Progressives for Child Abuse

Yes, indeed, the story appeared in the Guardian. For the record, it was authored by Sonia Sodha.

As you know the Guardian makes no bones about being a left of center publication. It does not pretend to be the newspaper of record. Being left of center does not require it to do what the New York Times and major American media have done-- to toss their integrity into the office shredder.

Whereas the Times and major social media seem largely to be unwilling to report any story that makes the political left look bad, the same rule does not apply at the Guardian. Good journalism still exists, even on the political left in Great Britain.

Recall what happened at the New York Times when the op-ed page published an opinion piece by a United States Senator, one that rejected the leftist party line.

Today the story involves what the British call-- children in care, that is, children who have been removed from intolerable home environments and placed in the care of local authorities. For their protection. In principle, this last resort should protect vulnerable children from abuse.

And yet, the authorities in question, invariable associated with the Labour Party and with progressive charities, subjected these children to unremitting and systematic abuse.

It is a horrifying story, one that will not likely be reported very widely.

Local authorities, between them, have parental responsibility for more than 100,000 children in care in the UK. These are some of society’s most vulnerable children, removed from their parents’ care because they have experienced or are at risk of abuse and neglect. 

An independent study of the conditions in South London exposed what we would like to call Dickensian horrors-- except that such things did not happen in Dickens:

How, then, did Lambeth council in south London get itself into a position where members and senior managers, at best, looked the other way while children in its care were subject to the most depraved sexual, physical and emotional abuse and, at worst, were complicit? The report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA) into Lambeth, published last week, sets out the horrific scale and nature of what went on over several decades from the 1960s. More than 705 former residents of Lambeth children’s homes have come forward with complaints of sexual abuse; the inquiry says the true scale will be significantly higher.

Hundreds of children, systematically abused for decades, and no one took much notice:

 Children were photographed as they were raped by “carers”. At one home, children aged under five, too young to know what was happening, were subject to routine sexual abuse. Children lay in bed at night hearing the screams of other children, knowing that on another night it would be them. When one child was found dead in a bathroom, the council did not inform the coroner that he had been a victim of sexual abuse, but claimed there was no indication he had been unhappy in the run up to his death.

Lies, distortions and misinformation. A coverup of massive proportions. The Guardian story identifies the perpetrators-- the council was run by members of the Labour Party:

The inquiry is scathing about the way in which the Labour-run council enabled this abuse. It found council members and officers employed adults who they knew posed a risk to children, including a convicted child-sex offender who was allowed to investigate complaints of sexual abuse and failed to investigate employees suspected of child sexual abuse. Lambeth council threw open the doors of one children’s home to any volunteer expressing an interest in spending time with children, without running any checks – a “potential licence for child sexual abuse”, the report said. It also ran inadequate checks on foster carers, placing children in the homes of abusers and paedophiles with no monitoring in place.

The inquiry criticises the police and the regulators but its most excoriating fire is focused on Lambeth’s political and administrative leadership. The report finds councillors were focusing on internal political disputes and going into battle with Thatcher’s government to an extent that distracted them entirely from their responsibilities to children: children in care were just “pawns in a toxic power game”.

So, according to the Guardian, its all about progressive politics, about serious leftists who bleat about their commitment to equity and anti-racism and anti-sexism, but who were ruling over a system that abused and assaulted young children. As we recall, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And as we know, progressives have the best of intentions:

Councillors claimed to be committed to progressive politics, to equality and to anti-racism, yet bullying, racism and sexism were rife and, worst of all, they did nothing to address the disgusting racism the large numbers of black children in care faced from white staff. Trade unions in Lambeth prioritised their members’ interests over child welfare. Endemic fraud and financial corruption compromised any investigations into child abuse. 

There was a “determined and inexplicable loyalty to a known sex offender”, regardless of the risk to children. Councillors simply ignored the warnings of a whistleblower who repeatedly raised concerns about the “very dangerous” situation facing children. The inquiry’s damning conclusion is that “those who ran the council for the most part simply did not care enough to prioritise the protection of children”.

The problem was not limited to Lambeth. It comprised other councils, where grooming gangs operated with impunity. One remarks, because it was apparently a step too far, even for the Guardian, but the local progressive authorities left grooming gangs along because the perpetrators were Pakistani, and prosecuting Pakistanis would have opened them up to charges of being racist. Thus, by the laws of logic, allowing children to be sexually abused by Muslim men counts as anti-racism.

Islington, Rochdale and Nottingham are three other councils that have been racked by revelations about abuse in their children’s homes. Many more councils have failed to keep children in their care safe from grooming gangs of child abusers: Rotherham, Telford, Bradford, Oxford, Derby, Newcastle. The BBC, the Catholic church and professional football clubs are also among the national institutions that have offered cover to child abusers.

The Guardian continues, calling out and condemning the leftists who were in charge of these places. Some were political operatives, but others worked at charities and for the church:

But cases of abuse in Labour-run councils, the church and charities such as Oxfam highlight that organisations filled with those who regard themselves as being on a higher moral plane need to be particularly wary of infiltration by abusers. People who feel inclined to pat themselves on the back for being on the side of the angels can be no less blind to horrors unfolding on their own patch and their creed offers abusers an easy way to signal virtue and evade accountability. He can’t be raping children: he’s a man of god. Those children aren’t telling the truth: he’s anti-Thatcher. He couldn’t be sexually exploiting children: he’s devoted his life to charity.

Why did they all allow this to happen? Well, they were distracted, especially during the 1980s. At that time their first priority was not protecting children; it was not caring for children.

Their first priority was fighting against Margaret Thatcher. In England, if you did not know, Thatcher was an early version of Donald Trump, an evil so profound that the progressive left did not care who got hurt, as long as they could defeat her.

Those 1980s Lambeth councillors who, the inquiry found, prioritised their war on Margaret Thatcher to the exclusion of monitoring standards in the children’s homes they were accountable for may claim it is unfair for so much blame to be pinned on them. They didn’t really know what was going on, did they? However, for their modern-day equivalents, who put abstract creed before material reality, Lambeth should serve as the ultimate warning. Opposing the right politician, donning a vestment or working for a charity: none of this gets you off the hook for not being vigilant over the safeguarding of children.

As I said, congratulations to the Guardian for offering some serious journalism, even though it makes the political left and their progressive fellow travelers look very bad indeed.