They were sentenced to deportation, but victims of the Rochdale grooming gang still see their attackers in public

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:01 pm

Home Secretary Sajid Javid has been asked to take "urgent action" and deport four members of a grooming gang who abused girls in Rochdale.

Tony Lloyd, the town's MP, said "victims deserve better".

Shabir Ahmed, 66, Abdul Rauf, 50, Abdul Aziz, 48 and Adil Khan, 49, who have dual UK-Pakistani citizenship, were among nine men jailed in 2012 for exploiting girls as young as 12.

The Home Office will not say whether a decision has been made to deport them.

Ahmed, who was known as "Daddy" in the gang, is still serving a 22-year jail term for rape.

In August 2018, Aziz, Khan and Rauf lost an appeal against being stripped of their British citizenship.

Ahmed, Rauf, Aziz, and Khan, lost a previous battle to keep British citizenship in February 2017.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Some vulnerable girls in Rochdale were plied with drinks and drugs by groomers
Mr Lloyd is calling on Mr Javid to explain why the four have not yet been deported and has tabled a motion in parliament.

He said: "These crimes were at the most serious level and victims deserve better.

"I would ask Sajid Javid to take urgent action. I want them to be deported."

He said the public would be "bewildered" and added: "People are still angry."

Maggie Oliver, who quit Greater Manchester Police and turned whistleblower, said victims had been "failed again and again and again" but they expected "very, very little from the authorities".

She said they saw their abusers on a "fairly regular basis" and it was "really distressing" and "disgraceful".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-48668381

This is turning into a never-ending nightmare for these young women! Pathetic.

by eddie Mon Jun 17, 2019 8:26 pm

This is just a fucking joke.

After watching the docu-drama “Three Girls”, you can really see into this story with a clarity that the newspaper’s didn’t cover.

by 'Wolfie Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:04 am

Looks like the police, the parole board, the court system, and even the immigration/foreign affairs ministries, have all "fallen down on the job" over there, no-one living up to their responsibilities ?

Laziness; various 'authorities' making plenty of noise but not taking action; too much time given to listening to "criminals' rights" and "black armband" activists; too much "buck passing" between different departments ?

by Maddog Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:20 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Looks like the police, the parole board, the court system, and even the immigration/foreign affairs ministries, have all "fallen down on the job" over there, no-one living up to their responsibilities ?

Laziness; various 'authorities' making plenty of noise but not taking action; too much time given to listening to "criminals' rights" and "black armband" activists; too much "buck passing" between different departments ?

Good thing they are in charge of health care. Shocked

by Original Quill Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:11 am

Maddog wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Looks like the police, the parole board, the court system, and even the immigration/foreign affairs ministries, have all "fallen down on the job" over there, no-one living up to their responsibilities ?

Laziness; various 'authorities' making plenty of noise but not taking action; too much time given to listening to "criminals' rights" and "black armband" activists; too much "buck passing" between different departments ?

Good thing they are in charge of health care.

Yeah, if they were in private hands they could be peddling kidneys and oxytocin.

by Maddog Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:15 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Good thing they are in charge of health care.

Yeah, if they were in private hands they could be peddling kidneys and oxytocin.

Lucky for the Brits, they were just peddling girls. No big deal eh?

by Ben Reilly Wed Jun 19, 2019 9:10 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Good thing they are in charge of health care.

Yeah, if they were in private hands they could be peddling kidneys and oxytocin.

Lucky for the Brits, they were just peddling girls. No big deal eh?

That was the gangs, not the police. Who aren't doctors, just in case you weren't aware.

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:13 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Looks like the police, the parole board, the court system, and even the immigration/foreign affairs ministries, have all "fallen down on the job" over there, no-one living up to their responsibilities ?

Laziness; various 'authorities' making plenty of noise but not taking action; too much time given to listening to "criminals' rights" and "black armband" activists; too much "buck passing" between different departments ?

The problem is, Wolfie, that our national laws, lawmakers, law enforcers and lawyers are all subservient to European court system - either the European Court of Human Rights (created by the European Council) or the European Court of Justice (part of the European Union).

This was my principle reason for wanting to regain my country's full sovereignty.

Members of that grooming gang should have been deported forcibly and within 24 hours. No appeal.

by Maddog Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:18 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Lucky for the Brits, they were just peddling girls. No big deal eh?

That was the gangs, not the police. Who aren't doctors, just in case you weren't aware.

I was responding to Wolf's comment about government workers In case you weren't aware.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:41 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yeah, if they were in private hands they could be peddling kidneys and oxytocin.

Lucky for the Brits, they were just peddling girls. No big deal eh?

Well, in the US one gets elected president for such actions:

Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

DAVID MIKKELSON
PUBLISHED 23 JUNE 2016

In late April 2016, rumors began to circulate online holding that Republican presidential Donald Trump had either been sued over, or arrested for, raping a teenaged girl...[the girl] using the name Katie Johnson had named Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in a $100 million lawsuit, accusing them of having solicited sex acts from her at sex parties held at the Manhattan homes of Epstein and Trump...

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Who are we to judge?

by Maddog Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Lucky for the Brits, they were just peddling girls. No big deal eh?

Well, in the US one gets elected president for such actions:

Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl

DAVID MIKKELSON
PUBLISHED 23 JUNE 2016

In late April 2016, rumors began to circulate online holding that Republican presidential Donald Trump had either been sued over, or arrested for, raping a teenaged girl...[the girl] using the name Katie Johnson had named Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in a $100 million lawsuit, accusing them of having solicited sex acts from her at sex parties held at the Manhattan homes of Epstein and Trump...

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Bill and Donald liked Epstein and his party's.

They are both lowlifes that became POTUS.

Who are we to judge?

by Original Quill Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:

Well, in the US one gets elected president for such actions:

Maddog wrote:Bill and Donald liked Epstein and his party's.

They are both lowlifes that became POTUS.

Who are we to judge?

I'm just saying: "...in the US one gets elected president for such actions." I might add, in the US gang-rape will get you a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

What’s the big deal?

by Raggamuffin Wed Jun 19, 2019 6:47 pm

Trump wasn't convicted, these guys were, and they should be deported. Unfortunately, it takes ages to deport someone, although there was plenty of time to sort it out when they were in prison.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 19, 2019 7:07 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Trump wasn't convicted, these guys were, and they should be deported. Unfortunately, it takes iages to deport someone, although there was plenty of time to sort it out when they were in prison.

That is only a statement about US law. Trump wasn't convicted because in the US there are special laws and special procedures for the rich and privileged.

Your guys were obviously not rich enough, and not privileged enough. Were they Muslim? Just askin'. They were sentenced to deportation, but victims of the Rochdale grooming gang still see their attackers in public 2190311264

They were sentenced to deportation, but victims of the Rochdale grooming gang still see their attackers in public 2190311264

by 'Wolfie Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:03 am

Maddog wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Looks like the police, the parole board, the court system, and even the immigration/foreign affairs ministries, have all "fallen down on the job" over there, no-one living up to their responsibilities ?

Laziness; various 'authorities' making plenty of noise but not taking action; too much time given to listening to "criminals' rights" and "black armband" activists; too much "buck passing" between different departments ?

Good thing they are in charge of health care.

Where's the connection ???

I don't believe that Britain's healthcare system is run by police, criminal courts and their Immigration ministry; but rather it's own dedicated ministry..

Unlike in Texas, where your shoddy double-priced third-world healthcare is operated by usurious billionaire health fund and private hospital owners.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:02 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Trump wasn't convicted, these guys were, and they should be deported. Unfortunately, it takes iages to deport someone, although there was plenty of time to sort it out when they were in prison.

That is only a statement about US law. Trump wasn't convicted because in the US there are special laws and special procedures for the rich and privileged.

Your guys were obviously not rich enough, and not privileged enough. Were they Muslim? Just askin'.

Are you going against the idea that one is innocent until proved guilty?

You also appear to be querying the fact that these guys were found guilty. Are you suggesting there was a conspiracy of some sort, and that they were found guilty because they're Muslims or poor?

They were guilty and they should be deported.

by nicko Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:03 am

Before deportation, Castration !

by Original Quill Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That is only a statement about US law. Trump wasn't convicted because in the US there are special laws and special procedures for the rich and privileged.

Your guys were obviously not rich enough, and not privileged enough. Were they Muslim? Just askin'.

Are you going against the idea that one is innocent until proved guilty?

We do that all the time here. Even you are extremely hard on accused rapists before trial. Yet you have one right before you who is wealthy and privileged, and you are disposed to defend him.

Raggamuffin wrote:You also appear to be querying the fact that these guys were found guilty. Are you suggesting there was a conspiracy of some sort, and that they were found guilty because they're Muslims or poor?

They were guilty and they should be deported.

Honestly, how many lawyers did they have? Were the lawyers the best that money could buy? Were the lawyers able to offer a non-disclosure agreement to the victims--Trump's typical tactic. Were these defendants able to offer £150,000 to the victims?

Most of my criticisms about the wealthy and privileged, are about their ability to never even reach trial. The very fact that these guys were convicted is part of the proof of two classes in law; their plebeian status, as distinct from the wealthy and privileged, contributed to their convictions.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you going against the idea that one is innocent until proved guilty?

We do that all the time here. Even you are extremely hard on accused rapists before trial. Yet you have one right before you who is wealthy and privileged, and you are disposed to defend him.

Raggamuffin wrote:You also appear to be querying the fact that these guys were found guilty. Are you suggesting there was a conspiracy of some sort, and that they were found guilty because they're Muslims or poor?

They were guilty and they should be deported.

Honestly, how many lawyers did they have? Were the lawyers the best that money could buy? Were the lawyers able to offer a non-disclosure agreement to the victims--Trump's typical tactic. Were these defendants able to offer £150,000 to the victims?

Most of my criticisms about the wealthy and privileged, are about their ability to never even reach trial. The very fact that these guys were convicted is part of the proof of two classes in law; their plebeian status, as distinct from the wealthy and privileged, contributed to their convictions.

The fact that they were guilty and there was evidence of that guilt contributed to their conviction.

This isn't about Trump, so why are making it so?

As for naming accused rapists, I'm against that - until they're convicted. You have convicted Trump before a trial - something you're not supposed to do, what with you being a lawyer and all that.

by Original Quill Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

We do that all the time here. Even you are extremely hard on accused rapists before trial. Yet you have one right before you who is wealthy and privileged, and you are disposed to defend him.

Honestly, how many lawyers did they have? Were the lawyers the best that money could buy? Were the lawyers able to offer a non-disclosure agreement to the victims--Trump's typical tactic. Were these defendants able to offer £150,000 to the victims?

Most of my criticisms about the wealthy and privileged, are about their ability to never even reach trial. The very fact that these guys were convicted is part of the proof of two classes in law; their plebeian status, as distinct from the wealthy and privileged, contributed to their convictions.

The fact that they were guilty and there was evidence of that guilt contributed to their conviction.

No, it's not a fact when it is achieved by differential means.

Raggamuffin wrote:This isn't about Trump, so why are making it so?

We needn't talk about Trump as the example. What about Jeffery Epstein?

Raggamuffin wrote:As for naming accused rapists, I'm against that - until they're convicted. You have convicted Trump before a trial - something you're not supposed to do, what with you being a lawyer and all that.

I'm glad you withhold judgement until conviction.

Now, turn your attention to the quality and fairness of that conviction you invest so much in. The judgment in 3rd-world nations is whatever the glorious leader says. But, is our's any better when it can be bought by money?

That is the issue. I'm reminded of a book by Mark Furman (Murder in Brentwood [1997]), in which he argued that the legal system was corrupted by OJ Simpson as he had too much money and could easily fund his defense. My response was: no Mark Furman, the issue wasn't that OJ had too much money, but that the average person doesn't have enough money.

But the fundamental point made by Furman is valid, that wealth and privilege create a new class system. In western nations money is the barrier to equal justice under law. Instead of 3rd-world dictators, we have wealth and privilege calling the shots when it comes to ‘justice’.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:47 pm

Quill, you appear to be saying that these men might not be guilty. They were found guilty in a trial by jury, so what's your problem with that? What are these "differential means"?

by Original Quill Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you appear to be saying that these men might not be guilty. They were found guilty in a trial by jury, so what's your problem with that? What are these "differential means"?

My problem with that is that the jury might not have been informed of all the facts, because of expense. My problem is that the judgment might not be fair.

"Differential means" is a term describing, in this case, the extra measures that might be taken if money were available. I've already mentioned the non-disclosure agreement. Experts are another. Many others exist if only the money is available.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, you appear to be saying that these men might not be guilty. They were found guilty in a trial by jury, so what's your problem with that? What are these "differential means"?

My problem with that is that the jury might not have been informed of all the facts, because of expense. My problem is that the judgment might not be fair.

"Differential means" is a term describing, in this case, the extra measures that might be taken if money were available. I've already mentioned the non-disclosure agreement. Experts are another. Many others exist if only the money is available.

Why would you think they didn't get informed of all the facts? There's no suggestion that money or lack of it played a part, or that the defendants were poor. It seems that some of the gang at least didn't deny having sex with these girls but said they consented. The problem was that many of the girls were underage, so it's not relevant whether they consented or not. Are you saying that money would have suddenly made sex with underage girls OK in this case?

by Tommy Monk Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:31 pm

These dangerous foreign child rapist criminal scum bags should be deported immediately!

by Syl Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Trump wasn't convicted, these guys were, and they should be deported. Unfortunately, it takes iages to deport someone, although there was plenty of time to sort it out when they were in prison.

Your guys were obviously not rich enough, and not privileged enough. Were they Muslim? Just askin'.

Oh yes they most definately were, which is the main reason they and other like minded Muslim men managed to organise gangs nationally and allow their male friends and family members to rape and abuse abuse young underage white girls in the most appalling way....for decades... BEFORE the police and authorities decided to do much about it.

Rochdale is just one town where the men, having served a meagre sentence are now back on the same streets where the girls are trying to rebuild their lives.

Other towns and cities where the Muslim gangs plied their trades and were charged and found guilty.

SKIPTON
ROTHERHAM
SHEFFIELD
BLACKPOOL
OXFORD
HALIFAX
BRADFORD
IPSWICH
LONDON
TELFORD
PRESTON
DERBY
TORBAY
BRISTOL
BANBURY
CHESHAM
BARKING
BIRMINGHAM
BLACKBURN
ROCHDALE
LEEDS
STOCKPORT
AYLESBURY
YEOVIL
NEWCASTLE
BURTON
ACCRINGTON
ORMSKIRK
KEIGHLEY
MANCHESTER
OLDHAM
PETERBOROUGH
DEWSBURY
LITTLEHAMPTON
MIDDLESBOROUGH
SLOUGH.

by nicko Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:12 pm

Police don't like to arrest Muslims cause if they do the local Muslims "kick off". So it comes down to," let them alone we are frightened of 'em" !

by Syl Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:04 pm

nicko wrote:Police don't like to arrest Muslims cause if they do the local Muslims "kick off". So it comes down to," let them alone we are frightened of 'em" !

Police, authorities, politicians, care workers, it seemed a conspiracy the keep quiet, or do very little to help, went on for a long long time....and according to the ex copper Maggie Oliver and Rochdale social worker Sarah Rowbotham who worked tirelessly with the girls which led to the eventual conviction of a SMALL minority of some of the rapists and groomers, it's still going on, and obviously the girls who were abused are still being let down by the system.

by Original Quill Fri Jun 21, 2019 4:32 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Your guys were obviously not rich enough, and not privileged enough. Were they Muslim? Just askin'.

Oh yes they most definately were, which is the main reason they and other like minded Muslim men managed to organise gangs nationally and allow their male friends and family members to rape and abuse abuse young underage white girls in the most appalling way....for decades... BEFORE the police and authorities decided to do much about it.

Well, there you go. Your guys were guilty before they were even tried, due to the public sentiment against them.

We have the same here. And with blacks they don't even hold trials; cops just fire away, confident that the same public sentiment will give them a ticket to ride.

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

Oh yes they most definately were, which is the main reason they and other like minded Muslim men managed to organise gangs nationally and allow their male friends and family members to rape and abuse abuse young underage white girls in the most appalling way....for decades... BEFORE the police and authorities decided to do much about it.

Well, there you go. Your guys were guilty before they were even tried, due to the public sentiment against them

We have the same here. And with blacks they don't even hold trials; cops just fire away, confident that the same public sentiment will give them a ticket to ride.

The problem with that argument, Quill, is that this sort of organised - and it is most decidedly highly organised - grooming followed by the systematic abuse, rape and enforced prostitution of young (and frequently VERY young) predominently white girls was virtually unknown in the UK before the establishment of large, concentrated communities of families of mainly Pakistani extraction.

Local authorities and police in the towns an cities most affected have already admitted that in the past they have been reluctant to take action "in the interests of social cohesion."

by Original Quill Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:25 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, there you go. Your guys were guilty before they were even tried, due to the public sentiment against them

We have the same here. And with blacks they don't even hold trials; cops just fire away, confident that the same public sentiment will give them a ticket to ride.

The problem with that argument, Quill, is that this sort of organised - and it is most decidedly highly organised - grooming followed by the systematic abuse, rape and enforced prostitution of young (and frequently VERY young) predominently white girls was virtually unknown in the UK before the establishment of large, concentrated communities of families of mainly Pakistani extraction.

Local authorities and police in the towns an cities most affected have already admitted that in the past they have been reluctant to take action "in the interests of social cohesion."

I find it hard to believe that "grooming followed by the systematic abuse, rape and enforced prostitution of young (and frequently VERY young) predominently white girls was virtually unknown in the UK." Hasn't anyone looked into the activities of eastern Europeans in this regard? Trump has close ties to these people--hence his love of the Russians and Vladimir Putin--and that might have tipped us off before you. But human trafficking has been going on for decades.

Actually, the involvement of Muslims is quite minimal, and recent. The disdain that the Muslim culture has for the wide-open Western culture is more of an individual thing, and involves younger boys.

But these young men seem to have been convicted more from public sentiment, than from individual acts.

by eddie Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:41 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Trump wasn't convicted, these guys were, and they should be deported. Unfortunately, it takes iages to deport someone, although there was plenty of time to sort it out when they were in prison.

Your guys were obviously not rich enough, and not privileged enough. Were they Muslim? Just askin'.

Oh yes they most definately were, which is the main reason they and other like minded Muslim men managed to organise gangs nationally and allow their male friends and family members to rape and abuse abuse young underage white girls in the most appalling way....for decades... BEFORE the police and authorities decided to do much about it.

Rochdale is just one town where the men, having served a meagre sentence are now back on the same streets where the girls are trying to rebuild their lives.

Other towns and cities where the Muslim gangs plied their trades and were charged and found guilty.

SKIPTON
ROTHERHAM
SHEFFIELD
BLACKPOOL
OXFORD
HALIFAX
BRADFORD
IPSWICH
LONDON
TELFORD
PRESTON
DERBY
TORBAY
BRISTOL
BANBURY
CHESHAM
BARKING
BIRMINGHAM
BLACKBURN
ROCHDALE
LEEDS
STOCKPORT
AYLESBURY
YEOVIL
NEWCASTLE
BURTON
ACCRINGTON
ORMSKIRK
KEIGHLEY
MANCHESTER
OLDHAM
PETERBOROUGH
DEWSBURY
LITTLEHAMPTON
MIDDLESBOROUGH
SLOUGH.

Bumped for Quill.
Not sure why you’re trying to defend them. They were found guilty and sentenced (pathetically) and they should have been thrown out of the country.

Dirty fucking monsters. Out of prison to do it all over again.

by Raggamuffin Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

Oh yes they most definately were, which is the main reason they and other like minded Muslim men managed to organise gangs nationally and allow their male friends and family members to rape and abuse abuse young underage white girls in the most appalling way....for decades... BEFORE the police and authorities decided to do much about it.

Well, there you go. Your guys were guilty before they were even tried, due to the public sentiment against them.

We have the same here. And with blacks they don't even hold trials; cops just fire away, confident that the same public sentiment will give them a ticket to ride.

Are you suggesting they're innocent because they're Muslims?

by eddie Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:37 pm

I think Quill hasn’t really read the whole facts. Or doesn’t listen to those that have.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:14 pm

On news earlier about another load of arrests of another child rape gang in north Yorkshire...

44 arrested including around half dozen women...

https://news.sky.com/story/west-yorkshire-police-make-44-arrests-over-historical-child-sex-abuse-claims-11746103

by Ben Reilly Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:01 am

It really does seem to be an epidemic, but it's interesting to me that it doesn't seem to be happening that much outside the north. Or did I miss something?

by eddie Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:03 am

Ben Reilly wrote:It really does seem to be an epidemic, but it's interesting to me that it doesn't seem to be happening that much outside the north. Or did I miss something?

Not sure, you’d have to google it. Perhaps because people seem poorer in the north...that was a contributing factor?

by Tommy Monk Sat Jun 22, 2019 3:44 am

Not just in the north... and nothing to do with being richer or poorer...

by Original Quill Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:28 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, there you go. Your guys were guilty before they were even tried, due to the public sentiment against them.

We have the same here. And with blacks they don't even hold trials; cops just fire away, confident that the same public sentiment will give them a ticket to ride.

Are you suggesting they're innocent because they're Muslims?

Quite the opposite. It occurs to me that they are guilty because they are Muslims.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:02 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting they're innocent because they're Muslims?

Quite the opposite. It occurs to me that they are guilty because they are Muslims.

You think they're guilty because they're Muslims? Please explain.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:04 am

Ben Reilly wrote:It really does seem to be an epidemic, but it's interesting to me that it doesn't seem to be happening that much outside the north. Or did I miss something?

It does seem to be mostly in the north, but there was a gang in Oxford too.

by Syl Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not just in the north... and nothing to do with being richer or poorer...

It's not just in the north, but I do think it has something to do with poorer kids. Some were in care, many were met and groomed as they left the secondary school buildings on their way home from school. I cant see young Muslim men gathering outside private schools trying to entrap young kids.
Kebab shops and run down private taxi hire firms were the base where many of these men groomed the girls, not usually the places where better off kids hang out.

by HoratioTarr Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting they're innocent because they're Muslims?

Quite the opposite. It occurs to me that they are guilty because they are Muslims.

No. Because they're dirty bastards that just happen to be Muslim.

by HoratioTarr Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:22 pm

According to the best available data, Asian men make up 75 per cent of “Type 1” group abusers, who target children and young women because they are vulnerable.

But white men make up 100 per cent of recorded “Type 2” group abusers, who target children because of a longstanding paedophilic interest.

From the information available, we know that actual number of group abusers who are Asian is around three times higher than the number of group abusers who are white.

Child sexual abuse by lone offenders is more common than abuse by groups. What we don’t know is how many of those lone offenders are white or Asian. We should be wary of drawing too many conclusions.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/what-do-we-know-about-the-ethnicity-of-sexual-abuse-gangs

by Original Quill Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:11 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Quite the opposite. It occurs to me that they are guilty because they are Muslims.

No. Because they're dirty bastards that just happen to be Muslim.

You are a prime example that makes my point for me. It doesn't matter whether these guys did it or not. You have prejudged them on the basis of their being Muslim.

This is why I am skeptical. Your attitude foreordains the juries verdict. People think in terms of scripts and stereotypes...the evidence be damned. There's no way that a Muslim could get a fair trial in the UK, anymore than a black could get a fair trial in the US south. That jury has a script they have followed, and Muslims fit the stereotype.

by Guest Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

No. Because they're dirty bastards that just happen to be Muslim.

You are a prime example that makes my point for me. It doesn't matter whether these guys did it or not. You have prejudged them on the basis of their being Muslim.

This is why I am skeptical. Your attitude foreordains the juries verdict. People think in terms of scripts and stereotypes...the evidence be damned. There's no way that a Muslim could get a fair trial in the UK, anymore than a black could get a fair trial in the US south. That jury has a script they have followed, and Muslims fit the stereotype.

You are skeptical, because you are led by a religion called intersectionality, that makes you feel guilty for being white and that enables you to dream up as much bullshit as we see above. To the extent, that now you think all our judges and trials are corrupt against Muslims. Based on zeero evidence. There was staggering evididence againt many of these grooming gans, which by ther way not all were Asian, but the majority were. What is even more insulting is you are basically claiming you do not believe the thousands of young girls that were victims of these gangs.

Also and actually the Islamic culture of South East Asia, may well have played a factor in why these men held such distain for females, based off. How Islam teaches women to be subservant to men and how non-Muslims are viewed as sex slaves. This was not even looked into within the trials, but based off the fact women are treated appallingly in this part of the world in rural areas. It should have been a factor in the trial .

by Original Quill Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:31 pm

phil wrote:you are led by a religion called intersectionality

Oh, fer god's sake. You have to make up a new religion?

by Guest Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:you are led by a religion called intersectionality

Oh, fer god's sake. You have to make up a new religion?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/03/is-intersectionality-a-religion.html

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/05/01/the-religion-of-intersectionality/

And you are the high priest of this totalitarian new religion

by Original Quill Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:44 pm

by Guest Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:

I knew you would not like being exposed as a cultist totalitariani

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

No. Because they're dirty bastards that just happen to be Muslim.

You are a prime example that makes my point for me. It doesn't matter whether these guys did it or not. You have prejudged them on the basis of their being Muslim.

This is why I am skeptical. Your attitude foreordains the juries verdict. People think in terms of scripts and stereotypes...the evidence be damned. There's no way that a Muslim could get a fair trial in the UK, anymore than a black could get a fair trial in the US south. That jury has a script they have followed, and Muslims fit the stereotype.

There is no indication in her post that she prejudged them on the basis of their being Muslim. You're the one who's assuming there was bias against them, despite a jury hearing all the evidence. You appear to be assuming that they're not actually guilty, and that they were found guilty because they're Muslims. You have no basis for that argument.

by Sponsored content