Female left wing politician raped by 3 Muslim 'refugees' lies to police about ethnicity of attacker for pc gone mad reasons

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/06/raped-german-politician-lied-attackers-nationality-stop-racism/



I don't know where to start on this...


Maybe some of the like minded lefty ilk here can explain the quantum thinking behind all this...!?

It's late pfffff. Why didn't you post some of the article?

Here's a bit of article...


A report by Germany’s Interior Ministry published in May showed that migrants in the country were committing a disproportionately high amount of crime.

The report found that 70 per cent of pickpocketing was committed by non-Germans since the start of 2014, with 34 per cent of this committed by recent asylum seekers.

Non-Germans also accounted for 40.2 per cent of burglaries and 43.5 per cent of shoplifting.

Here's the main bit...




Raped German Politician Lied About Attackers’ Nationality To ‘Stop Racism’
goerenFacebook
by NICK HALLETT
6 Jul 2016
2,453
A left-wing German politician has admitted she lied to police about the nationality of three men who raped her in case it triggered racism against migrants in her country.
Selin Gören, who is a spokeswoman for the left-wing youth movement Solid, was attacked in the city of Mannheim in January while working as a refugee activist. She was ambushed in a play area late at night and forced to perform a sex act on her attackers.

Although she went straight to the police after the attack, she did not report the ethnicity of the men, nor that they were speaking Arabic or Farsi.

Instead, she said the men spoke German and robbed her.

However, after her initial interview she went back to the police 12 hours later and told the truth.

She told the latest edition of Germany’s Spiegel magazine that, after the reaction to the Cologne sex attacks, she did not want to create “more hatred against migrants in Germany”.

She also wrote an open letter to a fictional migrant on Facebook, saying: “I am really sorry that your sexist and line-crossing treatment of me could help fuel aggressive racism.

Thanks tommy

She was worried about upsetting migrants?
Is she for real? Stupid woman.

Well, the problem, Tommy, is that everyone on the left doesn't think exactly the same.

But if I were to take a stab at it -- there are, ahem, some people who take reports of crimes by migrants and use them to fuel anti-migrant sentiment. And that's wrong. If you have 10 purple men come into your country, and nine of them commit rapes, that doesn't mean the 10th guy deserves to be treated as a rapist, yet that is exactly what some people do ...

Now, this woman acted in error, but she'd just been forced to perform a sex act on threat of violence, so I wonder what her mental state was?

She did come back within half a day and correct her report.

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, the problem, Tommy, is that everyone on the left doesn't think exactly the same.

But if I were to take a stab at it -- there are, ahem, some people who take reports of crimes by migrants and use them to fuel anti-migrant sentiment. And that's wrong. If you have 10 purple men come into your country, and nine of them commit rapes, that doesn't mean the 10th guy deserves to be treated as a rapist, yet that is exactly what some people do ...

Now, this woman acted in error, but she'd just been forced to perform a sex act on threat of violence, so I wonder what her mental state was?

She did come back within half a day and correct her report.

I understand her mental state being one of distress etc but she said that the reason she said what she did was becasue she didn't want to upset migrants or add to the problems.

That statement sounds so ridiculous to me as to be an untruth.

Well, it wasn't really that she didn't want to upset migrants, it was that she didn't want to create "more hatred against migrants in Germany." Maybe a fine distinction, but she wasn't worried about hurting their feelings, she was worried that someone innocent might get hurt by a racist for being a migrant.

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, it wasn't really that she didn't want to upset migrants, it was that she didn't want to create "more hatred against migrants in Germany." Maybe a fine distinction, but she wasn't worried about hurting their feelings, she was worried that someone innocent might get hurt by a racist for being a migrant.

How sad that a victim of a violent crime should feel like that.
Something is very wrong with that scenario.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, it wasn't really that she didn't want to upset migrants, it was that she didn't want to create "more hatred against migrants in Germany." Maybe a fine distinction, but she wasn't worried about hurting their feelings, she was worried that someone innocent might get hurt by a racist for being a migrant.

How sad that a victim of a violent crime should feel like that.
Something is very wrong with that scenario.

If every violent crime committed by a migrant (or minority) wasn't used as fuel by racists, she wouldn't have tried (for 12 hours) to conceal who they were.

Seems a tad martyr-ish to me. Sorry.

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, the problem, Tommy, is that everyone on the left doesn't think exactly the same.

But if I were to take a stab at it -- there are, ahem, some people who take reports of crimes by migrants and use them to fuel anti-migrant sentiment. And that's wrong. If you have 10 purple men come into your country, and nine of them commit rapes, that doesn't mean the 10th guy deserves to be treated as a rapist, yet that is exactly what some people do ...

Now, this woman acted in error, but she'd just been forced to perform a sex act on threat of violence, so I wonder what her mental state was?

She did come back within half a day and correct her report.

Unbelievable...


You start off claiming that not all lefties think the same... but then go straight into trying to "explain/justify" her actions in the exact same widespread leftie style "double speak/quantum thinking" waffle that we have come to expect from you lefties!!!


If your govt is letting hundreds of thousands of people into your country every year when 90% of them are rapists... then quite frankly... your govt has got its priorities completely wrong!!!


This whole attitude of yours is twisted beyond belief!!!


So quick to deny actual huge levels of actual crime by only some actual groups of people... because the truth makes them look bad... but then so quick to label other entire groups of people as sixhirb Nazis, like in the eu referendum, for actually doing nothing wrong but just exercising their democratic right to vote...!!!



The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, it wasn't really that she didn't want to upset migrants, it was that she didn't want to create "more hatred against migrants in Germany." Maybe a fine distinction, but she wasn't worried about hurting their feelings, she was worried that someone innocent might get hurt by a racist for being a migrant.

Should be more concerned about an innocent person in their home country being attacked by a load of dodgy foreign illegal immigrants/pretend refugees...!!!

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, the problem, Tommy, is that everyone on the left doesn't think exactly the same.

But if I were to take a stab at it -- there are, ahem, some people who take reports of crimes by migrants and use them to fuel anti-migrant sentiment. And that's wrong. If you have 10 purple men come into your country, and nine of them commit rapes, that doesn't mean the 10th guy deserves to be treated as a rapist, yet that is exactly what some people do ...

Now, this woman acted in error, but she'd just been forced to perform a sex act on threat of violence, so I wonder what her mental state was?

She did come back within half a day and correct her report.

I understand her mental state being one of distress etc but she said that the reason she said what she did was becasue she didn't want to upset migrants or add to the problems.

That statement sounds so ridiculous to me as to be an untruth.

I'm all for respecting other people, and not tarring them all with the same brush, but what is it about these bleeding heart lefties that they fear offending Muslims? It was this mindset, and idiotic pussy footing around, that enabled those poor girls from Rotherham to have their lives ruined.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, the problem, Tommy, is that everyone on the left doesn't think exactly the same.

But if I were to take a stab at it -- there are, ahem, some people who take reports of crimes by migrants and use them to fuel anti-migrant sentiment. And that's wrong. If you have 10 purple men come into your country, and nine of them commit rapes, that doesn't mean the 10th guy deserves to be treated as a rapist, yet that is exactly what some people do ...

Now, this woman acted in error, but she'd just been forced to perform a sex act on threat of violence, so I wonder what her mental state was?

She did come back within half a day and correct her report.

I understand her mental state being one of distress etc but she said that the reason she said what she did was becasue she didn't want to upset migrants or add to the problems.

That statement sounds so ridiculous to me as to be an untruth.

I'm all for respecting other people, and not tarring them all with the same brush, but what is it about these bleeding heart lefties that they fear offending Muslims?   It was this mindset, and idiotic pussy footing around, that enabled those poor girls from Rotherham to have their lives ruined.

No, it was individual criminals to blame for those crimes.

No it was not individual criminals...

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm all for respecting other people, and not tarring them all with the same brush, but what is it about these bleeding heart lefties that they fear offending Muslims?   It was this mindset, and idiotic pussy footing around, that enabled those poor girls from Rotherham to have their lives ruined.

No, it was individual criminals to blame for those crimes.

No. They were enabled for years by people who knew about it but dared not speak out because of fear of offending Muslims and inciting 'racism'. The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, the problem, Tommy, is that everyone on the left doesn't think exactly the same.

But if I were to take a stab at it -- there are, ahem, some people who take reports of crimes by migrants and use them to fuel anti-migrant sentiment. And that's wrong. If you have 10 purple men come into your country, and nine of them commit rapes, that doesn't mean the 10th guy deserves to be treated as a rapist, yet that is exactly what some people do ...

Now, this woman acted in error, but she'd just been forced to perform a sex act on threat of violence, so I wonder what her mental state was?

She did come back within half a day and correct her report.

Unbelievable...


You start off claiming that not all lefties think the same... but then go straight into trying to "explain/justify" her actions in the exact same widespread leftie style "double speak/quantum thinking" waffle that we have come to expect from you lefties!!!


If your govt is letting hundreds of thousands of people into your country every year when 90% of them are rapists... then quite frankly... your govt has got its priorities completely wrong!!!


This whole attitude of yours is twisted beyond belief!!!


So quick to deny actual huge levels of actual crime by only some actual groups of people... because the truth makes them look bad... but then so quick to label other entire groups of people as sixhirb Nazis, like in the eu referendum, for actually doing nothing wrong but just exercising their democratic right to vote...!!!



The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...!!!

No matter what group you want to point at, you'll find disproportionate levels of particular crimes committed by them. Why do so many white men commit financial fraud? Why do so many younger white males commit mass shootings? Why do so many white men become serial killers? Why are so many pedophiles white men?

You would never stand for white males being singled out as dangerous based on any of these higher instances of crime, Tommy. But when it comes to non-whites, you want to lump everyone in together.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm all for respecting other people, and not tarring them all with the same brush, but what is it about these bleeding heart lefties that they fear offending Muslims?   It was this mindset, and idiotic pussy footing around, that enabled those poor girls from Rotherham to have their lives ruined.

No, it was individual criminals to blame for those crimes.

No. They were enabled for years by people who knew about it but dared not speak out because of fear of offending Muslims and inciting 'racism'.  The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men.

People speaking out against racism are not responsible for any rapes they didn't commit. It's pretty simple.

The argument that Rotherham happened because of political correctness run amok is patently absurd.

Political correctness – if we are to persist with that hackneyed term – required members of a diverse society to accord to others the level of dignity they would want for themselves. The right conflated its meaning so as to describe any prescription on its behaviour that it didn’t like. Everything, from the description of coffee to adoption policy, became “political correctness gone mad”. Perhaps the idea was to discredit the concept by hoisting it into the realm of absurdity. But even then, the concept never, ever required anyone to turn a blind eye to the mass abuse of the vulnerable by criminals. And anyway, to do so on grounds of political correctness would never have made sense.

If a backlash was feared, where would it have come from? There is no minority lobby for criminals and paedophiles. So long as communities knew the issue was one of law enforcement rather than an assault on those communities themselves, they would have supported tough action by the authorities. Look to London in the 1990s when the Met was able to take tough action against gun-toting gangsters in black communities by making lay advisers from those communities part of the drive against that manifestation of gun crime.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/29/rotherham-abuse-political-correctness-ludicrous

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Unbelievable...


You start off claiming that not all lefties think the same... but then go straight into trying to "explain/justify" her actions in the exact same widespread leftie style "double speak/quantum thinking" waffle that we have come to expect from you lefties!!!


If your govt is letting hundreds of thousands of people into your country every year when 90% of them are rapists... then quite frankly... your govt has got its priorities completely wrong!!!


This whole attitude of yours is twisted beyond belief!!!


So quick to deny actual huge levels of actual crime by only some actual groups of people... because the truth makes them look bad... but then so quick to label other entire groups of people as sixhirb Nazis, like in the eu referendum, for actually doing nothing wrong but just exercising their democratic right to vote...!!!



The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...!!!

No matter what group you want to point at, you'll find disproportionate levels of particular crimes committed by them. Why do so many white men commit financial fraud? Why do so many younger white males commit mass shootings? Why do so many white men become serial killers? Why are so many pedophiles white men?

You would never stand for white males being singled out as dangerous based on any of these higher instances of crime, Tommy. But when it comes to non-whites, you want to lump everyone in together.

Funny how you lefties are always bending over backwards to deny this... but now you are admitting it... and then only making spurious claims about only whites...!?


Now let's look at a couple of your claims about crimes that whites are most responsible for...



Fraud...

http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/7-most-corrupt-countries.html/?a=viewall





Mass shootings...

"...The Daily Toll

Articles in this series examine shootings with at least four casualties that took place in the United States last year, an average of nearly one a day.

The New York Times identified and analyzed these 358 shootings with four or more casualties, drawing on two databases assembled from news reports and citizen contributors, and then verifying details with law enforcement agencies.

Only a small handful were high-profile mass shootings like those in South Carolina and Oregon. The rest are a pencil sketch of everyday America at its most violent.

"...Over all... nearly three-fourths (75%) of assailants... were black..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/us/americas-overlooked-gun-violence.html


This is only the USA figure... where blacks only make up about 12% of USA population... but responsible for about 75% of mass shootings there...


And other countries gun murder rates...

Top 15 countries by gun deaths

# Country Number of homicides by firearms Rate (per 100,000 people)
1 Honduras 5 201 68.4
2 El Salvador 2 446 39.9
3 Jamaica 1 080 39.4
4 Venezuela 11 115 39.0
5 Guatemala 5 009 34.8
6 Saint Kitts and Nevis 17 32.4
7 Trinidad and Tobago 365 27.3
8 Colombia 12 539 27.1
9 Belize 68 21.8
10 Puerto Rico 692 18.3
11 Brazil 34 678 18.1
12 South Africa 8 319 17.0
13 Dominican Republic 1 618 16.3
14 Panama 569 16.2
15 Bahamas 52 15.4

It's not because of their race, Tommy -- it's because of the situation they were born into. If you put white people in the slums and black people in executives' offices, more white people would commit gun violence and more black people would commit insider trading.

1) There is zero evidence or evidence obtainable to back the claim from the article, which is in fact very disingenious, that she lied.

2) On two FB posts she makes no mention of the sexual assualt, but about refugees and racism in twp posts.

http://archive.is/0ji2a

http://archive.is/XZsev

3) What is actually the case if people bother to read the links, is that at no point does she mention being raped by refugees and how exactly would you know they were anyway? If someone is speaking a different language, they may well be German citizens, as we have the same in this country all the time. What it does claim. Is that she stated she was sexually assualted by "mirgrants" which again she would not be able to know, unless they told her they were migrants, which would be odd to sat the least. So she is guesing as to possibilities that they might be migrants. In fact its claimed it was the Police who said that the attackers "spoke" German. Which is very possible they also did.

The spokeswoman Linksjugend was raped by migrants. The police initially said only that she had been robbed by men who spoke German.



[size=22]https://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2016/27/

And what does the translation from the Police say:??

investigation

01/29/2016 - 10:48
Mannheim (ots) - Joint Press Statement of the Mannheim public prosecutor and the police headquarters in Mannheim:

In the evening of January 27, a 24-year-old woman filed a complaint with the police. They had on Wednesday been victims of sexual offenses in a park in the area Oststadt in the night from Tuesday. The circumstances indeed require further investigations, which are guided by the Kriminalkommissariat Mannheim the Criminal Investigation Directorate Heidelberg.

http://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/14915/3237795

No claim to migrants or refugees or languages, which is he most important credible evidence here

Now without access to this full article, nobody can see what is being claimed, but again, how can you lie over something people will struggle themselves to identify the assailants. Its not a case of changing her mind, but adding information to the Police. They may well of spoken German, Farsi and Arabic, adding to the confusion, but without knowing who the suspects are, how on earth can anyone claim she is lying, when she will only be second guessing hersellf?

In other words, this is a poor peice of jouranlism, to stoke up fear, which I will not excuse when done on the left and neither will I when its done on the right as it has been here. So until the suspects have been properly identified, or the fact you cannot claim someone is lying because they then later believe it was migrants, which could also be wrong as well. Leaves us one single point, over whether she omitted stating what she believed the ethnicity of the attackers were. Due to the attacks in Cologn, which makes zero sense being that the majority arressted in the Cologne attack were recent refugees and not by those who had migrated to Germany.

The majority of the suspects were of Algerian (25 people), Tunisian (3) or Moroccan (21) origin and three were German citizens, one recently arrived from Syria and one from Iraq.  according to Cologne public prosecutor Ulrich Bremer.

Which challenges why she would even be in fear to classify her attackers as migrants, being as its not something by appearnce and speech, that will determine whether a person is a migrant. So the claims and story just do not make any sense. She would describe her attackers languages, racial group or ethnicity, age, height, hair colour etc. Now again its possible the suspects could be refugees, migrants or German citizens, but nobody will no this until the Police have the suspcts in custody


Score for article

0 out of 10

Ben Reilly wrote:It's not because of their race, Tommy -- it's because of the situation they were born into. If you put white people in the slums and black people in executives' offices, more white people would commit gun violence and more black people would commit insider trading.

So when people say blsck people commit more violent crimes, why is it denied on here?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:It's not because of their race, Tommy -- it's because of the situation they were born into. If you put white people in the slums and black people in executives' offices, more white people would commit gun violence and more black people would commit insider trading.

So when people say blsck people commit more violent crimes, why is it denied on here?

Do they commit more crimes or violent crimes?
Are you basing this on one nation or the world?

Ben said...



"...People speaking out against racism are not responsible for any rapes they didn't commit. It's pretty simple.

The argument that Rotherham happened because of political correctness run amok is patently absurd..."





They weren't speaking out against racism... they were covering up tens of thousands of almost exclusively white british female children being systematically raped and abused over a decade by huge numbers of almost exclusively Pakistani Muslim gangs up and down the UK...


And the fact that this was happening across the UK shows exactly how the leftie pc thinking is both mad and had run amok!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Ben said...



"...People speaking out against racism are not responsible for any rapes they didn't commit. It's pretty simple.

The argument that Rotherham happened because of political correctness run amok is patently absurd..."





They weren't speaking out against racism... they were covering up tens of thousands of almost exclusively white british female children being systematically raped and abused over a decade by huge numbers of almost exclusively Pakistani Muslim gangs up and down the UK...


And the fact that this was happening across the UK shows exactly how the leftie pc thinking is both mad and had run amok!!!

Of which the Police, social services andcouncil were all complicit to doing the wrong thing, which they should be held accountable, but that has nothing to do with this thread, where you should have done a little research first to verify the claims being made.

She admitted it...


The reason she gave for originally lying to police about attackers is the same pc shit that the lefties here were following while covering up the Pakistani Muslim child rape gangs for twisted racism prevention reasons...

Tommy Monk wrote:

She admitted it...


The reason she gave for originally lying to police about attackers is the same pc shit that the lefties here were following while covering up the Pakistani Muslim child rape gangs for twisted racism prevention reasons...

Wrong
She can only hazard a guess to the possible racial or ethnic group threy come from and your title says she was afraid to say refugee, when she went back and stated that they could have been migrants. That is the first falsified claim. Being the fact she does not know, or the fact I posted the Police info on this, which makes no case or claims to say the attackers spoke in German and they may well have done, to threaten the lady in German. They may also have spoke  Arabic also, which does not automatically mean they are migrants or even refugees or that it would be lying to propose that they spoke German, Arabic and according to her, were migrants, not refugees and I have seen zero statement from her on this. We only have the claims made from a couple of websites
The whole thing hinges on one of your links, that has to be subscribed to, and thus cannot be scrutinized. I have reasoned why none of the claims make any sense and why if you look on the translations on FB, the ones quoted, have zero reference to her sexual assualt. The Far right bloggers tried to invent that it did. You are going off hearsay bloggers, who do nor match what the Police state of which I posted above. How she would never be able to state even if they were migrants, unless she personally knew them. So when you see such claims, immediatelly its based on either bullshit, or the vast exageration of a half truth.

Now for you to again counter



1) There is zero evidence or evidence obtainable to back the claim from the article, which is in fact very disingenious, that she lied.

2) On two FB posts she makes no mention of the sexual assualt, but about refugees and racism in twp posts.

http://archive.is/0ji2a

http://archive.is/XZsev

3) What is actually the case if people bother to read the links, is that at no point does she mention being raped by refugees and how exactly would you know they were anyway? If someone is speaking a different language, they may well be German citizens, as we have the same in this country all the time. What it does claim. Is that she stated she was sexually assualted by "mirgrants" which again she would not be able to know, unless they told her they were migrants, which would be odd to sat the least. So she is guesing as to possibilities that they might be migrants. In fact its claimed it was the Police who said that the attackers "spoke" German. Which is very possible they also did.

The spokeswoman Linksjugend was raped by migrants. The police initially said only that she had been robbed by men who spoke German.



[size=22]https://magazin.spiegel.de/SP/2016/27/

And what does the translation from the Police say:??

investigation

01/29/2016 - 10:48
Mannheim (ots) - Joint Press Statement of the Mannheim public prosecutor and the police headquarters in Mannheim:

In the evening of January 27, a 24-year-old woman filed a complaint with the police. They had on Wednesday been victims of sexual offenses in a park in the area Oststadt in the night from Tuesday. The circumstances indeed require further investigations, which are guided by the Kriminalkommissariat Mannheim the Criminal Investigation Directorate Heidelberg.

http://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/14915/3237795

No claim to migrants or refugees or languages, which is he most important credible evidence here

Now without access to this full article, nobody can see what is being claimed, but again, how can you lie over something people will struggle themselves to identify the assailants. Its not a case of changing her mind, but adding information to the Police. They may well of spoken German, Farsi and Arabic, adding to the confusion, but without knowing who the suspects are, how on earth can anyone claim she is lying, when she will only be second guessing hersellf?

In other words, this is a poor peice of jouranlism, to stoke up fear, which I will not excuse when done on the left and neither will I when its done on the right as it has been here. So until the suspects have been properly identified, or the fact you cannot claim someone is lying because they then later believe it was migrants, which could also be wrong as well. Leaves us one single point, over whether she omitted stating what she believed the ethnicity of the attackers were. Due to the attacks in Cologn, which makes zero sense being that the majority arressted in the Cologne attack were recent refugees and not by those who had migrated to Germany.

The majority of the suspects were of Algerian (25 people), Tunisian (3) or Moroccan (21) origin and three were German citizens, one recently arrived from Syria and one from Iraq.  according to Cologne public prosecutor Ulrich Bremer.

Which challenges why she would even be in fear to classify her attackers as migrants, being as its not something by appearnce and speech, that will determine whether a person is a migrant. So the claims and story just do not make any sense. She would describe her attackers languages, racial group or ethnicity, age, height, hair colour etc. Now again its possible the suspects could be refugees, migrants or German citizens, but nobody will no this until the Police have the suspcts in custody


Score for article

0 out of 10

Any of the links make the same or similar claims.#


Gören initially described the group of men as a “mixed group” of foreigners and locals who spoke German. However, a friend later convinced her to tell the truth: that her attackers actually spoke Arabic and Farsi.

In a recent Facebook post, which has since been deleted, Gören admitted that the reason she didn’t tell police the truth at first was because she didm’t want to stir “more hatred against migrants in Germany,” Britain’s Telegraph reported.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/06/refugee-activist-reportedly-admits-she-lied-about-ethnicity-of-men-who-raped-her-to-prevent-more-hatred/

Now the interesting part is that we have a snaphot of two of her FB pages and ye they failed to get a snapshot of the FB post that they claim she admitted to lying?

So based on rumour, its beyond a joke, where the at least this time the story is making a little more sense and has nothing to do with migrants or refugees, which the original article used as a means to discriminate against refugees and migrants, as seen by the replies

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

No. They were enabled for years by people who knew about it but dared not speak out because of fear of offending Muslims and inciting 'racism'.  The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men.

People speaking out against racism are not responsible for any rapes they didn't commit. It's pretty simple.

The argument that Rotherham happened because of political correctness run amok is patently absurd.

It was enabled for years longer and therefore many more young lives were ruined. Had this been reported and dealt with when it first came to light how many might have been spared? Police officer named in court, PC Hussain Ali, died following a road accident the day he was put on restricted duties in relation to allegations of misconduct, neglect of duty, and corrupt practice. Among the complaints being investigated was an allegation that he asked one of the victims in the trial out on a date. The same woman, known as Girl J, also accused him of being involved in a corrupt no prosecution deal with the one of the abusers, Arshid Hussain.

In 2012, Rotherham Council's Safeguarding Children Board published a serious case review but key passages which reveal they knew certain victim's were at particular risk from 'Asian men' had been blocked out with black lines.
The council went to court in an attempt to tried to suppress the hidden information after a uncensored copy of the report was leaked to the Times newspaper but they abandoned legal action.

Breitbart.com? I just figure its a lie from the get-go. They were the ones who thought Rutgers University was "University of Rutgers", remember?

Can't even get the name right on one of the founding universities in the nation.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

No. They were enabled for years by people who knew about it but dared not speak out because of fear of offending Muslims and inciting 'racism'.  The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men.

People speaking out against racism are not responsible for any rapes they didn't commit. It's pretty simple.

The argument that Rotherham happened because of political correctness run amok is patently absurd.

 It was enabled for years longer and therefore many more young lives were ruined.   Had this been reported and dealt with when it first came to light how many might have been spared?  Police officer named in court, PC Hussain Ali, died following a road accident the day he was put on restricted duties in relation to allegations of misconduct, neglect of duty, and corrupt practice. Among the complaints being investigated was an allegation that he asked one of the victims in the trial out on a date.  The same woman, known as Girl J, also accused him of being involved in a corrupt no prosecution deal with the one of the abusers,  Arshid Hussain.

In 2012, Rotherham Council's Safeguarding Children Board published a serious case review but key passages which reveal they knew certain victim's were at particular risk from 'Asian men' had been blocked out with black lines.
The council went to court in an attempt to tried to suppress the hidden information after a uncensored copy of the report was leaked to the Times newspaper but they abandoned legal action.

If that's true, it's not what political correctness is supposed to be. Notice how "politic" and "polite" are very similar words? Political correctness only ever called for people to be polite -- to stop calling those who were different from them names they found offensive.

I could call y'all Brits "limeys" but I don't, because some might take offense. That's being politically correct. No one ever called for someone to not call out a child molester because they were afraid it might hurt someone's feelings.

And do you really think the vast majority of British Pakistanis would have been offended? That is simply STUPID to the nth degree. It saddens me, because in school, all the people who narrated the documentaries we watched in class had British accents so we got the impression that British people were smart.

That may actually be the most significant lesson I've learned from NewsFix. You may have a pleasant accent but that doesn't really amount to shit.

MORE FABRICATED victim blaming, muddle-headed conclusions and faux indignation from Tommy and Horatio as they yet once again lamely try to further their usual racist and xenophobic agendas...

WHAT a surprise !       Or not..

Ben Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

 It was enabled for years longer and therefore many more young lives were ruined.   Had this been reported and dealt with when it first came to light how many might have been spared?  Police officer named in court, PC Hussain Ali, died following a road accident the day he was put on restricted duties in relation to allegations of misconduct, neglect of duty, and corrupt practice. Among the complaints being investigated was an allegation that he asked one of the victims in the trial out on a date.  The same woman, known as Girl J, also accused him of being involved in a corrupt no prosecution deal with the one of the abusers,  Arshid Hussain.

In 2012, Rotherham Council's Safeguarding Children Board published a serious case review but key passages which reveal they knew certain victim's were at particular risk from 'Asian men' had been blocked out with black lines.
The council went to court in an attempt to tried to suppress the hidden information after a uncensored copy of the report was leaked to the Times newspaper but they abandoned legal action.

If that's true, it's not what political correctness is supposed to be. Notice how "politic" and "polite" are very similar words? Political correctness only ever called for people to be polite -- to stop calling those who were different from them names they found offensive.

I could call y'all Brits "limeys" but I don't, because some might take offense. That's being politically correct. No one ever called for someone to not call out a child molester because they were afraid it might hurt someone's feelings.

And do you really think the vast majority of British Pakistanis would have been offended? That is simply STUPID to the nth degree. It saddens me, because in school, all the people who narrated the documentaries we watched in class had British accents so we got the impression that British people were smart.

That may actually be the most significant lesson I've learned from NewsFix. You may have a pleasant accent but that doesn't really amount to shit.

Both Correct and incorrect in your reply
Political correctness:

Political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct), commonly abbreviated to PC,^[1] is a term which, in modern usage, is used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society. In the media, the term is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive..

So PC is more than just words,, but you are right it has zero to do with the failures by the Police, Social Services, heavily swayd by Rotherham council itself, who failed countless victims. Where even worse the 3 servicves failed to protect the many children from what basically is extreme discrimination and prejudice by the offenders. Now this is where the problem is. We already have the same discrimination laws which everyone has equality under the law too. The problem with the left and again its not PC, as it was done based on racism and inequality. The three services through a fear of racism, were racist to the countless victims. As the vast majority of the victims were white and targeted racially. As has been seen by evidence in the courts. So where we should have apllied the letter of the law and properly investigated the thousands of victims who went years and many still are waiting. Just to see justice. What the Police, Council and Social Services did was undermine, conflict with, break the law of the very principle of equality itself..

They placed a fear they themselves created. That to act on evidence from numereous sources, had them decide to overrule equality and infact applly inequality. Where they feared to act, might cause disharmony in the Islamic an Asian community if people from these communities were investigated. Of course most rational minded people would know that no matter the ethnicity, most people more than any other crime, will be glad to be rid of such people off our streets. Now as I have said before, when it comes to Christianity and Islam, there is a huge rule, that you cannot have sex before marriage or as an act of adultery. They have no conquered the uk and thus claiming them as sex slaves. So religion really does play little in why there are child abusers out there. What this has taught us is that the left will fail to see they are applying this flawed reasoning daily. You only have to lok no further when people call for boycotts of nations, it comes from the left. Which again conflicts with equality, where even worse it condemns a whole nation off no convictions in the international criminal court.

So are the Far right dangereous?
Yes
So are the regressive left. They ignore equality, and actually be racist, by elevating an ethnic and religious group to have also a clause that allows them to break the law and go unpunished, if there is a substancial number of susects from that community. The victims are ignorerd, having to further suffer and now not protected by equality under the law. It was rendered void by the regressive left in Rotherham council.. If ever there was a case for where there was a blatantly abuse of the laws and the 2010 Equality Act itself, this was it. There is no two ways about this. They should all be prosecuted.

PC never created such an unfounded fear, that as seen led to the 3 services racially protected a group from prosecution. So where they feared they would be labelled racist if they acted. They ended up anyway being labelled racist. By failing to protect one racial group and by relegating them to having no protection under the Equality Act. To then even worse as stated protect a racial group to have more rights than anyone else based also. That Asians and Muslims (Those guilty) were exempt from prosecutrion and from being charged for sexual and child abuse offenses, based on the view by the left. It was better to make countless children suffer from mainly one racial group. Where again even worse only abusers from the same racial group amd Black racial groups would be prosecuted. As the regressive council clearly had to conclude, based on a fear of the reactioin coming back off investigating suspects from the community. That clearly that they also think there is something wrong with all Asians and Muslims, that they be outraged some people in their community are actually abusive People. I would be insulted if I was Asian and a Muslim by therir stupid stance, which has made matters ten times worse for Muslims based off this abuse of the law.

But here is the other worrying aspect from the fallout from all of this?
How many Jobs, appointments, pay increases and abuses of the law etc have been based off the same flawed racist reasoning that conflicts with equality? If they applied this fear here. How often and in other Labour councils did they advantage minority groups over other majority groups?
That to me more than anything and where again the regressve left continually conflict with equality, how they truly are a real threat if they are voted into power.

She admitted it...


And leftie pc thinking is totally to blame.

Tommy Monk wrote:She admitted it...


And leftie pc thinking is totally to blame.

How can PC be to blame, when what they did in Rotherham goes against the main principles of PC.
It was the leflt that created an unfounded fear that placed the victims being marginalized and discriminated against without any protection under the equality act. Its thus not PC. It was inequality and racism what they applied

Wasn't just Rotherham... and it was the thinking that it would make Pakistani Muslims look bad by letting everyone know that lots of them were... well... bad!


And that would be racist... etc...


We've all seen the news and read the summary of Prof jays report... so don't try to rewrite history dodge...

Tommy Monk wrote:Wasn't just Rotherham... and it was the thinking that it would make Pakistani Muslims look bad by letting everyone know that lots of them were... well... bad!


And that would be racist... etc...


We've all seen the news and read the summary of Prof jays report... so don't try to rewrite history dodge...

How am I rewriting history Tommy?
I have never backed any such belief to deny equality or not to prosecute people based on their ethnicity.
The point on whether they are Pakistani's or even Muslims is irrelvant to prosecuting them, if they break the law, as they are male sex offenders.
If you call a few hundred lots of them, then i suggest your ability to understand numbers leaves a lot left to be desired.
How about you stop coming out with your constant deflections and actually tackle the many points I have made
Your emotive guilt blackmail is as fat as a pancake

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Wasn't just Rotherham... and it was the thinking that it would make Pakistani Muslims look bad by letting everyone know that lots of them were... well... bad!


And that would be racist... etc...


We've all seen the news and read the summary of Prof jays report... so don't try to rewrite history dodge...

How am I rewriting history Tommy?
I have never backed any such belief to deny equality or not to prosecute people based on their ethnicity.
The point on whether they are Pakistani's or even Muslims is irrelvant to prosecuting them, if they break the law, as they are male sex offenders.
If you call a few hundred lots of them, then i suggest your ability to understand numbers leaves a lot left to be desired.
How about you stop coming out with your constant deflections and actually tackle the many points I have made
Your emotive guilt blackmail is as fat as a pancake

It was the same leftie pc thinking going in numerous various local councils/police/social service authorities throughout the uk, where in each area it was well known that large local gangs of almost exclusively Pakistani Muslim men were systematically targeting/raping/abusing huge numbers of almost exclusively white British female children on an industrial scale... but they all chose to try to cover it all up for reasons of protecting the Pakistani Muslims from getting a bad press... at the cost of innocent white british children's lives...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

How am I rewriting history Tommy?
I have never backed any such belief to deny equality or not to prosecute people based on their ethnicity.
The point on whether they are Pakistani's or even Muslims is irrelvant to prosecuting them, if they break the law, as they are male sex offenders.
If you call a few hundred lots of them, then i suggest your ability to understand numbers leaves a lot left to be desired.
How about you stop coming out with your constant deflections and actually tackle the many points I have made
Your emotive guilt blackmail is as fat as a pancake

It was the same leftie pc thinking going in numerous various local councils/police/social service authorities throughout the uk, where in each area it was well known that large local gangs of almost exclusively Pakistani Muslim men were systematically targeting/raping/abusing huge numbers of almost exclusively white British female children on an industrial scale... but they all chose to try to cover it all up for reasons of protecting the Pakistani Muslims from getting a bad press... at the cost of innocent white british children's lives...

Trying to cover it up is again not PC and claiming it is PC is offering up an unfounded excuse for nthe 3 services that faiiled to  protect the rights of the victims and even worse as stated. Ignored the equality act and even worse elevated the rights of Asian Muslims over everyone else specifically on matters of the UK law regarding sexual and child abuse. So again they were applying inequality and racism, and thus would be impossible to have been created from PC. It completely conflicts with the principles of PC and that you should never  marginalize, or insult groups of people  socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. The victims were a disadvantaged group, as many of them were in care. All 3 created this fear based off racism, tot hen be racist themselves. The law hsould apply with everyone having equality under the law. Thus more than anything, regressiveness is at fault. Again your ability to understand maths is appalling.

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!" - HS Truman

Lord Foul wrote:"Political Correctness is a doctrine, recently fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and promoted by a sick mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end!" - HS Truman

Lol but you would agree, that there is nothing wrong with a tool, if that tool is used correctly.
The problem is and has been that the left have basically rendered equality redundent and issued in a new age of racism.
I mean when you think about it, again it has abolutely zero to do with racism, but simply to things that control them.

Fear
Regressiveness

So controlled by fear these regressives. That they conflict with one of the most major principles of the left, equality and like I say end up being racist.

Go figure

PC is not like a religious ideology with an emormous amount of unreliable and works open to not only interpretation, but translation.
Where there is nothing wrong with PC and like here, it cannot be the reason for how the Council at Rotherham abused every single one of the principles of PC

like everything else the left force into society

PC, like their "sixhirb" slurs has been over used, misused and thus devalued to the point whereby it is well nigh useless as a concept.

hell, when you REALLY think about it the whole IDEA is redundant isnt it....

what does it call for... All it actually asks is ...dont be a nasty dick head...think before you open your gob and dont go around gratuitously upsetting folks....

I DONT need a "law" or any such guidance to NOT call a black man a ni^^er
I ESPECIALLY dont need it when it is taken by idiotic lefty council types to include renaming a black board a "chalk board" (as an example)

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


It was the same leftie pc thinking going in numerous various local councils/police/social service authorities throughout the uk, where in each area it was well known that large local gangs of almost exclusively Pakistani Muslim men were systematically targeting/raping/abusing huge numbers of almost exclusively white British female children on an industrial scale... but they all chose to try to cover it all up for reasons of protecting the Pakistani Muslims from getting a bad press... at the cost of innocent white british children's lives...

Trying to cover it up is again not PC and claiming it is PC is offering up an unfounded excuse for nthe 3 services that faiiled to  protect the rights of the victims and even worse as stated. Ignored the equality act and even worse elevated the rights of Asian Muslims over everyone else specifically on matters of the UK law regarding sexual and child abuse. So again they were applying inequality and racism, and thus would be impossible to have been created from PC. It completely conflicts with the principles of PC and that you should never  marginalize, or insult groups of people  socially disadvantaged or discriminated against. The victims were a disadvantaged group, as many of them were in care. All 3 created this fear based off racism, tot hen be racist themselves. The law hsould apply with everyone having equality under the law. Thus more than anything, regressiveness is at fault. Again your ability to understand maths is appalling.

It was those reasons of their dogma that drove them to cover up... protecting the poor disadvantaged Pakistani Muslim minority community came first above all else...

Lord Foul wrote:like everything else the left force into society

PC, like their "sixhirb" slurs has been over used, misused and thus devalued to the point whereby it is well nigh useless as a concept.

hell, when you REALLY think about it the whole IDEA is redundant isnt it....

what does it call for... All it actually asks is ...dont be a nasty dick head...think before you open your gob and dont go around gratuitously upsetting folks....

I DONT need a "law" or any such guidance to NOT call a black man a ni^^er
I ESPECIALLY dont need it when it is taken by idiotic lefty council types to include renaming a black board a "chalk board" (as an example)

Fair points but it was regressiveness and emotions that controlled them, not PC and I am not going to exaplin this to Tommy again who seems intent on offering up an excuse for the 3 groups incompetance. The principle on PC is on that has been with us for centuries, and came and was bornm to life with the Magna Carta. Basd on the social injustices with the class system and the abuse of power by King John.

the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

So was the Magana Carta wrong Victor, where it sought to protect the rights of those marginalized and discriminated against simply based on social standing? You see this is why the arguments on PC fail to grasp that it is a help to enable to bring about some balamnce. Where people do in fact still face inequality, even though we all officlally have, equality under the law for all. People are wrongly thinging PC is just purely racially in methodology, when its not.. There is absdolutely no denying that some of the ethnic groups have been consistantly disadvantaged. What went wrong was Labour again. Where the bases for help should have been based on helping all who fall into the bracket of those disadvantaged, no matter their ethnicity. Including many whites in poverty.

Like I say, the regressive has no ability to problem solve. The answer is to go against PC, use inequality and go off racism

Pc is corrupt... That's why it produces corrupt results.

Tommy Monk wrote:Pc is corrupt... That's why it produces corrupt results.

The principle of PC is sound and you are offering up excises for the negligence of the Police, Social services and council.
There is no PC ideology, that conflicts with people having equality under the law.
As seen, it was a fear, these 3 groups invented and created for themselves, based off a falsehood, which utterly conflicted with equality

Just a few observations:

* Anybody who would allow a child to be abused for any reason is a monster.

* It's foolish to think that British Pakistanis as a whole would have been insulted by the prosecution of child abusers.

* Anybody who would use the actions of 100 British Pakistani criminals against the million who aren't criminals is a hate monger.

* The people who do things like that obviously already hated Pakistanis. If Rotherham hadn't happened, they'd have kept digging until they found something else.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Unbelievable...


You start off claiming that not all lefties think the same... but then go straight into trying to "explain/justify" her actions in the exact same widespread leftie style "double speak/quantum thinking" waffle that we have come to expect from you lefties!!!


If your govt is letting hundreds of thousands of people into your country every year when 90% of them are rapists... then quite frankly... your govt has got its priorities completely wrong!!!


This whole attitude of yours is twisted beyond belief!!!


So quick to deny actual huge levels of actual crime by only some actual groups of people... because the truth makes them look bad... but then so quick to label other entire groups of people as sixhirb Nazis, like in the eu referendum, for actually doing nothing wrong but just exercising their democratic right to vote...!!!



The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds...!!!

No matter what group you want to point at, you'll find disproportionate levels of particular crimes committed by them. Why do so many white men commit financial fraud? Why do so many younger white males commit mass shootings? Why do so many white men become serial killers? Why are so many pedophiles white men?

You would never stand for white males being singled out as dangerous based on any of these higher instances of crime, Tommy. But when it comes to non-whites, you want to lump everyone in together.

Funny how you lefties are always bending over backwards to deny this... but now you are admitting it... and then only making spurious claims about only whites...!?


Now let's look at a couple of your claims about crimes that whites are most responsible for...



Fraud...

http://www.cheatsheet.com/business/7-most-corrupt-countries.html/?a=viewall





Mass shootings...

"...The Daily Toll

Articles in this series examine shootings with at least four casualties that took place in the United States last year, an average of nearly one a day.

The New York Times identified and analyzed these 358 shootings with four or more casualties, drawing on two databases assembled from news reports and citizen contributors, and then verifying details with law enforcement agencies.

Only a small handful were high-profile mass shootings like those in South Carolina and Oregon. The rest are a pencil sketch of everyday America at its most violent.

"...Over all... nearly three-fourths (75%) of assailants... were black..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/us/americas-overlooked-gun-violence.html


This is only the USA figure... where blacks only make up about 12% of USA population... but responsible for about 75% of mass shootings there...


And other countries gun murder rates...

Top 15 countries by gun deaths

# Country Number of homicides by firearms Rate (per 100,000 people)
1 Honduras 5 201 68.4
2 El Salvador 2 446 39.9
3 Jamaica 1 080 39.4
4 Venezuela 11 115 39.0
5 Guatemala 5 009 34.8
6 Saint Kitts and Nevis 17 32.4
7 Trinidad and Tobago 365 27.3
8 Colombia 12 539 27.1
9 Belize 68 21.8
10 Puerto Rico 692 18.3
11 Brazil 34 678 18.1
12 South Africa 8 319 17.0
13 Dominican Republic 1 618 16.3
14 Panama 569 16.2
15 Bahamas 52 15.4






Still no reply from the lefties since I have provided the real truth...


They are so in denial that they will either just completely pretend that they haven't seen it... or instead tell themselves that because the truth is too painful for them to accept as reality because it does not fit in with their politically correct pretend view of what the truth should be rather than what it really is, then it must be wrong... the truth must be wrong if the truth is politically incorrect!

Ben Reilly wrote:Just a few observations:

* Anybody who would allow a child to be abused for any reason is a monster.

* It's foolish to think that British Pakistanis as a whole would have been insulted by the prosecution of child abusers.

* Anybody who would use the actions of 100 British Pakistani criminals against the million who aren't criminals is a hate monger.

* The people who do things like that obviously already hated Pakistanis. If Rotherham hadn't happened, they'd have kept digging until they found something else.

1) Agreed

2) Agreed, but the 3 services did not.

3) Agreed and stated that in fact that the teachings in the Abrahamic faiths place a big empahsis on the santity of marriage and how they view adultery as wrong and pre marital sex. Even if these views are dated and extremely backward. The reality is ethnicity and religion are not the factors that saw a 100 Asians abuse thousands of young girls. It was a control, the manipulation and exploitation of people who were very vunerable.

4) Based on my previous reply to you, the left ended up making the problem that far worse for the Pakistani community, but denying the victims any right to have the protection of the law and also denying them their equal rights. They treated the victims as inferior to the need to instead protect the name of a community and its people, based on a racist lie. Which elevatated those suspected from committing these crimes, to continue breaking the law as inequality had been created to protect all from within the coummunity.