Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Another Child Grooming Gang Busted - 32 Charged
Options
Comments
-
No-one is to blame for those girls being raped only the men that raped them. it is always the fault of the offender, always.
We're agreed!
I agree, the system let them down after they tried to report it, further rapes were partly the fault of the authorities, who did nothing to stop the abuse and ignored & forgot these girls.
We're agreed again, 2 from 2....However, the priests did not abuse children because they were Catholic, these men did not rape girls because they were muslim.
They are dirty horrible child abusers and rapists, and yes, it is that simple. I
This is where we differ.
You can't separate the fact that some of these priests were educated in Catholic seminaries, with Catholic vows of celibacy, probably emotionally retarded from taking vows at a formative (sexually) age, with questionable approach to dealing with celibacy and/or emotions, all grounded in the Catholic theology if sin and sinners. Whether there was a tacit acknowledgement children were fair game, rather than a parish "strumpet" - sure who'd believe kids, and you cant get them pregnant....
In the same breath, one has to wonder what drove one ethnic group to target another, and how they viewed them is well reported. Why not any child? Were their own off limits? Were they encouraged to sow their wild oats among the kuffar, rather then despoil a young Muslim girl, with their cultural norms regarding pre-martial sex, child abuse, honour etc.
You can only take this aspect out if you deliberately want to not discuss the Muslim aspect, and to be consistent, attempt to not discuss Catholicism when discussing paedo priests.
Are all Muslims paedos? Hell no. Its a disservice to the Muslim community workers who campaigned for these girls. But you can't stick your head in the sand about it, and say nothing to see here, when they're saying it themselves.
Same as all priests aren't paedos.0 -
To try to link a failure to properly investigate these crimes and protect vulnerable victims with others who campaign, in general, for nothing more than to try and encourage others to show some basic respect for those who are different to them, have different beliefs to them, look different to them, or have a different sexual orientation than them is bizarre.
Refusing to accept the testimony of those on the ground is bizarre.
Thinking you know better than those who compiled the report is bizarre.
Pretending that anyone pointing out the real issues with these rape gangs is actually attacking innocent people is bizarre.
But most bizarre of all is lying, deflecting, and trying to silence concerns about paedophilia gangs.0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »We're agreed!
We're agreed again, 2 from 2....
This is where we differ.
You can't separate the fact that some of these priests were educated in Catholic seminaries, with Catholic vows of celibacy, probably emotionally retarded from taking vows at a formative (sexually) age, with questionable approach to dealing with celibacy and/or emotions, all grounded in the Catholic theology if sin and sinners. Whether there was a tacit acknowledgement children were fair game, rather than a parish "strumpet" - sure who'd believe kids, and you cant get them pregnant....
In the same breath, one has to wonder what drove one ethnic group to target another, and how they viewed them is well reported. Why not any child? Were their own off limits? Were they encouraged to sow their wild oats among the kuffar, rather then despoil a young Muslim girl, with their cultural norms regarding pre-martial sex, child abuse, honour etc.
You can only take this aspect out if you deliberately want to not discuss the Muslim aspect, and to be consistent, attempt to not discuss Catholicism when discussing paedo priests.
Are all Muslims paedos? Hell no. Its a disservice to the Muslim community workers who campaigned for these girls. But you can't stick your head in the sand about it, and say nothing to see here, when they're saying it themselves.
Same as all priests aren't paedos.
Yea, we will have to disagree on this I'm afraid.
I do believe society at the time allowed priests to do what they did, and I do believe society allowed it because of the power the church had over society. People were afraid of priests, they could ruin a person.
But do I believe that the actual religion of Roman Catholicism gave rise to serial abusers or that they were somehow 'made ' into child abusers because they were Catholic? No, I don't accept that.
And in much the same way I don't believe that the grooming gangs in England became abusers and rapists because they are muslims.
I believe child abusers and rapists are just that and I won't be giving them excuses such as religion to explain away their offences.
Oh and just as an aside, I don't even believe in God, and have no interest in any religion.
Anyway, I think we are mostly on the same page.0 -
Interesting news from the UK today will be well received on this thread;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/15/child-sexual-abuse-gangs-white-men-home-office-report?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
This will be a good test to see who is actually concerned about child abuse, and who is exploiting child abuse to further their own personal racist agenda.0 -
I think the last paragraph is the important one in that article.
'The danger is that by focusing entirely on the ethnicity of the offender, we miss the bigger picture, which is how the unheard, the left-behind women and girls, are invariably the victims. That’s where the government’s attention and action should be primarily focused'0 -
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Interesting news from the UK today will be well received on this thread;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/15/child-sexual-abuse-gangs-white-men-home-office-report?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
This will be a good test to see who is actually concerned about child abuse, and who is exploiting child abuse to further their own personal racist agenda.
I don't think that report is the great "Gotcha" that you think it is. When you strip out the Guardianisms, you are left with this:
“Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation offenders are most commonly white. Some studies suggest an overrepresentation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending."
What is the majority ethnicity in the UK?
That report harms your argument, not helps it.0 -
Lo and behold, it's the Guardian's view on the report ..... of course.
If more neutral sources are used, a Home Office review into child grooming gangs has found offenders come from a diverse background, but poor data collection failed victims because it did not include characteristics including ethnicity. This meant that investigation could not establish "community and cultural factors". One would have to wonder if British police are following the Swedish model for the reporting of rapes and sexual assault i.e. not documenting the race of the perpetrators?
Reading what Home Secretary Priti Patel said about the investigation:Some studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the ethnicity of offenders as existing research is limited and data collection is poor.
This is disappointing because community and cultural factors are clearly relevant to understanding and tackling offending.
Therefore, a commitment to improve the collection and analysis of data on group-based child sexual exploitation, including in relation to characteristics of offenders such as ethnicity and other factors, will be included in the forthcoming Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy.
It's all there in black and white.0 -
I don't think that report is the great "Gotcha" that you think it is. When you strip out the Guardianisms, you are left with this:
“Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation offenders are most commonly white. Some studies suggest an overrepresentation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending."
What is the majority ethnicity in the UK?
That report harms your argument, not helps it.
Perhaps you could explain why we don't have outrage threads here on boards for the offences of the majority of child exploitation gangs - the white ones - instead of the ones that involve Muslim offenders?
Surely anyone who was really concerned about child sexual abuse would be focused on where the majority of these offences are happening?0 -
Yea, we will have to disagree on this I'm afraid.
I do believe society at the time allowed priests to do what they did, and I do believe society allowed it because of the power the church had over society. People were afraid of priests, they could ruin a person.
But do I believe that the actual religion of Roman Catholicism gave rise to serial abusers or that they were somehow 'made ' into child abusers because they were Catholic? No, I don't accept that.
And in much the same way I don't believe that the grooming gangs in England became abusers and rapists because they are muslims.
I actually don't disagree with this. Its not something I've argued.
There is nothing in Catholicism that condones raping kids.
But put some sexually immature men, in a celibate environment, where its a prescribed sin to covet another man's wife etc. with the confession/sin/guilt, its a receipe for disaster.
But that statement isnt priest bashing. Its not anti Catholic.
So why when we look at prevalence of Muslims in Asian grooming gangs is it racist? To wonder if there were cultural norms or behaviour that allowed this cancer grow. Is there something in that culture that isn't in Protestantism or Catholicism (who seem to rape kids in different modus operandi)0 -
Lo and behold, it's the Guardian's view on the report ..... of course.
If more neutral sources are used, a Home Office review into child grooming gangs has found offenders come from a diverse background, but poor data collection failed victims because it did not include characteristics including ethnicity. This meant that investigation could not establish "community and cultural factors". One would have to wonder if British police are following the Swedish model for the reporting of rapes and sexual assault i.e. not documenting the race of the perpetrators?
Reading what Home Secretary Priti Patel said about the investigation:
It's all there in black and white.
Eh, this IS the Home Office review, the one they've spent a year trying to suppress because they don't like the outcome.
And it's not just the Guardian;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gang-rotherham-review-home-office-findings-a9344896.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/child-sexual-abuse-gangs-white-men_uk_5fd8fb35c5b6218b42ecd70f?guccounter=10 -
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Perhaps you could explain why we don't have outrage threads here on boards for the offences of the majority of child exploitation gangs - the white ones - instead of the ones that involve Muslim offenders?
Surely anyone who was really concerned about child sexual abuse would be focused on where the majority of these offences are happening?
We can do that too, but maybe we need a general outrage thread.
I'm sure there's a dodgy priest one about....
There was probably one about the Newcastlewest paedo ring shut down as sub judice...
Start a new one about paedos in general so, if you've identified a deficit . I'll be right over. We can agree on several things I'm sure.
But imagine being the guy who selectively quotes a report when the report (probably* ) merely consolidates what is well known:
Whitey seems to have a predilection for lone /small groups paedophilia, of their own ethnicity, that most paedos are white men. But that there's a disproportionate number if Asians involved in grooming gangs of another ethnicity...
Imagjne being the guy who only wants to discuss 2 out of 3 and claims wanting to discuss 3 is racism...
Imagine being that guy. afraid to discuss the truth. Instead seeks to derail and obfuscate.
*haven't read it fully0 -
Refusing to accept the testimony of those on the ground is bizarre.
Thinking you know better than those who compiled the report is bizarre.
Pretending that anyone pointing out the real issues with these rape gangs is actually attacking innocent people is bizarre.
But most bizarre of all is lying, deflecting, and trying to silence concerns about paedophilia gangs.
What real issues? That they're depraved, perverted, scum of the earth. Just like any paedophile.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Eh, this IS the Home Office review, the one they've spent a year trying to suppress because they don't like the outcome.
And it's not just the Guardian;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gang-rotherham-review-home-office-findings-a9344896.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/child-sexual-abuse-gangs-white-men_uk_5fd8fb35c5b6218b42ecd70f?guccounter=1
Its not the just the Guardian, its the huffington post and the indepedent. That someone would say that without a hint of irony is hilarious0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »We can do that too, but maybe we need a general outrage thread.
I'm sure there's a dodgy priest one about....
There was probably one about the Newcastlewest paedo ring shut down as sub judice...
Start a new one about paedos in general so, if you've identified a deficit . I'll be right over. We can agree on several things I'm sure.
But imagine being the guy who selectively quotes a report when the report (probably* ) merely consolidates what is well known:
Whitey seems to have a predilection for lone /small groups paedophilia, of their own ethnicity, that most paedos are white men. But that there's a disproportionate number if Asians involved in grooming gangs of another ethnicity...
Imagjne being the guy who only wants to discuss 2 out of 3 and claims wanting to discuss 3 is racism...
Imagine being that guy. afraid to discuss the truth. Instead seeks to derail and obfuscate.
*haven't read it fully
Who is "the guy who only wants to discuss 2 out of 3 and claims wanting to discuss 3 is racism"? Can you point his posts where he said these things please?
The irony of course is that the outraged posters who started and fuelled this thread only want to discuss 1 out of the 3, and are quite happy to ignore the vast majority of child sexual abuse that is perpetuated by white people.
Doesn't really sound like they're thinking of the children, does it?0 -
Its not the just the Guardian, its the huffington post and the indepedent. That someone would say that without a hint of irony is hilarious
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/grooming-gangs-come-from-diverse-backgrounds-says-home-office-as-review-finally-published/ar-BB1bWiVr?MSCC=1598087704
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9055821/Home-Office-child-grooming-gang-review-Rotherham-scandal-finds-offenders-diverse-backgrounds.html
https://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/138190/grooming-gangs-from-%E2%80%9Cdiverse-backgrounds%E2%80%9D-says-home-office-after-longawaited-review
Would you like me to keep going?0 -
I am sure that any reasonably-minded person understands that if 86.1% of the population in the UK is white, according to the 2011 census, then it should be no surprise that whites will also make up the majority involved in these types of crimes. But that is the not the topic of this thread; irrespective of the attempt to make it so.
Based on the existing studies that have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based child sexual exploitation, the Home Secretary said today that ethnicity will be included in their forthcoming Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy. So there is obviously a substantial problem that needs to be addressed if they are going to start including ethnicity.
As a reminder what the Home Secretary said about the lack of previous ethnicity data:
"This is disappointing because community and cultural factors are clearly relevant to understanding and tackling offending."0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Eh, this IS the Home Office review, the one they've spent a year trying to suppress because they don't like the outcome.
And it's not just the Guardian;
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gang-rotherham-review-home-office-findings-a9344896.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/child-sexual-abuse-gangs-white-men_uk_5fd8fb35c5b6218b42ecd70f?guccounter=1
Depending on how much of the review you have read, and where you place the emphasis, the report certainly points towards an over representation of Asian and Black ethnicities in gang based CSE. Take the following two CEOP investigations:CEOP (2011) undertook a data collection with police forces, children’s services and specialist providers from the voluntary sector, looking at those allegedly involved in ‘street grooming’ and CSE.
Data was returned on approximately 2,300 possible offenders, but approximately 1,100 were excluded from analysis due to a lack of basic information.
In the remaining 1,200 cases, ethnicity data was unknown for 38% of them. Where data was available 30% of offenders were White, while 28% were Asian. Due to the amount of missing data, both basic offender information and ethnicity specifically, these figures should be treated with caution.In 2013 CEOP undertook a second piece of work in this space. Data was requested from all police forces in England and Wales on contact CSA, and
responses were received from 31.
Of the 52 groups where data provided was useable, half of the groups consisted of all Asian offenders, 11 were all
White offenders, 4 were all Black, and 2 were exclusively Arab. There were nine groups where offenders came from a mix of ethnic backgrounds.
Looking at the offenders across all groups, of the 306 offenders 75% were Asian. However, as with CEOP (2011) these figures should be treated with
caution due to the amount of missing data.
The bolded part is emphasis placed by me, given that White British is about 80% of the population, this would certainly suggest that something is not quite right. The 2011 census has Asian ethnicity at about 7%.
Does this mean all Muslims/other ethic group are serial gang rapists? Hell no. The data sets will also have been skewed by use of high profile cases. Does it suggest that some more robust data collection and investigation is needed? Most definitely. Education about personal responsibility and parenting wouldn't go amiss judging by the interview with a father of men convicted in one of the cases.
The report does not point any fingers as to a firm conclusion, but scratch a bit below the headline and there is still a lot more that is needed to be done to stop these type of gangs being able to operate.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Perhaps you could explain why we don't have outrage threads here on boards for the offences of the majority of child exploitation gangs - the white ones - instead of the ones that involve Muslim offenders?
Surely anyone who was really concerned about child sexual abuse would be focused on where the majority of these offences are happening?
I see we're into "those cows are far away" levels of explanation now.
Of course whites are more prevalent, they're over 80% of the population.
Surely you're not really this dim, which leads to the conclusion that you are deliberately ignoring the evidence before your eyes.
Why?0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Who is "the guy who only wants to discuss 2 out of 3 and claims wanting to discuss 3 is racism"? Can you point his posts where he said these things please?
The irony of course is that the outraged posters who started and fuelled this thread only want to discuss 1 out of the 3, and are quite happy to ignore the vast majority of child sexual abuse that is perpetuated by white people.
Doesn't really sound like they're thinking of the children, does it?
Have you set up that thread yet? Badly needed. You can rectify all these wrongs, provide an outlet for us to condemn paedophilia in society.
Or is it only the threads where Asian chaps are blamed for something bad you show up? Could it be you don't really give a sh1t about kids? Unless theres a "minority" angle? For if it was singling a religion out for undue attention, you should have been more exercised about the unfounded generalisation about protestants...but nothing*...
Whos ignoring the white paedos anyway? Point them out, they need to be called out on it. I dont think anyone is ignoring most paedos are white. But you'd expect that in a predominantly white 'Anglo-Saxon' nation... its not really surprising.
Edit. ,
*oh bless my socks.... Just checked, you even thanked it!
You couldn't write this stuff.0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Have you set up that thread yet? Badly needed. You can rectify all these wrongs, provide an outlet for us to condemn paedophilia in society.
Or is it only the threads where Asian chaps are blamed for something bad you show up? Could it be you don't really give a sh1t about kids? Unless theres a "minority" angle? For if it was singling a religion out for undue attention, you should have been more exercised about the unfounded generalisation about protestants...but nothing*...
Whos ignoring the white paedos anyway? Point them out, they need to be called out on it. I dont think anyone is ignoring most paedos are white. But you'd expect that in a predominantly white 'Anglo-Saxon' nation... its not really surprising.
Edit. ,
*oh bless my socks.... Just checked, you even thanked it!
You couldn't write this stuff.
So you definitely can't point out any posts to support your claim that; ""the guy who only wants to discuss 2 out of 3 and claims wanting to discuss 3 is racism".
Good to get that confirmed.0 -
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »So you definitely can't point out any posts to support your claim that; ""the guy who only wants to discuss 2 out of 3 and claims wanting to discuss 3 is racism".
Good to get that confirmed.
That 'd be you Andrew....
Not one post in condemnation of these gangs.
Not one.
What a damming indictment of your priorities and agenda.
Just posts of whataboutery, deflection , strawmen, dismissing tone ("once in a blue moon" was an unfortunate classic), bad faith and selective engagement, off topic (knickers...) and, ironically demands for evidence from everyone. Something your yourself then fail to provide.
Your only expression of concern for anybody in this thread, was for an alleged paedophile getting beaten up by a alleged unstable woman. That really says it all for me.
But the cherry is your thanking of the post alleging most of the paedos in UK are protestants. Its this inconsistency on defence of unfairly maligned religions that has really exposed you.
We can parse the minutae of each of your posts and mine if you like. It'll derail the thread even further. Something you appear to be doing anyway.
Or you can start this much lamented general thread on paedos - we can focus on white guys, they're the most common this next of the woods.
I'll be right over. This one is for a particular recently sentenced gang in UK.
In the meantime, be great if you'd stay on topic.
I've had some cut and thrust with bubblypop.
We don't agree on everything, but we're both interested in on topic discussion. You're not.
So again, who is ignoring the white paedos?0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »That 'd be you Andrew....
Not one post in condemnation of these gangs.
Not one.
What a damming indictment of your priorities and agenda.
Just posts of whataboutery, deflection , strawmen, dismissing tone ("once in a blue moon" was an unfortunate classic), bad faith and selective engagement, off topic (knickers...) and, ironically demands for evidence from everyone. Something your yourself then fail to provide.
Your only expression of concern for anybody in this thread, was for an alleged paedophile getting beaten up by a alleged unstable woman. That really says it all for me.
But the cherry is your thanking of the post alleging most of the paedos in UK are protestants. Its this inconsistency on defence of unfairly maligned religions that has really exposed you.
We can parse the minutae of each of your posts and mine if you like. It'll derail the thread even further. Something you appear to be doing anyway.
Or you can start this much lamented general thread on paedos - we can focus on white guys, they're the most common this next of the woods.
I'll be right over. This one is for a particular recently sentenced gang in UK.
In the meantime, be great if you'd stay on topic.
I've had some cut and thrust with bubblypop.
We don't agree on everything, but we're both interested in on topic discussion. You're not.
So again, who is ignoring the white paedos?
So again, to confirm - no posts that you can point to that support your claim about "the guy who only wants to discuss 2 out of 3 and claims wanting to discuss 3 is racism".
Good to know.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »So again, to confirm - no posts that you can point to that support your claim about "the guy who only wants to discuss 2 out of 3 and claims wanting to discuss 3 is racism".
Good to know.
*adds repetition to list
Wheres all the folk denying white paedos?
(Is that how you do it?)
.Good to know0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »I actually don't disagree with this. Its not something I've argued.
There is nothing in Catholicism that condones raping kids.
But put some sexually immature men, in a celibate environment, where its a prescribed sin to covet another man's wife etc. with the confession/sin/guilt, its a receipe for disaster.
But that statement isnt priest bashing. Its not anti Catholic.
Of course it’s anti-Catholic because it’s a fundamental misrepresentation of Catholicism in order to put forward a ridiculous conclusion based upon a couple of flawed reasonings that not just you are making, but you expect others to have made the same assumptions too, which you conclude - lead to disaster. Frankly I don’t see how, even with your assumptions, you get from those assumptions, to child sexual exploitation. Even if I were being generous, and highballed a percentage of 10% of people within the Catholic Church (I’m being generous with that figure because I’m not assuming it’s just the clergy are involved), it’s still only 10%, which directly refutes any association between Catholicism and child sexual exploitation (which covers a multitude of offences) -
Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males
I expect a similar, generous figure of 10% would be observed among Muslims, whether they be residing in the UK, Afghanistan, Pakistan or indeed Ireland. People make similar “what would you expect?” arguments based upon all sorts of misleading representations about all sorts of stuff, but there’s plenty of evidence not just to refute their claims, but to show their claims are just misleading representations. It’s forgivable if they’re not doing it deliberately and it’s done out of sheer ignorance, but as adults when they are expected to know better? No excuse for that kind of “guilt by association” behaviour.MikeOxsgreen wrote: »So why when we look at prevalence of Muslims in Asian grooming gangs is it racist? To wonder if there were cultural norms or behaviour that allowed this cancer grow. Is there something in that culture that isn't in Protestantism or Catholicism (who seem to rape kids in different modus operandi)
I don’t think anyone was suggesting that anyone observing the prevalence of Muslims in Asian grooming gangs is racist. It’s the narrow minded focus on the observation that they are Muslims, as though there is a commonality among Muslims of grooming gangs, is the issue. THEN it’s just outright bigotry, be racist if one were suggesting it was because of their race, or xenophobic if one were suggesting that by virtue of the country that person assumes they came from, that it should be regarded as a contributing factor for their behaviour.
In reality, as their behaviour relates to child sexual exploitation, it doesn’t matter that the perpetrators are of any particular characteristics, or that one particular characteristic is any more relevant than another. One is not going to be able to prevent children from being the victims of sexual exploitation by focusing on just one demographic based upon misleading evidence which has one form the belief that child sexual exploitation is an acceptable behaviour within that community based upon the 10% of perpetrators who are members of that community.
All one is doing there is fuelling prejudice, they’re not doing anything to prevent child sexual exploitation or protect anyone from exploitation.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Of course it’s anti-Catholic because it’s a fundamental misrepresentation of Catholicism in order to put forward a ridiculous conclusion based upon a couple of flawed reasonings that not just you are making, but you expect others to have made the same assumptions too, which you conclude - lead to disaster. Frankly I don’t see how, even with your assumptions, you get from those assumptions, to child sexual exploitation. Even if I were being generous, and highballed a percentage of 10% of people within the Catholic Church (I’m being generous with that figure because I’m not assuming it’s just the clergy are involved), it’s still only 10%, which directly refutes any association between Catholicism and child sexual exploitation (which covers a multitude of offences) -
Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males
I expect a similar, generous figure of 10% would be observed among Muslims, whether they be residing in the UK, Afghanistan, Pakistan or indeed Ireland. People make similar “what would you expect?” arguments based upon all sorts of misleading representations about all sorts of stuff, but there’s plenty of evidence not just to refute their claims, but to show their claims are just misleading representations. It’s forgivable if they’re not doing it deliberately and it’s done out of sheer ignorance, but as adults when they are expected to know better? No excuse for that kind of “guilt by association” behaviour.
I don’t think anyone was suggesting that anyone observing the prevalence of Muslims in Asian grooming gangs is racist. It’s the narrow minded focus on the observation that they are Muslims, as though there is a commonality among Muslims of grooming gangs, is the issue. THEN it’s just outright bigotry, be racist if one were suggesting it was because of their race, or xenophobic if one were suggesting that by virtue of the country that person assumes they came from, that it should be regarded as a contributing factor for their behaviour.
In reality, as their behaviour relates to child sexual exploitation, it doesn’t matter that the perpetrators are of any particular characteristics, or that one particular characteristic is any more relevant than another. One is not going to be able to prevent children from being the victims of sexual exploitation by focusing on just one demographic based upon misleading evidence which has one form the belief that child sexual exploitation is an acceptable behaviour within that community based upon the 10% of perpetrators who are members of that community.
All one is doing there is fuelling prejudice, they’re not doing anything to prevent child sexual exploitation or protect anyone from exploitation.
Well I'm glad you agree with me, discussing Catholic paedopihilc priests isn't Catholic bashing as most rational people accept not all priests are paedos, they were a minority. Oh wait you're disagreeing?
I'm not actually sure what you're saying.
That priests are no likely to abuse kids than 'lay'men or ministers of other religions? If so fantastic article to have to hand next time someone trots out the "yea but priests" sthick.
Its a 10yr old USA article, I'm not sure of its relevance any more, theres very little meat on the bones or further references to look into. A lot of unsubstantiated heresay. But from what else I'm aware of, I wouldn't disagree with the gist of it. all religions are at it. Catholicism resonates in Ireland more, for obvious reasons.
Anyway, I'll go with Muslim leaders from these towns acknowledging there is an issue in their community, rather then some boardsie trying to champion them, oblivious of risk and statistics.
The rest of your post is a bit like arguing the war on terror should focus on terrorists in general rather than the peculiar groups, their 'cause' or demographics. Well intentioned, but not very useful to catch them.
And you might note , "we're" quite happy to fuel prejudice against Protestants in this thread.
But as I said, some cows are more sacred.0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »That priests are no likely to abuse kids than 'lay'men or ministers of other religions? If so fantastic article to have to hand next time someone trots out the "yea but priests" sthick.
I don’t have an article for when someone trots out the “Yeah but there has to be something about Islam based upon the idea of as many as 10% of its adherents committing offences related to child sexual exploitation”, ignoring the fact that 90% of its adherents do not engage in child sexual exploitation.MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Its a 10yr old USA article, I'm not sure of its relevance any more, theres very little meat on the bones or further references to look into. A lot of unsubstantiated heresay. But from what else I'm aware of, I wouldn't disagree with the gist of it. all religions are at it. Catholicism resonates in Ireland more, for obvious reasons.
You say that like you’ve brought anything but unsubstantiated hearsay to the table. Your argument amounts to “Muslims, what do you expect?”. I expect you to be able to make a definitive link between Islam and the 10% of its adherents who choose to engage in child sexual exploitation if you think the link between the two is to be taken seriously. I don’t think “all religions are at it”, any more than I think any organisation where there are children involved means they’re all at it based upon the behaviour of 10% of their membership.MikeOxsgreen wrote: »Anyway, I'll go with Muslim leaders from these towns acknowledging there is an issue in their community, rather then some boardsie trying to champion them, oblivious of risk and statistics.
Of course you will, not because they’re Muslim leaders, but simply because you agree with them. You’ll happily ignore anyone who disagrees too, Muslim leaders or not, because it doesn’t suit you. That’s just laziness tbh, and don’t even pretend like they’re not aware of the risks and statistics by virtue of the fact that anyone disagrees with your “they’re all at it” conclusions in relation to child sexual exploitation.MikeOxsgreen wrote: »The rest of your post is a bit like arguing the war on terror should focus on terrorists in general rather than the peculiar groups, their 'cause' or demographics. Well intentioned, but not very useful to catch them.
Well I suppose it is something like that alright, as opposed to insinuating that we should target people on the basis of their religious affiliation, betraying our own biases which have fcukall to do with preventing child sexual exploitation.MikeOxsgreen wrote: »And you might note , "we're" quite happy to fuel prejudice against Protestants in this thread.
But as I said, some cows are more sacred.
Are we? Just because you say it doesn’t mean that’s what’s actually happening, any more than your assumptions about people based upon their religious affiliation, zeroing in on the behaviour of 10% of their membership and ascribing that kind of behaviour to them all, as if they really are “all at it”. Clearly, they’re not.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I don’t have an article for when someone trots out the “Yeah but there has to be something about Islam based upon the idea of as many as 10% of its adherents committing offences related to child sexual exploitation”, ignoring the fact that 90% of its adherents do not engage in child sexual exploitation.
You say that like you’ve brought anything but unsubstantiated hearsay to the table. Your argument amounts to “Muslims, what do you expect?”. I expect you to be able to make a definitive link between Islam and the 10% of its adherents who choose to engage in child sexual exploitation if you think the link between the two is to be taken seriously. I don’t think “all religions are at it”, any more than I think any organisation where there are children involved means they’re all at it based upon the behaviour of 10% of their membership.
Of course you will, not because they’re Muslim leaders, but simply because you agree with them. You’ll happily ignore anyone who disagrees too, Muslim leaders or not, because it doesn’t suit you. That’s just laziness tbh, and don’t even pretend like they’re not aware of the risks and statistics by virtue of the fact that anyone disagrees with your “they’re all at it” conclusions in relation to child sexual exploitation.
Well I suppose it is something like that alright, as opposed to insinuating that we should target people on the basis of their religious affiliation, betraying our own biases which have fcukall to do with preventing child sexual exploitation.
Are we? Just because you say it doesn’t mean that’s what’s actually happening, any more than your assumptions about people based upon their religious affiliation, zeroing in on the behaviour of 10% of their membership and ascribing that kind of behaviour to them all, as if they really are “all at it”. Clearly, they’re not.
Jeepers, thats some (collective noun) of strawmen!
Please point out where I've said this (paedophilia) is specifically a Muslim thing and/or we need to target Muslims.
Start with that.
The rest of your post will fall on it.
It may surprise you, we agree in principle on a lot of issues, but you seem to think anyone not 100% subscribing to your perspective is at odds with you.
And if you think paedophilia isnt common across all religions (or none). I've some beans to sell you.
Where there are men, there will be paedophiles. Is a very unfortunate and regrettable aspect of humanity.
(I shouldn't have to point out this doesn't mean all men are paedophiles, but its no harm going by your post...)0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I don’t have an article for when someone trots out the “Yeah but there has to be something about Islam based upon the idea of as many as 10% of its adherents committing offences related to child sexual exploitation”, ignoring the fact that 90% of its adherents do not engage in child sexual exploitation.
You say that like you’ve brought anything but unsubstantiated hearsay to the table. Your argument amounts to “Muslims, what do you expect?”. I expect you to be able to make a definitive link between Islam and the 10% of its adherents who choose to engage in child sexual exploitation if you think the link between the two is to be taken seriously. I don’t think “all religions are at it”, any more than I think any organisation where there are children involved means they’re all at it based upon the behaviour of 10% of their membership.
Of course you will, not because they’re Muslim leaders, but simply because you agree with them. You’ll happily ignore anyone who disagrees too, Muslim leaders or not, because it doesn’t suit you. That’s just laziness tbh, and don’t even pretend like they’re not aware of the risks and statistics by virtue of the fact that anyone disagrees with your “they’re all at it” conclusions in relation to child sexual exploitation.
Well I suppose it is something like that alright, as opposed to insinuating that we should target people on the basis of their religious affiliation, betraying our own biases which have fcukall to do with preventing child sexual exploitation.
Are we? Just because you say it doesn’t mean that’s what’s actually happening, any more than your assumptions about people based upon their religious affiliation, zeroing in on the behaviour of 10% of their membership and ascribing that kind of behaviour to them all, as if they really are “all at it”. Clearly, they’re not.
Just to be clear are you saying there is no commonality about these grooming gangs of Asian descent which are over-represented in this particulate type of crime worth investigating further to get some root cause, Criminal profiling essentially, and no most Muslims are not involved i know that. What did you think of the father of one of the paedos in the pervious video, would it not suggest certain parts of their culture have a different mindset when it comes to young girls?0 -
MikeOxsgreen wrote: »And if you think paedophilia isnt common across all religions (or none). I've some beans to sell you.
Where there are men, there will be paedophiles. Is a very unfortunate and regrettable aspect of humanity.
(I shouldn't have to point out this doesn't mean all men are paedophiles, but its no harm going by your post...)
Isn't this the point?
Although I would like to think that paedophilia isn't 'common ' in society anywhere.
As you have pointed out, it crosses ALL religions, so therefore we cannot assume these people abuse children because of their religion.
So religion is not an issue.0 -
Advertisement
-
There are some posters on this thread that strongly subscribe to the Noble Savage myth, where they can't believe that the exotic and childlike "primitives" they believe muslims to be, could do any wrong, and who believe that they are doing muslims a service by tying the grooming gangs to all muslims, and pretending any mention of it is bigotry.
It is an incredibly racist (not to mention idiotic) position, but I have found it to be remarkably common in certain activist types.
I Know a lady in her 60's who is on the board of a traveller quango, and she dismisses any talk about traveller crime with "ah shure the poor craturs don't know any better" - the attitude of the "but catholics/protestants/white men do it too" posters is exactly the same, just couched in more "educated" (or less honest) language.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement