Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s

[anonymous-user]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Are any other countries especially better in this regard? I know Catholic priests have done this in many other countries.

I can't be sure, but I'd think not.

It's not really about the religion - it's about the opportunity.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

desolate said:

I can't be sure, but I'd think not.

It's not really about the religion - it's about the opportunity.

Which opportunity?

[colin_p]

Alpinestars said:

colin_p said:

You can't.

How do you. Not me.

And if YOU can’t, how many do you know that have been explicit about it?

It doesn't it matter, but what does is that by my crude fag packet calculations that one in four'ish might lean towards being a bit terroristy.

You are of course free to find some of your own data and do some of your own sums.

I thought using data from the Guardian which is the defacto choice of happy-clap-o-sphere reference was quite reasonable.

[Alpinestars]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Alpinestars
It may be disingenuous about the crime but what if it is right about the demographic?

If Muslims are disproportionately involved in grooming gangs, and terrorism, and other criminality then is it not reasonable to flag up Muslim integration as a problem in its own right?

Why don’t you/TR have the same concerns about prepubescent child abuse - it’s an exclusively white problem and at far higher incidences than gangs?

[Alpinestars]

colin_p said:

Alpinestars said:

colin_p said:

You can't.

How do you. Not me.

And if YOU can’t, how many do you know that have been explicit about it?

It doesn't it matter, but what does is that by my crude fag packet calculations that one in four'ish might lean towards being a bit terroristy.

You are of course free to find some of your own data and do some of your own sums.

I thought using data from the Guardian which is the defacto choice of happy-clap-o-sphere reference was quite reasonable.

So you don’t know any or have come across any who have been explicit about it despite it apparently being a large part of the Muslim population?

Your fag packet calculation showed your bias in its full glory. Add 10% because Colin thinks that’s right.

[anonymous-user]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

desolate said:

I can't be sure, but I'd think not.

It's not really about the religion - it's about the opportunity.

Which opportunity?

The opportunity to spend time with vulnerable people.

[anonymous-user]

Transmitter Man said:

Brooking10 said:

I have not yet met a single Muslim who agrees with what is perpetrated, in terms of what is being discussed here, in their religion’s name as being anything as vile.

Have you ?


You must be visiting the wrong mosque!

Why then have various well-known mosques invited hate preachers from such places as The Middle East & Asia to lecture the locals- 'sheep that is' only later to be banned and kicked out of the UK.

Finsbury Park & the East London Mosques come to mind.

Point spectacularly missed.

The question is not do such things happen because they do and they are unacceptable.

[Not-The-Messiah]

Alpinestars said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Alpinestars
It may be disingenuous about the crime but what if it is right about the demographic?

If Muslims are disproportionately involved in grooming gangs, and terrorism, and other criminality then is it not reasonable to flag up Muslim integration as a problem in its own right?

Why don’t you/TR have the same concerns about prepubescent child abuse - it’s an exclusively white problem and at far higher incidences than gangs?

Again just because someone doesn't campaign against something doesn't mean they don't care about it.

Someone can campaign specifically about breast cancer, or prostate cancer that doesn't mean they don't give a st about other cancer's.

You are more likely to concentrate on things that you believe impact you or people around you and that you are interested in. Also if you believe you could possibly achieve something.

There is a difference between grooming gangs and your more common abuse. There is a importance difference between individual action and group action.

With natural biological variance within humanity you will always find individual that do not fit within accepted cultural and moral norms. Because of this you will always sporadically find incidents of individuals being completely evil sods.

A couple of reasons people would commit these horrible acks like child abuse are.
1: If they know it's morally and culturally unacceptable but still proceed. It points to a intern wiring problem (biological variance), low impulse control and so on. They either can't form internal moral boundaries or have very weak ones.
You would tend to find these quite sporadically mixed throughout society from all demographics and acting at a individual level which I think you would tend to find with majority of child abusers.

2: People that never create these boundaries and a understanding of what is right or wrong. Because they have never been properly taught them.
This is where you will find group behaviour, (gangs). Because they don't believe it's wrong within the group, and the group itself doesn't find it wrong. You would never be able to form these groups from normal social interactions without the wider community finding it somewhat acceptable.

If you took away the internet which allows people to anonymously contact and link up with like minded people. It would be incredibly, incredibly rear to find group like this in a culture that its made clear that such actions are completely wrong.
But these grooming gangs didn't meet on the internet they were work mates, mates from school and so on.

To me that categorically means there is a local cultural and morality issue within these communities. And mean its possibly a easily rectifiable issue if acknowledged and changed.

Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Thursday 18th October 23:22

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Alpinestars said:

Why don’t you/TR have the same concerns about prepubescent child abuse - it’s an exclusively white problem and at far higher incidences than gangs?

Only white people abuse prepubescent children?

[Alpinestars]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Alpinestars said:

Why don’t you/TR have the same concerns about prepubescent child abuse - it’s an exclusively white problem and at far higher incidences than gangs?

Only white people abuse prepubescent children?

Yep, pretty much so. In Britain at least.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

desolate said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

desolate said:

I can't be sure, but I'd think not.

It's not really about the religion - it's about the opportunity.

Which opportunity?

The opportunity to spend time with vulnerable people.

So any people of any religion will sexually abuse children if they have the chance?

A bleak view...

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Alpinestars said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Alpinestars said:

Why don’t you/TR have the same concerns about prepubescent child abuse - it’s an exclusively white problem and at far higher incidences than gangs?

Only white people abuse prepubescent children?

Yep, pretty much so. In Britain at least.

Do you have any figures to back that up?

[anonymous-user]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

So any people of any religion will sexually abuse children if they have the chance?

A bleak view...

For years the sexual and physical abuse of kids in schools was accepted. Stephen Fry used to tell jokes about it most Friday nights.
Attitudes changed and people started getting arrested for "historical" matters.


I can't be the only 49 yr old who knew about the nonce swimming instructor and the teacher who shagged the 5th former can I?

[Alpinestars]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Alpinestars said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Alpinestars said:

Why don’t you/TR have the same concerns about prepubescent child abuse - it’s an exclusively white problem and at far higher incidences than gangs?

Only white people abuse prepubescent children?

Yep, pretty much so. In Britain at least.

Do you have any figures to back that up?

Yep.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/what-do-we...

You should note that type 2 is much more prevalent than type 1.

Now have a go at answering my original question.

You might also want to consider that the last figures I can find show that c5% of paedophiles in jail in England and Wales (might be the UK, I can’t remember), are Muslim. White men are over represented.

[Alpinestars]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

desolate said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

desolate said:

I can't be sure, but I'd think not.

It's not really about the religion - it's about the opportunity.

Which opportunity?

The opportunity to spend time with vulnerable people.

So any people of any religion will sexually abuse children if they have the chance?

A bleak view...

That’s not what he said. Think about it again.

[Countdown]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Countdown
Are they entirely unrelated?

It seems pretty well documented that there were gangs of almost entirely Muslim men abusing children in quite a systematic way. Just from looking at the Wikipedia page about the Rotherham trials.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_se...

Is that purely coincidence? Or perhaps only relates to certain demographics from Pakistan who just happen to be culturally Muslim?

They were mainly muslim taxi drivers, I doubt there were any muslim accountants/doctors/dentists/lawyers/factory workers/mechanics who were involved in grooming gangs. They had access to vulnerable young girls (girls from broken homes and/or living in care who had nobody looking out for them) and being the sick perverts they were, they took advantage of them. it had nothing to do with their religion, it had everything to do with them being perverts and having access to young women

JuanCarlosFandango said:

I like to think I have a rational mind and yes, I do ask how it can be related to a religion which as you rightly point out appears to be defined by a sort of puritanical fear of sex, drugs and alcohol. So far it seems that it is unacceptable to even ask that question, meaning Tommy Robinson has the monopoly on answering.

It's not unacceptable to ask. It's been asked and attempts have been made to answer it with reasonable explanations. But people like TR (and del boy) aren't interested in the real answer, they need to link it to islam purely so they can justify being a bunch of racist s As Ive already said EDL/FLA/DFLA have a long history of racist violence, dating back to the 70's. It's still the same bunch of people with the same views, the only difference being they can use grooming gangs and jhadis as a fig leaf for their vile beliefs.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Regarding Catholics, it seems fairly well established that there have been some serious failings in the Catholic church at an institutional level. I don't think anyone has been called racist for raising this. And besides our glorious imperial history of oppressing brown folks we have a bit of form with Catholics too, especially the Irish.

That is for two reasons; EDL/BNP aren't bothered about catholics because they're the "right colour". And everybody with more than two brain cells knows that it isn't a Roman catholic issue. It's individual perverts who had access to vulnerable children (see the pattern?). AIUI the main thing was the cover up by senior clergy. However there is nothing inherent with roman catholicism that causes CSE.

JuanCarlosFandango said:

As a Christian I don't see anything in the scripture or tradition, and I don't claim to be an expert, which makes this behaviour acceptable. Rather I suspect it's a failure of institutions.

Agreed

JuanCarosfandango said:

The idea that getting drunk and raping underage girls is a mark of integration into British culture is certainly an interesting take on British culture. One which many might find pretty offensive. Myself included.

i was referring to the alcohol, the drugs, and the sex outside of marriage when i was referring ot integration, not the rape of underage girls. Unlike other posters i don't believe raping underage girls is unique to ANY culture.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Alpinestars
As for "you/TR" - I've been pretty neutral throughout this thread and haven't adopted any of TRs views as my own. I don't have an axeto grind here and while I do think antifa are probably overstepping the mark by at least as much as TR I'm not banging anyone's drum.

FWIW I suspect it's far less of a theological issue with Islam so much as a cultural issue with as Countdown noted, a culture which is pretty conservative (or perhaps even repressed, depending on your point of view) living alongside one which is pretty liberal (or licentious, again depending on your point of view.)

Somewhere in there is a position whereby Tommy Robinson is raising legitimate issues badly and antifa and co are countering them every bit as badly.

[Alpinestars]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Again just because someone doesn't campaign against something doesn't mean they don't care about it.

Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Thursday 18th October 22:49

Even for you, that’s pretty fking genuis.

The rest of your post was even worse.

You didn’t address the second part of my question. Why not?

[Alpinestars]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Alpinestars
As for "you/TR" - I've been pretty neutral throughout this thread and haven't adopted any of TRs views as my own. I don't have an axeto grind here and while I do think antifa are probably overstepping the mark by at least as much as TR I'm not banging anyone's drum.

FWIW I suspect it's far less of a theological issue with Islam so much as a cultural issue with as Countdown noted, a culture which is pretty conservative (or perhaps even repressed, depending on your point of view) living alongside one which is pretty liberal (or licentious, again depending on your point of view.)

Somewhere in there is a position whereby Tommy Robinson is raising legitimate issues badly and antifa and co are countering them every bit as badly.

Paedophiles come in all colours and flavours. Backfill it with reasons all you like.

There appear to be two reasons, which follow the type of paedophilia.

- brain wiring where grown adults, usually men, have a sexual interest in children.
- adults who don’t have an interest in prepubescent children, but who are opportunistic in sexually abusing pubescent children. More likely to happen if there are more/the right opportunities to do it.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Alpinestars said:

Yep.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/what-do-we...

You should note that type 2 is much more prevalent than type 1.

Now have a go at answering my original question.

You might also want to consider that the last figures I can find show that c5% of paedophiles in jail in England and Wales (might be the UK, I can’t remember), are Muslim. White men are over represented.

That seems to support the idea that there's some cultural background to it? 75% of group abusers are Asian?! That's actually far higher than I would have expected.