communities. Perpetrators target the most vulnerable and accessible children in society and if we narrow our focus, we risk missing those hiding in plain sight, whatever their ethnicity.
When Steerpike pressed the society, it said it had no plans to put forward a retraction or apology. How very interesting. Perhaps some of the letter's other signatories may choose to distance themselves from that rather dated memo instead. Talk about aging badly, eh?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
15 minutes ago
- The National
Scottish Labour is a fiction, nothing more than a branding
The SNP have urged Anas Sarwar to whip Labour's Scottish MPs to vote against the Government's planned benefits cuts, which the British Government's own analysis estimates will push 250,000 disabled and chronically ill people into poverty, including 50,000 children. However, disability rights campaign group Disability Rights UK, anti-poverty charity and think tank Trussel, and economics think tank WPI Economics all calculate that the Government's analysis significantly underestimates the number of disabled people who will be pushed into poverty as a consequence of these cuts. They believe that the true number is in excess of 400,000. Thousands of disabled people are expected to lose their entitlement to Personal Independence Payment (PIP), the main benefit for disabled people in England and Wales, under Labour's plan to change the eligibility criteria for the benefit. The plan will introduce a new eligibility requirement which will mean that only those who score a minimum of four points in at least one activity will be eligible for the daily living component of PIP. To be eligible for PIP, claimants must score a minimum of eight points assessed on the help they need across a range of daily living activities such as food preparation, bathing and showering, toileting, dressing, eating, and taking medication. Many people make up the eight points by scoring one or two across different categories, but under the new plans only those scoring four in one category will be eligible. If a claimant does not score four in a single category, the points they score in other categories will be discounted. Note that this change does nothing to help disabled people into work, the stated aim of the Government's cuts; it merely reclassifies disabled people as no longer being disabled for the purposes of eligibility for PIP. The needs of disabled people remain the same. (Image: Stefan Rousseau/PA) One of the more pernicious effects of this change follows from the fact that PIP is a so-called passport benefit – eligibility for other benefits depends on eligibility for PIP. Carers Allowance is paid to those who care for a disabled person in receipt of PIP, or Attendance Allowance, its equivalent for retired people. If the disabled person loses their eligibility for PIP, eligibility for Carer's Allowance is lost too. Far from providing an incentive to the disabled person to find work, this will make it far more difficult for them to cope with daily living and far more difficult to get into work. Disability campaigners have warned that the cuts will not save the Government money as they will simply force disabled people, whose very real needs remain unchanged, to turn to other services such as the already over-stretched NHS and adult social services. Any politician with a social conscience or a basic understanding of disability should vigorously oppose these harmful and damaging cuts, but with the honourable exception of Alloa and Grangemouth MP Brian Leishman, Labour's Scottish contingent in Westminster are a supine bunch of careerists whose contribution to Commons debates consists of attacking the Scottish Government on devolved issues. Of course Anas Sarwar, the nominal leader of the Labour party in Scotland, should instruct Labour's Scottish MPs to vote against these cruel and counterproductive cuts, but he won't, because he too is a supine careerist, installed in his current job by the right wing of the Labour party precisely because he'd do Keir Starmer's bidding. Sarwar defends the cuts, because he believes what Starmer tells him to believe. But even if Sarwar finds a backbone and opposes the cuts, he has no authority over Labour's Scottish MPs in Westminster and no means of enforcing how they vote in the Commons. "Scottish Labour" is a political fiction, nothing more than a branding exercise. Labour MPs elected in Scotland are subject to the UK Labour whip. They do not constitute a cohesive voting bloc in the Commons. They are part and parcel of the UK Parliamentary Labour Party. Anas Sarwar couldn't whip up a cream cake, never mind Labour's Scottish MPs. At First Minister's Questions today, John Swinney tore into Sarwar's attacks on him as "the performance of a weak man" after asking two rather desultory questions about Alexander Dennis moving bus production to England and suggesting that Swinney's leadership was under threat. Sarwar accused Swinney of pressing the "big panic independence button" to "save his skin", after the First Minister made a speech on his desire for self-determination this week. (Image: Andrew Milligan) Swinney retorted: "Isn't it interesting that Mr Sarwar's interest in the workers of Alexander Dennis lasted two questions and then he gets on to his usual posturing in this Parliament of little substance that is before us. Israel discovers war crimes Meanwhile, Israel has suddenly discovered that launching missiles into hospitals is a war crime after an Iranian missile struck a hospital in the southern Israeli city of Be'er Sheva. Iranian state media has claimed that the missile targeted a military site next to the hospital and not the medical facility itself. Israel's deputy foreign affairs minister Sharren Haskel has called Iran's strike on the hospital "deliberate" and "criminal", while the Israeli health minister Uriel Buso said it was a war crime. But apparently, it's perfectly fine for Israel to bomb hospitals in Gaza on the supposed grounds that they are targeting Hamas operations in or near the hospital.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Poll: public want care home opt out for assisted dying
It's a big day in parliament tomorrow. Both sides of the assisted dying debate are gearing up for a crunch Commons clash when Kim Leadbeater's Bill returns for its Third Reading. One key flashpoint in its recently-completed Report Stage was when Rebecca Paul's amendment to allow hospices to opt out of providing assisted dying was voted down by Leadbeater and 278 other MPs. Now, Mr S has got his hands on some polling which shows that Paul's position is backed by nearly two-thirds of the British public (quelle surprise). According to a Whitestone Insights poll of 2,091 adults commissioned by the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, 64 per cent of the general public agree that 'if assisted suicide were introduced in the UK, hospices and care homes should have a legal right to opt out of participating in it', with only 14 per cent disagreeing. Polling was conducted between 4 and 5 June. When 'don't knows' are removed, this figure jumps to 82 per cent of the public who think there should be a legal opt-out. The leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has already warned that dozens of hospices and care homes could be forced to close if MPs approve the Bill tomorrow. Over to the House of Commons…
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
If the US strikes Iran could the UK be involved, and would MPs need to approve it?
The conflict between Iran and Israel has entered its seventh day as the two countries continue to strike each other's territory, suffering casualties on both sides. The UK has maintained its position that a diplomatic solution would be best for the region and the UK's interests. On Thursday, the Foreign Secretary David Lammy flew to the US to meet his counterpart Marco Rubio to discuss the deteriorating situation. His meeting in Washington comes amid speculation that US involvement could require the use of the UK-controlled Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Islands. Concerns have also been raised by MPs fearful of being dragged into the conflict about what legal scrutiny will be afforded to any decision increasing the UK's involvement. So does the UK have a clear position, or is it simply waiting for the US to move before then doing a little bit less? What has the UK said so far? The government has so far stressed that a diplomatic solution in the region is the best option for all parties involved. On Thursday, the , which could deepen the crisis in the Middle East. Sir Keir Starmer said: "The situation in relation to Israel-Iran is obviously fast moving and in those circumstances, it's really important to cling on to the key principles here. "I've been absolutely clear we need to de-escalate this. Yes, the nuclear issue has to be dealt with, but it's better dealt with by way of negotiations than by way of conflict." Addressing MPs on Monday, the foreign secretary said: "Our message to both Israel and Iran is clear. Step back, show restraint, don't get pulled ever deeper into a catastrophic conflict whose consequences nobody can control. "Further escalation in the Middle East is not in Britain's interests, nor the interests of Israel, Iran or the region. "There are hundreds of thousands of British nationals living in the region and with Iran a major oil producer and one fifth of the total world's oil consumption flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, escalating conflict poses real risks for the global economy." The Foreign Office has evacuated family members of embassy staff from Israel, but has yet to do the same for British nationals, asking them to instead register their presence to receive regular updates. This decision has been criticised by the opposition, with Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel describing the response as "insufficient." Speaking on Thursday, a Number 10 spokesman said: 'There's a huge amount of work being done in the background on contingency planning. It is a fast-moving situation and we keep all our advice and planning under constant review." What is the legal position, and will parliament get a say? The UK's Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is reported to have raised legal concerns about any potential involvement from British forces beyond defending its allies. Governments do not usually disclose legal advice from UK attorney generals; however, the Shadow Foreign Secretary Priti Patel said the UK cannot 'hide behind legal advice at a time of crisis." Reassuring MPs on Thursday, Commons Leader Lucy Powell said sustained military action involving British troops 'will of course be a matter for the House to consider." Concerns over parliamentary involvement had been raised by Green Party Co-Leader Adrian Ramsay, who sought assurances MPs would be given a "debate and a free vote" in the event of further military involvement. Echoing calls for transparency and consultation, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the government should publish Lord Hermer's advice, adding: 'The last thing we need is for the UK to be dragged into another illegal war in the Middle East by the US.' What could this look like, and why are the Chagos Islands involved? The UK has already repositioned troops to the region. Speaking on Thursday, Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed this decision. "We have moved assets into the region, including Typhoon jets, but we do have bases, we do have personnel in the region," she said. 'As a government, of course, we always want to protect our interests, and so that's why we've made those decisions to move those assets there, in the case of them being needed.' Outside of these precautions, it is thought that if the US were to engage militarily, such a move would require the use of the UK's Diego Garcia base on the Chagos Islands. This is because America's B-2 stealth bombers, the only aircraft capable of carrying specialised "bunker buster" bombs needed to strike Iran's underground nuclear facility, are currently stationed there. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, a Number 10 spokesperson refused to confirm whether the UK would block this or not. " We continue to liaise with international partners," he said. Will he, won't he? What has Trump said? The US President has issued a series of statements on social media, seemingly upping the rhetoric in this Middle Eastern conflict. Last Friday, he claimed to have given Iran a "60-day ultimatum" to "make a deal", warning them "it would be much worse than anything they know" if they failed to do so. "Certain Iranian hardliners spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse... Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left," he added. He has since called for Iran's "unconditional surrender", described their Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as an "easy target" and told reporters he didn't want a ceasefire but a "real end" to the fighting as he threatened to give up on the region entirely. Having left Canada's G7 summit early after signing a joint statement calling for peace, all eyes have been on the president waiting to see what he'll do. On Wednesday, he appeared to enjoy this uncertainty as he joked on the White House lawn: "Nobody knows what I'm going to do." Israel has maintained it is acting to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities, but to complete this objective, it is likely to need military support and equipment that only Trump can provide. Asked what he had to say to the defiant leader of Iran, Trump said only: "I say good luck."
