What is the matter with Rotherham? This borough, rotten to its very core, not only failed to protect its most vulnerable girls from brutal and sadistic sex attackers but essentially facilitated their abuse.
Reports continue of just how bad was the ‘care’ given to these ‘looked after children’ (this is the term used in modern bureaucratic social care parlance) was. These girls were farmed out from children’s homes to gangs of Pakistani men to be abused overnight and returned the next day. These children’s homes were nothing better than holding pens for girls until the next pimp pulled up in a taxi to take one away for her next round of abuse. Nobody did anything to stop it.
In the United States, it is a common hobby of liberals to ask what is the matter with socially conservative Republican voters of the Red States, such as Kansas. In the book What is the matter with Kansas? Thomas Frank (never trust a man with two first names) was baffled at how these conservatives could vote for a politician because of his stance on social issues to the detriment of their own economic interests.
It is typical of a progressive to view it as a bad decision by a voter to choose a party because of their values instead of a party that has promised to give the same voter more stuff in the form of government handouts. In addition to this, it seems that for Kansas at least, these voters were not acting against their own economic interests as the state was doing quite well.
The progressives have had the run of failed cities such as Detroit for decades. They destroyed them it by driving out the middle classes with high taxes while refusing to reform corrupt and incompetent public sectors that assured the liberals of their votes. Ferguson similarly has suffered the same fate. Yet, the people, now embattled with their families and communities in tatters, keep voting for the progressive destroyers.
In Rotherham, all the main “public agencies” are responsible for failing these abused girls. Social services, the Labour run council and the police force in particular cared nothing for them; they viewed them much as their attackers did: as worthless young people undeserving of even basic dignity and respect. Time and again the “public servants” gave priority to their own selfish interests.
The Labour run council was more interested in maintaining its right-on, progressive, multicultural credentials than protecting vulnerable girls from gang rape by Asian thugs. Likewise, the social care services did not dare to challenge the orthodoxy that the race of the abusers must not be identified or addressed in this borough of horrors.
As for the police, they remain the most culpable. This is a police force who, when they found a young girl in a disused house with packs of older Asian men, arrested her for being drunk.
This is a police force who, on being told of a 12-year-old having sex with five older Asian men, issued a police caution against two of them (cautions are usually used against shoplifters not child rapists). Later a CID representative said the crime should not treated as sexual abuse as this “child has been 100 per cent consensual in every incident.”
This is the police force who arrested a father when he tried to rescue his daughter from her abusers. Yet, not a single police officer will lose his job over this. They are immune from responsibility – they are “public servants”.
And yet, the good people of Rotherham will continue to support these public self-servants in local elections. They will continue to vote for the Labour councillors who cared not one iota for their daughters. Perhaps they think – it is not my daughter so what do I care. Truly, what is the matter with Rotherham?