pap

Some very good news on this front. Israel and Hamas have agreed to a long-term ceasefire, in talks brokered by Egypt. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/gaza-ceasefire-israel-palestinians-halt-fighting

Plenty of broadsheets covering individual aspects. I consider his main pre-election pledge to be a complete fabrication. He only said it because he knew he'd never get returned if he said he was going to dismantle the NHS. Cherished across the political spectrum.

Deliberate. OS official

And therein lies the big problem. Why can't Better Together make a better stab of the pro-Union case? I think it's because ultimately, Westminster and by extension England, hasn't done a decent enough job of making Scots feel like they're equals. In fact, we're more likely to be taking the píss out of them on almost every level. You've got the simple-minded people on here who think (and secretly hope) they'll crash and burn, governments back then trying out interesting new taxes north of the border and politicians now effectively telling them they'll never make it on their own, waving a £10 note in their faces. If I were Scottish, I wouldn't be too impressed. Really though, the only reason Better Together is having to go negative is that there are very few recent positives it can draw on that'll help its cause. Sure, it can point to devolution as something Westminster did for the Scots, but do you think that'd help?

The point about the probity of the troops is well made. The point about the management, less so. The flipside of leadership is accountability, and unfortunately, you cannot afford to be selective about what you're accountable for. They were responsible for protecting children, didn't, and will likely lose position and reputation because of it. Rightly so, imo. Maybe it'll set an example for the next people that decide that public perception is more important than child protection.

Oh aye, but it isn't unjustified. A big part of the Scottish government's funds, therefore a big part of Scotland's NHS budget, comes from Westminster - which seems to be taking a very different approach to health than Scotland, or indeed, what it told the voters it would do. It remains to be seen how the Scotland Act will shake out in practice, but as long as Scotland is reliant on a handout from Westminster, Salmond can justifiably place the NHS as something that might be threatened by continued membership of the Union, only needing to point south to show some practical examples. Given that the Better Together campaign has been almost entirely predicated on fear, I personally don't blame Salmond for taking this shot.

Nothing in Scotland is completely devolved. They may have greater autonomy over how they spend their budget. They don't get to set it.

Not surprised, trousers. The Conservatives have tried to remove many of them from the Internet Here's a list. Main one is "no top down reorganisation". http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-camerons-top-ten-lies-692469

I haven't read the in-depth report, so probably should have been less specific in identifying those that weren't doing their jobs. It's just bloody annoying when people talk about political correctness as some kind of force that people are powerless to resist. They're not, and if the failures occurred at managerial level, all the worse imo.

With some justification though. Cameron and the Tories lied about their plans from the outset.

Some interesting analysis there, bletch - and I'm inclined to agree with you. Darling isn't really in a position to deliver anything but fear, which I think will ultimately be counter-productive. If he overdoes it (and I reckon he already has), he runs the risk of activating the strong "fúck yis" instinct within the Scots. Puppetmasters? Cui bono, bletch, cui bono? 1) Tories (win-win, regardless - but would find it easier to win rUK elections) 2) Scottish Nationalists (the "in bed with Darling" theory!) 3) IMF (large loans if Scotland picks its own currency and defaults) 4) EU (esp if rUK treats Scotland like shíte afterwards) 5) Anyone that knows what would actually happen post settlement (insider deals, etc)

I don't think I've ever seen an older looking 22 year old. "The master will see you now"

I work it out because you keep maintaining that political correctness is to blame for the cowardice of the child protection officers. It isn't; their fear is. They put their own careers ahead of child welfare, which means they shouldn't be working in child welfare. It's always individual cowardice too; the fact that it seems to have been institution-wide is a damning indictment on the civil services' ability to cope with modern Britain. The law is the law; political considerations shouldn't enter into it.

I remain unconvinced by this argument. I fail to see how political correctness wins out over child protection, especially if child protection is your job. I'm not contesting this point. Way I see it, there are two guilty parties here. The Pakistani-origin abusers, and the career-fearin' cowards that covered it up. I'm an apologist for neither.

You yourself say you would have blown the whistle at the risk of losing your job. So I think we can discount the political correctness angle, and go with a verdict of individual cowardice.

Let's play Sergei is Child Protection Officer. Scenario: You are aware of mounting evidence that children in your bailiwick are being abused. Statements from witnesses indicate that the perpetrators are Asian. Do you? 1) Report the crimes to the police, using the cumulative weight of witness statements as a springboard for a robust investigation, leading to watertight convictions. 2) Think "nah, I might look a bit racist and lose my job", then cover it all up. Also, which choice do you reckon fits the "child protection" job description better?

Well, there's that as well. Raised as I was in a tyrannical multi-racial matriarchy, it never really caught on. FWIW, I do think multi-culturalism, particularly the in-group/out-group mentality that can occur amongst ethnic groups, is a big factor in all of this. Self-validation within an in-group can be incredibly dangerous. If everyone you hang around with tells you you're doing nothing wrong, then it's a lot easier to do wrong all along the scale, from club drug buddies to rampaging international extremists. I'm not the least bit interested in seeing that a particular group is protected, especially if they're guilty and especially if there are broader problems we need to understand. This isn't the first time we've seen an Asian grooming gang case; if there are underlying cultural factors that are helping to cause this, then they need to be investigated. What I don't agree with are the extremes that people like to discuss these cases on. For some, it's validation that political correctness has gone too far, or that Enoch Powell was right and that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The spineless c**ts that were supposed to be protecting kids obviously went the other way, not wanting to believe that any of it was possible. The priority in these cases should always be the same; give us the f**king truth and let us handle what's real, not whatever spin you've put on it.

Pretty close, mush.

It intimidates cowards. There is no way I'd have kept silent in those circumstances.

Jesus. The abusers are responsible for the abuse. Cases of individual cowardice were to blame for it continuing and covering it up. Or do you think it justified to keep silent about 1400 abuse cases to preserve your own personal reputation?

You can say that again. The largely white overseers of social services had no idea what they were doing and there's a lot of reciprocal dehumanisation going on. The men that have committed these crimes clearly don't hold white girls in the same regard as they do their mothers and sisters. Batting for whitey, holepuncture thinks immigrants are vermin while Sour Mash has referred to immigration as an infestation on this thread. Clearly, they don't hold immigrants in much regard either.

So put the fault where it lies, I say. At the end of the day, the people in charge of child welfare put their own career considerations ahead of the welfare of 1,400 kids. They preferred to stay silent, keep their jobs and not be perceived as racist, when they should have been building cases against child abusers. Hope they think their spineless stance was worth it.

Guess you have your answer....

Only scores when looking for a new deal

Clegg did well in General Election debate. Lib Dems do well in general election, especially on the popular vote. Clegg did badly in European Election debate. Lib Dems get eviscerated at the polls. Very different political winds whirling around at the time, I'll grant you.