• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

UK Rape Gangs

The books Broken and Betrayed - the true story of the Rotherham abuse scandal by the woman who fought to expose it' ~ Jayne Senior, Pan 2016; and Violated - A SHOCKING and HARROWING SURVIVAL STORY from the notorious ROTHERHAM ABUSE SCANDAL ~ Sarah Wilson, Harper Element, 2015.
Unlike you,. I've actually read one of those books. Try again.
 
Link to that report?
The UCL one? (My apologies it was UCL not ICL). Here's a link to their take on the Home Office response to their work:

A new Home Office report admits grooming gangs are not a ‘Muslim problem'

And the PDF is here.
Failing victims, fuelling hate: challenging the harms of the ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ narrative
Thirty pages.
 
What was the timeframe it took the last government to implement after receiving the recommendations? Which have the new one done, which are they planning and in what time frame?

I know there have been improvements but for all the talk of how old this story is, i don't see any urgency. And this doesn't really answer my question of exactly why the backlash to the renewed interest?


This is the problem with debunkers. They hear something is debunked and that's all they needed. To be clear, your article states total distortions of whats in the report. Let's compare what they say to what the report says.

-Home Office report has concluded that there is no credible evidence that any one ethnic group is over-represented in cases of child sexual exploitation.



-For many in Britain today the term “grooming gang” immediately suggests Pakistani-heritage Muslim men abusing white girls, but the Home Office researchers now tell us that “research has found that group-based offenders are most commonly White”.



If you think these statements are the same I don't what to tell you.

The main thing to notice is that the report references 5 studies. All of them have Asian overrepresentation in group CSE. They can comment on the shortcomings of data, but there is literally nothing that counters that fact. Why, 8 years after the 2016 change to what demographic information police are suppose to track do we not have better studies that actually refute that? I am not begging the question, I honestly don't know why.
And the problem with 'people like you' is you distort anything to support your prejudices, regardless of facts.
I've linked to the UCL report, perhaps you could read it?
 
I do. Every Friday, for many years, I attend a fitness club, which happens to be next to a mosque. Every Friday I see muslim prayers gatheing there at about the same time. I've never seen one single woman. Ever.

Or, and how many female mulllahs do we know about?
:rolleyes:
Wow, that's your "evidence"? Pathetic. Have you considered actually going inside?
I notice you're back-peddling from your earlier suggestion that women were forbidden to enter mosques.
 
Women can be bishops in the Church of England, but they can't be priests at all in the Roman Catholic Church, nor in some of the other Protestant churches.
And the process to establishing female ordination in the CoE was hardly free from strife.
 
I do. Every Friday, for many years, I attend a fitness club, which happens to be next to a mosque. Every Friday I see muslim prayers gatheing there at about the same time. I've never seen one single woman. Ever.

Or, and how many female mulllahs do we know about?
A simple google search would tell you that Muslim men are required to attend Friday prayers, but women may pray at home instead (but are fully permitted to pray at the mosque). I would guess it then depends on local custom whether the women in a particular area choose to go to the mosque or not.
 
Catholic Church in the UK doesn't allow women priests.
I'd just like everyone to realise that I have controlled my urge to start a digression into the Other Catholic Churches and invoke the memory of Romulo Antonio Braschi. I fear this thread is getting too diffuse already.
:)
 
Why should I take the word of a far right CT website?
Well because it supports @rdwight's point of course.
For those not familiar with NotTheBee, Babylon Bee and Adam Ford here is the MBFC report on NotTheBee.

 
Exactly this: it is not enough. Over 1,400 known victims yet only 47 perps jailed, one or two for life, the rest with 'sex trafficking' (= minors labelled as ''prostitutes') with on average a six-year sentence, out in three years, whilst their victims are traumatised for life.
That's actually better than average for successful prosecution of rape reports in the UK.
Unfortunately.
 
It's the courts' job to jail criminals for their crimes, not for thought-crimes, such as a sense of entitlement to commit crimes.

And it is for the government to change the law. But they won't hence the never-ending stories of sex perverts preying on children only named and shamed after their deaths, such as Mohammed 'Al'-Fayed, Cyril Smith, Jimmy Saville, Louis Mountbatten, etc.
 
And it is for the government to change the law. But they won't hence the never-ending stories of sex perverts preying on children only named and shamed after their deaths, such as Mohammed 'Al'-Fayed, Cyril Smith, Jimmy Saville, Louis Mountbatten, etc.
Which law do you want changed?
 
Could you quote the section which supports your assertion?
"The use of inflammatory language over grooming gangs risks vilifying entire communities and could lead to atrocities such as the mosque massacre in New Zealand that killed more than 50 people, the health secretary has warned."


So now you know why you are not allowed to mention the elephant in the room...or at least, that is Streeting's pathetic rationale for covering up the grooming gangs scandal..
 
For the last government - infinity, they had two years and did nothing, the new government has a bill going through at this moment that deals with some of the recommendations. Because of the posture politics the ex-government is wanting to scupper the bill because ….? The likes of Musk want to also scupper the bill because…..? If anyone wanted to follow the reccomensations of the report in 2022 they would not want to scupper the bill going through at the moment. There is not an iota of sincere concern for children motivating the opposition, Farage, Musk et all. That is why for those of us that want children to be safer, to be more protected are pushing back at the fake outrage.


The claim is that the enquiry and report are a whitewash and both are worthless. Designed to protect the perpetrators and those that should have stopped them
 
And it is for the government to change the law. But they won't hence the never-ending stories of sex perverts preying on children only named and shamed after their deaths, such as Mohammed 'Al'-Fayed, Cyril Smith, Jimmy Saville, Louis Mountbatten, etc.
There's a Bill going through Parliament at the moment that implements the first of the recommendations.

What specific law do you think needs to be changed?
 
"The use of inflammatory language over grooming gangs risks vilifying entire communities and could lead to atrocities such as the mosque massacre in New Zealand that killed more than 50 people, the health secretary has warned."


So now you know why you are not allowed to mention the elephant in the room...or at least, that is Streeting's pathetic rationale for covering up the grooming gangs scandal..


I see it as a condemnation of Musk and his acolytes.
 
"The use of inflammatory language over grooming gangs risks vilifying entire communities and could lead to atrocities such as the mosque massacre in New Zealand that killed more than 50 people, the health secretary has warned."


So now you know why you are not allowed to mention the elephant in the room...or at least, that is Streeting's pathetic rationale for covering up the grooming gangs scandal..
Colour me unsurprised that once again your claim is complete bollocks. You either misunderstand the sentence you quoted or are wilfully misinterpreting it.


Because the next paragraph reads:


Wes Streeting said he had “no difficulty or qualms” calling out the “sickening” crimes of sexual abuse gangs, criticising “well meaning, but ultimately fundamentally misguided and warped views of political correctness” for letting down thousands of children

Furthermore, in what way is Streeting covering up the scandal?
 
That's actually better than average for successful prosecution of rape reports in the UK.
Unfortunately.
Thank you for concurring that despite fine rhetoric, the government hasn't taken the issue of violence against girls and women seriously. A culture in which it was deemed normal for Police Office Wayne Couzens to wiggle his willy around in front of women in McDonalds, and whose nickname in the police was 'The Rapist', to just carry on...until the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard. Even then, it was the women who held a vigil who were attacked and dispersed by the Met.
 
Colour me unsurprised that once again your claim is complete bollocks. You either misunderstand the sentence you quoted or are wilfully misinterpreting it.


Because the next paragraph reads:




Furthermore, in what way is Streeting covering up the scandal?

The usual fine rhetoric. Pretend you cannot reveal the demographic of the rape gangs because "it might incite the nutters".

But that is a disservice to their victims.
 
The usual fine rhetoric. Pretend you cannot reveal the demographic of the rape gangs because "it might incite the nutters".

But that is a disservice to their victims.


Stop talking bollocks. If you hadn't noticed the nutters are already incited, they have the worlds richest man stoking their fires.
 
Is Andy Burnham also 'far right'?


Is he using 'inflammatory language'?

Has he threatened the PM, a government minister or called for the government to be overthrown and mass expulsions of entire communities yet?
 
Is he using 'inflammatory language'?

Has he threatened the PM, a government minister or called for the government to be overthrown and mass expulsions of entire communities yet?
Musk and Trump are Putin operatives. That doesn't mean their trouble-making isn't something that should be a key issue that has never been addressed.
 
He, too, has called for an inquiry into the rape gangs.

But...but...it's far right, M'Lud....
As is so often the case, you seem to have forgotten what the question you were replying to actually said.

Just to remind you, the question was, "where has he been accused of using inflammatory language?"

You can't answer it, can you?
 
And the problem with 'people like you' is you distort anything to support your prejudices, regardless of facts.
I've linked to the UCL report, perhaps you could read it?
I am literally quoting the home office report your article simply paraphrased in a distorted faction. It's nonsense to argue that i should refer to an article about a report vs the report itself. You can try to disagree on the merits but you seem content doing whatever this is. If I've distorted, lied, mistaken something, feel free to point it out.

You understand sweet fanny adams about this matter and yet you pontificate on it like you are the world's biggest expert on it.

For instance, all the people shouting about how disgraceful that nothing's being done these last 14 years are the people who spent that time in power deliberately making sure nothing could be done. And they're also repeating the racist lies that it's only Pakistanis doing this.

But hey, any lie told in the service of the far right must be good, right?
I am literally quoting the reports and studies. I don't need to be expert to do so. And as wrong as I've been said to be, I haven't seen anyone point to what I say. Have never said only Pakistanis. Reading what I wrote shouldn't be this hard for you guys.

People are talking way the hell past each other here.

Lack of ethnicity evidence does not mean there's no overrepresentation, it does mean we lack evidence.
Majority white offenders again does not mean there is no minority overrepresentation.
This seems to be the biggest issue for this discussion. I would only counter that we lack the evidence to confirm and to what degree, not that the available evidence doesnt point to that conclusion.


For the last government - infinity, they had two years and did nothing, the new government has a bill going through at this moment that deals with some of the recommendations. Because of the posture politics the ex-government is wanting to scupper the bill because ….? The likes of Musk want to also scupper the bill because…..? If anyone wanted to follow the reccomensations of the report in 2022 they would not want to scupper the bill going through at the moment.
This seems more like political gripes than anything. I see implantation to varying degrees of some of the recommendations. There seemed to be support from both parties for the current bill before the added amendment i thought? Not to get into the weeds of uk legislation, but why does amendment proposal if added stop the implementation? Is it in the way it is crafted or is there no way for an inquiry to run at the same time as the other parts of the bill are put into affect?
 
Why is it inflammatory to factually describe the key rape gang demographic?
Is that inflammatory, or is it saying Gordon Brown ordered Starmer to ignore everything and cover it up because the victims were given to Muslims in return for their votes?
Or is it saying Starmer should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting rape?
How about saying Trump should order the British government to resign and be prosecuted, or that the King should dissolve parliament and call a new election?
What about saying the entre Muslim population should be expelled from the country?
 
Back
Top Bottom