Radio host shuts down Trump supporter defending ban on Muslims by citing rape of 1,400 white girls

Tommy Monk wrote:Oh ffs...
How many times do I have to keep posting stuff only for the wilfully blind to say they haven't seen it...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:


Just been looking at crime statistics for Netherlands and comparative levels in other countries...


While it is true that crime rates for certain types of crime have been going down a little bit over recent 5-10 years or so... the rates are only going back down to simikar level seen prior to what looks like a surge in crime that started about 10 years ago!!!



Check this link...


http://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Crime-Statistics


Look at crimes per 100,000 and compare with other countries... and look at the graphs showing last 15 years or so and the surge that started 10 years ago is clearly visible...


Also... look at Sweden in the rankings... I wonder what has happened there in recent years to make it go from one of the lowest crime rate countries in the world to the highest in so many crime categories...!!!???

 Re: Radio host shuts down Trump supporter defending ban on Muslims by citing rape of 1,400 white girls
 by Tommy Monk Today at 1:48 am
Sweden has a massive problem with Muslim rapists...
It has gone from one of the lowest rapes in the world to the rape capital of the world!!!

Lord Foul wrote:well...I have stuck with bens (possibly erroneous) figures


and still no one seems to get the point

3% of the population provided 83% of the perps.....

but THAT of course is an inconvenient truth...that the lefty "equality goggles" filters out.....

IF that is the case, then by what amount are our "house guests" predicated to that particular habit? OVER and above what the resident population can produce by way of such sickos???

at that rate .....

IF the population of our house guests were to rise to say 6% they would provide 97% of the perps....

and at 9%  they would provide 99.5% of perps

to put it another way

they are 90% MORE likely to be thus "interested"

(on a purely mathematical note I have a feeling thats not QUITE right....perhaps someone with better statis=tics than me can work out the correct figures

if a group comprising 3% of the populataion is responsible for 83% of a given phenomena

whilst a group of 97% is responsible for 17% of the phenomena

by what ratio is the small group MORE prone to the phenomena than the larger)

4EVER2 wrote:Statistics/Assaults-Kidnapping-Robbery-Sexual-Rape/Rape-count

Yipper, just as I've proven with my link(s) 2013
#1 USA - #2 Brazil - #3 Mexico -#4 France - #5 Philippines - #6 Peru - #7 Germany - #8 Sweden

And yet you've just stated:

 Re: Radio host shuts down Trump supporter defending ban on Muslims by citing rape of 1,400 white girls
 by Tommy Monk Today at 1:48 am
Sweden has a massive problem with Muslim rapists...
It has gone from one of the lowest rapes in the world to the rape capital of the world!!!

 ...if you can't read the data - if you can't comprehend the data - if you just make crap up to try to support your opinion, then just say so!  No shame ...the shame is when you make such 'LAME' claims and then can't provide the 'PROOF' - that's shame!

Tommy Monk wrote:


Just been looking at crime statistics for Netherlands and comparative levels in other countries...


While it is true that crime rates for certain types of crime have been going down a little bit over recent 5-10 years or so... the rates are only going back down to simikar level seen prior to what looks like a surge in crime that started about 10 years ago!!!



Check this link...


http://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Crime-Statistics


Look at crimes per 100,000 and compare with other countries... and look at the graphs showing last 15 years or so and the surge that started 10 years ago is clearly visible...


Also... look at Sweden in the rankings... I wonder what has happened there in recent years to make it go from one of the lowest crime rate countries in the world to the highest in so many crime categories...!!!???

Tommykins ranted >
I think it is you who is having trouble reading things...
But you are confirming other countries with high rape levels...
USA - blacks and Mexicans responsible for huge levels there.
Brazil - Who's doing all the raping there?
Mexico - Mexicans aren't responsible for high levels of rape...!?
France - huge immigrant population doing the rapes there...
Germany - same there too!!!
Sweden - and there!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:


Just been looking at crime statistics for Netherlands and comparative levels in other countries...


While it is true that crime rates for certain types of crime have been going down a little bit over recent 5-10 years or so... the rates are only going back down to simikar level seen prior to what looks like a surge in crime that started about 10 years ago!!!



Check this link...


http://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Crime-Statistics


Look at crimes per 100,000 and compare with other countries... and look at the graphs showing last 15 years or so and the surge that started 10 years ago is clearly visible...


Also... look at Sweden in the rankings... I wonder what has happened there in recent years to make it go from one of the lowest crime rate countries in the world to the highest in so many crime categories...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:


Maybe 4everatwat had trouble finding/reading/understanding the relevant statistics per 100,000 population...!?

Or maybe just trouble actually seeing the inconvenient truth through the kaleidoscopic leftie goggles of distortion and denial that it wears...!?



So... just to make sure the facts are clear for everyone else to see...


https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Crime-Statistics/Assaults-Kidnapping-Robbery-Sexual-Rape/Rape-rate

Lord Foul wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Maybe 4everatwat had trouble finding/reading/understanding the relevant statistics per 100,000 population...!?

Or maybe just trouble actually seeing the inconvenient truth through the kaleidoscopic leftie goggles of distortion and denial that it wears...!?



So... just to make sure the facts are clear for everyone else to see...


https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Crime-Statistics/Assaults-Kidnapping-Robbery-Sexual-Rape/Rape-rate

Tommy...thats unwarranted and NOT acceptable....DONT do it.....

On the face of it, it would seem Sweden is a much more dangerous place than these other countries.

But that is a misconception, according to Klara Selin, a sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm. She says you cannot compare countries' records, because police procedures and legal definitions vary widely.

"In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics," she says.

"So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record - one victim, one type of crime, one record."

The thing is, the number of reported rapes has been going up in Sweden - it's almost trebled in just the last seven years. In 2003, about 2,200 offences were reported by the police, compared to nearly 6,000 in 2010.
So something's going on.

But Klara Selin says the statistics don't represent a major crime epidemic, rather a shift in attitudes. The public debate about this sort of crime in Sweden over the past two decades has had the effect of raising awareness, she says, and encouraging women to go to the police if they have been attacked.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Maybe 4everatwat had trouble finding/reading/understanding the relevant statistics per 100,000 population...!?

Or maybe just trouble actually seeing the inconvenient truth through the kaleidoscopic leftie goggles of distortion and denial that it wears...!?



So... just to make sure the facts are clear for everyone else to see...


https://knoema.com/atlas/topics/Crime-Statistics/Assaults-Kidnapping-Robbery-Sexual-Rape/Rape-rate

Tommy...thats unwarranted and NOT acceptable....DONT do it.....

Calling me a liar, making false claims that I never post up corroborating evidence and making false claims that I have been 'caught out' doing so on so many numerous occasions etc... is also unwarranted and not acceptable too...!!!


So is calling me 'tommykins' in such a patronising manner...



Calling someone a 'twat' is not against the rules... is it...!?


no...but its rather more unpleasant than is necessary........and hardly in the same league as "tommykins"


And if my rebranding of '4ever' to '4everatwat' is against the rules... then so is the rebounding of my name 'Tommy Monk' to 'tommykins'... isn't it!?



And I seem to remember some twat calling you 'Lord foul' lately... and you said nothing about that...!

erm ...lord foul is my user name????????


Can I no longer refer to 'didge' as 'dodge'...!?

you may so continue ...since its true ( @ didge) and not unpleasant....


Or refer to 'who's your wolfie' as 'fleakeeper'... even after the constant barrage of insults that it is allowed to post at me...!?

even thats not downright rude......



Come on 'elmer'... 4ever is only crying about the play on username because it has been shown up to be the idiot that it is on this thread and because I have posted up too many facts that have melted its brain beyond the ability of being able to formulate any relevant/coherent argument in response!!!

eddie wrote:Truthfully, I don't think any of you look at each other's links.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Have to side with LF on this one, I don't like a female user being called a slang term for vagina.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Have to side with LF on this one, I don't like a female user being called a slang term for vagina.

eddie wrote:I've used the word twat loads of times on here - usually about a person in a news article.
It does mean "idiot", rarely do people use it for a vagina.

And in that case, shouldn't use the term "prick" then either.

And to be fair to 4ever, she didn't even complain about it.

eddie wrote:I've used the word twat loads of times on here - usually about a person in a news article.
It does mean "idiot", rarely do people use it for a vagina.

And in that case, shouldn't use the term "prick" then either.

And to be fair to 4ever, she didn't even complain about it.

veya_victaous wrote:for future assistance

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't slap each other on the back so hard over this that you knock out your dentures or anything -- you don't get why I posted that info in the first place. I wasn't trying to make white people look bad, I was proving that these pedophile rings have nothing to do with race or religion.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Have to side with LF on this one, I don't like a female user being called a slang term for vagina.

Tommy Monk wrote:Do you know what specsaver actually is over here?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't slap each other on the back so hard over this that you knock out your dentures or anything -- you don't get why I posted that info in the first place. I wasn't trying to make white people look bad, I was proving that these pedophile rings have nothing to do with race or religion.

Sure, but it's not true to say that "a lot" of white people participated in grooming gangs is it?

I have all my own teeth by the way.

Karen MacGregor, 58, lured two of the victims into her house, befriending them and behaving like a second mother but then forcing them into sexual relations with men who would hang around the house.

Yesterday she was convicted of conspiracy to rape, false imprisonment and procuring one of the women to become a common prostitute.

Shelley Davies lived with MacGregor for a time and was found guilty of false imprisonment and procuring one of the victims to become a common prostitute.

One of the victims described MacGregor’s house as akin to akin to the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale, inviting to begin with but soon descending into terrifying sexual crime.

She told the jury how she felt MacGregor was like a second mother, listening to her problems, buying her food and clothes. But within days she was assaulted. She was plied with vodka and after passing out awoke to find a man abusing her.

MacGregor allowed the girls to be abused and kept captive, telling them they needed to "earn their keep" by having sex with a succession of visiting men.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Have to side with LF on this one, I don't like a female user being called a slang term for vagina.

In common usage in the UK, it doesn't really refer to that. I call people twats sometimes, and it's a fairly mild form of insult.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sure, but it's not true to say that "a lot" of white people participated in grooming gangs is it?

I have all my own teeth by the way.

Again, not my point. My point is this:



These women are not Pakistani Muslim men.

Karen MacGregor, 58, lured two of the victims into her house, befriending them and behaving like a second mother but then forcing them into sexual relations with men who would hang around the house.

Yesterday she was convicted of conspiracy to rape, false imprisonment and procuring one of the women to become a common prostitute.

Shelley Davies lived with MacGregor for a time and was found guilty of false imprisonment and procuring one of the victims to become a common prostitute.

One of the victims described MacGregor’s house as akin to akin to the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale, inviting to begin with but soon descending into terrifying sexual crime.

She told the jury how she felt MacGregor was like a second mother, listening to her problems, buying her food and clothes. But within days she was assaulted. She was plied with vodka and after passing out awoke to find a man abusing her.

MacGregor allowed the girls to be abused and kept captive, telling them they needed to "earn their keep" by having sex with a succession of visiting men.

Did their Christian faith drive them to these crimes, or was it their deep-seated hatred of white people? Or were they just horrible people, and is fixating on their race and faith actually ... stupid?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Do you know what specsaver actually is over here?

I think she should have gone there because she's confusing it with "spic".

Ben_Reilly wrote:Eddie, I was raised Catholic and wasn't taught to be a pedo. Pedophiles tend to seek jobs where they have authority over kids, which includes religious positions, teaching, etc.

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think she should have gone there because she's confusing it with "spic".

"I THINK", as I did attempt to educate you once before that any time you use a you need to signify that it is a and not ASSume that people in another country would know the difference between a 'nasty Mexican slang' and what you posh-upstanding Brits use daily! 

But your ability to retain useful facts is as always - FLACKY and highly sketchy as well.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In common usage in the UK, it doesn't really refer to that. I call people twats sometimes, and it's a fairly mild form of insult.

Not to Americans.

Raggamuffin wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think she should have gone there because she's confusing it with "spic".

"I THINK", as I did attempt to educate you once before that any time you use a you need to signify that it is a and not ASSume that people in another country would know the difference between a 'nasty Mexican slang' and what you posh-upstanding Brits use daily! 

But your ability to retain useful facts is as always - FLACKY and highly sketchy as well.

Specsavers is a chain of shops which sell spectacles over here. It's nothing to do with Mexicans.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In common usage in the UK, it doesn't really refer to that. I call people twats sometimes, and it's a fairly mild form of insult.

Not to Americans.

The term "white trash" is considered offensive to many people over here, and I haven't noticed you clamping down on that.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Specsavers is a chain of shops which sell spectacles over here. It's nothing to do with Mexicans.

This has all been explained before and it's partly my fault because I came up with the name as a "welcome" by giving a new poster a nickname.

Well that sure backfired.

I think it's disrespectful to change someone's username if they don't like it. I have a habit of giving nicknames to people I like. I also shorten people's usernames too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Not to Americans.

The term "white trash" is considered offensive to many people over here, and I haven't noticed you clamping down on that.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The term "white trash" is considered offensive to many people over here, and I haven't noticed you clamping down on that.

Have we had people calling other users white trash? Can't say I've seen that.

4EVER2 wrote:

eddie wrote:
This has all been explained before and it's partly my fault because I came up with the name as a "welcome" by giving a new poster a nickname.

Well that sure backfired.

I think it's disrespectful to change someone's username if they don't like it. I have a habit of giving nicknames to people I like. I also shorten people's usernames too.

And that's why, you've had to explain 'SLANG' words that upset you to Ben; what you assume we know and understand over here is not the same as what our multicultural language based words are over there where you are.
 
And as often as Ragg's never contributes to most threads {like this one, except for a stupid smiley on page #1} her resolve to remain nothing but utterly ignorant about the 'MEXICAN' slang/verbiage and what I've stated numerous times is just as substantiated by her only appearance in this entire topic when there's a karfarckle and she's right in here with her BS and manure spoon to stir the pot!

You get upset with Ben's un-intentional banging away at the British, and he'll ask for clarification about 'what he'd said that blew you up?' ...I can't get the willful racist/pot stirrers to accept that they don't know - what they don't know and they'll keep tossing fuel onto the fire like they know IT ALL!  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The term "white trash" is considered offensive to many people over here, and I haven't noticed you clamping down on that.

Have we had people calling other users white trash? Can't say I've seen that.

Yes "we" have.

eddie wrote:I agree with you Quill and may I say, I've always said that banning words would become a problem, as did you. If I recall correctly.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't slap each other on the back so hard over this that you knock out your dentures or anything -- you don't get why I posted that info in the first place. I wasn't trying to make white people look bad, I was proving that these pedophile rings have nothing to do with race or religion.

Sure, but it's not true to say that "a lot" of white people participated in grooming gangs is it?

I have all my own teeth by the way.

Again, not my point. My point is this:



These women are not Pakistani Muslim men.

Karen MacGregor, 58, lured two of the victims into her house, befriending them and behaving like a second mother but then forcing them into sexual relations with men who would hang around the house.

Yesterday she was convicted of conspiracy to rape, false imprisonment and procuring one of the women to become a common prostitute.

Shelley Davies lived with MacGregor for a time and was found guilty of false imprisonment and procuring one of the victims to become a common prostitute.

One of the victims described MacGregor’s house as akin to akin to the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale, inviting to begin with but soon descending into terrifying sexual crime.

She told the jury how she felt MacGregor was like a second mother, listening to her problems, buying her food and clothes. But within days she was assaulted. She was plied with vodka and after passing out awoke to find a man abusing her.

MacGregor allowed the girls to be abused and kept captive, telling them they needed to "earn their keep" by having sex with a succession of visiting men.

Did their Christian faith drive them to these crimes, or was it their deep-seated hatred of white people? Or were they just horrible people, and is fixating on their race and faith actually ... stupid?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes "we" have.

Well, we've had British users calling Americans "inbred morons," which is pretty much the same thing ...