Comment by ambicapter

Unfortunate typo. that narrative, not my narrative.

This is the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

What do you mean with "nobody has ever claimed the UK government itself was the one running the trafficking ring, it borders on fantasy". This is a "reductio ad absurdum" argument. You state an absurdity I never stated and then say it's ridiculous. HERE is what I mean:

1) was it UK government employees, including city hall workers and police officers and subcontractors helping to run the trafficking ring? Yes, it was.

2) was it the UK government, in a top down effort, organizing this? No.

Although one might note that the police used violence, against kids no less, to make this child trafficking possible. That what youth services does, btw. Violence against kids. Supposedly to help them, but in this case it resulted in thousands of children being prostituted.

And, again, this is hardly the first or last time youth services prostituted minors. It's just, for now, their record number of kids prostituted at the same time.

For now.

3) did the government itself commit crimes (as in purposefully acted against the law), enabling the trafficking? Yes. For example, hiring people that were illegal to hire. To say nothing of the police officers that fucked minor girls while helping the trafficking ring.

4) did the government fail to indict it's own employees, at city hall, and police officers that knew, participated and even used some of the girls? Yes.

5) did city hall workers hide the crimes that their colleagues were committing using government resources and special powers for a decade? Yes.

And now for legal theory. If you're a private company, and your employees use your company assets to commit a crime, the company is financially liable for the consequences. Not criminally, but 100% civil liability. The owners don't go to jail, but they pay for everything. For example, take a movie scenario: your employees steal a truck, and drive it into city hall, on purpose. Company is financially liable. Then the company can sue the driver, but only after paying. Or, directly to the point, let's say you own a hotel or a nightclub and your employees organize minors to have sex with hotel guests for payment. Is your company responsible, financially?

Plain and simple: yes.

Does it matter if the owner participated in prostituting minors? No, it doesn't. That wouldn't even make sense if it's a big hotel or a chain. What the employees do is considered the actions of the company WHETHER OR NOT it was "company policy" or whatever you want to call it.

Of course, when it's the government themselves they refused, of course, all financial liability. Even a small damage award, by the standards of what is done to hotel owners, would have eaten the entire budget of youth services for years. As pointed out, the government's resources supposedly for protecting children caused more damage to UK youth, prostituting thousands of children, than all criminals in London do in a decade.

I would also like to point out if a private organization committed a crime of this scale, whoever was involved would somehow be found dead, law or no law. In fact, that's what happened to a few of the "Pakistani men".

Which brings the question: given that the law says that the organizations where this happens are responsible, whether the owners participated or not, whether it was policy or not, it would be very natural to hold the government responsible here. But, of course, the government disagreed, refusing to even hold it's subcontractors responsible.

They sent a bunch of the kids home, and that's it. Oh, and they did so WITHOUT asking a judge first, which makes even the very few, very feeble actions the government took to redress the situation ... a criminal act (yes, a criminal act, changing who takes care of a minor without agreement from a judge is called "removing a child from parental supervision", and this includes taking a child out of youth services without a court order (in fact if children run away from youth services the government charges them with this crime to lock them up), and is a crime which carries up to two years' imprisonment, as well as a hefty fine).

So you see what I mean, don't you? When it comes to the government's own actions, nobody cares about the law. Not when they damage people. They protect their colleagues. NOT EVEN the police officers who abused the situation to fuck minors were punished. And even the pathetic attempts the government made afterwards to make things right were criminal acts. They do not care about the law to the point that they openly commit crimes in the process of justice itself.

THAT is the modern UK government.

Liz Truss was barely in long enough for people to conduct a poll!

Thatcher was controversial but had ardent supporters. Where are Starmer's supporters? There aren't many even within the Labour Party.

No idea whether someone like Pitt the Younger or Canning back over a century ago were less popular. Really the onus should be on people to disprove this. I have not encountered a single live Starmer supporter in the wild but anyway...

https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/starmer-labour-c...

"New polling reveals Sir Keir is the least popular prime minister on record, with a net satisfaction rating of -66, lower than previous lows for Rishi Sunak and John Major."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/27/starmer-leas... "Starmer is least popular PM on record, poll finds Only 13 per cent of voters are satisfied with Prime Minister, the fewest of any leader since 1970s."

I suppose you will complain about the Telegraph, but it isn't a tabloid.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/12/wh...

"Keir Starmer is the least popular prime minister on record, less than 18 months after being elected. In this sense, he is making history. Few, if any, mainstream political commentators anticipated this situation before the 2024 election. Of course, many on the radical left predicted it several years ago, but who listens to us?"