Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "But, the situation is one of very many where, if "something had been done" at the time, before offences were committed, with the justification that "we are doing x, y and z to prevent young girls from being groomed etc", there would self-evidently never be any proof that they had saved a single person from anything. The criticism aimed at the authorities then would be that their actions were unnecessary, as the problem was imaginary, or at best, grossly disproportionate.
This btw is in no way apologist stuff for those authorities, but pointing out that their job is impossible, and so they have to do it and take the flak, since if no child is ever abused, they will still not be able to show that the reason is the "preventative" steps they took.
The only reason it is easier to "do something" now is because eventually gangs of men have been exposed, prosecuted and convicted and so the early victims have basically paid the price for becoming the justification for subsequent action, as nobody can any longer say "it never happens".'"
So are you suggesting the perpetrators being Asian had no influence on the prevention and the outcomes in Rotherham?
On your first paragraph I don't think that stacks up - if we take health (another straw man Mr Fish) we know if we exercise, eat better etc it reduces the chances of us getting the ailments such as diabetes. We cannot identify which people that have benefitted - people still get diabetes even if they do all the right things and visa versa - but we know it is not imaginary - doesn't stop us peddling the message.
There was enough evidence early doors to suggest this was an issue that needed sorting, the fact it got as big as it did - if indeed it did - was because it wasn't nipped in the bud.
