See you're keeping up the splendid left and PC tradition of labelling anyone racist who dares to discuss it ......as pointed out in the report it is this mindset that contributed to the men of pakistani origin getting away with the abuse .
I see you're keeping up the tradition of complaining about something that hasn't been said.
If anyone thinks you can group everyone of a race together and call them "The Asian Community", then go on to state that they all share a single point of view, has made a racist statement.
This has nothing to do with the report, the child rapes or the criminal negligence of the authorities in Rotherham, it has to do with the small mindedness of posters on DS.
OK - point taken. But if you remember the cultural view at the time.. it was very much "Don't be racist... or else."
"At the time", other Police forces were acting in an incredibly racist way. "Institutionally racist" was the term I recall when they half heartedly investigated the murder of Stephen Lawrence, or while stopped thousands of innocent black people using the "sus" laws to stop and search without reason.
I don't recall a time when we all thought the Police were being soft on minorities and ignoring their crimes. Must be because I'm a leftie or some such BS.
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
Anyone else thought that this split of the community into ubermensch, mensch and untermensch seems just a little bit fascist?
Griffin, of Llanerfyl, Powys, denies two counts of using words or behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred and two of using words or behaviour likely to stir up racial hatred.'
.
From the same link,
The court heard that Griffin made another speech on May 5, 2004, at Morley Town Hall, West Yorks, in which he discussed the BNP as an alternative to the other political parties. He criticised the amount of attention the media had given to the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry, describing Mr Lawrence as a drug-dealer who was notorious in the area for taking cash from children.
Other quotes from the very nice non racist Mr Griffin,
“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also also once held that the Earth was flat… I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria” – Griffin outside court in 1998.
“The TV footage of dozens of gay demonstrators flaunting their perversions in front of the world’s journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive” – the BNP leader writing in Spearhead in 1999.
Has called Britain 'a multi-racial hellhole' and described British Muslims as 'the most appalling, insufferable people to have to live with'. Sunday Times, June 2009
Not "some" or a minority but ALL,
'The ultimate aim for me and for the BNP still remains an all-white Britain.'
The only measure which is going to stop immigration . . . is to get very tough with those coming over. Frankly, they need to sink several of those boats. I say the boats should be sunk, they can throw them a life raft, and they can go back to Libya.'
For a man of such 'great morality' it seems he is OK with cold blooded murder.
Asked what he would do with people living in Britain who couldn't be 'sent home' because their nationalities were not clear, he said: 'Drop them out of a plane somewhere over Africa. I don't really care.'
BBC's Panorama, 2001
'Perhaps one day... the British people might change their mind and say: "Yes, every last one [non-white] must go." Perhaps they will one day. But if you hold that out as your sole aim to start with, you're going to get absolutely nowhere. So instead of talking about racial purity, you talk about identity. . .'
there is a bit missing from the quote above it's actually taken from a video in which Griffin is addressing a meeting of "friends of the KKK" in the USA, he is sharing the stage with the ex 'grand wizard' (yeah I know) of the KKK,
He starts by saying "perhaps one day when we control the British media" then goes on about the "The British people might change their mind" etc,
he also starts his 'talk' by stating categorically that the BNP have not 'sold out' they are just changing their image to appear more electable to the British people, and that "our ideals remain the same as your ideals" ( the same as the KKK)
FROM HIS OWN MOUTH, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XK2PbQaTdA
When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate. We have a body of trained young men capable of defending our organisation. If people come to crack our heads, we will break theirs.'
The Times, November 2006
Plenty more in the link and plenty more quotes from the wonderful Mr Griffin online.
I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would think he wants to stir up racial hatred.
Every professional involved - police, council, whoever - should be fired, and then prosecuted for complicity in rape. Of course, they won't be. They've all "learned a lesson" and it'll "never happen again".
It goes without saying what should happen to the Pakistani rapists.
I'm interested to know why the majority of them where of Pakistani origin, why were there so few other ethnic groups implicated in this grooming outrage, why no Sikhs, Budhists, Hindus, Chinese etc., is it something specific to Pakistanis, or is it their religion? Although I haven't much time for Islam (because of its evident bloodlust and oppression), or any other "organised religion" for that matter, the question I posed above may have answered itself, Pakistanis are not the only followers of Islam, and as it appears there were no other Muslim races involved, I conclude it must be a racial or "cultural" thing, actioned by Pakistani mens' disregard for the value of females in Pakistan which they continue when they come here.
I'm interested to know why the majority of them where of Pakistani origin, why were there so few other ethnic groups implicated in this grooming outrage, why no Sikhs, Budhists, Hindus, Chinese etc., is it something specific to Pakistanis, or is it their religion? Although I haven't much time for Islam (because of its evident bloodlust and oppression), or any other "organised religion" for that matter, the question I posed above may have answered itself, Pakistanis are not the only followers of Islam, and as it appears there were no other Muslim races involved, I conclude it must be a racial or "cultural" thing, actioned by Pakistani mens' disregard for the value of females in Pakistan which they continue when they come here.
Plenty more in the link and plenty more quotes from the wonderful Mr Griffin online.
I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would think he wants to stir up racial hatred.
I can but that's besides the point.
The point is he was right (on this issue), The authorities knew he was right and they went ahead and attempted to prosecute him anyway. So the upshot of our approach to multiculturalism is we have built a society where you can be prosecuted for for raising the alarm over child abuse on an industrial scale.
How progressive of us and horiffic that it took a group like the BNP to force this into the public eye.
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
I'm interested to know why the majority of them where of Pakistani origin, why were there so few other ethnic groups implicated in this grooming outrage, why no Sikhs, Budhists, Hindus, Chinese etc., is it something specific to Pakistanis, or is it their religion? Although I haven't much time for Islam (because of its evident bloodlust and oppression), or any other "organised religion" for that matter, the question I posed above may have answered itself, Pakistanis are not the only followers of Islam, and as it appears there were no other Muslim races involved, I conclude it must be a racial or "cultural" thing, actioned by Pakistani mens' disregard for the value of females in Pakistan which they continue when they come here.
There could be an argument that Pakistan historically felt unequal in terms of its geographical influence, notably to India, and was hit particularly hard economically by the second war in 1965. Pakistanis, therefore, sought to assert an authority in other ways. That the widespread sexual abuses in further war occurred just six years later cannot be seen as irrelevant to those earlier economic losses. And while in theory Pakistanis were welcomed to Britain both before and after 1971, and have for a long time had equal rights, some will rightly or wrongly carry a notion that they are treated like second class citizens. Many whites feel that too but culturally the very acute differences between the two groups means that there isn't common identification. Each group stands for its own sense of superiority.
I think one could then talk about "settlement". In my opinion, stable monogamous relationships thrive as a trend when people are settled in an area and don't move around much independently. For example, there was far more stability in Britain in that sense before travel expanded after WW2. In the case of the Indian regions, huge numbers of Muslims moved from India to Pakistan post war and then large numbers emigrated to Britain etc. It isn't, then, coincidental that the abuses in Rotherham were not just there but spread out across Northern towns territorially and that significant numbers were minicab drivers. It's the non-achievers' equivalent to businessmen in Thailand.
Additionally, there is the arranged marriage aspect and that consideration could be extended to requirements about dress for women. Where authoritative status is felt to be absent societally, even in a paranoid way, men may look to exercising what they perceive to be authority in other ways. That may mean what to many would seem compensatory excessive control over ordinary women and children. And I suppose one key difference in parts of that culture between women and girls is that the latter are not required to be covered up in public and so non adults could be perceived broadly as sexually available. Also, it historically is a culture in which girls rather than women could be betrothed so there is a fuzzy line there between adults and children too, whatever subsequent learning.
Concepts of equality are arguably complex. The western way is to believe in an equality based on an equal right to expression but what that does is enable individuals to be graded on attractiveness, intelligence, ability etc. When all women are made to look identical, they are severely constrained but it could be said that they are more equal with each other and where equality matters that may be regarded as a superior way. Where that leaves western women and girls is in a position of being seen as lesser people behaviourally and yet enticing in the sense that they could seem to offer more. So there is a greed and an aspiration in that attraction combined with immense disrespect.
There is a positive aspect to globalisation. It is in the idea that everyone is an equal human being in terms of his or her personal value and deserves dignity. But the political and economic organisation of the world often runs counter to it and so does history. Class or caste distinctions can be acute. They are traditionally significant in Pakistan and those attitudes can easily be translated into a similar set of distinctions in new places like Britain, especially when class is already significant in those places too. But it isn't only Pakistan. One only has to consider the sort of Russo-phobic statements issued in the west on the situation in Ukraine - I have been astonished by the vitriol and the misplaced sense of superiority in those - to know that even societies which believe they are equal can base those beliefs on reducing other societies to a perceived inferior status. Sadly, few subscribe to equality as they purport.
WHat I MEANT to say was how back in the 90s, stating that possibly a certain crime was centralised within specific races or cultures was such a taboo that it formed a massive blind spot.
In the same way that female-on-male rape and domestic violence is only just coming out now... it was the same with this situation. Goodness Gracious Me spoofed the attitudes that formed a "I'm more antiracist/culturally sentitive than you" attitudes at the time. This went alongside the Choldren Act coming in - when more central stats were kept of kids at risk.
For a man of such 'great morality' it seems he is OK with cold blooded murder.
there is a bit missing from the quote above it's actually taken from a video in which Griffin is addressing a meeting of "friends of the KKK" in the USA, he is sharing the stage with the ex 'grand wizard' (yeah I know) of the KKK,
He starts by saying "perhaps one day when we control the British media" then goes on about the "The British people might change their mind" etc,
he also starts his 'talk' by stating categorically that the BNP have not 'sold out' they are just changing their image to appear more electable to the British people, and that "our ideals remain the same as your ideals" ( the same as the KKK)
FROM HIS OWN MOUTH, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XK2PbQaTdA
Plenty more in the link and plenty more quotes from the wonderful Mr Griffin online.
I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would think he wants to stir up racial hatred.
The thing was he was being tried on the specific crime of hate speech and the part I quoted was used as evidence for that very crime. The fact it was true seems to have been ignored, the fact it was stated was referred to as lies by a host of commentators and the BBC programme was present but made no effort to ascertain the veracity of Griffin's accusations they just reported them to the police.
Whether Griffin was a 'nice' man is neither here nor there, being 'not nice' is currently not a crime whereas abusing children is.
The thing was he was being tried on the specific crime of hate speech and the part I quoted was used as evidence for that very crime. The fact it was true seems to have been ignored, the fact it was stated was referred to as lies by a host of commentators and the BBC programme was present but made no effort to ascertain the veracity of Griffin's accusations they just reported them to the police.
Whether Griffin was a 'nice' man is neither here nor there, being 'not nice' is currently not a crime whereas abusing children is.
This was one aspect of the charge. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. It's not as if being correct on one thing excuses the rest of his bile.
Comments
I see you're keeping up the tradition of complaining about something that hasn't been said.
If anyone thinks you can group everyone of a race together and call them "The Asian Community", then go on to state that they all share a single point of view, has made a racist statement.
This has nothing to do with the report, the child rapes or the criminal negligence of the authorities in Rotherham, it has to do with the small mindedness of posters on DS.
"At the time", other Police forces were acting in an incredibly racist way. "Institutionally racist" was the term I recall when they half heartedly investigated the murder of Stephen Lawrence, or while stopped thousands of innocent black people using the "sus" laws to stop and search without reason.
I don't recall a time when we all thought the Police were being soft on minorities and ignoring their crimes. Must be because I'm a leftie or some such BS.
We've always been a deeply class-based society. Goes hand in hand with having a monarchy I suppose.
Other quotes from the very nice non racist Mr Griffin,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221880/BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin-A-bigot-damned-vile-words.html
Not "some" or a minority but ALL,
For a man of such 'great morality' it seems he is OK with cold blooded murder.
there is a bit missing from the quote above it's actually taken from a video in which Griffin is addressing a meeting of "friends of the KKK" in the USA, he is sharing the stage with the ex 'grand wizard' (yeah I know) of the KKK,
He starts by saying "perhaps one day when we control the British media" then goes on about the "The British people might change their mind" etc,
he also starts his 'talk' by stating categorically that the BNP have not 'sold out' they are just changing their image to appear more electable to the British people, and that "our ideals remain the same as your ideals" ( the same as the KKK)
FROM HIS OWN MOUTH,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XK2PbQaTdA
Plenty more in the link and plenty more quotes from the wonderful Mr Griffin online.
I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would think he wants to stir up racial hatred.
I'm interested to know why the majority of them where of Pakistani origin, why were there so few other ethnic groups implicated in this grooming outrage, why no Sikhs, Budhists, Hindus, Chinese etc., is it something specific to Pakistanis, or is it their religion? Although I haven't much time for Islam (because of its evident bloodlust and oppression), or any other "organised religion" for that matter, the question I posed above may have answered itself, Pakistanis are not the only followers of Islam, and as it appears there were no other Muslim races involved, I conclude it must be a racial or "cultural" thing, actioned by Pakistani mens' disregard for the value of females in Pakistan which they continue when they come here.
Jihad (holy war) is a religious duty for Muslims, and abducting non-Muslim females is a form of jihad.
http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/08/the-love-jihad-in-india/
I can but that's besides the point.
The point is he was right (on this issue), The authorities knew he was right and they went ahead and attempted to prosecute him anyway. So the upshot of our approach to multiculturalism is we have built a society where you can be prosecuted for for raising the alarm over child abuse on an industrial scale.
How progressive of us and horiffic that it took a group like the BNP to force this into the public eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUt8iHVTO4w
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cultural+marxism+explained
I've also read that Rotherham council has destroyed all the case files relating too the 2000 inquiry, so there is now a cover up of a cover up.
They are vulnerable and needy. Interesting article here but comments have been closed.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/27/poor-children-seen-as-worthless-rotherham-abuse-scandal#start-of-comments
There could be an argument that Pakistan historically felt unequal in terms of its geographical influence, notably to India, and was hit particularly hard economically by the second war in 1965. Pakistanis, therefore, sought to assert an authority in other ways. That the widespread sexual abuses in further war occurred just six years later cannot be seen as irrelevant to those earlier economic losses. And while in theory Pakistanis were welcomed to Britain both before and after 1971, and have for a long time had equal rights, some will rightly or wrongly carry a notion that they are treated like second class citizens. Many whites feel that too but culturally the very acute differences between the two groups means that there isn't common identification. Each group stands for its own sense of superiority.
I think one could then talk about "settlement". In my opinion, stable monogamous relationships thrive as a trend when people are settled in an area and don't move around much independently. For example, there was far more stability in Britain in that sense before travel expanded after WW2. In the case of the Indian regions, huge numbers of Muslims moved from India to Pakistan post war and then large numbers emigrated to Britain etc. It isn't, then, coincidental that the abuses in Rotherham were not just there but spread out across Northern towns territorially and that significant numbers were minicab drivers. It's the non-achievers' equivalent to businessmen in Thailand.
Additionally, there is the arranged marriage aspect and that consideration could be extended to requirements about dress for women. Where authoritative status is felt to be absent societally, even in a paranoid way, men may look to exercising what they perceive to be authority in other ways. That may mean what to many would seem compensatory excessive control over ordinary women and children. And I suppose one key difference in parts of that culture between women and girls is that the latter are not required to be covered up in public and so non adults could be perceived broadly as sexually available. Also, it historically is a culture in which girls rather than women could be betrothed so there is a fuzzy line there between adults and children too, whatever subsequent learning.
Concepts of equality are arguably complex. The western way is to believe in an equality based on an equal right to expression but what that does is enable individuals to be graded on attractiveness, intelligence, ability etc. When all women are made to look identical, they are severely constrained but it could be said that they are more equal with each other and where equality matters that may be regarded as a superior way. Where that leaves western women and girls is in a position of being seen as lesser people behaviourally and yet enticing in the sense that they could seem to offer more. So there is a greed and an aspiration in that attraction combined with immense disrespect.
There is a positive aspect to globalisation. It is in the idea that everyone is an equal human being in terms of his or her personal value and deserves dignity. But the political and economic organisation of the world often runs counter to it and so does history. Class or caste distinctions can be acute. They are traditionally significant in Pakistan and those attitudes can easily be translated into a similar set of distinctions in new places like Britain, especially when class is already significant in those places too. But it isn't only Pakistan. One only has to consider the sort of Russo-phobic statements issued in the west on the situation in Ukraine - I have been astonished by the vitriol and the misplaced sense of superiority in those - to know that even societies which believe they are equal can base those beliefs on reducing other societies to a perceived inferior status. Sadly, few subscribe to equality as they purport.
Thanks for the attempt at clarification. My initial response stands.
Same stick has been used to beat those mentioning broad racial groups in making the opposite argument.
So it is not all about race or religion then?
The thing was he was being tried on the specific crime of hate speech and the part I quoted was used as evidence for that very crime. The fact it was true seems to have been ignored, the fact it was stated was referred to as lies by a host of commentators and the BBC programme was present but made no effort to ascertain the veracity of Griffin's accusations they just reported them to the police.
Whether Griffin was a 'nice' man is neither here nor there, being 'not nice' is currently not a crime whereas abusing children is.
This was one aspect of the charge. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. It's not as if being correct on one thing excuses the rest of his bile.
.. and?
I don' t finish off sentences. Are you asking a question?
Does Mr G ever wax critical about bad behaviour among the "superior" race?
Possibly maybe!
I imagine if they are 'Commie scum' he would!
Are they all at it then?
I would imagine he's not particularly fond of those belonging to the loonie/faux left and the urban metropolitan elite.