Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...

I think they were the guys that bathed the chick from Hunger Games and put all the makeup on her.

Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...

They offer young teenage girls alcohol/drugs then kidnap them, keep them drugged and comatose in a room where they're continually raped for days on end, then dumped in the street and picked up again a few weeks later.

Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...

Basically a gang of people who 'groom' (i.e. prepare, cajole, bribe, persuade etc.) children or young teens for sex. I thought 'grooming' was the usual anglophone term for this type of behaviour?

Albatross wrote:

Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...

Basically a gang of people who 'groom' (i.e. prepare, cajole, bribe, persuade etc.) children or young teens for sex. I thought 'grooming' was the usual anglophone term for this type of behaviour?

It's not sex. Being kidnapped and passed around by groups of men as a bartering piece is not your average older-man-using-younger-girl-for-sex. At all.

You can actually groom people without braking any laws. (legally speaking, not morally)

Rape is something completely different.

@ Joey - Easy there, Daily Mail. I know you're one of those people who thinks that all such incidents are horrendously violent ordeals, that more closely resemble something from an Eli Roth film, but the truth is, it's a far more subtle, insidious, and therefore evil, crime than that. These guys trick young girls into thinking that they are consenting, that's how they work - it's just common sense. Your average foaming-at-the-mouth monster doesn't have as much shelf-life as the truly evil bastard who can get a kid to do what he wants them to simply by messing up their mind.

Seriously, forewarned is forearmed, people. The Roy Whitings and Fred Wests of this world are mercifully rare - for every one of them caught (and they always get caught), there's probably 10 that haven't been, because the whole kidnap-and-torture thing is basically just going nuts and throwing caution to the wind, which is pretty out of character for individuals who rely on secrecy and caution to do their fethed-up gak.

I've met a couple of paedophiles. They were just normal-seeming dudes, nothing remotely 'off' about them. I never would have suspected them in a million years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:You can actually groom people without braking any laws. (legally speaking, not morally)

Rape is something completely different.

Fair enough. It's not actually my area of expertise, funnily enough...

Albatross wrote:

d-usa wrote:You can actually groom people without braking any laws. (legally speaking, not morally)

Rape is something completely different.

Fair enough. It's not actually my area of expertise, funnily enough...

Well, I don't want to sound like I am trying to defend them. Just realizing that they are two different actions.

Grooming can be the simple building of a relationship, like in dating, or even preparing people for societal norms. You might even argue that the whole concept behind a prom could be a part of grooming, sexualizing young women.

Rape is a quick done-and-over with very clear-cut crime.

Grooming that crosses the legal line builds trust and dependence, creates a false sense of 'normal' and then uses that to keep the victims from reporting the crimes or fleeing the situation. And this is something not restricted to the people in the article. How many boyfriends and husbands follow the same pattern? There are still people that argue that there is no such thing as rape in marriage, and that date-rape is not really rape.

Yeah, I'm just yanking your chain, mate.

I know, but I just wanted to make sure I didn't come across as a creepy grooming bastard.

Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...

The Lord will probably have something to say about this someday...

Albatross wrote:

Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...

Basically a gang of people who 'groom' (i.e. prepare, cajole, bribe, persuade etc.) children or young teens for sex. I thought 'grooming' was the usual anglophone term for this type of behaviour?

Grooming makes me think of cleaning oneself, personally.

d-usa wrote:Grooming that crosses the legal line builds trust and dependence, creates a false sense of 'normal' and then uses that to keep the victims from reporting the crimes or fleeing the situation. And this is something not restricted to the people in the article. How many boyfriends and husbands follow the same pattern? There are still people that argue that there is no such thing as rape in marriage, and that date-rape is not really rape.

That's the thing; it's incredibly difficult to work out just what 'grooming' is on a legal level..... trying to figure out 'racial motivations' on top of that must be near impossible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Grooming makes me think of cleaning oneself, personally.

Think of it as 'preparing someone for something'. And don't think too much about the something, it's not pleasant :(

'Grooming' is any act making a minor more willing to participate in a sexual activity at the time or in the future.

Child abduction is not grooming, its kidnapping. However grooming can occur after an abduction. Without grooming an abuser would presumably have to resort to rape, not that any sex with a minor is not legally rape anyway.

I dont know how grooming actually works or want to know, but its fairly varied and innocent activities can be misread as grooming by overzealous police or child protection officials.
To take a potential though unlikely example, if you are in your local GW and pass around sweets during the game make sure you offer to everyone including/especially adults, not just the kid your playing.

Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...

They kidnap you, do your hair, nails, and a good facial?

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...

They kidnap you, do your hair, nails, and a good facial?

the Fiends!

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...

They kidnap you, do your hair, nails, and a good facial?

There may be a facial involved, but I wouldn't call it a good thing

I remember the first time I got really pissed about political correctness was watching the trial of the guys that attacked Reginald Denny during the L.A. Riots.
They pulled him out of his truck and one guy was beating his head with a brick along with everything else they were doing to him.
During the trial, the reporters were talking about the "feistiness"
of one of the attackers moms and broadcasting her little wittisisms as they chuckled along with her, casting her as a darling of the trial.
Despite pictures of the guy bashing Denny's head in with a brick, the charge of attempted murder was over ruled,because the judge said there was no way of knowing what was on the minds of the assailants.

I have little patience with idiot judges and political correctness.

Here's a little refresher of the Denny case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Reginald_Denny

Relapse wrote:
Here's a little refresher of the Denny case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Reginald_Denny

The case points out that they also attacked Asian and Latino motorists.

Normally you'd think hitting someone over the head with a brick might constitute attempted murder, but it is notoriously difficult to prove intention. I can't see how the judge was being an idiot here.

They would have to prove that he planned to attack him with the indent to kill him. Which would be very difficult.

Hitting somebody in the head with a brick repeatedly is clearly attempted murder, how could it be anything else?

Somebody should have shot him.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Here's a little refresher of the Denny case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Reginald_Denny

The case points out that they also attacked Asian and Latino motorists.

Normally you'd think hitting someone over the head with a brick might constitute attempted murder, but it is notoriously difficult to prove intention. I can't see how the judge was being an idiot here.

Horse gak argument. If you're beating someone with a brick thats the very definition of trying to kill them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:Hitting somebody in the head with a brick repeatedly is clearly attempted murder, how could it be anything else?

Somebody should have shot him.

Thats why when hurricane Ike knocked out power to 4mm people here for three weeks there were no riots or looting. Try to pull someone out of a vehicle here and they are liable to come out with .45 and put you in a box.

Medium of Death wrote:Hitting somebody in the head with a brick repeatedly is clearly attempted murder, how could it be anything else?

Somebody should have shot him.

The problem is that in a legal sense in most juristiction the act of murder has to include planning: On this day, at this time I will go to this place and use this weapon on this particular person to attempt to kill him. That is not what happened. They beat a guy to bloody hell. Even if the guy would have died, then it still would not have been murder since there was no element of premeditation, it would probably have been manslaughter instead.

Murder is a very narrow legal term. .

d-usa wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:Hitting somebody in the head with a brick repeatedly is clearly attempted murder, how could it be anything else?

Somebody should have shot him.

The problem is that in a legal sense in most juristiction the act of murder has to include planning: On this day, at this time I will go to this place and use this weapon on this particular person to attempt to kill him. That is not what happened. They beat a guy to bloody hell. Even if the guy would have died, then it still would not have been murder since there was no element of premeditation, it would probably have been manslaughter instead.

Murder is a very narrow legal term. .

Thats not correct. There are definitional terms but there are categories of murder. At worst this is attempted manslaughter.

Do they have attempted manslaughter in that jurisdiction?

That is of course another problem, so many different areas where the legal definitions differ.

If they are targeting white young girls because they think they are more "easy" and "accessible" than girls of their own culture, then it's a big yes to it being racially motivated. It's not the same as a hate crime or Yank women liking posh Brit blokes, it's a deliberate targeting of a section of society for the already mentioned reasons.

d-usa wrote:Do they have attempted manslaughter in that jurisdiction?

That is of course another problem, so many different areas where the legal definitions differ.

The name may change but I am sure they do. Pardon the pum but its pretty common.

Generally there's your capital murder, murder, attempted murder, attempted and manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter.

Remember boys and girls "he needed killin your honor" is not a defense, except by wives in Texas. Thats what my wife tells me anyway.

I've rarely read anything that makes me so angry as this sort of thing.

It's not that I'm all about overly strict parenting or whatever, but jesus. Where were the guardians of those kids? Those filthy bastards should...god. Makes me so angry I can't even express what I'm thinking on the forum.

Makes me think of some of the kids in care in my school, and how vulnerable they are.

Frazzled wrote:Horse gak argument. If you're beating someone with a brick thats the very definition of trying to kill them.

Again you don't seem to know what you're talking about. You might intend any number of things from an action that is likely to threaten another's life. Even shooting someone doesn't necessarily show intent to kill. Your statement is based on your own personal opinion, not law. This is why we have competent judges running trials, not you.

I too am similarly perplexed how the parents never noticed, I'd like to pin it down to 'white underclass' stereotype but some of these victims have been from wealthier backgrounds. Not in this particular case I might add.

It just shows you how monstrous these guys are that they can be so calculating and manipulative that even parents don't notice right away.

I'm not sure why they aren't being deported, then again they'd probably go free in their own country. This is one of those times where the death penalty just seems to be the only solution.

d-usa wrote:The problem is that in a legal sense in most juristiction the act of murder has to include planning: On this day, at this time I will go to this place and use this weapon on this particular person to attempt to kill him. That is not what happened. They beat a guy to bloody hell. Even if the guy would have died, then it still would not have been murder since there was no element of premeditation, it would probably have been manslaughter instead.

The problem is that in a legal sense, you're wrong.

d-usa wrote:They would have to prove that he planned to attack him with the indent to kill him. Which would be very difficult.

Proof of intent to commit serious bodily harm, or engaging in acts which are likely to cause the death of another are also murder.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Normally you'd think hitting someone over the head with a brick might constitute attempted murder, but it is notoriously difficult to prove intention. I can't see how the judge was being an idiot here.

Because the attacker had the specific intent, as evidenced by the use of a brick, to commit serious bodily harm that is likely to cause the death of another.