Grooming, BBC, etc

[Roy Twing]

It's clear there's going to be no help from the apologist (if they don't like this adjective then please suggest an acceptable alternative) side of the one-sided debate.
Here's an offering from a generally respected newspaper, - I think it introduces the basics of the obvious connections between the religion and the various 'incompatibilities' - let's see if anyone wants to discuss it, or just indulge in more whataboutery/ad hominem/strawmanning etc:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... laims.html

This is just an opening offering, there is an almost never-ending supply of evidence to draw from - I'd just like some help as to what would make them actually take part just for once.

I have read that Roy
Do you realise the original source is the Daily Mail?
There is as much to contradict your argument in there as there is to support it.
No doubt there are rogue Imams and they are to be deplored.
Just as there are some who encourage terrorism.
But the article also makes the point that what they say is not in accordance with the religion. The fact that they are Imams just gives them more opportunity to preach their personal prejudice.
By the same token, it is not the doctrine of the Catholic church that its clergy should abuse children. Yet it occurs and is at the very least, condoned. Rather than those guilty being confronted, they are moved on to another unsuspecting community.
Should we there fore condemn Catholics?
What is causing this recent grief is your constant complaint that somehow this is hushed up. When the experience of the rest of us is that it isn't. And the CPS revelation suggests that indeed it might be disproportionately publicised as opposed to the bulk of other cases.
And throughout this, I and others have been struck by , throughout your many, many posts, there is no expression of sympathy for the victims. Just as desire to use their experience to make points about your view on multiculturalism ( which by the way has very little if anything to do with the EU or Labour or any other of the bogeymen you like to invoke).

Thank you at least for the courtesy of a response.
I unfortunately don't have time to go into as much detail as I'd like, so a quick few points.
This was just one article. Where would you like to go next?
The catholic religion IS linked with the paedophilia scandal - that link is well publicised.
There is no such publicity regarding muslims and grooming gangs.
Finally, - I take extreme exception to you and your ilk in pretending to try and take the moral superiority stance on this - if you had indeed read my posts you would have seen umpteen references to my wish that if only the MO of these muslim gangs were known years ago it may have spared a few victims - where is your sympathy?

[Vespa]

There are times when numbers mean fuck all without analysis, and this is one of them. If you have one miliion white Christians and a half a million Mulsims, and 20% of white Christians are in prison because of grooming and 40% of the Muslims are, you of course have a problem, but on that ratio, and with the number of Muslims rising, the problem exacerbates.

The problem stems from not understanding the basic facts of these grooming gangs. Which are:

1. most of them come from a Pakistani background and worked in the nighttime economy.
2. most of their victims were vulnerable women and girls under the care of social services
3. state entities (police, social services, local government) exhibited one of the fundamental tenants of rape culture by ignoring any claims these girls were being sexually trafficked because of their backgrounds. Essentially believing they were 'dirty slags'

If you compare that to the abuse that happened in the Church it's the same pattern: group, victim pool & denial or coverup by institutions. Harvey Weinstein: group, victim pool & cover-up. I don't think the fact priests are Christain or Weinstein is Jewish provides any credible space that the Christian or Jewish faiths somehow promote rape. In the same way, I don't believe if takeaway owners were raping young girls because God told them it was okay.

In 2007 the National Centre of Social Research conducted a poll that showed 53% of people had no religion, the UK is essentially atheist. The proportion of people claiming religion in prison is way higher than this. So you can either believe religion makes you more likely to commit a serious crime, or people just tick a box.

My last point would be that the vast majority of sexual abuse happens within the family. If you are a parent you are an order of magnitude higher risk than I am of sexually abusing a child. If I promoted the notion that most child rapists are parents, therefore, parents were somehow compelled to rape kids merely because they are parents people would roll their eyes. Yet that's the central thesis to this thread.

[Royal24s]

Isn't it time to stop addressing these problems by drawing graphs and be proactive

[Roy Twing]

It is unfortunately, impossible to progress on this topic.
I can understand why the establishment refuse to make the connection, but I am baffled why assumedly ordinary people such as those on here, will not even consider it.

[Roy Twing]

There are times when numbers mean fuck all without analysis, and this is one of them. If you have one miliion white Christians and a half a million Mulsims, and 20% of white Christians are in prison because of grooming and 40% of the Muslims are, you of course have a problem, but on that ratio, and with the number of Muslims rising, the problem exacerbates.

The problem stems from not understanding the basic facts of these grooming gangs. Which are:

1. most of them come from a Pakistani background and worked in the nighttime economy.
2. most of their victims were vulnerable women and girls under the care of social services
3. state entities (police, social services, local government) exhibited one of the fundamental tenants of rape culture by ignoring any claims these girls were being sexually trafficked because of their backgrounds. Essentially believing they were 'dirty slags'

If you compare that to the abuse that happened in the Church it's the same pattern: group, victim pool & denial or coverup by institutions. Harvey Weinstein: group, victim pool & cover-up. I don't think the fact priests are Christain or Weinstein is Jewish provides any credible space that the Christian or Jewish faiths somehow promote rape. In the same way, I don't believe if takeaway owners were raping young girls because God told them it was okay.

In 2007 the National Centre of Social Research conducted a poll that showed 53% of people had no religion, the UK is essentially atheist. The proportion of people claiming religion in prison is way higher than this. So you can either believe religion makes you more likely to commit a serious crime, or people just tick a box.

My last point would be that the vast majority of sexual abuse happens within the family. If you are a parent you are an order of magnitude higher risk than I am of sexually abusing a child. If I promoted the notion that most child rapists are parents, therefore, parents were somehow compelled to rape kids merely because they are parents people would roll their eyes. Yet that's the central thesis to this thread.

1. An even higher proportion are from a muslim background - why not mention that?
2. There have always been vulnerable girls in care or otherwise, - I pretty damn certain that tens of thousands of them weren't taken advantage of a few decades ago by those in the 'night time economies', - at least least nowhere near the same scale, - unless there was the monumental cover up to end all cover ups.
3. It's also widely acknowledged now that they also ignored the girls because of 'community relations'.



The general point is that there is clearly a strong connection between muslims and various 'incompatibilities', of which 'grooming gangs' is one, - if only this link were acknowledged, perhaps we could go on and discuss whether the religion itself is the reason, or the background culture(s) of the people who embrace said religion, or of course any other possible theories as to the reason for the connection, - but we can't get that far can we?

A general question comes to mind as I posted the above - do those who refuse to acknowledge the 'muslim:grooming' connection also refuse to accept a link between islam and terrorism?

[Roy Twing]

For hillman's benefit regarding a connection between the religion and the crime in question here's one to mull over:

"As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white c***” as they beat me.

They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress “modestly”, that they believed I deserved to be “punished”. They said I had to “obey” or be beaten."

[Hillman avenger]

Give it up Roy
Please
You are NOT providing evidence that their religion makes them do such things, merely that they use it as justification as they do it.

Even if you ever did succeed in your point, the next question: SO WHAT?

[Roy Twing]

I think I'm justified in continuing to call you by your nickname ad infinitum after your display here horatio.
Because you refuse to 'see no evidence' it says more about you than anything else.

The 'so what' is also something I've mentioned time and again, - in fact I just reiterated it a post or two ago if you ever bothered to look.

[kancutlawns]

Give it up Roy
Please
You are NOT providing evidence that their religion makes them do such things, merely that they use it as justification as they do it.

Even if you ever did succeed in your point, the next question: SO WHAT?

There is NO evidence. He’s been banging on about it for about eight years now, it’s his only motivation for posting on the forum.

[Royal24s]

I think what's being suggested is that some have used their religion/ ethnic origins to get away with stuff and that well meaning people might have fallen for it.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that their religion made them do it, any more than Christianity made priests do it.
Isn't it very basic common sense to be on the look out for individuals using the group they belong to as a shield for criminal acts ?

[kancutlawns]

I think what's being suggested is that some have used their religion/ ethnic origins to get away with stuff and that well meaning people might have fallen for it.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that their religion made them do it, any more than Christianity made priests do it.
Isn't it very basic common sense to be on the look out for individuals using the group they belong to as a shield for criminal acts ?

Religion / ethnic origins? Which one is it? Roy categorically believes it’s the former. Roy is saying that it’s the religion that motivates the northern predators in this country to do what they have been doing.

What’s basic commonsense got to do with it? Is it no decency, morals and acting with the law? I think also, the welter of criticism Roy has been receiving is that he seems to display absolutely zero compassion or outrage and seems to use the predatory criminality and the (perceived) religious affiliation of those involved to score political points. Does this not worry you in the slightest?

There are new instances of Catholic priests being identified and indicted for sexual abuse of those in whose possession they were trusted yet, I’m struggling to see any new threads about them or day after day of tedious, regurgitated titillation about ad hominem, proportionality, ‘mindsets’, elephants in the room and patronising bullshit with feigned victimisation about continuing to post in this way as if he’s performing some altruistic duty to society. If I’m wrong, be sure to point me in the direction of those threads or posts.

[Royal24s]

I don't think that's inconsistent with what I said.
I can remember an Irish sergeant simply letting a Priest go after he'd been breathalised, and I can remember a Chief Superintendent telling officers not to arrest West Indian car thieves or burglars in case it caused a riot .
In all such cases it's a very big mistake to make exceptions according to personal allegiances or political expediency. Both the above events, which I can tell you are within my personal experience and so definitely did happen , led - quite rightly -to the shit hitting the fan, and such picking and choosing of how to deal with things always makes things worse rather than better.
Everyone has to obey the law , or the law is worth nothing.

[kancutlawns]

I’m not sure how your experience relates to what I posted.

[Royal24s]

I’m not sure how your experience relates to what I posted.

Simply examples of how things go wrong when we look at the identity or group of individuals when considering what action to take. It shouldn't be a factor , favourable or unfavourable.

[Hillman avenger]

There are times when numbers mean fuck all without analysis, and this is one of them. If you have one miliion white Christians and a half a million Mulsims, and 20% of white Christians are in prison because of grooming and 40% of the Muslims are, you of course have a problem, but on that ratio, and with the number of Muslims rising, the problem exacerbates.

The problem stems from not understanding the basic facts of these grooming gangs. Which are:

1. most of them come from a Pakistani background and worked in the nighttime economy.
2. most of their victims were vulnerable women and girls under the care of social services
3. state entities (police, social services, local government) exhibited one of the fundamental tenants of rape culture by ignoring any claims these girls were being sexually trafficked because of their backgrounds. Essentially believing they were 'dirty slags'

If you compare that to the abuse that happened in the Church it's the same pattern: group, victim pool & denial or coverup by institutions. Harvey Weinstein: group, victim pool & cover-up. I don't think the fact priests are Christain or Weinstein is Jewish provides any credible space that the Christian or Jewish faiths somehow promote rape. In the same way, I don't believe if takeaway owners were raping young girls because God told them it was okay.

In 2007 the National Centre of Social Research conducted a poll that showed 53% of people had no religion, the UK is essentially atheist. The proportion of people claiming religion in prison is way higher than this. So you can either believe religion makes you more likely to commit a serious crime, or people just tick a box.

My last point would be that the vast majority of sexual abuse happens within the family. If you are a parent you are an order of magnitude higher risk than I am of sexually abusing a child. If I promoted the notion that most child rapists are parents, therefore, parents were somehow compelled to rape kids merely because they are parents people would roll their eyes. Yet that's the central thesis to this thread.

I can recall making very much the same points years ago.
See how far we have got