Maybe one day there will be no more multiculturalism, segregated ethnic minority communities will disappear and everyone will integrate and spread out and the establishment will be have no more need of this foolish political correctness.
The Asian community deliberately segregates itself. I have that first hand from some Asian colleagues. So what do you propose we do about it. Forcibly disperse them?
The Asian community deliberately segregates itself. I have that first hand from some Asian colleagues. So what do you propose we do about it. Forcibly disperse them?
That is what happened to the old East End. Family ties counted for nothing in an area as regards social housing and in fact was termed racist if it was followed. Sons and daughters were forced to move away from their home areas and dispersal was the outcome of the policy. We have many laws against the acts of individuals that make self segregation of communities the result of many criminal offences. Perhaps the laws should be enforced equally to all.
The Asian community deliberately segregates itself. I have that first hand from some Asian colleagues. So what do you propose we do about it. Forcibly disperse them?
One 11-year-old known as Child H told police that she and another girl had been sexually assaulted by grown men. Nothing was done. When she was 12, Child H was found in the back of a taxi with a man who had indecent pictures of her on his phone. Despite the full co-operation of her father, who insisted his daughter was being abused, police failed to act. Four months later, Child H was found in a house alone with a group of Pakistani men. What did the police do? They arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly and ignored her abusers. As President Obama said about the fiends who beheaded the journalist James Foley: “No just God would stand for what they did.”
The one that knew about the abuse and discussed it in the mosque?
Muslim leaders were aware of the child sexual exploitation scandal in Rotherham but talked in Mosques rather than going to police, a community worker has claimed.
But according to the head of the United Multicultural Centre, the scandal was widely discussed within the Asian community.
Parveen Qureshi told BBC Sheffield: 'The Asian community leaders, they knew about it, it was discussed at the mosque and other places.
It was always discussed in the community what was happening.'
She added: 'It was not started over night, it was going on for a long time
You know i cant help but feel if this was happening the the children of the middle classes
something would have been done to nip it in the bud very quickly but as it was happening to poor
white working class children then it seemed to be a case of it's better to just cover this up
You know i cant help but feel if this was happening the the children of the middle classes
something would have been done to nip it in the bud very quickly but as it was happening to poor
white working class children then it seemed to be a case of it's better to just cover this up
Had the same thought. If this was happening in middle class areas it wouldn't have been allowed to go this far.
The Asian community deliberately segregates itself. I have that first hand from some Asian colleagues. So what do you propose we do about it. Forcibly disperse them?
More sweeping generalisations I see. This thread is getting very repetitive.
I have it first hand from some Asian colleagues that they like to live in nice leafy suburbs where they rarely see a dark face, one is even married to a white guy.
Unlike You, I'll not assume that every Asian shares a single view point, which is a tiny bit racist, don't you think?
They're busy planning the next volley of Islamaphobia responses.
Doubtless. And the Labour pafty and the council offcials will collude as they have always done. I'd lay money that neither the muslims nor the authorities are talking about victims - instead they will discuss damage limitagion, how to cover things up, making deals with one another and soon the children will be forgotten because they didn't matter and they don't matter.
The people of Rotherham should remember that dousing a child in petrol is not considered a crime by their political masters, nor rape, nor brutal terror. The proof is in the pathetically small number of arrests in these cases - a token number only.
And what about the trafficking to other cities? Are all their police forces and councils so considerate of sadists and abusers? So cowed by Muslim sensitivities?
We need a proper investigation and I don't think there's a snowball's chance of getting one. Too many vested interests closing ranks.
Barnardos said it was a problem in 1996, Channel 4 in 2004. The only thing that has changed is that they've narrowed it down to mainly Kashmiri Pakistanis as the problem.
Adam Jones, a political scientist, has said that one of the reasons for why the Pakistani military and supporting Bengali militias raped between two and four hundred thousand Bangladeshi women and girls was to undermine Bengali society through the "dishonouring" of Bengali women. Bina D'Costa believes an anecdote used by General Tikka Khan, "the Butcher of Bengal" - "I will reduce this majority to a minority" - provides proof of the mass rapes being a deliberate strategy. The Pakistani army also raped Bengali males. Dr. Geoffrey Davis, an Australian doctor and abortion specialist, estimated that there had been about 5,000 cases of self-induced abortions. Most of the victims also contracted sexual infections. Many suffered from feelings of intense shame and humiliation, and a number were ostracised by their families and communities or committed suicide. And Irene Khan has said: "A conservative Muslim society has preferred to throw a veil of negligence and denial on the issue, allowed those who committed or colluded with gender violence to thrive, and left the women victims to struggle in anonymity and shame and without much state or community". support. Even in 2014, that is only slowly beginning to change.
Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, has said that race and religion were inextricably linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls:. “The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers. Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.” Arguably, Hargey's contextualising places the attitudes behind what has happened in Britain very much in line with those once displayed towards Bengalis. Where it differs is that there is no explicitly stated link with territorial aspirations. However, many radicalised Muslims - they would often prefer to describe themselves as true Muslims - have been clear that they want to see an Islamic Britain and an Islamic Europe. While some might argue that the behaviour in Rotherham was the consequence of modern western liberalism, the racial dimension and broader historical considerations cannot rationally rule out substantial political or territorial drives.
Victims expect the authorities to be on their side. However, the elites are currently struggling to come to terms with wide-ranging allegations about child abuse among their own types. That raises questions in some minds about the side that many of them are on because it doesn't suggest automatically in many cases that it is the main British population as a whole. Until the revelations about Rotherham, that has been regarded as simply as a huge and atrocious let-down but it would take on an additional resonance if it were regarded as a risk to national security. And some might say that in having the same traits as those in the criminal element of those who would wish Britain to become Islamic, those elites will increasingly be perceived as working against traditional British values. In the end the public has to rely not on elites as such but on what might be termed fairly ordinary folk who manage its services. Those are the ones who are the last bastion of reliability in terms of individuals' personal security and even the future of British values as most comprehend them. The question is whether they are actually plausible.
Most MPs are not as elitist as those in Government or the Shadow Cabinet. An FOI request revealed that X-rated sites including bondage and sadomasochism were visited 6,000 times on machines used by MPs in 14 months to July 2012. Local authority workers? Between February and May 2013 Cornwall Council workers were prevented from viewing 3,583 web pages containing "adult material" and more than 4,600 sites identified as "tasteless" by firewalls. Anecdotally, a police officer father of a friend was dragged out of a group sex session from a building producing top shelf magazines by his work colleagues. As for "ordinary" people themselves, Greater London according to the Guardian makes 23.5 million visits to the most famous porn site in the space of just one year.
What is regarded as mainstream entertainment generally is all adult. However, adult in that context means over 18 or 16 and in the vast majority of cases it does not involved the aged. The outrage on what has happened in the North, and every bit of it is entirely merited, is to do with the age of the victims and the fact that they didn't give consent. However, few are bothered if one adult female is "entertained" by umpteen men in what just a couple of decades ago would have been regarded as completely beyond the pale. The viewing nation is relaxed on the basis that there is consent all round and almost certainly increasing numbers indulge, perhaps the more influential the most but not them exclusively. The social lacuna is around the character of the youngish adults being used, both female and male. The ones who may or may not be paid but are often manipulable, being of a lower class and very possibly having been subjected to abuses in their childhood. Consent then becomes a concept which is based on a highly selective interpretation. An interpretation that is mainly on the side of those who have more social clout.
It is not necessarily always that way. There are some adults who use other adults from a position of a lack of power. They place themselves mentally in the positions of those who are used. Many might do so almost without realising that it may be symptomatic of their lowly status in what is now an abusive society in terms of unequal money and influence. Whatever the form of indulgence, direct or indirect, almost everyone will talk in terms of pleasure and enjoyment. It may be for many that it is what they believe pleasure and enjoyment tend to comprise. But a liberalism which encourages all of society to accommodate a sexual division of the weak and the strong is rationally an insidious form of brainwashing underpinning competitive economics. In that sense, if not necessarily any other depending on individual religion, one might conclude that some genuine imams may just have a point.
One conclusion is that it hardly matters whether there is a conservative society as was West Pakistan in the early 1970s or an excessively liberal society as Britain is today. Abuses of adults and/or children will be widespread. Another is that the key difference is whether there is a political agenda behind sexuality or not. It is the latter which is more plausible if Tikka Khan's objectives were indeed for an ethnic domination of land mass via the sexual domination of non-consenting victims. And, yes, it is also more plausible if liberal western sexuality to the extent that is accepted now is political by representing and reinforcing divisions in a so-called competitive society where in truth there are by definition haves and have nots. It is a survival of the fittest concept written large and sexually.
There is broadly a mixture of feelings about the Rotherham affair in that while the perpetrators are regarded rightly as vile losers, there is unease that they may have said something about the political potency of Islam, benevolent and benign. The lack not of ability but will of the authorities to tackle it, along with the ease in which so many girls became victims, is a similar mixed bag. While it has led to stronger authoritative voices across the board, from parts of all politics and all religion - that something must and will be done - there is also an inherent weakness in the British now based on modern sexual norms. For all of the macho and ladette posturing, it diminishes British values rather than strengthening them and leaves those who must take steps to protect children with a weaker character.
This has been happening for years. 20 years ago a Pakistani taxi driver tried to drag my sister who was 12 at the time and walking home from school into his car. She was one of the lucky ones, she managed to run off. My parents reported it to the police, but heard nothing more. God knows how widespread it is.
Does anyone understand the bbc reference to Neets tonight as young people at risk?i thought it meant Not in education or training
I think the term was quoted as being in an email or written note requesting that staff do not include any more NEETS in their statistics so that targets could be met.
This was used as evidence that the council usually determined their course of action (or lack of it) not with the aim of doing the right thing but with the aim of achieving their numerical targets.
This has been happening for years. 20 years ago a Pakistani taxi driver tried to drag my sister who was 12 at the time and walking home from school into his car. She was one of the lucky ones, she managed to run off. My parents reported it to the police, but heard nothing more. God knows how widespread it is.
How long before you are told that 'anecdotal evidence is not very reliable'. Which is shorthand for 'I don't believe anything unless I read it in the Guardian'.
How long before you are told that 'anecdotal evidence is not very reliable'. Which is shorthand for 'I don't believe anything unless I read it in the Guardian'.
I was taught that by JJWales only yesterday.....we're all learning.
Comments
The Asian community deliberately segregates itself. I have that first hand from some Asian colleagues. So what do you propose we do about it. Forcibly disperse them?
That is what happened to the old East End. Family ties counted for nothing in an area as regards social housing and in fact was termed racist if it was followed. Sons and daughters were forced to move away from their home areas and dispersal was the outcome of the policy. We have many laws against the acts of individuals that make self segregation of communities the result of many criminal offences. Perhaps the laws should be enforced equally to all.
Which Asian community? There is more than one.
http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/2014/08/...han-rotherham/
More tiresome nit-picking.
Just think about what has been said for once.
Perhaps she meant each Asian community. Thats how I interpreted it, and its probably true.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059138/Rotherham-In-the-face-of-such-evil-who-is-the-racist-now.html
The one that knew about the abuse and discussed it in the mosque?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736995/Muslim-leaders-fully-aware-problem-did-Pakistani-community-worker-makes-explosive-claims-religious-leaders-talked-mosques-not-police.html
They're busy planning the next volley of Islamaphobia responses.
"Not in Education, Employment or Training".
something would have been done to nip it in the bud very quickly but as it was happening to poor
white working class children then it seemed to be a case of it's better to just cover this up
Had the same thought.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2736845/BREAKING-NEWS-Former-Rotherham-police-officer-charged-causing-girl-15-engage-sexual-activity.html
I'm not sure what this offence actually means, was he allegedly encouraging her to have a sexual relationship with another person?
More sweeping generalisations I see. This thread is getting very repetitive.
I have it first hand from some Asian colleagues that they like to live in nice leafy suburbs where they rarely see a dark face, one is even married to a white guy.
Unlike You, I'll not assume that every Asian shares a single view point, which is a tiny bit racist, don't you think?
Doubtless. And the Labour pafty and the council offcials will collude as they have always done. I'd lay money that neither the muslims nor the authorities are talking about victims - instead they will discuss damage limitagion, how to cover things up, making deals with one another and soon the children will be forgotten because they didn't matter and they don't matter.
The people of Rotherham should remember that dousing a child in petrol is not considered a crime by their political masters, nor rape, nor brutal terror. The proof is in the pathetically small number of arrests in these cases - a token number only.
And what about the trafficking to other cities? Are all their police forces and councils so considerate of sadists and abusers? So cowed by Muslim sensitivities?
We need a proper investigation and I don't think there's a snowball's chance of getting one. Too many vested interests closing ranks.
Adam Jones, a political scientist, has said that one of the reasons for why the Pakistani military and supporting Bengali militias raped between two and four hundred thousand Bangladeshi women and girls was to undermine Bengali society through the "dishonouring" of Bengali women. Bina D'Costa believes an anecdote used by General Tikka Khan, "the Butcher of Bengal" - "I will reduce this majority to a minority" - provides proof of the mass rapes being a deliberate strategy. The Pakistani army also raped Bengali males. Dr. Geoffrey Davis, an Australian doctor and abortion specialist, estimated that there had been about 5,000 cases of self-induced abortions. Most of the victims also contracted sexual infections. Many suffered from feelings of intense shame and humiliation, and a number were ostracised by their families and communities or committed suicide. And Irene Khan has said: "A conservative Muslim society has preferred to throw a veil of negligence and denial on the issue, allowed those who committed or colluded with gender violence to thrive, and left the women victims to struggle in anonymity and shame and without much state or community". support. Even in 2014, that is only slowly beginning to change.
Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, has said that race and religion were inextricably linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls:. “The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers. Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.” Arguably, Hargey's contextualising places the attitudes behind what has happened in Britain very much in line with those once displayed towards Bengalis. Where it differs is that there is no explicitly stated link with territorial aspirations. However, many radicalised Muslims - they would often prefer to describe themselves as true Muslims - have been clear that they want to see an Islamic Britain and an Islamic Europe. While some might argue that the behaviour in Rotherham was the consequence of modern western liberalism, the racial dimension and broader historical considerations cannot rationally rule out substantial political or territorial drives.
Victims expect the authorities to be on their side. However, the elites are currently struggling to come to terms with wide-ranging allegations about child abuse among their own types. That raises questions in some minds about the side that many of them are on because it doesn't suggest automatically in many cases that it is the main British population as a whole. Until the revelations about Rotherham, that has been regarded as simply as a huge and atrocious let-down but it would take on an additional resonance if it were regarded as a risk to national security. And some might say that in having the same traits as those in the criminal element of those who would wish Britain to become Islamic, those elites will increasingly be perceived as working against traditional British values. In the end the public has to rely not on elites as such but on what might be termed fairly ordinary folk who manage its services. Those are the ones who are the last bastion of reliability in terms of individuals' personal security and even the future of British values as most comprehend them. The question is whether they are actually plausible.
Most MPs are not as elitist as those in Government or the Shadow Cabinet. An FOI request revealed that X-rated sites including bondage and sadomasochism were visited 6,000 times on machines used by MPs in 14 months to July 2012. Local authority workers? Between February and May 2013 Cornwall Council workers were prevented from viewing 3,583 web pages containing "adult material" and more than 4,600 sites identified as "tasteless" by firewalls. Anecdotally, a police officer father of a friend was dragged out of a group sex session from a building producing top shelf magazines by his work colleagues. As for "ordinary" people themselves, Greater London according to the Guardian makes 23.5 million visits to the most famous porn site in the space of just one year.
What is regarded as mainstream entertainment generally is all adult. However, adult in that context means over 18 or 16 and in the vast majority of cases it does not involved the aged. The outrage on what has happened in the North, and every bit of it is entirely merited, is to do with the age of the victims and the fact that they didn't give consent. However, few are bothered if one adult female is "entertained" by umpteen men in what just a couple of decades ago would have been regarded as completely beyond the pale. The viewing nation is relaxed on the basis that there is consent all round and almost certainly increasing numbers indulge, perhaps the more influential the most but not them exclusively. The social lacuna is around the character of the youngish adults being used, both female and male. The ones who may or may not be paid but are often manipulable, being of a lower class and very possibly having been subjected to abuses in their childhood. Consent then becomes a concept which is based on a highly selective interpretation. An interpretation that is mainly on the side of those who have more social clout.
It is not necessarily always that way. There are some adults who use other adults from a position of a lack of power. They place themselves mentally in the positions of those who are used. Many might do so almost without realising that it may be symptomatic of their lowly status in what is now an abusive society in terms of unequal money and influence. Whatever the form of indulgence, direct or indirect, almost everyone will talk in terms of pleasure and enjoyment. It may be for many that it is what they believe pleasure and enjoyment tend to comprise. But a liberalism which encourages all of society to accommodate a sexual division of the weak and the strong is rationally an insidious form of brainwashing underpinning competitive economics. In that sense, if not necessarily any other depending on individual religion, one might conclude that some genuine imams may just have a point.
One conclusion is that it hardly matters whether there is a conservative society as was West Pakistan in the early 1970s or an excessively liberal society as Britain is today. Abuses of adults and/or children will be widespread. Another is that the key difference is whether there is a political agenda behind sexuality or not. It is the latter which is more plausible if Tikka Khan's objectives were indeed for an ethnic domination of land mass via the sexual domination of non-consenting victims. And, yes, it is also more plausible if liberal western sexuality to the extent that is accepted now is political by representing and reinforcing divisions in a so-called competitive society where in truth there are by definition haves and have nots. It is a survival of the fittest concept written large and sexually.
There is broadly a mixture of feelings about the Rotherham affair in that while the perpetrators are regarded rightly as vile losers, there is unease that they may have said something about the political potency of Islam, benevolent and benign. The lack not of ability but will of the authorities to tackle it, along with the ease in which so many girls became victims, is a similar mixed bag. While it has led to stronger authoritative voices across the board, from parts of all politics and all religion - that something must and will be done - there is also an inherent weakness in the British now based on modern sexual norms. For all of the macho and ladette posturing, it diminishes British values rather than strengthening them and leaves those who must take steps to protect children with a weaker character.
I think the term was quoted as being in an email or written note requesting that staff do not include any more NEETS in their statistics so that targets could be met.
This was used as evidence that the council usually determined their course of action (or lack of it) not with the aim of doing the right thing but with the aim of achieving their numerical targets.
How long before you are told that 'anecdotal evidence is not very reliable'. Which is shorthand for 'I don't believe anything unless I read it in the Guardian'.
I don't know what she meant. That's why I asked.
What should they be doing?
But one can equally ask what are the moderate everybody else doing.
I was taught that by JJWales only yesterday.....we're all learning.
Yes, it's well worth remembering. And I don't read the Guardian! (Best to ignore Gregory's catty remarks.)