Politics

[Cheese]

1 minute ago, gonzo said:

Im not saying it is in disproportion. Ive just spent all morning saying it isnt ffs.

Im saying theres a still a problem whether its in disproportion or not and the problem cant and shouldn't be tied in to any other set of circumstances. Doing so is dangerous.

IN THE CASES OF MUSLIM GROOMING GANGS only, ethnicity of those involved plays or has played a major part in those particular set of circumstances. Either by the way the crimes have been investigated, the victims targetted and then handled and handling of those being investigated. 

Why is the ethnicity of MUSLIM GROOMING GANGS more imortant than the ethnicity of WHITE ENGLISH CHRISTIAN GROOMING GANGS?

Edited April 6, 2023 by Cheese

[gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Why is the ethnicity of MUSLIM GROOMING GANGS more imortant than the ethnicity of WHITE ENGLISH CHRISTIAN GROOMING GANGS?

Never once said it is. Not once. 

Ive spent all morning saying its exaclty the opposite and your in some way trying to decrease the severity of the muslim white girl issue saying its all part of a bigger problem.

Im saying by doing that and taking each set of circumstances out of isolation you're in to big trouble.

You asked me what the muslim situation has to do with ethnicity and I've explained about 20 times and youve not answered a single question.

May as well stick your fingers in your ears and say la la la.

Then point away from one issue to another.

Read what Ive actually said.

[Not in Crawley]

Suella Deville's magic PR brew still working I see.

[gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Suella Deville's magic PR brew still working I see.

We were having these conversations long before that little rat appeared on the scene

[Cheese]

11 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Never once said it is. Not once. 

Ive spent all morning saying its exaclty the opposite and your in some way trying to decrease the severity of the muslim white girl issue saying its all part of a bigger problem.

Im saying by doing that and taking each set of circumstances out of isolation you're in to big trouble.

You asked me what the muslim situation has to do with ethnicity and I've explained about 20 times and youve not answered a single question.

May as well stick your fingers in your ears and say la la la.

Then point away from one issue to another.

Read what Ive actually said.

You LITERALLY said "Their ethnicity is a major part of their crime". I'm clearly misunderstanding your point.

[gonzo]

10 minutes ago, Cheese said:

You LITERALLY said "Their ethnicity is a major part of their crime". I'm clearly misunderstanding your point.

It is. Im saying it plays much more of a part in those particular cases than others. And should not be ignored or downplayed in any way as thats how we got to where we got to. 

Each area of this problem has its own set of reasons and circumstances that have allowed abuse to take place.

The ethnicity of muslims involved in targeting young vulnerable white girls is a major contributor to it being allowed to happen. 

 

[Ani]

Right what Gonzo is saying ( I think) that in those cases involving Packistani Muslims they specifically target young vulnerable white kids. This is backed up by all the reports I have seen. This needs addressing , there is little or no reported grooming within those communities. (So Packistani on Packistani grooming) 

The grooming gangs that involve white people seem to be very much 'white on white' abuse. 
So the two types of abuse are fundamentally different and it is logical you will need different approaches to tackle both types of abuse

What then has to be questioned is why the Govt has chosen to focus on only one of these elements when their own report shows that neither group is more likely than the other to be committing the crimes. 
What Jess Philips has said is that by focussing on only area of the problem you are not going to solve the whole issue and we also need a proper infrastructure in place to support victims. Put it this way if you are an illegal immigrant we will put you up in a hotel or on a barge, domestic abuse their refuges , victims of grooming very little and cases take even longer than asylum cases to process.

The Govt are appealing to the base instinct by saying the problem is 'them lot' whereas it is not. Of all the people talking shit on the subject and avoiding the issue Jess Philips is the least guilty.

If Gonzo does not mean the above I not sure what he means . 

[Not in Crawley]

32 minutes ago, Ani said:

Right what Gonzo is saying ( I think) that in those cases involving Packistani Muslims they specifically target young vulnerable white kids. This is backed up by all the reports I have seen. This needs addressing , there is little or no reported grooming within those communities. (So Packistani on Packistani grooming) 

The grooming gangs that involve white people seem to be very much 'white on white' abuse. 
So the two types of abuse are fundamentally different and it is logical you will need different approaches to tackle both types of abuse

What then has to be questioned is why the Govt has chosen to focus on only one of these elements when their own report shows that neither group is more likely than the other to be committing the crimes. 
What Jess Philips has said is that by focussing on only area of the problem you are not going to solve the whole issue and we also need a proper infrastructure in place to support victims. Put it this way if you are an illegal immigrant we will put you up in a hotel or on a barge, domestic abuse their refuges , victims of grooming very little and cases take even longer than asylum cases to process.

The Govt are appealing to the base instinct by saying the problem is 'them lot' whereas it is not. Of all the people talking shit on the subject and avoiding the issue Jess Philips is the least guilty.

If Gonzo does not mean the above I not sure what he means . 

That's pretty much how I take it - my only issue is that by framing the debate as we have it's excatly what the Home Office want to distract from the core problems and the reasons for them.

[gonzo]

38 minutes ago, Ani said:

Right what Gonzo is saying ( I think) that in those cases involving Packistani Muslims they specifically target young vulnerable white kids. This is backed up by all the reports I have seen. This needs addressing , there is little or no reported grooming within those communities. (So Packistani on Packistani grooming) 

The grooming gangs that involve white people seem to be very much 'white on white' abuse. 
So the two types of abuse are fundamentally different and it is logical you will need different approaches to tackle both types of abuse

What then has to be questioned is why the Govt has chosen to focus on only one of these elements when their own report shows that neither group is more likely than the other to be committing the crimes. 
What Jess Philips has said is that by focussing on only area of the problem you are not going to solve the whole issue and we also need a proper infrastructure in place to support victims. Put it this way if you are an illegal immigrant we will put you up in a hotel or on a barge, domestic abuse their refuges , victims of grooming very little and cases take even longer than asylum cases to process.

The Govt are appealing to the base instinct by saying the problem is 'them lot' whereas it is not. Of all the people talking shit on the subject and avoiding the issue Jess Philips is the least guilty.

If Gonzo does not mean the above I not sure what he means . 

Absolutely correct. Especially that bit. 

[Ani]

9 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

That's pretty much how I take it - my only issue is that by framing the debate as we have it's excatly what the Home Office want to distract from the core problems and the reasons for them.

TBF that is why when the spin comes out it has to debated and challenged, especially the 'why now' question needs to asked. 
The Govt are so far behind they want to turn the debate to marginal issues rather than the economy. It is the politics of hate and it is abhorrent. 

 

[Not in Crawley]

36 minutes ago, Ani said:

TBF that is why when the spin comes out it has to debated and challenged, especially the 'why now' question needs to asked. 
The Govt are so far behind they want to turn the debate to marginal issues rather than the economy. It is the politics of hate and it is abhorrent. 

 

That's why it get frustrating because no-one is saying there aren't issues but it's the constant trying to refocus the public of certain 'others' or 'enemies' to deflect from the lack of a coherent strategy. As you say its divisive, and after 10 years of this sort of thing I'm getting a bit sick of it because on the whole we are a lovely, warm, caring and tolerant society willing to help the poorest and weakest and I feel I'm being trolled by this government to keep us all focused on the worst of this country - not the things that have led to our collective successes.

People voting for people because they 'annoy' others, its just a race down to the bottom and I know we're better than that as a nation.

 

[royal white]

13 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

That's why it get frustrating because no-one is saying there aren't issues but it's the constant trying to refocus the public of certain 'others' or 'enemies' to deflect from the lack of a coherent strategy. As you say its divisive, and after 10 years of this sort of thing I'm getting a bit sick of it because on the whole we are a lovely, warm, caring and tolerant society willing to help the poorest and weakest and I feel I'm being trolled by this government to keep us all focused on the worst of this country - not the things that have led to our collective successes.

People voting for people because they 'annoy' others, its just a race down to the bottom and I know we're better than that as a nation.

 

The media is making sure that works both ways. Take the Guardian link yesterday, the headlines highlighting some Gurkhas who worked in Afghanistan who maybe getting deported, yet we have taken in almost 25k people from Afghanistan. 

[Not in Crawley]

1 hour ago, royal white said:

The media is making sure that works both ways. Take the Guardian link yesterday, the headlines highlighting some Gurkhas who worked in Afghanistan who maybe getting deported, yet we have taken in almost 25k people from Afghanistan. 

But only one party is trying to steer the narrative away from the real issue at hand, and the general incompetence of our current Home Office, which is my contention.

[ErnestTurnip]

Reading up what people have said recently in this thread are folk suggesting that if the majority of vulnerable children in Rochdale (for example) had been of Chinese origin that the group of Muslim paedophiles would not have been involved in trying to groom them because they weren't white?

[lobbypond]

Good grief, that's proper grim from Labour. What are they playing at?

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by lobbypond

[Spider]

I’ve known loads of Pakistani Muslims my whole life. Used to beat them up occasionally but it was just bantz.

A tighter knit community you will not come across outside of probably Prestwich.

They are very close and always have been, largely in part because not too long ago they had to have each others backs in a foreign land.

Theres an issue. And Cheese, you may wish to play every card in the deck, but the issue will still be there. My lad who goes to a school with a large Muslim intake, has seen first hand 15/16 year old girls being picked up after school by Pakistani lads in souped up motors that stink of weed. It’s happening right now, in plain sight.

It also happens with white English gangs, but as a percentage, it seems to proliferate more in the Pakistani community. 

Be as obtuse as you like, but just because you can’t see it, it doesn’t mean it ISN’T happening.

[royal white]

40 minutes ago, ErnestTurnip said:

Reading up what people have said recently in this thread are folk suggesting that if the majority of vulnerable children in Rochdale (for example) had been of Chinese origin that the group of Muslim paedophiles would not have been involved in trying to groom them because they weren't white?

It certainly looks that way. There’s a large percentage of non white girls in Rochdale, they weren’t (to my knowledge) targeted. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Ceetainly seems that a certain group was targeted, though presumably, there was also an element of "availability" of vulnerable girls from poorer, mainly white areas.

Definitely been said that they regard white girls as "easy" and "trashy"

[gonzo]

53 minutes ago, ErnestTurnip said:

Reading up what people have said recently in this thread are folk suggesting that if the majority of vulnerable children in Rochdale (for example) had been of Chinese origin that the group of Muslim paedophiles would not have been involved in trying to groom them because they weren't white?

Well they dont target their own do they?

If you discount forced marriages, age of consent, FGM amongst other things of course

 

Edit ...and nobody said what you're implying 

Edited April 6, 2023 by gonzo

[ErnestTurnip]

Were they not targeted because they weren’t the most vulnerable though?

Paedophiles will always target the most vulnerable and easiest targets so for example any Catholic priests would primarily abuse Catholic children because they would be the easiest and most vulnerable and accessible target for them. They wouldn’t be targeting them for religious reasons.

The issue of the grooming gangs apparently/allegedly/maybe acting in a racist way obscures the real issue of why white children from impoverished backgrounds are still (and always have been) the main victims of abuse and also grooming from adults and it means we don’t have to sort that.

Paedophile gangs of different races being treated in different ways because of fear of the R word is obviously linked but a separate issue.

[Cheese]

32 minutes ago, Spider said:

It also happens with white English gangs, but as a percentage, it seems to proliferate more in the Pakistani community. 

Be as obtuse as you like, but just because you can’t see it, it doesn’t mean it ISN’T happening.

It may "seem" that way to you, but it's not the case. And I didn't say it isn't happening.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Cheese

[gonzo]

4 minutes ago, Cheese said:

It may "seem" that way to you, but it's not the case.

If we are talking about muslim grooming gangs Id wager their victims are almost indefinitely white.

6 minutes ago, ErnestTurnip said:

Were they not targeted because they weren’t the most vulnerable though?

Paedophiles will always target the most vulnerable and easiest targets so for example any Catholic priests would primarily abuse Catholic children because they would be the easiest and most vulnerable and accessible target for them. They wouldn’t be targeting them for religious reasons.

The issue of the grooming gangs apparently/allegedly/maybe acting in a racist way obscures the real issue of why white children from impoverished backgrounds are still (and always have been) the main victims of abuse and also grooming from adults and it means we don’t have to sort that.

Paedophile gangs of different races being treated in different ways because of fear of the R word is obviously linked but a separate issue.

There is not a chance in hell a muslim grooming gang would ever ply a muslim girl with drink and drugs then exploit her.

There's no a chance in hell their community would allow it to happen even if it did.

Edited April 6, 2023 by gonzo

[ErnestTurnip]

I think they would if she was the easiest victim.

 

[Cheese]

2 minutes ago, gonzo said:

If we are talking about muslim grooming gangs Id wager their victims are almost indefinitely white.

So would I. But my point is, there is no evidence that grooming gangs are more prevalant in any particular ethnic group than another.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65174096

If we're going to be totally honest about it, the problem is men.

[gonzo]

9 minutes ago, ErnestTurnip said:

I think they would if she was the easiest victim.

 

Fairy muff.