Nine men have been convicted of being part of a child sexual exploitation ring in Greater Manchester.
The men, from Rochdale and Oldham, "groomed" girls, one as young as 13.
Liverpool Crown Court heard the men plied their victims with drink and drugs so they could "pass them around" and use them for sex.
The case, involving Asian defendants and white victims, sparked protests by far-right groups but police insist the grooming was not "racially motivated"
One teenager told the jury she was forced to have sex with 20 men in one night.
Another recalled being raped by two men while she was "so drunk she was vomiting over the side of the bed".
Jack Straw commenting on a similar case, it's not hard to find similar cases.
Straw, the MP for Blackburn, made his comments after the jailing of two men of Pakistani heritage, Mohammed Liaqat and Abid Saddique, for abusing girls between the ages of 12-18
whom they had plucked off the streets of Derby.
Leicester Crown Court had heard how the two men, both married fathers, were part of a gang of "sexual predators" who cruised the streets, approaching white women as young as 12, who they then plied with drink and drugs before grooming them for sex.
Straw told the BBC: "These young men... act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically.
"So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care... who they think are easy meat."
Now, clearly large portions of the Muslim community are aghast at these actions, and clearly large portions of said communities assist in the apprehension of the scumbags who do these things. That isn't what I am asking.
I am asking, can anyone come in here and give me a logical reason as to why these crimes would not be called "racially motivated" by the authorities, when it is obvious that the victims are picked most definitely because of their race. I really want someone to do a good job of it, because it fills me with rage. Can anyone have a stab at why and enlighten me?
I think this is one of the few times I agree with Jack Straw....
Can I ask for politeness and good manners and minimal ranting? Clearly this type of story annoys people, but I don't want some of our more liberal mods locking the thread for no apparent reason because they don't want people to read stories from reputable news organisations because they are reporting facts they dont like to be seen, and they aren't attacking the Conservatives.
Honestly, proving racial motivations when crimes are committed is kind of difficult.
More so when you get a case like this, where the crimes are being committed against the "majority" by the minority.
The area where these crimes committed might have very well been predominantly white in population, so naturally you have a pretty high chance that the victims are going to be white. You also have a strange dynamic at play where it might be that the lower class of that area (which is predominantly what predators like these men were would target) is consisted of a majority of white individuals while the minorities make up a portion of the middle/upper class of the area.
Basically: There's too many variables to cry racial motivation without digging into a lot of extraneous information.
mattyrm wrote: I am asking, can anyone come in here and give me a logical reason as to why these crimes would not be called "racially motivated" by the authorities, when it is obvious that the victims are picked most definitely because of their race. I really want someone to do a good job of it, because it fills me with rage. Can anyone have a stab at why and enlighten me?
Kanluwen wrote:Honestly, proving racial motivations when crimes are committed is kind of difficult.
You really think so? In a case like this?
I would fancy my chances personally, and I'm not an ace attorney.
Which begs another question, did they even try? Did the prosecution attempt to have this classified as a racially motivated crime? And if not, why not?
I think maybe they are contextualizing the racially motivated part as a hate crime. Which I guess if you target a specific racial group that's clearly "racially motivated" but not hate. Honestly I don't get why they would go this route since taking racially motivated is a slam dunk it seems and carries a harsher penalty.
Rape is probably one of the few crimes i'd consider supporting bringing back the death penalty for...
Evil, insidious, vile crime...
It's a shame it's so hard to prove in some cases and so few victims come forward...
I don't think the exploitation of white females in this case is necessarily motivated out of racist hatred, but out of the belief that white women are more promiscuous and easier to exploit.
Kanluwen wrote:Honestly, proving racial motivations when crimes are committed is kind of difficult.
You really think so? In a case like this?
I would fancy my chances personally, and I'm not an ace attorney.
If I break into a house in a predominantly rich, Asian neighborhood--do you think it is motivated by the ethnicity of the neighborhood or the fact that they likely have really nice stuff because they live in a neighborhood with really expensive houses?
Predators usually aim for lower/middle class areas to groom minors for things like this. There's usually domestic issues, etc which they can exploit to weasel their way into getting the minors to trust them.
Which begs another question, did they even try? Did the prosecution attempt to have this classified as a racially motivated crime? And if not, why not?
Can't comment on the first part, but they might simply not have done it because they did have access to information like I suggested you'd need to classify it as a racially motivated crime.
Does the question even matter? I am assuming this is a crime in the UK yes? Prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law and punishments permitted yes?
Frazzled wrote:Does the question even matter? I am assuming this is a crime in the UK yes? Prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law and punishments permitted yes?
I'm sure we are all going to love the sentences.
I bet you half of them walk out of court through the front door.
Frazzled wrote:Does the question even matter? I am assuming this is a crime in the UK yes? Prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law and punishments permitted yes?
I'm sure we are all going to love the sentences.
I bet you half of them walk out of court through the front door.
If they do they'll have to do it running...
If people know their identity it more than likely won't be long until they get lynched...
And i wouldn't blame the police if they didn't try all that hard to stop it...
Frazzled wrote:Does the question even matter? I am assuming this is a crime in the UK yes? Prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law and punishments permitted yes?
I'm sure we are all going to love the sentences.
I bet you half of them walk out of court through the front door.
What you need is a good old fashioned village mob. Get some villagers, some pitchforks, some torches, and an old lady with a bad german accent. They'll know what to do.
purplefood wrote:My Grandma can do a bad German accent...
Well there you go. Oops for clarity when I said torches I mean like the burning stick kind, not the UK version of a maglite (although a maglite might be effective in this case).
I wonder if they even considered it. My focus was more on the whole abuse of girls thing, I guess so was that of the CPS.
Since this kind of thing does happen within certain communities (got taskforces to deal with it and everything) I wonder if in any of the other cases they've been looked at as racially motivated.
I don't suppose you've just seen the channel 4 news?
Police talking to a 'newly arrived to the Uk Pakistani man', living in a fairly large semi detached house by himself (how did he manage that one so quickly I wonder...), about grooming a young girl. He says that she contacts him and that he has never touched her. Police serve him with a child abduction notice and state that he shouldn't be doing x, y and z.
I raged a little. Send that scumbag and all his fellow grooming arsepieces back to their respective countries, and if they are from the UK lock them up indefinitely.
I'm quite annoyed that the BNP have made this their issue as a lot of people will dismiss it as pure racism.
It's skirting the border of racism and class exploitation.
There is definitely a large white underclass in the UK. Perhaps if we started pouring some money into this country by getting schools up to scratch, proper jobs in the form of industry and helpful social support systems that aren't crutches this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Sadly Labour and Tory smashed quite a lot of our infrastructure and sold us down the river for short term gains. The country is a complete mess and it's hard to see it getting better without certain parts being left to slump into complete ruin.
It's also pretty hard to justify pissing away money on foreign wars and aid when we have crippling social problems at home.
Medium of Death wrote:It's skirting the border of racism and class exploitation.
There is definitely a large white underclass in the UK. Perhaps if we started pouring some money into this country by getting schools up to scratch, proper jobs in the form of industry and helpful social support systems that aren't crutches this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Sadly Labour and Tory smashed quite a lot of our infrastructure and sold us down the river for short term gains. The country is a complete mess and it's hard to see it getting better without certain parts being left to slump into complete ruin.
It's also pretty hard to justify pissing away money on foreign wars and aid when we have crippling social problems at home.
Its like my long lost brother posting on Dakka....
Medium of Death wrote:It's skirting the border of racism and class exploitation.
There is definitely a large white underclass in the UK. Perhaps if we started pouring some money into this country by getting schools up to scratch, proper jobs in the form of industry and helpful social support systems that aren't crutches this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Sadly Labour and Tory smashed quite a lot of our infrastructure and sold us down the river for short term gains. The country is a complete mess and it's hard to see it getting better without certain parts being left to slump into complete ruin.
It's also pretty hard to justify pissing away money on foreign wars and aid when we have crippling social problems at home.
Its like my long lost brother posting on Dakka....
I am asking, can anyone come in here and give me a logical reason as to why these crimes would not be called "racially motivated" by the authorities, when it is obvious that the victims are picked most definitely because of their race. I really want someone to do a good job of it, because it fills me with rage. Can anyone have a stab at why and enlighten me?
Fear, of the elephant in the room.
If white commit crimes against the person against people of ethnic group the question of whether the crime was racially motivated is asked openly. Fair enough.
But in the opposite cases any possibility of racial motivation is hushed for fear of sparking a race backlash.
Everyone in Derby knows a girl who's been approached by a much older man at some point and been offered alcohol/drugs. Thankfully most of them are smart/well raised enough to avoid them, but not everyone is so lucky.
Genuinely sickens me. Wouldn't be surprised if there were riots in English cities if it carries on.
Instead of focusing on the ethnicity of the victims, what about the attackers? There was definitely an ethnic component to the make-up of the gang. Whether we like it or not, certain ethnicities/cultures/races (whatever your preferred term) are over-represented within reported instances of certain types of sex crime. Hell, the BBC report about this case, just this afternoon, made reference to figures showing that 25% of suspects in these cases are 'Asian', as opposed to 38% 'White' (whatever that means). This means that a grossly disproportionate number of asians are involved is 'grooming gang' crimes. I also saw a documentary on 4 which discussed the fact that black males are disproportionately involved in gang-rape, to a pretty massive degree.
It's a cultural problem, and one that needs sorting out, urgently. Multi-culturalism be damned.
Oh, and incidentally, when Americans use the word 'Asian', they are typically referring to far-Eastern peoples, and when we Brits use it, it's usually to refer to folks from the indian sub-continent and middle-East, correct? Just wanted to clear up any potential confusion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, btw, one of these scumbags was an Afghan asylum-seeker, Matty. Thought you might enjoy that. Thought you might also enjoy the fact that they're deporting his arse back to the gak-hole he came from. Hopefully he'll bump into one of yours or Mozzer's old pals and catch it up...
Albatross wrote:Instead of focusing on the ethnicity of the victims, what about the attackers? There was definitely an ethnic component to the make-up of the gang. Whether we like it or not, certain ethnicities/cultures/races (whatever your preferred term) are over-represented within reported instances of certain types of sex crime. Hell, the BBC report about this case, just this afternoon, made reference to figures showing that 25% of suspects in these cases are 'Asian', as opposed to 38% 'White' (whatever that means). This means that a grossly disproportionate number of asians are involved is 'grooming gang' crimes. I also saw a documentary on 4 which discussed the fact that black males are disproportionately involved in gang-rape, to a pretty massive degree.
Yeah the argument that "people of all cultures commit these crimes" is pretty bunk when you consider overall statistics. South Asian culture is also very misogynistic to the degree that a lot of non-Asians don't fully understand.
Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...
They offer young teenage girls alcohol/drugs then kidnap them, keep them drugged and comatose in a room where they're continually raped for days on end, then dumped in the street and picked up again a few weeks later.
Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...
Basically a gang of people who 'groom' (i.e. prepare, cajole, bribe, persuade etc.) children or young teens for sex. I thought 'grooming' was the usual anglophone term for this type of behaviour?
Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...
Basically a gang of people who 'groom' (i.e. prepare, cajole, bribe, persuade etc.) children or young teens for sex. I thought 'grooming' was the usual anglophone term for this type of behaviour?
It's not sex. Being kidnapped and passed around by groups of men as a bartering piece is not your average older-man-using-younger-girl-for-sex. At all.
@ Joey - Easy there, Daily Mail. I know you're one of those people who thinks that all such incidents are horrendously violent ordeals, that more closely resemble something from an Eli Roth film, but the truth is, it's a far more subtle, insidious, and therefore evil, crime than that. These guys trick young girls into thinking that they are consenting, that's how they work - it's just common sense. Your average foaming-at-the-mouth monster doesn't have as much shelf-life as the truly evil bastard who can get a kid to do what he wants them to simply by messing up their mind.
Seriously, forewarned is forearmed, people. The Roy Whitings and Fred Wests of this world are mercifully rare - for every one of them caught (and they always get caught), there's probably 10 that haven't been, because the whole kidnap-and-torture thing is basically just going nuts and throwing caution to the wind, which is pretty out of character for individuals who rely on secrecy and caution to do their fethed-up gak.
I've met a couple of paedophiles. They were just normal-seeming dudes, nothing remotely 'off' about them. I never would have suspected them in a million years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:You can actually groom people without braking any laws. (legally speaking, not morally)
Rape is something completely different.
Fair enough. It's not actually my area of expertise, funnily enough...
d-usa wrote:You can actually groom people without braking any laws. (legally speaking, not morally)
Rape is something completely different.
Fair enough. It's not actually my area of expertise, funnily enough...
Well, I don't want to sound like I am trying to defend them. Just realizing that they are two different actions.
Grooming can be the simple building of a relationship, like in dating, or even preparing people for societal norms. You might even argue that the whole concept behind a prom could be a part of grooming, sexualizing young women.
Rape is a quick done-and-over with very clear-cut crime.
Grooming that crosses the legal line builds trust and dependence, creates a false sense of 'normal' and then uses that to keep the victims from reporting the crimes or fleeing the situation. And this is something not restricted to the people in the article. How many boyfriends and husbands follow the same pattern? There are still people that argue that there is no such thing as rape in marriage, and that date-rape is not really rape.
Melissia wrote:What's a "grooming gang"? I get a general idea but it's nota term I'm familiar with...
Basically a gang of people who 'groom' (i.e. prepare, cajole, bribe, persuade etc.) children or young teens for sex. I thought 'grooming' was the usual anglophone term for this type of behaviour?
Grooming makes me think of cleaning oneself, personally.
d-usa wrote:Grooming that crosses the legal line builds trust and dependence, creates a false sense of 'normal' and then uses that to keep the victims from reporting the crimes or fleeing the situation. And this is something not restricted to the people in the article. How many boyfriends and husbands follow the same pattern? There are still people that argue that there is no such thing as rape in marriage, and that date-rape is not really rape.
That's the thing; it's incredibly difficult to work out just what 'grooming' is on a legal level..... trying to figure out 'racial motivations' on top of that must be near impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Grooming makes me think of cleaning oneself, personally.
Think of it as 'preparing someone for something'. And don't think too much about the something, it's not pleasant :(
'Grooming' is any act making a minor more willing to participate in a sexual activity at the time or in the future.
Child abduction is not grooming, its kidnapping. However grooming can occur after an abduction. Without grooming an abuser would presumably have to resort to rape, not that any sex with a minor is not legally rape anyway.
I dont know how grooming actually works or want to know, but its fairly varied and innocent activities can be misread as grooming by overzealous police or child protection officials.
To take a potential though unlikely example, if you are in your local GW and pass around sweets during the game make sure you offer to everyone including/especially adults, not just the kid your playing.
I remember the first time I got really pissed about political correctness was watching the trial of the guys that attacked Reginald Denny during the L.A. Riots.
They pulled him out of his truck and one guy was beating his head with a brick along with everything else they were doing to him.
During the trial, the reporters were talking about the "feistiness"
of one of the attackers moms and broadcasting her little wittisisms as they chuckled along with her, casting her as a darling of the trial.
Despite pictures of the guy bashing Denny's head in with a brick, the charge of attempted murder was over ruled,because the judge said there was no way of knowing what was on the minds of the assailants.
I have little patience with idiot judges and political correctness.
The case points out that they also attacked Asian and Latino motorists.
Normally you'd think hitting someone over the head with a brick might constitute attempted murder, but it is notoriously difficult to prove intention. I can't see how the judge was being an idiot here.
The case points out that they also attacked Asian and Latino motorists.
Normally you'd think hitting someone over the head with a brick might constitute attempted murder, but it is notoriously difficult to prove intention. I can't see how the judge was being an idiot here.
Horse gak argument. If you're beating someone with a brick thats the very definition of trying to kill them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote:Hitting somebody in the head with a brick repeatedly is clearly attempted murder, how could it be anything else?
Somebody should have shot him.
Thats why when hurricane Ike knocked out power to 4mm people here for three weeks there were no riots or looting. Try to pull someone out of a vehicle here and they are liable to come out with .45 and put you in a box.
Medium of Death wrote:Hitting somebody in the head with a brick repeatedly is clearly attempted murder, how could it be anything else?
Somebody should have shot him.
The problem is that in a legal sense in most juristiction the act of murder has to include planning: On this day, at this time I will go to this place and use this weapon on this particular person to attempt to kill him. That is not what happened. They beat a guy to bloody hell. Even if the guy would have died, then it still would not have been murder since there was no element of premeditation, it would probably have been manslaughter instead.
Medium of Death wrote:Hitting somebody in the head with a brick repeatedly is clearly attempted murder, how could it be anything else?
Somebody should have shot him.
The problem is that in a legal sense in most juristiction the act of murder has to include planning: On this day, at this time I will go to this place and use this weapon on this particular person to attempt to kill him. That is not what happened. They beat a guy to bloody hell. Even if the guy would have died, then it still would not have been murder since there was no element of premeditation, it would probably have been manslaughter instead.
Murder is a very narrow legal term. .
Thats not correct. There are definitional terms but there are categories of murder. At worst this is attempted manslaughter.
If they are targeting white young girls because they think they are more "easy" and "accessible" than girls of their own culture, then it's a big yes to it being racially motivated. It's not the same as a hate crime or Yank women liking posh Brit blokes, it's a deliberate targeting of a section of society for the already mentioned reasons.
I've rarely read anything that makes me so angry as this sort of thing.
It's not that I'm all about overly strict parenting or whatever, but jesus. Where were the guardians of those kids? Those filthy bastards should...god. Makes me so angry I can't even express what I'm thinking on the forum.
Makes me think of some of the kids in care in my school, and how vulnerable they are.
Frazzled wrote:Horse gak argument. If you're beating someone with a brick thats the very definition of trying to kill them.
Again you don't seem to know what you're talking about. You might intend any number of things from an action that is likely to threaten another's life. Even shooting someone doesn't necessarily show intent to kill. Your statement is based on your own personal opinion, not law. This is why we have competent judges running trials, not you.
I too am similarly perplexed how the parents never noticed, I'd like to pin it down to 'white underclass' stereotype but some of these victims have been from wealthier backgrounds. Not in this particular case I might add.
It just shows you how monstrous these guys are that they can be so calculating and manipulative that even parents don't notice right away.
I'm not sure why they aren't being deported, then again they'd probably go free in their own country. This is one of those times where the death penalty just seems to be the only solution.
d-usa wrote:The problem is that in a legal sense in most juristiction the act of murder has to include planning: On this day, at this time I will go to this place and use this weapon on this particular person to attempt to kill him. That is not what happened. They beat a guy to bloody hell. Even if the guy would have died, then it still would not have been murder since there was no element of premeditation, it would probably have been manslaughter instead.
The problem is that in a legal sense, you're wrong.
d-usa wrote:They would have to prove that he planned to attack him with the indent to kill him. Which would be very difficult.
Proof of intent to commit serious bodily harm, or engaging in acts which are likely to cause the death of another are also murder.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Normally you'd think hitting someone over the head with a brick might constitute attempted murder, but it is notoriously difficult to prove intention. I can't see how the judge was being an idiot here.
Because the attacker had the specific intent, as evidenced by the use of a brick, to commit serious bodily harm that is likely to cause the death of another.
Medium of Death wrote:I too am similarly perplexed how the parents never noticed, I'd like to pin it down to 'white underclass' stereotype but some of these victims have been from wealthier backgrounds. Not in this particular case I might add.
It just shows you how monstrous these guys are that they can be so calculating and manipulative that even parents don't notice right away.
I'm not sure why they aren't being deported, then again they'd probably go free in their own country. This is one of those times where the death penalty just seems to be the only solution.
Nine men who ran a child sexual exploitation ring in Greater Manchester have been jailed.
The men from Rochdale and Oldham, who exploited girls as young as 13 were given sentences ranging from four to 19 years.
They were found guilty of offences including rape and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.
Liverpool Crown Court heard the group plied five victims with drink and drugs and "passed them around" for sex.
The girls were abused at two takeaway restaurants in the Heywood area of Rochdale by the men aged between 24 and 59. The takeaways are now under new management.
Hah! I love that.. "the takeaways are under new management"
Pitiful sentences though, four years for one of them?! He will be out in 18 months.
Still, enjoy it while it lasts, when Red Ed gets in they will be sending blokes like this on "skiing holidays in France to teach you to be better human" courses.
Frazzled wrote:Horse gak argument. If you're beating someone with a brick thats the very definition of trying to kill them.
Again you don't seem to know what you're talking about. You might intend any number of things from an action that is likely to threaten another's life. Even shooting someone doesn't necessarily show intent to kill. Your statement is based on your own personal opinion, not law. This is why we have competent judges running trials, not you.
1. On a reasonable person its entirely precedent that the intent is to kill them.
2. Sorry what other intent is there?
3. Yes it is my opinion. No gak Captain Obvious.
d-usa wrote:The problem is that in a legal sense in most juristiction the act of murder has to include planning: On this day, at this time I will go to this place and use this weapon on this particular person to attempt to kill him. That is not what happened. They beat a guy to bloody hell. Even if the guy would have died, then it still would not have been murder since there was no element of premeditation, it would probably have been manslaughter instead.
The problem is that in a legal sense, you're wrong.
d-usa wrote:They would have to prove that he planned to attack him with the indent to kill him. Which would be very difficult.
Proof of intent to commit serious bodily harm, or engaging in acts which are likely to cause the death of another are also murder.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Normally you'd think hitting someone over the head with a brick might constitute attempted murder, but it is notoriously difficult to prove intention. I can't see how the judge was being an idiot here.
Because the attacker had the specific intent, as evidenced by the use of a brick, to commit serious bodily harm that is likely to cause the death of another.
Well, looks like judge disagreed, so for all I know you are also wrong.
d-usa wrote:The problem is that in a legal sense in most juristiction the act of murder has to include planning: On this day, at this time I will go to this place and use this weapon on this particular person to attempt to kill him. That is not what happened. They beat a guy to bloody hell. Even if the guy would have died, then it still would not have been murder since there was no element of premeditation, it would probably have been manslaughter instead.
The problem is that in a legal sense, you're wrong.
d-usa wrote:They would have to prove that he planned to attack him with the indent to kill him. Which would be very difficult.
Proof of intent to commit serious bodily harm, or engaging in acts which are likely to cause the death of another are also murder.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Normally you'd think hitting someone over the head with a brick might constitute attempted murder, but it is notoriously difficult to prove intention. I can't see how the judge was being an idiot here.
Because the attacker had the specific intent, as evidenced by the use of a brick, to commit serious bodily harm that is likely to cause the death of another.
Well, looks like judge disagreed, so for all I know you are also wrong.
d-usa wrote:The problem is that in a legal sense in most juristiction the act of murder has to include planning: On this day, at this time I will go to this place and use this weapon on this particular person to attempt to kill him. That is not what happened. They beat a guy to bloody hell. Even if the guy would have died, then it still would not have been murder since there was no element of premeditation, it would probably have been manslaughter instead.
The problem is that in a legal sense, you're wrong.
d-usa wrote:They would have to prove that he planned to attack him with the indent to kill him. Which would be very difficult.
Proof of intent to commit serious bodily harm, or engaging in acts which are likely to cause the death of another are also murder.
Hazardous Harry wrote:Normally you'd think hitting someone over the head with a brick might constitute attempted murder, but it is notoriously difficult to prove intention. I can't see how the judge was being an idiot here.
Because the attacker had the specific intent, as evidenced by the use of a brick, to commit serious bodily harm that is likely to cause the death of another.
Well, looks like judge disagreed, so for all I know you are also wrong.
Because the judge, understood the theraputive value of getting hit over the head several times with a brick.
Rodney King is always mentioned and pointed to for illustrations of injustice, but rarely do we hear about Reginald Denny.
The nine men from Rochdale were yesterday convicted of abusing five vulnerable teenagers after plying them with alcohol, food and small sums of money in return for sex.
However, the true number of victims, who were "passed around" by the gang, is likely to be nearer to 50, police have admitted.
Greater Manchester Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have now apologised after they failed to bring the case of the first victim - Girl A - to trial following her cry for help in August 2008.
One 13 year-old victim became pregnant and had the child aborted while another was forced to have sex with 20 men in one night, Liverpool Crown Court heard.
Complaints to social workers and the police were ignored because they were "petrified of being called racist", former Labour MP for Keighley Ann Cryer said.
Related Articles
Mrs Cryer, who has campaigned to bring the issue of Asian sex gangs to light, said the girls had been "betrayed" and condemned to "untold misery" by the police and social services.
"This is an absolute scandal. They were petrified of being called racist and so reverted to the default of political correctness," she said.
"They had a greater fear of being perceived in that light than in dealing with the issues in front of them."
Girl A told police that she had been raped and provided DNA evidence from her attacker, however the CPS twice decided not to prosecute him.
The 15 year-old's abuse continued and at its height she was being driven to flats and houses to be raped by up to five men a night, four or five days a week. She was singled out because she was white, vulnerable and under-age.
Her ordeal only ended when her teachers forced social workers to intervene after she fell pregnant and they became concerned by the number of Asian men picking her up from school.
Girl A said that in a six-hour interview she gave police details about her abusers and where the attacks took place. Crucially, too, she handed officers underwear that proved she had been raped by two men in a single attack.
"I hoped they were going to do something and it would stop," she said.
"But it just carried on. It just started again with different men and more men this time, and that's when it started becoming up to five men a day".
Kabeer Hassan, Abdul Aziz, Abdul Rauf, Mohammed Sajid, Adil Khan, Abdul Qayyum, Mohammed Amin, Hamid Safi and a 59-year-old man who cannot be named for legal reasons were yesterday found guilty of running a child exploitation ring at Liverpool Crown Court.
Greater Manchester Police is now being investigated by the IPCC over the failings of its first investigation in 2008.
When GMP did finally pass a file on Girls A's rape to the CPS the following year, a Crown lawyer decided not to charge anyone because he said she would not be a sufficiently credible witness to put before a jury. A second CPS lawyer backed that opinion.
It was only after social workers notice an upsurge in cases of child grooming that police reinvestigated and made a series of arrests which led to yesterday's convictions.
It can be reported that the trial was delayed by two weeks when two Asian barristers quit the case due to intimidation by far right groups outside Liverpool Crown Court.
And a tweet from BNP leader Nick Griffin almost caused the trial to collapse when it led to allegations of the jury having a "far-right bias".
Assistant Chief Constable Steve Heywood acknowledged that officers could have dealt with the case "better than we did".
But he denied that the girl's complaints had been "brushed under the carpet" because officers were reluctant to confront the issue of race.
"At the time we did what we thought was best," he said. "We have learned a lot of lessons.
"The issue here is genuinely about vulnerability. It just happens that they are Asian men. In no way did we sweep it under the carpet."
Steve Garner, head of children's services at Rochdale Council, denied the teenager had been let down by his department.
"No," he said. "I think it's really important to remember that what we know now and what we knew in 2008 is very, very different and what we have done is put the lessons in place".
Rochdale MP Simon Danczuk said: "What's become clear is that if police had acted seriously on these concerns in 2008 many of the victims of this appalling case would not have had to go through such horrific trauma.
"It is simply unacceptable that these young women were let down in this way by people they should have been able to trust."
The fact that the number of abused white girls could be as high as 50 is simply disgusting. Shown to have no remorse in court. Rage Aneurysm!
Indeed, it makes me want to go nuts with fury. At the same time, Im sure the girls parents have to be blamed as well, what the feth were they doing why this was going on!?
Regards the defendants.. Why would they show remorse when their Religion gives ample excuses for treating women appallingly?
Sura 4:11 says:
The share of the male shall be twice that of a female
Sura 4:34 says:
If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.
Sura 65:1, 4 says:
And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet.
If I was one of them I think I would sleep soundly as well.
Frazzled wrote:
1. On a reasonable person its entirely precedent that the intent is to kill them.
2. Sorry what other intent is there?
3. Yes it is my opinion. No gak Captain Obvious.
The intent might be to knock them unconcious, or otherwise incapacitate them. As has already been said, intent to kill is incredibly hard to prove, and clearly the judge felt that it wasn't satisfied in this case.
Frazzled wrote:
1. On a reasonable person its entirely precedent that the intent is to kill them.
2. Sorry what other intent is there?
3. Yes it is my opinion. No gak Captain Obvious.
The intent might be to knock them unconcious, or otherwise incapacitate them. As has already been said, intent to kill is incredibly hard to prove, and clearly the judge felt that it wasn't satisfied in this case.
Frazzled wrote:
Why do you think intent to kill is hard to prove?
Because the difficulty of proving intent has been shown in numerous cases. It's why so many cases are downgraded from murder to manslaughter. Why do you think intent to kill is so easy to prove?
Frazzled wrote:
Why do you think intent to kill is hard to prove?
Because the difficulty of proving intent has been shown in numerous cases. It's why so many cases are downgraded from murder to manslaughter. Why do you think intent to kill is so easy to prove?
Frazzled wrote:
Why do you think intent to kill is hard to prove?
Because the difficulty of proving intent has been shown in numerous cases. It's why so many cases are downgraded from murder to manslaughter. Why do you think intent to kill is so easy to prove?
Do you have any, facts or are you just blwoing smoke out your ass again? Have you even seen the inside of a courtroom?
Frazz go make your own bloody thread, if you get this good natured rant against foreign criminals locked due to your off topic debate, it will give much pleasure to the board hippies, thus you are making a mockery of your apparent desire to see criminals flogged like Matty.
Frazz go make your own bloody thread, if you get this good natured rant against foreign criminals locked due to your off topic debate, it will give much pleasure to the board hippies, thus you are making a mockery of your apparent desire to see criminals flogged like Matty.
Frazzled wrote:
Why do you think intent to kill is hard to prove?
Because the difficulty of proving intent has been shown in numerous cases. It's why so many cases are downgraded from murder to manslaughter. Why do you think intent to kill is so easy to prove?
Do you have any, facts or are you just blwoing smoke out your ass again? Have you even seen the inside of a courtroom?
Frazz go make your own bloody thread, if you get this good natured rant against foreign criminals locked due to your off topic debate, it will give much pleasure to the board hippies, thus you are making a mockery of your apparent desire to see criminals flogged like Matty.
You're right.
BBC literally just a had a report on this event. Conspicusouly absent was this pertinent part of the discussion.
Amaya wrote:I don't think the exploitation of white females in this case is necessarily motivated out of racist hatred, but out of the belief that white women are more promiscuous and easier to exploit.
This.
It's like when you park your car you look for an empty space. Not because you hate empty roadside and want to cover it up, but because it's easier to park on a space than on top of another car.
mattyrm wrote: Indeed, it makes me want to go nuts with fury. At the same time, Im sure the girls parents have to be blamed as well, what the feth were they doing why this was going on!?
Regards the defendants.. Why would they show remorse when their Religion gives ample excuses for treating women appallingly?
Sura 4:11 says:
The share of the male shall be twice that of a female
Sura 4:34 says:
If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.
Sura 65:1, 4 says:
And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet.
If I was one of them I think I would sleep soundly as well.
Matty I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I would not have expected you to have such in depth knowledge of Islam.
Amaya wrote:I don't think the exploitation of white females in this case is necessarily motivated out of racist hatred, but out of the belief that white women are more promiscuous and easier to exploit.
This.
It's like when you park your car you look for an empty space. Not because you hate empty roadside and want to cover it up, but because it's easier to park on a space than on top of another car.
Still racism.
I mean if one went around saying "all black women are whores" they'd be decried as racist (and misogynist, but we already know that these donkey-caves are misogynistic pieces of trash masquerading as human beings-- and failing at doing it very well, I might add).
Amaya wrote:I don't think the exploitation of white females in this case is necessarily motivated out of racist hatred, but out of the belief that white women are more promiscuous and easier to exploit.
This.
It's like when you park your car you look for an empty space. Not because you hate empty roadside and want to cover it up, but because it's easier to park on a space than on top of another car.
Still racism.
I mean if one went around saying "all black women are whores" they'd be decried as racist (and misogynist, but we already know that these donkey-caves are misogynistic pieces of trash masquerading as human beings-- and failing at doing it very well, I might add).
AustonT wrote:
Matty I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I would not have expected you to have such in depth knowledge of Islam.
Know your enemy and all that.. I tried to read the Qu'ran when I was in Afghanistan, and I got a highlighter out and scribbled over things that I thought were particularly offensive, I highlighted so bloody much I got bored and stopped about 1/3 of the way through.. I also realised you can do the exact same thing with the bible so I kinda lost interest.
I also read the hilarious "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" and several critiques by people like Sam Harris. Its not that I am interested in Islam, I just don't like it when ignorant hippies try to tell me that "They are all dead nice really" even though the vast majority of people know nothing about Islam at all. At the end of the day you need to know what your talking about when your a "hater" because you get accused of being ignorant by literally every single person that disagrees with you.
I most definitely do know far more about Islam than 99% of my friends fething wives though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Amaya wrote:I don't think the exploitation of white females in this case is necessarily motivated out of racist hatred, but out of the belief that white women are more promiscuous and easier to exploit.
This.
It's like when you park your car you look for an empty space. Not because you hate empty roadside and want to cover it up, but because it's easier to park on a space than on top of another car.
Still racism.
I mean if one went around saying "all black women are whores" they'd be decried as racist (and misogynist, but we already know that these donkey-caves are misogynistic pieces of trash masquerading as human beings-- and failing at doing it very well, I might add).
Indeed, the reason I brought up Jack Straw is because he is beloved of the left leaning pinkos that make up the Labour party, and even he said it.
Its not racist hatred, but it most definately is racist, they pick them precisely because they are white. Ill let Jack finish up.
Jack Straw wrote:These young men... act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits, so they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care... who they think are easy meat."
I know where you're coming froim Matty. On this forum certain people claim I'm a "Christian-hater" even though I've probably studied the bible, its history, and its origins far more than they have (meanwhile in other sites I'm accused of being a religious nut).
Racism
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I don't see how it fits any of those criteria. Their actions are based on the belief that white women are more promiscuous and thus easier to manipulate than Arab women. Which on average is true. I think its more of a cultural issue than a racial one. Regardless of whether or not it is motivated by racism, what they've done it still horrific and disgusting. I would love to see each and everyone of these donkey-caves strung up and left to rot.
Amaya wrote:Racism 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. [...]
I don't see how it fits any of those criteria. Their actions are based on the belief that white women are more promiscuous and thus easier to manipulate than Arab women.
That's because you didn't actually read your own post.
Kilkrazy wrote:If these guys went to Japan for the next stage of their career, would they pick white women or Japanese women as their targets?
Neither. They wouldn't be allowed to emigrate no?
It's a hypothetical.
They will actually be spending a considerable length of time in prison, and they certainly wouldn't get a visa to Japan afterwards
My point is that if the men are racially motivated, they will attack white women preferentially, rather than the much more easily available Japanese women.
Kilkrazy wrote:If these guys went to Japan for the next stage of their career, would they pick white women or Japanese women as their targets?
Neither. They wouldn't be allowed to emigrate no?
It's a hypothetical.
They will actually be spending a considerable length of time in prison, and they certainly wouldn't get a visa to Japan afterwards
My point is that if the men are racially motivated, they will attack white women preferentially, rather than the much more easily available Japanese women.
Or the other way. They are racially motivated to avoid Pakistani females. Edit: ninja'ed by Melissia. Its like the comfort women situation. Do what you want to anyone but your own people.
AustonT wrote:
Matty I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I would not have expected you to have such in depth knowledge of Islam.
Know your enemy and all that.. I tried to read the Qu'ran when I was in Afghanistan, and I got a highlighter out and scribbled over things that I thought were particularly offensive, I highlighted so bloody much I got bored and stopped about 1/3 of the way through.. I also realised you can do the exact same thing with the bible so I kinda lost interest.
I also read the hilarious "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" and several critiques by people like Sam Harris. Its not that I am interested in Islam, I just don't like it when ignorant hippies try to tell me that "They are all dead nice really" even though the vast majority of people know nothing about Islam at all. At the end of the day you need to know what your talking about when your a "hater" because you get accused of being ignorant by literally every single person that disagrees with you.
I most definitely do know far more about Islam than 99% of my friends fething wives though.
To be fair I said I didn't expect it, but TBH I'm not surprised by it either. Have you ever seen or heard the bumper sticker, "everything I needed to know about Islam; I learned on 9/11"? That basically describes most folks knowledge whether they say it or not.
Either way, they're a bunch of misogynistic things who aren't actually human beings, they're more like living turds whose very existence insults the form of man.
Melissia wrote:Either way, they're a bunch of misogynistic things who aren't actually human beings, they're more like living turds whose very existence insults the form of man.
Melissia wrote:Either way, they're a bunch of misogynistic things who aren't actually human beings, they're more like living turds whose very existence insults the form of man.
Don't hold back Mel; tell us how you really feel.
Spoiler:
As I stand over their bloody, lacerated bodies, riddled with bullet holes, I will dump gasoline on them and toss the match. Then while they burn, I will dump salt on them to put the fire out. And then set them on fire again, using a chemical burn instead of a physical one. Then as they are begging for their lives to end so that the suffering is no more, I will ignore them, and tell them that I am going to introduce their wives, fiancees, sisters, and daughters to the local gay club and convince them all to become lesbians. Then I will tie them up and come back a few days later when they are dead, and desecrate their bodies with satanic symbols and dildos. After having a sacrilegious burial involving the corpses of pigs, male prostitutes carrying the coffin, and a gay orgy, their coffins (made of balsa wood which has been painted pink) will be covered in dirt that is mixed with the pig offal. And then later that night, I will return to SHAT ON THEIR GRAVES!
But jokes aside, I admit to overreacting. Gang-rapists are only a step below Hitler in my book, and it's not really even a whole step.
Melissia wrote:Either way, they're a bunch of misogynistic things who aren't actually human beings, they're more like living turds whose very existence insults the form of man.
Don't hold back Mel; tell us how you really feel.
Spoiler:
As I stand over their bloody, lacerated bodies, riddled with bullet holes, I will dump gasoline on them and toss the match. Then while they burn, I will dump salt on them to put the fire out. And then set them on fire again, using a chemical burn instead of a physical one. Then as they are begging for their lives to end so that the suffering is no more, I will ignore them, and tell them that I am going to introduce their wives, fiancees, sisters, and daughters to the local gay club and convince them all to become lesbians. Then I will tie them up and come back a few days later when they are dead, and desecrate their bodies with satanic symbols and dildos. After having a sacrilegious burial involving the corpses of pigs, male prostitutes carrying the coffin, and a gay orgy, their coffins (made of balsa wood which has been painted pink) will be covered in dirt that is mixed with the pig offal. And then later that night, I will return to SHAT ON THEIR GRAVES!
But jokes aside, I admit to overreacting. Gang-rapists are only a step below Hitler in my book, and it's not really even a whole step.
I don't really care if it's racist or not, the crime of racism pales into insignificance compared to the sheer evil of that they did. I know it happens all over the world, more often than I want to think about, but to think that a first world police force would fail to act for fear of looking racist rather than desire to protect kids...jesus. I can see how it happens though, believe me.
And the arguments given by the lawyers. Christ.
And don't get me STARTED on the BNP arsehole almost getting the dirtbags off because he can't keep his ignorant mouth shut.
Joey wrote:Are we ignoring the race element then? Or are people not aware that a lot of men of South Asian origin regard young white girls literally as objects?
I'm not ignoring it at all, its the reason I bring it up.
Namely, one of them only got 4 years. If you could prove it was a hate crime (specifically targeted girls of a certain race) then they would be getting twice the sentence, but people seem to want to ignore this fact because it makes them feel better.
Because we live in a multi-cultural society, but if people became aware of that, it'd fall apart. It's pretty barmy really.
A few hundred years ago the idea of "nation states" started in Western Europe, the idea that people of the same culture should have a country of their own, and throughout the world we see instability caused by different groups living side by side. That's why the Russians booted the Germans settlers out of Eastern Europe when they invaded - it might have been harsh to kick people out of their homes, but at least then you had Hungarians living in Hungary, Czechs living in Czech Republic, etc, to put an end to "Well there are Germans living over there so that land belongs to us!"
Well in the 21st century we've decided we don't need to bother. We don't expect people to uphold the same standards as us (i.e. imprisoning and raping teeange girls = wrong), let alone learn the language.
And obviously anyone who's bothered by the fact that there is an entire foreign culture living in an English city is a racist.
Foreign cultures integrating poorly is nothing new. The doctorine of them being immune to criticism is.
I mean, I can see your point, but I think you're blurring the line somewhat. These guys committed this crime at least partially because that sort of thing is more acceptable in their culture. So in that sense, it's racially motivated. However, they picked on white girls because the girls in question were vulnerable- probably not well supervised at home, maybe suffering emotional issues and delusions of independence (very common among a certain segment of british youth). The asian girls they could have preyed on (tend to) be much more protected, much more controlled at home, and so (generally) they are not easy targets. That, and the community they are from would probably look upon the same crime committed on an asian girl as being much more serious, and it would probably result in some form of retaliation.
I totally agree that 4 years is not long enough, especially given that a suspended sentence is practically a given these days.
Melissia wrote:Either way, they're a bunch of misogynistic things who aren't actually human beings, they're more like living turds whose very existence insults the form of man.
Don't hold back Mel; tell us how you really feel.
Spoiler:
As I stand over their bloody, lacerated bodies, riddled with bullet holes, I will dump gasoline on them and toss the match. Then while they burn, I will dump salt on them to put the fire out. And then set them on fire again, using a chemical burn instead of a physical one. Then as they are begging for their lives to end so that the suffering is no more, I will ignore them, and tell them that I am going to introduce their wives, fiancees, sisters, and daughters to the local gay club and convince them all to become lesbians. Then I will tie them up and come back a few days later when they are dead, and desecrate their bodies with satanic symbols and dildos. After having a sacrilegious burial involving the corpses of pigs, male prostitutes carrying the coffin, and a gay orgy, their coffins (made of balsa wood which has been painted pink) will be covered in dirt that is mixed with the pig offal. And then later that night, I will return to SHAT ON THEIR GRAVES!
But jokes aside, I admit to overreacting. Gang-rapists are only a step below Hitler in my book, and it's not really even a whole step.
I suspect that the attitude of the police in this case is designed to minimise public response and prevent tensions rising; as long as they can play the "non-race card" then they will stick to that . Whenever I read about violent assaults on minorities by White perpetrators, the attack is generally presumed to be racially motivated, regardless of a lack of information. It's the polar opposite of how this case is being treated. Britain needs to grow up.
Also, since when were Whites considered the only ethnic group to consume drugs and alcohol, what would give anybody that impression?
Melissia wrote:Either way, they're a bunch of misogynistic things who aren't actually human beings, they're more like living turds whose very existence insults the form of man.
Don't hold back Mel; tell us how you really feel.
Spoiler:
As I stand over their bloody, lacerated bodies, riddled with bullet holes, I will dump gasoline on them and toss the match. Then while they burn, I will dump salt on them to put the fire out. And then set them on fire again, using a chemical burn instead of a physical one. Then as they are begging for their lives to end so that the suffering is no more, I will ignore them, and tell them that I am going to introduce their wives, fiancees, sisters, and daughters to the local gay club and convince them all to become lesbians. Then I will tie them up and come back a few days later when they are dead, and desecrate their bodies with satanic symbols and dildos. After having a sacrilegious burial involving the corpses of pigs, male prostitutes carrying the coffin, and a gay orgy, their coffins (made of balsa wood which has been painted pink) will be covered in dirt that is mixed with the pig offal. And then later that night, I will return to SHAT ON THEIR GRAVES!
But jokes aside, I admit to overreacting. Gang-rapists are only a step below Hitler in my book, and it's not really even a whole step.
I did not expect that...and I laughed my ass off. Thanks for that Mel.
I don't really think you are overreacting sex crimes are perhaps the most heinous of offenses. I generally rank them above murder.
Another update, a good 5 minutes of audio, where a mealy mouthed politician refuses to say exactly what some of the Asian men in his surgery have said.
Namely "They deserved it because they dress like sluts"
Amaya wrote:Racism
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
[...]
I don't see how it fits any of those criteria. Their actions are based on the belief that white women are more promiscuous and thus easier to manipulate than Arab women.
That's because you didn't actually read your own post.
It's a leap to say that because white women are more promiscuous than typically repressed Islamic women they are inferior.
While sleeping around may not be condoned in western society, it is certainly accepted and tolerated. Doing the same in Islamic society as a women will probably lead to ostracization and even death. It's not a stretch to concludes that the most populous ethnicities of a western culture will be more promiscuous.
Which might seem reasonable... until you realize that these men are basing their actions on prejudices (IE, "white girls are sluts") as opposed to facts.
While sleeping around may not be condoned in western society, it is certainly accepted and tolerated. Doing the same in Islamic society as a women will probably lead to ostracization and even death. It's not a stretch to concludes that the most populous ethnicities of a western culture will be more promiscuous.
Thats prima facae evidence of a hate crime right there.
I still think it's simply a sex crime and that people are too quick to start throwing out accusations of racism.
Edit: Actually, I think the religious issue is much more important than the any alleged racial problem. Racism might be a symptom in this case, but it is not the cause.
I don't think there is enough information for me to make an informed decision on it.
This occured in Britain, so my first thought was yeah the police are being PC about it, but that just doesn't clear it.
What are the demographics of the region? Do they live in a predominatly pakistani area? Would it have been easier for them to grab girls of the local color? Or where they thinking that it would be harder to trace them if they grabbed victims from further afield?
I'd want to know a bit more information along those lines before I made a decision. I'd like to say that the police, who do have all that info, took it into consideration when they said that.
All right, I am now going to play devil's advocate here and bring up the subject of westerners going to such places as Thailand to have a go at the underage prostitutes.
I've seen ads for such junkets in some mainstream periodicals from time to time.
They never came out and said it, but it was fairly obvious what was on the block.
Relapse wrote:All right, I am now going to play devil's advocate here and bring up the subject of westerners going to such places as Thailand to have a go at the underage prostitutes.
I've seen ads for such junkets in some mainstream periodicals from time to time.
They never came out and said it, but it was fairly obvious what was on the block.
I seriously doubt the 13 year old girl they imprisoned and raped for weeks on end was asking them to pay for sex. Just saying.
Neither do I think that the girls sold into sexual slavery in countries such as Thailand enjoy their encounters.
The concept is the same, however, underaged, unwilling girls coerced, drugged, or manipulated in some way to have sex with adults. The difference is in the shape of the eyes of the victim and predator.
Relapse wrote:Neither do I think that the girls sold into sexual slavery in countries such as Thailand enjoy their encounters.
The concept is the same, however, underaged, unwilling girls coerced, drugged, or manipulated in some way to have sex with adults. The difference is in the shape of the eyes of the victim and predator.
Relapse wrote:All right, I am now going to play devil's advocate here and bring up the subject of westerners going to such places as Thailand to have a go at the underage prostitutes.
Relapse wrote:All right, I am now going to play devil's advocate here and bring up the subject of westerners going to such places as Thailand to have a go at the underage prostitutes.
Yes, they are also criminals.
I think the point Relapse was making is that they might not be considered racist.
What about all the eastern european girls that get stuck in human trafficing and end up for the enjoyment of white patrons all over brothels in Europe?
I'm assuming by bringing up sex tourism and trafficking your saying what happened is fine because it happens elsewhere?
The fact of the matter is that these men targeted up to 50 white English girls over an extended period of time, based upon their perceptions of worthlessness and inferiority. If it was simply a case of perversion they would have taken victims from all backgrounds/race/ethnicity.
Medium of Death wrote:I'm assuming by bringing up sex tourism and trafficking your saying what happened is fine because it happens elsewhere?
That is actually not at all what I am saying.
What I am saying is that it is amazing to see so much outrage for "Pakistani (insert ethnic group of your choosing) are pretators and racists for preying on white girls. (follow with generic version of send them back to where they came from/get them out of my country)" while ignoring decades of sex trafficking in Europe. Should it be considered racist that everybody is upset when their white women get raped, but not that worked up when eastern European women get raped?
It is not that this should be okay because it happened before, it is a case of "why are you just now getting pissed when women getting groomed has been a problem for how many years?"
Would White British people be this outraged if all the victims in Britain were Pakistani girls, or are they more outraged because the victims were 'White British girls'?
If you want to continue to state that I am making "well sex trafficing is old so you say it must be okay" or "starvation is okay because kids in Africa are starving" arguments, then go ahead. If you don't want to hear or understand the simple question I am asking, then there is really nothing I can do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To quote and highlight your own words:
Medium of Death wrote:Is it unreasonable to expect White British people to be outraged that White British girls are being targeted because of their race/ethnicity?
Which pretty much makes my point.
Why not simply say "Is it unreasonable to expect people to be outraged that people are being targeted because of their race/ethnicity"?
Would White British people be this outraged if all the victims in Britain were Pakistani girls, or are they more outraged because the victims were 'White British girls'?
If you want to continue to state that I am making "well sex trafficing is old so you say it must be okay" or "starvation is okay because kids in Africa are starving" arguments, then go ahead. If you don't want to hear or understand the simple question I am asking, then there is really nothing I can do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To quote and highlight your own words:
Medium of Death wrote:Is it unreasonable to expect White British people to be outraged that White British girls are being targeted because of their race/ethnicity?
Which pretty much makes my point.
Why not simply say "Is it unreasonable to expect people to be outraged that people are being targeted because of their race/ethnicity"?
I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another. Your question is fething irrelevant to me and likely Melissia.
You are saying White British people only care because it's happening to White British people.
Is there a problem if White British people take issue with the direct targeting of their ethnicity by other groups? No, because it's a fairly realistic and widespread reaction that happens throughout all race/ethnic/cultural groups. People will be outraged if it happens to other races/ethnicities but if that person is of the same ethnic background it creates a greater empathic resonance.
You can sit up on your pedestal of 'everyone should empathise with everyone equally' if you want, but the reality is somewhat different.
I hate saying White British, it's just British to me and should be just 'British' on consensus forms imho . I just needed to try and get the point across.
Medium of Death wrote:You are saying White British people only care because it's happening to White British people.
Is there a problem if White British people take issue with the direct targeting of their ethnicity by other groups? No, because it's a fairly realistic and widespread reaction that happens throughout all race/ethnic/cultural groups. People will be outraged if it happens to other races/ethnicities but if that person is of the same ethnic background it creates a greater empathic resonance.
You can sit up on your pedestal of 'everyone should empathise with everyone equally' if you want, but the reality is somewhat different.
I hate saying White British, it's just British to me and should be just 'British' on consensus forms imho . I just needed to try and get the point across.
I'm not saying they only care because of it, I am just saying that they may care more because of it.
And maybe "be equally angry about anything bad that happens to anybody regardless of creed/race/nationality" is a pipe dream. We can still talk about it though, after all that is what a forum is all about.
I don't know about extra outrage because the victims were white, but there would certainly be outcry over any gang caught doing this (or sex trafficing/tourism etc) regardless of their race/religion or those of their victims. You are not exactly talking about purse snatching here, but destroying lives and ripping away the basic rights and freedoms that most people in the developed world take more or less for granted.
It would be difficult to quantify outrage as the details of every case vary, but certainly there has been satisfaction over taking out rings of paedos and trafficers in the past. I think so much of this outcry is because it is happening *here and now*, rather than because of the colours of those involved.
I'm sure that if the crime was going on in a town just down the road from you (as Liverpool is for most of the UK) you'd be far more inclined to pull down the fence and use the 2 by 4's to break some skulls
Would White British people be this outraged if all the victims in Britain were Pakistani girls, or are they more outraged because the victims were 'White British girls'?
SilverMK2 wrote:I don't know about extra outrage because the victims were white, but there would certainly be outcry over any gang caught doing this (or sex trafficing/tourism etc) regardless of their race/religion or those of their victims. You are not exactly talking about purse snatching here, but destroying lives and ripping away the basic rights and freedoms that most people in the developed world take more or less for granted.
It would be difficult to quantify outrage as the details of every case vary, but certainly there has been satisfaction over taking out rings of paedos and trafficers in the past. I think so much of this outcry is because it is happening *here and now*, rather than because of the colours of those involved.
I'm sure that if the crime was going on in a town just down the road from you (as Liverpool is for most of the UK) you'd be far more inclined to pull down the fence and use the 2 by 4's to break some skulls
I think Silver has answered your question perfectly, d-usa.
These individuals are disgusting human beings, and I am virtually certain that there would the same amount of outrage no matter what mix of ethnicities their victims were. I do not think there is outrage because the victims were white, I think there is outrage because the victims were vulnerable, underage girls.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another.
If your one of the few Americans that is actually correct about their ancestors, and your forebears actually fought on the side of the rebels during the revolution, doesn't that make you pretty much 100% British then?
Well, or French, or Indian.
I don't think anyone else fought against the British did they?
Frazzled wrote:
I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another.
If your one of the few Americans that is actually correct about their ancestors, and your forebears actually fought on the side of the rebels during the revolution, doesn't that make you pretty much 100% British then?
Well, or French, or Indian.
I don't think anyone else fought against the British did they?
The Dutch?
Either way as long as 'our' guys got a chance to shoot back i'm okay with it...
You know what I mean... My missus told me that Americans are always either Irish American or German American or Mexican American or Scandinavian American.. and she said that if you meet one (usually a Southerner) who says he is just American, as opposed to Native American (white blokes) then he is British American.
I mean, you don't hear that term do you thanks to a war, but there are about as many Americans of British heritage as there is of Irish or Italian.
Point being, if Frazzled is one of those Yanks that practices ancestor worship ( a great many do, something I've always found odd) and knows all of his ancestors way back to the war, then odds one of them is of British stock.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another.
If your one of the few Americans that is actually correct about their ancestors, and your forebears actually fought on the side of the rebels during the revolution, doesn't that make you pretty much 100% British then?
Well, or French, or Indian.
I don't think anyone else fought against the British did they?
You English are so cute. Mine started in lands that were never part of the British Colonies to begin with. Something about being on the losing end of a minor tiff involving a short island guy with a big hat just trying to make his way on a harsh continent.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another.
If your one of the few Americans that is actually correct about their ancestors, and your forebears actually fought on the side of the rebels during the revolution, doesn't that make you pretty much 100% British then?
Well, or French, or Indian.
I don't think anyone else fought against the British did they?
You English are so cute. Mine started in lands that were never part of the British Colonies to begin with. Something about being on the losing end of a minor tiff involving a short island guy with a big hat just trying to make his way on a harsh continent.
Frazzled wrote: I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another.
If your one of the few Americans that is actually correct about their ancestors, and your forebears actually fought on the side of the rebels during the revolution, doesn't that make you pretty much 100% British then?
Well, or French, or Indian.
I don't think anyone else fought against the British did they?
You English are so cute. Mine started in lands that were never part of the British Colonies to begin with. Something about being on the losing end of a minor tiff involving a short island guy with a big hat just trying to make his way on a harsh continent.
You're French?
Among other things. Not everyone who was on the losing side was French (German, French Acadian, Scottish, Irish, Lithuanian)
Frazzled wrote:
Something about being on the losing end of a minor tiff involving a short island guy with a big hat just trying to make his way on a harsh continent.
I thought you were from Hawaii and you were talking about Captain Cook.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another.
If your one of the few Americans that is actually correct about their ancestors, and your forebears actually fought on the side of the rebels during the revolution, doesn't that make you pretty much 100% British then?
Well, or French, or Indian.
I don't think anyone else fought against the British did they?
The Dutch?
Either way as long as 'our' guys got a chance to shoot back i'm okay with it...
d-usa wrote:Explains the wiener dogs. They would have been normal size standing next to Napoleon.
Once while watching something on World War I, they had a film clip of the Kaiser, being annoyed by a jumping, yapping wiener dog. "Look!" She shouts "Even the Kaiser couldn't control his wiener dogs!" TBone snickered slightly.
Frazzled wrote:
Something about being on the losing end of a minor tiff involving a short island guy with a big hat just trying to make his way on a harsh continent.
I thought you were from Hawaii and you were talking about Captain Cook.
French.. I think I would rather be an Afghan.
All i know is i'd rather not be French...
AustonT wrote:
purplefood wrote:
mattyrm wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another.
If your one of the few Americans that is actually correct about their ancestors, and your forebears actually fought on the side of the rebels during the revolution, doesn't that make you pretty much 100% British then?
Well, or French, or Indian.
I don't think anyone else fought against the British did they?
The Dutch?
Either way as long as 'our' guys got a chance to shoot back i'm okay with it...
Did the Dutch ever take a swipe at the UK?
Fairly sure they did at some point in time...
I know we got the idea for fireships from them...
I went on the Wikipedia; it appears there were 4 Anglo-Dutch wars. Who claims fighting the British 2-300 hundred years ago as part of their proud heritage?
AustonT wrote:I went on the Wikipedia; it appears there were 4 Anglo-Dutch wars. Who claims fighting the British 2-300 hundred years ago as part of their proud heritage?
...oh right.
When In doubt, I just presume the British have had a war with them. Good mates with the Dutch for the past few years mind... certainly there doesn't seem to be lasting enmity, the Dutch are very fond of us.
As opposed to the French, who will hate us until the end of days.
Heywood grooming: Chief Constable says more arrests 'likely
The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester has said more arrests are likely in connection with a child sexual grooming ring in Heywood.
Peter Fahy said he hoped more victims of sexual abuse will come forward after nine men were jailed on Tuesday.
The men, from Rochdale and Oldham, who exploited girls as young as 13 were given sentences from four to 19 years.
Five girls gave evidence, but police believe there may have been up to 47 victims.
The nine defendants, eight of Pakistani origin and one from Afghanistan and aged between 24 and 59, were found guilty of offences including rape and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child.
Mr Fahy said there had been "a number of arrests" in other sexual abuse cases and there were "a number of other trials pending".
Hopefully more people will get nailed for this gak.
Why don't we just castrate all sex attackers.
A a note, on TV just Asian male blaming girls parents, even though victims were in care.
My disgust is for the police, who did nothing as usual.
My daughter is in further education, and the site she goes to, is next door to Asian community.
I used to collect her every night, because Asian youths trying to pick her up.
I offered to remove their testicles, and feed them to them while still fresh.
They moved on
loki old fart wrote:My daughter is in further education, and the site she goes to, is next door to Asian community.
I used to collect her every night, because Asian youths trying to pick her up.
I offered to remove their testicles, and feed them to them while still fresh.
They moved on
There is certainly a culture clash - it is like that if you ever go out into (especially) muslim countries in the middle and far east as a westerner; happened when I used to go on holiday with my parents (and when my parents worked out in the middle and far east) and when I went on my honeymoon with my wife to Egypt. It seems there is a view that anyone who doesn't dress the way they want them to dress and point the right way when praying as less than human and fair game a lot of the time.
This is in my personal experience, and the experience of a number of people I have talked with on the subject who have experienced it first hand.
Of course this is racially motivated, but this is not the fault of Islam it is an entirely social problem that stems from ghettoisation and lack of integration. That is the problem here, Britain today is multicultural, and no amount of witch hunts and demonisation from the political right will change that, what we need to do is accept people as British and offer them all the benefit of such status on the proviso of them taking on the responsibility of being part of society.
Now as much as their motivation is clear, what is the motivtion of the CPS? Sexual crime has a tiny conviction rate, and if they felt getting a conviction was more assured by not 'muddying the waters' with the subject of race then that is fair enough.
However, politicians must see these incidents for what they are so as we can have an actual informed debate as to what is happening in our society, and deal with the underlying causes. And anyone found complicit in allowing this to carry on for another four years due to some self interested fear of being deemed racist needs the full weight of the law to come down on them.
dæl wrote:Of course this is racially motivated, but this is not the fault of Islam it is an entirely social problem that stems from ghettoisation and lack of integration. That is the problem here, Britain today is multicultural, and no amount of witch hunts and demonisation from the political right will change that, what we need to do is accept people as British and offer them all the benefit of such status on the proviso of them taking on the responsibility of being part of society.
And this kind of thinking right here is what is going to destroy western nations...
When you emigrate to another country the onus to integrate and comply to that country's laws and culture should be on you!
Try and go to any middle eastern country and don't conform to their habits and culture and see how far that will get you...
The US have got it partially right on this one, if you wan't to stay you should be tested on your knowledge of the local culture and language among other things, if you can't get it right, you can get the hell out back to whatever hell hole you came from.
dæl wrote:Of course this is racially motivated, but this is not the fault of Islam it is an entirely social problem that stems from ghettoisation and lack of integration. That is the problem here, Britain today is multicultural, and no amount of witch hunts and demonisation from the political right will change that, what we need to do is accept people as British and offer them all the benefit of such status on the proviso of them taking on the responsibility of being part of society.
And this kind of thinking right here is what is going to destroy western nations...
When you emigrate to another country the onus to integrate and comply to that country's laws and culture should be on you!
Try and go to any middle eastern country and don't conform to their habits and culture and see how far that will get you...
The US have got it partially right on this one, if you wan't to stay you should be tested on your knowledge of the local culture and language among other things, if you can't get it right, you can get the hell out back to whatever hell hole you came from.
I'm not sure if you know or not but to gain British citizenship you need to pass a test similar to the USAs but... well with British stuff instead.
You also need to display English language skills... though i'm not sure to what extent...
purplefood wrote:
I'm not sure if you know or not but to gain British citizenship you need to pass a test similar to the USAs but... well with British stuff instead.
You also need to display English language skills... though i'm not sure to what extent...
There you go, you learn something new every day. I had no idea about that.
SilverMK2 wrote:So, when are americans going to start switching over to speaking the native languages and living in tents?
What nonsense are you talking about?
Culture is not static, nor are civilisations. There were several groups of people living in America before a large part of Europedecided to take a boat over the ocean.
Even the culture that you (generic) are trying to defend by forcing people to pass tests etc is different from that of your parents. It is different from that in the next town, the next state, etc.
Even in the most totalitarian countries, cultures shift over time. Of course, it is often better that the change comes slowly, but change is inevitable, no matter what some people wish to believe.
Integration works both ways and should be to the benefit of everyone.
The comment above was a jocular reference to one culture replacing and pretty much wiping out another and the decendent culture seeming to think that anyone living in that culture should be subsumed into it completely, giving up their own completely.
Culture is not static, nor are civilisations. There were several groups of people living in America before a large part of Europedecided to take a boat over the ocean.
***Turns out many of them were European too. ; )
Integration works both ways and should be to the benefit of everyone.
***Why is it beneficial? As you noted, it wasn’t beneficial for the people living in the Americas before that Italian guy showed up.
dæl wrote:Of course this is racially motivated, but this is not the fault of Islam it is an entirely social problem that stems from ghettoisation and lack of integration. That is the problem here, Britain today is multicultural, and no amount of witch hunts and demonisation from the political right will change that, what we need to do is accept people as British and offer them all the benefit of such status on the proviso of them taking on the responsibility of being part of society.
And this kind of thinking right here is what is going to destroy western nations...
When you emigrate to another country the onus to integrate and comply to that country's laws and culture should be on you!
Try and go to any middle eastern country and don't conform to their habits and culture and see how far that will get you...
Bolded the bit you disregarded. Currently we don't encourage integration and the right wing media are very quick to attack and vilify minorities regardless of their citizenship status (something it's very hard to actually get) and claim that people can turn up and claim fully from the welfare state (an outright lie). People learn about how to behave from socialisation, and if people from other cultures are not joining in with the rest of society how are they taught what is expected of them? Misogyny is prevalent is many cultures around the world, but is thankfully becoming less common as we all become a bit less backward, this isn't solely a Muslim problem, but an ignorance problem. The onus is on the teaching of respect for others, something religion of all things should teach but in some cases fails.
melissa wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
Why don't we just castrate all sex attackers.
That won't stop many of them.
Often it's a matter of domination more than sex for these kinds of people.
Melissa is right here, there is a massive correlation between sexual predatory behaviour and arson, in some circumstances however chemical castration has proved benefical in rehabilitation, but the person must want to be rehabilitated otherwise they can just stop taking the drugs.
dæl wrote:Of course this is racially motivated, but this is not the fault of Islam it is an entirely social problem that stems from ghettoisation and lack of integration.
Mate, this is absolute nonsense.
PC nonsense.
The local MP (listen to the audio!) sits there and says that he had to "literally throw people out" of his surgery because Muslim citizens that are unrelated to the crimes basically turn up and say "They deserved it because of the way they dress and act" and your saying its nothing to do with Islam!?
Ill spell it out for you.
In some Muslim nations, the women HAVE to wear a Burkha because if a man rapes or sexually assaults said woman and she is showing off some flesh, she bares a share of the blame. Isn't that abhorrent to you? A woman should have to right to walk down a street in a bikini is she so chooses without having to take a share of the blame if a stranger decides to savagely rape her because she shouldn't have tempted him? Should the woman say "Yes, its all my fault, I mean.. you know what men are like!" I find the argument not only offensive to women, but also to men, like we are all so stupid we cant control our testicles.
This isnt my opinion, this is a fact. There are even some clerics who say that two eyes can look "alluring" so they want to women to cover their faces entirely, or wear an eye patch.
And yet you can sit there with a stright face and say its "not the fault of Islam" its from lack of integration!?
I'm sorry, but your attitude disgusts me. People that bend to PC dogma and say "oh its not Islam's fault.. no no.. Islam teaches respect for women!.. its all our fault for keeping them down/not integrating" are basically rape enablers. Why do you think the use of the full veil has been on the decline so much? Even in Pakistan its use is now far less common, and its precisely because moderate Muslims are aware of what it stands for. It exists for several reasons sure, but one is so that if a woman isn't wearing one, and she goes out in a mini skirt and gets raped, the man can say "Look what YOU made me do"
Bolded the bit you disregarded. Currently we don't encourage integration and the right wing media are very quick to attack and vilify minorities regardless of their citizenship status (something it's very hard to actually get) and claim that people can turn up and claim fully from the welfare state (an outright lie). People learn about how to behave from socialisation, and if people from other cultures are not joining in with the rest of society how are they taught what is expected of them? Misogyny is prevalent is many cultures around the world, but is thankfully becoming less common as we all become a bit less backward, this isn't solely a Muslim problem, but an ignorance problem. The onus is on the teaching of respect for others, something religion of all things should teach but in some cases fails.
And funnily enough, that isn't a problem that faces non-western nations...
If I go to Saudy Arabia and break their costumes (not even talking about laws here), the least that I can expect is to be thrown in jail, for my own protection because chances are I would be lynched by a mob otherwise...
The onus of integration should be on the foreigner, not the host country. You wan't to live in Europe? Fine, you have to learn our costumes and obey our laws.
All this PC bullcrap makes my blood boil, especially when, like in this instance, it supra-cedes the rights of children (one of the few things that cuts right through my "meh" outlook of the world we live in). Do you, for instance, know that there is a law in my country that allows Gypsies girls to marry as early as 12 years old? With full adult men to booth? All in the name of "multiculturalism" and "political correctness"! The rights of those girls to get a proper education and childhood be damned, we can't risk offending the gypsies!
State condoned paedophilia, you got to love it!
And misogyny isn't becoming less common in the world, quite the opposite really: stay tuned for the next few years and watch the "sharia" rule return to all the "Arab Spring" countries, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lets just read that report shall we? "picking up girls as young as 12 and grooming them for sex". Even if it isnt racialy motivated there still essentialy raping 12 year olds. If they walk out theyd better do it at a full sprint or else it wont just be a lynching they get. Then again they probably will. Theyll get off on that "your only picking on us because were a minority" excuse. Its sick really but the laws biased as hell. Like if we say [see forum posting rules] we pretty much get massacred by the police(Happend to one of my mums freinds whom has Terets) but they can say pretty much anything they like and get away with it.
master of ordinance wrote:Lets just read that report shall we? "picking up girls as young as 12 and grooming them for sex". Even if it isnt racialy motivated there still essentialy raping 12 year olds. If they walk out theyd better do it at a full sprint or else it wont just be a lynching they get. Then again they probably will. Theyll get off on that "your only picking on us because were a minority" excuse. Its sick really but the laws biased as hell. Like if we say [see forum posting rules] we pretty much get massacred by the police(Happend to one of my mums freinds whom has Terets) but they can say pretty much anything they like and get away with it.
This is a great post and all but proper spelling and grammar is really appreciated on Dakka as it can be hard to understand someone's point if they do not use proper spelling and grammar...
Thanks
And this kind of thinking right here is what is going to destroy western nations...
At this point I was like, "whoa whoa whoa mutha trucka,"
When you emigrate to another country the onus to integrate and comply to that country's laws and culture should be on you!
and here I was like, /nods
Totally not the direction I thought you were going.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: A woman should have to right to walk down a street in a bikini
Not just the right, when I become the king of North America it will be the law. Bikinis on every woman from 1 May until 31 July! We'll fight obesity head on. I'm sure in the interest of fairness I'll have to come up with something for men, but I'm not devoting a lot of energy to it.
dæl wrote:Of course this is racially motivated, but this is not the fault of Islam it is an entirely social problem that stems from ghettoisation and lack of integration.
Mate, this is absolute nonsense.
PC nonsense.
The local MP (listen to the audio!) sits there and says that he had to "literally throw people out" of his surgery because Muslim citizens that are unrelated to the crimes basically turn up and say "They deserved it because of the way they dress and act" and your saying its nothing to do with Islam!?
Ill spell it out for you.
In some Muslim nations, the women HAVE to wear a Burkha because if a man rapes or sexually assaults said woman and she is showing off some flesh, she bares a share of the blame. Isn't that abhorrent to you? A woman should have to right to walk down a street in a bikini is she so chooses without having to take a share of the blame if a stranger decides to savagely rape her because she shouldn't have tempted him? Should the woman say "Yes, its all my fault, I mean.. you know what men are like!" I find the argument not only offensive to women, but also to men, like we are all so stupid we cant control our testicles.
This isnt my opinion, this is a fact. There are even some clerics who say that two eyes can look "alluring" so they want to women to cover their faces entirely, or wear an eye patch.
And yet you can sit there with a stright face and say its "not the fault of Islam" its from lack of integration!?
I'm sorry, but your attitude disgusts me. People that bend to PC dogma and say "oh its not Islam's fault.. no no.. Islam teaches respect for women!.. its all our fault for keeping them down/not integrating" are basically rape enablers. Why do you think the use of the full veil has been on the decline so much? Even in Pakistan its use is now far less common, and its precisely because moderate Muslims are aware of what it stands for. It exists for several reasons sure, but one is so that if a woman isn't wearing one, and she goes out in a mini skirt and gets raped, the man can say "Look what YOU made me do"
I said, and I stand by the fact that the issue of misogyny is not solely an Islamic idea, it is rife in all monotheistic religion, after all what is the garden of eden but an analogy that women are weak?
Integration is a two way street, the immigrant and the country must work together. We Brits are some of the worst for integration when we emigrate, just look at areas of Spain, and Hong Kong, we refuse to engage with the host culture at all. Its not Political Correctness to ask that those who join our society should abide by our laws, which is also what I said. By the way a chap in a dog collar on Question Time said something similar to "They deserved it because of the way they dress and act." Although I don't think he meant it quite like that (more a reference to the growing sexualisation of pre-teens, albeit inarticulately done).
I'm not arguing that these men are evil, and deserve to be locked away for a very long time, along with those that refused to help in 2008. But after the dust has settled we need to look not at the symptoms of this, but at the root causes. That is the best way to ensure this doesn't happen again. I don't think that makes me a "rape-enabler" at all, quite the opposite in fact.
dæl wrote:Of course this is racially motivated, but this is not the fault of Islam it is an entirely social problem that stems from ghettoisation and lack of integration. That is the problem here, Britain today is multicultural, and no amount of witch hunts and demonisation from the political right will change that, what we need to do is accept people as British and offer them all the benefit of such status on the proviso of them taking on the responsibility of being part of society.
And this kind of thinking right here is what is going to destroy western nations...
When you emigrate to another country the onus to integrate and comply to that country's laws and culture should be on you!
Try and go to any middle eastern country and don't conform to their habits and culture and see how far that will get you...
Bolded the bit you disregarded. Currently we don't encourage integration and the right wing media are very quick to attack and vilify minorities regardless of their citizenship status (something it's very hard to actually get) and claim that people can turn up and claim fully from the welfare state (an outright lie). People learn about how to behave from socialisation, and if people from other cultures are not joining in with the rest of society how are they taught what is expected of them? Misogyny is prevalent is many cultures around the world, but is thankfully becoming less common as we all become a bit less backward, this isn't solely a Muslim problem, but an ignorance problem. The onus is on the teaching of respect for others, something religion of all things should teach but in some cases fails.
melissa wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
Why don't we just castrate all sex attackers.
That won't stop many of them.
Often it's a matter of domination more than sex for these kinds of people.
Melissa is right here, there is a massive correlation between sexual predatory behaviour and arson, in some circumstances however chemical castration has proved benefical in rehabilitation, but the person must want to be rehabilitated otherwise they can just stop taking the drugs.
Chemical castration isn't what I had in mind Think more along the line of farms and bulls.
"The defendant believed that such girls would be more likely to give in to his persistent offers... and they may find themselves less likely to be believed if they complained to the police against a responsible, respected restaurateur of the city."
The jury heard that one girl complained to police about Miah persistently harassing her in 2008, three years before he was arrested, but gave up when no action was taken.
SilverMK2 wrote:Very few people reoffend once they've danced the rope.
Studies have shown no extra deterrent from having the death penalty. In fact statistics show that the death penalty leads to a brutalisation of society and an increase in murder rate. In the USA, more murders take place in states where capital punishment is allowed. In 2003, the murder rate in states where the death penalty has been abolished was 4.10 per cent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was 5.91 per cent.
There is one controversial aspect of the Rochdale sexual grooming case: that originally the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to prosecute two of the men convicted on Tuesday and that, as a result, the offences continued for a further two years. It was only with the appointment of a Muslim, Nazir Afzal, last summer to the post of chief crown prosecutor that this decision was reversed. Was his predecessor inhibited from action by considerations of political correctness?
Martin D Stern
Salford, Greater Manchester
It seems it was the CPS who decided against prosecution two years ago, and the police didn't take complaints seriously in 2008, there is an inquiry ongoing which is being overseen by the IPCC, but it's incredibly unlikely that anyone will be punished for allowing this abuse to carry on for four more years.
There is one controversial aspect of the Rochdale sexual grooming case: that originally the Crown Prosecution Service had decided not to prosecute two of the men convicted on Tuesday and that, as a result, the offences continued for a further two years. It was only with the appointment of a Muslim, Nazir Afzal, last summer to the post of chief crown prosecutor that this decision was reversed. Was his predecessor inhibited from action by considerations of political correctness?
Martin D Stern
Salford, Greater Manchester
It seems it was the CPS who decided against prosecution two years ago, and the police didn't take complaints seriously in 2008, there is an inquiry ongoing which is being overseen by the IPCC, but it's incredibly unlikely that anyone will be punished for allowing this abuse to carry on for four more years.
Amazing.
My father has a Pakistani doctor and he loves the guy, he always tells me about how whenever Asian men go into his surgery for examinations and such that are linked towards recieving incapactiy benefits and such, he has told the secretary to send them all his way, and the people in question refuse and always ask for a white doctor. Basically the Asian doctor doesnt just blindly sign them off for whatever they wish, as a result of this my old man always said that the only way the country will sort out the swindling is the day we get a Pakistani Prime Minister.
SilverMK2 wrote:Very few people reoffend once they've danced the rope.
Studies have shown no extra deterrent from having the death penalty. In fact statistics show that the death penalty leads to a brutalisation of society and an increase in murder rate. In the USA, more murders take place in states where capital punishment is allowed. In 2003, the murder rate in states where the death penalty has been abolished was 4.10 per cent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was 5.91 per cent.
You will note, I hope, that I made no comment on the death penalty deterring (or otherwise) the population...
SilverMK2 wrote:Very few people reoffend once they've danced the rope.
Studies have shown no extra deterrent from having the death penalty. In fact statistics show that the death penalty leads to a brutalisation of society and an increase in murder rate. In the USA, more murders take place in states where capital punishment is allowed. In 2003, the murder rate in states where the death penalty has been abolished was 4.10 per cent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was 5.91 per cent.
You will note, I hope, that I made no comment on the death penalty deterring (or otherwise) the population...
Indeed not, but it would result in more and worse crime so is kind of counterproductive. Also, have a look at the youtube link I posted, talks about false sentencing and miscarriages of justice.
I would also state that looking at the USA is not exactly representative of what would happen in the UK or elsewhere. For example we are not all armed to the teeth
I'd be interested to see studies based on the UK pre-cutting of the death penalty, as well as looking at more comparable nations which have the death penalty. Or at least summaries of the same, since I don't really fell like wading through sociological study papers
SilverMK2 wrote:I would also state that looking at the USA is not exactly representative of what would happen in the UK or elsewhere. For example we are not all armed to the teeth
I'd be interested to see studies based on the UK pre-cutting of the death penalty, as well as looking at more comparable nations which have the death penalty. Or at least summaries of the same, since I don't really fell like wading through sociological study papers
I'm not massively right wing and as a result not hugely behind the idea of capital punishment, but I definitely think all the liberal idiots are juking the stats. There is no way that the logic is flawed surely? Namely, making it so that people who get caught doing awful things don't get sent to a nice heated prison, but instead get flayed alive, would be MORE likely to offend?
I'm sorry, but that fries my logic circuits.
I reckon you could make a strong case that the death penalty has relatively few pros, but there is no way the pinko Guardian readers arent making gak up to strengthen their position.
Heres another good one.. "locking someone up costs far less than killing them!"
mattyrm wrote:
Heres another good one.. "locking someone up costs far less than killing them!"
It does. The legal costs of appeals and incarceration while on death row is huge.
Capital punishment is only more cost efficient if you have a single trial, and then execution.
mattyrm wrote:
Heres another good one.. "locking someone up costs far less than killing them!"
It does. The legal costs of appeals and incarceration while on death row is huge.
Capital punishment is only more cost efficient if you have a single trial, and then execution.
The only comparable nation is the U.S. its the only G7 country that practices the death penalty. Could use Japan, but Japan doesn't have the social inequalities that Britain does, and death sentences are incredibly rare, its not used anywhere else in the developed world.
No academic would falsify data, it would risk their credibility and therefore livelihood and would come out under peer review anyway. They might just not publish, but would never falsify.
mattyrm wrote:
Heres another good one.. "locking someone up costs far less than killing them!"
It does. The legal costs of appeals and incarceration while on death row is huge.
Capital punishment is only more cost efficient if you have a single trial, and then execution.
Obviously! That's the way forward then isnt it?
Give them 3 square meals a day for 65 years = money
Drag them outside and bludgeon them with a hammer = ten pounds for the hammer.
Plus, you can keep hitting them with the hammer until it snaps over a blokes swede, so, say you get 300 swings of a hammer.. well.. your talking pennies!
Its about £40k a year to keep someone in prison, but they can leave if it turns out they were wrongly convicted, can't really do that if you've killed them.
I dont see why it costs that much though, I mean, I dont think we should kill people, but why not keep criminals in say.. ten man dorm rooms?
And half their allowance of food. Say, only give them 2 meals a day instead of three.
You can make it so its not "cruel and unusual" and save loads of cash by taking more niceties, thereby appeasing the right wing "flog em" crowd, and the left wing "don't harm them ever" crowd!
Smart right? I mean, we should have to provide things like hot water, and bedding, but why must they get ice cream and television?
A lot of that cash is on admin and staffing, but prison is far too easy, the only real deterrent to people is the prospect of an overly affectionate cellmate. Marines are Navy aren't they? So would it still be Colchester as a prison? I can't imagine it would be that fun an experience to spend a few years there.
I actually wouldn't mind if we kept spending that much but instead of spending it on nice stuff for them, spend it on proven ways to rehabilitate and reduce reoffending rates. Because whatever is happening now is demonstrably not working.
Also we need to sort out the fact that 70% of the prison population has 2 or more mental disorders, and a good number of these people would be better off in a sectioned environment. Obviously not roaming the streets, but its not good for anyone just sticking them in prison.
Yeah I had a mate do 6 months in a proper prison and then a stretch in the glasshouse afterwards for an assault.
He said that the proper prison was a cake walk, and that the military prison was much harder. He said you werent allowed to sit when locked in your cell, and the guards march up and down the corridor constantly checking in the cell to make sure you are standing!
That just made me think "why do we treat rough and tumble lads who do minor gak and end up in the glasshouse, far far worse than full blown criminals?"
Do you think people like Ian Huntley are not allowed to sit down in their cells and are taken on forced PT at 0545 in the morning?
That seems probably a little too harsh, could even be construed as torture, which would mean they could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights under article 3. The suicide rate in prison is already 15 times higher than the rest of society and that might just go up a little if we make them stand for 23 hours a day.
mattyrm wrote:I dont see why it costs that much though, I mean, I dont think we should kill people, but why not keep criminals in say.. ten man dorm rooms?
And half their allowance of food. Say, only give them 2 meals a day instead of three.
You can make it so its not "cruel and unusual" and save loads of cash by taking more niceties, thereby appeasing the right wing "flog em" crowd, and the left wing "don't harm them ever" crowd!
Smart right? I mean, we should have to provide things like hot water, and bedding, but why must they get ice cream and television?
I believe that they tried inexpensive prisons once. Look how well that turned out:
It's a shame there's not a nearly uninhabited island off the coast of say South America where we could revive this notion...
Medium of Death wrote:the amount of not guilty executions would be far outweighed by guilty executions.
So it would be ok for a member of your family to be killed on false charges as long as more guilty people were killed as well? How many more? 10? 100? 1000? How many criminals lives are the equivalent of a member of your families?
In this specific case, with the race aspect, there runs the risk of martyrising the perpetrators. Even with them being as abhorrent as they are, some idiot somewhere would end up feeling sorry for them.
dæl wrote:Its about £40k a year to keep someone in prison, but they can leave if it turns out they were wrongly convicted, can't really do that if you've killed them.
This is the main reason that I don't favour the death penalty: I just don't trust human society enough to run such a policy without corruption and error, threatened/bribed witnesses and missing evidence etc.
mattyrm wrote:I dont see why it costs that much though, I mean, I dont think we should kill people, but why not keep criminals in say.. ten man dorm rooms?
And half their allowance of food. Say, only give them 2 meals a day instead of three.
You can make it so its not "cruel and unusual" and save loads of cash by taking more niceties, thereby appeasing the right wing "flog em" crowd, and the left wing "don't harm them ever" crowd!
Smart right? I mean, we should have to provide things like hot water, and bedding, but why must they get ice cream and television?
I believe that they tried inexpensive prisons once. Look how well that turned out:
It's a shame there's not a nearly uninhabited island off the coast of say South America where we could revive this notion...
We should definitely do that again, if we get more Aussies
RossDas wrote:
This is the main reason that I don't favour the death penalty: I just don't trust human society enough to run such a policy without corruption and error, threatened/bribed witnesses and missing evidence etc.
He should be kept at her majesty's pleasure, but still, I can't imagine the prison population will be that nice to him, they don't like nonces at the best of times.
dæl wrote:He should be kept at her majesty's pleasure, but still, I can't imagine the prison population will be that nice to him, they don't like nonces at the best of times.
Anyone in prison for hurting a woman gets a rough time. An Asian guy who raped a young white girl? Yeah his ass will be meat.
Would genuinely like to see him chained up and raped for days on end in a room, like he did to those wee girls. Fair's fair.
dæl wrote:He should be kept at her majesty's pleasure, but still, I can't imagine the prison population will be that nice to him, they don't like nonces at the best of times.
Anyone in prison for hurting a woman gets a rough time. An Asian guy who raped a young white girl? Yeah his ass will be meat.
Would genuinely like to see him chained up and raped for days on end in a room, like he did to those wee girls. Fair's fair.
It's like my old grandad used to say: 'two rapes makes a right'.
It's like MY old grandad used to say: 'two rapes makes a night'. But then, he was odd.
They can't keep him locked away from the prison population for 15 years (or 7 as is more likely), and once he's let loose he'll be passed around like a bag of werthers originals. It's not necessarily right, but probably more just than 7 years inside considering the fact those girls will have to live with what has happened to them forever.
Two more men have been arrested in connection with an ongoing inquiry into grooming and child sexual exploitation in Rochdale.
The men, both 33, were detained on suspicion of sexual assault and rape.
Nine men, aged between 24 and 38, arrested on suspicion of sexual activity with a child from 2005 are on bail pending further inquiries.
Earlier this month, eight Pakistani men and an Afghan received received jail sentences of between four and 19 years from a judge who said they treated their white victims "as though they were worthless and beyond any respect".
!
