Do you agree with Greater Manchester Police? (Jack Straw doesn't)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**mattyrm**

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.

Two are at least. Update here..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17993003

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**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
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**

biccat wrote:
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.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
biccat wrote:
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.

Its a California judge. Enough said.

**d-usa**

But that's exactly what a guy from Texas would say...

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
biccat wrote:
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.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:But that's exactly what a guy from Texas would say...

Looks at crime levels in the LA basin and crime levels in Texas.
Yep!

**Medium of Death**

Telegraph Article.

Spoiler:

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!

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:But that's exactly what a guy from Texas would say...

Looks at crime levels in the LA basin and crime levels in Texas.
Yep!

You know that your levels are only low because you guys shoot instead of report!

**mattyrm**

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.

**Hazardous Harry**

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**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
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.

Why do you think intent to kill is hard to prove?

**Hazardous Harry**

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?

**reds8n**

Can we have the yes it is/no it isn't murder discussion into its own thread please.

Thanks

**Frazzled**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
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?

Because I know what the standard is, have seen the evidence (that whole video thing from a helicopter with the BG laughing and mocking the victim), and that there were 1,400 such convictions in California in 2011 alone.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/ACHAR1/ACHAR1d2011.pdf

Do you have any, facts or are you just blwoing smoke out your ass again? Have you even seen the inside of a courtroom?

**mattyrm**

Frazzled wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:
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?

Because I know what the standard is, have seen the evidence (that whole video thing from a helicopter with the BG laughing and mocking the victim), and that there were 1,400 such convictions in California in 2011 alone.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/ACHAR1/ACHAR1d2011.pdf

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.

**Hazardous Harry**

mattyrm wrote:

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.

That's one way of putting it.

**Frazzled**

mattyrm wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Hazardous Harry wrote:
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?

Because I know what the standard is, have seen the evidence (that whole video thing from a helicopter with the BG laughing and mocking the victim), and that there were 1,400 such convictions in California in 2011 alone.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/ACHAR1/ACHAR1d2011.pdf

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.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**AustonT**

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.

**Melissia**

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).

**Frazzled**

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).

Melissia makes an extravagantly excellent point.

**mattyrm**

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."

**Melissia**

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).

**Amaya**

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.

**Kilkrazy**

If these guys went to Japan for the next stage of their career, would they pick white women or Japanese women as their targets?

**Frazzled**

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?

**Melissia**

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.

**mattyrm**

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?

They would pick Japanese women.

As I said, Straw is bang on, numerous times in the scriptures it basically says "People that are not of your Religion are less valuable"

They would no doubt leave Japanese Muslims alone though.

**Kilkrazy**

Frazzled wrote:
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.