Social services: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Workingman]

Four women are to sue Rotherham Council for failing to protect them from predatory men whilst in care.

Sounds fair, but wait. Questions need to be asked about what the women, then girls, did to put themselves in a position of being abused or to protect themselves from such abuse.

In her early career, not long before the time the women are quoting, my ex worked for a national charity and for the council in homes for these vulnerable girls. Apart from feeding them and providing a safe place to sleep they could do little else other than inform, educate, cajole, empathise, persuade.... and log movements in and out. Once the girls left the building - at all hours for some over a certain age - they had no control over where the girls went, who they saw or what they got up to. They were certainly not allowed to keep them in - imprison them. Any suspicions were passed on to the police, then it was effectively out of their hands.

If these cases are to be stopped then the system needs firming up.

[cromwell]

There are times when I think that the social services should be restricted to the truly sick, and the old.
The downplaying of the importance of the family has a lot to answer for.
Yes the SS are damned if they do or if they don't; but in some cases it was clear that girls were being abused and the SS were casting around for excuses not to do anything; because they knew that the cases were sensitive and that they were going to be accused of "racism" if they took any action.
The case in Rotherham was particularly bad in this regard.

ETA - The latest allegation in the Rotherham case is that the deputy leader of Rotherham council is related to one of the abusers and knew of the relationship between this person and a 14 year old girl. This mucky pool could get dirtier yet.

[TheOstrich]

Trouble is, if you want to exert 24/7 control over these girls (or anyone for that matter), you have to effectively lock them up in an institution .... not sure that's entirely the right solution ..

[Workingman]

Trouble is, if you want to exert 24/7 control over these girls (or anyone for that matter), you have to effectively lock them up in an institution .... not sure that's entirely the right solution ..

Exactly! When these girls are sent to care homes they have often not done wrong, but have been wronged.

The care home side has a tough job. They hold training sessions, seminars, round-table discussions, provide relax rooms and therapies, but if the girls couldn't care less............... If a girl goes out at 8 pm they cannot follow her - even if it was allowed. There is little they can do except remind her that the door is locked at 10:30, say. If one returns in the early hours of the morning and is asked where she has been the likely reply is: "Mind your own 'king business."

So, suspicions are raised. These are passed on to the SS case workers, but what can they do except pass on their information to the police? Unless it can be proved that the girls have done something wrong there is no way of putting them in secure accommodation, and so the world turns.

All of which means that the girls themselves have to share some of the blame for what happens to them.

[cromwell]

All of which means that the girls themselves have to share some of the blame for what happens to them.

Every case has to be judged on its merits, but I think I know where you are coming from. Because I have noticed a tendency by the media to imply that if a girl is under the age of consent, it is automatically assumed that they can't be guilty of any wrong doing at all.

[Suff]

I can understand the argument WM. If a secure and safe environment is provided and the girls leave it and put themselves in danger, then that needs to be put into perspective.

Rape, well I think you've all seem my opinions on that, if they get away alive then they've more "luck" than they are entitled to. But Statuary Rape? When the girls are on the street, making themselves up to look like older girls? Each case has to be brought forward with actions on both sides being considered as WM says.

There is no law that says that girls can't be "silly little girls" or young women can't be a stupid as can be. There is a law which says that they must not be abused, by either sex by the way.

If girls are abused "in care" i.e. in the secure location, they have every right to request prosecution. If they are abused "whilst in care" but not by the carers and not in the caring environment..... This is a wholly different thing.

[Workingman]

My use of "blame" was the wrong choice of word and I apologise for that.

What I was trying to get at is this: I know, we all know, that there are predatory males out there. They prey on the vulnerable because it is the way they work. Many young girls in care fall into their perfect client group. These girls are vulnerable and are often physically and psychologically damaged. All that some of them want is "love" and for many any kind of loving will do. These are the ones we should cry for and protect as best we can under the circumstances. Circumstances which are and have been far from perfect

But, and it is a big "but" there are others who actively choose to go off the rails. They wear their rebellious streak as a badge of honour. Anything and everything goes for these types, and let us not pretend that they are the minority. They are hard and lacking in self-respect and very often it is they who drag the innocent ones with them; and there is not much that the care home, SS or the police can do about it. The resources are just not there.

The problem is not a simple one, and pointing the finger at SS solves nothing, but that is what the media tend to do.