UKH

If it wasn't sickening enough that a  trio of Brothers targeted, groomed and then sexually abused up to 50 young teenage girls, now one of the rapists (who's been given 35 years at her Majesties pleasure) is told he has visiting rights over a child conceived as a product of rape. Apparently the victim wasn't consulted.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46368991

OK, so it's not the rapist that's seeking visiting rights, it's a third party.  My money is on a do-gooder nitwit in the council, probably one of the ones who covered up the child rape scandal in the first place.  Worth keeping an eye on this one.

So he has a right to seek a visit. I imagine that's a statement of fact. His chances of being granted a visit are unknown, but I suspect all but non-existent.

If the above is true, then I fail to see what Rotheram Council have done wrong here *yet*.

It's nothing to do with Rotherham is it? It seems like he or his lawyers have asked whether he's able to apply, the council have checked and concluded there's not a legal reason he can't try. It seems to me to be extremely likely that the application should be rejected but I can see why there might not be a legal impediment to at least applying.

From what I can read, it is a point of law that a man can 'seek' visiting rights.  Whether they would be granted or not is another thing entirely.

The woman is highlighting this loophole and seeking to get it changed and campaigning - using her case as an example of what could happen. The rapist in question has not applied for anything.

It shows that it can be hard for a victim to be completely rid of the perpetrator. I hope the law will be changed.  

Sadly - I can see this story being twisted and the facts taken completely out of context.  Poor girl might have Tommy and a microphone outside her house.

"Arshid Hussain, who was jailed for 35 years in 2016, was told by Rotherham Council he could seek visits from the child he fathered, The Times reported".

Im not saying it was Rotherham councils wrongdoing, more how can someone who has been locked away for up to 35 years for rape be offered hope of visiting rights to a child conceived through his violent and disgusting actions. Yet again, no thought given to the victim, the victims family or the wider community. 

It appears that it is Rotherham council who contacted the offender and told him that he should apply for parental visitation rights. RMBC are not fit to do anything, especially when it comes to social care and services!

I understood that the 15 year old boy had been taken into care and had been interested to meet his father. Which seems normal.

"Appears" from where?

If the *child* wants to meet him, I don't see why he shouldn't.  It might be important for the child's mental health for him to square the circle on why he exists.

If the process for that to happen is for the rapist father to apply for visiting rights, then so be it.

Always worth knowing the full story before boarding the outrage bus.

What Rotheram Council have done wrong is totally ignore all common sense, compassion and basic human decency while seeming intent on pouring petrol onto the smouldering remains of what passes for their  corporate reputation.

I have a principled stance against the death penalty, but its application would naturally have prevented this situation from occurring...  

What have you done ? Now you've told them there's actually an outrage bus, people see red.

Interesting case this...  I notice all the press are missing a fundamental - it is his child regardless of any crime in the process of conception.

My view is that any right of access is about what is best for the child not the mother (or father), however in these cases it seems blatantly obvious that a father should not have access until the child is old enough to make their own decision.

What they're not allowed to do is ignore the law. From the Telegraph:

 The campaigner revealed on Tuesday that she and Louise Haigh, MP for Sheffield Heeley, are calling on the Government to change the 1989 Children's Act to "ensure rapists can't gain access to children conceived through rape and abuse".

A Rotherham Council spokesman said that it could not disclose information relating to proceedings hearing in the Family Court, adding: "Like all councils we must comply with legal requirements, including Practice Directions, and that would include giving notice of proceedings to parents with or without formal parental responsibility.

"Often and understandably, cases before the Family Court are emotive and arouse strong feelings amongst those affected.

"We do understand that the legal requirements can cause upset to those involved and so we welcome a debate around this issue, which applies across England and Wales."

In summary, I agree that this is an awful position for her to be in, but the law needs changing, not Rotherham Council get another kicking.

Rotheram Council have decades of experience in turning a blind eye. Weird that they have no problem when its children's rights being ignored but they get all sanctimonious over the rights of a serial child rapist that most people of my acquaintance wouldn't bother pissing on if he was on fire.

Edit: if the law is patently ridiculous, it gets sidelined and ignored. Plenty of precedence for this in the UK system. 

Isn't non-application of the law in case of upsetting people how we got here in the first place?

Non application of the law to the detriment of scores of child victims. Who do you imagine is the victim here?

Which everyone agrees is A Bad Thing.

Of the original crime that's obvious and I hope you're not trying to portray that as in doubt in any quarter.

What you appear to be suggesting now is to give Rotherham Council free reign to apply the law as they see fit and only judge it on whether it aligns with what you would want to see happen. I happen to also think that *this* is A Bad Thing. Or do we all suddenly trust Rotherham Council to always make the right decision without the law to tell what they must and mustn't do?

What I would expect of the council, the police and all other institutions and authorities involved in law enforcement or safeguarding, is the application of common sense, informed by personal decency and integrity. This is how the law is applied in the UK day in day out.

It is particularly horrible that this woman was terribly let down once by an overly lax system and then to be further traumatised by an overly stringent one....and all to the benefit of who exactly?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1051379/Rotherham-rapist-given-rights-vic...

''Baroness Newlove, Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales, said: "This is a perverse situation. It appears to be a case in which a victim of the worst sexual violence faced the prospect of continuing to be abused by her perpetrator, this time via the family courts. I believe that where a child has been conceived by rape that the presumption of joint parental rights should be abolished. I stand by Sammy Woodhouse to get this perverse law changed. Rapists leave their parental rights at the door the moment they commit their crime."

Louise Haigh, the shadow policing and crime minister, said: "Convicted rapists should have no parental rights. We're campaigning together to stop the courts being used to re-traumatise victims and remove the rights of men who father children through rape. This case potentially reveals a huge issue where rapists are not only able but encouraged to gain access to their children. If a child is born through rape the father should under no circumstances be able to weaponise the courts against their victim." ''

I think this puts things pretty well. 

Why not both ?

If you think beating up councils for not applying the law equally without prejudice and then beating them up when they start applying the law equally without prejudice is going to encourage the most gifted, driven and competent to seek careers within these sectors then be my guest.

I'm a 'lentil knitting hippy' to some degree, but I generally think spending a long time in jail is pretty apt because of the trauma which can endure in rape victims. It feels fair to me if their attackers get to lose a large chunk of their lives, and have to look back on it wasted and work to accommodate that psychologically. If they can fully recognise the impact on their victims maybe they should come out sooner, but otherwise they remain a danger to others. 

By everyone? I'd say the courts and the police have discretion on how the law is applied and the rest of us either comply with or choose to break it.

It is horrible and it's to no one's benefit. Hence the law should be reviewed.

According to the BBC report:

A Ministry of Justice statement said: "Local authorities can apply to courts to request permission not to notify parents without parental responsibility about care proceedings, and courts should consider the potential harm to the child and mother when making this decision."

So the council should have asked the court for permission not to inform the rapist about the child court proceedings.   This particular case is so egregious and high profile somebody should have figured this out rather than just sending out notification because that's what they always do.

That must have been an update the original article. It goes on:

"It added: "This is obviously a very distressing incident and the relevant departments and local authority will work urgently to understand and address the failings in this case."

Labour's Rotherham MP Sarah Champion said it was vital victims were not re-traumatised.

She said it was possible for new "black and white" guidance to be issued by the end of the day."

From the additional bits it sounds like a lessons-learned exercise and a change to at least guidance, if not legislation. I expect this will develop a bit further.

Where can I buy tickets??

Is it the one with '£350 Million' written on the side  

That's the Outrageous Bus.

I disagree on that point. It's relatively easy for a controlling parent, let alone a rapist who specialised in manipulating and threatening children, to coerce children into carrying out acts against their interest.

If an adult wants to make that decision then fair enough, but not a child.

It should be for the abused person to make an informed decision about approaching the rapist. The rapist should not be allowed to approach the victim or child under any circumstances.

Agreed.

For somebody I know who was raped by her ex husband a few years after marriage and giving birth to her son, the similarities between him and her ex husband made maintaining a good relationship with him quite challenging for her, which has now affected him in his late teens.

I can only think it would compound that kind of problem, where the son is a result of rape and he's going to see his dad, the boy could end up without either relationship being as continuing and as positive as circumstances like the situation in the OP allow. It could be quite damaging all round.

Edit: I rather hope he doesn't serve less than his 35 years, he certainly deserves them. 

From what I’ve read the child supports the mother in seeking a change in the law.  

So it seems the child doesn’t want to meet his sperm provider.  

However I would agree with you if it was that the child wanted it.  No child should be put through meeting their mums rapist.  

I haven't read the details or scrutinised the facts here, however there appears some mixed information in the reporting of the case.

Its likely that the Children's Act requires a review or addendum....it is a complex Act which is an amalgamation of a number of other acts as far as I remember.

It's also noteworthy that the child is subject to care proceedings....this doesn't happen without serious concerns and previous intervention and support.....this is occurring whilst the child has presumably been in the care of his birth mother.

Cutting away the outrage.....this will be a complex legal/ care issue which the council are not free to share any information....best left untill the legal position has been resolved and the care proceedings completed.

Somewhere there is a child who, hopefully, someone is keeping well away from newspapers, tv and internet outrage.

Where did you get that from?! It doesn't seem to say anything remotely like it in the article you linked.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/what_the_hell_is_going_on_in_ro...

Absolutely....a lot of young people groomed in to sexual exploitation are looked after within the care system and are therefore vulnerable....

Interestingly, from my understanding....the 'father' has been listed as a respondent in the care proceedings relating to the child ( in effect he is therefore kept informed as a requirement of the Children's Act). This is very different from the headlines of the Local Authority allegedly supporting his application for contact ( which he reportedly has not done). Seems a lot of headline grabbing to me....as previously mentioned this is better managed as a discrete and non publicised issue in the best interests of the child...

"... could *seek* visits..."

I can seek to win a boxing match with Tyson Fury, but it doesn't mean I stand a chance.

This is what they've done wrong:

"Rotherham council had invited her jailed abuser to seek access to her son" (The Times)

The council who were happy to defy the law, defy morality, and defy basic human decency by actively covering up the rape of children for years, now appear to be remarkably zealous in their adherence to the law - at least where it applies to the rights of people who like to torture and f*ck children then sell them to kindred spirits for similar entertainment.

Of course, for this behaviour to qualify as 'wrong', one is required to take a moral stance.  In my view, it certainly qualifies as wrong.  You may take a different view.

No it was a failing of the council's legal and social dept. Any parent has a right of access to their child, unless deemed unsuitable, inappropriate Etc..  In 99% of cases the council takes their case to their district judge, they review the evidence and sign off that the parent in question won't be advised they are parent and access rights removed. This happens all the time but you don't hear of it because family court matters aren't made public. So, the law is fine, the council failed again by not taking their case to the local family court judge. 

Yeah, but that quote isn't actually in the article you linked and it's still significantly different from the summary you gave.

The right to "seek visits" might sound superficially similar to "has visiting rights" but they're very different in reality, as various people have pointed out already.

Your original post was an incorrect and misleading summary of a sensitive story, aiming to stoke outrage. That's really damaging.

Read the article agsin. The quote from the Times is clearly there.

And your point is what exactly? Do you think he should have the right to seek visits without the victim being informed before he was given this information? 

I don't see any inaccuracies in my post and its far from misleading. What is this damage you speak of? If people are outraged it's because the victims of these heinous crimes have been completely ignored and let down by a failing local authority. 

Getting Tommy outside her house would probably do wonders for her e-petition.

One signature is as good as another.

I refer you to "Tom_in_Edinburgh"'s point about referring such a matter upwards.

It does seem that some persons working at Rotherham Council are either complete d*cks or were (and still are) actually helping the paedophile rapist gang.

I wonder whether the BBC has updated the article since you posted it? I've checked very carefully and your quote definitely isn't there. There is a paragraph referring to reporting from The Times but it currently says: "According to The Times, the council had contacted Hussain and promised to keep him informed about future proceedings, after he was listed as a "respondent" in a Family Court case involving the boy."

As several other people have pointed out, the right to apply for something is different to actually receiving it. Yes, I think it is reasonable for him to be allowed to apply for visitation rights. If they were granted, then I would be shocked and appalled. A functioning legal system sometimes requires that cases which are an easy call are still allowed to be brought.

No, I don't think it would be necessary for the victim to be informed of everything this guy is told about his legal position. Obviously, I would expect her to be informed if he did then make an application. The BBC story as it currently stands doesn't actually suggest that he has applied for anything. My reading is that he was simply updated about legal proceedings related to the boy. I could see a reasonable case for not giving him those updates but it's hardly a scandal on the level of what you suggested had occurred.

Your original post said "one of the rapists... is told he has visiting rights over a child". That's a flagrant distortion of the truth. He may have been told that he could apply for visits, though even that much is not clear in the current version of the BBC article. I think you probably just misunderstood a vague and confusing article but a misleading summary like that is still damaging because some people will have read it without bothering to read the article.

Obviously I completely agree that Rotherham's handling of the original incident was appalling. That's no support for heightening the outrage over this particular story by misrepresenting it.

You are going to great lengths to prove misrepresentation which is a claim only you seem to want pursue. It's an attention grabbing headline for sure but other than that, what has been written is no different to what has been reported by the media. Depending on what media you read or listen to there are variations to the headline but the point of the story remains the same and that is this.

A Ministry of Justice statement said: "Local authorities can apply to courts to request permission not to notify parents without parental responsibility about care proceedings, and courts should consider the potential harm to the child and mother when making this decision."

It added: "This is obviously a very distressing incident and the relevant departments and local authority will work urgently to understand and address the failings in this case."

It's not really relevant whether anybody else is saying it and I'm not complaining about any attention grabbing headline, I'm referring to the central point of your original post in this topic which I've quoted back to you already:

"one of the rapists... is told he has visiting rights over a child"

That is, as far as I can tell from any reporting, simply untrue. Would you acknowledge that?

No. I wouldn't acknowledge that. This is the headline on the BBC news website:

Sammy Woodhouse: Rotherham 'rapist offered role in child's life'

It then goes on to say:

A victim of child sexual exploitation has called for a change in the law amid claims a man who raped her was offered a role in her son's life.

So "offered role in child's life" I would say is worse than what you are accusing me of making up. That was a quote from the victim that prompted the ministry of justice to make a statement on the subject as well as other public bodies coming out calling for urgent action to be taken to protect victims. 

The extent of the role he was "offered in the child's life" appears to be notification of court proceedings. Are you seriously claiming that's worse than being given the right to see the child as you originally claimed?! I think that's ridiculous.

Or are you saying that you posted having only read the headline and assumed that the "role" he was offered included visits?

To be blunt I'm not really interested in what you think. You have made your point but the reaction of the victim, the media, the various legal establishments and the general public suggest it is far more damaging and serious than you care to admit.

I've made my point, having read the whole article. If you chose to determine that as misleading or false and thereby creating heightened outrage then that's your choice. Having said that please forgive me for pointing out that the only person who seems to be getting outraged is you!

I just find it interesting that you won't admit the clear factual error in your original post. You only seem willing to defend yourself by making other unrelated points, which rather suggests that you're aware of it. I'm not outraged, and I don't think your error was particularly egregious, but I do think that the cumulative effect of multiple misrepresentations like that on social media is damaging and it's worthwhile to challenge them when you see them. Somehow, I become much more willing to spend time arguing the point when I have other very boring jobs that I should be focussing on!

To be absolutely clear, I have said that I can see a decent argument for completely cutting this man off from legal processes involving the boy. My objection to your original characterisation of the facts doesn't mean I'm denying there's any problem to be discussed here. I would just prefer it if people could discuss what's actually happening without distorting it to make it sound worse than it is.

The rapist has not been offered any opportunity to see the boy and it's not clear that he's even asked for that.

You're not the only one!

Interpretation can create misunderstandings. Ultimately people see and hear what they want to see and hear.

He was told by the council that he has the right to seek access. The victim raised her fears and concerns when she was told and this is what was reported in the press.

It can depend on their psyche/what emotional triggers they have, too, or sometimes it's down to differences in ways processing information and their frame of mind at the time, or people can project how they'd think or feel onto the other person.

  I sent a text to a brother, and composed it in a 'neutral tone' in my head, but he took it to be in an 'arsey tone', from how I'd said I had the money I owed him, followed by 'By the way, can you look out that book I lent to you?'. To me  it just seemed logical to combine the two exchanges at once, but he seemed convinced I meant it in a 'Well since I'm having to pay you back, I want my book back from you' kind of way, but that wasn't it at all, it takes too much energy to be arsey like that as much as anything. It hasn't happened again since in similar situations which is the main thing.

Where tone of voice is lacking it can seem helpful to qualify what is written...

To be fair, if you click on the story now it has been rewritten - quite a lot.  The headline has changed and if my memory serves me right - the whole of the first part is now quite different than was initially.

The mention of visiting rights have disappeared for a start.  Maybe the writer of the article went off a bit half cocked and with the ensuing row, the story has been redrafted to take out the obvious ambiguity.

I know you are trying to be helpful and what you have written is well intended but you do come across a bit preachy at times.  No offence taken and none intended and at least I'm not calling you patronising!  

Old news, but worth a look: one of the Rotherham bad apples is very senior.  Shaun Wright, South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner faces the HoC Home Affairs Committee:

youtube.com/watch?v=1KhUYVkze0k&

The Committee took the unusual step of interviewing him under oath - which makes it a legal interrogation.  He thinks he's there to "share his views".  The arrogance is strong in this one.

Apparently he knew nothing about the rapes because he doesn't read The Times, or watch television, or talk to other people.  And he isn't going to resign, despite being asked to by the PM and the Home Office, and the people of Rotherham, because the gravy train is very nice, thank you.

As it stands the father has a right to apply, and that application can be turned down - as I'm sure it would be in this case.

I imagine that process can cause a lot of hurt, however ii think the problem with a blanket ban would be that it may not be in the best interests of the child in all cases.

Say a 19 year old boy meets a 15 year old girl in a nightclub, she lies about her age, and he's later convicted of statutory rape.

10 years down the line and the kid is heading for the care system - his father  may be in a better position to provide the care that he needs than the state system, for lack of resources, ever will.

This sort of rape culture seems to be acceptable by some Asian communities 

She'd have to be 12 for a statutory rape charge. After 12 it's a different legal process.

Some elaboration on that comment would appear necessary to qualify the generalisation ... what sources inform that statement? 

Rotherham, Rochdale, Huddersfield,... Oxford, Newcastle, Bradford.

Some people ( Some) in these communities have been proven to be involved in grooming and raping young , mostly white,  girls. 

The majority of those found guilty have been of Asian origin.

So there is a problem with some factions within the Asian community in some areas seeing young white girls as easy meat.

Denying this is what has got Rotherham in the shitstorm it's in at the moment.

If you watch the news at all you would have seen that rape appears to be not exactly an unknown problem in both India and Pakistan.

Then there is of course the use of rape in the moslem countries of the middle east as well - particularly there against those not of their religion (or sect of).

If persons come from cultures where this is commonplace (and indeed almost regarded it would seem as normal), then there is no wonder that such is being perpetrated here.

Objectively or subjectively?

Ah yes, Pakistani men. Harassing and subjugating women since time immemorial.

Thanks for giving us the simpleton's eye-view.

The truth doesn't need to be particularly complicated. There's no need to throw insults around either, but I understand that you might be offended. As a person who believes in feminist principles and believes in the rights of women, the conduct I've seen from Pakistani men towards women inside and outside their own culture also offends me quite deeply. Approximately a dozen women are murdered in the UK annually from honor killings - do you think this is tolerable?

And before you start throwing the racist word around (a simpleton's argument for sure), this is nothing to do with a person's race. These patriarchal, despotic attitudes towards women are not written in their genes

Why did you expect me to read nuance into your first statement which had none? This is a difficult subject and needs better than offhand soundbites open to wild interpretation.

Hardly - the nation was only founded in 1947.  It is officially known as The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam.  "In 1973 Pakistan adopted a new constitution which stipulated that all laws are to conform to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah" (Wikipedia)

I thought Rotherham was in Yorkshire?

Of course.  And so is Pakistani culture - which to a large extent means Islamic culture.