Rotherham (yes, that one) want rapists to spend time with their (victims') children Watch

ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
From the article there's no implication that Woodhouse (one of Hussain's victims who has waived her anonymity) would be obligated to bring her son to see his rapist dad, but it's certainly sticking the boot in. Rotherham Council, who tried to cover up the child rape gangs because they wanted to protect gangs of Asian men, chose to send social workers to Hussain's prison to invite him to make contact with his son.

Obviously any prisoner can make a request to see anyone. The prison officers just need not listen to anything apart from it being their lawyer. But it is another thing for a council that so badly failed young girls like Woodhouse was at the time, and potentially many more in future had they had their way of covering it up, to actively try to get child rapists involved in their victims' lives again. By being a rapist, by raping their mother, and by raping their mother when she was a child, these criminals have proven beyond all doubt they'd make godawful parents so there is no reason whatsoever for them to be involved in their child's life. And that's if you manage to ignore the trauma to the mother.
0
quote
reply
SoulfulTwist
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
Think you should lose your right to remain classed as the father when the child has come about due to rape.
0
quote
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
They're in the right in that people should be allowed to know what their options are.

Whether or not those options are agreed by all parties is an entirely different thing.
1
quote
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by SoulfulTwist)
Think you should lose your right to remain classed as the father when the child has come about due to rape.
What about from the child's point of view? Not their fault they were conceived through rape. Could be reasons (medical necessities included) why they'd need to know who their biological father was.
2
quote
reply
muthalganesan18
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
At least we know why the city is derided by everyone.
2
quote
reply
SoulfulTwist
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Drewski)
What about from the child's point of view? Not their fault they were conceived through rape. Could be reasons (medical necessities included) why they'd need to know who their biological father was.
I think that should remain upto the child and not upto the father.
0
quote
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
Absolute farce.
1
quote
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by ThomH97)
From the article there's no implication that Woodhouse (one of Hussain's victims who has waived her anonymity) would be obligated to bring her son to see his rapist dad, but it's certainly sticking the boot in. Rotherham Council, who tried to cover up the child rape gangs because they wanted to protect gangs of Asian men, chose to send social workers to Hussain's prison to invite him to make contact with his son.

Obviously any prisoner can make a request to see anyone. The prison officers just need not listen to anything apart from it being their lawyer. But it is another thing for a council that so badly failed young girls like Woodhouse was at the time, and potentially many more in future had they had their way of covering it up, to actively try to get child rapists involved in their victims' lives again. By being a rapist, by raping their mother, and by raping their mother when she was a child, these criminals have proven beyond all doubt they'd make godawful parents so there is no reason whatsoever for them to be involved in their child's life. And that's if you manage to ignore the trauma to the mother.
I actually think this story is a bit confusing.

This woman was apparently 15 when she had her baby and she is now 33, which would make her child 18.

And at the age of 18 it is obviously the child's choice whether or not they want to see their biological father - neither a court nor a council can force an 18 year old to see their parents.

If the 18 year old wanted to meet his biological father, then that is his prerogative too.
Last edited by LeapingLucy; 2 weeks ago
0
quote
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Drewski)
What about from the child's point of view? Not their fault they were conceived through rape. Could be reasons (medical necessities included) why they'd need to know who their biological father was.
Especially as the child in question is an adult now (or will be very soon). If they want to meet their biological father, they should have the right to.
Last edited by LeapingLucy; 2 weeks ago
1
quote
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by ThomH97)
From the article there's no implication that Woodhouse (one of Hussain's victims who has waived her anonymity) would be obligated to bring her son to see his rapist dad, but it's certainly sticking the boot in. Rotherham Council, who tried to cover up the child rape gangs because they wanted to protect gangs of Asian men, chose to send social workers to Hussain's prison to invite him to make contact with his son.

Obviously any prisoner can make a request to see anyone. The prison officers just need not listen to anything apart from it being their lawyer. But it is another thing for a council that so badly failed young girls like Woodhouse was at the time, and potentially many more in future had they had their way of covering it up, to actively try to get child rapists involved in their victims' lives again. By being a rapist, by raping their mother, and by raping their mother when she was a child, these criminals have proven beyond all doubt they'd make godawful parents so there is no reason whatsoever for them to be involved in their child's life. And that's if you manage to ignore the trauma to the mother.
The act was abhorrent and the rapist should be locked up for a long time. On the other hand, I think there should a chance for the child to know their father. Yes, what the man did was bad, but growing up without a father could have a big impact on the child’s life.

I think the child, when old enough, should be given the facts. Then it should be up to them to decide whether they want to engage with a rapist dad or not.
0
quote
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by LeapingLucy)
I actually think this story is a bit confusing.

This woman was apparently 15 when she had her baby and she is now 33, which would make her child 18.

And at the age of 18 it is obviously the child's choice whether or not they want to see their biological father - neither a court nor a council can force an 18 year old to see their parents.

If the 18 year old wanted to meet his biological father, then that is his prerogative too.
(Original post by Wired_1800)
The act was abhorrent and the rapist should be locked up for a long time. On the other hand, I think there should a chance for the child to know their father. Yes, what the man did was bad, but growing up without a father could have a big impact on the child’s life.

I think the child, when old enough, should be given the facts. Then it should be up to them to decide whether they want to engage with a rapist dad or not.
I see what you're saying. But the council sent social workers to the convicted child rapist in prison to invite him to make contact, not the son. Why are they trying to instigate things from that side?
0
quote
reply
nikolasscacc
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
Saw this on GMB this morninh
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
quote
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by ThomH97)
I see what you're saying. But the council sent social workers to the convicted child rapist in prison to invite him to make contact, not the son. Why are they trying to instigate things from that side?
Maybe to establish contact?? I agree this was a very silly move, but I think the fundamental action of uniting child with their rapist dad may be good to the benefit of the child.

I think the best approach should have been to reach out to the mother and child. Afterwards, engage with the rapist to ensure child and dad engage, but according to the child’s rules.
0
quote
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by ThomH97)
I see what you're saying. But the council sent social workers to the convicted child rapist in prison to invite him to make contact, not the son. Why are they trying to instigate things from that side?
I agree with you there - it should entirely be the child’s decision and should have been initiated by the child, if they ever wanted contact.

It seems very bizarre that social workers were encouraging the biological father to make contact.
0
quote
reply
SoulfulTwist
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by LeapingLucy)
I actually think this story is a bit confusing.

This woman was apparently 15 when she had her baby and she is now 33, which would make her child 18.

And at the age of 18 it is obviously the child's choice whether or not they want to see their biological father - neither a court nor a council can force an 18 year old to see their parents.

If the 18 year old wanted to meet his biological father, then that is his prerogative too.
Hadn't caught onto this. Still think it should be no contact unless child wants otherwise. Don't understand why they went to the father and not the mother/child.
0
quote
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by SoulfulTwist)
Hadn't caught onto this. Still think it should be no contact unless child wants otherwise. Don't understand why they went to the father and not the mother/child.
I agree - contact should absolutely only be initiated if the child requests it.

The whole story seems very bizarre.
0
quote
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Maybe to establish contact?? I agree this was a very silly move, but I think the fundamental action of uniting child with their rapist dad may be good to the benefit of the child.

I think the best approach should have been to reach out to the mother and child. Afterwards, engage with the rapist to ensure child and dad engage, but according to the child’s rules.
Did I read that right?
You believe that adult rapists in prison with a history of raping minors should be allowed to have contact with children.
That convicted rapists should be invited by the authorities to compound the devastation that they have already wreaked upon the lives of the women that they raped and any children born as a result of the rape.
0
quote
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
Real question is why did she keep the kid? In this situation the best solution is adoption.
0
quote
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by londonmyst)
Did I read that right?
You believe that adult rapists in prison with a history of raping minors should be allowed to have contact with children.
That convicted rapists should be invited by the authorities to compound the devastation that they have already wreaked upon the lives of the women that they raped and any children born as a result of the rape.
No, you did not read it right.

I wrote that there should be an established contact between the father and child under the child’s rules and best interests. In most cases, the child may not want to meet with their rapist dad. In few cases, they may want to establish contact when they are adults.

I don't agree with the complete ban on establishing contact. You are not the child and you don't know whether they would want to establish contact and get closure at some point. Just taking away their right to contact their father because of your views is a bit extreme.
0
quote
reply
LeapingLucy
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by DrMikeHuntHertz)
Real question is why did she keep the kid? In this situation the best solution is adoption.
And what gives you the authority to make that assertion?
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (282)
27.43%
No (746)
72.57%

Watched Threads

View All