Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I think that's fairly sensible. It's certainly not right to be lumping all Asians in together given I don't think a single Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, Sikh etc person has had involvement in any of these gangs. 

 

Fair comment. Yet you lumped all Muslims together by referring to "Muslim grooming gangs" despite the Pakistani/Afghan Muslim offenders coming from a single part of the world, despite Muslims from other parts of the world having as little involvement as Chinese or Japanese, and despite some non-Muslims from that same part of the world (Hindus from India) indulging in similar depravity in their home country, though apparently not here.....

 

On a lighter note, I just went for a session at the outdoor gym on Victoria Park. A young woman in a niqab (the letterbox garment Boris referred to - a burka has a sort of grille of airholes, if I'm understanding the terminology correctly) came along and started exercising on a machine next to me. She was with a middle-aged woman and a little girl, her mother and daughter, I presume. Unusual sight for starters but also the middle-aged woman and the little girl were in quite Western clobber, only the young mother was in a niqab. Had she chosen to wear it because she was the only one likely to attract a male gaze (she looked quite attractive, insofar as I could tell) or had she been forced into a niqab while the others hadn't? I thought of asking, but could imagine that ending badly. As I was wearing the black-and-white St-Pauli skull-and-crossbones T-shirt that my German mate gave me, she might have thought that I was from Islamic State. 

[urban.spaceman]

It's a shame this story wasn't on the national news, as it would have proven how daft the outrage over Johnson's remarks is:

 

Quote

Two men found guilty of Leicester jeweller's murder

56 minutes ago

• Share this with Facebook
•  
• Share this with Messenger
•  
• Share this with Twitter
•  
• Share this with Email
•  
• Share

 

Image copyrightLEICESTERSHIRE POLICE Image captionRamniklal Jogiya suffered a series of injuries to his head, shoulder, torso and hands

Two men have been convicted of murdering a jeweller who was kidnapped and tortured in a botched robbery.

Ramniklal Jogiya, 74, was bundled into a van near his shop in Leicester on 24 January while walking home before his body was found the next day.

Thomas Jervis, 24, and Charles Mcauley, 20, were found guilty of murder while Callan Reeve, 20, was convicted of manslaughter.

A jury at Birmingham Crown Court cleared Javon Roach of all charges.

Image copyrightLEICESTERSHIRE POLICE Image captionCallan Reeve (left), Charles Mcauley (centre) and Thomas Jervis (right) will be sentenced on 10 September

The trial heard Mr Jogiya had been bundled into a van while walking home.

He was tortured and beaten for information before being dumped in a country lane near Stoughton.

Mr Jogiya's mobile phone was thrown away and his body was found by a retired couple driving past the scene.

James House QC, prosecuting, told the court the "sophisticated" operation must have been planned over weeks or even months.

Jurors heard Mr Jogiya suffered a series of injuries, including six broken ribs and 21 circular injuries to his torso and shoulder.

He was handled with such force one of his biceps were ripped away from the bone.

Image copyrightLEICESTERSHIRE POLICE Image captionThe men wanted to steal £200,000 of gold jewellery kept in the safe

Jervis was sent back to the shop to open the safe while wearing a burka disguise, but was defeated by a 12-hour time-lock.

The court heard the men needed information from Mr Jogiya to enter the shop, turn off the burglar alarm, access the safe and steal the £200,000 of gold jewellery it contained.

"To get that information, those involved all knew they would have to force it out of him if they were to have any chance of success," Mr House told the court.

"Mr Jogiya was therefore beaten until he divulged the information they required.

"Once they had that information he was dumped, probably still alive but seriously injured, miles from help, thus allowing the group to access the shop, with the keys they had taken from him."

Image copyrightFAMILY HANDOUT Image captionRamniklal Jogiya's body was found in Stoughton

During the trial Mcauley, who gave evidence in his own defence, claimed Mr Roach "got angry" and "started hitting Mr Jogiya" before "poking" him with a sharp metal tool.

However, jurors acquitted Mr Roach of all charges and Mcauley was convicted for his role in the killing.

Mcauley, 20, of Gooding Avenue, Braunstone, and Reeve, 20, of Aylmer Road, both Leicester, along with Jervis, 24, of Enderby Road, Whetstone, Leicestershire, had all admitted kidnap and robbery before trial, but denied murder and manslaughter.

Mr Roach, 30, of Norwich Road, Leicester, had denied all the charges.

Mr Jogiya's family released a statement after the verdicts where they said he was known as "Mota Bhai, or big brother, not just because he was the oldest but because he was big-hearted".

"Our father was a true gentleman. He was kind, friendly, loyal, unassuming, generous and well-respected in his community," it said.

"Dad was taken from us before his time, but for him, we will always remember the happier times and he will forever live on in our memories and in our hearts."

Det Ch Insp David Swift-Rollinson said: "Rarely have I investigated a crime so wicked and ruthless.

"The depravity, inhumanity and utter contempt they showed for their victim has caused untold anguish for his family and stunned the whole community."

Jervis, Mcauley and Reeve will be sentenced on 10 September.

3

Hope these cvnts are all sentenced to life btw.

[lifted*fox]

lmao, one instance of a robber wearing a burka as a disguise in a robbery (a white man, wearing it, BTW) and you're using that as a stick to beat it with? 

 

you realise that A WHITE MAN was wearing it, right? not a Muslim woman? 

 

****ing hell lol. 

 

I guess if he'd have chosen a more traditional robbery outfit like a clown mask or such you'd be calling for those to be banned? 

 

Thanks for that little chuckle you've blessed us all with this evening. 

[Foxxed]

Boris has moved on from Brexit I see. He's incredibly clever at playing this game.

[lifted*fox]

2 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Boris has moved on from Brexit I see. He's incredibly clever at playing this game.

 

Nah mate, just a bumbling innocent idiot according to most on here. Unfortunate timing, just jibes, inappropriate jokes. No harm meant though, etc. 

 

Not quite sure how some are blind to the fact that every word out of that man's mouth is a calculated, self-serving drive for recognition and power. 

 

Some people just see what they wanna see I guess. 

[Foxxed]

7 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

Nah mate, just a bumbling innocent idiot according to most on here. Unfortunate timing, just jibes, inappropriate jokes. No harm meant though, etc. 

 

Not quite sure how some are blind to the fact that every word out of that man's mouth is a calculated, self-serving drive for recognition and power. 

 

Some people just see what they wanna see I guess. 

It's definitely calculated. He's climbing that greasy political poll again. His approach is simple and effective.

 

Whip up fear about [X], tell voters you're the man to soothe that fears, polls say you're popular, gain more backers, move up your party ranks.

 

Replace [X] with Muslim women wearing the Burka, rather than Poles and freedom of movement, and you have his new political strategy.

 

Simple, clever, will probably work.

[lifted*fox]

12 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Simple, clever, will probably work.

 

Probably dude. Far too many people out there who are either a) lovely people who are a bit naive and can't see it for what it is OR b) harbor the same views, don't want to admit it's a bit racist / xenophobic and therefore play it off as him being a bit silly / rude OR c) are outright racist and don't give a **** and they're happy to go along with it. 

[Guest MattP]

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Fair comment. Yet you lumped all Muslims together by referring to "Muslim grooming gangs" despite the Pakistani/Afghan Muslim offenders coming from a single part of the world, despite Muslims from other parts of the world having as little involvement as Chinese or Japanese, and despite some non-Muslims from that same part of the world (Hindus from India) indulging in similar depravity in their home country, though apparently not here.....

 

On a lighter note, I just went for a session at the outdoor gym on Victoria Park. A young woman in a niqab (the letterbox garment Boris referred to - a burka has a sort of grille of airholes, if I'm understanding the terminology correctly) came along and started exercising on a machine next to me. She was with a middle-aged woman and a little girl, her mother and daughter, I presume. Unusual sight for starters but also the middle-aged woman and the little girl were in quite Western clobber, only the young mother was in a niqab. Had she chosen to wear it because she was the only one likely to attract a male gaze (she looked quite attractive, insofar as I could tell) or had she been forced into a niqab while the others hadn't? I thought of asking, but could imagine that ending badly. As I was wearing the black-and-white St-Pauli skull-and-crossbones T-shirt that my German mate gave me, she might have thought that I was from Islamic State. 

Well I lumped them all together as they were from the same religion, I may be wrong to do that but whilst this is still going I don't care. Anything that brings attention to the rape of young children is fine. I've not read the Hindu stuff can you enlighted me?

[Guest MattP]

5 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

It's a shame this story wasn't on the national news, as it would have proven how daft the outrage over Johnson's remarks is:

 

Hope these cvnts are all sentenced to life btw.

I'd happily hang the bastards.

[Buce]

8 hours ago, MattP said:

Well I lumped them all together as they were from the same religion, I may be wrong to do that but whilst this is still going I don't care. Anything that brings attention to the rape of young children is fine. I've not read the Hindu stuff can you enlighted me?

 

There has been a number of high-profile cases in India recently involving gangs of Hindu men kidnapping and raping children; in fact, the law has been changed because of it - the rape of a child below the age of 12 now attracts the death penalty. In one particularly nasty incident, a girl of eight was taken and abused for several days and then brutally murdered. The victim was a Muslim from a community of nomadic herders, the perpetrators were high-caste Hindus. I'm sure you could find it - and others - with a quick Google if you were interested.

 

Edit:

 

Here is an article from just last month, which covers a rape and makes reference to others. Granted, it doesn't explicitly say that Hindus were responsible in each case, but in the case I referenced, the attack took place in a Hindu temple:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/world/asia/rape-chennai-india.html

 

Here's an interesting article about sexual violence in India, from today's Guardian:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/09/sexual-violence-india-rape-pornography

Edited 9 August 2018 by Buce

[Alf Bentley]

7 hours ago, MattP said:

Well I lumped them all together as they were from the same religion, I may be wrong to do that but whilst this is still going I don't care. Anything that brings attention to the rape of young children is fine. I've not read the Hindu stuff can you enlighted me?

 

They were from the same religion and from the same part of the world (Pakistani, occasionally Afghan descent). You chose to lump them together by religion for some reason. 

 

Child sexual abuse by non-Muslims from that same part of the world seems to be a major problem - in India, though not people of Indian descent in the UK, to my knowledge.

 

Muslims whose families originate from other parts of the world have not been noticeably involved in UK grooming gangs (Nigerians, Malaysians, Saudis, Turks, North Africans, Iranians or Bangladeshis, as far as I'm aware).

 

UK media has covered child sexual abuse in India over recent months, so I'm surprised you've not noticed it. To be clear, I'm not trying to make a specific link between such abuse and Hinduism - though you are with Islam.

The link that I'm suggesting (as an alternative or in addition to any influence of the more backward interpretations of Islam) is to the culture of a particular part of the world: not the majority, of course, but an unacceptably large minority, it seems.

 

Here is the enlightenment requested: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-42193533 ("In India, a child is sexually abused every 15 minutes, according to the latest government figures")

https://countercurrents.org/2018/02/11/child-sexual-abuse-india-miles-go/

"India’s attitude towards sexual abuse and child sexual abuse needs an overhaul. A survey participated in by more than 45,000 children in the 12- 18 age group, across 26 states in the country, revealed that one in every two children is a victim of child sexual abuse. Conducted by World Vision India with a sample of 45,844 respondents, the survey also revealed that one in every five do not feel safe because of the fear of being sexually abused. It also found that one in four families do not come forward to report child abuse.....State wise cases under POSCO Act: Uttar Pradesh led the highest number of child abuse cases (3,078) followed by Madhya Pradesh (1,687 cases), Tamil Nadu (1,544 cases)....".

 

According to Wikipedia, in the 3 Indian states mentioned above as the worst for child sexual abuse, Hindus make up 80%, 90% and 87% of the population, so unless the Muslim minority are committing a disproportionately vast amount of abuse, Hindus are heavily involved.

 

This raises other questions: e.g. why do blokes of Pakistani (and Afghan) Muslim heritage seem to be involved in UK grooming gangs, but not blokes of Indian heritage - when the problem is widespread in India? Is it because of differences in the social or educational background of Pakistani v. Indian immigrants (Indian immigrant families are better off and better educated on average)? Is it because of a Pakistani ghetto culture in certain UK cities? Is it because of inherited gender culture in that community - or because of the teaching of backward interpretations of Islam by some preachers? Why are such people not being reported, identified and rooted out earlier?

 

It's by answering such questions that we might eliminate the problem in the UK - and by answering similar questions that the Indian authorities might eliminate their problem.

 

Using your abhorrence of child abuse to say you don't care whether you are accusing the right group is not the way forward - any more than it would be sensible just to blame Catholics for paedophile priests or modern white culture for Savile or abusive football coaches.

 

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

They're all Muslims but they're all from Asia too, his can you have a problem with "Asian grooming gangs" but not "Muslim grooming gangs"?

[Nick]

Having worked in the field of child protection, specifically around the outcomes of serious case reviews and the lessons learnt from them to be implemented into practice, it always amazes me that the media and some individuals are outraged at offences committed by non-whites but seem not nearly to make such a fuss about the everyday, ongoing, generic fact that 90% of sexual offences committed against children in the UK are perpetrated by white males. 

[Buce]

14 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Having worked in the field of child protection, specifically around the outcomes of serious case reviews and the lessons learnt from them to be implemented into practice, it always amazes me that the media and some individuals are outraged at offences committed by non-whites but seem not nearly to make such a fuss about the everyday, ongoing, generic fact that 90% of sexual offences committed against children in the UK are perpetrated by white males. 

 

That's because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[Nick]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

That's because it doesn't fit the narrative.

It’s a complex issue. There’s no doubt that in terms of street grooming gangs there’s disproportionate figures in relation to certain ethnicities but ‘street grooming gangs’ of course by no means covers the range of sexually related offending. There’s also issues around the recording of both criminal activity in relation to rape and sexual offences against children often being classed and recorded as different crimes, not to mention the actual occurrence of recording and if recording does occur the motivation for doing so and the accuracy of ethnicities noted in relation to both recorded and reported crime.

 

People will use the stats they present as facts that suit their arguments all day long and although there are genres of sexual offending against children that are able to be presented as a crime wave associated with ethnicity or religion, the harsh facts remain that the majority of paedophiles are white men sat behind computers.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

Having worked in the field of child protection, specifically around the outcomes of serious case reviews and the lessons learnt from them to be implemented into practice, it always amazes me that the media and some individuals are outraged at offences committed by non-whites but seem not nearly to make such a fuss about the everyday, ongoing, generic fact that 90% of sexual offences committed against children in the UK are perpetrated by white males. 

Probably because there was never any attempt by people who represent us to hide and cover this up, I'm sure you remember the outrage about Jimmy Savile which was similar and that was an organisation rather than elected people we entrust to look after us.

The Labour party in 2018 even has MP that liked and retweeted a opinion that white girls who have been raped should "shut up for the sake of diversity" - that's where we are with this, that's why people are angry.
 

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

They were from the same religion and from the same part of the world (Pakistani, occasionally Afghan descent). You chose to lump them together by religion for some reason. 

 

Child sexual abuse by non-Muslims from that same part of the world seems to be a major problem - in India, though not people of Indian descent in the UK, to my knowledge.

 

Muslims whose families originate from other parts of the world have not been noticeably involved in UK grooming gangs (Nigerians, Malaysians, Saudis, Turks, North Africans, Iranians or Bangladeshis, as far as I'm aware).

 

UK media has covered child sexual abuse in India over recent months, so I'm surprised you've not noticed it. To be clear, I'm not trying to make a specific link between such abuse and Hinduism - though you are with Islam.

The link that I'm suggesting (as an alternative or in addition to any influence of the more backward interpretations of Islam) is to the culture of a particular part of the world: not the majority, of course, but an unacceptably large minority, it seems.

 

Here is the enlightenment requested: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-42193533 ("In India, a child is sexually abused every 15 minutes, according to the latest government figures")

https://countercurrents.org/2018/02/11/child-sexual-abuse-india-miles-go/

"India’s attitude towards sexual abuse and child sexual abuse needs an overhaul. A survey participated in by more than 45,000 children in the 12- 18 age group, across 26 states in the country, revealed that one in every two children is a victim of child sexual abuse. Conducted by World Vision India with a sample of 45,844 respondents, the survey also revealed that one in every five do not feel safe because of the fear of being sexually abused. It also found that one in four families do not come forward to report child abuse.....State wise cases under POSCO Act: Uttar Pradesh led the highest number of child abuse cases (3,078) followed by Madhya Pradesh (1,687 cases), Tamil Nadu (1,544 cases)....".

 

According to Wikipedia, in the 3 Indian states mentioned above as the worst for child sexual abuse, Hindus make up 80%, 90% and 87% of the population, so unless the Muslim minority are committing a disproportionately vast amount of abuse, Hindus are heavily involved.

 

This raises other questions: e.g. why do blokes of Pakistani (and Afghan) Muslim heritage seem to be involved in UK grooming gangs, but not blokes of Indian heritage - when the problem is widespread in India? Is it because of differences in the social or educational background of Pakistani v. Indian immigrants (Indian immigrant families are better off and better educated on average)? Is it because of a Pakistani ghetto culture in certain UK cities? Is it because of inherited gender culture in that community - or because of the teaching of backward interpretations of Islam by some preachers? Why are such people not being reported, identified and rooted out earlier?

 

It's by answering such questions that we might eliminate the problem in the UK - and by answering similar questions that the Indian authorities might eliminate their problem.

 

Using your abhorrence of child abuse to say you don't care whether you are accusing the right group is not the way forward - any more than it would be sensible just to blame Catholics for paedophile priests or modern white culture for Savile or abusive football coaches.

Moving the goalposts here a bit aren't we to try and make a point?

We were on the topic of grooming gangs, if we want to talk about the wider issue of child abuse then fine, I have no idea what the point of a comparison with general paedophilia is as we are talking about a specific aspect of it, I asked you for a example or enlightenment on grooming gangs and none of that is connected to it, it's general peadophilia and we all know India has a big problem with that alongside all other sorts of sexual abuse.

 

Incomparable to Catholics again, we are talking here about people of a certain religion targetting those of a different one because they feel they can for whatever reason (unless someone wants to seriously believe it's a co-incedence all the victims are white and all the perpetrators are Muslim), if Catholic priests were targetting young Muslim boys then we would have a comparison but that hasn't happened and that's why it is so different. I have no idea why this is brought up everytime it's debated - it's as daft as bringing up Jonathan King.

 

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

People will use the stats they present as facts that suit their arguments all day long and although there are genres of sexual offending against children that are able to be presented as a crime wave associated with ethnicity or religion, the harsh facts remain that the majority of paedophiles are white men sat behind computers.

Well of course that's going to be true given the fact 85% of the country is white.

When it comes to grooming gangs though you and I both know that isn't the case. It's almost an exclusively Pakistani/Bangladeshi Muslim problem in this country.

[Alf Bentley]

26 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Moving the goalposts here a bit aren't we to try and make a point?

We were on the topic of grooming gangs, if we want to talk about the wider issue of child abuse then fine, I have no idea what the point of a comparison with general paedophilia is as we are talking about a specific aspect of it, I asked you for a example or enlightenment on grooming gangs and none of that is connected to it, it's general peadophilia and we all know India has a big problem with that alongside all other sorts of sexual abuse.

 

Incomparable to Catholics again, we are talking here about people of a certain religion targetting those of a different one because they feel they can for whatever reason (unless someone wants to seriously believe it's a co-incedence all the victims are white and all the perpetrators are Muslim), if Catholic priests were targetting young Muslim boys then we would have a comparison but that hasn't happened and that's why it is so different. I have no idea why this is brought up everytime it's debated - it's as daft as bringing up Jonathan King.

 

 

That's a complete distortion of the debate - as a quick read of the last couple of pages will confirm.

 

Lots of posters were engaged in a debate about Boris' comments and the use of the burka. Max Wall sympathised with the plight of Muslims having their religion associated with crime.

In response, you posted this....

 

23 hours ago, MattP said:

If someone has blown up innocent people shouting Allah Akbar and left a confession video telling us that he has done it because of what the Koran tells him, it's going to be pretty hard to report the case without letting the public know he's a Muslim.

If anything I'd suggest the press is often kind, see the Muslim grooming gangs all over the country described in the Mainstream as "Asian" rather than making reference to the religion.

 

So, we were NOT on the topic of grooming gangs. We were on the topic of Boris/burka/Muslims in UK.

 

YOU introduced the topics of "Muslims" blowing up innocent people and of "Muslim grooming gangs". So, if I "moved the goalposts" by extending your topic of grooming gangs to wider child sexual abuse, you had already moved them a lot further.

 

I then made the distinction between "Muslim" terrorists and "Islamist/Islamic extremist" terrorists, and made my point that the grooming gangs were mainly of Pakistani (and Afghan) origin as well as being Muslims, that Muslims from other parts of the world weren't known for being in UK grooming gangs - and that non-Muslims (e.g. Hindus) from the same region were involved in child abuse in their homeland, though apparently not here....raising all sorts of questions.

 

YOU (not "we") were on the topic of "Muslim grooming gangs" and "Muslim" terrorism. YOU now want to limit the debate to that. People can make up their own minds why you should want to do that, but I refuse to abide by your agenda.

 

Again, YOU (not "we") were "talking here about people of a certain religion targeting those of a different one". Certainly, it seems relevant that these gangs target white girls, though their race, class and vulnerability (often girls from children's homes) seem more relevant than their religion. But it's perfectly valid to want to extend this to the wider problem of child abuse and why it happens. Kids abused by individual white (or non-white) blokes (or women) matter too, as do kids abused by priests or kids abused in India. Also, while there certainly are distinctive features of abuse by (mainly) Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs, there might also be features in common with other forms of child abuse (culture in some parts of the Indian subcontinent, power of perpetrator and vulnerability of victim, contemptuous attitudes toward children/women, social alienation etc.).

 

Sorry, but you don't get to divert a debate onto not one, but two topics of your choosing, both hostile to Muslims, and then get away with accusing others of moving the goalposts.

You may want to limit debate to your agenda, but others don't have to agree. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

YOU introduced the topics of "Muslims" blowing up innocent people and of "Muslim grooming gangs". So, if I "moved the goalposts" by extending your topic of grooming gangs to wider child sexual abuse, you had already moved them a lot further.

 

I then made the distinction between "Muslim" terrorists and "Islamist/Islamic extremist" terrorists, and made my point that the grooming gangs were mainly of Pakistani (and Afghan) origin as well as being Muslims, that Muslims from other parts of the world weren't known for being in UK grooming gangs - and that non-Muslims (e.g. Hindus) from the same region were involved in child abuse in their homeland, though apparently not here....raising all sorts of questions.

 

YOU (not "we") were on the topic of "Muslim grooming gangs" and "Muslim" terrorism. YOU now want to limit the debate to that. People can make up their own minds why you should want to do that, but I refuse to abide by your agenda.

 

Again, YOU (not "we") were "talking here about people of a certain religion targeting those of a different one". Certainly, it seems relevant that these gangs target white girls, though their race, class and vulnerability (often girls from children's homes) seem more relevant than their religion. But it's perfectly valid to want to extend this to the wider problem of child abuse and why it happens. Kids abused by individual white (or non-white) blokes (or women) matter too, as do kids abused by priests or kids abused in India. Also, while there certainly are distinctive features of abuse by (mainly) Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs, there might also be features in common with other forms of child abuse (culture in some parts of the Indian subcontinent, power of perpetrator and vulnerability of victim, contemptuous attitudes toward children/women, social alienation etc.).

 

Sorry, but you don't get to divert a debate onto not one, but two topics of your choosing, both hostile to Muslims, and then get away with accusing others of moving the goalposts.

You may want to limit debate to your agenda, but others don't have to agree.

Which was a fair response to the point about association of using the word Muslim when describing incidents.

 

I don't really see the point in making any comparison to what is happening in India, it's absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Rotherham and Telford - the situations are so different and the targetting and response of what happened there isn't comparable, we are talking about crimes here that were allowed to continue because the authorities were concerned about racism, that's exactly why the ethnicity is important in the case.

 

People love to quote statistics about "white men" still being the biggets abusers or shouting about #metoo, some can't get enough of it, but they don't seem so keen to say that 84 per cent of men convicted of being members of grooming gangs from 2005 to 2017 are Pakistani Muslims despite Muslims representing about only seven per cent of the UK population. In the Newcastle case one of the rapists openly stated that ‘All white women are only good for one thing, for men like me to f–k and use as trash, that is all women like you are worth.’

 

That's again why mentioning the religion is important, no point pretending this isn't an issue with it.

 

On a wider point (yes I'm shifting the goalposts), if this is hostile to Muslims (it shouldn't be) the so be it, that's the way it is, I prefer it to be discussed and talked about rather than it continue (which is still happening), the last ten years has seen Islam immune from critique mainly by labelling everything Islamophobic and shutting it down, those days are at an end.

 

Probably best I come out of the debate anyway, way to emotional for a Thursday afternoon.

[Alf Bentley]

23 minutes ago, MattP said:

Which was a fair response to the point about association of using the word Muslim when describing incidents.

 

I don't really see the point in making any comparison to what is happening in India, it's absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Rotherham and Telford - the situations are so different and the targetting and response of what happened there isn't comparable, we are talking about crimes here that were allowed to continue because the authorities were concerned about racism, that's exactly why the ethnicity is important in the case.

 

People love to quote statistics about "white men" still being the biggets abusers or shouting about #metoo, some can't get enough of it, but they don't seem so keen to say that 84 per cent of men convicted of being members of grooming gangs from 2005 to 2017 are Pakistani Muslims despite Muslims representing about only seven per cent of the UK population. In the Newcastle case one of the rapists openly stated that ‘All white women are only good for one thing, for men like me to f–k and use as trash, that is all women like you are worth.’

 

That's again why mentioning the religion is important, no point pretending this isn't an issue with it.

 

On a wider point (yes I'm shifting the goalposts), if this is hostile to Muslims (it shouldn't be) the so be it, that's the way it is, I prefer it to be discussed and talked about rather than it continue (which is still happening), the last ten years has seen Islam immune from critique mainly by labelling everything Islamophobic and shutting it down, those days are at an end.

 

Probably best I come out of the debate anyway, way to emotional for a Thursday afternoon.

 

I had no problem with you raising the points that you did about grooming gangs and terrorism, even if they were an all-too-predictable diversion from the topic being debated (burkas etc.).

Indeed, I replied to your points - precisely because I agree that such issues should be discussed, not shut down. I agreed that Islamist terrorism had to be associated with Islam, but drew the distinction between "Muslim" and "Islamist" as it is clearly a particular minority interpretation of Islam that causes such barbarity. Likewise, I'd refer to "IRA terrorism", not "Irish terrorism" as I know that most Irish people didn't support IRA bombing. I accepted that particular interpretations of Islam probably were a factor in grooming gang abuse, but suggested that other factors, particularly geographical origin and associated culture, were also at play.

 

I didn't have a problem with you raising your agenda. This is an open forum and people shift the agenda all the time. I only objected to you accusing me of moving the goalposts when I responded to your points with a wider perspective than the narrow focus on "Muslim grooming gangs" that you wanted to pursue. In particular, I was curious as to why Muslims from other parts of the world did not form such gangs, yet non-Muslims from the Indian subcontinent engaged in abuse back home (and at least some of the abuse in India has been gang abuse).

 

I absolutely accept that there is a particular problem with blokes from a (mainly) Pakistani Muslim background being involved in grooming gangs targeting white girls - just as white men and others are involved in abuse of other kinds. You choose to repeatedly identify these gangs as "Muslim grooming gangs" and not "British Pakistani grooming gangs" or whatever. Why is that, I wonder? Have you done extensive research showing that religious belief is the sole cause of this form of abuse? If so, how do you explain the apparent non-involvement of Muslims whose families originate from other parts of the world? Or the abuse committed by non-Muslims elsewhere on the Indian subcontinent?

 

Enough from me, too. Time to focus on other stuff, not least Deadline Day....

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

Just to add, there is a massive difference between 'grooming', as per the apparent large amount of Muslim men grooming in this country, Vs the Hindu rapes India, vs white males in UK being largest child sex predators.

 

I don't think the 3 are related in any way, especially the Indian fookers who have been doing this for centuries.

[urban.spaceman]

17 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

lmao, one instance of a robber wearing a burka as a disguise in a robbery (a white man, wearing it, BTW) and you're using that as a stick to beat it with? 

 

you realise that A WHITE MAN was wearing it, right? not a Muslim woman? 

 

****ing hell lol. 

 

I guess if he'd have chosen a more traditional robbery outfit like a clown mask or such you'd be calling for those to be banned? 

 

Thanks for that little chuckle you've blessed us all with this evening. 

Wow, you missed my point by about a thousand miles, well done!

 

I wasn't suggesting that women in burqas were somehow causing a crime spree.

 

I clearly noted the ironic timing of the outrage at his bank robber comments and the details of that case, which had not been covered nationally.

 

I don't know why you're bringing race into it when I never mentioned it in the first place.

 

There's no need to misrepresent my comments and react to a point I didn't make.

 

But whatevs, nevermind. 

 

Congrats, etc.

 

 

Edited 9 August 2018 by urban.spaceman

[leicsmac]

Anyone else thinking that the "secret talks" Boris had with one Steve Bannon recently had something to do with this?

 

Cause a furore, refuse to apologise, lose the whip, launch a leadership challenge - all with populist support because he's saying "the right things" about a hot-button topic. Something similar planned by Bannon worked for Trump like a dream, after all.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Anyone else thinking that the "secret talks" Boris had with one Steve Bannon recently had something to do with this?

 

Cause a furore, refuse to apologise, lose the whip, launch a leadership challenge - all with populist support because he's saying "the right things" about a hot-button topic. Something similar planned by Bannon worked for Trump like a dream, after all.

I don't see how you can launch a leadership bid if you lose the whip.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't see how you can launch a leadership bid if you lose the whip.

Fair enough, cause enough problems and becoming recognised enough in order to challenge May without losing it, then.

 

The general execution of the idea is the same.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Clearly been a slow news week, given how the Boris article debate has sustained prominence. 

 

And for me, the bigger issue here is how the reporting has fanned more flames than the original article would ever have done. 

 

We’ve ended up having an all too public debate that Johnson ultimately suggested was a non-starter; and as usual, the debate is picked up by others and stretches out to a myriad of associates and not so associated topics (case in point on these last few pages).

 

Now, I can understand people suggesting the language and comparison used by Johnson is at best unfortunate or at worst a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory and rude.

 

However, when trying to get a point across in writing, you have to consider your target audience and use language accordingly - and often to gain credence that language does have to go close to the edge - and I would suggest the language used is most likely to appeal to people who feel the Burqa should be banned.

 

I still maintain - reading the article itself, there is not that much to throw arms up in the air about and that other actors rather than Johnson have caused this mess.

Edited 9 August 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond