Two Birmingham men are banned from 'approaching' girls

[Betsy]

Staff in care homes cannot force young people to stay in the house; they can't stand in front of the door or anything as a parent might so young people are free to walk out the door. Quite obviously though, walking out of the door is not then an excuse for people to abuse these young people.

I saw a documentary, or maybe it was a drama, a long time ago and was amazed to see that young people in care could more or less do what they wanted to do. I would have thought that (fair) rules and regulations were a must in care homes.

 

[Lurdan]

Yes and no. Wherever they are living, 17-year-olds are at the latter end of their transition from childhood to adulthood.

Indeed. However you are aware that the girl in this Birmingham case first became a cause for concern when she was 13.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah I would. It's been going on for ages the exploitation of young girls in care. Personally I'm all for the exploiters being named and shamed.

^^^This, and, to a lesser extent, the same has been true for young boys in care, too. I remember helping to try to cause a stink in Wandsworth and Lambeth about 30 years ago on this issue because of what happened to friends in care, for all the good it did. The way we "deal" (or don't) with young people in care leaves them so vulnerable it's horrendous, and nothing has ever changed, except the introduction of CRB checks (or whatever the latest iteration is called).

 

[andysays]

^^^This, and, to a lesser extent, the same has been true for young boys in care, too. I remember helping to try to cause a stink in Wandsworth and Lambeth about 30 years ago on this issue because of what happened to friends in care, for all the good it did. The way we "deal" (or don't) with young people in care leaves them so vulnerable it's horrendous, and nothing has ever changed, except the introduction of CRB checks (or whatever the latest iteration is called).

Indeed. The steady stream of cases like this where young people are clearly failed utterly by the care system makes we wonder if in some cases they are actually made more vulnerable and more likely to be exploited by being taken into care than if they had been left in their existing imperfect circumstances.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Birmingham Council is reacting to a situation brought about by bad management decisions at local level and appalling decisions from Whitehall. As in every other nook and cranny in this country the only skill that is required is the ability to point fingers and retreat into a blame storm. We, ultimately are responsible because we let this slipshod shower in Rotherham, Rochdale, Birmingham and everywhere else allow the abuse of children to flourish.

Or rather, to continue to flourish, as the problem is as old and seemingly insoluble as institutionalised care itself.

Is this latest action by Birmingham Council tantamount to releasing the vigilantes. Pitchforks and flaming torches available in reception.

Nope, it's Birmingham Council setting in place a system whereby they can pass the buck for abuse in care to the perpetrators, rather than facing up to their own role.

 

[el-ahrairah]

in the end, in a better system there would be better ways of dealing with this and protecting vulnerable children and young people. sadly, this is about as good as we're going to get right now. we can't go on letting abusers rape and abuse kids.

 

[Lurdan]

The reporting of this case has been pretty poor - different numbers and types of injunctions for example. Much of it is simply rehashing or reprinting the Press Association reports.

However doing some reading it seems that matters are not quite as initially presented yesterday. The first court hearing which granted interim injunctions against five of the ten men Birmingham Council had launched proceedings against was actually back on October 28th.

Five Birmingham men banned from approaching under-18s after grooming fears over girl in care - Birmingham Mail (28th Oct.)

Those interim injunctions were granted on the same terms as was reported yesterday

The injunctions bar the men from contacting, approaching or following the vulnerable teenager and from approaching “any female under 18”, with whom they are not personally associated, in public places.

Lorna Meyer QC said the vulnerable teenage girl had been found at a hotel room with one of the men at around 1.30pm early in October.

He had been arrested before being released on bail pending further investigations. He had said he believed the girl to be 19 and was not aware that she was in local authority care.

The man told the judge that he had “done nothing wrong”, said the girl had asked for his “help” and said “because of what goes in the news” people thought “that is what Asians are doing”.

Initially the man told Mr Justice Keehan that he would agree to abide by a long-term injunction. But he changed his mind after the judge said he therefore aimed to name the man in a public ruling.

The man then said he would not agree to abide by a long-injunction, adding: “I don’t want to agree to it then. Why should I be in the papers?”

Miss Meyer said in August the girl had been found at a hotel with three other men at around 9.30pm. She said the girl had been “missing” from her accommodation at the time.

Two of those three men appeared before the judge. They said they had “done nothing”. One said he did not want the injunction “on my record for no reason”.

Miss Meyer said two other men had been found in a car - in which the vulnerable teenage girl had previously been a passenger - at around 3am one morning.

Mr Justice Keehan said he would analyse detailed evidence at a trial in London on November 17 before deciding whether to make injunctions long term.

To repeat that was at the first hearing on the 28th October.

The reporting this week has been of these second hearings. As I understand it they are not concluded - the cases of the other men are due to be considered today.

Again there is a little more detail in the Birmingham Mail report:

Six suspected child sex groomers banned from contacting teenager - 19th November

This weeks hearings have heard further evidence from the Council and the Police. This has led to some of those interim injunctions being made final and restrictions on naming those individuals lifted. Exactly as happens in any other case where an injunction is granted.

Are injunctions a substitute for a properly resourced, trained and managed care system ? No. Are injunctions a magic bullet? No. Are the Police very good at enforcing conditions imposed ? As anyone who knows about injunctions in domestic violence cases is aware, the answer is once again No. Are they useful in protecting victims in some circumstances ? Yes.

Interestingly I gather Birmingham has previously sought injunctions in domestic violence cases where the victims were unwilling to act which, in part, is where the idea for applying them in this area came from.

Some people seem a little surprised at the potentially draconian nature of the injunctions. Well Courts have extremely wide ranging powers if they are persuaded it is appropriate to use them. Are these powers abused or applied unjustly in some cases. Why yes. In other breaking news capitalism involves exploitation, alienation and oppression.

If the application of injunctions in this area takes off there may well be cases where as well as fitting the public 'nonce cap' to actual pimps and rapists it gets applied to people who are simply unlucky 'pick-up artists' or even footballers </sarcasm>. I'm certainly not going to argue that that's acceptable collateral damage but I think there has to be a degree of realism in understanding that in cleaning up what is an appalling situation some new victims are going to be added to the existing ones. Just as the way that some of the existing victims are dealt with will in practice add new types of abuse on top of what they have already suffered. CSE of people in the care system is a fucking mess and IMO things are going to get worse before they get better.

 

[toggle]

True all that toggle

But if that's all they currently have on them then it should still be said loud and clear.

and now it's not stupid o'clock, something more coherent

cynical part of me says this is the easiest route to being seen to be doing something. and it's a something that has few safeguards. and is a recipe for state encouraged vigilantism and in this case, a cover for racist attacks. I wouldn't be turning up wth flowers and sympathy if the sort of blokes that do this shit did get a kicking. there's a part of me that wants to go get my boots on.

but....

if we're going to start to nonce shame people. then they should have legal representation that is competent to challenge the team accusing them.

and we do need to think that nonce shaming a group of men is going to lead to attacks on men that might be those men. list of asian names you've given me. I do wonder if the level of race attacks on asian men is going to go up as a result of this. 'wrong bloke, nah, they are all like that' 'wrong bloke, he looked like him, but they all look the same'

 

[ViolentPanda]

I saw a documentary, or maybe it was a drama, a long time ago and was amazed to see that young people in care could more or less do what they wanted to do. I would have thought that (fair) rules and regulations were a must in care homes.

Physical restraint was barred after several deaths from the '70s through to the '90s, mostly especially around a technique called "pindown" used in the '80s. Added to human rights legislation, it made physical restraint a legal minefield for local authorities and their employees.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Physical restraint was barred after several deaths from the '70s through to the '90s, mostly especially around a technique called "pindown" used in the '80s. Added to human rights legislation, it made physical restraint a legal minefield for local authorities and their employees.

It is difficult, and always will be. The state makes a rotten parent, basically, and that's not going to change. However, as stated by others above, an essential change in any effort to improve things would have to be a complete change in the status of the caregivers - from hired hands on low wages to trained, thoughtful, well-paid and accountable professionals.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is difficult, and always will be. The state makes a rotten parent, basically, and that's not going to change. However, as stated by others above, an essential change in any effort to improve things would have to be a complete change in the status of the caregivers - from hired hands on low wages to trained, thoughtful, well-paid and accountable professionals.

Won't happen, though, for precisely the same reasons as it hasn't happened historically - because the majority of child carees are working class, and so aren't seen to warrant the expenditure, by those who set the budgets.

 

[ViolentPanda]

in the end, in a better system there would be better ways of dealing with this and protecting vulnerable children and young people. sadly, this is about as good as we're going to get right now. we can't go on letting abusers rape and abuse kids.

A decent way would be permanent fosterage, but with ongoing close interaction with social services, so that abuse situations could be picked up, and problems rectified quickly. It'd be expensive, though, so will never happen.

 

[andysays]

...If the application of injunctions in this area takes off there may well be cases where as well as fitting the public 'nonce cap' to actual pimps and rapists it gets applied to people who are simply unlucky 'pick-up artists' or even footballers </sarcasm>...

This is a well argued and detailed post, but just one (minor) point.

From what I've read of this case, the nonce/exploiter cap may already be being fitted to people who are not actual pimps or rapists - let's remember that the various men named have not been found guilty of any criminal offence as yet, and given that there are also questions about the legal representation they had, it would be dangerous (in various ways) to assume otherwise.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Won't happen, though, for precisely the same reasons as it hasn't happened historically - because the majority of child carees are working class, and so aren't seen to warrant the expenditure, by those who set the budgets.

Well yes. Nobody in power really gives a shit about them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is a well argued and detailed post, but just one (minor) point.

From what I've read of this case, the nonce/exploiter cap may already be being fitted to people who are not actual pimps or rapists - let's remember that the various men named have not been found guilty of any criminal offence as yet, and given that there are also questions about the legal representation they had, it would be dangerous (in various ways) to assume otherwise.

Bear in mind too, Andy, that the civil court case still had to investigate whether evidence indicated that on the balance of probabilities the defendants were guilty of a civil offence.

 

[Lurdan]

This is a well argued and detailed post, but just one (minor) point.

From what I've read of this case, the nonce/exploiter cap may already be being fitted to people who are not actual pimps or rapists - let's remember that the various men named have not been found guilty of any criminal offence as yet, and given that there are also questions about the legal representation they had, it would be dangerous (in various ways) to assume otherwise.

The limited reporting doesn't allow us to draw conclusions about the quality of the evidence produced but it was evidently sufficient to persuade this judge that it was reasonable to grant an injunction. According to the Telegraph

The judge said the case involved the "alleged sexual exploitation of a young person by a number of men considerably older than her" and that those seeking to protect their own identities were doing so for their own benefit.

As to this issue of legal representation as I indicated there had already been an initial hearing back in October. If some of these men were not represented this week it's not because they were not aware of what was happening. (I understand that two of them are currently serving prison sentences for other matters and they at least presumably know something about how Courts work).

 

[andysays]

Bear in mind too, Andy, that the civil court case still had to investigate whether evidence indicated that on the balance of probabilities the defendants were guilty of a civil offence.

Sorry if I've missed this and it's been mentioned on the thread already, but I thought the civil court case had to decide if there were grounds (on the balance of probabilities, as you mention) to grant Birmingham's application for banning order, which they did.

What "civil offence" have they been found guilty of? Indeed, what is a "civil offence"?

 

[Sea Star]

they could hang out with other teenage girls... that was always my favourite option at that age

Edit: poor taste considering the context.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Sorry I was referring to my original post, not yours.

 

[Sea Star]

Sorry I was referring to my original post, not yours.

oh, ok. I never saw it.

 

[Diamond]

Sorry if I've missed this and it's been mentioned on the thread already, but I thought the civil court case had to decide if there were grounds (on the balance of probabilities, as you mention) to grant Birmingham's application for banning order, which they did.

What "civil offence" have they been found guilty of? Indeed, what is a "civil offence"?

There's no such thing and that rather encapsulates the rule of law issues that this case appears to be stirring up.

As a separate but related point, it remains unclear who the parties were or what the cause of action was until we see the judgment.

 

[Betsy]

Physical restraint was barred after several deaths from the '70s through to the '90s, mostly especially around a technique called "pindown" used in the '80s. Added to human rights legislation, it made physical restraint a legal minefield for local authorities and their employees.

I have to admit I was thinking, more innocently, of verbally telling the youngsters that they couldn't go out rather than using a physical restraining method.