Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChrisKnott | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The UK has a recent history of sweeping child abuse under the rug when it involves minorities or famous personalities. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scan... for two examples.

It also has a recent history of racial discrimination targeting minorities as a result of false accusations of child abuse, so it's worth making sure there isn't an overcorrection particularly in a society where people sometimes still attribute random individuals together based on perceived ethnic origin. See https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/04/how-eleanor-... for one example.

You've sleight-of-handed out "government" for "the UK" and linked two stories which don't really involve the UK government.

Furthermore if you read your own links, you will see that the "recent history" of the Rotherham offending is that there is an enormous police investigation costing tens of millions of pounds and a large number of people have been convicted, and the "recent history" of the fallout from Jimmy Saville is that another extremely well-funded enquiry was conducted (IICSA).

The general idea that the UK is particularly accomodating to paedophiles, or that an unusual number of powerful people in the UK are paedophiles, is not supported by evidence.

This meme mainly comes from a serial liar, Carl Beech, who's lies were credulously reported by people who should have known better.

Local police is a part of the government as far as the laws in question are concerned; it's them who will be using or abusing the surveillance powers granted by the law. And the Rotherham scandal took two decades to be addressed, due not least to fierce political interference.

What surveillance powers? Granted by what law?

Don't be dense. Look at the thread you're in

The Online Safety Bill doesn't grant any surveillance powers, as far as I'm aware...?

Just yesterday it became clear the foreign office will not release files relating to Prince Andrew until 2065 - long after he's dead. Seems like a pretty obvious cover up.

It seems like "a pretty obvious coverup" to you because you are conspiratorially minded. It's actually just the FCDO explaining what the law has always been.

Should the law be changed? Yes. Is this evidence of a "cover-up"? No.

This is not a useful or constructive statement. I haven’t worked in child protection, is there something you’d like to teach me?

What has the UK government done to protect children recently? In the last decade, say.

This question is really too broad to answer. What sort of thing are you looking for? For a general overview of the whole system, this strategy is the best place to start.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Thanks. I guess I meant either new primary legislation that improves something tangible, but more importantly, provided more resource.

As far as I can see, it's still funded from local authority budgets.

I worked briefly in children's homes a long time ago. Kids were placed in assessment centers where they were supposed to be evaluated and sent on to an appropriate home. But there were no places for them, and they stayed in this temporary place for years.

Not sure if much has improved in the last decade.

For example, the offence of "Sexual communication with a child" aka "grooming" was created in 2017 (by Serious Crime Act). Enforcing this law is one of the main causes of the arguments over the OSB.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com