Dad who raped his daughter from the age of 7 brags she was the best sex ever.

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:

Not just the judges, but the entire judiciary and penal system and the police authorities, of old. I have no idea if they were paedophiles but I have to say, they were all inexplicably soft on paedophile crimes. One has to wonder why they are so understanding, and accommodating and lenient towards this particular category of crime.      

Are they Jules?

Based on what statistical evidence?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

The vast majority (I have only read of one black girl who was groomed in this way) of girls they targeted were white.
The victims of the grooming gangs all said the men they were passed around to were Pakistani.
The men chose white girls because they considered them to be pieces of meat, asking for it... and prostitutes, even the 12 and 13 year olds.

The abuse of Asian girls is in a different category, I don't believe they were groomed, but they were definitely ill treated.
I don't know enough about this to comment really, as you say, the girls themselves kept quiet....it'll all come out eventually.

Where there is your problem Syl.
You have not read about this and its based on the reasons I gave as to why.

You then based off admitting you have never read claim they have not been groomed, even though in the vast majority of child sex abuse children are groomed. Whether in gangs or not. To then claim its just ill treatment is trying to render Asian girls as of less worth. 

I find that disgusting

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/10/abuse-asian-girls-missed-white-victims

eddie wrote:From Wiki:


Life imprisonment in England and Wales
In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence which lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for parole (officially termed "early release") after a fixed period set by the judge. This period is known as the "minimum term" (previously known as the "tariff"). In some exceptionally grave cases, however, a judge may order that a life sentence should mean life by making a "whole life order."

Murder has carried a mandatory life sentence in England and Wales since capital punishment was suspended in 1965.[1] There is currently no "first degree" or "second degree" murder definition. However, there were two degrees of murder between 1957 and 1965, one carrying the death penalty and one life imprisonment, and there have recently been plans to introduce such a definition.[2]

Life imprisonment is only applicable to defendants aged 21 or over. Those aged between 18 and 20 are sentenced to custody for life. Those aged under 18 are sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure for murder, or detention for life for other crimes where life imprisonment is the sentence for adults. However people under 21 may not be sentenced to a whole life order, and so must become eligible for parole.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Where there is your problem Syl.
You have not read about this and its based on the reasons I gave as to why.

You then based off admitting you have never read claim they have not been groomed, even though in the vast majority of child sex abuse children are groomed. Whether in gangs or not. To then claim its just ill treatment is trying to render Asian girls as of less worth. 

I find that disgusting

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/10/abuse-asian-girls-missed-white-victims

Unlike you Thor I don't waffle on when I don't know facts.

I do know (living in the area) that the many girls abused in Rochdale (which is typical of the places where this has been going on) are all WHITE........and all the men who used, abused, groomed, passed them round were PAKISTANI.

Now I will be interested to read about the sort of abuse the Asian girls suffered at the hands of their elders....but one thing is certain, it will not be a race hate crime, which as I said earlier differentiated this sort of paedophile gang grooming activity to others.

eddie wrote:From Wiki:


Life imprisonment in England and Wales
In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence which lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for parole (officially termed "early release") after a fixed period set by the judge. This period is known as the "minimum term" (previously known as the "tariff"). In some exceptionally grave cases, however, a judge may order that a life sentence should mean life by making a "whole life order."

Murder has carried a mandatory life sentence in England and Wales since capital punishment was suspended in 1965.[1] There is currently no "first degree" or "second degree" murder definition. However, there were two degrees of murder between 1957 and 1965, one carrying the death penalty and one life imprisonment, and there have recently been plans to introduce such a definition.[2]

Life imprisonment is only applicable to defendants aged 21 or over. Those aged between 18 and 20 are sentenced to custody for life. Those aged under 18 are sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure for murder, or detention for life for other crimes where life imprisonment is the sentence for adults. However people under 21 may not be sentenced to a whole life order, and so must become eligible for parole.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Unlike you Thor I don't waffle on when I don't know facts.

I do know (living in the area) that the many girls abused in Rochdale (which is typical of the places where this has been going on) are all WHITE........and all the men who used, abused, groomed, passed them round were PAKISTANI.

Now I will be interested to read about the sort of abuse the Asian girls suffered at the hands of their elders....but one thing is certain, it will not be a race hate crime, which as I said earlier differentiated this sort of paedophile gang grooming activity to others.

But I do know facts, so making this about me shows how you are getting personal and losing the debate, when its not a competition.
You always get personal...you just asked me if I was on crack.

So you think those who rape children care whether they are white, black, Asian or that they can control and abuse them?

In the Pakistani grooming gangs yes...they cared....I presume you have read the statements the men found guilty made.

That the fact is they prey on an easy vulnerable target?

Normally yes....in these cases there was also an underlying motive.

I will be interested to see when you see child abusers for what they are and how they prey on the vulnerable.

I hate all child abusers, I also seem to understand their motives more than you do.

I mean do you think if where white girls had been protected in social care, they would not have then turned all attention to Asian girls in the community to abuse?

Many of the girls lived at home with parents.

Those who rape and abuse seek out an easy target.

Yes.

It shows why and how we fail those in social care more than anything here and how they even worse are not believed. Just like many Asian girls that come from a culture that plays off shame

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:From Wiki:


Life imprisonment in England and Wales
In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence which lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for parole (officially termed "early release") after a fixed period set by the judge. This period is known as the "minimum term" (previously known as the "tariff"). In some exceptionally grave cases, however, a judge may order that a life sentence should mean life by making a "whole life order."

Murder has carried a mandatory life sentence in England and Wales since capital punishment was suspended in 1965.[1] There is currently no "first degree" or "second degree" murder definition. However, there were two degrees of murder between 1957 and 1965, one carrying the death penalty and one life imprisonment, and there have recently been plans to introduce such a definition.[2]

Life imprisonment is only applicable to defendants aged 21 or over. Those aged between 18 and 20 are sentenced to custody for life. Those aged under 18 are sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure for murder, or detention for life for other crimes where life imprisonment is the sentence for adults. However people under 21 may not be sentenced to a whole life order, and so must become eligible for parole.

Have a thanks...Thor is giving me a headache.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:From Wiki:


Life imprisonment in England and Wales
In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence which lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for parole (officially termed "early release") after a fixed period set by the judge. This period is known as the "minimum term" (previously known as the "tariff"). In some exceptionally grave cases, however, a judge may order that a life sentence should mean life by making a "whole life order."

Murder has carried a mandatory life sentence in England and Wales since capital punishment was suspended in 1965.[1] There is currently no "first degree" or "second degree" murder definition. However, there were two degrees of murder between 1957 and 1965, one carrying the death penalty and one life imprisonment, and there have recently been plans to introduce such a definition.[2]

Life imprisonment is only applicable to defendants aged 21 or over. Those aged between 18 and 20 are sentenced to custody for life. Those aged under 18 are sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure for murder, or detention for life for other crimes where life imprisonment is the sentence for adults. However people under 21 may not be sentenced to a whole life order, and so must become eligible for parole.

So why did Eddie not post the link

As she might look stupid maybe?

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Have a thanks...Thor is giving me a headache.

For questioning your views?

Sensitivities again?

Syl wrote:
You always get personal...you just asked me if I was on crack.

Thorin wrote:

How was asking if you were on crack abusive or personal? Unless you take it literally, that you think I thought you were. Its in reference to you not being sound on your reasoning.

Grow up

In the Pakistani grooming gangs yes...they cared....I presume you have read the statements the men found guilty made.

Thorin wrote:

Sop where there has been many grooming gangs, you have taken this stance based off how many of those Asian in each case?

Have you even reserved this or are you just spouting bullshit here?

Normally yes....in these cases there was also an underlying motive.

Thorin wrote:

What?

An underlining motive over that of control and rape itself?

In how many of the grooming cases?

It seems to me you are making it a racial reason, when the victims are chosen as they are vunerbale

I hate all child abusers, I also seem to understand their motives more than you do.

Thorin wrote:

Really?

Based on what?

Your claim that their primary motive is not the abuse and rape of those vulnerable but ethnicity

That is as bad as someone saying, men who abuse boys is because they are homosexual, when in fact many men who abuse boys are married with wives.

Many of the girls lived at home with parents.

Thorin wrote:
I would very much disagree and it seems your only bases for this is the Rotherham case and not all the other grooming gang cases

Yes.



The police, authorities, care systems, local councils have all come under attack, and rightly so. They enabled the abusers by not acting when the girls and their parents in some cases spoke out.
One girl who was plied with drink and was  passed round dozens of men old enough to be her father or grandfather was told by her care worker that she had made her own life choice...she was 14. Others were called prostitutes by the very people who were supposed to be caring for them.

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So why did Eddie not post the link

As she might look stupid maybe?

What??
Why am I going to look stupid? I was helping by getting the facts about life sentences - sorry I forgot the link!!!
Calm the fuck down.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


For questioning your views?

Sensitivities again?

No..I welcome my views being questioned and am open to listen and question others.
But you go round in circles, bring in red herrings, waver from the actual topic, and repeat yourself all the time.

I do enjoy our debates in a masochistic sort of way though.

This is the link from the wiki Eddie posted.
Nothing in it supports your view, its exactly as I said.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_England_and_Wales

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
You always get personal...you just asked me if I was on crack.





In the Pakistani grooming gangs yes...they cared....I presume you have read the statements the men found guilty made.


Normally yes....in these cases there was also an underlying motive.




I hate all child abusers, I also seem to understand their motives more than you do.




Many of the girls lived at home with parents.





Yes.



The police, authorities, care systems, local councils have all come under attack, and rightly so. They enabled the abusers by not acting when the girls and their parents in some cases spoke out.
One girl who was plied with drink and was  passed round dozens of men old enough to be her father or grandfather was told by her care worker that she had made her own life choice...she was 14. Others were called prostitutes by the very people who were supposed to be caring for them.

Don't push your pathetic guilt trip on me, I have read and understood how these girls were poorly let down.
What you did was render Asian victims of a lesser importance based on one case hat of Rotherham. Where based on this you think in all other cases it was bases racially

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

No..I welcome my views being questioned and am open to listen and question others.
But you go round in circles, bring in red herrings, waver from the actual topic, and repeat yourself all the time.

I do enjoy our debates in a masochistic sort of way though.

This is the link from the wiki Eddie posted.
Nothing in it supports your view, its exactly as I said.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_England_and_Wales

I suggest you read the link again and show me life sentences on rape

Nothing in the link supports your view darling  and why there is set years  

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I suggest you read the link again and show me life sentences on rape

Nothing in the link supports your view darling  and why there is set years  

I have already done so Thor....read back.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I have already done so Thor....read back.

Then you have not read the sentencing guidelines by the CPS

I suggest you read back

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Then you have not read the sentencing guidelines by the CPS

I suggest you read back

Life can mean a whole life term if the crime is serious enough to warrant it.
Rape of a child under 13 can earn a full life sentence.
15 years is not a life sentence.
15 years is the time a prisoner can appeal if he has been given a life sentence.

They are the facts in law.....end of.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Life can mean a whole life term if the crime is serious enough to warrant it.
Rape of a child under 13 can earn a full life sentence.
15 years is not a life sentence.
15 years is the time a prisoner can appeal if he has been given a life sentence.

They are the facts in law.....end of.

If you think that is the case, the why is there guidelines based around sentencing on child rape Syl?

If the minimum was a life sentence, then why is child rape set at 10 years?

And only 15 years based off other circumstances?

Now do you see why you fail to understand what you post?

Hey, if you want to have this as a moral victory after all your other poor points today, then knock yourself out hun.  

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


If you think that is the case, the why is there guidelines based around sentencing on child rape Syl?

If the minimum was a life sentence, then why is child rape set at 10 years?

And only 15 years based off other circumstances?

Now do you see why you fail to understand what you post?

Hey, if you want to have this as a moral victory after all your other poor points today, then knock yourself out hun.  

Its you who is failing to understand Thor.
The sentences are MAXIMUM sentences.

All child rape is heinous, some more than others.
A father raping his child from the age of seven, bragging about it, and continuously abusing her for 20 years  doesn't get much worse imo.....which is why me and others here agree that the sentence passed was pathetic.

There are no moral victories on forums Thor....just good points and bad points made.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So why did Eddie not post the link

As she might look stupid maybe?

What??
Why am I going to look stupid? I was helping by getting the facts about life sentences - sorry I forgot the link!!!
Calm the fuck down.

I am very calm Eddie

lol, pathetic attempt are garnering an emotive response

eddie wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I am very calm Eddie

lol, pathetic attempt are garnering an emotive response

I wasnt trying to garner any kind of respond but you gave me a paranoid one.

Forget it. You're in one of those moods.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Its you who is failing to understand Thor.
The sentences are MAXIMUM sentences.

All child rape is heinous, some more than others.
A father raping his child from the age of seven, bragging about it, and continuously abusing her for 20 years  doesn't get much worse imo.....which is why me and others here agree that the sentence passed was pathetic.

There are no moral victories on forums Thor....just good points and bad points made.

So again how can a minimum sentence of ten years be given in regard to a life sentence, when its taken as 15 years?

Oh and cut the crap on playing the higher moral standard card here, it just wont cut it.

The crimes committed here were appalling and why I stated in my first point he should rot in jail.

So your guilt argument just sunk hun, as this is not about me or how you know I care so much about children.

Piss poor point

Now answer me why 10 years is set a minimum for what you claim is a life sentence according to law?

Again to me, when an adult rapes a child under 13 it should mean life based on no set level of minimum years.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So again how can a minimum sentence of ten years be given in regard to a life sentence, when its taken as 15 years?

Oh and cut the crap on playing the higher moral standard card here, it just wont cut it.

The crimes committed here were appalling and why I stated in my first point he should rot in jail.

So your guilt argument just sunk hun, as this is not about me or how you know I care so much about children.

Piss poor point

Now answer me why 10 years is set a minimum for what you claim is a life sentence according to law?

Again to me, when an adult rapes a child under 13 it should mean life based on no set level of minimum years.

I posted 2 different links explaining how sentences are set out in the UK...read them if you want to understand how they apply.

Oh, and you are the one who brought morals into this Thor....its a forum not a bleeding confessional, are you taking things too seriously today?

Syl wrote:Well Eddies link said the same as mine did, and I only posted my own link after you kept saying a maximum sentence for child rape is 10 years, which you changed to 15 years...and both are incorrect.

Thor, it was you who accused me of feeling guilt, not the other way round.

I know you care about children, I have never thought otherwise......don't read into my posts things that I have never meant.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:Well Eddies link said the same as mine did, and I only posted my own link after you kept saying a maximum sentence for child rape is 10 years, which you changed to 15 years...and both are incorrect.

Thor, it was you who accused me of feeling guilt, not the other way round.

I know you care about children, I have never thought otherwise......don't read into my posts things that I have never meant.

Where did I say maximum?

I asked you based off a minimum life sentence being 15 years, why is it the minimum for child rape under 13 is 10 years?

Both your links are not what the CPS states

Its not about reading into anything, its about how people use tactics in debates

And everyone is guilty of this, including me.

I just admit when I do, so why is it others deny that they do?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Where did I say maximum?

I asked you based off a minimum life sentence being 15 years, why is it the minimum for child rape under 13 is 10 years?

Both your links are not what the CPS states

Its not about reading into anything, its about how people use tactics in debates

And everyone is guilty of this, including me.

I just admit when I do, so why is it others deny that they do?

This is what you  posted....

Maximum for child rape is 10 years Syl, unless there is other factors

The maximum would be for repeated rape, that of 15 years

So was the judge lenient here?

I do not know without reading the judges reasons. To me it should have been the maximum of 15 years.

I repeat I have never doubted your love for children.
If you think I have posted such you are wrong.....I am out of this debate now because you are reading things into my posts I haven't said.

Have a good night.

Syl wrote:I don't think anyone can be accused of 'ducking out'  of a thread when they have been actively communicating in it for 2 days. In this case any   further comment I make would  just be repeating what's already been said Thor.

Sometimes people have a viewpoint and they stick with it......no matter how hard someone else tries to make them change their mind.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:I don't think anyone can be accused of 'ducking out'  of a thread when they have been actively communicating in it for 2 days. In this case any   further comment I make would  just be repeating what's already been said Thor.

Sometimes people have a viewpoint and they stick with it......no matter how hard someone else tries to make them change their mind.

Well have you actually answered my questions on sentencing Sly?

No

You then offer excuses not to answer.

That is ducking out.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well have you actually answered my questions on sentencing Sly?

No

You then offer excuses not to answer.

That is ducking out.

I have answered....Read back Thor.

The sun is shining, the birds are singing, we are out in a bit for a nice lunch and catch up with younger grandson.
I love the BGT thread, its a happy thread...now is not the right time to get bogged down again in a thread that's been done to death.

Have a nice day, see you later. x

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I accept that was the decision

I'm neither judge or jury - none of us were.

But that's not what I asked.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:Whilst we're on the subject, the authorities did not just cover up sex abuse committed by Pakistani gangs, they equally covered up sex abuse at the heart of British politics, and in the media (the BBC) and in showbiz - for many decades. It was tolerated everywhere, we cannot just pretend that it was only tolerated among Muslim taxi drivers.


Let me summarise this succinctly: child sex abuse was covered up EVERYWHERE in society.

This sort of comment comes up everytime the Pakistani grooming gangs are in the news.
I think everyone knows that the vast majority of paedophiles in the UK are white non Muslim males.
Not sure what the % are re the % of the population....I think the Pakistani gangs have swelled the % quite a lot in the last couple of decades.

However, what made the Pakistani gangs (and they were certainly not all taxi drivers) different from the rest of the scum who abuse children is they targeted white none Muslim girls, which made this a hate crime as well as a crime against vulnerable kids.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

This sort of comment comes up everytime the  Pakistani grooming gangs are in the news.
I think everyone knows that the vast majority of paedophiles in the UK are white non Muslim males.
Not sure what the % are re the % of the population....I think the Pakistani gangs have swelled the % quite a lot in the last couple of decades.

However, what made the Pakistani gangs (and they were certainly not all taxi drivers) different from the rest of the scum who abuse children is they targeted white none Muslim girls, which made this a hate crime as well as a crime against vulnerable kids.

It's the first time I've said it  .... and I said it because I have noticed that this saga is being cynically used as a political tool in the run up to the general elections. What happened to those girls was a tragedy, and it should be sorted by a neutral all-party group, not politicised for the benefit of any party.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:


It's the first time I've said it  .... and I said it because I have noticed that this saga is being cynically used as a political tool in the run up to the general elections. What happened to those girls was a tragedy, and it should be sorted by a neutral all-party group, not politicised for the benefit of any party.

This has been in the news again this week for various reasons, its ongoing, not just dragged out to gain  support for any particular political party.

When Saville and Co, the BBC, religious groups etc, mainly white none Muslim paedophile groups were/are in the news  I don't hear people protesting that this is used as a cynical political tool...frankly that's a ridiculous statement.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

This has been in the news again this week for various reasons, its ongoing, not just dragged out to gain  support for any particular political party.

When Saville and Co, the BBC, religious groups etc, mainly white none Muslim paedophile groups were/are in the news  I don't hear people protesting that this is used as a cynical political tool...frankly that's a ridiculous statement.

I take it you didn't see the EDL leader running around screaming at people being tried in court for rape, and making political videos about it.

And you haven't noticed that "rape, rape, rape" is the main theme of the political broadcasts of far right groups then?

I know what I have seen.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

This has been in the news again this week for various reasons, its ongoing, not just dragged out to gain  support for any particular political party.

When Saville and Co, the BBC, religious groups etc, mainly white none Muslim paedophile groups were/are in the news  I don't hear people protesting that this is used as a cynical political tool...frankly that's a ridiculous statement.

I take it you didn't see the EDL leader running around screaming at people being tried in court for rape, and making political videos about it.

And you haven't noticed that "rape, rape, rape" is the main theme of the political broadcasts of far right groups then?

I know what I have seen.

eddie wrote:Tommy Robinson was one of the first to bring the Rochdale sex gangs to the attention of the public as far as I recall.  
He was dismissed as being racist.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:

I take it you didn't see the EDL leader running around screaming at people being tried in court for rape, and making political videos about it.

And you haven't noticed that "rape, rape, rape" is the main theme of the political broadcasts of far right groups then?

I know what I have seen.

To diminish what has happened and is still happening as a cynical move to garner support for any political party is wrong imo.

Incidentally, a couple of days ago another man was charged for multiple rapes of a child under 13 in Rochdale.
Best ignore it all though, wouldn't like to think we were scouting for EDL approval.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

To diminish what has happened and is still happening as a cynical move to garner support for any political party is wrong imo.

Incidentally, a couple of days ago another man was charged for multiple rapes of a child under 13 in Rochdale.
Best ignore it all though, wouldn't like to think we were scouting for EDL approval.

What's with the 'we'????  Don't go all borg on me. And it's not just me who disagrees with you in this thread.

I wasn't not referring to you when I said that political capital was being made out of this, I was referring to specific political group  leaders who have exploited this. Don't deliberately  misunderstand the meaning of my words, just so that you can roll your eyes and talk smart at me.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:

What's with the 'we'????  Don't go all borg on me. And it's not just me who disagrees with you in this thread.

I wasn't not referring to you when I said that political capital was being made out of this, I was referring to specific political group  leaders who have exploited this. Don't deliberately  misunderstand the meaning of my words, just so that you can roll your eyes and talk smart at me.

Sod off Canny....if you don't have anything worthwhile to add to the actual topic (and so far you have added nothing)





go stamp your feet in another thread.