Another grooming gang

[Oakey]

Alpinestars said:

Do those threads ask for all celebs, all Catholics (as an example) to apologise on behalf of the perpetrators? That's the issue I think. Tarring people with a brush they have nothing to do with.

The perpetrators are s of the highest order, whatever their background. And we should not be asking people who are vicariously linked to those people to shoulder any of the guilt or to apologise on their behalf.

Because in those cases it seems the victims are being chosen by the colour of their skin or because they're not 'one of us'. Ie, the perpetrators think those girls are fair game because they're inferior humans and that sort of attitude isn't just restricted to these Asian gangs, I know there are traveller grooming gangs operating who think the same. You only have to watch any of those gypsy programmes on C4 and see their attitude towards none travellers and the way they refer to the rest of society.

[Alpinestars]

Oakey said:

Because in those cases it seems the victims are being chosen by the colour of their skin or because they're not 'one of us'. Ie, the perpetrators think those girls are fair game because they're inferior humans and that sort of attitude isn't just restricted to these Asian gangs, I know there are traveller grooming gangs operating who think the same. You only have to watch any of those gypsy programmes on C4 and see their attitude towards none travellers and the way they refer to the rest of society.

I'm sorry but anyone who does this sort if thing is treating another human being as inferior.

[andymadmak]

eddharris said:

andymadmak said:

Nice ad him there. So, before I write you off as another apologist idiot hows about you find me just ONE example of anyone claiming that only Muslims commit these crimes. Just one. One. Should not be a problem if its there in black and white as you claim. Remember, just one. You can select one of my "narrow minded crap" posts if you like.

But hey look, it's the weekend and you won't want to. So to save you the trouble of having to make up some sort of wk excuse I'll make it easy for you and say that you won't find what you're saying is there. In case you're struggling, that means that no one has claimed that only Muslims commit these crimes. If you can prove me wrong on that then I will happily donate £100 to the victim charity of your choice

I've already written you off as a tt so go for it. "Apologist" seems the default comeback from you silly tts. Actually, I wouldn't normally argue with stupid but fk it, what exactly is an apologist in this case?

Whilst you're at it, read my post again, knob. I already said no one has come out and said out but its obvious if you read between the lines. But then I did also say retards would miss that, so if the cap fits...

Now, you know exactly what you can do

Edited by eddharris on Friday 24th April 17:22

1 out of 10. You really must try harder. So it's between the lines now?

To answer your question, One definition of an apologist, at least as far as I am concerned, is someone who wilfully refuses to consider all the relevant information simply because some of that information conflicts with his own views. So that person finds (increasingly desperate) ways to deflect peoples attention away from that information. Your particular tactic is to imply that racism lies at the root of these allegations. Or at least that racism plays a significant part of the thought processes of anyone who says for example "hang on a moment, how come sooooo many of the abusers of the types found in Rotherham, Oxford etc are Pakistani Muslims?"

It's perfectly reasonable to ask such a question. Just as it was perfectly reasonable to ask why so many catholic priests were involved in another kind of child abuse. And it will be really important to dig into and see if there are any other factors (besides being male) that link this latest bunch of monsters together.

You see, it is really important to consider all factors that may be relevant to the modus operandi of these various groups. Where a pattern is identified steps can then be taken to avoid abuses in the future and to accelerate the detection of similar groups that might be operating.

You see it really is all about protecting the victims!

[Boosted LS1]

Alpinestars said:

I'm sorry but anyone who does this sort if thing is treating another human being as inferior.

Yes I agree with that completely but some cultures, groups, religions seem to find it more acceptable and will tolerate it. It seems more common with muslims, kafir people are seen as scum in the first place. I've never seen white gangs abusing muslim women, just the other way round. And in the third world they're still stoning people and cutting heads off.

I can't think of any other race/religion that holds that attitude or behaves this way. There is something very wrong with this.

[TTwiggy]

Boosted LS1 said:

Yes I agree with that completely but some cultures, groups, religions seem to find it more acceptable and will tolerate it. It seems more common with muslims, kafir people are seen as scum in the first place. I've never seen white gangs abusing muslim women, just the other way round. And in the third world they're still stoning people and cutting heads off.

I can't think of any other race/religion that holds that attitude or behaves this way. There is something very wrong with this.

You see, here we have a (admittedly mild compared to some of the posts on the other threads) example of what some of us take issue with.

Within a couple of lines, child abuse is being linked to stonings and beheadings, like it's some sort of inevitable pathway for any follower of Islam, and then the post is signed off with one of those ambiguous and impossible to quantify 'there's clearly something wrong with them' statements.

It's possibly unfair to pick on this post, for, as I said, it's pretty mild compared to the 'they can't help themselves their book tells them to do it' guff on the other threads.

[carinaman]

This group secretly befriended expectant parents with the intention of raping their unborn once they had been born.

The Council in Rotherham took out an injunction to keep the industrial scale sexual exploitation of children secret.

This group of convicted deviants have been jailed. Two high ranking Council officials that presided over the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham have walked away to well paid jobs doing the same role in Australia and Birmingham.

What's the difference between those having penetrative sex with children and those in the public sector/establishment that cover up those committing the crime of having penetrative sex with children?

What's happening with those police officers across three different police constabularies that failed to deal with the information they'd been passed about convicted paedophile and former Lost Prophets frontman Ian Watkins?

Edited by carinaman on Friday 24th April 19:08

[Alpinestars]

Boosted LS1 said:

Yes I agree with that completely but some cultures, groups, religions seem to find it more acceptable and will tolerate it. It seems more common with muslims, kafir people are seen as scum in the first place. I've never seen white gangs abusing muslim women, just the other way round. And in the third world they're still stoning people and cutting heads off.

I can't think of any other race/religion that holds that attitude or behaves this way. There is something very wrong with this.

Oh dear. The Catholic Church must preach child abuse and white folk are partial to young babies. How utterly ridiculous.

[Oakey]

Alpinestars said:

Oh dear. The Catholic Church must preach child abuse and white folk are partial to young babies. How utterly ridiculous.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/may/18/baroness-warsi-Pakistan-men-fair-game

Guardian said:

But Warsi, who is Muslim, told the London Evening Standard newspaper: "There is a small minority of Pakistani men who believe that white girls are fair game. And we have to be prepared to say that. You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first.

"This small minority who see women as second-class citizens, and white women probably as third-class citizens, are to be spoken out against."

She's talking rubbish then?

[TKF]

andymadmak said:

One definition of an apologist, at least as far as I am concerned, is someone who wilfully refuses to consider all the relevant information simply because some of that information conflicts with his own views.

Splendid. Then that makes you a PH apologist for for choosing to ignore the rampant anti-Islamic sentiment that runs through this forum and the multitude of threads about "the so called religion of peace".

[Boosted LS1]

TKF said:

Splendid. Then that makes you a PH apologist for for choosing to ignore the rampant anti-Islamic sentiment that runs through this forum and the multitude of threads about "the so called religion of peace".

There's a reason for the growing anti islamic feelings. All over the world muslims are 'kicking off' and in the western world we're resenting it. To the point where we're finally starting to speak out against it.

[NicD]

TTwiggy said:

You see, here we have a (admittedly mild compared to some of the posts on the other threads) example of what some of us take issue with.

Within a couple of lines, child abuse is being linked to stonings and beheadings, like it's some sort of inevitable pathway for any follower of Islam, and then the post is signed off with one of those ambiguous and impossible to quantify 'there's clearly something wrong with them' statements.

Do you have trouble with comprehension?
I ask because YOU have made a rather nasty connection not in evidence in the post.

where does it 'link' these or describe an 'inevitable pathway'?

Or are you saying none of these events occurred'?

You are so eager to feed your insecurities you are imagining wrongs.

It is this stupidity that let Rotherham and Tower Hamlets flourish in their worst.


YOU owe the apology.

[andymadmak]

TKF said:

andymadmak said:

One definition of an apologist, at least as far as I am concerned, is someone who wilfully refuses to consider all the relevant information simply because some of that information conflicts with his own views.

Splendid. Then that makes you a PH apologist for for choosing to ignore the rampant anti-Islamic sentiment that runs through this forum and the multitude of threads about "the so called religion of peace".

Good morning TKF. Is there rampant anti Islamic sentiment on PH? What makes you say that? Is it because of the number of threads or the content of thise threads?

Or is it the case that the high number of news stories in the media as a whole that involve Islam in some way. - wars, terrorism, extremism, acts of barbarity, etc - gets reflected in the number of stories that appear in NP&E? I suspect that that might be the case rather than any rampant desire to seek out and highlight anti Islam stories on the part of the PH massive. But if you have evidence to the contrary please do bring it forward.

When a particular group or a number of groups seemingly belonging to the same over all identifier keeps appearing in the media it is perhaps not surprising that people hold a range of views towards those groups. Now here is where I think you may very well have a point. Many PHers simply do not understand what is going on inside the Muslim community. And I say that not in a challenging way, but ias a simple statement of fact. Many simply don't "get" why so many things dont add up. To take an extreme example we see thousands of muslims taking to the street in protest, and people being killed over the drawing of a few satirical cartoons, but we hear nary a peep when hundreds are found to be abusing, raping and exploiting kids. Now, I know, I know, that the two things are not the same and in many respects it is unfair to draw comparisons but if you are generous of thought I am sure that you could find any number of similar, perhaps less extreme examples of what at first glance appears to be the absolute double standards that exist.
When people do not understand the result is often a degree of polarisation. And in that polarisation I suspect you do see some genuine anti islamic outpourings on PH, especially when people are angry about some of the responses that appear on here from members of, and defenders of the Muslim communities.
Take this thread for example, it's about a white paedo gang getting caught and rightly sent to jail. But its been diverted back to discussions about anti islamic feelings not because anti islamists hijacked the thread but because supporters of Islam came onto the thread and started complaining that the thread was not growing fast enough , and the reason ( they hint) is because the perps are white and not brown.
Just think about that for a moment. Not a mention of the victims, instead a complaint that contributors are clearly racist because the thread is still only a few pages long. Take a step back and consider that and then realise why so many people are utterly exasperated!
So, do I think that there ar anti islamic feelings in some posters on PH? Yes. Do I think it is " rampant" ? No. Honestly I do not. But I can be moved by evidence so bring the evidence forward. However as I said to the other poster who went all postal on me about this, evidence of what you assert is unlikely to be there.


Can we not simply join together in the unanimous condemnation of the actions of these men and in our desire to support the victims?

Can we not agree that understanding all the factors that drive the groups that do these kinds of things is vital in the fight to ensure an end to victim suffering both now and in the future?

Can we not agree that in seeking to identify and understand those various factors we can accept that there is not one set of factors but that there are multiple factors and that different groups will have different drivers and factors?

Can we agree that there should be no " off limit" topics if we are to really protect victims?

Can we agree that justice should be blind in respect of race, creed and colour ?

Can we agree that everyone in our society has a duty to protect the vulnerable?

I am genuinely sorry that you and others feel persecuted on here, but to my whitey eyes you do seem to bring much of the opprobium onto yourselves in refusing to consider things simply because to do so leaves you conflicted.

Edited by andymadmak on Saturday 25th April 09:40

[TKF]

That's a lot of words to confirm your apologist position

[andymadmak]

TKF said:

That's a lot of words to confirm your apologist position

Too many for you to read, clearly.

Never mind though. At least I tried.

[TKF]

You doth protest too much

[gruffalo]

WinstonWolf said:

TKF said:

It would be nice if moderate white folk came out and condemned this. Their silence can only mean one thing.

I can do better than condemn it, they're a bunch of utter s and should have their balls cut off.

The same goes for the muslim gangs, a paedo is a whatever the colour of their skin.

I have to agree, off with their nuts.

There is on glaring difference between this case and the Rochdale case.

In that case members of the community that those charged were part of stated in interviews that the girls were asking for it and that it was the girls fault, they did not condemn the rape of children but blamed them.

I have not seen anyone take that stance in this case.

[andymadmak]

TKF said:

You doth protest too much

In a thread about a gang of monsters preying on babies you have made 4 posts. Not once have you condemned the actions of the perps. Not once have you spared a thought for the victims. Instead it's all about cheap points scoring and racist innuendos. Have a word with yourself eh?

[Mojocvh]

andymadmak said:

TKF said:

You doth protest too much

In a thread about a gang of monsters preying on babies you have made 4 posts. Not once have you condemned the actions of the perps. Not once have you spared a thought for the victims. Instead it's all about cheap points scoring and racist innuendos. Have a word with yourself eh?

Last two posts spot on.

[Erudite geezer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32486188

No grooming here.
Or gangs.

But this dude is one sick bro.

[R666]

andymadmak said:

TKF said:

andymadmak said:

One definition of an apologist, at least as far as I am concerned, is someone who wilfully refuses to consider all the relevant information simply because some of that information conflicts with his own views.

Splendid. Then that makes you a PH apologist for for choosing to ignore the rampant anti-Islamic sentiment that runs through this forum and the multitude of threads about "the so called religion of peace".

Good morning TKF. Is there rampant anti Islamic sentiment on PH? What makes you say that? Is it because of the number of threads or the content of thise threads?

Or is it the case that the high number of news stories in the media as a whole that involve Islam in some way. - wars, terrorism, extremism, acts of barbarity, etc - gets reflected in the number of stories that appear in NP&E? I suspect that that might be the case rather than any rampant desire to seek out and highlight anti Islam stories on the part of the PH massive. But if you have evidence to the contrary please do bring it forward.

When a particular group or a number of groups seemingly belonging to the same over all identifier keeps appearing in the media it is perhaps not surprising that people hold a range of views towards those groups. Now here is where I think you may very well have a point. Many PHers simply do not understand what is going on inside the Muslim community. And I say that not in a challenging way, but ias a simple statement of fact. Many simply don't "get" why so many things dont add up. To take an extreme example we see thousands of muslims taking to the street in protest, and people being killed over the drawing of a few satirical cartoons, but we hear nary a peep when hundreds are found to be abusing, raping and exploiting kids. Now, I know, I know, that the two things are not the same and in many respects it is unfair to draw comparisons but if you are generous of thought I am sure that you could find any number of similar, perhaps less extreme examples of what at first glance appears to be the absolute double standards that exist.
When people do not understand the result is often a degree of polarisation. And in that polarisation I suspect you do see some genuine anti islamic outpourings on PH, especially when people are angry about some of the responses that appear on here from members of, and defenders of the Muslim communities.
Take this thread for example, it's about a white paedo gang getting caught and rightly sent to jail. But its been diverted back to discussions about anti islamic feelings not because anti islamists hijacked the thread but because supporters of Islam came onto the thread and started complaining that the thread was not growing fast enough , and the reason ( they hint) is because the perps are white and not brown.
Just think about that for a moment. Not a mention of the victims, instead a complaint that contributors are clearly racist because the thread is still only a few pages long. Take a step back and consider that and then realise why so many people are utterly exasperated!
So, do I think that there ar anti islamic feelings in some posters on PH? Yes. Do I think it is " rampant" ? No. Honestly I do not. But I can be moved by evidence so bring the evidence forward. However as I said to the other poster who went all postal on me about this, evidence of what you assert is unlikely to be there.


Can we not simply join together in the unanimous condemnation of the actions of these men and in our desire to support the victims?

Can we not agree that understanding all the factors that drive the groups that do these kinds of things is vital in the fight to ensure an end to victim suffering both now and in the future?

Can we not agree that in seeking to identify and understand those various factors we can accept that there is not one set of factors but that there are multiple factors and that different groups will have different drivers and factors?

Can we agree that there should be no " off limit" topics if we are to really protect victims?

Can we agree that justice should be blind in respect of race, creed and colour ?

Can we agree that everyone in our society has a duty to protect the vulnerable?

I am genuinely sorry that you and others feel persecuted on here, but to my whitey eyes you do seem to bring much of the opprobium onto yourselves in refusing to consider things simply because to do so leaves you conflicted.

Edited by andymadmak on Saturday 25th April 09:40

Spot on, very logical and well thought out post

And the response was a couple of one liner throw away comments. Sums it up really.