British Babies Killed For Being Girls

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:44 pm

30th January 2014

Don't tell me, this used to go on in Victorian times and when the Vikings came over - and as it happens I'm probably half Viking and half Nigerian, right?

The name gives it away.

From a terrace house near London's Olympic Stadium, a mother whispers her secret down the phone to me. She is speaking fast because she is afraid someone will come in before she has told me the shocking story of how she killed her unborn baby after an NHS hospital pregnancy scan revealed she was expecting a girl.

'I went to a private abortion clinic and lied that I could not cope with the baby because I was so young,' says 33-year-old Asha, a former bank clerk.

'I was panicking that I was going to have a girl because I knew my family wanted a boy. I was worried about her future growing up in my community that is still deeply hostile to girls. She would have to fight prejudice all her life, as I have done.'

Listening to her words, it is hard to believe they are being spoken by a British-born mother in the sophisticated capital of a modern, first-world country, where women have enjoyed the same voting rights as men since 1928.

Yet Asha, a Sikh whose parents came here from the Punjab, is telling me about a practice campaigners fear is worryingly common among some families living here originally from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. It has been discovered that the selective abortion of female foetuses (often with the unwitting connivance of the NHS) has provoked significant shifts in the natural sex-ratio of these migrant communities in favour of boys. Up to 4,700 unborn girls are estimated to have been deliberately aborted, following an analysis of the 2011 national census figures which revealed that in some areas of Britain, the proportion of boys born compared to girls is much higher than the natural rate.

Please discuss.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2548349/Slaughtered-thousands-British-babies-killed-womb-just-girls.html#ixzz2rtv2PoU3

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 5:34 pm

Should be stopped in it's tracks. Other countries were this is allowed have a massive gender inbalance which leads to all kinds of problems. Woman have the right to an abortion for all sorts of reasons, but not when they are under pressure to produce a boy.

by ALLAKAKA Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:08 pm

Sassy wrote:Should be stopped in it's tracks. Other countries were this is allowed have a massive gender inbalance which leads to all kinds of problems.
Sex starved Pakistani's entering the UK to groom and Rape white children.

Woman have the right to an abortion for all sorts of reasons, but not when they are under pressure to produce a boy.

Yes we are aware of the problems.

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 6:11 pm

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Sassy wrote:Should be stopped in it's tracks. Other countries were this is allowed have a massive gender inbalance which leads to all kinds of problems.
Sex starved Pakistani's entering the UK to groom and Rape white children.

Woman have the right to an abortion for all sorts of reasons, but not when they are under pressure to produce a boy.

Yes we are aware of the problems.

They don't have a gender problem in Pakistan, they do in India and China.

As far as I know, at the moment we don't have a gender problem, but we don't half have a lot of white british rapists.

by Guest Thu Jan 30, 2014 11:44 pm

Sassy wrote:Should be stopped in it's tracks. Other countries were this is allowed have a massive gender inbalance which leads to all kinds of problems. Woman have the right to an abortion for all sorts of reasons, but not when they are under pressure to produce a boy.

Do you want to explain why the right to abort for a cleft palate differs from the right to abort because the foetus is female?

Or the right to abort because the mother cannot handle another baby at that point is different from the right to abort because the foetus is female?

Remind me about the statistics for doctors signing off abortions for women they have never seen and never will see - and the statement there is no legal requirement for the doctors that sign the abortion approvals to actually examine the women to whom they are giving approval.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:02 am

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:Should be stopped in it's tracks. Other countries were this is allowed have a massive gender inbalance which leads to all kinds of problems. Woman have the right to an abortion for all sorts of reasons, but not when they are under pressure to produce a boy.

Do you want to explain why the right to abort for a cleft palate differs from the right to abort because the foetus is female?

I dont think "cleft palate is a valid reason, not that I have heard about, however some more severe and life limiting malformations would certainly qualify, and could even be considered to be humane

Or the right to abort because the mother cannot handle another baby at that point is different from the right to abort because the foetus is female?

Common sense...or do you WANT to create yet more social problems. If the woman cant handle it what are you going to do...wait till she has a mind melt down and kills the child...then lock her up and call her evil, or are you going to spend a fortune in support and label her a "scrounger". or are you simply going to pretend that alls well and the child could be adopted...think again...adoptive parents are hard to find and getting harder to find...

Remind me about the statistics for doctors signing off abortions for women they have never seen and never will see - and the statement there is no legal requirement for the doctors that sign the abortion approvals to actually examine the women to whom they are giving approval.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:04 am

I'm for the mother having an abortion if that is what she wants and she has made up her own mind. Normally when it is gender, the father or family are putting pressure on her, a different thing.

I doubt many women would abort because of a cleft lip. In the case of not being able to handle another baby, only the mother knows that and knows why she wouldn't be able to, be it too many children, depression or simply being at the wrong time in her life.

I would never have had an abortion, but that was my decision, I have no right to make another woman live by that rule, she is the one who has to look after the child and all the consequences that entails.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:06 am

well some folks just want to make everyone live by their rules...THEY know better....

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:08 am

I'm afraid I have never lived by anyone else's rules and never will. Thankfully, I was brought up to think for myself.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:48 am

grumpy old git wrote:well some folks just want to make everyone live by their rules...THEY know better....

The rules of decency, where all human beings are treated as equals. Unfortunately we don't live in an equal world, where some would see derogatory words to belittle others as a 'god given right'....They would complain when evidence is prevented, to demonstrate that they are fucking Nazi scum, and would complain when they are referred to as such. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:50 am

....Many of the RW scum on here would deny us the right to swear.

WTF is all that about then?

by nicko Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:34 am

I am right wing,am I scum? think hard before you answer.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:42 am

It seems that culture does over rule our laws, which is very dangerous but not surprising for this spineless country.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:02 am

sphinx wrote:
Sassy wrote:Should be stopped in it's tracks. Other countries were this is allowed have a massive gender inbalance which leads to all kinds of problems. Woman have the right to an abortion for all sorts of reasons, but not when they are under pressure to produce a boy.

Do you want to explain why the right to abort for a cleft palate differs from the right to abort because the foetus is female?

Or the right to abort because the mother cannot handle another baby at that point is different from the right to abort because the foetus is female?

Remind me about the statistics for doctors signing off abortions for women they have never seen and never will see - and the statement there is no legal requirement for the doctors that sign the abortion approvals to actually examine the women to whom they are giving approval.

Bit of a lame argument, how is this any different to a person wanting to abort a for simply being an idiot and because they do not want one. I used to work for the NHS and i can tell you how very much people are irresponsible when it comes to sex

Do you know how many abortions there are every year?

If this is solely on the issue of reasons to abort children, then you would have to say there are countless why it would be wrong to do so including here over the sex of the foetus.

If this is around emotive reasons then it fails to understand whether abortion is right or wrong in he first place and instead argues on semantics.

Considering we have an issue with populations and we in the future restrict families to say only two children for the benefit of humanity, would it then be wrong if parents wanted both a female and a son as their two children?

You see this argument can be turned on its head, because given any situation you could say the moral implications are always wrong and like I say you can argue whether abortion is wrong full stop.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:30 am

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Do you want to explain why the right to abort for a cleft palate differs from the right to abort because the foetus is female?

Or the right to abort because the mother cannot handle another baby at that point is different from the right to abort because the foetus is female?

Remind me about the statistics for doctors signing off abortions for women they have never seen and never will see - and the statement there is no legal requirement for the doctors that sign the abortion approvals to actually examine the women to whom they are giving approval.

Bit of a lame argument, how is this any different to a person wanting to abort a for simply being an idiot and because they do not want one. I used to work for the NHS and i can tell you how very much people are irresponsible when it comes to sex

Do you know how many abortions there are every year?

If this is solely on the issue of reasons to abort children, then you would have to say there are countless why it would be wrong to do so including here over the sex of the foetus.

If this is around emotive reasons then it fails to understand whether abortion is right or wrong in he first place and instead argues on semantics.

Considering we have an issue with populations and we in the future restrict families to say only two children for the benefit of humanity, would it then be wrong if parents wanted both a female and a son as their two children?

You see this argument can be turned on its head, because given any situation you could say the moral implications are always wrong and like I say you can argue whether abortion is wrong full stop.

I think the point that she seemed to have aborted the baby not because she did not want it but because her family would not accept a baby girl is the most important in this case and is this the case in many other girls.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:34 am

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Bit of a lame argument, how is this any different to a person wanting to abort a for simply being an idiot and because they do not want one. I used to work for the NHS and i can tell you how very much people are irresponsible when it comes to sex

Do you know how many abortions there are every year?

If this is solely on the issue of reasons to abort children, then you would have to say there are countless why it would be wrong to do so including here over the sex of the foetus.

If this is around emotive reasons then it fails to understand whether abortion is right or wrong in he first place and instead argues on semantics.

Considering we have an issue with populations and we in the future restrict families to say only two children for the benefit of humanity, would it then be wrong if parents wanted both a female and a son as their two children?

You see this argument can be turned on its head, because given any situation you could say the moral implications are always wrong and like I say you can argue whether abortion is wrong full stop.

I think the point that she seemed to have aborted the baby not because she did not want it but because her family would not accept a baby girl is the most important in this case and is this the case in many other girls.

Again you are arguing from semantics as again would it be right to abort as well due to just getting pregnant?

This whole argument will be down to emotive reasons

To me personally as stated it would be wrong to abort due to choosing the choice of sex, but then so are many other reasons.

She had the choice did she not to decide?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:49 am

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

I think the point that she seemed to have aborted the baby not because she did not want it but because her family would not accept a baby girl is the most important in this case and is this the case in many other girls.

Again you are arguing from semantics as again would it be right to abort as well due to just getting pregnant?

This whole argument will be down to emotive reasons

To me personally as stated it would be wrong to abort due to choosing the choice of sex, but then so are many other reasons.

She had the choice did she not to decide?

If you think this is about mere details i would have to say open your eyes, the obvious implications of this are very deep and very dark, if it was the girls choice that would be fair enough, the fact that she felt so strongly about the reaction of her family to a girl, not just a baby highlights what dangers are faced by certain parts of the British community.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:54 am

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Again you are arguing from semantics as again would it be right to abort as well due to just getting pregnant?

This whole argument will be down to emotive reasons

To me personally as stated it would be wrong to abort due to choosing the choice of sex, but then so are many other reasons.

She had the choice did she not to decide?

If you think this is about mere details i would have to say open your eyes, the obvious implications of this are very deep and very dark, if it was the girls choice that would be fair enough, the fact that she felt so strongly about the reaction of her family to a girl, not just a baby highlights what dangers are faced by certain parts of the British community.

I predicted you would say that.

How do you bring about change of perceptions?

By confirming to them or taking a stand against them.

How did women obtain more equality?

How did Homosexuals obtain more equality?

In neither case did they conform to what the community thought but sought to make a stand and challenge perceptions.

Thus onus is placed solely on the mother she choose to conform to what the community believes.

So really it is yourself that needs to open your eyes, you do not bring about change by bowing down to peer pressure and we should in fact be supporting this mother to help bring about change

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:55 am

lmao

didge - "she had a choice".

Just like the ladies who like to wear a veil. It's true, they'll tell you it's their choice.

Just like Tommy in Afghanistan who will tell David Cameron that "everything is fine, Sir".

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:57 am

BigAndy9 wrote:lmao

didge - "she had a choice".

Just like the ladies who like to wear a veil. It's true, they'll tell you it's their choice.

Just like Tommy in Afghanistan who will tell David Cameron that "everything is fine, Sir".

Absurd argument, yes they have a choice, they have a choice to go to the police and say they are being forced against their will. In this case though it was her choice due to fear

Again you do not bring about change but being sub servant and yes we need to support those who need our help to bring about change..

by veya_victaous Fri Jan 31, 2014 10:58 am

I am going to point out that it is a 2nd trimester abortion (you cant tell gender until 18-20 weeks well into the 2nd trimester)
From a scientific perspective these should only be carried out on medical necessity as the foetus has nervous function, thus feels pain.

My personal position (based on science) is 100% agree with a woman's right to terminate a zygote, but once it becomes a foetus I believe we have to start giving it 'rights'

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:02 am

BigAndy9 wrote:lmao

didge - "she had a choice".

Just like the ladies who like to wear a veil. It's true, they'll tell you it's their choice.

Just like Tommy in Afghanistan who will tell David Cameron that "everything is fine, Sir".

well said..

by veya_victaous Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:03 am

I will also point out that family and 'honour' are very important form many non European cultures, so often the girls don't want to disappoint at a far deeper level... But In England (or Australia etc) the have the right and ability to seek help outside their family and keep the baby regardless of gender.. so it is a choice but the far easier choice is abort and not Upset the family.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:05 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:lmao

didge - "she had a choice".

Just like the ladies who like to wear a veil. It's true, they'll tell you it's their choice.

Just like Tommy in Afghanistan who will tell David Cameron that "everything is fine, Sir".

Absurd argument, yes they have a choice, they have a choice to go to the police and say they are being forced against their will. In this case though it was her choice due to fear

Again you do not bring about change but being sub servant and yes we need to support those who need our help to bring about change..

didge - for one - women in some "communities" are subservient, that's a fact.

The authorities? They have shown that they are also subservient to certain communities. Successive governments have been subservient to certain communities.

Why the hell would a woman, from a "certain community" go to the police? They would not get involved until the woman was found at the bottom of a canal!

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:06 am

veya_victaous wrote:I will also point out that family and 'honour' are very important form many non European cultures, so often the girls don't want to disappoint at a far deeper level... But In England (or Australia etc) the have the right and ability to seek help outside their family and keep the baby regardless of gender.. so it is a choice but the far easier choice is abort and not Upset the family.

The later choice though Veya does not bring about change and will keep perceptions continuing into the next generations.
To break the pattern people in the west from some of these cultures have to challenge these perceptions or little will ever change. Much work also should be done in schools to help change eprceptions

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:09 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Absurd argument, yes they have a choice, they have a choice to go to the police and say they are being forced against their will. In this case though it was her choice due to fear

Again you do not bring about change but being sub servant and yes we need to support those who need our help to bring about change..

didge - for one - women in some "communities" are subservient, that's a fact.

The authorities? They have shown that they are also subservient to certain communities. Successive governments have been subservient to certain communities.

Why the hell would a woman, from a "certain community" go to the police? They would not get involved until the woman was found at the bottom of a canal!

Still not grasping this are you Andy, for years women in this country were very much treated as sub servant and in fact some are still today based very much on the daft bible, where it treats women second to men, hence why all religion is a crock of shit.

For years in this country it has taken many standing up being counted to bring about change and perceptions, your views is to be passive and do nothing which will not help any of these women in the slightest. It took years to finally change the law on marital rape and where today many are also afraid to go to the Police with domestic violence, what we have to do is ensure people can, not argue that they should not, that is absurd

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:12 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

didge - for one - women in some "communities" are subservient, that's a fact.

The authorities? They have shown that they are also subservient to certain communities. Successive governments have been subservient to certain communities.

Why the hell would a woman, from a "certain community" go to the police? They would not get involved until the woman was found at the bottom of a canal!

Still not grasping this are you Andy, for years women in this country were very much treated as sub servant and in fact some are still today based very much on the daft bible, where it treats women second to men, hence why all religion is a crock of shit.

For years in this country it has taken many standing up being counted to bring about change and perceptions, your views is to be passive and do nothing which will not help any of these women in the slightest. It took years to finally change the law on marital rape and where today many are also afraid to go to the Police with domestic violence, what we have to do is ensure people can, not argue that they should not, that is absurd

Oh, I argue that they can and should go to the police.

Labour, Lib Dem and the Conservatives argue that "it's a sensitive subject".

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:13 am

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Do you want to explain why the right to abort for a cleft palate differs from the right to abort because the foetus is female?

I dont think "cleft palate is a valid reason, not that I have heard about, however some more severe and life limiting malformations would certainly qualify, and could even be considered to be humane

Or the right to abort because the mother cannot handle another baby at that point is different from the right to abort because the foetus is female?

Common sense...or do you WANT to create yet more social problems. If the woman cant handle it what are you going to do...wait till she has a mind melt down and kills the child...then lock her up and call her evil, or are you going to spend a fortune in support and label her a "scrounger". or are you simply going to pretend that alls well and the child could be adopted...think again...adoptive parents are hard to find and getting harder to find...

Remind me about the statistics for doctors signing off abortions for women they have never seen and never will see - and the statement there is no legal requirement for the doctors that sign the abortion approvals to actually examine the women to whom they are giving approval.

I am not talking about what you think of reasons I am talking about legally recognized reasons. Women have been successful seeking abortions for cleft palate - late abortions at that. As for cant cope - what do you think happens when a woman claims that? Do you think she is referred for psychiatric assessment with checks on her social support system? Does anyone see if there is a life partner or parent who can cope? Is she offered treatment to allow her to cope? Uh nope its a case of she says she cant cope and an abortion is agreed.

So what is the difference between that and gender selection? Especially with the women who can cope with boy babies but not with girl babies.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:15 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Still not grasping this are you Andy, for years women in this country were very much treated as sub servant and in fact some are still today based very much on the daft bible, where it treats women second to men, hence why all religion is a crock of shit.

For years in this country it has taken many standing up being counted to bring about change and perceptions, your views is to be passive and do nothing which will not help any of these women in the slightest. It took years to finally change the law on marital rape and where today many are also afraid to go to the Police with domestic violence, what we have to do is ensure people can, not argue that they should not, that is absurd

Oh, I argue that they can and should go to the police.

Labour, Lib Dem and the Conservatives argue that "it's a sensitive subject".

Really, I have never seen that, what would UKIP policy be,to ship the mother even though being born here off to India?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:17 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

didge - for one - women in some "communities" are subservient, that's a fact.

The authorities? They have shown that they are also subservient to certain communities. Successive governments have been subservient to certain communities.

Why the hell would a woman, from a "certain community" go to the police? They would not get involved until the woman was found at the bottom of a canal!

Still not grasping this are you Andy, for years women in this country were very much treated as sub servant and in fact some are still today based very much on the daft bible, where it treats women second to men, hence why all religion is a crock of shit.

For years in this country it has taken many standing up being counted to bring about change and perceptions, your views is to be passive and do nothing which will not help any of these women in the slightest. It took years to finally change the law on marital rape and where today many are also afraid to go to the Police with domestic violence, what we have to do is ensure people can, not argue that they should not, that is absurd

i think you haven't grasped it Phildidge, women were treat as sub servant but it was in a more protective way and it was cultural to a degree but it was not backed by any laws, these girls are being held to ransom by their families by rules of their religions, rules which say they can be beaten, they are for mens control to do with as they wish, and any girl who brings shame to the family is in serious danger, now that puts a whole different taint to the whole thing, would you not agree..

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:17 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Oh, I argue that they can and should go to the police.

Labour, Lib Dem and the Conservatives argue that "it's a sensitive subject".

Really, I have never seen that, what would UKIP policy be,to ship the mother even though being born here off to India?

I don't know.

I didn't know the Conservative policy until I voted them in.

Now I know what it is, i'm willing to give another lot a try.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:18 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Oh, I argue that they can and should go to the police.

Labour, Lib Dem and the Conservatives argue that "it's a sensitive subject".

Really, I have never seen that, what would UKIP policy be,to ship the mother even though being born here off to India?

she would be no better or worse off in India the same rules apply to them where ever they go!!!

by veya_victaous Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:19 am

PhilDidge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:I will also point out that family and 'honour' are very important form many non European cultures, so often the girls don't want to disappoint at a far deeper level... But In England (or Australia etc) the have the right and ability to seek help outside their family and keep the baby regardless of gender.. so it is a choice but the far easier choice is abort and not Upset the family.

The later choice though Veya does not bring about change and will keep perceptions continuing into the next generations.
To break the pattern people in the west from some of these cultures have to challenge these perceptions or little will ever change. Much work also should be done in schools to help change eprceptions

I agree Entirely

I was more posting to point out to Andy that is isn't quite that easy, as It may mean completely divorcing from their family and 'friends'

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:19 am

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Still not grasping this are you Andy, for years women in this country were very much treated as sub servant and in fact some are still today based very much on the daft bible, where it treats women second to men, hence why all religion is a crock of shit.

For years in this country it has taken many standing up being counted to bring about change and perceptions, your views is to be passive and do nothing which will not help any of these women in the slightest. It took years to finally change the law on marital rape and where today many are also afraid to go to the Police with domestic violence, what we have to do is ensure people can, not argue that they should not, that is absurd

i think you haven't grasped it Phildidge, women were treat as sub servant but it was in a more protective way and it was cultural to a degree but it was not backed by any laws, these girls are being held to ransom by their families by rules of their religions, rules which say they can be beaten, they are for mens control to do with as they wish, and any girl who brings shame to the family is in serious danger, now that puts a whole different taint to the whole thing, would you not agree..

://?roflmao?/:

In a protective way by beating them up and raping them?

I think not.

Think I know which poster you are now, how is the born again way?

Again you neglect the fact many women even today are being held to ransom, by domestic violence, you do not solve it by doing nothing.
You bring about change by making a stand, not saying something cannot be done when it can

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:20 am

veya_victaous wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

The later choice though Veya does not bring about change and will keep perceptions continuing into the next generations.
To break the pattern people in the west from some of these cultures have to challenge these perceptions or little will ever change. Much work also should be done in schools to help change eprceptions

I agree Entirely

I was more posting to point out to Andy that is isn't quite that easy, as It may mean completely divorcing from their family and 'friends'

I understand Veya, that is why i would stand with those seeking to bring about change, some here wish to do nothing which will just continue the issue

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:23 am

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Really, I have never seen that, what would UKIP policy be,to ship the mother even though being born here off to India?

she would be no better or worse off in India the same rules apply to them where ever they go!!!

Actually she would be better off here, she can move away from the community to start a new life, that is called making a stand for her rights and wants in life.
She should then get every support from the nation and the Police if threatened.
Hence why we need to do more to protect people from such issues

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:29 am

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

she would be no better or worse off in India the same rules apply to them where ever they go!!!

Actually she would be better off here, she can move away from the community to start a new life, that is called making a stand for her rights and wants in life.
She should then get every support from the nation and the Police if threatened.
Hence why we need to do more to protect people from such issues

I think that's what everybody who has so far posted have been saying.

Here's the problem - the police and other authorities won't get involved - it's a "community" issue.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:32 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Actually she would be better off here, she can move away from the community to start a new life, that is called making a stand for her rights and wants in life.
She should then get every support from the nation and the Police if threatened.
Hence why we need to do more to protect people from such issues

I think that's what everybody who has so far posted have been saying.

Here's the problem - the police and other authorities won't get involved - it's a "community" issue.

So you just want to do nothing and allow a backward view to continue, thank goodness others do not think that way Andy, as we would still have children in work houses

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:34 am

PhilDidge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

I think that's what everybody who has so far posted have been saying.

Here's the problem - the police and other authorities won't get involved - it's a "community" issue.

So you just want to do nothing and allow a backward view to continue, thank goodness others do not think that way Andy, as we would still have children in work houses

Not at all - where have I said I don't want to do anything?

I want the police and other authorities to get tougher with these foreign communities - to smash them and show them that they must comply with British law.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:34 am

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

i think you haven't grasped it Phildidge, women were treat as sub servant but it was in a more protective way and it was cultural to a degree but it was not backed by any laws, these girls are being held to ransom by their families by rules of their religions, rules which say they can be beaten, they are for mens control to do with as they wish, and any girl who brings shame to the family is in serious danger, now that puts a whole different taint to the whole thing, would you not agree..

://?roflmao?/:

In a protective way by beating them up and raping them?

I think not.

Think I know which poster you are now, how is the born again way?

Again you neglect the fact many women even today are being held to ransom, by domestic violence, you do not solve it by doing nothing.
You bring about change by making a stand, not saying something cannot be done when it can

So you think every woman through time has been beaten and raped, what a strange world you walk in..

and men are now victims of violent partners, the fact is the law protects these victims, those held by the religious laws of an religion that has not moved in thousands of years leaves its victims no where to go..

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:35 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

So you just want to do nothing and allow a backward view to continue, thank goodness others do not think that way Andy, as we would still have children in work houses

Not at all - where have I said I don't want to do anything?

I want the police and other authorities to get tougher with these foreign communities - to smash them and show them that they must comply with British law.

Precisely, well said but heir old religious laws have to be shown as illegal first or we will still have the same problems.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:36 am

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

://?roflmao?/:

In a protective way by beating them up and raping them?

I think not.

Think I know which poster you are now, how is the born again way?

Again you neglect the fact many women even today are being held to ransom, by domestic violence, you do not solve it by doing nothing.
You bring about change by making a stand, not saying something cannot be done when it can

So you think every woman through time has been beaten and raped, what a strange world you walk in..

and men are now victims of violent partners, the fact is the law protects these victims, those held by the religious laws of an religion that has not moved in thousands of years leaves its victims no where to go..

Many have in the past and some still today as well, I never said all either, but the fact is the perception of the day back then ignored women's plights, which is the point you are missing. The same applies to men as victims of domestic violence all support needs to be given and encourage men to come forward. So you are not telling me anything I do not know.

Reality, you do not change poor perceptions by doing sweet FA

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:39 am

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

So you think every woman through time has been beaten and raped, what a strange world you walk in..

and men are now victims of violent partners, the fact is the law protects these victims, those held by the religious laws of an religion that has not moved in thousands of years leaves its victims no where to go..

Many have in the past and some still today as well, I never said all either, but the fact is the perception of the day back then ignored women's plights, which is the point you are missing. The same applies to men as victims of domestic violence all support needs to be given and encourage men to come forward. So you are not telling me anything I do not know.

Reality, you do not change poor perceptions by doing sweet FA

Again you miss the point, those victims had the law to protect them, these girls no they have no protection at all, our laws do not stop these things happening, we cannot even stop genital mutilation, which is supposed to be illegal, these "cultures" have no respect for our laws.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:42 am

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Many have in the past and some still today as well, I never said all either, but the fact is the perception of the day back then ignored women's plights, which is the point you are missing. The same applies to men as victims of domestic violence all support needs to be given and encourage men to come forward. So you are not telling me anything I do not know.

Reality, you do not change poor perceptions by doing sweet FA

Again you miss the point, those victims had the law to protect them, these girls no they have no protection at all, our laws do not stop these things happening, we cannot even stop genital mutilation, which is supposed to be illegal, these "cultures" have no respect for our laws.

That made no sense and yes the law does protect them. What is needed is encouragement that the law does protect them, and posting isolated examples where some have been failed does not prove it does not work as history shows perceptions are changed by challenging them and bring about change.
I can give you endless example and in each case you had many speak like you are now claiming it cannot change and yet they did.
If nobody from these cultures had no respect from our laws, then we would see mass crimes daily in these communities, sorry you just argued an absurd association fallacy

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:48 am

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

Again you miss the point, those victims had the law to protect them, these girls no they have no protection at all, our laws do not stop these things happening, we cannot even stop genital mutilation, which is supposed to be illegal, these "cultures" have no respect for our laws.

That made no sense and yes the law does protect them. What is needed is encouragement that the law does protect them, and posting isolated examples where some have been failed does not prove it does not work as history shows perceptions are changed by challenging them and bring about change.
I can give you endless example and in each case you had many speak like you are now claiming it cannot change and yet they did.
If nobody from these cultures had no respect from our laws, then we would see mass crimes daily in these communities, sorry you just argued an absurd association fallacy

the law does not protect them because their religious laws over rule ours, they are so terrified of what can happen under their rules they do not bother with ours.

there are crimes committed all the time, rape gangs targeting white girls, young muslim women getting murdered for shaming their families, we have sharia law courts, we do not see the smallest fraction of what really goes on.

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:50 am

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

Again you miss the point, those victims had the law to protect them, these girls no they have no protection at all, our laws do not stop these things happening, we cannot even stop genital mutilation, which is supposed to be illegal, these "cultures" have no respect for our laws.

That made no sense and yes the law does protect them. What is needed is encouragement that the law does protect them, and posting isolated examples where some have been failed does not prove it does not work as history shows perceptions are changed by challenging them and bring about change.
I can give you endless example and in each case you had many speak like you are now claiming it cannot change and yet they did.
If nobody from these cultures had no respect from our laws, then we would see mass crimes daily in these communities, sorry you just argued an absurd association fallacy

If the law protects them why are families from other European countries travelling to the UK to get their daughters mutilated because they know they will not be stopped here where they will be in their own countries?

Does it make everyone proud knowing the UK is a destination of choice for people seeking to remove their daughters genitals?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:52 am

heavenly father wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

That made no sense and yes the law does protect them. What is needed is encouragement that the law does protect them, and posting isolated examples where some have been failed does not prove it does not work as history shows perceptions are changed by challenging them and bring about change.
I can give you endless example and in each case you had many speak like you are now claiming it cannot change and yet they did.
If nobody from these cultures had no respect from our laws, then we would see mass crimes daily in these communities, sorry you just argued an absurd association fallacy

the law does not protect them because their religious laws over rule ours, they are so terrified of what can happen under their rules they do not bother with ours.

there are crimes committed all the time, rape gangs targeting white girls, young muslim women getting murdered for shaming their families, we have sharia law courts, we do not see the smallest fraction of what really goes on.

Show me in the laws where it does not protect them?

take your time

Sharia Law courts like Beth Din deal solely on religious aspects within the family, British always supersedes it

So we do not see what goes on based upon your assumption based upon no evidence?
There is no doubts some crimes like anywhere go unnoticed, but to make a claim on a community it is pandemic is absurd in this country

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:55 am

PhilDidge wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

the law does not protect them because their religious laws over rule ours, they are so terrified of what can happen under their rules they do not bother with ours.

there are crimes committed all the time, rape gangs targeting white girls, young muslim women getting murdered for shaming their families, we have sharia law courts, we do not see the smallest fraction of what really goes on.

Show me in the laws where it does not protect them?

take your time

Sharia Law courts like Beth Din deal solely on religious aspects within the family, British always supersedes it

So we do not see what goes on based upon your assumption based upon no evidence?
There is no doubts some crimes like anywhere go unnoticed, but to make a claim on a community it is pandemic is absurd in this country

really are you so blind or just not willing to see, you haven't seen the cases of girls who have been killed by their families despite risking going to the police about their treatment by their own families, you don't see the cases of girls taken from this country to muslim countries to have their genitals mutilated, these girls are protected are they?

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:55 am

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

That made no sense and yes the law does protect them. What is needed is encouragement that the law does protect them, and posting isolated examples where some have been failed does not prove it does not work as history shows perceptions are changed by challenging them and bring about change.
I can give you endless example and in each case you had many speak like you are now claiming it cannot change and yet they did.
If nobody from these cultures had no respect from our laws, then we would see mass crimes daily in these communities, sorry you just argued an absurd association fallacy

If the law protects them why are families from other European countries travelling to the UK to get their daughters mutilated because they know they will not be stopped here where they will be in their own countries?

Does it make everyone proud knowing the UK is a destination of choice for people seeking to remove their daughters genitals?

Really?
So the practice is carried out all in Britain and not abroad now?

No doubt some goes on here and they are trying to find ways to solve this legal issue, which you know damn well about sphinx, so grow up, we have been here before and there again only recently you failed to understand the difficulties.

Thus your argument is semantic, where we need to all help change the law, are you saying they are not trying to help now

by Guest Fri Jan 31, 2014 11:56 am

Hey didge pal, we were having a healthy debate - why you go oh so quiet over there?

by Sponsored content