# Rochdale grooming trial: Nine men jailed



## Stoat Boy (May 9, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17993003.

Whilst its not surprising to not find a thread on here about these men being found guilty (there really is a collective streak of cowardice running through U75 when it comes to topics like this) I thought the the differing views on whether there was a racial element to this are worth discussing.

Two views...

Keith Vaz says child sex ring case not a race issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-says-child-sex-ring-case-not-race-issue.html

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown "discuss these horrors openly or play straight into racists hands"

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...play-straight-into-racists-hands-7723400.html

Now of course a lot of you are just going to slate me for starting the thread rather than actually writing anything to do with the issue so no change there but given its prominence in all of the major media outlets this morning it is something that is being discussed in Britain and raises issues for all of us. Those poor girls were rejected by all of us in someways and whilst what these scumbags did to them is fully deserving of punishing I also wonder how much all of us played in creating a situation in which these girls became vulnerable to this sort of thing.


----------



## Idaho (May 9, 2012)

Is there a racial element? Yes of course there is, because you are discussing it in those terms.

Just as race itself only exists because there is racism. There is no sound biological basis for it beyond this cultural definition.

As for collective cowardice. I don't think that's correct. I just think that there isn't a collective desire to make broad brush statements about racial traits causing any of this. Abuse and forced prostitution of poor girls and young women is not a new thing. It happens all the time and throughout history. And the common thread is not skin colour, race, religion or culture - but poverty.


----------



## rover07 (May 9, 2012)

We had a 100 page thread on this last year.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17993003.
> 
> Whilst its not surprising to not find a thread on here about these men being found guilty (there really is a collective streak of cowardice running through U75 when it comes to topics like this) I thought the the differing views on whether there was a racial element to this are worth discussing.


Pretty sure you'll find no shortage of other news events that haven't been commented on here, and I'm pretty sure it's got naff all to do with folks suffering a 'collective streak of cowardice' (whatever that is).

As for this story: good work by the cops and great to see these scumbags getting their just desserts.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2012)

rover07 said:


> We had a 100 page thread on this last year.


Yes we did. With nearly 2,500 replies and a grand bunfight.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/weasel-straw-strikes-again-pakistani-men-in-britain-see-white-girls-as-easy-meat.266988/


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 9, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> Now of course a lot of you are just going to slate me for starting the thread


Given that _in your first sentence_ you make it clear that your point with this thread is to slag off other U75 posters, that wouldn't be a very surprising reaction.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> Now of course a lot of you are just going to slate me for starting the thread rather than actually writing anything to do with the issue so no change there but given its prominence in all of the major media outlets this morning it is something that is being discussed in Britain and raises issues for all of us. Those poor girls were rejected by all of us in someways and whilst what these scumbags did to them is fully deserving of punishing I also wonder how much all of us played in creating a situation in which these girls became vulnerable to this sort of thing.


 
This. I think those that seek to make political capital out of this (BNP/EDL) are ironically exploiting the misery of others for their own ends and that makes them scum. Also-making this about race and religion detracts from the real issues. In this case the police are being criticised for not doing enough in some of the mens cases who had previous form. There's issues around family breakdown, the care system etc-loads of questions as to why these young vulnerable girls ever found themselves in this position. Child abuse is a societal issue that requires a societal response from many different individuals/agencies etc.  The victims accounts I found incredibly distressing-outside this ring of abusers somebody *mustve* been aware of this-and for me thats a massive issue.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2012)

Another related thread on this story here too:
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-conflation-of-race-with-the-issue-of-child-abuse.284505/


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 9, 2012)

editor said:


> As for this story: good work by the cops and great to see these scumbags getting their just desserts.


Well, not good work by the cops actually. It wasn't investigated properly for two years after an initial complaint by one of the victims. The CPS said she wasn't a credible witness so the police lost interest in the case until much later and many victims later.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/08/asian-sex-gangs-on-street-grooming


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

Idaho said:


> And the common thread is not skin colour, race, religion or culture - but poverty.


 
I'm not so sure. The BBC handled this one quite delicately in a report last night. The correspondent went to great lengths to point out that the vast majority of sex crimes in this country were committed by white English males, however, the vast majority (80% I think) of cases where white girls are groomed and shared by groups of men, are committed by British Pakistani males.

Is it wrong to ponder that there may be a cultural element towards the treatment of women in general, but particularly non-muslim women, by these groups?


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Is it wrong to ponder that there may be a cultural element towards the treatment of women in general, but particularly non-muslim women, by these groups?


 
I think its up for discussion- but seeing as the majority of pakistani men would never dream of behaving in this manner it would be wrong to suggest this was a cultural norm.


----------



## jiggajagga (May 9, 2012)

I have just seen a frightening newscast on the beeb that said the lawyers of the 9 men may be calling for a retrial as Nick Griffin of the BNP knew the result of the case before the judge did? ( Inside job?) Something to do with a tweet apparently?


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

jiggajagga said:


> I have just seen a frightening newscast on the beeb that said the lawyers of the 9 men may be calling for a retrial as Nick Griffin of the BNP knew the result of the case before the judge did? ( Inside job?) Something to do with a tweet apparently?


 
Yeah this was on the news yesterday. A retrial wouldnt help-the evidence is pretty overwhelming from what I've read


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I think its up for discussion- but seeing as the majority of pakistani men would never dream of behaving in this manner it would be wrong to suggest this was a cultural norm.


 
I don't think anyone's suggesting that it's a cultural norm, but when over 80% (83% - I just read your link) of a specific crime is perpetrated by a specific group you have to ask why. Idaho suggested poverty as a cause but none of these guys were particularly poor (shop owners, taxi bosses) though the girls they preyed on were.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 9, 2012)

jiggajagga said:


> I have just seen a frightening newscast on the beeb that said the lawyers of the 9 men may be calling for a retrial as Nick Griffin of the BNP knew the result of the case before the judge did? ( Inside job?) Something to do with a tweet apparently?


I read something about this. I hope the likely outcome will be proceedings for contempt of court.


----------



## 5t3IIa (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think anyone's suggesting that it's a cultural norm, but when over 80% (83% - I just read your link) of a specific crime is perpetrated by a specific group you have to ask why. Idaho suggested poverty as a cause but none of these guys were particularly poor (shop owners, taxi bosses) though the girls they preyed on were.


 
"Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of The Ramadhan Foundation, said grooming was "a significant problem for the British Pakistani community".
"There is an over-representation [of Asian men] amongst recent convictions in the crime of on-street grooming [and] there should be no silence in addressing the issue of race as this is central to the actions of these criminals," he said.
"They think that white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused without a second thought; it is this sort of behaviour that is bringing shame on our community."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17996245

This geezer got poo-pooed on Today this morning. He said the older generation didn't see much wrong with white girls 'asking for it', whereas the younger did. There was a ton of tip-toeing going on.


----------



## southside (May 9, 2012)

The cunts want burning.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17993003.
> 
> Whilst its not surprising to not find a thread on here about these men being found guilty (there really is a collective streak of cowardice running through U75 when it comes to topics like this)


Well, that's a new take on the old "what no thread on <insert story>? " fallacy .

First of all, if there's no thread on a current news item within 30 minutes of it breaking, then, I know, why not start one!

Secondly, there _are_ threads on the story. Several, in fact.


----------



## London_Calling (May 9, 2012)

I know men like this, and it's a problem in London too; these men were basically born and grew up in the Stone Age. Any other time in history save the last 20 years, most of them would be goat herders and would die in their late-40s in some God-forsaken village, never having travelled further than 20 miles. You can try and accept the values of another planet but it's what they know ...


----------



## rover07 (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Is it wrong to ponder that there may be a cultural element towards the treatment of women in general, but particularly non-muslim women, by these groups?



It's been suggested before.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think anyone's suggesting that it's a cultural norm, but when over 80% (83% - I just read your link) of a specific crime is perpetrated by a specific group you have to ask why. Idaho suggested poverty as a cause but none of these guys were particularly poor (shop owners, taxi bosses) though the girls they preyed on were.


 
Im not suggesting you are-Im saying that any discussions around culture can/tend to fall back on norms. Of course within the Islamic community there are attitudes to women that are questionable-but even then, some who think or hold these beliefs dont go on to be part of sexual exploitation rings. I just think its dodgy territory to start talking about cultural attitudes because its a sticky wicket and can feed into right wing agendas.


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I just think its dodgy territory to start talking about cultural attitudes because its a sticky wicket and can feed into right wing agendas.


 
_That's_ the problem.

There quite clearly _is_ a cultural issue here but because we don't want to "feed into right-wing agendas" it's tiptoed around, which ........ feeds into right-wing agendas!


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> _That's_ the problem.
> 
> There quite clearly _is_ a cultural issue here but because we don't want to "feed into right-wing agendas" it's tiptoed around, which ........ feeds into right-wing agendas!


agreed


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Im not suggesting you are-Im saying that any discussions around culture can/tend to fall back on norms. Of course within the Islamic community there are attitudes to women that are questionable-but even then, some who think or hold these beliefs dont go on to be part of sexual exploitation rings. I just think its dodgy territory to start talking about cultural attitudes because its a sticky wicket and can feed into right wing agendas.


 
If it (the existence of oppressive cultural attitudes) does have an impact and the left doesn't talk about it/acknowledge it for fear of its right wing potential, does it make the left or the right more credible?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## claphamboy (May 9, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> Now of course a lot of you are just going to slate me for starting the thread rather than actually writing anything to do with the issue ....


 
Well, considering many have already commented on 'the issue' both on this thread, and the others, do excuse me if I just call you a twat of the highest order.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> _That's_ the problem.
> 
> There quite clearly _is_ a cultural issue here but because we don't want to "feed into right-wing agendas" it's tiptoed around, which ........ feeds into right-wing agendas!


A point a local beat copper once made to me about some types of crime in Lambeth...he said car crime is perpetrated by all sections of society but twocking is disproportionately white working-class teenage boys. Armed robbery is perpetrated by all races but armed street robbery is predominantly black teenage boys.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> _That's_ the problem.
> 
> There quite clearly _is_ a cultural issue here but because we don't want to "feed into right-wing agendas" it's tiptoed around, which ........ feeds into right-wing agendas!


 
Theres about 1.5 billion muslims in the world. Thats about a 5th of the worlds population. Within that there are the same strands and tensions as elsewhere: reformers, traditionalists, liberals, conservatives, rich, poor, minorities, majorities, rationalists, mystics, feminists, chauvinists, criminals and civic activists. You cant reduce that to one muslim 'culture' (again Im not suggesting you are). Of course commonalities exist and theres plenty that is objectionable but thats like all societies. At the end of the day its like all prejudices really-an individuals/groups behaviours somehow aggregate into the quality of that group.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> If it (the existence of oppressive cultural attitudes) does have an impact and the left doesn't talk about it/acknowledge it for fear of its right wing potential, does it make the left or the right more credible?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 

No its makes it realistic in my opinion-for recognising there is no one homogeneous culture that we can attribute to one group-see my answer above.


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> No its makes it realistic in my opinion-for recognising there is no one homogeneous culture that we can attribute to one group-see my answer above.


I would like to see the statistics broken down. But I believe they will show it iS pakistani asians whose origins are from the Mirpur region of Pakistan that are responsible for the majority of these grooming gang cases in the UK.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

manny-p said:


> I would like to see the statistics broken down. But I believe they will show it iS pakistani asians whose origins are from the Mirpur region of Pakistan that are responsible for the majority of these grooming gang cases in the UK.


 
Yeah but we're also talking about young british born pakistani men who may not even share the same cultural attutudes of some of their elders. Do you see what Im getting at. When you start talking about cultural attitudes it opens up a whole can of worms with so many variables. Also in the northern towns where there are pakistanis of mirpur descent the majority arent going out and involved in grooming.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Im not suggesting you are-Im saying that any discussions around culture can/tend to fall back on norms. Of course within the Islamic community there are attitudes to women that are questionable-but even then, some who think or hold these beliefs dont go on to be part of sexual exploitation rings. I just think its dodgy territory to start talking about cultural attitudes because its a sticky wicket and can feed into right wing agendas.


I'm not so sure.  Leave aside the race and culture of the convicted men in this case, and look at violence against women as a wider issue.

Here's some quotes from a couple of well-known books on violence against women:




> Many men in Western society learn to expect that their wishes and concerns come first, that because they are males and heads of households they have certain preogatives and rights that supersede those of women.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


 
Now, that is not to say that all men are rapists, even ones holding sexist views.  It does say (and I agree) that where rape and violence occurs, it flows from social inequalities.  Rape, violence against women, child abuse, are an extreme manifestation of a far wider societal attitude. 

Turning back to cultures associated with Islam, where attitudes towards women can rightly be questioned, does it not follow that there might be a minority who are the extreme manifestation of those attitudes.  Abuse of power flows from unequal power.

That is not to say all Muslims are child abusers, just as the above is not to say that all men are rapists.


----------



## London_Calling (May 9, 2012)

FFS, of course it's predominantly rural Pakistanis and Afghanis.

I suspect people are having trouble grasping the complete absence of women in many of there mens lives, how childlike they are, and how intoxicated they can become by contact with western women, or girls.


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Yeah but we're also talking about young british born pakistani men who may not even share the same cultural attutudes of some of their elders. Do you see what Im getting at. When you start talking about cultural attitudes it opens up a whole can of worms with so many variables. Also in the northern towns where there are pakistanis of mirpur descent the majority arent going out and involved in grooming.


Exactly and many of the British born men and women will have inherited some of the backward as fuck views from their parents who come from that region. This is a pretty obvious conclusion one would think.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Turning back to cultures associated with Islam, where attitudes towards women can rightly be questioned, does it not follow that there might be a minority who are the extreme manifestation of those attitudes. Abuse of power flows from unequal power.


 
Which is why said yes it is up for debate. But discussions around culture as Ive mentioned tend to fall back on norms/stereotypes. There's flip side to that debate though because clearly the majority of those with questionable attitudes to women dont go on to commmitt deplorable crimes like this. 
So at that point it has to be asked is there any need to even get embroiled in a debate about culture-in fact it could be hugely counterproductive in my opinion.  How would such a debate have helped these girls or future victims of exploitation?


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Exactly and many of the British born men and women will have inherited some of the backward as fuck views from their parents who come from that region. This is a pretty obvious conclusion one would think.


 
So there is no one culture or attitude we can attribute to all asian men in northern towns-already you and I have discussed a few cultural variables. Men from mirpur-second generation asians-some who would share/or not those cultural attitudes to women etc


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Just to add theres also a gang mentality about this. Leaders who pull others in and they follow. Thats reflected in the sentences too. In fact there are so many factors to consider why these men committed these crimes-cultural attitudes wouldve only been a part of it.


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> So at that point it has to be asked is there any need to even get embroiled in a debate about culture-in fact it could be hugely counterproductive in my opinion.


 
Surely debating the aspects of any culture that leads to crime, and condemning those aspects (in this case the views of *some* muslims towards white women, indeed women in general) is necessary if those aspects are to change?

We discuss and condemn every other manifestation of bigotry for all sorts of reasons, why not this one?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Which is why said yes it is up for debate. But discussions around culture as Ive mentioned tend to fall back on norms/stereotypes. There's flip side to that debate though because clearly the majority of those with questionable attitudes to women dont go on to commmitt deplorable crimes like this.
> So at that point it has to be asked is there any need to even get embroiled in a debate about culture-in fact it could be hugely counterproductive in my opinion. How would such a debate have helped these girls or future victims of exploitation?


The debate needs to take place within the Muslim community.  The debate needs to be about the role of women.  In order to have helped these girls, it would need to have taken place a long time ago.  In order to help current and future girls and women, it needs to take place now.

We have a choice.  We can leave this to the far right, in which case we can be assured that stereotypes will be employed.  Or we can ask the right questions the right way.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> We discuss and condemn every other manifestation of bigotry for all sorts of reasons, why not this one?


 
Im not suggesting we shouldnt fella...did ya miss that


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> The debate needs to take place within the Muslim community. The debate needs to be about the role of women. In order to have helped these girls, it would need to have taken place a long time ago. In order to help current and future girls and women, it needs to take place now.
> 
> We have a choice. We can leave this to the far right, in which case we can be assured that stereotypes will be employed. Or we can ask the right questions the right way.


 
The 'muslim community'. LOL


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Im not suggesting we shouldnt fella...did ya miss that


 



			
				Grandma Death said:
			
		

> ... _is there any need to even get embroiled in a debate about culture ..._


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> The debate needs to take place within the Muslim community. The debate needs to be about the role of women. In order to have helped these girls, it would need to have taken place a long time ago. In order to help current and future girls and women, it needs to take place now.
> 
> We have a choice. We can leave this to the far right, in which case we can be assured that stereotypes will be employed. Or we can ask the right questions the right way.


 
Good post.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> The debate needs to take place within the Muslim community. The debate needs to be about the role of women. In order to have helped these girls, it would need to have taken place a long time ago. In order to help current and future girls and women, it needs to take place now.
> 
> .


 
And what do you propose we do until the 'Muslim community' has had this debate and arrived at the same conclusons as you?


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> The debate needs to take place within the Muslim community. The debate needs to be about the role of women. In order to have helped these girls, it would need to have taken place a long time ago. In order to help current and future girls and women, it needs to take place now.
> 
> We have a choice. We can leave this to the far right, in which case we can be assured that stereotypes will be employed. Or we can ask the right questions the right way.


 
The danger with your argument here is that the focus is on the islamic community rather than society at large. These girls were in this situation for years-that is a societal failing.


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> And what do you propose we do until the 'Muslim community' has had this debate ....


 
Encourage them to do so?

There are plenty of muslim's who accept and condemn this aspect of their culture.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 9, 2012)

I see this as being primarily a cultural issue with race only really coming into play in terms of the wider societal pressures and so on but its those pressues which could be seen as a hinderance to actually dealing with the perps along with preventing action being taken so that kids are not in such a vulnerable position.

Lets be honest in terms of victims these girls seem to come from the very lowest of socio-economic groups. I admit that they are probably not kids I would encourage my own children to befriend or similar and so I am more than willing to put my hands up and say that I am as guilty as anybody in terms of rejecting (not sure if its the correct term) these children in a way that must add to their collective vulnerability.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


>


 


Grandma Death said:


> I think its up for discussion- but seeing as the majority of pakistani men would never dream of behaving in this manner it would be wrong to suggest this was a cultural norm.


 
Theres a difference between saying there should be NO discussion and saying we shouldnt get embroiled in a debate about culture.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Encourage them to do so?
> 
> There are plenty of muslim's who accept and condemn this aspect of their culture.


 
And how would you encourage 'the Muslim Community' to have this debate?

I agree that there are plenty who do but that's not the point being made. Danny is suggesting that we leave this to the 'Community' to sort out.


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> The danger with your argument here is that the focus is on the islamic community rather than society at large. These girls were in this situation for years-that is a societal failing.


 
But there are two issues here. One concerns the society that allows the girls to fall into that situation, the other concerns a society whose attitudes to women seems to lead to some of their members being overly represented in gang-rape statistics.


----------



## London_Calling (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Theres a difference between saying there should be NO discussion and saying we shouldnt get embroiled in a debate about culture.


The debate should about the nature and extent of economic migrancy from regions of the world entirely incompatible with western culture of the later 20th and 21st century.

This is not a problem suffered by Africans - Muslim or Christian, or East Europeans or, generally speaking, even from elsewhere in Asia. It's a problem imported from regions of the world where females very clearly remain property.

Also, as a general rule, these men aren't even here to settle. They want to minicab long enough to buy a property at home and attract a wife - through her male relatives. They make little investment in this society, save a car and a GPS.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

manny-p said:


> The 'muslim community'. LOL


It was short hand.  But that aside, what was wrong with my post?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Danny is suggesting that we leave this to the 'Community' to sort out.


Where?


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

Smokeandsteam said:


> And how would you encourage 'the Muslim Community' to have this debate?
> 
> I agree that there are plenty who do but that's not the point being made.


 
By discussing it openly and treating it as a problem, by supporting those muslim's like Mohammed Shaffique who present it as an issue, and by not failing to confront the issue for fear of "feeding into the right-wing agenda".



> _Danny is suggesting that we leave this to the 'Community' to sort out._


 
No. He said that they need to debate it.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> The danger with your argument here is that the focus is on the islamic community rather than society at large. These girls were in this situation for years-that is a societal failing.


I refer you back to my post 32, where I explicitly say this is a problem for society at large.


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> It was short hand. But that aside, what was wrong with my post?


No I am saying that the 'muslim community' does not exist. There are shit loads of different communities that are muslim.

Apart from that your post was bang on.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 9, 2012)

I think we should be primarily focusing on the culture which seems to push these girls into being vulnerable in the first place. Because lets face some facts here, if these girls came from strong family backgrounds in terms of having male relatives around then any problems are likely to be nipped in the bud pretty early on.

I dont know very much about Pakistani cultures but as somebody who is white and working class, abliet from what would no doubt be considered the upper echolons of it, I reckon this is about as much as trying to understand why my community did not do more to protect these girls in the first place.


----------



## dylanredefined (May 9, 2012)

There is a racial element ,but,the bigger element is men being bastards to vulnerable girls.


----------



## Reno (May 9, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> I think we should be primarily focusing on the culture which seems to push these girls into being vulnerable in the first place. Because lets face some facts here, if these girls came from strong family backgrounds in terms of having male relatives around then any problems are likely to be nipped in the bud pretty early on.
> 
> I dont know very much about Pakistani cultures but as somebody who is white and working class, abliet from what would no doubt be considered the upper echolons of it, I reckon this is about as much as trying to understand why my community did not do more to protect these girls in the first place.


 
So it's the girls fault ?


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> But there are two issues here. One concerns the society that allows the girls to fall into that situation, the other concerns a society whose attitudes to women seems to lead to some of their members being overly represented in gang-rape statistics.


 

Theres a difference between causation and correlation. The patchy statistics would suggest theres a correlation between asian gangs in northern towns and grooming of young vulnerable girls. We can agree on that. So are societal attitudes to women within some of these cultures the cause of such exploitation-thats the debate? Now Im saying it can be debated-but we shouldnt lend to much credence to it or get too embroiled in it. Because across these cultures there will be varying degrees of attitudes to women-and even those that are questionable-the majority wont be involved in cases like this.

Also there are many other factors to consider when you look at the components of this crime coming together. Issues of power. The girls being in this position in the first place. Failure of the care system (and the police in this case)...the list goes on and on. So yes cultural attitudes may well play a part-its just how much time does one give to such a debate when there are so many other issues to consider and not just two spymaster.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> The debate should about the nature and extent of economic migrancy from regions of the world entirely incompatible with western culture of the later 20th and 21st century.
> 
> This is not a problem suffered by Africans - Muslim or Christian, or East Europeans or, generally speaking, even from elsewhere in Asia. It's a problem imported from regions of the world where females very clearly remain property.
> 
> Also, as a general rule, these men aren't even here to settle. They want to minicab long enough to buy a property at home and attract a wife - through her male relatives. They make little investment in this society, save a car and a GPS.


 
Cock


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Also, as a general rule, these men aren't even here to settle. They want to minicab long enough to buy a property at home and attract a wife - through her male relatives. They make little investment in this society, save a car and a GPS.


 
This is a daft generalisation.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 9, 2012)

Reno said:


> So it's the girls fault ?


 

Not at all. But its obvious that they were coerced and that this abuse was continued over a period of time. This was not a case of these girls being snatched off the streets and raped but a co-ordinated effort to target them and exploit some pretty shitty life experiences. I aint got a clue what its like to be from or live in the community from which the perps came from. But I do come from something of a similar nature to that which those girls come from and I accept that I would have been dismissive of them if my own children had befriended them. Which makes me have to take some of the guilt on to myself because its like we have abandoned a section of our own class for reasons of personal advancement. And just left them to the kind and caring middle classes who run our social services.

Maybe if we championed the sort of strong family unit that is often quoted to us about communities from Pakistan and Asia a bit more then not so many of these girls would end up in this situation. Instead we just dissmiss them as chavs and white trash and try to forget that they come from the same wider community as many of us.


----------



## London_Calling (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Cock


Arse.


----------



## Teaboy (May 9, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17993003.
> 
> Whilst its not surprising to not find a thread on here about these men being found guilty (there really is a collective streak of cowardice running through U75 when it comes to topics like this)


 
What like how you shy away from all the threads about catholic priests raping children and the vatican still to this day covering up for it?  You fucking hypocritical coward.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 9, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> What like how you shy away from all the threads about catholic priests raping children and the vatican still to this day covering up for it? You fucking hypocritical coward.


 
Not at all. I am utterly disgusted by any child abuse and feel that any Priests convicted of such crimes should be jailed for double that of anybody else due to the abuse of trust that has taken place.

But I aint going to play with all the general anti-Christian BS that goes with it.

And lets be honest, if this story had been about Catholic men targetting Muslim girls then you can bet your life that you lot would have been falling over yourselves to start a thread about it.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

The only responsibility that lies within the muslim community is to turn people like this over to the police if and when they find out. 

Whats next-film directors who make violent films are responsible for the actions of a minority? Anders Brevik claims to have trained on Call of Duty-should Activision look deep into their souls too?


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> The only responsibility that lies within the muslim community is to turn people like this over to the police if and when they find out.
> 
> Whats next-film directors who make violent films are responsible for the actions of a minority? Anders Brevik claims to have trained on Call of Duty-should Activision look deep into their souls too?


 
Again you are using muslim community. It's like saying christian community. Don't make sense. This is mostly guys from Mirpur pakistani descent.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Again you are using muslim community. It's like saying christian community. Don't make sense. This is mostly guys from Mirpur pakistani descent.


 
...and the majority of asians from the Mirpur region in northern towns dont go on to carry out acts of horrific abuse like this.


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> ...and the majority of asians from the Mirpur region in northern towns dont go on to carry out acts of horrific abuse like this.


whats that got to do with your use of 'muslim community'? It's silly.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

manny-p said:


> No I am saying that the 'muslim community' does not exist. There are shit loads of different communities that are muslim.
> 
> Apart from that your post was bang on.


Of course.  But apart from forgetting the plural in my haste to make my point, you agree?


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> ...and the majority of asians from the Mirpur region in northern towns dont go on to carry out acts of horrific abuse like this.


I didn't say that you cunt.


----------



## biggus dickus (May 9, 2012)

Yorkshiremen  of all creeds and colours are dodgy rapists


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

dylanredefined said:


> There is a racial element


No there isn't.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

manny-p said:


> I didn't say that you cunt.


 

I didnt say you did....you cunt. Two can play that game. Great isnt it.


----------



## Lea (May 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> No there isn't.


 Then why it that white girls are groomed for abuse by these men and not girls of Pakistani descent?


----------



## Roadkill (May 9, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> Yorkshiremen of all creeds and colours are dodgy rapists


 
Rochdale is in Lancashire.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Lea said:


> Then why it that white girls are groomed for abuse by these men and not girls of Pakistani descent?


 
They are targeting first and foremost vulnerable women.


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I didnt say you did....you cunt. Two can play that game. Great isnt it.


You are being disingenious.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

manny-p said:


> You are being disingenious.


 
What by calling you a cunt?

Seriously-I think the Mirpur 'factor' is the same argument as the cultural 'factor'. I was merely pointing out that the majority of those that descend from the Mirpur region actually dont get involved in sexual exploitation of young vulnerable girls.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

Lea said:


> Then why it that white girls are groomed for abuse by these men and not girls of Pakistani descent?


How do you know that latter point?


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> What by calling you a cunt?
> 
> Seriously-I think the Mirpur 'factor' is the same argument as the cultural 'factor'. I was merely pointing out that the majority of those that descend from the Mirpur region actually dont get involved in sexual exploitation of young vulnerable girls.


 
Apologise for the cunt comment I lost my temper. You were saying that I was implying that they are involved. I know that this is a tiny minority of people from that origin committing these crimes and don't want to tar them all with the same brush.


----------



## Lea (May 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> How do you know that latter point?


 Apologies, the Judge did not say that they were not of Pakistani descent only that they were from different communities and religion. I should not have assumed.


----------



## IC3D (May 9, 2012)

Great result, the reason it happened is primarily they are cunts and secondly as white people have fled the area the ones left are seen as fair game because they lack a supportive community


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

Lea said:


> Apologies, the Judge did not say that they were not of Pakistani descent only that they were from different communities and religion. I should not have assumed.


What we know is that these men abused young girls and treated them "as though they were worthless and beyond respect".  It is to that that I addressed my earlier posts.


----------



## _angel_ (May 9, 2012)

Reno said:


> So it's the girls fault ?


It's the fault of single mothers, again, that is what he is implying. If only there were some men about then these girls couldn't have been raped. I dunno the logic in that either and don't like the inference it somehow part of the victim's families faults. It's diminishing the responsibility of the men doing the abuse.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 9, 2012)

editor said:


> Pretty sure you'll find no shortage of other news events that haven't been commented on here, and I'm pretty sure it's got naff all to do with folks suffering a 'collective streak of cowardice' (whatever that is).
> 
> As for this story: good work by the cops and great to see these scumbags getting their just desserts.


 
CPS apparently turned this case down back in 2008 as they said one of the girls involved wasnt a "credible witness".


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> It's the fault of single mothers, again, that is what he is implying. If only there were some men about then these girls couldn't have been raped. I dunno the logic in that either and don't like the inference it somehow part of the victim's families faults. It's diminishing the responsibility of the men doing the abuse.



Great post.  I will say however these girls were not only vulnerable but in addition there would've been some self esteem issues too.  Low self esteem can come from many different sources and I've no doubt for some it would because of the lack of strong family and community support and coming through the care system.  That's not to say girls that come from these backgrounds all have self esteem issues but some will.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Great result, the reason it happened is primarily they are cunts and secondly as white people have fled the area the ones left are seen as fair game because they lack a supportive community



I lived and worked in northern towns for nearly eight years.  I'm not convinced by your use of the word 'fled' or the term 'those that are left are seen as fair game'.  Their vulnerability made them the target rather than them being 'left behind' whilst the indigenous population 'fled'
'


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> So are societal attitudes to women within some of these cultures the cause of such exploitation-thats the debate? Now Im saying it can be debated-but we shouldnt lend to much credence to it or get too embroiled in it. Because across these cultures there will be varying degrees of attitudes to women-and even those that are questionable-the majority wont be involved in cases like this.


 
Whether or not the majority are involved in cases like this is neither here nor there, Granny. Most people aren't involved in any crime at all. What's at issue is your first point vis-a-vis the culture causing this type of exploitation. And we should very much give it credence because gang-rape isn't the only manifestation of the bigotry against women prevalent in many muslim societies, it's a huge issue, this is just towards the particularly nasty end of the spectrum.



> Also there are many other factors to consider when you look at the components of this crime coming together. Issues of power. The girls being in this position in the first place. Failure of the care system (and the police in this case)...the list goes on and on. So yes cultural attitudes may well play a part-its just how much time does one give to such a debate when there are so many other issues to consider and not just two spymaster.


 
Accepted. And by all means feel free to expand the discussion into these areas, but this is going to be the substantive issue for a general public who are currently questioning various islamic practices for a variety of reasons, some more valid than others. An interview with one of the victims of this case (anonymously done) revealed a couple of shocking things: a) this had been going on for many years, and b) it's actually quite common, indeed a lot of the girls abused don't realise they're being abused so don't report it. So there's still plenty of this happening despite the jailing of this set of cunts.

It's not a small issue. Kids are being raped. Now if the majority of rapes of this type are being perpetrated by Pakistani muslim men because elements of their culture have led them to view white teenagers as "worthless" then I say shout it from the fucking rooftops because it has to change.

Take the issue away from the far right. Because whilst it's _only_ them causing a fuss about it, it *is* playing to their agenda.


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> The debate needs to take place within the Muslim community. The debate needs to be about the role of women. In order to have helped these girls, it would need to have taken place a long time ago. In order to help current and future girls and women, it needs to take place now.
> 
> We have a choice. We can leave this to the far right, in which case we can be assured that stereotypes will be employed. Or we can ask the right questions the right way.


 
In  Holland the Dutch Socialist Party have indeed asked these sorts of questions and are growing in popularity, upto 20% in the latest polls, I haven't looked at Socialist Unity say yet but i can guess their perspective...


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2012)

Interesting, hope not hates split with the uaf/swp was in large part over how to deal with the keighly grooming (the latter arguing it wasa racist conspiracy against Muslims). This is Nick lowles on the latest.
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/...-the-silence-on-grooming#.T6qIUy9Zzvs.twitter


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> CPS apparently turned this case down back in 2008 as they said one of the girls involved wasnt a "credible witness".


 
There is a subtext much of the media is reporting is that the CPS were concerned about 'offending sensibilities' this was perhaps at the height of N/L state multi-culturalism where anything could be and often was, construed as racist, etc...


----------



## happie chappie (May 9, 2012)

So what if they were vulnerable girls. Does that mean they can be raped, trafficked and threatened with violence?

What next – “she’s a prostitute so it doesn’t matter if she’s raped”. “She was wearing a short skirt so she was asking it”.

I don’t care how vulnerable someone is, what their background is - they have an absolute right not be abused in this or any other way. Full stop.

They way some people are talking (especially in some parts of the media) is coming very close to blaming the victims.

Anyone who seeks to excuse, mitigate, or even contextualise, this type of behaviour should hang their heads in shame.

As for the sentences - laughable.


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is Nick lowles on the latest.
> http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/...-the-silence-on-grooming#.T6qIUy9Zzvs.twitter


 
Excellent article.


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2012)

btw, is a fund being set up for these unfortunate souls?, the girls, I'd like to make a small donation...


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> So what if they were vulnerable girls. Does that mean they can be raped, trafficked and threatened with violence?


 
Eh?  

Think you may have missed some context somewhere.


----------



## _angel_ (May 9, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> So what if they were vulnerable girls. Does that mean they can be raped, trafficked and threatened with violence?
> 
> What next – “she’s a prostitute so it doesn’t matter if she’s raped”. “She was wearing a short skirt so she was asking it”.
> 
> ...


Wasn't there some hoo hah that some 'community leader' had basically blamed the girls families for not keeping an eye on them enough. Like Stoat Boy did in fact.


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2012)

Guardian not allowing any comments on the issue on CIF?


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Wasn't there some hoo hah that some 'community leader' had basically blamed the girls families for not keeping an eye on them enough. Like Stoat Boy did in fact.


 
I'm not sure he said that, in fact perhaps remarkably he said he feels some culpability for what happened , more than most people would do...


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 9, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Wasn't there some hoo hah that some 'community leader' had basically blamed the girls families for not keeping an eye on them enough. Like Stoat Boy did in fact.


 
To be honest I think that the adult who was deemed to have been any of the 'responsible adult' for any of the girls involved should have questions asked of them because as far as I am concerned its obvious that these girls had nobody really looking out for them. Maybe its an unfashionable view on here but adults do have a duty of care towards kids in their charge and that includes making sure that they aint in a position for bastards like this to exploit them.


----------



## _angel_ (May 9, 2012)

Yes.. but it wasn't them that did the raping and grooming.
I'd like to think I'd know where my teenage children were at all times, but can't help wondering if the reality is really going to work like that.


----------



## Stoat Boy (May 9, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Yes.. but it wasn't them that did the raping and grooming.
> 
> I'd like to think I'd know where my teenage children were at all times, but can't help wondering if the reality is really going to work like that.


 
I bet you know where they are after 10pm at night.


----------



## _angel_ (May 9, 2012)

Blaming the parents of the kids being abused is looking the wrong way imo. What about the guys that did the grooming, what about looking into their upbringing that made them think this was ok?


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:
			
		

> To be honest I think that the adult who was deemed to have been any of the 'responsible adult' for any of the girls involved should have questions asked of them because as far as I am concerned its obvious that these girls had nobody really looking out for them. Maybe its an unfashionable view on here but adults do have a duty of care towards kids in their charge and that includes making sure that they aint in a position for bastards like this to exploit them.



More 'unfashionable views'. I can see why no one would hold such abhorrent views other than you.


----------



## el-ahrairah (May 9, 2012)

so it's clearly a very complex issue with lots of differents perspectives all playing off against each other.  not easy to resolve.


----------



## happie chappie (May 9, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Wasn't there some hoo hah that some 'community leader' had basically blamed the girls families for not keeping an eye on them enough. Like Stoat Boy did in fact.


 
Yes. In fact the solicitor for the leader of the gang, who received 19 years, said his client believed "society failed the girls in this case before the girls even met [him] and now that failure is being blamed on a weak minority group".

Avoiding responsibility by blaming someone else, and playing the race card, in one go. Nice.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 9, 2012)

I think it's part of the misogyny inherent in some men in Muslim communities. Sure, it may be white girls being groomed and raped, but their own daughters fare little better when they can be murdered for something as trivial as having a boyfriend in an honour killing. It's sexism rather than racism, imo.


----------



## manny-p (May 9, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> Yes. In fact the solicitor for the leader of the gang, who received 19 years, said his client believed "society failed the girls in this case before the girls even met [him] and now that failure is being blamed on a weak minority group".
> 
> Avoiding responsibility by blaming someone else, and playing the race card, in one go. Nice.


 
What a fucking cunt of a solicitor. Needs a slap.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting, hope not hates split with the uaf/swp was in large part over how to deal with the keighly grooming (the latter arguing it wasa racist conspiracy against Muslims). This is Nick lowles on the latest.
> http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/...-the-silence-on-grooming#.T6qIUy9Zzvs.twitter


It's a good article, although I think he's got some of his terms a bit muddled.  But on the whole, he's correct.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 9, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Wasn't there some hoo hah that some 'community leader' had basically blamed the girls families for not keeping an eye on them enough. Like Stoat Boy did in fact.


 
I don't know about that, but there were two rochdale councillors who gave character references for the accused during the trial.


----------



## claphamboy (May 9, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> Yes. In fact the solicitor for the leader of the gang, who received 19 years, said his client believed "society failed the girls in this case before the girls even met [him] and now that failure is being blamed on a weak minority group".


 
If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable.

Who was the weakest minority here, the poor young girls from the care sector, or the grown men that knew exactly what they were doing?


----------



## happie chappie (May 9, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> I don't know about that, but there were two rochdale councillors who gave character references for the accused during the trial.


 
According to some (unverified) reports one of the convicted was or had been a Labour Councillor or had close links to the party.


----------



## BlackArab (May 9, 2012)

Well thank fuck these animals have been caught and locked up, shame a capital sentence isn't possible. This sort of thing has been going on for too long and it's shocking that one of the victims wasn't taken seriously when she first reported it. But then again nor was Ann Cryer.


----------



## trashpony (May 9, 2012)

How come one of the convicted men didn't have to attend sentencing because he said the judge was racist? I didn't think it was voluntary


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

trashpony said:


> How come one of the convicted men didn't have to attend sentencing because he said the judge was racist? I didn't think it was voluntary


 
???


----------



## trashpony (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> ???


That's what they said on PM


----------



## bignose1 (May 9, 2012)

Cathlic priests, Jason Swift paedo ring, Kincora lest we forget.......see hopenothate blog...got it right for me


----------



## yardbird (May 9, 2012)

manny-p said:


> What a fucking cunt of a solicitor. Needs a slap.


I wonder if it's the same one complaining following the Nick Griffin tweet telling the verdict before it was announced?
He said that his client _should have a fair crack of the whip!_
Well I'm up for that.


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

yardbird said:


> He said that his client _should have a fair crack of the whip!_
> Well I'm up for that.


 
 Too right, Yardie!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 9, 2012)

Would it be fair to characterise the situation like this? : Paeodophilia is a crime committed within all races and cultures, but the particular form that the crime takes often differs along cultural/societal lines. Institutional paedophilia (for example in the catholic church), or sex tourism (Garry Glitter types going to Thailand, etc) is primarily a white phenomena, whereas street-grooming gangs are primarily Asian.

Furthermore, the make-up of the victims is shaped by the cultural and social situations that are existent at the time and place. So given that the pool of vulnerable women available to this grooming gang was mostly white, white girls were disproportionately victimised as a result. Similarly, if we take paedo-tourism, the crime can be seen as being relatively powerful white men taking advantage of vulnerable Asian women in their home country.

I certainly believe that an understanding of the social and cultural dynamics is neccessary to tackle the problem, but a narrative needs to be formed in the mainstream that is balanced, non-divisive, and productive. If this narrative is not formed, then the far-right will take advantage of this issue to push their agenda.

Also, I would like to say that explanation is not the same as justification. Explanation is a good thing as it can help resolve an ongoing situation; justification amounts to moral cowardice. Sticking our heads in the sand is also not an option.


----------



## Giles (May 9, 2012)

jiggajagga said:


> I have just seen a frightening newscast on the beeb that said the lawyers of the 9 men may be calling for a retrial as Nick Griffin of the BNP knew the result of the case before the judge did? ( Inside job?) Something to do with a tweet apparently?


 
Surely there would have to be some actual evidence that Nick Griffin actually knew anything at all for this inane comment to make a difference?

Otherwise anyone could ruin any trial at any time, by simply "tweeting" some completely ignorant comment that they "knew the person would be found guilty". Or not guilty. Or anything?

Giles..


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 9, 2012)

treelover said:


> Guardian not allowing any comments on the issue on CIF?


 
Is there a CIF article? The Guardian doesn't let comments on news articles


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (May 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting, hope not hates split with the uaf/swp was in large part over how to deal with the keighly grooming (the latter arguing it wasa racist conspiracy against Muslims). This is Nick lowles on the latest.
> http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/...-the-silence-on-grooming#.T6qIUy9Zzvs.twitter


 
Good article.

Also, butchers, mind if I DM you about something you might well be able to help me with (or at least point me in the right direction?)


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Would it be fair to characterise the situation like this? : Paeodophilia is a crime committed within all races and cultures, but the particular form that the crime takes often differs along cultural/societal lines. Institutional paedophilia (for example in the catholic church), or sex tourism (Garry Glitter typed going to Thailand, etc) is primarily a white phenomena, whereas street-grooming gangs are primarily Asian.
> 
> Furthermore, the make-up of the victims is shaped by the cultural and social situations that are existent at the time and place. So given that the pool of vulnerable women available to this grooming gang was mostly white, white girls were disproportionately victimised as a result. Similarly, if we take paedo-tourism, the crime can be seen as being relatively powerful white men taking advantage of vulnerable Asian women in their home country.
> 
> ...


 
Good, nicely balanced, post. Especially that (bolded) bit.


----------



## The39thStep (May 9, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Would it be fair to characterise the situation like this? : Paeodophilia is a crime committed within all races and cultures, but the particular form that the crime takes often differs along cultural/societal lines. Institutional paedophilia (for example in the catholic church), or sex tourism (Garry Glitter typed going to Thailand, etc) is primarily a white phenomena, whereas street-grooming gangs are primarily Asian.
> 
> Furthermore, the make-up of the victims is shaped by the cultural and social situations that are existent at the time and place. So given that the pool of vulnerable women available to this grooming gang was mostly white, white girls were disproportionately victimised as a result. Similarly, if we take paedo-tourism, the crime can be seen as being relatively powerful white men taking advantage of vulnerable Asian women in their home country.
> 
> ...


 
That should go down well in Heywood


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2012)

TheHoodedClaw said:
			
		

> Good article.
> 
> Also, butchers, mind if I DM you about something you might well be able to help me with (or at least point me in the right direction?)



No worries at all, but I'm away with only a crap phone till Saturday...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 9, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> That should go down well in Heywood


 
What do you suggest then?


----------



## The39thStep (May 9, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What do you suggest then?


You are the one characterising not me mate


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 9, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> You are the one characterising not me mate


 
I've no idea what that means. What do you suggest should be the approach to debating an issue that is tied up to all sorts of cultural and social dynamics in very subtle and sensitive ways? How do you propose that this issue should be addressed in Heywood? How should the debate be framed?


----------



## claphamboy (May 9, 2012)

Giles said:


> Surely there would have to be some actual evidence that Nick Griffin actually knew anything at all ...


 
TBF, you didn't have to type further than that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

Stoat Boy in "I'm an utter wanker" non-shocker.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think anyone's suggesting that it's a cultural norm, but when over 80% (83% - I just read your link) of a specific crime is perpetrated by a specific group you have to ask why. Idaho suggested poverty as a cause but none of these guys were particularly poor (shop owners, taxi bosses) though the girls they preyed on were.


 
I reckon it boils down to a similar set of reasons as for stuff like Kincora and other care institution/care leaver scandals - a mixture of opportunity and the fact that the perpetrators could be fairly sure the authorities would have a hard job getting a handle on it because of the various "sensitivities" around who the defendants were/are.


----------



## shygirl (May 9, 2012)

I haven't read through all the pages, so apols if someone else has made the point. Who is it who grooms and recruits vulnerable young women into the porn/sex industry, because there's plenty in it? Who is it who prints images of women in school uniforms on the front covers of our trashier newspapers. Who is it that sells thongs and other inappropriate clothing for little girls. Who organises beauty pageants for little girls, in which they are dressed up like mini women and sexualised beyond belief? I haven't expressed myself terrribly well, but what I'm trying to say, like other posters have, its endemic, societal and not confined to any one particular ethnic group. A lot of it is more subtle, more pervasive and hugely detrimental to how girls and young women see themselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

manny-p said:


> I would like to see the statistics broken down. But I believe they will show it iS pakistani asians whose origins are from the Mirpur region of Pakistan that are responsible for the majority of these grooming gang cases in the UK.


 
Isn't it fair to say, though, that the *majority* of British Pakistanis have their origins in the Mirpur region, so that the majority of groomers deriving their heritage from there would be a foregone conclusion?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

Stoat Boy said:


> I think we should be primarily focusing on the culture which seems to push these girls into being vulnerable in the first place. Because lets face some facts here, if these girls came from strong family backgrounds in terms of having male relatives around then any problems are likely to be nipped in the bud pretty early on.


 
You really are a self-righteous sack of shit. You assume that if only these victims had come from a "strong family background", they'd have likely been okay? Their "strong family background" could have been why they ended up in care in the first place, you cock. 



> I dont know very much about Pakistani cultures but as somebody who is white and working class, abliet from what would no doubt be considered the upper echolons of it, I reckon this is about as much as trying to understand why my community did not do more to protect these girls in the first place.


 
Because social care is so massively underfunded, even for childrens' services, which get the "cream" of social care funding alongside the elderly, that protecting them is almost impossible, especially if protecting them means preventing them from doing stuff.

Why is it underfunded? Because people care more about paying less Council Tax, than about a relative handful of teenage girls having physical and mental scars for the rest of their lives, or at least aren't aware that their Council Tax staying at the same level for 3 years running translates to reduced local services even outwith "austerity" cuts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

manny-p said:


> You are being disingenious.


 
He's not even being disingen*u*ous.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 9, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> (Garry Glitter typed going to Thailand, etc)


 
This is interesting. I don't recall anyone saying that Gary Glitter's abuse of young brown girls was racially motivated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> CPS apparently turned this case down back in 2008 as they said one of the girls involved wasnt a "credible witness".


 
The strange calculus the CPS use to decide whether witnesses are credible means that at the least hundreds of abuse cases, on children, the elderly and people with learning disabilities aren't prosecuted because the case isn't an "easy win".


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> The strange calculus the CPS use to decide whether witnesses are credible means that at the least hundreds of abuse cases, on children, the elderly and people with learning disabilities aren't prosecuted because the case isn't an "easy win".



This is an astonishing thing. Its quiet but its happening.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 9, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The strange calculus the CPS use to decide whether witnesses are credible means that at the least hundreds of abuse cases, on children, the elderly and people with learning disabilities aren't prosecuted because the case isn't an "easy win".


I "liked" this post, but I don't like it.  It's true, though.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Cathlic priests, Jason Swift paedo ring, Kincora lest we forget.......see hopenothate blog...got it right for me


 
Yep, made me think of Kincora, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

`


ItWillNeverWork said:


> Would it be fair to characterise the situation like this? : Paeodophilia is a crime committed within all races and cultures, but the particular form that the crime takes often differs along cultural/societal lines. Institutional paedophilia (for example in the catholic church), or sex tourism (Garry Glitter typed going to Thailand, etc) is primarily a white phenomena, whereas street-grooming gangs are primarily Asian.
> 
> Furthermore, the make-up of the victims is shaped by the cultural and social situations that are existent at the time and place. So given that the pool of vulnerable women available to this grooming gang was mostly white, white girls were disproportionately victimised as a result. Similarly, if we take paedo-tourism, the crime can be seen as being relatively powerful white men taking advantage of vulnerable Asian women in their home country.


 
As far as it goes, you have a point. *However*, one could look at "modern" British history and point out that 150 years ago, the grooming of underage females for sex was a pursuit of the British middle- and upper-classes, and that sex with underage girls was legally permissible, so we shouldn't make any hard and fast "rules" about such things based on what is a changing and fluid social and cultural background. I'd also say that we may not have the whole story w/r/t these perverts. We don't know, and probably never will, if these men committed such crimes against members of their own communities.



> I certainly believe that an understanding of the social and cultural dynamics is neccessary to tackle the problem, but a narrative needs to be formed in the mainstream that is balanced, non-divisive, and productive. If this narrative is not formed, then the far-right will take advantage of this issue to push their agenda.


 
They'll attempt to do that whether there's a cohesive narrative or not, but I take your point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> This is interesting. I don't recall anyone saying that Gary Glitter's abuse of young brown girls was racially motivated.


 
Nope, in fact while he was still able to attract and groom teenage girls over here, he didn't bother going abroad. Being able to go to Thailand just made his predatory behaviour that much more "invisible" to people in the UK.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I "liked" this post, but I don't like it. It's true, though.


 
Don't worry, I got why you "liked" it. 
Yep, it's true and it's something very few people in the media (honourable exceptions being _Private Eye_ and a couple of "campaigning" journos on the broadsheets). I knew kids in care in the 70s who had the same with the DPP. I remember Edie mentioning kids she knew reporting stuff, and the CPS dropping action because the kids were in care and/or substance abusers and/or had criminal records. I can also remember a scandal at a south London school for children with what was back then referred to as "mental handicaps" where members of staff were reported over and over down the years, and nothing was done. That's frankly the tip of a massive iceberg, especially as we've a bit more insight nowadays into how institutional dynamics can actually attact predatory abusers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is an astonishing thing. Its quiet but its happening.


 
A CPS drone once asked me "isn't it better that we prosecute a rape case where we've got the possibility of locking some scumbag away, rather than risk the judge throwing the case out because the victim can't follow the to and fro of cross-examination?". 
This was after they'd supposedly changed a lot of the predicates in the late '90s to make it easier for "vulnerable" people to testify.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 9, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Whether or not the majority are involved in cases like this is neither here nor there, Granny. Most people aren't involved in any crime at all. What's at issue is your first point vis-a-vis the culture causing this type of exploitation. And we should very much give it credence because gang-rape isn't the only manifestation of the bigotry against women prevalent in many muslim societies, it's a huge issue, this is just towards the particularly nasty end of the spectrum.


 
Size of the problem is a very relevant point in the debate about attitudes to women in some asian cultures. The theory is, in this debate, that there is a cultural element to that. I dont dispute that there is a debate to be had about cultural attitudes but is that a separate issue to criminality? What I'm saying if this is cultural then why arent the majority of asians involved in these activities? The danger is the lines between criminality start to become blurred with cultural issues. I dont doubt there are asians that view women along the lines of the 'virgin and whore' and there'll be some who think women are subservient-but for some reason these men took that one step further. So it may (or may not be) one end of a spectrum or it may (or not be) sheer criminality.




> Accepted. And by all means feel free to expand the discussion into these areas, but this is going to be the substantive issue for a general public who are currently questioning various islamic practices for a variety of reasons, some more valid than others. An interview with one of the victims of this case (anonymously done) revealed a couple of shocking things: a) this had been going on for many years, and b) it's actually quite common, indeed a lot of the girls abused don't realise they're being abused so don't report it. So there's still plenty of this happening despite the jailing of this set of cunts.
> 
> It's not a small issue. Kids are being raped. Now if the majority of rapes of this type are being perpetrated by Pakistani muslim men because elements of their culture have led them to view white teenagers as "worthless" then I say shout it from the fucking rooftops because it has to change.
> 
> Take the issue away from the far right. Because whilst it's _only_ them causing a fuss about it, it *is* playing to their agenda.


 
The way you take this away from the right is by flagging up the wider issues-you dont play into or feed into their agenda. To conclude. There is a debate about societal attitudes in some cultural attitudes within Islam to women. But it needs to be sensible and reasoned and not hysterical. As we are debating now within this very thread.

I also think you'll find the views of serial sexual abusers is one of their victims being worthless per se and its not unique to Pakistani offenders like this.


----------



## Riklet (May 10, 2012)

How is this about Islam other than how the actions of religious adherents are framed and categorised within a cultural setting...? There is definitely an importance of asking questions about power relations and exploitation of women in xyz religion, but in this case, whilst it's awkward and definitely not what keith vaz etc want to hear, the abuse of these girls was coming from a specific social grouping and some/various cultural attitudes within it.  

It's definitely not unique to Pakistani origin communities etc, far from it, but when like reported in this article about the campaigner on this issue, Mohammed Shafiq that "This gang was the talk of the town among the taxi drivers. People were appalled because it’s nothing to do with faith, nothing to do with Islam" you've got some serious conversations which aren't being had because people don't want to air dirty laundry in public etc.  It seems a bit naive to pretend that this hasn't happened at times within the Pakistani origin UK community, especially when people are worried about racial tensions and the BNP/far right stirring stuff up.  That's much less to do with Islam and much more to do with specific cultural contexts though.  Hrmm it's late I don't feel i'm explaining myself very well tbh.


----------



## biggus dickus (May 10, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Would it be fair to characterise the situation like this? : Paeodophilia is a crime committed within all races and cultures, but the particular form that the crime takes often differs along cultural/societal lines. Institutional paedophilia (for example in the catholic church), or sex tourism (Garry Glitter typed going to Thailand, etc) is primarily a white phenomena, whereas street-grooming gangs are primarily Asian.


 
That is a load of rubbish. Has it not occured to you that you only know about white people committing these crimes because of what you see on the news. Even within the Catholic church paedophilia is also practiced by Africans, similarly the sex tourists in south Asia are not all white


----------



## bignose1 (May 10, 2012)

BBC news now referring to these men as the Rochdale 9.....made me shiver...those that know me and Ayatollah will understand....


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> BBC news now referring to these men as the Rochdale 9.....made me shiver...those that know me and Ayatollah will understand....


And everyone else will think you're being somewhat mysterious


----------



## The39thStep (May 10, 2012)

What ever the message is about 'cultural factors' and 'narrative'   its got to be put across in an area, Heywood where there were several hundred on the streets earlier in the year in late February, shops damaged , police pelted with missiles and arrests made, where when people are calling cabs they were asking for white drivers, where trade in the kebab shops and some of the taxi firms where the defendants and a wider suspected group worked went down by 80% due to boycotts and parents were pulling their kids out of schools.

There have been a whole number of far right flash demos and protests in the borough and outside the courts in Liverpool. The BNP  were quite shrewd and framed the issue on the failure of the Council to safeguard young white girls . Any  failure of the CPS/Police etc will in future not be used by the left as an example of incompetence but by the right as proof that there has been a cover up.

The new Council and Police responsibilities under child sexual exploitation and violence against women and girls will uncover more.There will be more cases to come, one in Stockport has already been announced.


----------



## The39thStep (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> And everyone else will think you're being somewhat mysterious


 
I think BigNose makes a reference to the Rochdale 9 in No Retreat


----------



## William of Walworth (May 10, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> *CPS apparently turned this case down back in 2008 as they said one of the girls involved wasnt a "credible witness". *


 


ViolentPanda said:


> The strange calculus the CPS use to decide whether witnesses are credible means that at the least hundreds of abuse cases, on children, the elderly and people with learning disabilities aren't prosecuted because the case isn't an "easy win".


 
Bolded bit from Barking_Mad is the right version a far as I read it too, and I agree with VP.

The CPS got it very badly wrong, and I should think questions need to be asked of the Police too, but there was at least a hint earlier -- from treelover I think --that 'cultural sensitivities' or some such 'PC gone mad' blah was principally what lay behind the CPS's failure. Which is a bit of an agenda laden twist in it IMO.


----------



## bignose1 (May 10, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> I think BigNose makes a reference to the Rochdale 9 in No Retreat


Sorry for that...When we were arrested Dec 80(fuck me thats way back) a support committee was set up...'The Rochdale 9 Defence Campaign...a few months later it was reduced to 8 as one of the number thought he could go it alone.(Didnt work ..he got the same) Coincidentally one of the defence barristers in the trial at Liverpool was a solicitor for us.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 10, 2012)

Just wanted to say as well that I liked the general thrust of that hopenothate blog that butchers linked to earlier, also, the post top of previous page from ItWillNeverWork was good ... fair few other posts from Grandma Death, Spymaster and others that I could have 'liked' as well ... will continue to follow this thread.

Far better level of discussion on this thred than I was getting at work yesterday on this subject anyway! 

If ever there's a big story that you half-despair in advance of going into work just after hearing, it's one like this. Not that that's the most important nor even particularly important at all, just personal to me, but you get my point.


----------



## The39thStep (May 10, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Sorry for that...When we were arrested Dec 80(fuck me thats way back) a support committee was set up...'The Rochdale 9 Defence Campaign...a few months later it was reduced to 8 as one of the number thought he could go it alone.(Didnt work ..he got the same) Coincidentally one of the defence barristers in the trial at Liverpool was a solicitor for us.


 
Do you remember that odd time, when you were playing and I was managing The Junction,  and we had an away game somewhere and you went for a scout round the shops and found that book with a reference to the trial in it?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I also think you'll find the views of serial sexual abusers is one of their victims being worthless per se and its not unique to Pakistani offenders like this.


I think that's right, which is why in my earlier post I took the emphasis away from these particular offenders to look at violence towards women in general.  It's about attitudes towards women, and, ultimately, power.  However, we do have to superimpose the particular cultural aspects of this case back onto the picture if we want to see what's actually happening here and whether it might happen again.  It is that question that many people seem to flinch away from.  I think largely because of the way the discourse on race has been conducted in our society in the last decade and more; there is a conflation between race and culture.  To be absolutely clear: there is no racial explanation for the way these men acted, but there might be a cultural one.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 10, 2012)

treelover said:


> Guardian not allowing any comments on the issue on CIF?


 
What are you on about? Do you mean this article? There's twenty plus pages of comment following, and I don't think they're closed at all ...


----------



## bignose1 (May 10, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Do you remember that odd time, when you were playing and I was managing The Junction, and we had an away game somewhere and you went for a scout round the shops and found that book with a reference to the trial in it?


I do 39 and it was called 'All our Tommorows'..by Ted Allbeury...every time as a bit of a gimmick when I was out shopping I'd go into any nearby 2nd hand bookshop, which I do frequently and if I came across a copy of it I buy it...Ive got 12 now....kinda silly I know. The other thing is although there are several 2nd hand copies of NR on Amazon Ive never spotted one in a 2nd hand bookshop/charity shop/car boot et al. Was told that when that happens youve made it...well thats bollox Im sure....remind me 39 were we simultaneously The Junction and Red Lion Vets...??


----------



## manny-p (May 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't it fair to say, though, that the *majority* of British Pakistanis have their origins in the Mirpur region, so that the majority of groomers deriving their heritage from there would be a foregone conclusion?


No it is not as simple as that. British Pakistani's come from different parts of Pakistan, so rather than just say of Pakistani origin. I wanted to be more specific than that. Mirpur is one of the most backward parts of Pakistan, so it is worth mentioning.

Most of the Mirpur folk settled in the Midlands and North of England. Whilst the Pakistanis in London come from all sorts of areas of Pakistan. This makes me think it is more a Mirpuri issue as there are less 'Pakistani gang grooming cases' in London and the South-correct me if I am wrong young chap.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

<looks about>  Have I arrived at the wrong reunion?


----------



## treelover (May 10, 2012)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Would it be fair to characterise the situation like this? : Paeodophilia is a crime committed within all races and cultures, but the particular form that the crime takes often differs along cultural/societal lines. Institutional paedophilia (for example in the catholic church), or sex tourism (Garry Glitter types going to Thailand, etc) is primarily a white phenomena, whereas street-grooming gangs are primarily Asian.
> 
> Furthermore, the make-up of the victims is shaped by the cultural and social situations that are existent at the time and place. So given that the pool of vulnerable women available to this grooming gang was mostly white, white girls were disproportionately victimised as a result. Similarly, if we take paedo-tourism, the crime can be seen as being relatively powerful white men taking advantage of vulnerable Asian women in their home country.
> 
> ...


 

while this is a good analysis, one could ask if there have been cases of asian male gangs grooming young asian women, I know there are many caveats, such young women are more protected by the wider family/community, etc, but it still could happen, so has it been?..


----------



## rover07 (May 10, 2012)

treelover said:


> while this is a good analysis, one could ask if there have been cases of asian male gangs grooming young asian women, I know there are many caveats, such young women are more protected by the wider family/community, etc, but it still could happen, so has it been?..



So you think men who run prostitution rings should stick to their own ethnic groups.


----------



## bignose1 (May 10, 2012)

Looking through some stuff at home last night it ocurred to me its 10 years this month I started to write up my bit of No Retreat. For all its knockers (oo er) and as Ive already said my initial reservations and post publication doubts Im still glad it came out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2012)

manny-p said:


> No it is not as simple as that. British Pakistani's come from different parts of Pakistan, so rather than just say of Pakistani origin. I wanted to be more specific than that. Mirpur is one of the most backward parts of Pakistan, so it is worth mentioning.
> 
> Most of the Mirpur folk settled in the Midlands and North of England. Whilst the Pakistanis in London come from all sorts of areas of Pakistan.


 
I wouldn't say "all sorts of areas". We've got Punjabis, Mirpuris and Sindhi, mostly.



> This makes me think it is more a Mirpuri issue as there are less 'Pakistani gang grooming cases' in London and the South-correct me if I am wrong..


 
The only sensible reply to that is "I hope you're right, but as yet we don't know". 



> ...young chap.


 
Been a long time since I was called that (by anyone except Sasaferato, anyway).


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2012)

treelover said:


> while this is a good analysis, one could ask if there have been cases of asian male gangs grooming young asian women, I know there are many caveats, such young women are more protected by the wider family/community, etc, but it still could happen, so has it been?..


 

As I said earlier in the thread, there may well be such cases, but the dynamics of some communities (Pakistani or otherwise, Muslim or otherwise) means that it's very difficult to find out if abuse takes place within them.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> As I said earlier in the thread, there may well be such cases, but the dynamics of some communities (Pakistani or otherwise, Muslim or otherwise) means that it's very difficult to find out if abuse takes place within them.


 
There's also a level of contempt for the lifestyle of western women among some Asians which is also likely to be a factor in them primarily targeting white girls.




			
				Mohammed Shaffique said:
			
		

> “They think that white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused without a second thought”.​


 
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/...-the-silence-on-grooming#.T6qIUy9Zzvs.twitter


----------



## rover07 (May 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> There's also a level of contempt for the lifestyle of western women among some Asians which is also likely to be a factor in them primarily targeting white girls.



There's also a level of contempt for the lifestyle of western women among some white men which is also likely to be a factor in them primarily targeting white girls.

Look at the case of Ched Evans and his white gang who plied a teenage woman with drink then took her to a hotel to be raped and filmed.

Look at the level of hatred directed at the victim online.

Where is the cultural difference?


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2012)

rover07 said:


> Where is the cultural difference?


 
In its depth, though it's getting better. Many young Asian lads (not just muslims, and I'm ashamed to include some of my own family here) are encouraged to "have fun" with English girls before settling down and marrying a "decent" Asian girl. English girls are seen as easy.

It's very common and often the cause of much heartache.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 10, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I think that's right, which is why in my earlier post I took the emphasis away from these particular offenders to look at violence towards women in general.  It's about attitudes towards women, and, ultimately, power.  However, we do have to superimpose the particular cultural aspects of this case back onto the picture if we want to see what's actually happening here and whether it might happen again.  It is that question that many people seem to flinch away from.  I think largely because of the way the discourse on race has been conducted in our society in the last decade and more; there is a conflation between race and culture.  To be absolutely clear: there is no racial explanation for the way these men acted, but there might be a cultural one.



Brilliant post.  I agree with your last sentence especially.  It goes back to what I've been saying. Cultural attitudes may have played a part but  as I've already pointed out,  there is no one singular culture in Islam that can be applied to all of Islam by then giving to much weight to the cultural debate we are in danger of missing some other substantive issues and also inadvertently aligning ourselves with the rights crass assumptions about Islam.


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2012)

Culture is a very slippery concept - and each of us operates in multiple cultural contexts (culture of the workplace, family roles, religious observance or absence of etc.)  I'm not at all sure that saying "It's not race it's culture" gets us very far - especially given the right's tendency to equate Pakistani and Muslim as though though both were an expression of a single cultural type.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> especially given the right's tendency to equate Pakistani and Muslim as though though both were an expression of a single cultural type.


It's not just the right that does that.  Multiculturalism does that.  That's its purpose.


----------



## ymu (May 10, 2012)

Good article about this:



> Greater Manchester police apologised to the victims of the recent case, saying that now that they know more about this type of crime they would conduct future investigations differently. And yet those of us who are involved in the attempt to combat child sexual exploitation have known about these men and the way they operate for decades. The victims have told us. Why have they been sidelined once again in favour of a good old ruck about race?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/09/victims-sex-gangs-complacency-ethnicity


 
Indeed.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

the defendents in this case come from all walks of life within the community, many of them well respected. from the numbers reported by the girls in their testimonies, it would also appear that far more men were involved than those charged here. this is a large and influential section of the Pakistani community in Rochdale, actively involved in this ring.

i have a bit of experience with the Pakistani community in the North West, and trying to be fair minded as i can about this i can't help but be continually appalled by their "culture". amongst young Pakistani men there is an incredible amount of machismo, bigotry and intolerance - in particular relating to 'Western sluts'. this is also not a minority phenomenon, white girls _are_ seen as fair game for any treatment and lower than animals. i can't comment in too great a detail about the lives of women within the Pakistani community (they're not often let out) other than to say that honour killings are very real and more prevalent than many would imagine. we can only draw our own conclusions from that.

certainly, these are also communities which are capable of keeping secrets. anybody with any election experience in North West towns and the Muslim communities there can probably give some insight into the undercurrent corruption which is prevalent (and usually supported and semi-organised by the local Labour Party).

i hope it's a generational thing and that new blood will see the world differently, and Western decadence will undermine religious disciplines and community structures. but i don't know. i think it's an impossible situation regarding keeping a lid on race relations in the North West. sometimes going around Burnley i genuinely cannot imagine how the open wounds there can heal. there was an interesting documentary on Radio 4 about a year ago about the multicultural schools which were set up in Burnley to counter-act the segregation there. brand new flagship buildings with state of the art equipment were introduced and the schools tried to recruit equally from all ethnic backgrounds. an orchestrated bullying campaign by the Pakistani boys against the white children in the schools (which was tacitly supported by their parents and communities) lead to a flight of white children from schools in Burnley town, and now the white kids are by and large catered for in poorly equipped and overcrowded 60s pre-fab builds around the outskirts, whilst the new buildings cater almost solely to children from the Pakistani community.

after working for several years on projects intended to increase community cohesion i am genuinely at a loss as to how to deal with these problems.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

i should clarify that obviously the white community is not blameless, but they aren't organised and don't act homogeneously in the same way


----------



## ymu (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i should clarify that obviously the white community is not blameless, but they aren't organised and don't act homogeneously in the same way


There probably are specific cultural reasons which influence the chosen MO, but they are very unlikely to turn a man into a sexual predator when he wouldn't otherwise have been. Misogyny is not unique to Pakistani men, and neither are rape and trafficking.

Most of this group's crimes would have been prevented had the first victim to report it been listened to. How in hell has this become all about race with so few asking why in hell it took four years from the first complaint made about them for it to come to trial? Double-plus win for the racist misogynist tendency.


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> trying to be fair minded as i can about this i can't help but be continually appalled by their "culture". amongst young Pakistani men there is an incredible amount of machismo, bigotry and intolerance - in particular relating to 'Western sluts'. this is also not a minority phenomenon, white girls _are_ seen as fair game for any treatment and lower than animals.


 
But is it so unlike  (often white) groups of professional footballers getting involved in gang rapes, or black gangs in London?  It has at least as much to do with the values of young men and how they see women.  And in this context the rise of near ubiquitous internet porn must have something to do with it?  Which isn't to say that we shouldn't look at the particular ways this expresses itself in certain sections of Pakistani youth  (though you need to be careful not to allocate it to "the (sic) Pakistani community", still less muslim men in general.  Any more than paedo priests is a problem for "the white community" as a whole to deal with.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Interesting, hope not hates split with the uaf/swp was in large part over how to deal with the keighly grooming (the latter arguing it wasa racist conspiracy against Muslims).


 
Is there a source for the SWP conspiracy theory?


----------



## past caring (May 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But is it so unlike (often white) groups of professional footballers getting involved in gang rapes, or black gangs in London? It has at least as much to do with the values of young men and how they see women. And in this context the rise of near ubiquitous internet porn must have something to do with it? Which isn't to say that we shouldn't look at the particular ways this expresses itself in certain sections of Pakistani youth (though you need to be careful not to allocate it to "the (sic) Pakistani community", still less muslim men in general. *Any more than paedo priests is a problem for "the white community" as a whole to deal with.*


 
What proportion of the white community is observant/identifies itself as practising Catholic?


----------



## past caring (May 10, 2012)

ymu said:


> There probably are specific cultural reasons which influence the chosen MO, but they are very unlikely to turn a man into a sexual predator when he wouldn't otherwise have been. Misogyny is not unique to Pakistani men, and neither are rape and trafficking.
> 
> Most of this group's crimes would have been prevented had the first victim to report it been listened to. How in hell has this become all about race with so few asking why in hell it took four years from the first complaint made about them for it to come to trial? Double-plus win for the racist misogynist tendency.


 
Not sure it has to be either/or, mutually exclusive propositions.


----------



## trevhagl (May 10, 2012)

Griffin is one hell of an opportunist , can't remember him coming out with placards when all those bedroom loners got caught with the kiddie porn and explosives, now what party did THEY support again?


----------



## ymu (May 10, 2012)

past caring said:


> Not sure it has to be either/or, mutually exclusive propositions.


I think it is important not to allow discussion of certain types of behaviour that permeate all cultures to be side-lined by allowing it to be dismissed as something associated with a particular culture._ It's monsters that do that, not normal men. It's a product of a monstrous culture, not something that is to be found in all cultures. _It's just an excuse not to look at the whole picture.

I think that's actively damaging. In a world where this can get published in a mainstream magazine for white blokes:







Trying to pretend that there is something uniquely awful about the way Pakistani men view and treat women is insulting. The big story here is that it took four years for the victims' complaints to be investigated, by an institutionally racist police force which is not usually so slow to try and pin something on black and brown people. Move along now. No misogyny to see here.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2012)

ymu said:


> Trying to pretend that there is something uniquely awful about the way Pakistani men view and treat women is insulting.


 
When even their own community leaders are saying there's a problem, pretending there isn't is ridiculous and unhelpful.


----------



## ymu (May 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> When even their own community leaders are saying there's a problem, pretending there isn't is ridiculous and unhelpful.


I noted that in my very first sentence on this thread:



ymu said:


> There probably are specific cultural reasons which influence the chosen MO...


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2012)

past caring said:


> What proportion of the white community is observant/identifies itself as practising Catholic?


What "white community"? In ireland of 50s broadly comparable?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> And in this context the rise of near ubiquitous internet porn must have something to do with it? .


I think one should be very cautious about assuming that this is either a new problem or a problem that is getting worse. Rubbish attitudes long predate internet porn. Yes, there is a lot of very crude, crap media around at the moment, but there's a lot more of every kind of media around. There never was a more enlightened past from which we are descending.


----------



## past caring (May 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> What "white community"? In ireland of 50s broadly comparable?


 
I was merely pointing out the shitness of your analogy....


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2012)

ymu said:


> I noted that in my very first sentence on this thread:


 
So why is it "insulting" to suggest that there's a culturally ingrained degree of misogyny among many Pakistani men, particularly towards western women?


----------



## past caring (May 10, 2012)

ymu said:


> I noted that in my very first sentence on this thread:


 


> There probably are specific cultural reasons which influence the chosen MO...


 
Which seesm to suggest that these cultural reasons inlfluenced _only_ the MO, as opposed to being a causal factor in the crime being committed in the first place? Not good enough, if so....


----------



## claphamboy (May 10, 2012)

ymu said:


> I think that's actively damaging. In a world where this can get published in a mainstream magazine for white blokes:


 
It's clearly a joke, a fucking sick & shit joke IMO, but to describe Zoo, with a circulation of just over 50k, as a 'mainstream magazine for white blokes' is taking the piss, more a niche publication for twats TBH.


----------



## IC3D (May 10, 2012)

Its depressing the hackneyed liberal arguments on this thread is it any wonder the far right are all over this


----------



## past caring (May 10, 2012)

Not sure the description of it being "for white blokes" is entirely accurate, either.


----------



## past caring (May 10, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Its depressing hackneyed liberal arguments on this thread is it any wonder the far right are all over this


 
Be honest, you've not actually read the thread, have you? That, at least, is the more generous interpretation....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

IC3D said:


> Its depressing the hackneyed liberal arguments on this thread is it any wonder the far right are all over this


There are a range of points of view and arguments on the thread. Which do you mean?


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

misogyny does cut across cultures but it is particularly present in the Pakistani community - not only in the prevalence of general attitudes but also in the severity of those attitudes. gang culture in London is indeed another example where there is a pocket of society with extremely misogynistic attitudes, but that is within a sub-culture of youth not spread across an entire inter-generational community.

but it isn't even specifically the 'ideas' which the community fosters which make it a particular issue, it's the organised nature of it. the communities themselves are often very close knit, tightly controlled by a patriarchal clique of blokes who make all the community decisions chatting outside the Mosque (where the women are banned from entering). they have eachothers' backs, and cover up for eachother when anything dubious occurs. it's that relationship which makes the cultural attitudes particularly dangerous.


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2012)

Again not sure how unique that is.  Like the stag night motto "what happens on tour stays on tour".


----------



## Citizen66 (May 10, 2012)

Um, slight difference between blokes watching their mates' backs over a weekend fling than watching their mates' backs over child sexual abuse.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> So why is it "insulting" to suggest that there's a culturally ingrained degree of misogyny among many Pakistani men, particularly towards western women?


 
Why would a misogynist hate one group of women more than another group of women? The reason they seem to have been preying on white girls was that they were the most vulnerable to being abused.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why would a misogynist hate one group of women more than another group of women? The reason they seem to have been preying on white girls was that they were the most vulnerable to being abused.


Pretty much. But, there is a certain tendency within Islam to split the world into Muslims and non-Muslims. Perhaps that was also a factor in allowing them to fail to empathise with their victims.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Pretty much. But, there is a certain tendency within Islam to split the world into Muslims and non-Muslims. Perhaps that was also a factor in allowing them to fail to empathise with their victims.


 
I think Islam frowns upon abusing little girls. It's haram.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why would a misogynist hate one group of women more than another group of women? The reason they seem to have been preying on white girls was that they were the most vulnerable to being abused.


 
See LBJ's answer above. It goes beyond simple misogyny.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I think Islam frowns upon abusing little girls. It's haram.


There's no such thing as Islam, though. Only people who follow it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's no such thing as Islam, though. Only people who follow it.


 
I don't think this case has got anything to do with Islam, and everything to do with a bunch of simple-minded, debauched cunts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> I don't think this case has got anything to do with Islam, and everything to do with a bunch of simple-minded, debauched cunts.


I'm not blaming Islam. But I'm also not sure that they fact that they are Muslims is irrelevant.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not blaming Islam. But I'm also not sure that they fact that they are Muslims is irrelevant.


 
Only in as much as they came from the same community and knew each other.


----------



## gunneradt (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why would a misogynist hate one group of women more than another group of women? The reason they seem to have been preying on white girls was that they were the most vulnerable to being abused.


 
errr no


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Again not sure how unique that is. Like the stag night motto "what happens on tour stays on tour".


Nobody is saying misogyny or abuse are _unique_ to Asian cultures. Nor is anyone saying the close-knit aspects referred to here are _unique_. You need step away from your angst on this. It is not racist to criticise aspects of a culture. There is nothing inherent, congenital, or genetic about culture.

There are cultural aspects to this case that I'm sure you can see. One is that the girls abused appear to have been from a different culture to the men. (In this and some other high visibility cases, although not in all cases where an abuser is Asian). Abusers abuse youngsters who are available. And if you're "grooming" girls on the street in takeaways and so on at night, the girls who might be more likely to be about are possibly non Asian girls. If that turns out to be a factor, then that's very definitely cultural.

Another factor, I'm afraid, is the attitudes to women often associated with Muslim cultures. Yes, there's misogyny elsewhere. Does that need to be said? And no, Islam need not be misogynistic (although the expression of it does tend to be). But what happens is that attitudes towards women that are actually derived from patriarchal cultures (which happen also to be Muslim) are assumed by _those in the culture_ to be derived from Islam. Tradition and religion are mixed up. People then assume that God wants women to be second class, because they always have been. (Just as the CofE can be split over whether God wants women priests). That does not mean all Muslim Asians are rapists and child-abusers. Just as in fact all patriarchal misogynists are not. But it's that _general_ mismatch of power that leads to abuse of power _in some cases_. Again, nobody is saying this is unique.

I also note that many of the men sentenced in Rochdale are unbearded. The stories also refer to drinking. And of course to sexual intercourse outside marriage. These are clearly not devout Muslim men. (In fact I think I'm right in saying that not all were even nominally Muslim. At least one was not). The point is that the cultural norms about women that these men imbibed played a role. Of course that is true of other cultures. But refusing to see the role culture played _in this case_ is being wilfully dishonest. And that can play into some very dangerous hands.

Another culture that needs to be addressed, of course, is why the authorities were so unwilling to believe witness testimony.


----------



## gunneradt (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not blaming Islam. But I'm also not sure that they fact that they are Muslims is irrelevant.


 
no it isn't - which their own community has clearly already said


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Shame we can't double-like. danny is spot on. Well put.


----------



## Giles (May 10, 2012)

A culture that tends to divide women into the "respectable" (covered up, never allowed out on their own, treated as basically the "property" of their families), and then the opposite ("dress like whores", out on their own, drinking, etc) can't help but encourage a fairly nasty attitude to the latter, can it? I'm not in any way trying to justify what these men did.

Giles..


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> N
> The point is that the cultural norms about women that these men imbibed played a role. Of course that is true of other cultures. But refusing to see the role culture played _in this case_ is being wilfully dishonest. And that can play into some very dangerous hands.


 
So would you say that the cultural norms of Catholicism towards children played a role in the acts of Catholic priests abusing kids? Is there also something about Catholicism that encourages paedophilia?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> So would you say that the cultural norms of Catholicism towards children played a role in the acts of Catholic priests abusing kids? Is there also something about Catholicism that encourages paedophilia?


In that particular case, there is the massive problem of enforced celibacy. Suppress basic urges and they don't go away, but have a tendency to spill out sideways. Men who have been suppressing their sexual urges who spend a lot of time working with children... hmmm


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In that particular case, there is the massive problem of enforced celibacy. Suppress basic urges and they don't go away, but have a tendency to spill out sideways.


 
And then put them in a situation where they have the power and the opportunity to abuse kids and out it comes. But a lot of these abusers in this case were married. Surely they could have just gone to prostitutes to get their extra marital kicks. Why pick on kids?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why pick on kids?


I don't know.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why pick on kids?


 
Because they're paedophiles?

Because they're easier targets?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Because they're paedophiles?
> 
> Because they're easier targets?


because they're cheaper


----------



## manny-p (May 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Because they're paedophiles?
> 
> Because they're easier targets?


They have to pay for prostitutes. In quite a few of these cases they were actually pimping the girls out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Because they're easier targets?


This has got to be a big factor, clearly. For the rest, I think we'd have to ask them. One for the prison psychiatrist.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Because they're paedophiles?


 
Exactly. Fuck all to do with race, ethnicity, or religion. They are paedophiles who took advantage of the vulnerable kids in their vicinity.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

and what do we do with paedophiles?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Exactly. Fuck all to do with race, ethnicity, or religion. They are paedophiles who took advantage of the vulnerable kids in their vicinity.


That also begs a question, though, one that I don't have a good answer to - how, exactly, does one become a paedophile?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That also begs a question, though, one that I don't have a good answer to - how, exactly, does one become a paedophile?


you can either do an apprenticeship or there's an accelerated graduate scheme jointly administered by the church of england and the catholic church.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That also begs a question, though, one that I don't have a good answer to - how, exactly, does one become a paedophile?


 
By shagging children.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> By shagging children.


That's dodging the issue, though.

Why do they shag children? Because they're paedophiles. How can you tell that they're paedophiles? They shag children.

Doesn't actually tell you anything.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> By shagging children.


but you hear about an awful lot of paedophiles who don't seem to have gone nearer a child than downloading porn off the internet.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's dodging the issue, though.
> 
> Why do they shag children? Because they're paedophiles. How can you tell that they're paedophiles? They shag children.
> 
> Doesn't actually tell you anything.


it tells you goldencitrone likes circles.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's dodging the issue, though.
> 
> Why do they shag children? Because they're paedophiles. How can you tell that they're paedophiles? They shag children.
> 
> Doesn't actually tell you anything.


 
It's like asking, how do you become a murderer. Loads of potential murderers just get off on watching extreme violence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

I don't have any good answers here, btw, other than that trying to work out why these men did this thing has to involve looking at the culture they were formed in. And of course that doesn't just apply to this case or this culture.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's like asking, how do you become a murderer. Loads of potential murderers just get off on watching extreme violence.


we are all potential murderers. you're not saying anything worth hearing here. but then that's nothing new.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> we are all potential murderers. you're not saying anything worth hearing here. but then that's nothing new.


I think most of us are potential murderers, tbh, given the right circumstances. I don't however think that most of us are potential rapists or paedophiles. So that comes back to the question - how did these men become what they are?


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> we are all potential murderers.


 
You're not. A potential victim certainly.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Fuck all to do with race, ethnicity, or religion.


 
The fact that they're paedophiles has fuck all to do with race, ethnicity or religion, but the fat that ...



> “They think that white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused without a second thought”.​


 
.... very definitely is a cultural issue.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> You're not. A potential victim certainly.


you should do something about your verbal diarrhoea because you're spouting shit at an ever-increasing rate.

we're all fucking potential murder victims, again you're not saying anything that isn't bleeding obvious.

like so many other posters, you could try engaging your brain before posting, it would make a pleasant change to see some posts from you which have a bit of thought behind them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> The fact that they're paedophiles has fuck all to do with race, ethnicity or religion but the fat that ...
> 
> 
> 
> .... very definitely is a cultural thing.


In what sense are they paedophiles, anyway? Weren't these girls post-pubescent? They might be legally paedophiles if the girls are under the age of consent, but that's a very different thing, imo, from being someone who is attracted to prepubescent children.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In what sense are they paedophiles, anyway? Weren't these girls post-pubescent? They might be legally paedophiles if the girls are under the age of consent, but that's a very different thing, imo, from being someone who is attracted to prepubescent children.


more hebephiles than paedophiles, i'd say. but a rape gang's a rape gang in anyone's books.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> hebephiles


Aha. A new word to me, and a very useful one.


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2012)

Danny, I'm not seeking to dismiss the specific cultural background of those involved in the Rochdale case.  I don't think we disagree much so far as I can tell.  What I'm saying though is that what differentiates this instance of grooming from other types of group predatory sexual behaviour by men isn't necessarily more important than what they share in common.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't have any good answers here, btw, other than that trying to work out why these men did this thing has to involve looking at the culture they were formed in. And of course that doesn't just apply to this case or this culture.


 
Yep, my stuff was just thinking aloud. I know fuck all about these men and their lives. Or the millions of other paedos out there. And their victims. Sad stuff.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Is there also something about Catholicism that encourages paedophilia?


Yes, there is. I _could_ leave it at that.  But, briefly:  in the Church's view of children (and women), and in the specific circumstances of priesthood, and the availability of children (whether that's altar boys, or - historically - orphans, or  - historically - the removed children of disgraced single mothers) to the minority in positions of power and trust who then abuse that power and trust.  We can do this in more detail in another thread, and indeed we have done.  And it has been the subject of studies, memoirs, literature, and so on.  It _needed_ to be.  The specific cultural circumstances _needed_ to be discussed.  And still does, until it is properly addressed.

As does this.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Because they're paedophiles?
> 
> Because they're easier targets?


Technically, these men weren't convicted of paedophile acts, as far as I'm aware. The victims were not pre-pubescent.  (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Not being picky. I think accuracy is important, if we're going to do this properly.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Not being picky. I think accuracy is important, if we're going to do this properly.


 
Yep, fair enough.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> more hebephiles than paedophiles, i'd say. but a rape gang's a rape gang in anyone's books.


Ah, you got there first.  Well picked up.


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2012)

Yes.  But also what such cases have in common, including what they have in common in terms of devaluation of victims and culture of covering up


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Danny, I'm not seeking to dismiss the specific cultural background of those involved in the Rochdale case. I don't think we disagree much so far as I can tell. What I'm saying though is that what differentiates this instance of grooming from other types of group predatory sexual behaviour by men isn't necessarily more important than what they share in common.


It boils down to the same, in that an imbalance of power leads to the power being abused.  But the specific circumstances that allow that to happen will differ.  But just as the Catholic church needs to properly address what has happened there (with a minority of priests), so do the Asian communities these cases come from.  Vague generalities won't address the issues.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Yes. But also what such cases have in common, including what they have in common in terms of devaluation of victims and culture of covering up


Yeah. I don't think you could do such a thing without first dehumanising your victim, tbh. Necessary precondition.

But again, that begs a question: What led these men to dehumanise their victims, specifically.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Yes. But also what such cases have in common, including what they have in common in terms of devaluation of victims and culture of covering up


Yes.  But we can't use that as a reason to be vague and squeamish.  Unless we want the circumstances to be repeated.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But again, that begs a question: What led these men to dehumanise their victims, specifically.


And shying away from that last word helps nobody.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 10, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> But refusing to see the role culture played _in this case_ is being wilfully dishonest. And that can play into some very dangerous hands.


 
Essentially what we are talking about here is a theory. That theory is that _possibly_-the cultural attitudes to women that exist within some sections of those that believe in Islam _may_ have played a part in this behaviour.

Maybe they were just a bunch of cunts and this was criminality and exploitation-nothing more nothing less.

This debate seems to be revolving around Islam-the rights and wrongs, attitudes, misogyny etc. Has anyone considered these may be separate issues to the the actual criminal behaviour of this gang?

Nobody in this debate can unequivocally say that there is one single cultural trait that can be applied to all muslims. For me this is why getting embroiled in a debate about cultural attitudes when discussing this crime can just end out in a never ending debate that achieves very little except possibly reinforce stereotypes about Islam's attitude to women. Equally that can also play into some very dangerous hands as well.

Maybe the debate should be shifting to societal failures in this case? Because for me that is more important than anything else. How these poor girls found themselves in this position in the first place and what couldve been done to prevent it happening in the first place.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Maybe the debate should be shifting to societal failures in this case? Because for me that is more important than anything else. How these poor girls found themselves in this position in the first place and what couldve been done to prevent it happening in the first place.


 
That is a very important issue. However, that these girls were vulnerable and had clearly been let down by society - us! - in no way means that you shouldn't look at the perpetrators too.


----------



## articul8 (May 10, 2012)

I think though that the devaluation of women is part of an increasingly accessible and generalised culture in terms of spread of global porn industry in influencing young men. I don't doubt that certain cultures have specific issues, but there is hardly any point in western male cultures with a healthy view of women


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I think though that the devaluation of women is part of an increasingly accessible and generalised culture in terms of spread of global porn industry in influencing young men.


I doubt this. I really do. The Benny Hill show is no longer on tv. The Sunday Sport is no longer in business. Awful attitudes towards women are nothing new, and in many areas of our society they are better now than they were.

There's a danger of the 'things were better in my day' trap here. I don't think they were. The culture of men on the pull referring to women as 'it', for instance, was around when I was young - alive and kicking, and I absolutely loathed it, as did a lot of my contemporaries, even where they didn't feel able to say so at the time.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

porn style 'lad' misogyny is a universe apart from the quite commonplace attitudes within the North West Pakistani community


----------



## mentalchik (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's a danger of the 'things were better in my day' trap here. I don't think they were. The culture of men on the pull referring to women as 'it', for instance, was around when I was young - alive and kicking, and I absolutely loathed it, as did a lot of my contemporaries, even where they didn't feel able to say so at the time.


 
I was a teenager in the 70's and was targeted by certain lads at school because i had big knockers.......was followed home and groped etc..........

things have changed in some ways but a long way to go in others


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

mentalchik said:


> ...
> 
> things have changed in some ways but a long way to go in others


Yes, definitely. What I doubt is that things are getting _worse_. That smacks of a moral panic to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah. I don't think you could do such a thing without first dehumanising your victim, tbh. Necessary precondition.
> 
> But again, that begs a question: What led these men to dehumanise their victims, specifically.


i don't see why it's a necessary precondition.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is a very important issue. However, that these girls were vulnerable and had clearly been let down by society - us! - in no way means that you shouldn't look at the perpetrators too.


 
Of course I agree and I dont for one minute think we shouldnt look at these men and how they managed to get away with it for so long and what their motives were. Im just cautious at laying the blame/responsibility/analysis etc at the door of Islam-because those who practice/believe in Islam arent one big homogeneous group that all share the same attitude towards women.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

i wouldn't lay it on the door of Islam, i'd lay it at the door of the Pakistani community


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Of course I agree and I dont for one minute think we shouldnt look at these men and how they managed to get away with it for so long and what their motives were. Im just cautious at laying the blame/responsibility/analysis etc at the door of Islam-because those who practice/believe in Islam arent one big homogeneous group that all share the same attitude towards women.


not least because quite a few of them are in fact women themselves


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i wouldn't lay it on the door of Islam, i'd lay it at the door of the Pakistani community


 
further to this, the North West Pakistani community


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i wouldn't lay it on the door of Islam, i'd lay it at the door of the Pakistani community


so iyo everyone in this 'pakistani community' has questions to answer


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so iyo everyone in this 'pakistani community' has questions to answer


 obviously not, but the community itself is an organisational entity and as such it _does_ have questions to answer


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> further to this, the North West Pakistani community








round peshawar then?


----------



## Grandma Death (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> not least because quite a few of them are in fact women themselves


 
Excellent point


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> obviously not, but the community itself is an organisational entity and as such it _does_ have questions to answer


at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, a community as a whole is composed of individuals. you have said that not everyone in the community has questions to answer, so who does and who doesn't?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i wouldn't lay it on the door of Islam, i'd lay it at the door of the Pakistani community


Even those within the Pakistani community who abhor what these men did?

Isn't that a bit like a black person laying blame for the BNP at the door of white people - 'sort it out, white people, ffs'.

Whatever the answer to all these questions, doesn't the ultimate answer have to be that we sort it out together?


----------



## Grandma Death (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> obviously not, but the community itself is an organisational entity and as such it _does_ have questions to answer


 
Maybe so-but the question is do they need to be answering questions on _this_ specific case of exploitation-thats what we're debating.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even those within the Pakistani community who abhor what these men did?
> 
> Isn't that a bit like a black person laying blame for the BNP at the door of white people - 'sort it out, white people, ffs'.
> 
> Whatever the answer to all these questions, doesn't the ultimate answer have to be that we sort it out together?


yeh, i'm not sure i'd leave it to das uberdog to deal with.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

as incredibly clever as your riposte is Pickman's, it still recklessly refuses to acknowledge that significant and respected sections of the Rochdale Pakistani community have colluded in this crime


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> as incredibly clever as your riposte is Pickman's, it still recklessly refuses to acknowledge that significant and respected sections of the Rochdale Pakistani community have colluded in this crime


so now 'the rochdale pakistani community' seems, iyo, to be the same as 'the north west pakistani community'. i ask again, which sections of the community do you feel have questions to answer and which don't?


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even those within the Pakistani community who abhor what these men did?
> 
> Isn't that a bit like a black person laying blame for the BNP at the door of white people - 'sort it out, white people, ffs'.
> 
> Whatever the answer to all these questions, doesn't the ultimate answer have to be that we sort it out together?


 
as noted previously on this thread, significant and indeed respected elements of this community have colluded together in this specific case. it is a close-knit and tightly woven community, and this is certainly not the only example of such abuse (the Guardian reported figures of well over 50% of grooming cases being related specifically to the Pakistani community).

Pakistani communities do exist in quite a tangible form all over the North West, they're not just abstract ideas. they have structures and hierarchies and leaders. yes the community needs to answer for itself just as the Catholic church has had to answer for itself


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> as noted previously on this thread, significant and indeed respected elements of this community have colluded together in this specific case. it is a close-knit and tightly woven community, and this is certainly not the only example of such abuse (the Guardian reported figures of well over 50% of grooming cases being related specifically to the Pakistani community).
> 
> Pakistani communities do exist in quite a tangible form all over the North West, they're not just abstract ideas. they have structures and hierarchies and leaders. yes the community needs to answer for itself just as the Catholic church has had to answer for itself


a minute ago there was a north west pakistani community, now you're saying that there are a number of pakistani communities 'all over the north west'. make your mind up.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> as noted previously on this thread, significant and indeed respected elements of this community have colluded together in this specific case. it is a close-knit and tightly woven community, and this is certainly not the only example of such abuse (the Guardian reported figures of well over 50% of grooming cases being related specifically to the Pakistani community).
> 
> Pakistani communities do exist in quite a tangible form all over the North West, they're not just abstract ideas. they have structures and hierarchies and leaders. yes the community needs to answer for itself just as the Catholic church has had to answer for itself


 
No no...individuals within the catholic church have to answer for themself. Not the _entire_ catholic church.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> Pakistani communities do exist in quite a tangible form all over the North West, they're not just abstract ideas.


Yes, this is true enough. And I agree that they need to take a long, hard look at themselves. But in conjunction with everyone else, not in isolation from them. For me, that is a key point. No doubt this case is being used by those who wish to attack 'multiculturalism'. The way to defend such a thing is to show that it is possible to share values across a whole society, and to speak up - all of us - about what we think these values should be, because I don't think this is something that ought to be imposed from above, it is something that should be rising from below.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> No no...individuals within the catholic church have to answer for themself. Not the _entire_ catholic church.


 
i completely disagree, it was the Catholic church as an entire entity which allowed for the abuse to be concealed


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> No no...individuals within the catholic church have to answer for themself. Not the _entire_ catholic church.


Ah, but the leaders of the catholic church need to look at themselves. Specifically the leaders, right up to, and especially, the Pope.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> as noted previously on this thread, significant and indeed respected elements of this community have colluded together in this specific case. it is a close-knit and tightly woven community, and this is certainly not the only example of such abuse (the Guardian reported figures of well over 50% of grooming cases being related specifically to the Pakistani community).
> 
> Pakistani communities do exist in quite a tangible form all over the North West, they're not just abstract ideas. they have structures and hierarchies and leaders. yes the community needs to answer for itself just as the Catholic church has had to answer for itself


there are lies, damned lies and statistics. can you produce a link to this guardian statistic you talk about?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i completely disagree, it was the Catholic church as an entire entity which allowed for the abuse to be concealed


now, about those sections of the pakistani community which you feel shouldn't have to answer questions, it would be good if you could elaborate on that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i completely disagree, it was the Catholic church as an entire entity which allowed for the abuse to be concealed


I agree with you on this point - it was an institutional failure. In the same way, the Met police are institutionally racist and need to look at themselves too.

It's more difficult applying this to the Pakistani communities of northern England. tbh I don't know enough about what it is to live in one to comment too much, other than that if you, a white (or black for that matter) man, walk down certain streets in certain cities holding hands with an Asian girl, she will have abuse thrown at her by Asian men.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i completely disagree, it was the Catholic church as an entire entity which allowed for the abuse to be concealed


 
I'd disagree. There were individuals (some very high up) who were aware this was going on. Equally there were individuals that were not aware of the actions of some priests. So its correct to say the _entire_ catholic church were _not_ involved in the cover up. Equally the communities you speak of (which seem to be shifting from post to post) are not entirely responsible for the actions of this gang-or any other gang for that matter.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i completely disagree, it was the Catholic church as an entire entity which allowed for the abuse to be concealed


so the members of the church who reported it to eg cardinal brady many years ago iyo bear as much responsibility as any other member of the church; what you seem to be saying is that everyone associated with the church should bear a portion of the blame.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> now, about those sections of the pakistani community which you feel shouldn't have to answer questions, it would be good if you could elaborate on that.


 
I'd be interested to see a response too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so the members of the church who reported it to eg cardinal brady many years ago iyo bear as much responsibility as any other member of the church; what you seem to be saying is that everyone associated with the church should bear a portion of the blame.


As much? No. But I would say that they need to look at themselves nonetheless. Have they been promoting an institution that facilitated this, and if so, how? That is also a question that I think can be fairly levelled at anyone who sets himself (and it will be himself - why is that?) up as a 'community leader' within Pakistani communities in northern England.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As much? No. But I would say that they need to look at themselves nonetheless. Have they been promoting an institution that facilitated this, and if so, how? That is also a question that I think can be fairly levelled at anyone who sets himself (and it will be himself - why is that?) up as a 'community leader' within Pakistani communities in northern England.


i appreciate your reply, but i would like to see das uberdog outline how s/he sees blame or responsibility being shared out among catholics.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

why are you obsessing over people answering questions? i said 'answer for itself' - i'd be both surprised and happy if the best thing that came of that was a completely internal purging and internal condemnation by community leaders of these kind of elements


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> why are you obsessing over people answering questions? i said 'answer for itself' - i'd be both surprised and happy if the best thing that came of that was a completely internal purging and internal condemnation by community leaders of these kind of elements


what form do you envisage this purging would take?


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

complete and utter social isolation


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so iyo everyone in this 'pakistani community' has questions to answer





Das Uberdog said:


> obviously not, but the community itself is an organisational entity and as such it _does_ have questions to answer


how do you think a community can answer questions when some of its members, in your view, don't have questions to answer and you don't want it, the community, to answer the questions on an individual basis?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> complete and utter social isolation


that's not purging. purging traditionally involves camps and killings.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

you're tying yourself up in your own terminological questions. the community exists in a real sense, it can therefore act accordingly to challenge the attitudes which prevail within itself


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> you're tying yourself up in your own terminological questions. the community exists in a real sense, it can therefore act accordingly to challenge the attitudes which prevail within itself


you said in post 262 that some sections of the community obviously didn't have questions to answer. which sections are these?

i don't give a flying fuck about 'challenging the attitudes which prevail within itself' until we've dealt with this question and answer session.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

btw,

'We believe that there are two main profiles of the on-street groomer. First, we have the white offenders, who typically offend alone. So far, nothing new: the lone white male is the norm for UK child sex offences. Second, however, there are Asian offenders, many of whom are of Pakistani origin. They seem much more likely to offend in groups, lending their abuse a curiously social dimension. In our research, which focuses on large offending groups, we analysed police data from five major on-street grooming investigations. Of the 52 suspects charged, 83% were Asian Pakistani, 11% Asian other and 6% white British'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...gangs-on-street-grooming?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you said in post 262 that some sections of the community obviously didn't have questions to answer. which sections are these?
> 
> i don't give a flying fuck about 'challenging the attitudes which prevail within itself' until we've dealt with this question and answer session.


well fuck you then, it's your own issue not mine


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> btw,
> 
> 'We believe that there are two main profiles of the on-street groomer. First, we have the white offenders, who typically offend alone. So far, nothing new: the lone white male is the norm for UK child sex offences. Second, however, there are Asian offenders, many of whom are of Pakistani origin. They seem much more likely to offend in groups, lending their abuse a curiously social dimension. In our research, which focuses on large offending groups, we analysed police data from five major on-street grooming investigations. Of the 52 suspects charged, 83% were Asian Pakistani, 11% Asian other and 6% white British'
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...gangs-on-street-grooming?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487


i see no 50%


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

no you see 83%, i said well over 50%


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> well fuck you then, it's your own issue not mine


who'd be asking these questions you'd like asking?


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

your confusing yourself by trying to put words in my mouth, 'asking questions' is actually nothing to do with anything i said


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> no you see 83%, i said well over 50%


you said 'grooming cases'; this doesn't relate to all grooming cases as the quote makes clear. so your stat from earlier's meaningless.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

it was a sample taken from a study


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> your confusing yourself by trying to put words in my mouth, 'asking questions' is actually nothing to do with anything i said


if people are answering questions, as you'd like them to, then someone has to ask them, questions don't form themselves you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> it was a sample taken from a study


and what did the study concentrate on?


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

you invented the introduction of 'questions' to this conversation


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> you invented the introduction of 'questions' to this conversation


what do you mean?


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and what did the study concentrate on?


 
large offending groups of street grooming


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> obviously not, but the community itself is an organisational entity and as such it _does_ have questions to answer


what's this here?


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you mean?


 i mean i never said anything about asking people questions, i used the much more open-ended term 'answer for itself' and you presumed that meant that i wanted every single Pakistani in the Peshwari region to personally undergo an interrogation. not my problem really


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> large offending groups of street grooming


yes, which is of course a subset of all grooming. if you have a source for asian / pakistani / chukchi gangs carrying out well over 50% of all grooming, i'd be interested in seeing it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i mean i never said anything about asking people questions, i used the much more open-ended term 'answer for itself' and you presumed that meant that i wanted every single Pakistani in the Peshwari region to personally undergo an interrogation. not my problem really


answer what? what people generally answer, is questions. and i would be interested in finding out

a) who you think the community should answer to, and

b) what you think they should answer


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

Evil men and vulnerable young children. That's the crux of the matter.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, which is of course a subset of all grooming. if you have a source for asian / pakistani / chukchi gangs carrying out well over 50% of all grooming, i'd be interested in seeing it.


 
ok i did say 'grooming cases', i should have said 'similar cases'. it's a fair point, but you know if that's what your issue was you could have dug to the root of that without this whole pedantic charade. as for the rest of your pointless games, i'm out - having already told you exactly what it is that i meant by my original statement which _had no mention of 'questions'_.


----------



## The39thStep (May 10, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> I do 39 and it was called 'All our Tommorows'..by Ted Allbeury...every time as a bit of a gimmick when I was out shopping I'd go into any nearby 2nd hand bookshop, which I do frequently and if I came across a copy of it I buy it...Ive got 12 now....kinda silly I know. The other thing is although there are several 2nd hand copies of NR on Amazon Ive never spotted one in a 2nd hand bookshop/charity shop/car boot et al. Was told that when that happens youve made it...well thats bollox Im sure....remind me 39 were we simultaneously The Junction and Red Lion Vets...??


 
They were two separate teams , I just ghosted players between the two. Even I managed to play for the Vets. But the cunning plan was.............I moved the team from the Junction to the Red and ushered in a new dawn. The season after I jacked it we won the treble. 

What ever happened to Gerry, our stalwart RA 'creative' middle fielder?

We never recruited Dave Connolly who was at Red Star Chorlton , god knows where he is?

Not sure if you remember those two crazy Hulme brothers. Chris and Paul Hand  ,who came straight to us after serving 4 and half years after glassing some blokes?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 10, 2012)

A vicar is making a right arse of himself on QT atm - almost implied that the girl victims were guilty of contributory neglience.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> A vicar is making a right arse of himself on QT atm - almost implied that the girl victims were guilty of contributory neglience.


 
Not every white middle-class man with short hair is in the BNP. Did I mishear that?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> ok i did say 'grooming cases', i should have said 'similar cases'. it's a fair point, but you know if that's what your issue was you could have dug to the root of that without this whole pedantic charade. as for the rest of your pointless games, i'm out - having already told you exactly what it is that i meant by my original statement which _had no mention of 'questions'_.


you grabbed onto the notion of questions to answer but you still can't explain what these people should answer or who they should answer it to.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Of course I agree and I dont for one minute think we shouldnt look at these men and how they managed to get away with it for so long and what their motives were. Im just cautious at laying the blame/responsibility/analysis etc at the door of Islam-because those who practice/believe in Islam arent one big homogeneous group that all share the same attitude towards women.


Well, I've been careful not to lay the blame at the door of Islam. I've talked about cultures associated with Islam.  I think I was fairly clear where I'm coming from in this previous post.  And I think I've been careful not to call Muslims an homogeneous group. I've talked about cultures plural.  I'm also aware of Muslim feminists such as Fatima Mernissi, for example. (Although, note that women can be conservative, too: there are women in - and who have left - the C of E who oppose women priests and bishops, for example).  There is a debate to be had about women and Muslim cultures.  Some within Islamic communities are already having that debate.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> This debate seems to be revolving around Islam-the rights and wrongs, attitudes, misogyny etc. Has anyone considered these may be separate issues to the the actual criminal behaviour of this gang?


 
First of all, I've said Islam need not be misogynistic.  You're generalising where I'm actually not.  But your more substantive point is that the criminal behaviour might be separate.  From what, though?  From misogyny?  From abuse of power?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> (Although, note that women can be conservative, too: there are women in - and who have left - the C of E who oppose women priests and bishops, for example).


i'm sure there are better examples of women being religiously conservative than that.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 10, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure there are better examples of women being religiously conservative than that.


I was implying patriarchal conservatism. There may be better examples.  It was something that had been mentioned earlier.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 10, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> Why pick on kids?



Often because they themselves were abused as children. It's a chicken and egg scenario. Do priests become peadophiles because of the vow of celibacy or do paedophiles become priests because it gives them a trusted position with access to kids?


----------



## bignose1 (May 10, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> They were two separate teams , I just ghosted players between the two. Even I managed to play for the Vets. But the cunning plan was.............I moved the team from the Junction to the Red and ushered in a new dawn. The season after I jacked it we won the treble.
> 
> What ever happened to Gerry, our stalwart RA 'creative' middle fielder?
> 
> ...


Fuck me 39 my brains fried. I remember now. Gerry fucked off to India for a while..taking lots of dope and went a bit para..he posts as Porky on here...not very much now. Think he's back in Glasgow. Dave Connolly no idea..sweet left foot a bit Robbo like in style but started shagging about and his woman kicked him out....The Hand bros I see around occasionally although another bro John is doing big time atm. We also had the two firemen who got in that mither with Dessie N.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 10, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Fuck me 39 my brains fried. I remember now. Gerry fucked off to India for a while..taking lots of dope and went a bit para..he posts as Porky on here...not very much now. Think he's back in Glasgow. Dave Connolly no idea..sweet left foot a bit Robbo like in style but started shagging about and his woman kicked him out....The Hand bros I see around occasionally although another bro John is doing big time atm. We also had the two firemen who got in that mither with Dessie N.


 
This must be code. MI5 have got no chance.


----------



## The39thStep (May 11, 2012)

bignose1 said:


> Fuck me 39 my brains fried. I remember now. Gerry fucked off to India for a while..taking lots of dope and went a bit para..he posts as Porky on here...not very much now. Think he's back in Glasgow. Dave Connolly no idea..sweet left foot a bit Robbo like in style but started shagging about and his woman kicked him out....The Hand bros I see around occasionally although another bro John is doing big time atm. We also had the two firemen who got in that mither with Dessie N.


 
The twins? One was a fireman , he was the one who got hurt,he has retired now I  bump into him every now and a blue moon. His brother was a labourer. Was Winston playing  when you did? He is still around but his brother died.

I think we went through quite a few players at that club.


----------



## articul8 (May 11, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> porn style 'lad' misogyny is a universe apart from the quite commonplace attitudes within the North West Pakistani community


Young Pakistani men don't look at porn?  Really? Of course they don't think "their" women are like that...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I was implying patriarchal conservatism. There may be better examples. It was something that had been mentioned earlier.


and matriarchal conservatism?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 11, 2012)

We seem to be straying somewhat.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> We seem to be straying somewhat.


yes, the thread is fraying into several strands


----------



## bignose1 (May 11, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> The twins? One was a fireman , he was the one who got hurt,he has retired now I bump into him every now and a blue moon. His brother was a labourer. Was Winston playing when you did? He is still around but his brother died.
> 
> I think we went through quite a few players at that club.


 Phnarr Phanrr...speak for yourself....
...yeah Winnie was there..sorry to hear about his bro...remember Carlos...cheeky little player but a proper drama queen..


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2012)

Starkey has finally gone completely bonkers by suggesting that the Rochdale sex ring is the Pakistani "cultural norm". 

Don't know if he's been misquoted because the other quotes seem to suggest that he's talking about oppressive treatment of women rather than sex gangs.

But does his broader point (that many Pakistani males simply aren't educated into treating women decently and that issues of feminism and emancipation should be incorporated into English history lessons) have any merit?


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Young Pakistani men don't look at porn? Really? Of course they don't think "their" women are like that...


 
no, not that they don't look at it, but that the attitudes surrounding that element of 'lad' culture are simply in another universe in comparison with some of the attitudes which are relatively commonplace amongst young Pakistani men. i've only got personal experience here to convince you, but seriously it's in no way comparable.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2012)

David Starkey's a feminist now? When did that happen?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> you're tying yourself up in your own terminological questions. the community exists in a real sense, it can therefore act accordingly to challenge the attitudes which prevail within itself


 
Because that's *so* common, isn't it? 
Even supposedly-pragmatic political organisations find themselves unable to do what you require, so what makes you think that an ethnic sub-community can do so? Because you *say* they can and must?
You seem to have little grasp of organisational dynamics, Ubie, so I'll explain: Communities are rarely democratic entities, they're prey to the "he who shouts loudest" factor. That's as much the case here on Urban as it is anywhere else. If you add to that the "advantaged" position that some (mainly self-selected, it can't be over-emphasised) "community leaders" and "spokesmen" have in their communities, then often the "grassroots membership" of the community feel extraordinarily disempowered, even when the role of these "community leaders" is traditional to their culture.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Young Pakistani men don't look at porn? Really? Of course they don't think "their" women are like that...


 
Because obviously, even if they did look at porn (which they don't, apparently!), they wouldn't notice any of the reams (oo'err) of porn featuring South Asian women, and even if they did, those bitches are Hindu, right?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> This must be code. MI5 have got no chance.


 
To be fair, that's generally the case with MI5 whether code is involved or not.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 11, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Starkey has finally gone completely bonkers by suggesting that the Rochdale sex ring is the Pakistani "cultural norm".
> 
> Don't know if he's been misquoted because the other quotes seem to suggest that he's talking about oppressive treatment of women rather than sex gangs.
> 
> But does his broader point (that many Pakistani males simply aren't educated into treating women decently and that issues of feminism and emancipation should be incorporated into English history lessons) have any merit?


It's best not to take Starkey seriously at all.  It just encourages him.  Even if - by sheer fluke - some tiny part of what he might say might accidentally look like it has some merit, it really doesn't; he's just a tit.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But is it so unlike (often white) groups of professional footballers getting involved in gang rapes, or black gangs in London? It has at least as much to do with the values of young men and how they see women. And in this context the rise of near ubiquitous internet porn must have something to do with it? Which isn't to say that we shouldn't look at the particular ways this expresses itself in certain sections of Pakistani youth (though you need to be careful not to allocate it to "the (sic) Pakistani community", still less muslim men in general. Any more than paedo priests is a problem for "the white community" as a whole to deal with.


 
How many 'white' footballers have been convicted of gang rape? How many white footballers have been convicted of the gang rape of children? How many 'white' footballers have been convicted of running prostitution rings?

As for the gang rape by black gangs, this too is under-reported, and as with the embarassment caused by the Rochdale 8 many on the left would prefer it left like that.  There was for instance genuine fury when I raised the issue in the context of the riots and the mentality of some of the rioters. 

However, to draw a parallel between the gangs and the Rochdale affair or the upcoming one in Oxford, where 13 Muslim men are already charged is to miss a crucial point.  The black gangs are by their nature involved in all sorts of criminality, drugs, murder and so on.

As such they are already outside the law on a host of other issues. Gang rape is an adjunct to a visibly outlaw life.

By contrast the Muslim groomers are ostensibly respectable small businessmen who exploit _pre-existing social networks _within the Muslim community to pursue their objectives which does indicate a wide degree of tolerance and acquiesence in regard to what they are doing in that community.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 11, 2012)

Interesting article in the Independent, of all places:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/asian-grooming-why-we-need-to-talk-about-sex-7734712.html


----------



## Ole (May 11, 2012)

I would like to emphasise that I'm not trying to diminish the primacy of the victims' concerns first, but I can't help but think how disastrous this is for race relations. There's no doubt in my mind that this crime was fuelled by racism. And regardless of what some white guilt merchants think, I reckon most whites can make that out too.

But it's almost certainly a confluence of factors that leads to crimes like this - I don't know if anyone's made this point already, but for instance the race relations in the north have aggravated racism on both sides for a long time.. which is why I think it's less likely this would happen in the south.. (has it happened in the south before?)


----------



## rover07 (May 11, 2012)

No, prostitution is virtually unheard of south of Watford.

In fact, prostitution never existed in the North either until thousands of Pakistanis swarmed into the country.


----------



## _angel_ (May 11, 2012)

Ole said:


> I would like to emphasise that I'm not trying to diminish the primacy of the victims' concerns first, but I can't help but think how disastrous this is for race relations. There's no doubt in my mind that this crime was fuelled by racism. And regardless of what some white guilt merchants think, I reckon most whites can make that out too.
> 
> But it's almost certainly a confluence of factors that leads to crimes like this - I don't know if anyone's made this point already, but for instance the race relations in the north have aggravated racism on both sides for a long time.. which is why I think it's less likely this would happen in the south.. (has it happened in the south before?)


London merely leads the way in racially motivated murders.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Interesting article in the Independent, of all places: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/asian-grooming-why-we-need-to-talk-about-sex-7734712.html


Yep, very interesting. And it stresses the important point that this really is a problem with a particular kind of extremely socially conservative Kashmiri culture. I would add, though, that sexually repressive cultures of all kinds contribute towards this kind of thing. As with Catholic priests, suppressing sexual urges doesn't make them disappear, but simply sees them being expressed in dysfunctional ways.


----------



## Ole (May 11, 2012)

I'm talking about Asian on white 'rape gangs', "rover", not prostitution..  The girls weren't prostitutes, you dull bastard.

"_angel_" - are those Asian/white racially motivated murders, and are they relative figures? If so, how much more common are they in London than in the Midlands & the North? Can I see the source for that? Not that I'm willing to concede the point that racial tension in the North isn't worse than in the South based on that alone, but that would be a start, ta.


----------



## treelover (May 11, 2012)

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it but these issues were flagged up as long ago as 2004 in the now seminal documentary: Edge of the City' which featured Anne Cryer, I seem to recall UAF lobbied against it being shown...


----------



## bignose1 (May 11, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> How many 'white' footballers have been convicted of gang rape? How many white footballers have been convicted of the gang rape of children? How many 'white' footballers have been convicted of running prostitution rings?
> 
> As for the gang rape by black gangs, this too is under-reported, and as with the embarassment caused by the Rochdale 8 many on the left would prefer it left like that. There was for instance genuine fury when I raised the issue in the context of the riots and the mentality of some of the rioters.
> 
> ...


----------



## Grandma Death (May 11, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> First of all, I've said Islam need not be misogynistic. You're generalising where I'm actually not. But your more substantive point is that the criminal behaviour might be separate. From what, though? From misogyny? From abuse of power?


 
Separate from cultural attitudes to women that exists in some sections of the Islamic communities.


----------



## ymu (May 11, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Of course I agree and I dont for one minute think we shouldnt look at these men and how they managed to get away with it for so long and what their motives were. Im just cautious at laying the blame/responsibility/analysis etc at the door of Islam-because those who practice/believe in Islam arent one big homogeneous group that all share the same attitude towards women.


That's the thing though, isn't it. These men were allowed to get away with it for so long because the police effectively reinforced their attitude that these girls were worthless.

I don't really care whether they are picking up vulnerable girls hanging out at a kebab shop or spiking drinks in a night club. Whatever the cultural context, predatory men are told, over and over again, that what they are doing is fine, the police won't investigate, it's a trivial matter and very unlikely to be taken seriously let alone prosecuted.

The actions of these men were not condoned by the 'Pakistani community', but they were allowed to continue by the inaction of the police and CPS. Let's have a fucking furore about that for a change, please.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2012)

ymu said:


> The actions of these men were not condoned by the 'Pakistani community', but they were allowed to continue by the inaction of the police and CPS. Let's have a fucking furore about that for a change, please.


It isn't either/or. Lots of people have pointed out the failure of the police in this case. Maybe the emphasis isn't quite right, but these men's cultural formation is also relevant here.

Tbh, this is something that is understressed in other situations, I think - for instance, in the Stephen Lawrence debacle, a great deal of stress was rightly put on the failure of the police, but very little stress was put on the place the racist cunts who killed him came from and the racist attitudes their formation had left them with. Maybe a bit more should have been said about that.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 12, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> Separate from cultural attitudes to women that exists in some sections of the Islamic communities.


Well, that takes us back to my post on page 2.  Take a step back from these particular men, and ask yourself whether rapists, whether the act of rape, can be separated from the misogyny of the rapist.  I suggest not.  While not all sexists and misogynists are rapists, all rapists are sexists and misogynists.  They are the extreme manifestation of the attitudes towards women that they have learned.  

Yes, society as a whole needs to tackle those issues.  Just as society as a whole needs to address its attitudes towards children.  But in this case specifically the police and the CPS need to address their attitudes towards children that were at the root of their failings here.  And the communities within which these men learned their attitudes towards women have to address those attitudes.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 12, 2012)

Incidentally, where's Stoat Boy?  Ever since the first day he said he didn't think anyone would want to have this conversation, it looks like he hasn't wanted to have this conversation.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2012)

This is worth a read and a think about:

Ultra-Orthodox Shun Their Own for Reporting Child Sexual Abuse



> “There is no nice way of saying it,” Mrs. Engelman said. “Our community protects molesters. Other than that, we are wonderful.”
> 
> Their communities, headed by dynastic leaders called rebbes, strive to preserve their centuries-old customs by resisting the contaminating influences of the outside world. While some ultra-Orthodox rabbis now argue that a child molester should be reported to the police, others strictly adhere to an ancient prohibition against mesirah, the turning in of a Jew to non-Jewish authorities, and consider publicly airing allegations against fellow Jews to be chillul Hashem, a desecration of God’s name.
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (May 12, 2012)

Interesting article.


----------



## articul8 (May 12, 2012)

Yes, interesting.  It suggests something quite deep in the way religious minorities with histories or ongoing fears of victimisation will seek to protect their reputation as a community and that this kind of knee-jerk reaction assists unscupulous people in a position of power over vulnerable individuals. 

Also makes you wonder to what extent these cases are bound up with patriarchal power relations and ideas of sexuality as sinful that are shared across the Abrahamic faiths.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2012)

ymu said:


> That's the thing though, isn't it. These men were allowed to get away with it for so long because the police effectively reinforced their attitude that these girls were worthless.
> 
> I don't really care whether they are picking up vulnerable girls hanging out at a kebab shop or spiking drinks in a night club. Whatever the cultural context, predatory men are told, over and over again, that what they are doing is fine, the police won't investigate, it's a trivial matter and very unlikely to be taken seriously let alone prosecuted.
> 
> The actions of these men were not condoned by the 'Pakistani community', but they were allowed to continue by the inaction of the police and CPS. Let's have a fucking furore about that for a change, please.


 
How on earth do you know it wasn't 'condoned' by sections of this 'community'? there are many anecdotal stories coming out that at the very least their co workers on the taxis, fast food outlets were aware, some indeed condoning or turning a blind eye. of course it is part of a wider abusive culture towards young girls with no power or support, but these attempts to minimise the role of elements of some closed communities with arcane religious strictures doesn't help..


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It isn't either/or. Lots of people have pointed out the failure of the police in this case. Maybe the emphasis isn't quite right, but these men's cultural formation is also relevant here.


 
It sounds like a similar cultural formation to that of western men who travel to south-east asia to have sex with young girls.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2012)

Of course, but this 'whataboutery' won't help these girls in Northern 'Mill Towns'  there has to be a robust enquiry into the nature of this abuse, any specifics, and of course the role of the authoritities in relation to not acting earlier possibly because of 'cultural sensibilities'


----------



## Badgers (May 12, 2012)

So a second case in Rochdale?


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 12, 2012)

treelover said:


> Of course, but this 'whataboutery' won't help these girls in Northern 'Mill Towns' there has to be a robust enquiry into the nature of this abuse, any specifics, and of course the role of the authoritities in relation to not acting earlier possibly because of 'cultural sensibilities'


 
Couldn't agree more. The law should come down heavily on anyone aiding and abetting these scumbags.


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2012)

Badgers said:


> So a second case in Rochdale?


 
Oxford too, bit of a media embargo on the trial but could be very big...

can't find anything about your second case online, source?


----------



## Badgers (May 12, 2012)

treelover said:


> Oxford too, bit of a media embargo on the trial but could be very big...


 
Oh dear 



treelover said:


> can't find anything about your second case online, source?


 
Just heard it on the radio this morning but there is a mention on the BBC website now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18045244


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2012)

There's the MEN story.


----------



## _angel_ (May 12, 2012)

treelover said:


> How on earth do you know it wasn't 'condoned' by sections of this 'community'? there are many anecdotal stories coming out that at the very least their co workers on the taxis, fast food outlets were aware, some indeed condoning or turning a blind eye. of course it is part of a wider abusive culture towards young girls with no power or support, but these attempts to minimise the role of elements of some closed communities with arcane religious strictures doesn't help..


You do know that now some twat is going to post "the plural of anecdote is not data".


----------



## treelover (May 12, 2012)

Just been reading the Telegraph features on the abuse, it goes much wider, the girls were passed round their mates as well, it is on a very big scale, but it is unlikely the other participants will be caught, maybe Allah will punish them when the time comes...

another unpleasant aspect is that a young girl, a former victim of the bastards nicknamed the 'honey monster' voluntarily procured these girls, so the awful cycle goes on...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> It sounds like a similar cultural formation to that of western men who travel to south-east asia to have sex with young girls.


Not to me, it doesn't. Other bad people do bad things in other contexts. Of course. But should that stop you from confronting the full circumstances of this case?


----------



## Citizen66 (May 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not to me, it doesn't. Other bad people do bad things in other contexts. Of course. But should that stop you from confronting the full circumstances of this case?



Of course not. The argument goldenecitrone is making is preventing people turning it into a race(ist) issue.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Of course not. The argument goldenecitrone is making is preventing people turning it into a race(ist) issue.


From my reading of his posts, his point is a little different - that their religion/culture are not relevant.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> From my reading of his posts, his point is a little different - that their religion/culture are not relevant.



I can get that to a certain degree too. Although there's some terrible misogyny in Islamic communities, there's terrible misogyny in non Islamic ones too. Abuse of young girls from different cultural backgrounds isn't unique to Pakistani men.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Abuse of young girls from different cultural backgrounds isn't unique to Pakistani men.


What's the motivation for European men travelling to Asia to abuse girls, though? I'd suggest that it is the availability of the girls there, the fact that they can abuse girls or boys there in a way that they can't here, not because they're from a different culture that they view as degenerate.

When I lived in Cuba, I saw many very troubling situations with old European men - predominantly Spanish or Italian - lying by a pool or in a bar with a girl no more than 13 or 14. They paraded in public, and clearly didn't think they were doing anything wrong, or at least were not ashamed of themselves. And the harsh truth is that most of the time these girls' parents knew full well what they were doing, and in many cases encouraged it because of the money it brought in. It's a very very different dynamic.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 12, 2012)

treelover said:


> Oxford too, bit of a media embargo on the trial but could be very big...


 
Not only does it promise to be 'very big' but there is an additional political dimension to it which the recent case (s) lacked, which will doubtless further provoke those lefties- whose anti-racists instincts on these, and other matters deemed _sensitive_, stand exposed as hand-me-down political pallatives from their betters (see Guardian ed) - into ever greater spasms of denial, moral relativism and deception.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> Not only does it promise to be 'very big' but there is an additional political dimension to it which the recent case (s) lacked, which will doubtless further provoke those lefties- whose anti-racists instincts on these, and other matters deemed _sensitive_, stand exposed as hand-me-down political pallatives from their betters (see Guardian ed) - into ever greater spasms of denial, moral relativism and deception.


Hmmm. Thing is, let's at least have some consistency. So, for instance, where a black boy is murdered by a group of racist white thugs, we ask where these thugs came from and where their racist attitudes came from. What is it about where they grew up that left them with the attitudes they have?

Were you saying the same thing when Stephen Lawrence was murdered, for instance?


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Thing is, let's at least have some consistency. So, for instance, where a black boy is murdered by a group of racist white thugs, we ask where these thugs came from and where their racist attitudes came from. What is it about where they grew up that left them with the attitudes they have?


If indications were that they came from a specific self-re-enforcing culture that allowed that to happen yes. Some of the posts on here - and this is one of them - reduce culture down to individual background or circumstances, which is the exact opposite of what it is. It's a collective ongoing way of looking at the world and a justification for holding that view.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Thing is, let's at least have some consistency. So, for instance, where a black boy is murdered by a group of racist white thugs, we ask where these thugs came from and where their racist attitudes came from. What is it about where they grew up that left them with the attitudes they have?
> 
> Were you saying the same thing when Stephen Lawrence was murdered, for instance?


This did happen by the way - it's been happening for 20 years plus.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Some of the posts on here - and this is one of them - reduce culture down to individual background or circumstances,


 
Where you are looking at the actions of a group of individuals, their individual background will include any culture to which they feel they belong. The culture is a collective ongoing way of looking at the world, yes. Nothing I have said contradicts that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This did happen by the way - it's been happening for 20 years plus.


It did, yes. But it's a bit like when David Starkey starts defending feminism - who is it exactly that is speaking up now, and were they the same people who spoke up with Stephen Lawrence. In many cases, I suspect not - especially those who talk about 'lefties'.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where you are looking at the actions of a group of individuals, their individual background will include any culture to which they feel they belong. The culture is a collective ongoing way of looking at the world, yes. Nothing I have said contradicts that.


That's true. I take back that you were saying different. I'm still at a loss as to why you started your post tot Joe as if you had a disagreement though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's true. I take back that you were saying different. I'm still at a loss as to why you started your post tot Joe as if you had a disagreement though.


It was more the tone than the substance that I didn't like.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It did, yes. But it's a bit like when David Starkey starts defending feminism - who is it exactly that is speaking up now, and were they the same people who spoke up with Stephen Lawrence. In many cases, I suspect not - especially those who talk about 'lefties'.


It was the same people talking about whatever was the equivalent then of chavs - the same social smearing went on, and has actually been going on ever since. Whereas the sort of urgently required forensic political views of SL and the new cases were knocked aside. By the same people and the same class - sometimes from the right, sometimes from the left, sometimes (and this is what it looks like politically) - together.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was more the tone than the substance that I didn't like.


Well, you're not a teacher and don't get to mark down for that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Well, you're not a teacher and don't get to mark down for that.


The tone matters, though. In fact, your post above illustrates why, I think. I wasn't really talking about the smearing of 'chavs'. I meant something a bit more considered than that - the equivalent to danny's posts on this thread, but applied to the places Lawrence's killers came from. Not judging them, but to an extent asking them to judge themselves.


----------



## butchersapron (May 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The tone matters, though. In fact, your post above illustrates why, I think. I wasn't really talking about the smearing of 'chavs'. I meant something a bit more considered than that - the equivalent to danny's posts on this thread, but applied to the places Lawrence's killers came from. Not judging them, but to an extent asking them to judge themselves.


 
I didn't suggest that you were, _i was._ (and nice that i my post wasn't considered enough) - and i expanded on how that actually played oput over the last 20 years - in concrete reality.

You agree with the weight of Joe's posts but suggest that he thinks that a one-eyed racial view might be justified - and this from the tone?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 12, 2012)

I didn't mean your post wasn't considered. I meant that 'smearing "chavs"' was not considered.

Anyway, I'll leave it. We're talking past each other. I think tone matters, though. I think it matters a lot. Starting off confrontational is not a good way to engage, imo.


----------



## bamalama (May 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is worth a read and a think about:
> 
> Ultra-Orthodox Shun Their Own for Reporting Child Sexual Abuse


 
Thats really interesting butchers well worth a read...


----------



## ymu (May 12, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What's the motivation for European men travelling to Asia to abuse girls, though? I'd suggest that it is the availability of the girls there, the fact that they can abuse girls or boys there in a way that they can't here, not because they're from a different culture that they view as degenerate.
> 
> When I lived in Cuba, I saw many very troubling situations with old European men - predominantly Spanish or Italian - lying by a pool or in a bar with a girl no more than 13 or 14. They paraded in public, and clearly didn't think they were doing anything wrong, or at least were not ashamed of themselves. And the harsh truth is that most of the time these girls' parents knew full well what they were doing, and in many cases encouraged it because of the money it brought in. It's a very very different dynamic.


That's about economics more than culture. Indian families aren't too thrilled about selling their kids into indentured servitude either, but it's about survival.



treelover said:


> How on earth do you know it wasn't 'condoned' by sections of this 'community'? there are many anecdotal stories coming out that at the very least their co workers on the taxis, fast food outlets were aware, some indeed condoning or turning a blind eye. of course it is part of a wider abusive culture towards young girls with no power or support, but these attempts to minimise the role of elements of some closed communities with arcane religious strictures doesn't help..


 
In the UK it seems very likely that there are cultural elements that make this particular form of sexual predation more prevalent with Pakistani men. This probably has less to do with race and more to do with there being relatively few Pakistani men hanging around night-clubs waiting to pounce on drunk women, whether or not they habitually share their victims with their mates.

I think it's pretty hard to claim that there is more evidence that this sort of behaviour is condoned by the Pakistani community when it would not be condoned by another community. Look at the disgusting reaction to Ched Evans being sent down for raping a girl who was barely conscious, procured for him by a mate and who was filmed being raped by him by two more of their friends who had turned up when they got the phone call.

Some men rape when they think they can get away with it. Unsurprisingly, this is very common when they're part of a society that openly defends men who rape and denigrates those women who complain about it.

We're told that the methods used in the Rochdale case are most commonly used by Pakistani men - yet we are also told that this is the first case of its kind. Why is that? How is it that we know so much about how these men operate but we've never bothered to prosecute any of them before? Perhaps it's because the police don't take rape seriously, no matter what the colour of the rapists?

Some people think this is a problem all year round, others seem only to be interested when there is a racial angle available, misogyny being far too trivial a topic to interest them normally. What they don't say is as illuminating as what they do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This is worth a read and a think about:
> 
> Ultra-Orthodox Shun Their Own for Reporting Child Sexual Abuse


 
Another of the reasons I'm not enamoured of the weirdie beardies.


----------



## frogwoman (May 12, 2012)

it's hardly an exclusively muslim/pakistani problem is it? there might be more of an unspoken acceptance in some - SOME - sections of that community, but i bet there is in the white community as well. i've came across one or two jews who expressed the attitude that non jewish women were only good for a quick shag to, but they were cunts anyway. perhaps they'd grown up in a milieu (lol) where that was given a social sanction or maybe they were just like that anyway. im not wading through 13 pages of this thread but i just thought i'd make that point. i know many muslims and don't really know any who'd be like that.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 12, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it's hardly an exclusively muslim/pakistani problem is it?


What, sexism, misogyny, rape and child abuse?  No, definitely not.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 12, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> it's hardly an exclusively muslim/pakistani problem is it?


 
No, but baradiri is exclusively Pakistani. Baradiri is difficult to translate, but essentially refers to clan loyalty to specific villages in Pakistan. All the groomers in this case (except for the Afghan one), hail from the same area of Pakistan, as do the two labour councillors (Zulf Ali & Aftab Hussein) who spoke up for them in court. Quite a lot of shady business goes on behind this baradiri thing with postal voting and such as well.

Mind you, Rochdale's got a (not so) proud history of covering up systematic sexual abuse that stretches back decades from Sir Cyril's spanking allegations to Knowl View school. It's a deeply fucked up place, the dale - Far worse than Oldham.


----------



## Grandma Death (May 13, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, that takes us back to my post on page 2. Take a step back from these particular men, and ask yourself whether rapists, whether the act of rape, can be separated from the misogyny of the rapist. I suggest not. While not all sexists and misogynists are rapists, all rapists are sexists and misogynists. They are the extreme manifestation of the attitudes towards women that they have learned.
> 
> Yes, society as a whole needs to tackle those issues. Just as society as a whole needs to address its attitudes towards children. But in this case specifically the police and the CPS need to address their attitudes towards children that were at the root of their failings here. And the communities within which these men learned their attitudes towards women have to address those attitudes.


 
I dont disagree with what your saying. What Im saying is misogony may, in this case, have little or nothing to do with their cultural attitudes to women.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 13, 2012)

Except is isn't isolated.  There are other cases.  Furthermore, the evidence suggests that these men were already a network _before_ they engaged in this grooming activity.  This all suggests that attitudes were already shared and reinforced within the group. I don't think that we can cover it by saying it's individuals who separately and severally arrived at these attitudes, then came together to carry out these activities.  We're talking here about in-group attitudes reinforced by traditional certainties (even, more widely, God-ordained certainties) about a man's place and a woman's place.  

However, we need to make the distinction between "this is what Muslims do", and "this is what _can_ flow from conservative patriarchal misogyny".  Not only that, we need to re-establish the distinction between race and culture.  That's why we can't leave it to the far right to make the running.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I dont disagree with what your saying. What Im saying is misogony may, in this case, have little or nothing to do with their cultural attitudes to women.


Which means it might right? I think it does. if you think different then say so, openly.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 13, 2012)

ymu said:


> I think it's pretty hard to claim that there is more evidence that this sort of behaviour is condoned by the Pakistani community when it would not be condoned by another community. Look at the disgusting reaction to Ched Evans being sent down for raping a girl who was barely conscious, procured for him by a mate and who was filmed being raped by him by two more of their friends who had turned up when they got the phone call.


 
That's Sheffield United fans though. They have their very own paranoid, twisted, bitter culture born of years of inferiority.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> No, but baradiri is exclusively Pakistani. Baradiri is difficult to translate, but essentially refers to clan loyalty to specific villages in Pakistan. All the groomers in this case (except for the Afghan one), hail from the same area of Pakistan, as do the two labour councillors (Zulf Ali & Aftab Hussein) who spoke up for them in court. Quite a lot of shady business goes on behind this baradiri thing with postal voting and such as well.
> 
> Mind you, Rochdale's got a (not so) proud history of covering up systematic sexual abuse that stretches back decades from Sir Cyril's spanking allegations to Knowl View school. It's a deeply fucked up place, the dale - Far worse than Oldham.


 
Loyalty networks are nothing new over here, either, to be scrupulously fair. That the loyalty network in this case happens to be "tribal" rather than old school tie just means it was less visible until exposed.


----------



## Corax (May 13, 2012)

Did I see yesterday that they've been bailed?

And isn't that frankly a bit mental if they want them to make trial?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 13, 2012)

Grandma Death said:


> I dont disagree with what your saying. What Im saying is misogony may, in this case, have little or nothing to do with their cultural attitudes to women.


 
To me, you seem to be making an artificial distinction between "institutional" misogyny, i.e. misogyny born of social structures and strictures, and socialised into a section of a culture, and individual instrumentalist misogyny, where someone is misogynistic because it is advantageous (socially, politically, financially etc) for them to be so. I'd contend that these people are most definitely "institutional" misogynists, and also instrumental misogynists, the former fueling the latter.


----------



## The39thStep (May 13, 2012)

Corax said:


> Did I see yesterday that they've been bailed?
> 
> And isn't that frankly a bit mental if they want them to make trial?


 
weren't those on trial in Liverpool on bail as well?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 13, 2012)

"The racial ethnicity of the men involved in the sexual exploitation of children in Greater Manchester cannot be ignored, the chair of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has said." BBC

What is "racial ethnicity"?

The _race_ of the men is not the issue. Not even slightly.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

I'd like to see what Phillips actually said. Anyone know what show this was on? The politics show this morning?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'd like to see what Phillips actually said. Anyone know what show this was on? The politics show this morning?


Andrew Marr Show, apparently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18049654




The phrase "racial ethnicity" appears to be one entirely of the reporter's own making.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'd like to see what Phillips actually said. Anyone know what show this was on? The politics show this morning?


 
He was on Andrew Marr's show. http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/26704/


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

Ta both.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

Yes, astonishing summation  by the BBC reporter.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 13, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hmmm. Thing is, let's at least have some consistency. So, for instance, where a black boy is murdered by a group of racist white thugs, we ask where these thugs came from and where their racist attitudes came from. What is it about where they grew up that left them with the attitudes they have?
> 
> Were you saying the same thing when Stephen Lawrence was murdered, for instance?


 
Your finger-pointing response is precisely the kind of damaging liberal reflex I was talking about.

But, to answer your question, yes I was.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 13, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> Your finger-pointing response is precisely the kind of damaging liberal reflex I was talking about.
> 
> But, to answer your question, yes I was.


Ok. Fair dos. I stand by what I said about tone, though.


----------



## malatesta32 (May 13, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> weren't those on trial in Liverpool on bail as well?


steps, they were which allowed the fecken eejits in liverpool to try and attack them and their laywers, 2 of the latter resigning and setting the trial back. morons.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> That's Sheffield United fans though. They have their very own paranoid, twisted, bitter culture born of years of inferiority.


Well, precisely. Whenever these cases happen, there's some special reason why the men behaved as they did. They're spoilt rich footballers, or backward rural Muslims, or some other kind of special monster that normal men aren't.

I do realise you were joking, but it's pretty fucking offensive to dismiss 'rape culture' like that. As if it is somehow an unusual response, and these attitudes aren't at all reflected in everyday culture and there are no issues with the attitudes of the police to women who report assault, and no history of them allowing predatory rapists to continue simply because they don't believe any crime has been committed.

The reason I am having a problem with the way this is being made into an argument about a specific culture is that it leads us into a racist, misogynist cul-de-sac. These men did not behave the way they did because they found themselves in a position to abuse vulnerable women, they did it because they were Pakistani. No more thought required.

Men from different cultures and backgrounds come into contact with vulnerable women in different circumstances. Young Pakistani men working long hours in a kebab shop are more likely to meet vulnerable young women hanging out there late at night, celebrities are more likely to have groupies delivering themselves, and men who go out clubbing more likely to find drunk women to take advantage of (and will probably be doing their best to make sure they get drunk).

This is the kind of shit some men do when given the opportunity, and they won't be prevented from doing it until and unless the police start taking complaints seriously, and the rest of society makes it 100% clear that violent, misogynistic 'humour' is not acceptable, no matter how 'normal' and non-rapey the bloke making the 'joke' assumes he is.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 13, 2012)

ymu said:


> Well, precisely. Whenever these cases happen, there's some special reason why the men behaved as they did. They're spoilt rich footballers, or backward rural Muslims, or some other kind of special monster that normal men aren't.
> 
> I do realise you were joking, but it's pretty fucking offensive to dismiss 'rape culture' like that. As if it is somehow an unusual response, and these attitudes aren't at all reflected in everyday culture and there are no issues with the attitudes of the police to women who report assault, and no history of them allowing predatory rapists to continue simply because they don't believe any crime has been committed.
> 
> ...


i think it's a bit much to expect the police to be any better than the rest of society, when the past 183 years in this country (and since 1685 in paris) shows the police are not to be trusted.

the culture in the police force is one of the greatest obstacles to getting rape convictions. and it's unlikely to change when you have at least one police officer in operation sapphire making up a load of auld shite to resolve reported crime.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i think it's a bit much to expect the police to be any better than the rest of society, when the past 183 years in this country (and since 1685 in paris) shows the police are not to be trusted.
> 
> the culture in the police force is one of the greatest obstacles to getting rape convictions. and it's unlikely to change when you have at least one police officer in operation sapphire making up a load of auld shite to resolve reported crime.


_It's a bit much to expect the police to be any better than the rest of society, but we still can give those Pakistani's hell for not being any better than the rest of us._

I'm not saying that you are arguing this, but it is my point about this whole racist diversionary tactic. Unless it can be shown that men from conservative Muslim communities are disproportionately responsible for sexual crime, then trying to address it by examining their culture in isolation does nothing but promote racist attitudes whilst letting  misogyny in society as a whole off the hook completely.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

I can think of other ways to investigate. You are drowning. 
What ways?

You and nick griffin paddling in a pool.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2012)

You don't think there is any reason to start with why the police and CPS dismissed the original complaint in 2008?


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

Don't try this@:
You don't think shit on me


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2012)

Paddick said:
			
		

> Shortly after he became Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair asked me to review rape investigation in the MPS. Performance was patchy and he wanted the MPS to be the best in the world. The review revealed serious shortcomings and made strong recommendatons but senior officers were concerned about the impact the report would have on the MPS' reputation, particularly against the background of the criticisms levelled at the new Commissioner.
> 
> As a result I was told to tone down the criticisms and water-down the recommendations. My original report highlighted the changes over a period of four years, 2001/2 - 2004/5. It showed a large increase in the number of allegations of rape, but a similar fall in the percentage of allegations classified as rape by the police. It also identified wide variations in the way rape was investigated by the MPS within London.
> The final report only analysed performance over two months in 2005 and sidestepped any criticism of the force, saying: "Any assessment of the performance of the MPS in the investigation of rape must be placed in the wider context of the complexity of rape allegations that are reported" and "without detailed case-by-case analysis, it's not possible to determine the extent to which police performance affected the outcome of the investigation."
> ...


 
Yeah, nothing to see here. No reason to look at the culture of the police, or society as a whole. Let's go for the Muslims instead.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

ymu said:


> _._
> 
> I'm not saying that you are arguing this, but it is my point about this whole racist diversionary tactic. Unless it can be shown that men from conservative Muslim communities are disproportionately responsible for sexual crime, then trying to address it by examining their culture in isolation does nothing but promote racist attitudes whilst letting misogyny in society as a whole off the hook completely.


 
And if it can? What would count as proof?


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

ymu said:


> You don't think there is any reason to start with why the police and CPS dismissed the original complaint in 2008?


Where was that said or implied in what i posted or argued~?


----------



## 8115 (May 13, 2012)

Yeah, the race implications of the case are totally fractional compared to the feminist/ children's issues, which are massive and which pretty much nobody seems to really want to discuss. I mean, I don't expecially see the need to discuss it, it's grim, but I think it's very telling how much attention is going to the different aspects of the case.

I was thinking today, when many many men still feel it's ok to make jokes about things like, grass on the wicket, which they do in my experience, there's something pretty wrong in our society.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Where was that said or implied in what i posted or argued~?


You've edited since I responded, but your original post was:



butchersapron said:


> I can't think of other ways to investigate. You are drowning.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 13, 2012)

ymu said:


> Well, precisely. Whenever these cases happen, there's some special reason why the men behaved as they did. They're spoilt rich footballers, or backward rural Muslims, or some other kind of special monster that normal men aren't.
> 
> I do realise you were joking, but it's pretty fucking offensive to dismiss 'rape culture' like that. As if it is somehow an unusual response, and these attitudes aren't at all reflected in everyday culture and there are no issues with the attitudes of the police to women who report assault, and no history of them allowing predatory rapists to continue simply because they don't believe any crime has been committed.
> 
> ...


 
Not sure if I'm understanding you here, but I was actually making that exact point - I was lampooning the idea that this is a purely "Muslim" thing. Don't really want to cover what's already been covered in this thread, but while the precise nature of the crime may have roots in the cultural practices of certain Muslim communities, it's really a symptom of a much deeper, wider malaise.

In the weeks leading up to Evans' conviction I heard, and confronted, people in the pub singing songs about the scumbag - "he'll shag who he wants." Then after the conviction I had twats telling me that she only did it for the money and that they were assisting in a campaign to "clear his name". I also had people telling me that it was "completely normal", when reveiving a text from a friend telling you they've "got a bird", to assume that this means you can go over there and join in. Now I'm certainly no prude and I confess I'm not the most pc man in the world, but that's definitely _not_ normal and even if it was it wouldn't be acceptable. 

The club itself, like the Tory MPs claiming that some rapes are sort of "ok", hardly helped when he was played during the trial and, even after he was convicted, they refused to comment or to cancel his contract - that's right, he's still receiving £20k a week from Sheffield United - the justification? He'd launched an appeal (one with zero legal grounds by the way) and they didn't want to take any action until it had run its course. I suspect money was the main motivator - he was valued at around £3m and had the club canceled and by some highly unlikely travesty of justice he was acquitted, he would have been a free agent, able to join any club without United receiving a transfer fee.

Dealing with this outside the safety of Urban is a lot more difficult, and sometimes a lot more dangerous. I think I've earned the right to a bit of gallows humour.

They really are bitter twisted cunts with an inferiority complex though (although the inferiority complex is justified - they really are inferior in every way; morally, socially, intellectually and, most importantly, on the football pitch).


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

ymu said:


> You've edited since I responded, but your original post was:


It was, now what?

Any answer?


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2012)

Apologies for misreading you spiney. Great post.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Not sure if I'm understanding you here, but I was actually making that exact point - I was lampooning the idea that this is a purely "Muslim" thing. Don't really want to cover what's already been covered in this thread, but while the precise nature of the crime may have roots in the cultural practices of certain Muslim communities, it's really a symptom of a much deeper, wider malaise.
> 
> In the weeks leading up to Evans' conviction I heard, and confronted, people in the pub singing songs about the scumbag - "he'll shag who he wants." Then after the conviction I had twats telling me that she only did it for the money and that they were assisting in a campaign to "clear his name". I also had people telling me that it was "completely normal", when reveiving a text from a friend telling you they've "got a bird", to assume that this means you can go over there and join in. Now I'm certainly no prude and I confess I'm not the most pc man in the world, but that's definitely _not_ normal and even if it was it wouldn't be acceptable.
> 
> ...


Get out of yorkshire.

You're better than this tripe


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2012)

i think that ymu makes a good point when she talks about how people think that people do this shit are "not normal" and it would never happen in their back yard. i have to admit i have the same attitude and it seems to me that sometimes i think we tolerate a lot more from people because we've known them a long time and because they would not do anything to us it is assumed that they would not do anything full stop. i also think people don't want to think of the idea that someone they know could be a rapist or another kind of serious criminal, it's a psychological self protection thing. 

i also don't think there's one "pakistani community" btw. i think there's a bit of a problem when people assume that because a group of scum did something that everyone else in that vicinity "tolerates" it when they might not have known them at all or have any kind of association with them. i'm not saying anyone is doing that by the way and it is not exclusive to people from muslim countries. there's a big problem with people not being believed when sexual assaults are reported because people wouldn't want to countenance the idea that they were friends with a rapist, so it is easier to believe the person is making it up


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It was, now what?
> 
> Any answer?


I have no idea what you're banging on about. Write a proper post with a proper argument that addresses what I am saying, and I might waste some time on you. Your lazy one-liner schtick is getting boring.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

ymu said:


> I have no idea what you're banging on about. Write a proper post with a proper argument that addresses what I am saying, and I might waste some time on you. Your lazy one-liner schtick is getting boring.


I was adressing your shit post here

Nice to see the oxbridge crew taking control of the situation - you decide


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2012)

That's nice dear.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

ymu said:


> That's nice dear.


Great post. Thanks. You've just proven my point.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Get out of yorkshire.
> 
> You're better than this tripe


 
Nah, everywhere has its cunts - while the south is infected by Tory voters we have Sheffield United fans to deal with. They're only slightly worse than Tories anyway. And the negative impact of SUFC, the stain on this great city, is more than made up for by the positive influence of the amazing, MASSIVE Sheffield Wednesday. We're the batman to their penguin... or something.

Although to be fair to my porcine neighbours, most united fans were ashamed - the planned protest at their match against Stevenage was a total failure, a few cocks who were roundly booed when they tried to stand up at the allotted time.



frogwoman said:


> i think that ymu makes a good point when she talks about how people think that people do this shit are "not normal" and it would never happen in their back yard. i have to admit i have the same attitude and it seems to me that sometimes i think we tolerate a lot more from people because we've known them a long time and because they would not do anything to us it is assumed that they would not do anything full stop. i also think people don't want to think of the idea that someone they know could be a rapist or another kind of serious criminal, it's a psychological self protection thing.


 
I think there is an element of this in the Ched Evans case. Fans have a strange relationship with players - although the player doesn't have a clue who they are, fans feel like they "know" the players. 'How could "our Ched", the number 9 who scored 30 odd goals, be a rapist? She must be lying, I mean - he could have his pick couldn't he, doesn't have to rape anyone.' I'm absolutely certain this is what some people thought, in fact a couple of people as much as said it to me.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2012)

I'm sure that he didn't think he was doing anything wrong. That's the problem.


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2012)

yeah.i have got to say i think it's the sort of thing that would be common unfortunately in many groups of friends and many people tolerate fucked up behaviour because they've "known them a long time" or whatever. and i can see how this could be replicated on a bigger scale with quite closed communities or religious institutions such as the catholic church, where there is that idea (which is a very common one) of "I've known him a long time so he must be all right" combined with a general fear of it reflecting badly on the church/god/whatever.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 13, 2012)

i'm sorry ymu but it's laughable to try and claim that the reason the Pakistani community is disproportionately involved in an organised and pan-community grooming gang is because they're more likely to come across drunk white girls in kebab shops (as opposed to in clubs).

the point about the grooming gangs is just that, they're not isolated incidences of individuals doing something by themselves and then maybe being publically supported by their immediate friends. this is a situation where many, many respected individuals from across an entire community were colluding together over years to specifically groom underage and non-Muslim girls.

this was _organised_, which is why its spurious to link it to the individual actions of moneyed up weirdos sex-touring the Philippines - and it was in no small part the close-knit and sectionalised nature of the communal structure as a whole which allowed for the level of collusion (as has been noted, the number of men actually charged here is just the tip of the iceberg).


----------



## Grandma Death (May 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Which means it might right? I think it does. if you think different then say so, openly.


 

I cant say either way. For me the jury is out.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 13, 2012)

ymu said:


> _It's a bit much to expect the police to be any better than the rest of society, but we still can give those Pakistani's hell for not being any better than the rest of us._
> 
> I'm not saying that you are arguing this, but it is my point about this whole racist diversionary tactic. Unless it can be shown that men from conservative Muslim communities are disproportionately responsible for sexual crime, then trying to address it by examining their culture in isolation does nothing but promote racist attitudes whilst letting misogyny in society as a whole off the hook completely.


i see my point's flown right over your head, as i didn't say, allude to or imply anything about muslim communities, be they conservative or progressive or whatever. in fact, your post's a nice little example of how to smear someone while saying 'i'm not saying you're arguing this'. so why the fuck did you say it in the first place?

you claim that men 'won't be prevented from doing it until and unless the police start taking complaints seriously'; given the police's history around rape cases in this country over the past 183 years, you clearly don't see any prospects for change in the foreseeable.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i'm sorry ymu but it's laughable to try and claim that the reason the Pakistani community is disproportionately involved in an organised and pan-community grooming gang is because they're more likely to come across drunk white girls in kebab shops (as opposed to in clubs).
> 
> the point about the grooming gangs is just that, they're not isolated incidences of individuals doing something by themselves and then maybe being publically supported by their immediate friends. this is a situation where many, many respected individuals from across an entire community were colluding together over years to specifically groom underage and non-Muslim girls.
> 
> this was _organised_, which is why its spurious to link it to the individual actions of moneyed up weirdos sex-touring the Philippines - and it was in no small part the close-knit and sectionalised nature of the communal structure as a whole which allowed for the level of collusion (as has been noted, the number of men actually charged here is just the tip of the iceberg).


Never thought i'd say it, great hard political posts on here. Ta for the posts.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 13, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i'm sorry ymu but it's laughable to try and claim that the reason the Pakistani community is disproportionately involved in an organised and pan-community grooming gang is because they're more likely to come across drunk white girls in kebab shops (as opposed to in clubs).
> 
> the point about the grooming gangs is just that, they're not isolated incidences of individuals doing something by themselves and then maybe being publically supported by their immediate friends. this is a situation where many, many respected individuals from across an entire community were colluding together over years to specifically groom underage and non-Muslim girls.
> 
> this was _organised_, which is why its spurious to link it to the individual actions of moneyed up weirdos sex-touring the Philippines - and it was in no small part the close-knit and sectionalised nature of the communal structure as a whole which allowed for the level of collusion (as has been noted, the number of men actually charged here is just the tip of the iceberg).


 
Exactly. That is just one point that seems to need continual reinforcing. The other is that these were not 'young women' either were they.

Not - 'barely legal' - barely teen in some cases.

Message to the dissemblers:  reverse the melanin between perps and targets and see how wrong-headed and decadent your special pleading actually is.


----------



## ymu (May 13, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i'm sorry ymu but it's laughable to try and claim that the reason the Pakistani community is disproportionately involved in an organised and pan-community grooming gang is because they're more likely to come across drunk white girls in kebab shops (as opposed to in clubs).
> 
> the point about the grooming gangs is just that, they're not isolated incidences of individuals doing something by themselves and then maybe being publically supported by their immediate friends. this is a situation where many, many respected individuals from across an entire community were colluding together over years to specifically groom underage and non-Muslim girls.
> 
> this was _organised_, which is why its spurious to link it to the individual actions of moneyed up weirdos sex-touring the Philippines - and it was in no small part the close-knit and sectionalised nature of the communal structure as a whole which allowed for the level of collusion (as has been noted, the number of men actually charged here is just the tip of the iceberg).


I don't disagree with any of that, apart from the attempt to pretend that it doesn't happen in other cultural communities.

Connor Brown texted his mates to let them know he had a girl they could abuse. Do you think that was some isolated incident, or part of _their_ culture?

The police laughed at women who reported Warboys for rape. An aberration, or routine practice in _their_ culture?

I think it is undoubtedly true that cultural aspects played a part here - men from conservative Muslim communities often do not understand that women who dress less modestly and who are free to openly have sexual relationships are not automatically up for it, and this perception does give licence to immature hormones and sexual predators alike. In my very limited experience, very publicly rebuking these men for hassling you gets masses of approval from the local community, especially if that local community also has difficulty in understanding the sexual mores of Western culture and has no idea how to tackle the problem when they assume that the victims are happy with it.

Which is why it is a huge problem that the attitudes of wider society and the police are coming under no scrutiny whatsoever, in favour of, yet again, dismissing this as something very specific to the men/culture concerned and nothing whatsoever to do with wider societal attitudes towards rape and the abuse of vulnerable women.

How can you pontificate about them seeing white women as worthless when our legal system allows the way a woman chooses to dress and her past sexual history to be used by the defence in a rape case? There's a reason they think these girls are fair game, and it's because our society as a whole treats them as fair game too.


----------



## ayatollah (May 13, 2012)

IF we accept that there may well be a "disproportionate" involvement in the grooming of young girls (who come from the white community indeed, but are mostly an especially  vulnerable  sub-set of girls from problem White families , often already abused by their fathers, and are in "care") by members of the Muslim community. What is the political conclusion we are being invited to draw from this by Joe, Uberdog, and others ?

 When I was working in North Wales in the mid 90's the entire residential childcare system was in crisis because of trials underway  of a HUGE number of abusive cases , by white men, stretching back 50 years or more. Did this tell us something toxic about the ENTIRE North Wales population ? I don't think so really.

We all know that there are some VERY unacceptable aspects to the traditional cultural practices, especially regards women,  of the Muslim community, based on cultural norms in their originating countries which are TODAY considered unacceptable to the majority indigenous community - but of course were pretty standard (apart from female circumcision) in the UK 100 years ago. Over time it is usually the case that incomer cultural norms merge with those of the host community. There is no reason to think this wont happen in the UK with the Muslim community. So, other than us understanding the cultural factors which lead many Muslim men to view white girls all too often as "whores" simply because they  are not imprisoned in the home, and wearing a veil, what "lesson" do you want us "liberals" to wise up to , Joe, or Uberdog ?   Do we deport em all because thir  culture is "inferior" to ours ? What is the "action-based" policy/policies that you see as springing from a recognition that some cultural norms held by recent immigrants do not, yet, coincide with the host community ?


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 13, 2012)

ymu said:
			
		

> There's a reason they think these girls are fair game, and it's because our society as a whole treats them as fair game too.




I agree with elements of this, insofar as there is a general tendency amongst general society (spanning both right and left) to see young 'chavvy' girls (in particular) as scum. If they're seen as scum more broadly, then that obviously makes them all the more susceptible to abuse. However there are also cultural reasons here, very widespread prejudices amongst the North-West Pakistani community and a degree of misogyny which frankly makes generalised cultural attitudes amongst almost every other section of society appear incredibly tame. I'm afraid you might have to experience this before its evident - all I can tell you is that I know first-hand. I've lived in the North-West all my life, spent years on various different projects spanning the different communities, went to a college with roughly 50% Pakistani intake, and continue to have lots of friends from the Pakistani community. Whereas misogyny elsewhere may be represented in many cases by a grudging and often personal refusal to accept or internalise the ideas of equality (which are dominant in discourse and ideology) in the Pakistani community you have a pocket which has often resisted attempts to normalise even the most basic egalitarian principles between men and women.




			
				ayatollah said:
			
		

> What is the "action-based" policy/policies that you see as springing from a recognition that some cultural norms held by recent immigrants do not, yet, coincide with the host community ?




firstly, i think that Cultural Relativism is absolute horse-shit and the left needs to actively argue for its own principles wrt cultural practices and norms. where migrant communities act in anti-social ways this shouldn't be ignored, and members of the community should not go unchallenged on cultural practice which is backwards. this was old practice, 1960s - looking at the way in which the Communist Party interacted with the Jewish community in the 1930s you see a radically different approach to the way in which the left approaches migrant communities today. indeed, most Jewish CP converts rejected their Jewish identity in favour of a secular class identity... something which happens incredibly rarely today (indeed often the reverse happens... from my time in the SWP i know a fair few Marxist 'converts' to Islam).

in my opinion, that should be the primary 'practical' lesson.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 13, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i'm sorry ymu but it's laughable to try and claim that the reason the Pakistani community is disproportionately involved in an organised and pan-community grooming gang is because they're more likely to come across drunk white girls in kebab shops (as opposed to in clubs).
> 
> the point about the grooming gangs is just that, they're not isolated incidences of individuals doing something by themselves and then maybe being publically supported by their immediate friends. this is a situation where many, many respected individuals from across an entire community were colluding together over years to specifically groom underage and non-Muslim girls.
> 
> this was _organised_, which is why its spurious to link it to the individual actions of moneyed up weirdos sex-touring the Philippines - and it was in no small part the close-knit and sectionalised nature of the communal structure as a whole which allowed for the level of collusion (as has been noted, the number of men actually charged here is just the tip of the iceberg).


 

This guy knows how it is, all these chumps who've probably never set foot in rochdale trying to say how it is... jesus


----------



## Ranbay (May 13, 2012)

I assume now all these guys have been charged, they will be charging the customers?

They where pimping them out and the police made it clear at the start they knew who was abusing and paying to abuse these girls.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> They where pimping them out and the police made it clear at the start they knew who was abusing and paying to abuse these girls.


 
Got a link for that?


----------



## Ranbay (May 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Got a link for that?


 
may struggle at 11 on Sunday night to find something after a few drinks, but there was defo talk back last year that they knew who had been using the services..... also there was more arrests last week, could be connected?

failing that will look it up in the AM from work.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> failing that will look it up in the AM from work.


 
Ok.

I haven't read anything about that at all.


----------



## Ranbay (May 13, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Ok.
> 
> I haven't read anything about that at all.


 




> Those charged are among 26 arrested in relation to the sexual exploitation of teenage girls since 2008.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13694250


 
26-9 = another 17 other people.

I did read some place that they knew who had been using the services of these men, and they would be coming for them..... cant find it now but will have another look in the morning but assume they would need to sort the ring leaders out before they take the others down.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 14, 2012)

This kinda shit's been going on for years, let's hope dibble are finally taking it seriously. ymu's right in a way - It does all boil down to misogyny, _but_  there is a cultural element at play as well - A lot of stani lads do use disenfranchised white girls to practice shagging on.


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Never thought i'd say it, great hard political posts on here. Ta for the posts.


 
"great hard political posts" meaning ones you agree with?!  (Uberdog seems to have been on quite a journey from Gallowayite scurge of Islamophobia to his current attitude but there you go).

Anyway I can see why Joe Reilly et al are opposed to a liberal veto on criticising characteristics of "the muslim community" (sic) and insisting on a pre-emptory univerisalisation of sex crime, and would agree here.   But he tends to fall into the obverse error - where any reference to what instances of group sexual predatory behaviour by men have *in common* must automatically be part and parcel of this liberal dissembling.  

Surely it is reasonable, indeed necessary, to look at BOTH the specific characteristics of how this form of group sexual grooming has arisen within some groups of British Pakistani men, and also how it relates to trends in other ethnic/cultural contexts including how forms of masculinity are structured and how male sexuality is policed/licensed?


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

> Anyway I can see why Joe Reilly et al are opposed to a liberal veto on criticising characteristics of "the muslim community" (sic) and insisting on a pre-emptory univerisalisation of sex crime, and would agree here. But he tends to fall into the obverse error - where any reference to what instances of group sexual predatory behaviour by men have *in common* must automatically be part and parcel of this liberal dissembling.
> 
> Surely it is reasonable, indeed necessary, to look at BOTH the specific characteristics of how this form of group sexual grooming has arisen within some groups of British Pakistani men, and also how it relates to trends in other ethnic/cultural contexts including how forms of masculinity are structured and how male sexuality is policed/licensed?




i agree with this.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> "great hard political posts" meaning ones you agree with?! (Uberdog seems to have been on quite a journey from Gallowayite scurge of Islamophobia to his current attitude but there you go).
> 
> Anyway I can see why Joe Reilly et al are opposed to a liberal veto on criticising characteristics of "the muslim community" (sic) and insisting on a pre-emptory univerisalisation of sex crime, and would agree here. But he tends to fall into the obverse error - where any reference to what instances of group sexual predatory behaviour by men have *in common* must automatically be part and parcel of this liberal dissembling.
> 
> Surely it is reasonable, indeed necessary, to look at BOTH the specific characteristics of how this form of group sexual grooming has arisen within some groups of British Pakistani men, and also how it relates to trends in other ethnic/cultural contexts including how forms of masculinity are structured and how male sexuality is policed/licensed?


It means a point well made without waffly pretension and _whataboutery_

So, let me get this right, you agree with Joe but want to force a closure on him and everyone else - only you can say such things. Everyone else is doing it wrong.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Surely it is reasonable, indeed necessary, to look at BOTH the specific characteristics of how this form of group sexual grooming has arisen within some groups of British Pakistani men, and also how it relates to trends in other ethnic/cultural contexts including how forms of masculinity are structured and how male sexuality is policed/licensed?


Do you think nobody is doing the latter?  The problem is when cultural relativists use the latter as an excuse to avoid the former.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Do you think nobody is doing the latter? The problem is when cultural relativists use the latter as an excuse to avoid the former.


I think it's really easy to chuck out the cultural relativist jibe here, but I think there's a very different sort of cultural relativism at work in this instance (not saying that there aren't also yer typical cultural relativists talking shite, mind). I'm too tired to find the words right now, but I posted a bit about it in a different context on another thread - hopefully it translates well enough to this context:



ymu said:


> Yeah, this is really hacking me off about 'honour killings' at the moment. I've seen two documentaries recently, and they both relied heavily on cases which were not honour killings.
> 
> 1. Bloke kills his wife in a fit of rage after finding out she was having an affair. They're Asian, so it's an honour killing.
> 
> ...


----------



## ayatollah (May 14, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:

"firstly, i think that Cultural Relativism is absolute horse-shit and the left needs to actively argue for its own principles wrt cultural practices and norms. where migrant communities act in anti-social ways this shouldn't be ignored, and members of the community should not go unchallenged on cultural practice which is backwards. this was old practice, 1960s - looking at the way in which the Communist Party interacted with the Jewish community in the 1930s you see a radically different approach to the way in which the left approaches migrant communities today. indeed, most Jewish CP converts rejected their Jewish identity in favour of a secular class identity... something which happens incredibly rarely today (indeed often the reverse happens... from my time in the SWP i know a fair few Marxist 'converts' to Islam)."



Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for a rigorous enforcement of existing laws against female circumcision, forced marriages, honour killing.. and I recognise that in the specific area of female rights many recent immigrant communities have brought with them undesirable social customs from a pre industrial era, which were once universal in Europe too (until well into the 20th century in Britain wives and children were legally just chattels of the husband).

However this is a transitional problem, and it is quite obvious that young Asian women in particular are increasingly challenging the restrictive customs of their communities - hence the widespread "honour killings" across that community. In a generation or two young asian women will undoubtedly have asserted their rights to be treated just as their white sisters are.

Not all religous /cultural practices will ever conform, however, Now I'm not in favour of either Kosher or Halal ritual killing methods.. but as a community we've tolerated it for hundreds of years done by Jews, and I'm afraid we'll just have to tolerate it by Muslims too. To campaign against it simply lines one up with racists. You line up against it as a practice if you want - but you'll have some VERY dodgy allies.

Your "solution" or objective , As I derive it from your claim that on joining the Communist Party in the 1930's "most Jewish converts" rejected their Jewish identity, may well be based on fact , but does this imply that a practicing Jew cannot be a communist ? You seem to HOPE so. Well I'm not too keen on many aspects of another major world religion, Roman Catholicism, as a profoundly reactionery religion organisationally and as a belief system , and we now all know it's priesthood is the biggest organised paedophile ring in world history. Should we expect Catholics to abandon their faith on becoming socialists ? I hope NOT, despite my own hostility to many features of organised Catholicism. Because it cuts socialists off from whole swathes of the working class, and expects them to abandon deeply held belief systems , which is simply NOT NECESSARY as a precondition of participating in the class struggle.

But of course you Uberdog, and those who agree with your post, aren't interested in exposing the reactionery nature of Catholicism, or the sexual perversion so widespread in its priesthood - but instead are only too keen to pick up on misbehaviour by a small number of criminals within an already demonised ethnic minority, in order to smear the ENTIRE COMMUNTY, and of course follow in the trail of the BNP et al. You see yourselves as standing up against "Liberal moral relativism" . I see you as being strangely SELECTIVE in denouncing particular communities for their undesirable cultural practices and the misbehaviour of just a few. And what underlies that selectivity ? A "falling into line" with the identical selectivity and Islamophobic prejudice of the popular press and the Far Right that's what.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

You brilliant fool.


----------



## phildwyer (May 14, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> A lot of stani lads do use disenfranchised white girls to practice shagging on.


 
Good job white blokes never do that eh?


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Got a link for that?


 
can't find anything so it may have been on the TV news, they definatly said they had details and knew of the people who had been using the services of these girls as paying customers.  And as it's widely reported that they where pimping them out that would make sense.

unless im mixing it up with the new case in Oxford?


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> ...however, Now I'm not in favour of either Kosher or Halal ritual killing methods..


They're exactly the same methods as used by virtually every UK abattoir, precisely because they are considered the most humane. Ignorant racists prattle on about the cruelty of letting an animal bleed to death, but they're ignorant racists ... The animals die almost instantly. Meat that had not been left to drain of blood would be inedible.

There is some controversy in Islam about whether stunning before cutting the animal's throat is acceptable, but plenty of Islamic scholars who argue that it is (the theological issue is that the animal must be known to be alive when it's killed - it's one of those old-time public health rules on food which pepper the Torah and the Koran). I'm not sure if it's legal to use non-stunning methods in this country - pretty sure most halal meat produced here has been stunned.

If you care about someone muttering a prayer to a sky pixie with the wrong name when they do the killing, then there is an issue. Not otherwise.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> But of course you Uberdog, and those who agree with your post, aren't interested in exposing the reactionery nature of Catholicism, or the sexual perversion so widespread in its priesthood - but instead are only too keen to pick up on misbehaviour by a small number of criminals within an already demonised ethnic minority, in order to smear the ENTIRE COMMUNTY, and of course follow in the trail of the BNP et al. You see yourselves as standing up against "Liberal moral relativism" . I see you as being strangely SELECTIVE in denouncing particular communities for their undesirable cultural practices and the misbehaviour of just a few. And what underlies that selectivity ? A "falling into line" with the identical selectivity and Islamophobic prejudice of the popular press and the Far Right that's what.


 
What a load of shit.

After Tories and racists, the Roman Catholic clergy is probably the most frequently vilified group on these boards.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> What a load of shit.
> 
> After Tories and racists, the Roman Catholic clergy is probably the most frequently vilified group on these boards.


He made no comment about "these boards", he commented on what a particular poster chooses to get exercised about and what he chooses to ignore. I don't know if the accusation is correct in this case, but it's often a handy guide to the motives of all these vocally passionate campaigners who suddenly crawl out of the woodwork when a case like this comes along.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

No he didn't. Do have another look.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> He made no comment about "these boards", he commented on what a particular poster chooses to get exercised about and what he chooses to ignore.


 
No, he said "you *and those who agree with your posts*", which implies specific individuals *on these boards*, all of whom I've know to frequently and vigorously condemn the Roman Catholic clergy.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 14, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> But of course you Uberdog, and those who agree with your post, aren't interested in exposing the reactionery nature of Catholicism, or the sexual perversion so widespread in its priesthood - but instead are only too keen to pick up on misbehaviour by a small number of criminals within an already demonised ethnic minority, in order to smear the ENTIRE COMMUNTY, and of course follow in the trail of the BNP et al. You see yourselves as standing up against "Liberal moral relativism" . I see you as being strangely SELECTIVE in denouncing particular communities for their undesirable cultural practices and the misbehaviour of just a few. And what underlies that selectivity ? A "falling into line" with the identical selectivity and Islamophobic prejudice of the popular press and the Far Right that's what.


Nonsense.  Read the thread.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> No, he said "you *and those who agree with your posts*", which implies specific individuals *on these boards*, all of whom I've know to frequently and vigorously condemn the Roman Catholic clergy.


 
Fair enough, that is an accusation too far. My main point still stands though. Someone who is not ordinarily interested in threads about rape and misogyny, or threads about the negative cultural impacts of religion, cannot really expect their posts to be taken at face value here.

Do you judge people by what they say they believe, or by what they do to back up those beliefs?

(and just to be on the safe side, I am not saying that the original accusation aimed at DU was correct - the point is a general one)


----------



## ayatollah (May 14, 2012)

Strangely enough though I've seen NO attempts to smear the ENTIRE Roman Catholic community in Britain with the rampant sexual misbehaviour of so many Roman Catholic priests and their colluding Church hierarchy.  Nor have I picked up on any demands that the Roman Catholic working class should give up their religious/cultural beliefs  in order to be considered  a "real" part of the working class - which is implicit insome of  the Islamophobic posts on the Rochdale  "grooming" issue. Those who are highlighting misbehaviour by a few Muslims, and then generalising this out to an impicit attack on the entire Muslim culture -  when child abuse in particular is all too common in ALL communities in Britain, are playing right into the hands of the white bigots and the Far Right


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 14, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> IF we accept that there may well be a "disproportionate" involvement in the grooming of young girls (who come from the white community indeed, but are mostly an especially vulnerable sub-set of girls from problem White families , often already abused by their fathers, and are in "care") by members of the Muslim community. What is the political conclusion we are being invited to draw from this by Joe, Uberdog, and others ?
> 
> When I was working in North Wales in the mid 90's the entire residential childcare system was in crisis because of trials underway of a HUGE number of abusive cases , by white men, stretching back 50 years or more. Did this tell us something toxic about the ENTIRE North Wales population ? I don't think so really.


 
No it dosen't necesarily tell us somethinh toxic about the entire North Wales population. It does tell an awful lot about the people who knew about the level of abuse in North Wales and kept quiet about it. It also tells us an awful lot about the people who for political reasons would like to brush it and the victims under the carpet. Or as you yourself did on another thread, dismiss the involvement of Muslmin men in grooming as 'a tabloid story'. 

The political conclusion we should draw from this is to be honest. To do other is a gift to the far-right.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Fair enough, that is an accusation too far. My main point still stands though. Someone who is not ordinarily interested in threads about rape and misogyny, or threads about the negative cultural impacts of religion, cannot really expect their posts to be taken at face value here.


quite. people who talk about eg football can't be expected to be taken seriously when they post about rape etc


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Strangely enough though I've seen NO attempts to smear the ENTIRE Roman Catholic community in Britain with the rampant sexual misbehaviour of so many Roman Catholic priests and their colluding Church hierarchy. Nor have I picked up on any demands that the Roman Catholic working class should give up their religious/cultural beliefs in order to be considered a "real" part of the working class - which is implicit insome of the Islamophobic posts on the Rochdale "grooming" issue. Those who are highlighting misbehaviour by a few Muslims, and then generalising this out to an impicit attack on the entire Muslim culture - when child abuse in particular is all too common in ALL communities in Britain, are playing right into the hands of the white bigots and the Far Right


Fatuous analogy. As you should know. Or are you going to now point out the common factors?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Fair enough, that is an accusation too far. My main point still stands though. Someone who is not ordinarily interested in threads about rape and misogyny, or threads about the negative cultural impacts of religion, cannot really expect their posts to be taken at face value here.
> 
> Do you judge people by what they say they believe, or by what they do to back up those beliefs?
> 
> (and just to be on the safe side, I am not saying that the original accusation aimed at DU was correct - the point is a general one)


any chance of a reply to my question from 428? or have you bottled it?


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

I'm mystified at how and why people like Ayatollah must bring race into this.


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> So, let me get this right, you agree with Joe but want to force a closure on him and everyone else - only you can say such things. Everyone else is doing it wrong.


 
I'm not trying to close down the debate - he seems to want to say that to point to common aspects to male group sexual predatory behaviour across different cultural/ethnic contexts as "liberal dissembling".   I've granted that these arguments *could* be used for such a purpose - and where they are I'd condemn it too.  But focusing only on what is specific to instances within Pakistani communities can lead to a one-dimensional picture of the causes.

Liberal dissembling does play into the BNPs hands - but so could the insistence that there is something uniquely evil in the way power works in these communities.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not trying to close down the debate - he seems to want to say that to point to common aspects to male group sexual predatory behaviour across different cultural/ethnic contexts as "liberal dissembling". I've granted that these arguments *could* be used for such a purpose - and where they are I'd condemn it too. But focusing only on what is specific to instances within Pakistani communities can lead to a one-dimensional picture of the causes.
> 
> Liberal dissembling does play into the BNPs hands - but so could the insistence that there is something uniquely evil in the way power works in these communities.


I didn't mention closing down the debate - the closure i mentioned was about how you imagine other people think and talk about things. One sidedly, the full perspective only open to and coming from you. You are open - others are closed, one-sided.

Ans stop the strawmanning - that last line is a disgrace.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> They're exactly the same methods as used by virtually every UK abattoir, precisely because they are considered the most humane. Ignorant racists prattle on about the cruelty of letting an animal bleed to death, but they're ignorant racists ... The animals die almost instantly. Meat that had not been left to drain of blood would be inedible.
> 
> There is some controversy in Islam about whether stunning before cutting the animal's throat is acceptable, but plenty of Islamic scholars who argue that it is (the theological issue is that the animal must be known to be alive when it's killed - it's one of those old-time public health rules on food which pepper the Torah and the Koran). I'm not sure if it's legal to use non-stunning methods in this country - pretty sure most halal meat produced here has been stunned.
> 
> If you care about someone muttering a prayer to a sky pixie with the wrong name when they do the killing, then there is an issue. Not otherwise.


 
No, you've got this the wrong way round. Halal meat is generally *not* stunned in the UK, although there has been discussion amongst Islamic clerics as to whether the act of stunning renders the meat haram, with most agreeing that it doesn't so long as the animal is alive whilst slaughtered.

And enough of this "ignorant racist" shit. My wife will not eat halal or kosher meat, not because she is an ignorant racist but because she is Sikh, and ritual slaughter is forbidden, as is any method of slaughter which violates the principle of "Jhatka" or "one blow" which dictates that the animal must die with the first touch and not be caused fear or pain. This used to be beheading but now is mainly captive bolt shooting or breaking of the neck.

Bleeding to death is considered cruel by many people, not just "ignorant racists". You do yourself no favours with this idiocy.


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2012)

'But of course you Uberdog, and those who agree with your post, aren't interested in exposing the reactionery nature of Catholicism, or the sexual perversion so widespread in its priesthood - but instead are only too keen to pick up on misbehaviour by a small number of criminals within an already demonised ethnic minority, in order to smear the ENTIRE COMMUNTY, and of course follow in the trail of the BNP et al. You see yourselves as standing up against "Liberal moral relativism" . I see you as being strangely SELECTIVE in denouncing particular communities for their undesirable cultural practices and the misbehaviour of just a few. And what underlies that selectivity ? A "falling into line" with the identical selectivity and Islamophobic prejudice of the popular press and the Far Right that's what.'

Well if he has he has changed, DA was/is a member of the SWP who in their many guises have been apoligists for all sorts of behaviour for people simply because they are 'oppressed' or a different colour...


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't mention closing down the debate - the closure i mentioned was about how you imagine other people think and talk about things. One sidedly, the full perspective only open to and coming from you. You are open - others are closed, one-sided.


 
My criticism is not directed at everyone in general but at Joe and the people who tend to fall in with his interpretation(s).  It is deduced from what I've read on this thread.

Disgraceful straw man?  Well some people seem to be sailing perilously close to arguing just that.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> I'm not trying to close down the debate - he seems to want to say that to point to common aspects to male group sexual predatory behaviour across different cultural/ethnic contexts as "liberal dissembling". I've granted that these arguments *could* be used for such a purpose - and where they are I'd condemn it too. But focusing only on what is specific to instances within Pakistani communities can lead to a one-dimensional picture of the causes.
> 
> Liberal dissembling does play into the BNPs hands - but so could the insistence that there is something uniquely evil in the way power works in these communities.


 
The outcome isn't uniquely evil. The circumstances, actions and inactions which lead to the rapes are particular to the comunity in which the men operated. Not talking about these particularities would be as foolish as not discussing what it is about the circumstances, actions and inactions of the Catholic church and priesthood, which has seen a similarly evil outcome.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> My criticism is not directed at everyone in general but at Joe and the people who tend to fall in with his interpretation(s). It is deduced from what I've read on this thread.
> 
> Disgraceful straw man? Well some people seem to be sailing perilously close to arguing just that.


I know who it's aimed at and i pointed out what it says, what it means. And in response you tell me who it's aimed at?

No they don't - and if they did you'd be able to point out exactly where wouldn't you? And as you've identified Joe "and people" you'd be able to show  them doing it- right?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> It means a point well made without waffly pretension and _whataboutery_
> 
> So, let me get this right, you agree with Joe but want to force a closure on him and everyone else - only you can say such things. Everyone else is doing it wrong.


Do you not see the irony here?

You spend half your time on here telling others what is wrong with the way they post. You are a pompous arse sometimes.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

Help!


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you not see the irony here?
> 
> You spend half your time on here telling others what is wrong with the way they post. You are a pompous arse sometimes.


Do you not see the irony here?
Do you not see the irony here?
Do you not see the irony here?
Do you not see the irony here?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm mystified at how and why people like Ayatollah must bring race into this.


Indeed.  I'd like to see a justification for why race is relevant.


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The circumstances, actions and inactions which lead to the rapes are particular to the comunity in which the men operated.


 
But it was also "men" that operated, men of a certain ethnic/cultural background, certainly, but also men of a certain age and generation. I'm not saying that we should be squeamish about discussing and criticising the specific structures of communities and their outlook here - organisations like UAF need to have a long hard look at themselves about their attitude. But in a context where you see sexually predatory behaviour and cover ups between groups of men across different ethnic/cultural divides, isn't' it also reasonable to look for factors in common as well as single out communities in isolation, be that muslims or catholics or whoever else?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> But it was also "men" that operated, men of a certain ethnic/cultural background, certainly, but also men of a certain age and generation. I'm not saying that we should be squeamish about discussing and criticising the specific structures of communities and their outlook here - organisations like UAF need to have a long hard look at themselves about their attitude. But in a context where you see sexually predatory behaviour and cover ups between groups of men across different ethnic/cultural divides, isn't' it also reasonable to look for factors in common as well as single out communities in isolation, be that muslims or catholics or whoever else?


 
Which is why several days ago I posted this:

On the Today programme this morning a statistic was given that suggested 'grooming gangs' were significantly disproportionately composed of men from an Asian background when compared to the make up of the general population. If this is the case then in relation to 'grooming gangs' it would not seem unreasonable to look into potential culturally specific beliefs and/or practices which could provide an explanation for/response to this finding.​​What it doesn't impact on is an overall understanding of/response grooming activities which occur outside the context of a 'gang' and across ethnic groups; it doesn't even set these activities in proportion to those of 'grooming gangs'. Neither does it address the elephant in the room question of the shared cultural beliefs and/or practices which may explain the hugely disproportionate number of men (in comparison to women), from a variety of ethnic and class backgrounds, who engage in child sex abuse.​​In short, while there may be an ethnic dimension to the 'grooming gangs', it needs to be kept in perspective.​​Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> quite. people who talk about eg football can't be expected to be taken seriously when they post about rape etc


You need to work on that reading comprehension.

People who have never shown any kind of interest in rape or misogyny who suddenly become passionate about protecting women from sexual predators when the predators are brown cannot expect to be taken seriously just because they claim their motives are honourable.



Pickman's model said:


> any chance of a reply to my question from 428? or have you bottled it?


I can't see anything in there that needs responding to. You seem to be showing off your arcane knowledge again, rather than making an actual point. If you have one, please rephrase and I might have something to respond to.



Spymaster said:


> No, you've got this the wrong way round. Halal meat is generally *not* stunned in the UK, although there has been discussion amongst Islamic clerics as to whether the act of stunning renders the meat haram, with most agreeing that it doesn't so long as the animal is alive whilst slaughtered.
> 
> And enough of this "ignorant racist" shit. My wife will not eat halal or kosher meat, not because she is an ignorant racist but because she is Sikh, and ritual slaughter is forbidden, as is any method of slaughter which violates the principle of "Jhatka" or "one blow" which dictates that the animal must die with the first touch and not be caused fear or pain. This used to be beheading but now is mainly captive bolt shooting or breaking of the neck.
> 
> Bleeding to death is considered cruel by many people, not just "ignorant racists".


They do die instantly, you ignorant moron. Incompetent slaughterers sometimes fail to cut the throat properly, but that is common in any badly run abattoir.

No idea why you think Sikhs can't hold racist attitudes towards Muslims either. No ethnic conflict there at all, eh?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> No idea why you think Sikhs can't hold racist attitudes towards Muslims either.


He didn't say they couldn't.  He said his wife's reasons for not eating Halal or kosher aren't racist.

Similarly, I don't eat halal or kosher meat.  But not for racist reasons.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> I can't see anything in there that needs responding to. You seem to be showing off your arcane knowledge again, rather than making an actual point. If you have one, please rephrase and I might have something to respond to.


i was referring to the question i asked, as i wondered why you felt the need to insinuate i was a racist.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> You need to work on that reading comprehension.
> 
> People who have never shown any kind of interest in rape or misogyny who suddenly become passionate about protecting women from sexual predators when the predators are brown cannot expect to be taken seriously just because they claim their motives are honourable.


this is the first time i've ever been taken to task for agreeing with someone.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> People who have never shown any kind of interest in rape or misogyny who suddenly become passionate about protecting women from sexual predators when the predators are brown cannot expect to be taken seriously just because they claim their motives are honourable.


 
You can judge from their lack of messages on an internet bulletin board, that they are not worth taking seriously? I'd have thought considering the content of their posts was a better way to go.

Louis (probably a bit light on the rape and misogyny posts) MacNeice


----------



## danny la rouge (May 14, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> this is the first time i've ever been taken to task for agreeing with someone.


It would also be useful to have a list of these people who have never before shown any interest in rape or misogyny.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> He didn't say they couldn't. He said his wife's reasons for not eating Halal or kosher aren't racist.
> 
> Similarly, I don't eat halal or kosher meat. But not for racist reasons.


Except that he quoted the reason as the animals being allowed to bleed to death rather than being killed instantly by a single blow. This is a racist myth - most UK abattoirs use exactly the same method of killing (slitting the throat) precisely because it is instantaneous and considered the most humane.

That is why I consider it racist. It's based on racist propaganda, not on what actually happens.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Except that he quoted the reason as the animals being allowed to bleed to death rather than being killed instantly by a single blow. This is a racist myth - most UK abattoirs use exactly the same method of killing (slitting the throat) precisely because it is instantaneous and considered the most humane.
> 
> That is why I consider it racist. It's based on racist propaganda, not on what actually happens.


you mean it's not based on what usually happens as you've accepted ("most uk abbatoirs", not all uk abbatoirs) that it does happen. i agree it's racist, i disagree that it's entirely a lie.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Except that he quoted the reason as the animals being allowed to bleed to death rather than being killed instantly by a single blow. This is a racist myth - most UK abattoirs use exactly the same method of killing (slitting the throat) precisely because it is instantaneous and considered the most humane.
> 
> That is why I consider it racist. It's based on racist propaganda, not on what actually happens.


Read his post again.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> They do die instantly


A single cut to the throat does not kill instantly. Even defenders of halal/kosher don't claim otherwise. It takes up to 2 minutes to die.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> They do die instantly, you ignorant moron.


 
No they don't you lying fuckwit.

They are usually hoisted by their hind legs and held upside down, struggling like fuck whilst the slaughterer locates the carotid artery and opens it. Often the animal will die instantly from shock but unconciousness from blood loss takes between 10 and 20 seconds, death longer.



> No idea why you think Sikhs can't hold racist attitudes towards Muslims either.


 
And Jews? This is about how animals are killed, not religion. You can stuff your false accusations of racism up your arse, you ignorant dishonest piece of shit.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You can judge from their lack of messages on an internet bulletin board, that they are not worth taking seriously? I'd have thought considering the content of their posts was a better way to go.
> 
> Louis (probably a bit light on the rape and misogyny posts) MacNeice


But that's the thing. If they did care so much about sexual crimes, I would expect them to be seen on other threads which discuss it, not just the one where it was brown people wot done it.

You (and I don't mean you personally, I have no issue with the posts of yours I have seen) can say what you believe until you're blue in the face, but if you only ever seem to act on those professed beliefs when there is a racial angle, you can't really expect to be taken seriously. How many unlikely figures turned out to be passionate anti-racists when Diane Abbott made a disparaging remark about white people on Twitter? How many of them have ever spoken about racism directed at people who are not white?

There have been several long-running threads on rape and misogyny recently. It's interesting to note which posters are interested in more than one of them, that's all.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Except that he quoted the reason as the animals being allowed to bleed to death rather than being killed instantly by a single blow. This is a racist myth - most UK abattoirs use exactly the same method of killing (slitting the throat) precisely because it is instantaneous and considered the most humane.
> 
> That is why I consider it racist. It's based on racist propaganda, not on what actually happens.


 
Massood Khawaja, president of the Halal Food Authority, insisted that its animals were stunned, unlike those regulated by another group, the Halal Monitoring Committee. "The Koran says use your brain, ponder about things and that's what we are doing," he said. "It's a question of animal welfare."

Ymu it must be wonderful to be so certain; I suspect that the Koranic approach of using your brain might have more going for it.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> But that's the thing. If they did care so much about sexual crimes, I would expect them to be seen on other threads which discuss it, not just the one where it was brown people wot done it.
> 
> You (and I don't mean you personally, I have no issue with the posts of yours I have seen) can say what you believe until you're blue in the face, but if you only ever seem to act on those professed beliefs when there is a racial angle, you can't really expect to be taken seriously. How many unlikely figures turned out to be passionate anti-racists when Diane Abbott made a disparaging remark about white people on Twitter? How many of them have ever spoken about racism directed at people who are not white?
> 
> There have been several long-running threads on rape and misogyny recently. It's interesting to note which posters are interested in more than one of them, that's all.


now, about your reasons for insinuating i was racist, if you could turn to that...


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> ​In short, while there may be an ethnic dimension to the 'grooming gangs', it needs to be kept in perspective.​​


 
Well, indeed, but I'm afraid that the good sense of this point is not always being heeded on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Well, indeed, but I'm afraid that the good sense of this point is not always being heeded on this thread.


yes, but it's urban  what do you expect, good sense?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> when there is a racial angle


What is the "racial angle" here?


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> But that's the thing. If they did care so much about sexual crimes, I would expect them to be seen on other threads which discuss it, not just the one where it was brown people wot done it.
> 
> You (and I don't mean you personally, I have no issue with the posts of yours I have seen) can say what you believe until you're blue in the face, but if you only ever seem to act on those professed beliefs when there is a racial angle, you can't really expect to be taken seriously. How many unlikely figures turned out to be passionate anti-racists when Diane Abbott made a disparaging remark about white people on Twitter? How many of them have ever spoken about racism directed at people who are not white?
> 
> There have been several long-running threads on rape and misogyny recently. It's interesting to note which posters are interested in more than one of them, that's all.


 
Your input on this thread has been worse than useless. Why don't you fuck off and leave it, eh?


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Read his post again.


You read it again.



Spymaster said:


> No, you've got this the wrong way round. Halal meat is generally *not* stunned in the UK, although there has been discussion amongst Islamic clerics as to whether the act of stunning renders the meat haram, with most agreeing that it doesn't so long as the animal is alive whilst slaughtered.
> 
> And enough of this "ignorant racist" shit. My wife will not eat halal or kosher meat, not because she is an ignorant racist but because she is Sikh, and ritual slaughter is forbidden, as is any method of slaughter which violates the principle of "Jhatka" or "one blow" which dictates that the animal must die with the first touch and not be caused fear or pain. This used to be beheading but now is mainly captive bolt shooting or breaking of the neck.
> 
> *Bleeding to death is considered cruel by many people, not just "ignorant racists". You do yourself no favours with this idiocy.*


 
Kill It, Cook It, Eat it had an in-studio abattoir, using standard slaughter methods and guess what - the animals were strung upside down and their throats cut, and then the carcasses were left to drain of blood. Because it is an absolutely standard abattoir method and considered the most humane (as long as the animal is stunned first).


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Except that he quoted the reason as the animals being allowed to bleed to death rather than being killed instantly by a single blow. This is a racist myth - most UK abattoirs use exactly the same method of killing (slitting the throat) precisely because it is instantaneous and considered the most humane.
> 
> That is why I consider it racist. It's based on racist propaganda, not on what actually happens.


 
You're a lying, fucking moron.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Kill It, Cook It, Eat it had an in-studio abattoir, using standard slaughter methods and guess what - the animals were strung upside down and their throats cut, and then the carcasses were left to drain of blood. Because it is an absolutely standard abattoir method and considered the most humane (as long as the animal is stunned first).


 
And how does that relate to Jhatka, which I explained to you?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> _It's a bit much to expect the police to be any better than the rest of society, but we still can give those Pakistani's hell for not being any better than the rest of us._
> 
> I'm not saying that you are arguing this, but it is my point about this whole racist diversionary tactic. Unless it can be shown that men from conservative Muslim communities are disproportionately responsible for sexual crime, then trying to address it by examining their culture in isolation does nothing but promote racist attitudes whilst letting misogyny in society as a whole off the hook completely.


could you justify the first paragraph here, which doesn't refer to anything in the post it was a reply to? seems to me that the 'i'm not saying that you are arguing this' bit is a fig leaf to get you off the hook, when you're clearly insinuating i hold a racist position as nothing in your post refers to anything argued in mine.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> You read it again.
> 
> 
> 
> Kill It, Cook It, Eat it had an in-studio abattoir, using standard slaughter methods and guess what - the animals were strung upside down and their throats cut, and then the carcasses were left to drain of blood. Because it is an absolutely standard abattoir method and considered the most humane (*as long as the animal is stunned first*).


 
This is the bit that is in dispute. From a brief google, it would appear that some halal butchers refuse to stun the animal first.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

90-95% is said to be pre stunned in the UK before slaughter.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the bit that is in dispute. From a brief google, it would appear that some halal butchers refuse to stun the animal first.


yes, so as i pointed out above, ymu has already admitted that not all abbatoirs kill animals 'humanely'. which undermines her position completely.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> You read it again.


Your shibboleths are in conflict.

Spymaster said: "she is Sikh, and ritual slaughter is forbidden, as is any method of slaughter which violates the principle of "Jhatka" ".  So, as a Sikh, Mrs Spy can't eat ritually slaughtered meat.  It is racist to condemn her for that?  Or is her Sikh principle of Jhatka, as you have already insinuated, itself racist?  Which is the anti racist way forward here?

I'm not being flippant, this is at the heart of the knots you have tied yourself into on this thread.

And what about me?  I'm not a Sikh, but I too refuse to eat Halal or Kosher meat.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 14, 2012)

ayatollah said:
			
		

> But of course you Uberdog, and those who agree with your post, aren't interested in exposing the reactionery nature of Catholicism, or the sexual perversion so widespread in its priesthood - but instead are only too keen to pick up on misbehaviour by a small number of criminals within an already demonised ethnic minority, in order to smear the ENTIRE COMMUNTY, and of course follow in the trail of the BNP et al. You see yourselves as standing up against "Liberal moral relativism" . I see you as being strangely SELECTIVE in denouncing particular communities for their undesirable cultural practices and the misbehaviour of just a few. And what underlies that selectivity ? A "falling into line" with the identical selectivity and Islamophobic prejudice of the popular press and the Far Right that's what.




i would just point out here that earlier on this thread i was being taken to task for arguing that the Catholic church _should_ have pressure on it to take responsibility for what happened. to clarify this i don't mean that every single Roman Catholic must feel in some way responsible, but that the organisational structure of the Church, its leadership and main players should be actively involved in rectifying the situation. this is, tangentially, actually what has happened as well.

but the broader point about cultural relativism is that the post-60s left often sees itself as waging some proxy battle against worldwide imperialism by attacking 'dominant', 'heteronormative' 'Western' culture at home. this has, in many respects, been used as an excuse both to alienate itself from 'mainstream' cultural practices but also drop what were once integral ideas of secularism, rationality and indeed materialism in favour of embracing the rainbow of multicultural diversity. right up until the 90s the left's influence over the culture of anti-imperialist movements such as the IRA, the FLN in Algeria, the PLO in Palestine, or a host of African liberation movements were all secular (despite all having very powerful religious issues mixed up in their politics). now, if anything, the tendency has been reversed.

do i think that its integral for someone's political credibility that they ditch their religion and culture in favour of some rational, secular one? no, but i think it's often a sign of a good thing if people are doing that. it means that what we're saying is convincing, at least.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Not all religous /cultural practices will ever conform, however, Now I'm not in favour of either Kosher or Halal ritual killing methods.. but as a community we've tolerated it for hundreds of years done by Jews, and I'm afraid we'll just have to tolerate it by Muslims too. To campaign against it simply lines one up with racists. You line up against it as a practice if you want - but you'll have some VERY dodgy allies.


 
You *do* realise that those slaughter methods you're not in favour of are used for a lot of the livestock slaughtered for food in the UK, aren't you? Bolts are usually only used on cattle, and even then not always if the abattoir uses a chain-line system. Even as far as stunning goes, the only abattoirs that don't stun are those that are wholly-owned and used for ritual slaughter purposes, which is less than a dozen abattoirs in the UK according to the DofE.



> Your "solution" or objective , As I derive it from your claim that on joining the Communist Party in the 1930's "most Jewish converts" rejected their Jewish identity, may well be based on fact , but does this imply that a practicing Jew cannot be a communist ? You seem to HOPE so. Well I'm not too keen on many aspects of another major world religion, Roman Catholicism, as a profoundly reactionery religion organisationally and as a belief system , and we now all know it's priesthood is the biggest organised paedophile ring in world history. Should we expect Catholics to abandon their faith on becoming socialists ? I hope NOT, despite my own hostility to many features of organised Catholicism. Because it cuts socialists off from whole swathes of the working class, and expects them to abandon deeply held belief systems , which is simply NOT NECESSARY as a precondition of participating in the class struggle.


 
Since (IIRC) The _ReichsKonkordat_ in the 1930s, Roman Catholics can't be Communists under pain of excommunication, just like they can't be Freemasons etc. It's not stopped Italy and other overtly-Catholic countries from having a strong socialist and communist left. It's also not stopped Catholics becoming Freemasons. People often take from their Church what they need, and set aside the rest.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> now, about your reasons for insinuating i was racist, if you could turn to that...


 
And after that I'll be asking her to direct her attention to why my wife is. In fact she seemed to insinuate that _Sikh's are racist_ towards Muslim's, so this should be interesting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Even as far as stunning goes, the only abattoirs that don't stun are those that are wholly-owned and used for ritual slaughter purposes, which is less than a dozen abattoirs in the UK according to the DofE..


 
But the meat isn't marked, is it? When I see signs saying halal meat, I don't recall seeing anything adding 'but stunned first'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> They're exactly the same methods as used by virtually every UK abattoir, precisely because they are considered the most humane. Ignorant racists prattle on about the cruelty of letting an animal bleed to death, but they're ignorant racists ... The animals die almost instantly. Meat that had not been left to drain of blood would be inedible.


 
For most of the livestock, it's more efficient as well as faster to sever the arteries in the neck.



> There is some controversy in Islam about whether stunning before cutting the animal's throat is acceptable, but plenty of Islamic scholars who argue that it is (the theological issue is that the animal must be known to be alive when it's killed - it's one of those old-time public health rules on food which pepper the Torah and the Koran). I'm not sure if it's legal to use non-stunning methods in this country - pretty sure most halal meat produced here has been stunned.


 
One of the explanation for non-stunning is that the original proscription meant that the slaughterer saw the animal in such a state as to be able to determine it's health more easily, so you could tell whether it was possibly carring some sort of sickness that would cause illness in humans if they consumed the flesh.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 14, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> i would just point out here that earlier on this thread i was being taken to task for arguing that the Catholic church should have pressure on it to take responsibility for what happened. to clarify this i don't mean that every single Roman Catholic must feel in some way responsible, but that the organisational structure of the Church, its leadership and main players should be actively involved in rectifying the situation. this is, tangentially, actually what has happened as well.
> 
> but the broader point about cultural relativism is that the post-60s left often sees itself as waging some proxy battle against worldwide imperialism by attacking 'dominant', 'heteronormative' 'Western' culture at home. this has, in many respects, been used as an excuse both to alienate itself from 'mainstream' cultural practices but also drop what were once integral ideas of secularism, rationality and indeed materialism in favour of embracing the rainbow of multicultural diversity. right up until the 90s the left's influence over the culture of anti-imperialist movements such as the IRA, the FLN in Algeria, the PLO in Palestine, or a host of African liberation movements were all secular (despite all having very powerful religious issues mixed up in their politics). now, if anything, the tendency has been reversed.
> 
> do i think that its integral for someone's political credibility that they ditch their religion and culture in favour of some rational, secular one? no, but i think it's often a sign of a good thing if people are doing that. it means that what we're saying is convincing, at least.


 
This is a little bit off topic, and nosey too, but I'm intrigued - you used to be SWP didn't you? Clearly you've changed your views quite a bit (which is a good thing by the way, not criticising you for it). What changed your mind and what are your politics now?


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> And how does that relate to Jhatka, which I explained to you?


It has nothing to do with Jhatka and everything to do with your claim that the animals bleed to death. I don't object to your wife having religious reasons for not eating halal meat. I do mind you spreading racist myths.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But the meat isn't marked, is it? When I see signs saying halal meat, I don't recall seeing anything adding 'but stunned first'.


If you're buying, as a retailer, from a Halal wholesaler, you're going to take it on trust that things have been done properly, and act accordingly. You don't need a stamp on the meat saying "slaughtered un-stunned".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you're buying, as a retailer, from a Halal wholesaler, you're going to take it on trust that things have been done properly, and act accordingly. You don't need a stamp on the meat saying "slaughtered un-stunned".


You do if you want to know - as a customer.


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> do i think that its integral for someone's political credibility that they ditch their religion and culture in favour of some rational, secular one? no, but i think it's often a sign of a good thing if people are doing that. it means that what we're saying is convincing, at least.


 
Religious commitments are (at least potentially) compatible with a secular culture - only total headbangers would disagree with that.   Who is the "we" you're talking about here?  I don't necessarily think that people losing religious faith is "a good thing" in itself.  What counts is the way those beliefs are articulated in the way of behaviours and values.  

Catholics are not one reactionary mass.  I very much doubt that muslims are either.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 14, 2012)

no and i never said that did i


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But the meat isn't marked, is it? When I see signs saying halal meat, I don't recall seeing anything adding 'but stunned first'.


Most halal meat is stunned in the UK. They label the stuff that hasn't been stunned. Keep your eyes open, and you might see a sign. But they're fairly rare, because unstunned halal meat is fairly rare.


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2012)

> no and i never said that did i


Not as such, but you did say you would think that it's "often a good sign" that people are ditching their religion and culture.

Which I don't agree with.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> It has nothing to do with Jhatka and everything to do with your claim that the animals bleed to death. I don't object to your wife having religious reasons for not eating halal meat. I do mind you spreading racist myths.


 
Stop wriggling. First answer DlR's post #501, then explain what you meant by this (posted in the context of animal slaughter):




			
				ymu said:
			
		

> No idea why you think Sikhs can't hold racist attitudes towards Muslims either. No ethnic conflict there at all, eh?


 
And then explain this fuckwittery:




			
				ymu said:
			
		

> I do mind you spreading racist myths.


 
I'm going to tear you apart here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Most halal meat is stunned in the UK. They label the stuff that hasn't been stunned. Keep your eyes open, and you might see a sign. But they're fairly rare, because unstunned halal meat is fairly rare.


Do they? I'm reading reports that say that they don't. In New Zealand, unstunned halal/kosher is banned. It is a pity it is not like that here too.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 14, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Not as such, but you did say you would think that it's "often a good sign" that people are ditching their religion and culture.
> 
> Which I don't agree with.


 
not just ditching them, but specifically embracing secularism. obviously none of these groups are just one reactionary mass but that's why i keep reiterating that its the organisational elements of the groups, their hierarchies and power-structures, which need to come under scrutiny in relation to both cases.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do they?


 
Some is some isn't, there's no requirement (at the moment) for it to be stunned and some muslim's will refuse it if it is.

But Ymu's all over the fucking place so let's see what she comes up with.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Some is some isn't, there's no requirement (at the moment) for it to be stunned and some muslim's will refuse it if it is.
> 
> But Ymu's all over the fucking place so let's see what she comes up with.


From what I'm reading, there is a campaign to ensure that all non-pre-stunned halal/kosher must be labelled as such. Currently there is no such requirement.


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> not just ditching them, but specifically embracing secularism. obviously none of these groups are just one reactionary mass but that's why i keep reiterating that its the organisational elements of the groups, their hierarchies and power-structures, which need to come under scrutiny in relation to both cases.


 
You seem to believe that "embracing secularism" equals relinquishing religious commitments.  Which it doesn't necessarily.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

_For a religious secularism. No escape. I'm not religious but other people..._


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do they? I'm reading reports that say that they don't. In New Zealand, unstunned halal/kosher is banned. It is a pity it is not like that here too.


Yes, they do. Because some Muslims care about stunning, so it is a selling point.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> From what I'm reading, there is a campaign to ensure that all non-pre-stunned halal/kosher must be labelled as such. Currently there is no such requirement.


 
There isn't. It's an issue which comes up every now and then. Halal and Kosher slaughterers are _exempted_ from the requirement to stun. Several campaigns have sought to reverse this and all run into opposition from certain Jews and Muslims.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yes, they do. Because some Muslims care about stunning, so it is a selling point.


 
Can you respond to #515 please.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

http://www.halalfoodauthority.co.uk/FAQs.html

There are two types of electric stunning that Halal Food Authority approves:


Waterbath Stun – for Poultry
Electric Tong Stun – for Ovine meat


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yes, they do. Because some Muslims care about stunning, so it is a selling point.


I would like some evidence, please. While I don't doubt that unstunned meat is advertised as such on occasion, I don't see evidence that all meat not marked 'unstunned' is stunned. And as I said above, there appears to be no legal requirement to mark it as such.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

ayatollah said:


> Strangely enough though I've seen NO attempts to smear the ENTIRE Roman Catholic community in Britain with the rampant sexual misbehaviour of so many Roman Catholic priests and their colluding Church hierarchy. Nor have I picked up on any demands that the Roman Catholic working class should give up their religious/cultural beliefs in order to be considered a "real" part of the working class - which is implicit insome of the Islamophobic posts on the Rochdale "grooming" issue. Those who are highlighting misbehaviour by a few Muslims, and then generalising this out to an impicit attack on the entire Muslim culture - when *child abuse in particular is all too common in ALL communities in Britain*, are playing right into the hands of the white bigots and the Far Right


 
Are you quite sure about that?


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

child abuse is pretty common tbf tho.


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _For a religious secularism. No escape. I'm not religious but other people..._


I am not making the claim in reverse and saying that it is desirable for religious identities to be kept intact.  But for a secular society these questions are bracketed out.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> There isn't. It's an issue which comes up every now and then. Halal and Kosher slaughterers are _exempted_ from the requirement to stun. Several campaigns have sought to reverse this and all run into opposition from certain Jews and Muslims.


 
You'd have to be a right fucker to oppose the stunning of the animals.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I'm mystified at how and why people like Ayatollah must bring race into this.


 
Convenience?


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> child abuse is pretty common tbf tho.


But what's that got to do with the madness quoted? To think that all sexual abuse is equal and not derived from conditions is mad.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are you quite sure about that?


 
A record number of almost 45,000 people in the UK contacted the NSPCC because they were worried about a child in 2011, over a quarter more than 2010.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17482485

I would agree that it's common in all communities in one form or another.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Some is some isn't, there's no requirement (at the moment) for it to be stunned and some muslim's will refuse it if it is.
> 
> But Ymu's all over the fucking place so let's see what she comes up with.


I object to your claim that they "bleed to death". Standard racist myth. You have to take responsibility for the words you choose.

RSPCA factsheet which covers the bases well (including the proportion of halal meat that is pre-stunned).


----------



## articul8 (May 14, 2012)

Child abuse is rife in the paedophile community


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> But what's that got to do with the madness quoted? To think that all sexual abuse is equal and not derived from conditions is mad.


 
I agree. This is obviously different because it's so systematic and had involved such a huge number of people


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Because some Muslims care about stunning, so it is a selling point.


 
Some Muslim's care that the meat was *not* stunned. They will avoid it if it *is*. 

So the selling point is in it* not* being marked as stunned. Otherwise why oppose stunning at all?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> No, you've got this the wrong way round. Halal meat is generally *not* stunned in the UK, although there has been discussion amongst Islamic clerics as to whether the act of stunning renders the meat haram, with most agreeing that it doesn't so long as the animal is alive whilst slaughtered.
> 
> And enough of this "ignorant racist" shit. My wife will not eat halal or kosher meat, not because she is an ignorant racist but because she is Sikh, and ritual slaughter is forbidden, as is any method of slaughter which violates the principle of "Jhatka" or "one blow" which dictates that the animal must die with the first touch and not be caused fear or pain. This used to be beheading but now is mainly captive bolt shooting or breaking of the neck.
> 
> Bleeding to death is considered cruel by many people, not just "ignorant racists". You do yourself no favours with this idiocy.


 
"Bleeding to death", though, is also a misrepresentation of what happens. Simultaneous severing of the four main neck veins isn't haemorrhage, it's instant near-total blood loss. Bleeding to death implies haemorrhage over a period of time, and an awareness of haemorrhage and pain by the "victim".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> You have to take responsibility for the words you choose.
> .


 
As do you. And you've been shown to be mistaken on a few points of fact here. You're out of line.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would like some evidence, please. While I don't doubt that unstunned meat is advertised as such on occasion, I don't see evidence that all meat not marked 'unstunned' is stunned. And as I said above, there appears to be no legal requirement to mark it as such.


You need to see a law before you'll believe that businesses advertise things that are rare and sought after by their customers?

OK.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

Everything is equal forever. Apart from you and your 'culture'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> He didn't say they couldn't. He said his wife's reasons for not eating Halal or kosher aren't racist.
> 
> Similarly, I don't eat halal or kosher meat. But not for racist reasons.


 
It's because that's how the worldwide Islamo-Hymie conspiracy draws you in. First you eat our food...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

ymu

i'd have thought that you could quickly turn your attention to my requests for you to explain yourself. in the absence of any reply on the subject all i can conclude if you find what you posted inexcusable.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's because that's how the worldwide Islamo-Hymie conspiracy draws you in. First you eat our food...


Then you eat a fake christ. Bastards.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 14, 2012)

Anyone care to explain what animal slaughter has to do with child abuse?


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> I object to your claim that they "bleed to death". Standard racist myth.


 
They do bleed to death you fucking idiot. That is not the whole issue. As has been pointed out to you several times the issue (for most westerners who decline it) is that they are bled to death *while conscious. *Now some may have been stunned, in which case you may argue that the slaughter method is the same as in non-ritualistic abatoirs, but some will not have been.

Now, the issue for Sikh's is that they a) are slaughtered ritually, and b) not instantly (bleeding does not cause instant death as you said earlier, and the process of hoisting the animal by it's hind legs while conscious is likely to cause it some distress).

In what way is the Sikh principle of Jhatka, racist towards Muslims?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the bit that is in dispute. From a brief google, it would appear that some halal butchers refuse to stun the animal first.


 
Slaughtermen. A Butcher skins and divides a carcass after slaughter, a slaughterman actually does the killing. Even in small operations, the roles are usually kept separate.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I agree. This is obviously different because it's so systematic and had involved such a huge number of people


 

But this isn't that uncommon either. 

There are institutions, locked facilities, where young children are kept because the abuse they have suffered from pedophile rings is so severe that even as young as age 8 they are a serious risk to other children.  We're talking kids who would just go up to another child in the playground and openly start molesting them, fucked up shit of the highest order. The Portman clinic is where many of them go for treatment; it used to be they got funding for as many years as they wanted to work with these kids.  Now their funding is being slashed to 4 years per child.  This is just not enough.  What it does, is massively increase the chances of more young people being abused in the future. 

To those in the know, this sort of case is not uncommon.  It's unpopular and uncomfortable, so it's not talked about.  This case has hit the headlines, and like Climbe, Baby P and others like it, there will be rage, people will call for questions.  And then this case will slip quietly into the background again, little will change and society will fail its vulnerable children once more.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You do if you want to know - as a customer.


 
For most Butchers that advertise themselves as "Halal", it's not an issue with many of those customers who're shopping there *because* it sells Halal. Are you saying they should mark the meat so when the occasional liberal buys from them, they can know what they're getting, and preserve their smug sanctimony?


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> But this isn't that uncommon either.
> 
> There are institutions, locked facilities, where young children are kept because the abuse they have suffered from pedophile rings is so severe that even as young as age 8 they are a serious risk to other children. We're talking kids who would just go up to another child in the playground and openly start molesting them, fucked up shit of the highest order. The Portman clinic is where many of them go for treatment; it used to be they got funding for as many years as they wanted to work with these kids. Now their funding is being slashed to 4 years per child. This is just not enough. What it does, is massively increase the chances of more young people being abused in the future.
> 
> To those in the know, this sort of case is not uncommon. It's unpopular and uncomfortable, so it's not talked about. This case has hit the headlines, and like Climbe, Baby P and others like it, there will be rage, people will call for questions. And then this case will slip quietly into the background again, little will change and society will fail its vulnerable children once more.


 
yes an ex gf of mine used to work in such a unit. there is a primary school in my village specially designed for such children of primary school age and that's having its funding cut too.  

Bastards


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> For most Butchers that advertise themselves as "Halal", it's not an issue with many of those customers who're shopping there *because* it sells Halal. Are you saying they should mark the meat so when the occasional liberal buys from them, they can know what they're getting, and preserve their smug sanctimony?


Fuck off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yes, they do. Because some Muslims care about stunning, so it is a selling point.


 
It's (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective) pretty much a minority issue, though. Most Muslims (and Jews) who buy the meat do so because the correct prayers have been observed and the meat has been (for want of a better word) "sanctified".


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> They do bleed to death you fucking idiot. That is not the whole issue. As has been pointed out to you several times the issue (for most westerners who decline it) is that they are bled to death *while conscious. *Now some may have been stunned, in which case you may argue that the slaughter method is the same as in non-ritualistic abatoirs, but some will not have been.
> 
> Now, the issue for Sikh's is that they a) are slaughtered ritually, and b) not instantly (bleeding does not cause instant death as you said earlier).
> 
> In what way is the Sikh principle of Jhatka, racist towards Muslims?


I have never said the Sikh principle of Jhatka is racist. I don't even know why you would mention your wife's religious reasons for not eating halal - it had no relevance to your point, unless you were relying on a subtext of brown people not being racist towards other brown people.

Mis-characterising halal and kosher methods of slaughter as 'bleeding to death' is standard racist shit, and the vast majority of halal meat is stunned in the UK. You're trying to move the goalposts instead of addressing those points. I don't care if you're a racist or a gullible twat - you are choosing to use inflammatory and inaccurate language to demonise a group of people. Your usual MO, of course.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yes an ex gf of mine used to work in such a unit. there is a primary school in my village specially designed for such children of primary school age and that's having its funding cut too.
> 
> Bastards


 
It is hugely depressing.  But it also begs the question what is happening to the adult support; what level of help are these men jailed going to receive?   How are we going to ensure that if / when they, or other pedophiles get out they won't reoffend?  We know that pedophilia is one of the hardest things to treat psychologically, so what are we going to do next?  To me, this issue is massively important.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Anyone care to explain what animal slaughter has to do with child abuse?


 
Ayatollah brought it up as opposition to ritual slaughter being* yet another* attack on Islam.

Ymu, being a total fuckwit, jumped in on it as well, but also managed to call everyone who opposes her on this thread, and pretty much all Sikh's, racist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> child abuse is pretty common tbf tho.


 
Not that prevalent in the Gay and Lesbian community(s). He did, after all, make the claim about ALL communities.


----------



## rover07 (May 14, 2012)

Footballers arrested on sex assault claims



> Eight Leicester City footballers are in custody in Spain today over allegations of sexual assault against three women, police said.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-299458/Footballers-arrested-sex-assault-claims.html

This is a worrying trend clearly organised across the professional football community.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

rover07 said:


> Footballers arrested on sex assault claims
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You belittle the whole thread with this post.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Anyone care to explain what animal slaughter has to do with child abuse?


it's all about the way society treats the most vulnerable beings in and around it


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> It is hugely depressing. But it also begs the question what is happening to the adult support; what level of help are these men jailed going to receive? How are we going to ensure that if / when they, or other pedophiles get out they won't reoffend? We know that pedophilia is one of the hardest things to treat psychologically, so what are we going to do next? To me, this issue is massively important.


 
i agree. to be honest my gut reaction is of the hang em and flog em persuasion, i'd prefer to say that they should all be kept in prison indefinitely since there is so little chance of rehabilitation but i know, logically, that that is very impractical.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> You'd have to be a right fucker to oppose the stunning of the animals.


 
Personally, I'd much rather poultry wasn't stunned before slaughter, because the method most often used (the electrified water bath) isn't that efficient, and a fifth to a quarter of the poultry it's used on aren't stunned. However, economics dictates that as individual rather than waterbath-assisted production-line slaughter be used, up to 25% of the poultry processed experiences severe pain and disorientation before death.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

rover07 said:


> Footballers arrested on sex assault claims
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

​


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> We are no longer accepting comments on this article.
> ​​


Lucky escape.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i agree. to be honest my gut reaction is of the hang em and flog em persuasion, i'd prefer to say that they should all be kept in prison indefinitely since there is so little chance of rehabilitation but i know, logically, that that is very impractical.


 
Some people have mooted that option.  To basically let them live in a max security type village.  Let them work, let them live in houses, but with absolutely no access to children / no ever coming back into the real world.  Pedophiles are usually well behaved prisoners; they are unlikely to attack staff / each other, so in terms of their freedom of movement within this institution (for want of a better word) they would be pretty open. 

But this has all sorts of problems attached to it, it's difficult. 

There are no easy answers really, I certainly don't have them.  But I do think it's something that needs looking at and talking about, because we need to do something about them.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> I have never said the Sikh principle of Jhatka is racist. I don't even know why you would mention your wife's religious reasons for not eating halal - it had no relevance to your point, unless you were relying on a subtext of brown people not being racist towards other brown people.


 
Piss off you bullshitting turd.

I explained that my wife wouldn't eat halal or kosher meat because she's Sikh, and both violate Jhatka. This to illustrate that not everyone who rejects halal is an "ignorant racist".

You responded with this:




			
				ymu said:
			
		

> No idea why you think Sikhs can't hold racist attitudes towards Muslims either.


 

It's really no wonder at all that muslim's are finding themselves getting a shit deal at the moment with people like you "defending" them and accussing anyone with a criticism of racism. I'm sure they'd much rather you didn't bother.




			
				ymu said:
			
		

> Mis-characterising halal and kosher methods of slaughter as 'bleeding to death' is standard racist shit, and the vast majority of halal meat is stunned in the UK. You're trying to move the goalposts instead of addressing those points.


 
Addressed in the post you just quoted, liar.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Some people have mooted that option. To basically let them live in a max security type village. Let them work, let them live in houses, but with absolutely no access to children / no ever coming back into the real world. Pedophiles are usually well behaved prisoners; they are unlikely to attack staff / each other, so in terms of their freedom of movement within this institution (for want of a better word) they would be pretty open.
> 
> But this has all sorts of problems attached to it, it's difficult.
> 
> There are no easy answers really, I certainly don't have them. But I do think it's something that needs looking at and talking about, because we need to do something about them.


 
Yeah I've always thought the best thing would be either that, or to put them on an island and let them / god look after themselves. I know how reactionary that sounds but I don't think there's much chance of rehabilitating them, i don't agree with the death penalty either and it would be insanely impractical to keep on building more and more prisons and adding to the overcrowded prison population. What do you do then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> It is hugely depressing. But it also begs the question what is happening to the adult support; what level of help are these men jailed going to receive? How are we going to ensure that if / when they, or other pedophiles get out they won't reoffend? We know that pedophilia is one of the hardest things to treat psychologically, so what are we going to do next? To me, this issue is massively important.


 
Grendon had to cut it's rehab budget by 15%, and has to make further cuts for the next 3 years (until 2015) too. Fucking ridiculous when it's just about the only British penal institution that's had success in minimising re-offending by dangerous and often violent sexual criminals.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 14, 2012)

rover07 said:


> Footballers arrested on sex assault claims
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That link's not working for some reason.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

works fine here.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah I've always thought the best thing would be either that, or to put them on an island and let them / god look after themselves. I know how reactionary that sounds but I don't think there's much chance of rehabilitating them, i don't agree with the death penalty either and it would be insanely impractical to keep on building more and more prisons and adding to the overcrowded prison population. What do you do then?


 
This is the million dollar question. 

There's an interesting project in Canada where a group of Quakers have basically formed a sort of 'circle'.  Pedophiles are referred to them upon release and they live with them and basically have a programe of activities to fill up the day.  The idea behind it is that if they're always with other people then they can't reoffend.  It has pretty good rates of success, the reoffending rates are much lower compared to those released without this intensive support.  But this in itself is a mammoth ask of people; I mean would you allow a pedo to live with you?  I'm not sure I could put aside my personal emotions to let them into my home and eat around my dinner table. 

I expect there isn't one solution; as with most of these things it'll have to be multi-faceted and what works for one person won't work for another.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> This is the million dollar question.
> 
> There's an interesting project in Canada where a group of Quakers have basically formed a sort of 'circle'. Pedophiles are referred to them upon release and they live with them and basically have a programe of activities to fill up the day. The idea behind it is that if they're always with other people then they can't reoffend. It has pretty good rates of success, the reoffending rates are much lower compared to those released without this intensive support. But this in itself is a mammoth ask of people; I mean would you allow a pedo to live with you? I'm not sure I could put aside my personal emotions to let them into my home and eat around my dinner table.
> 
> I expect there isn't one solution; as with most of these things it'll have to be multi-faceted and what works for one person won't work for another.


 
But they still reoffend sometimes though, it's not foolproof and personally i wouldn't want a paedo living with me or anywhere near me. Call me a cunt but quite honestly i find the idea repellent. If some of them are stopped by it then fair enough but i couldn't take part in such schemes. And I am sure that they sometimes do some good but I also think the majority of people feel the same way as I do


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Grendon had to cut it's rehab budget by 15%, and has to make further cuts for the next 3 years (until 2015) too. Fucking ridiculous when it's just about the only British penal institution that's had success in minimising re-offending by dangerous and often violent sexual criminals.


 
It's a scandal tbh.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not that prevalent in the Gay and Lesbian community(s). He did, after all, make the claim about ALL communities.



You'll get jumped on for referring to them as gay and lesbian communities.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

See now the old school way was to get them in the care homes, you didnt even need to go pick them up or ply them with drugs and booze...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/641819.stm



> The 18-month inquiry, headed by Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, covers the alleged abuse of up to 750 children in 40 homes over two decades.
> 
> The inquiry heard allegations against 148 people in 40 homes, centring on the former counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd.


 
none of this stuff is new.


----------



## rover07 (May 14, 2012)

> *Age of first involvement in prostitution*
> 
> Study Sample size and study site Findings.
> 
> ...



http://webarchive.nationalarchives....uk/documents/paying_the_price.pdf?view=Binary

The Rochdale prostitution ring is potrayed as being some weird abnormal child rape-gang but the truth is it's normal.

This is the reality of prostitution in Britain. The adverts in the back of every local newspaper up and down the country are for these teenage and in many cases under-age girls.

To target one community and try to pass it off as a 'cultural problem' is just crap.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

rover07 said:


> http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ /http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/paying_the_price.pdf?view=Binary
> 
> The Rochdale prostitution ring is potrayed as being some weird abnormal child rape-gang but the truth is it's normal.
> 
> ...


How crap is it to insist that this is what people are doing? Fucking disgrace.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)




----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

rover07 said:


> http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ /http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/paying_the_price.pdf?view=Binary
> 
> The Rochdale prostitution ring is potrayed as being some weird abnormal child rape-gang but the truth is it's normal.
> 
> ...


In what way does your little google support what you have argued here? Have you read the document (from 2004)that you quote?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> You'll get jumped on for referring to them as gay and lesbian communities.


 
TBH, that knowledge merely provokes a "see how much I don't give a fuck?" response from me.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> works fine here.


 
Weird, I'm getting "internal server error" when I try it.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Weird, I'm getting "internal server error" when I try it.


 
Eight Leicester City footballers are in custody in Spain today over allegations of sexual assault against three women, police said.
A ninth player has been released on bail, police in Cartagena said.
The allegations against the players, who were on a warm weather training break at the exclusive La Manga resort, are the latest scandal to rock football.
The alleged victims were said to have been attacked in the hotel Los Belones in Cartagena.
In a statement police said: "Agents of the judicial police, of the Cartagena division of the national police, arrested nine people, all members of English football club Leicester City, in relation to a sexual assault alleged by three women."
*Women 'found to have injuries'*
Police said the women had claimed the players went by force into their room and that they were sexually assaulted by some of them.
The women had been intending to return to Germany but were persuaded by police to remain in the country to be interviewed.
The alleged victims were found to have suffered injuries to various parts of their body when examined by doctors at Alicante general hospital and police doctors, police said.
The three women gave the police a bracelet, which was apparently broken by one of the aggressors, as well as torn underpants with blood, they added.
They separately identified by photograph the footballers alleged to have carried out the assaults, establishing the level of involvement of each one of them.
The nine arrested have not been named.
*Sexual assault charges*
Four of the players face allegations of sexual assault, and one of them of assault, according to the statement from the Spanish authorities.
Four were arrested for sexual assault and breaking and entering, one for assault and breaking and entering, and three for breaking and entering and leaving a crime scene without offering assistance.
The ninth was arrested for leaving a crime scene without offering assistance.
A police spokesman said they appeared before a judge this morning before being taken into judicial custody.
The players were first arrested yesterday after the allegations were made on Monday - when the incident was alleged to have taken place.
*Club 'co-operating'*
The rest of the squad cut short the week-long trip and flew back to England last night though club officials stressed they had not been thrown out of their hotel.
Leicester City issued a statement which said: "The club is aware that a number of players have been interviewed by Spanish police as a result of alleged incidents which took place during a club training camp in Spain.
"The club is co-operating fully with the authorities in their investigations but, as these investigations are still ongoing, is not in a position to make any further comment at this stage."
The club's chief executive Tim Davies is understood to have flown out to Spain to join manager Micky Adams, who has remained with the players.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> See now the old school way was to get them in the care homes, you didnt even need to go pick them up or ply them with drugs and booze...
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/641819.stm
> 
> ...


 
Like I said way back in the thread, I had mates in "care homes" in southwest London who had this shit happen to them, and that was back in the '70s, plus I'm fairly sure Edie posted about stuff happening in her area in the late '80s. It's been a UK-wide problem at least since then, and I'd bet that it goes back much further.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like I said way back in the thread, I had mates in "care homes" in southwest London who had this shit happen to them, and that was back in the '70s, plus I'm fairly sure Edie posted about stuff happening in her area in the late '80s. It's been a UK-wide problem at least since then, and I'd bet that it goes back much further.


 
Yep, I had a couple of mates who were give compensation (only £10k, nowhere near enough) for abuse they received in a kids' home in the '80s and I think also the early '90s in Peterborough. Must have been rife round that time cos it seems to have happened in just about every city in the UK. Might still be happening for all I know.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> But they still reoffend sometimes though, it's not foolproof and personally i wouldn't want a paedo living with me or anywhere near me. Call me a cunt but quite honestly i find the idea repellent. If some of them are stopped by it then fair enough but i couldn't take part in such schemes. And I am sure that they sometimes do some good but I also think the majority of people feel the same way as I do


 
Well this is it.  It's hugely unpopular, so massive props to anybody who works with pedophiles and doesn't scratch their face off tbh.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like I said way back in the thread, I had mates in "care homes" in southwest London who had this shit happen to them, and that was back in the '70s, plus I'm fairly sure Edie posted about stuff happening in her area in the late '80s. It's been a UK-wide problem at least since then, and I'd bet that it goes back much further.


 
Yup, 100's if not 1000's of years, and it will go on, I was abused in early 80's friend of the family, got invited to his wedding or stag do or something of the like about 10 years later..... i didnt go.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yep, I had a couple of mates who were give compensation (only £10k, nowhere near enough) for abuse they received in a kids' home in the '80s and I think also the early '90s in Peterborough. Must have been rife round that time cos it seems to have happened in just about every city in the UK. Might still be happening for all I know.


 
Predatory criminals are adept at finding a niche, and conning people. It's as likely to happen now, despite the safeguards, as it was then.


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Yup, 100's if not 1000's of years, and it will go on, I was abused in early 80's friend of the family, got invited to his wedding or stag do or something of the like about 10 years later..... i didnt go.


Power relations.

(i hope that doesn't come across as hard hearted as it looks on text)


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Yup, 100's if not 1000's of years....


 
My grandad and his sisters were in Guildford workhouse for a short while after their dad died in Flanders in 1915 and their step-mum kicked them out. My great-aunt used to say how glad she was to get out (she was 9 at the time, her siblings 5 and 3) because one of the female warders liked to "help the bigger girls bathe" rather too enthusiatically. Unfortunately, institutional environments make perfect "nesting places" for predators, sexual or otherwise.



> I was abused in early 80's friend of the family, got invited to his wedding or stag do or something of the like about 10 years later..... i didnt go.


 
Control. Rubbing it in. Some people might say "oh, he probably forgot", but many predators live and re-live their predations, so I find it hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Well this is it. It's hugely unpopular, so massive props to anybody who works with pedophiles and doesn't scratch their face off tbh.


 
It's not just that I'm also sceptical of what good it does sometimes, like I don't doubt rehabilitation can do some good for a lot of people, but there are others that it can't, and could actually make the problem worse. Like there is some evidence that trying to teach some of them empathy actually ends up teaching them to feign it isn't there? In that case what do you do?


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Power relations.


 
? not sure what that means sorry.


----------



## biggus dickus (May 14, 2012)

My dad worked with kids from care homes and he said that there were a lot of wardens seemed really creepy 
An Irish friend told me that the church there developed those problems because the church used to look after kids with noone to look after them and so the nonces often got sent into that field to avoid such a difficult problem bothering normal folks, maybe care homes are the secular equivalent?


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> ? not sure what that means sorry.


People who want to abuse people are helped by their power relations - they're on top. Being in control of a group of people is how they work. Getting to that position is part of how they use their power. Part of doing that is their background.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> It's not just that I'm also sceptical of what good it does sometimes, like I don't doubt rehabilitation can do some good for a lot of people, but there are others that it can't, and could actually make the problem worse. Like there is some evidence that trying to teach some of them empathy actually ends up teaching them to feign it isn't there? In that case what do you do?


 
Who knows.  I don't know, maybe life long institutions for convicted pedophiles is the only way.  I really don't know tbh, it is hugely difficult.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> ? not sure what that means sorry.


 
You were in an asymmetric "relationship" with him. In personal terms his power relation to you was as the one in control. He was reinforcing that by inviting you to his wedding, opening the wound again, re-asserting that power relationship.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Yup, 100's if not 1000's of years, and it will go on, I was abused in early 80's friend of the family, got invited to his wedding or stag do or something of the like about 10 years later..... i didnt go.


 
Sorry to hear about that mate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Power relations.
> 
> (i hope that doesn't come across as hard hearted as it looks on text)


 
It's what it boils down to (socially and individually), though. Without the ability to *control*, most predators would find it much harder to indulge themselves.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> People who want to abuse people are helped by their power relations - they're on top. Being in control of a group of people is how they work. Getting to that position is part of how they use their power.


 
Right i get you, i assume that's part of the kick also for some people.


----------



## biggus dickus (May 14, 2012)

There is also the problem that noone wants to admit it. One of the teachers at our school was a rapist and the other teachers and his friends had a big campaign to prove his innocence and even attacked one of the victims in the community because they just couldn't believe that this guy who was their friend had duped them and that they actually liked him
People don't really like much about reality and are able to explain anything to suit them


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> There is also the problem that noone wants to admit it. One of the teachers at our school was a rapist and the other teachers and his friends had a big campaign to prove his innocence and even attacked one of the victims in the community because they just couldn't believe that this guy who was their friend had duped them and that they actually liked him
> People don't really like much about reality


yep, made this point earlier up the thread


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Right i get you, i assume that's part of the kick also for some people.


Horrible to say, but it might well be.

Always a full stop on these threads here because, well...


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> Sorry to hear about that mate.


 

It's cool no need to say sorry, it was a long long time ago. I still see him every now and then, it's kinda fucked up in so many ways and other days I’m like... "meh so what" about it. The point I’m trying to make is, no matter what we do, there will always be some bloke/blokes trying to fuck kids wether they be brown white or whatever religion.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

Power is certainly a factor involved.  Also, in some cases, the abuser was abused themselves, and seems identify with the abuser as opposed to identifying with themselves as the victim. 

Obviously there are usually other factors / it's a bit more complex than two sentences heh.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Some people have mooted that option. To basically let them live in a max security type village. Let them work, let them live in houses, but with absolutely no access to children / no ever coming back into the real world. Pedophiles are usually well behaved prisoners; they are unlikely to attack staff / each other, so in terms of their freedom of movement within this institution (for want of a better word) they would be pretty open.
> 
> But this has all sorts of problems attached to it, it's difficult.
> 
> There are no easy answers really, I certainly don't have them. But I do think it's something that needs looking at and talking about, because we need to do something about them.


Making it into an even bigger taboo just prevents potential offenders from seeking help before they offend. There aren't many people who actually like being paedophiles.

Canada has the right idea, I think.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Making it into an even bigger taboo just prevents potential offenders from seeking help before they offend. There aren't many people who actually like being paedophiles.
> 
> Canada has the right idea, I think.


 
Yup, I mentioned that scheme in a subsequent post.


----------



## _angel_ (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> There aren't many people who actually like being paedophiles.
> 
> .


 
What a totally bizarre statement. How can anyone know this.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> Making it into an even bigger taboo just prevents potential offenders from seeking help before they offend. There aren't many people who actually like being paedophiles.
> 
> Canada has the right idea, I think.


 
I quite like the advertising campaign they did in germany asking whether people liked children a bit too much and promoted a helpline about it which people could ring.


----------



## bignose1 (May 14, 2012)

biggus dickus said:


> There is also the problem that noone wants to admit it. One of the teachers at our school was a rapist and the other teachers and his friends had a big campaign to prove his innocence and even attacked one of the victims in the community because they just couldn't believe that this guy who was their friend had duped them and that they actually liked him
> People don't really like much about reality and are able to explain anything to suit them


 Parrswood??


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like I said way back in the thread, I had mates in "care homes" in southwest London who had this shit happen to them, and that was back in the '70s, plus I'm fairly sure Edie posted about stuff happening in her area in the late '80s. It's been a UK-wide problem at least since then, and I'd bet that it goes back much further.


And this fucking appalling case. Two of the governors who let this happen on their watch (and whose officers testified that they [the officers] knew what was going on but did nothing) are very senior in the prison service, and they are not answering any questions - nor are they being made to.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> What a totally bizarre statement. How can anyone know this.


i wouldn't expect a quick response, ymu's been very peculiar on this thread & making all manner of strange statements and bizarre insinuations.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Yup, I mentioned that scheme in a subsequent post.


Yeah, sorry. Canucking the thread. I gave you a nice link though.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> What a totally bizarre statement. How can anyone know this.


Congress took some testimony a few years back. I found it when The Sun was getting hysterical over Sarah's Law. I read some of it.

Not sure how you can begin to get to grips with the subject unless you have some understanding of how they think. Not that they're a homogeneous group anyway, but I don't think it helps to dismiss them as monsters when there are so many of them around, most of them abusing their own children or young relatives and getting away with it. Demonising is understandable, but it does nothing to reduce the number of victims - it makes them more likely to become actual abusers because they cannot risk asking anyone for help.


----------



## bamalama (May 14, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i wouldn't expect a quick response, ymu's been very peculiar on this thread & making all manner of strange statements and bizarre insinuations.


 I think ymu's argued their corner rightly,they've made some valid points.This is a really good thread and without ymus' contributions i don't think the discussion'd be so lively,and in my own case enlightening...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

bamalama said:


> I think ymu's argued their corner rightly,they've made some valid points.This is a really good thread and without ymus' contributions i don't think the discussion'd be so lively,and in my own case enlightening...


she hasn't argued her corner about why she insinuated i'm a racist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> And this fucking appalling case. Two of the governors who let this happen on their watch (and whose officers testified that they [the officers] knew what was going on but did nothing) are very senior in the prison service, and they are not answering any questions - nor are they being made to.


 
Again, that's institutional culture for you. Mouth some piety about "lessons learned" and sweep as much of the crap under the carpet as possible. I'd also say to the author of the piece that given such a culture, if any of the staff who knew what Husband was doing considered reporting him, they'd have known that the likely end would be them being moved or disciplined, rather than Husband. HMPS doesn't like its' dirty laundry being aired in public. It has a culture that has allowed racism to run unchecked among the staff in most establishments, and is prone to corruption. Whistle-blowers (as elsewhere in the Civil Service) get shat on, wrong-doers get moved sideways, promoted out of the way or receive unrecorded "advice" about their behaviour. It's shit, but it really doesn't surprise me. I used to see crap in HMPS all the time.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

Give it up Pickmans. Pathetic baiting tactic is pathetic.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> she hasn't argued her corner about why she insinuated i'm a racist.


 
where? didn't see that tbf, but i haven't read the whole thread


----------



## bamalama (May 14, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> she hasn't argued her corner about why she insinuated i'm a racist.


 Right, i didn't pick up on that...


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> What a totally bizarre statement. How can anyone know this.


 
The conclusion is drawn from research. That said, one of the issues with interviewing convicts is that the temptation to tell the researcher what you think they want to hear is strong.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Again, that's institutional culture for you. Mouth some piety about "lessons learned" and sweep as much of the crap under the carpet as possible. I'd also say to the author of the piece that given such a culture, if any of the staff who knew what Husband was doing considered reporting him, they'd have known that the likely end would be them being moved or disciplined, rather than Husband. HMPS doesn't like its' dirty laundry being aired in public. It has a culture that has allowed racism to run unchecked among the staff in most establishments, and is prone to corruption. Whistle-blowers (as elsewhere in the Civil Service) get shat on, wrong-doers get moved sideways, promoted out of the way or receive unrecorded "advice" about their behaviour. It's shit, but it really doesn't surprise me. I used to see crap in HMPS all the time.


The comments on that article include several from two more of the victims. Heart-breaking, but full of determination. I don't think they've given up yet. I hope they live to see some real justice, along with the many tens of thousands of others abused by the state. The Home Office won't even issue a fucking apology. Cunts.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The conclusion is drawn from research. That said, one of the issues with interviewing convicts is that the temptation to tell the researcher what you think they want to hear is strong.


 
I was just about to say that.  I wonder too if the potential of going along with the therapy to speed up release dates comes into play too.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2012)

S





Pickman's model said:


> she hasn't argued her corner about why she insinuated i'm a racist.



She has studiously avoiding responding to several posters who have asked for explanations for her disgusting slurs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> The comments on that article include several from two of the victims. Heart-breaking, but full of determination. I don't think they've given up yet. I hope they live to see some real justice, along with the many tens of thousands of others abused by the state. The Home Office won't even issue a fucking apology. Cunts.


 
Well, that's the point I'm making: They won't because culturally they *can't*. They're bound by 200 years of doing things *their way* into a very restricted spectrum of reactions, and admitting liability isn't one they can bring themselves to contemplate. It's totally outside of their particular institutional culture. Getting any institutional culture to exercise a degree of reflexivity is almost impossible. It requires a (to use the phrase in its' proper context) paradigm shift of operational activity so great as to be unthinkable by those who are part of the culture.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I was just about to say that. I wonder too if the potential of going along with the therapy to speed up release dates comes into play too.


IIRC, the paedophiles who testified to Congress had no hope of release, and it wasn't terribly self-serving stuff.

I think the Canadian project also adds a great deal to what we know. Giving them a support group in the community who they can call up and speak to honestly whenever they feel like they might give in to the urges has reduced recidivism dramatically. I should look up some more recent articles to see how it's going a few years down the line, but it's a tough google, and nearly my bedtime.

Revenge is sweet, but prevention is a million times better.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I was just about to say that. I wonder too if the potential of going along with the therapy to speed up release dates comes into play too.


 
Not much, AFAIK. Most offences that warrant an SOTP course or more tend to be ones with specified minimum sentences attached, so release date isn't affected if the judge has said "11 years, with a minimum of 8 to be served".
How it affects parole considerations for other types of serious crime that don't include specified minimum "time served" is open to question, though.


----------



## _angel_ (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The conclusion is drawn from research. That said, one of the issues with interviewing convicts is that the temptation to tell the researcher what you think they want to hear is strong.


This is what I thought too, in terms of getting the truth.
Back to the Op, theres still plenty of victim blaming going on, bloke in corner shop was blaming the girls.


----------



## ymu (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, that's the point I'm making: They won't because culturally they *can't*. They're bound by 200 years of doing things *their way* into a very restricted spectrum of reactions, and admitting liability isn't one they can bring themselves to contemplate. It's totally outside of their particular institutional culture. Getting any institutional culture to exercise a degree of reflexivity is almost impossible. It requires a (to use the phrase in its' proper context) paradigm shift of operational activity so great as to be unthinkable by those who are part of the culture.


Murdoch seemed invincible a couple of years ago. I'm glad they're still fighting, and someone, some day, will win.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> but prevention is a million times better.


 
I agree entirely.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> This is what I thought too, in terms of getting the truth.
> Back to the Op, theres still plenty of victim blaming going on, bloke in corner shop was blaming the girls.


 
The sick twist of irony in all this, is that blaming the children has been used by pedophiles before. 'They were asking for it, they were looking at me provocatively' etc etc etc.


----------



## bamalama (May 14, 2012)

ymu said:


> IIRC, the paedophiles who testified to Congress had no hope of release, and it wasn't terribly self-serving stuff.
> 
> I think the Canadian project also adds a great deal to what we know. Giving them a support group in the community who they can call up and speak to honestly whenever they feel like they might give in to the urges has reduced recidivism dramatically. I should look up some more recent articles to see how it's going a few years down the line, but it's a tough google, and nearly my bedtime.
> 
> Revenge is sweet, but prevention is a million times better.


 There was a case in the us where a peodophile had murdered a wee girl and the girls mother campaigned against his death sentence. Her reasoning was it's better to try and understand what made him do it rather than just killing him.Surprise when they discovered the murderer had been the victim of severe abuse himself when a child...This is a huge problem,a lot of peodophiles were childhood victims themselves, and it seems to be deeply learned behaviour.


----------



## _angel_ (May 14, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> The sick twist of irony in all this, is that blaming the children has been used by pedophiles before. 'They were asking for it, they were looking at me provocatively' etc etc etc.


"The little sluts" 
It wasn't actually me he said this to but Swarthy. I don't think he'd make controversial remarks to me as much.


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

Jesus


----------



## butchersapron (May 14, 2012)

white catholics do it. Calm down


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 14, 2012)

...just to say I've noticed this in another similar case, but in Carlisle...the police really are complicit in the sense they don't seem to care about vulnerable troubled girls, nor understand that they are allowed recourse via the law...



			
				BBC said:
			
		

> The jury heard that one girl complained to police about him persistently harassing her in 2008, three years before he was arrested, but gave up when no action was taken.[./quote]
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-18056504


----------



## bamalama (May 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> "The little sluts"
> It wasn't actually me he said this to but Swarthy. I don't think he'd make controversial remarks to me as much.


 Bloke in cornershop needs a slap


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 14, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Personally, I'd much rather poultry wasn't stunned before slaughter, because the method most often used (the electrified water bath) isn't that efficient, and a fifth to a quarter of the poultry it's used on aren't stunned. However, economics dictates that as individual rather than waterbath-assisted production-line slaughter be used, up to 25% of the poultry processed experiences severe pain and disorientation before death.


 
Personally I'd rather animals weren't slaughtered _en masse_ for human consumption at all, but if they are to be I'd rather effectual methods of pain reduction were used over less effective ones and I'd rather less effective methods were used rather than no methods at all.


----------



## _angel_ (May 14, 2012)

bamalama said:


> Bloke in cornershop needs a slap


He didn't use those exact words to be honest but that was the conclusion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...just to say I've noticed this in another similar case, but in Carlisle...the police really are complicit in the sense they don't seem to care about vulnerable troubled girls, nor understand that they are allowed recourse via the law...


Yep. And it's only likely to get worse in the years to come. Record numbers of children are being taken into care at the moment, following the moral panic of the baby p case, mostly. But the state is and probably always will be an unloving, uncaring, often negligent guardian.


----------



## bamalama (May 14, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> He didn't use those exact words to be honest but that was the conclusion.


 Lets hope he doesn't have any daughters then


----------



## _angel_ (May 14, 2012)

bamalama said:


> Lets hope he doesn't have any daughters then


He does actually. Swarthy seems to think he doesn't like young white people, I don't know, I've heard him moan about pakistanis as well. I just think he doesn't like people esp young people and kids full stop actually. I can imagine he has probably got some racist shit off people in the past maybe ..


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> Eight Leicester City footballers are in custody in Spain today over allegations of sexual assault against three women, police said.
> A ninth player has been released on bail, police in Cartagena said.
> The allegations against the players, who were on a warm weather training break at the exclusive La Manga resort, are the latest scandal to rock football.
> The alleged victims were said to have been attacked in the hotel Los Belones in Cartagena.
> ...


 
There's no connection between the two cases. If memory serves all were either acquitted or not charged. The 'victims' as it turns out were not children. They were not raped. They were not prostituted. They were already in the life so to speak. So what's your point.


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> There's no connection between the two cases. If memory serves all were either acquitted or not charged. The 'victims' as it turns out were not children. They were not raped. They were not prostituted. They were already in the life so to speak. So what's your point.


 
read the thread.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> read the thread.


 
Read it. What's your point?


----------



## Ranbay (May 14, 2012)

none.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 14, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> none.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

Ymu

No apology of your accusations of racism? Quelle surprise.


----------



## Ranbay (May 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
 well for anyone who read the thred it's clear why i posted what i posted. It's not fucking rocket surgery.


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Ymu
> 
> No apology of your accusations of racism? Quelle surprise.


 
She hasn't accused anybody of being a racist.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

goldenecitrone said:


> She hasn't accused anybody of being a racist.


Spymaster thinks she has, I think she has and I wouldn't be surprised if love detective thought she has. Plus she's insinuated i'm racist on this very thread.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

Scraping the bottom of the barrel there, Pickman's.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Scraping the bottom of the barrel there, Pickman's.


i suppose you want to know what colour i am before you know how to respond.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> _It's a bit much to expect the police to be any better than the rest of society, but we still can give those Pakistani's hell for not being any better than the rest of us._
> 
> I'm not saying that you are arguing this, but it is my point about this whole racist diversionary tactic. Unless it can be shown that men from conservative Muslim communities are disproportionately responsible for sexual crime, then trying to address it by examining their culture in isolation does nothing but promote racist attitudes whilst letting misogyny in society as a whole off the hook completely.


what racist diversionary tactic did i employ? i simply said the police were shit. and as far as i can see the first paragraph in your reply is saying i'm coming across racist, the first sentence of the second paragraph says you're not arguing this, but then you say that i (and it is me, because you've quoted me) am employing a 'racist diversionary tactic'. how do you expect me to take this comment on an innocuous post? in good spirits?

perhaps you can answer now what i asked some time ago, why did you post this?


----------



## Citizen66 (May 15, 2012)

I thought she was talking generally, rather than specifically at you.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I thought she was talking generally, rather than specifically at you.


she quoted me. which is generally a sign that someone is replying to the person quoted.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> she quoted me. which is generally a sign that someone is replying to the person quoted.



Or adding to what they have said.


----------



## treelover (May 15, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> See now the old school way was to get them in the care homes, you didnt even need to go pick them up or ply them with drugs and booze...
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/641819.stm
> 
> ...


 
One of my older friends who was a foster mother to tens of children helped break that story....


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Or adding to what they have said.


 
There's no fucking doubt whatsoever what she was insinuating with me, see post #565.

She's also avoided answering Danny la Rouge's post at #501 because it'd be impossible for her to do so and maintain her bigoted position. 

She's a deceitful fuckwit. It's her MO.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 15, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> There's no fucking doubt whatsoever what she was insinuating with me, see post #565.
> 
> She's also avoided answering Danny la Rouge's post at #501 because it'd be impossible for her to do so and maintain her bigoted position.
> 
> She's a deceitful fuckwit. It's her MO.



Yes, her post to you was on dodgy ground. But I was commenting on the post to pickmans.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I thought she was talking generally, rather than specifically at you.


Some of the racism on this thread is appalling.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Or adding to what they have said.


if you're adding to what someone's said you don't change what they've posted to make it sound all racist and you refer to what they've posted, in my case i said the police were an obstacle to rape convictions and i didn't bring race into it at all. instead there's some nonsense about racist diversionary tactics in response to my post, which doesn't imo add to the post rather aims her response at me.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what racist diversionary tactic did i employ? i simply said the police were shit. and as far as i can see the first paragraph in your reply is saying i'm coming across racist, the first sentence of the second paragraph says you're not arguing this, but then you say that i (and it is me, because you've quoted me) am employing a 'racist diversionary tactic'. how do you expect me to take this comment on an innocuous post? in good spirits?
> 
> perhaps you can answer now what i asked some time ago, why did you post this?


Words > phrases > sentences > paragraphs > arguments

You need to be able to retain information if you want to be able to make sense of more than half a sentence. In this case, you need to be able to recall "I'm not saying that you are arguing this" whilst you are processing the rest of the paragraph.

Or, you're not actually as stupid as you make out and are in fact just an insecure attention-seeking little prick. Or both. Probably.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> She's also avoided answering Danny la Rouge's post at #501 because it'd be impossible for her to do so and maintain her bigoted position.


I honestly think that the issue outlined there is at the root of the difficulty some people are having on this thread.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

This one, danny?



danny la rouge said:


> Your shibboleths are in conflict.
> 
> Spymaster said: "she is Sikh, and ritual slaughter is forbidden, as is any method of slaughter which violates the principle of "Jhatka" ". So, as a Sikh, Mrs Spy can't eat ritually slaughtered meat. It is racist to condemn her for that? Or is her Sikh principle of Jhatka, as you have already insinuated, itself racist? Which is the anti racist way forward here?
> 
> ...


I never said she was racist for not eating halal food. I wouldn't expect anyone with a different religious belief to be comfortable with it. Some are, some are not. Many Jews and Muslims regard halal and kosher as reasonable substitutes for each other because the rules are basically the same, although kosher has more rules that might prevent some more religious Jews from eating halal meat.

What I did say was that characterising halal/kosher killing as 'bleeding to death' is a racist trope. It's inaccurate and inflammatory.

I don't know why you choose not to eat halal meat. If it's because you've been led to believe that it is a barbaric method of killing, you should be avoiding most meat from UK abattoirs because most of them use exactly the same methods as halal.

People are free to make their own choices in these things. But if they justify them by repeating racist propaganda, then I'll pull them up on it.


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> What I did say was that characterising halal/kosher killing as 'bleeding to death' is a racist trope. It's inaccurate and inflammatory.


 
Do you mean inaccurate because even though the bleeding happens, the cut to the carotid artery finishes consciousness very quickly?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> What I did say was that characterising halal/kosher killing as 'bleeding to death' is a racist trope. It's inaccurate and inflammatory.


how do you suggest they die? do they die from the stunning? or do they die from the bleeding to death?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> you should be avoiding most meat from UK abattoirs because most of them use exactly the same methods as halal.
> 
> .


This is not true. All non-ritual slaughterhouses stun the animal first. Some ritual slaughterhouses do not. And despite what you said earlier, you cannot know whether or not the animal was stunned when you buy halal/kosher meat. If the meat is imported, it is quite possible that the butchers you're buying it from won't know themselves.

It is not racist to question the exception to the law that is granted religious slaughterhouses. And you've peddled one or two falsehoods yourself, such as the incorrect assertion that halal slaughter kills instantly.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> This one, danny?
> 
> 
> I never said she was racist for not eating halal food. I wouldn't expect anyone with a different religious belief to be comfortable with it. Some are, some are not. Many Jews and Muslims regard halal and kosher as reasonable substitutes for each other because the rules are basically the same, although kosher has more rules that might prevent some more religious Jews from eating halal meat.
> ...


Yes, that one. But you didn't answer the question. I'll break it into parts.

Here it is:

Part 1. Spymaster's wife is Sikh. Her belief is that ritual slaughter is forbidden. Her belief is that meat which violates the principle of "Jhatka" is forbidden. Would it be racist to say her views on this were absurd?

Part 2. She believes that Halal and Kosher meat violates Jhatka, because she believes that Halal and Kosher slaughter both violate the principle of minimal suffering. Is it racist for her to believe that?

Part 3. I refuse to eat Halal and Kosher meat. I do so on animal welfare grounds. In fact, were I to open a restaurant or cafe, I would refuse to serve Halal or Kosher meat. Is that racist of me?


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

8ball said:


> Do you mean inaccurate because even though the bleeding happens, the cut to the carotid artery finishes consciousness very quickly?


Not just unconsciousness. They die very quickly - the bleeding is post-mortem, and necessary to make the meat edible. And most halal meat is stunned before the throat is cut. Which means it the slaughter method is precisely the same as used in most UK abattoirs. It is used in most UK abattoirs because it is considered the most humane method of slaughter.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, that one. But you didn't answer the question. I'll break it into parts.
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> ...


 
Part 4: What the fuck did you intend with this:




			
				ymu said:
			
		

> _No idea why you think Sikhs can't hold racist attitudes towards Muslims either. _


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Not just unconsciousness. They die very quickly - the bleeding is post-mortem, and necessary to make the meat edible. And most halal meat is stunned before the throat is cut. Which means it the slaughter method is precisely the same as used in most UK abattoirs. It is used in most UK abattoirs because it is considered the most humane method of slaughter.


 
Yes, I think people are mostly focused on the small proportion where stunning is not used.  Though I didn't realise so much of halal slaughter involved stunning (the RSPCA thing said something about some people not agreeing it was properly halal if it had been stunned, but I guess there must be general consensus that stunning is ok).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Not just unconsciousness. They die very quickly - the bleeding is post-mortem, and necessary to make the meat edible. And most halal meat is stunned before the throat is cut. Which means it the slaughter method is precisely the same as used in most UK abattoirs. It is used in most UK abattoirs because it is considered the most humane method of slaughter.


You're dodging the issue again. Most is, some isn't, and there is no way to know which is which as a consumer in a shop or restaurant. The exception to the law is granted on religious grounds - non-halal/kosher slaughterhouses would be breaking the law if they did not stun the animals first.

I for one question this specific religious exception. I for one think it is wrong and that all slaughterhouses should be compelled by law to stun the animal first - and furthermore, it should be a requirement for all imported meat too. One universal application of a standard of animal welfare. Do you agree? If not, why not?


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, that one. But you didn't answer the question. I'll break it into parts.
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> ...


Part 1: Yes (given that I regard religious/cultural differences as equivalent to 'race' in most circumstances).

Part 2: Yes and no. In the UK most halal/kosher meat is stunned: blanket condemnation is based on racist propaganda. To be strictly accurate though, Jhatka requires that the animal is killed instantly with a single blow (not sure how that is not a form of ritual slaughter, but never mind), and these are the grounds given for her not eating halal. I presume this means that she avoids most meat in the UK unless it is known to have been killed by a bolt through the head (rarely used in UK abattoirs for animals other than cattle, and not always then). Her husband then chose to add the racist trope. She's a much better thinker than he is, so I'm not ascribing his views to her.

Part 3: I think you've been fooled by racists, and a refusal to serve (stunned) halal/kosher would be racist, albeit unknowingly so.


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Part 1. Spymaster's wife is Sikh. Her belief is that ritual slaughter is forbidden. Her belief is that meat which violates the principle of "Jhatka" is forbidden. Would it be racist to say her views on this were absurd?
> 
> Part 2. She believes that Halal and Kosher meat violates Jhatka, because she believes that Halal and Kosher slaughter both violate the principle of minimal suffering. Is it racist for her to believe that?
> 
> Part 3. I refuse to eat Halal and Kosher meat. I do so on animal welfare grounds. In fact, were I to open a restaurant or cafe, I would refuse to serve Halal or Kosher meat. Is that racist of me?


 
I'd go with 'no, no and hmmm'.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Not just unconsciousness. They die very quickly - the bleeding is post-mortem, and necessary to make the meat edible. And most halal meat is stunned before the throat is cut. Which means it the slaughter method is precisely the same as used in most UK abattoirs. It is used in most UK abattoirs because it is considered the most humane method of slaughter.


Fyi: bleeding stops when life is extinct as the pump - the heart - has stopped.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Part 1: Yes (given that I regard religious/cultural differences as equivalent to 'race' in most circumstances).
> 
> Part 2: Yes and no. In the UK most halal/kosher meat is stunned: blanket condemnation is based on racist propaganda. To be strictly accurate though, Jhatka requires that the animal is killed instantly with a single blow (not sure how that is not a form of ritual slaughter, but never mind), and these are the grounds given for her not eating halal. I presume this means that she avoids most meat in the UK unless it is known to have been killed by a bolt through the head (rarely used in UK abattoirs for animals other than cattle, and not always then). Her husband then chose to add the racist trope. She's a much better thinker than he is, so I'm not ascribing his views to her.
> 
> Part 3: I think you've been fooled by racists, and a refusal to serve (stunned) halal/kosher would be racist, albeit unknowingly so.


I'm in a bit of a hurry as I have to go out, but I disagree with all your replies.  I'm sure Spymaster will continue on 1 and 2 in the time being.  

But on 3, can I clarify: I'm not racist that I refuse to eat Halal or Kosher meat, but I'm "fooled by racists".  Does that apply to all who refuse to eat Halal and Kosher meat and meat products on welfare grounds?

And point 2, does that apply to all restaurants and cafes which refuse to serve Halal or Kosher meat?


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Fyi: bleeding stops when life is extinct as the pump - the heart - has stopped.


 
Not when you hang them up by one end - it all drains out for a while after the heart stops.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Part 1: Yes (given that I regard religious/cultural differences as equivalent to 'race' in most circumstances).


 
Here is a big problem, I think. You brand as 'racist' opinions about religious beliefs. One is not allowed to say a particular belief is absurd because it is a 'protected' belief. Religious beliefs are not to be subject to the same level of scrutiny as other kinds of beliefs.


Hmmm.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

8ball said:


> Not when you hang them up by one end - it all drains out for a while after the heart stops.


as your post indicates, the process to which you refer is draining, bleeding only occurring while life survives.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> To be strictly accurate though, Jhatka requires that the animal is killed instantly with a single blow, and these are the grounds given for her not eating halal. I presume this means that she avoids most meat in the UK unless it is known to have been killed by a bolt through the head (rarely used in UK abattoirs for animals other than cattle, and not always then).


 
Just to clear this up, don't think you've been clever here.

1) Jhatka slaughtered meat is readily available in certain places. If Kris is going to eat it we get it from butchers in Southall. It hasn't always been readily available and Sikh clerics decreed that the principle of minimal suffering to the animal was more important than the actual method of slaughter. Therefore Sikh's could eat any meat that they were satisfied abided by *this* principle, to the specific exclusion of kuttha meat (ritualistically slaughtered), which they believe certainly does *not.*

As a result the wife only eats meat that is either Jhatka or that she is satisfied is produced with the highest standards of animal welfare. This means she rarely eats meat. Which of course makes her a racist. 

2)



			
				ymu (regarding Jhatka) said:
			
		

> (not sure how that is not a form of ritual slaughter, but never mind)


 
This is a joke, right?

3)


> Her husband then chose to add the racist trope.


 
You really are a moron.

4)



			
				ymu said:
			
		

> _No idea why you think Sikhs can't hold racist attitudes towards Muslims either._


 
Still avoiding this, you fucking toad?


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Part 3: I think you've been fooled by racists, and a refusal to serve (stunned) halal/kosher would be racist, albeit unknowingly so.


 
Bull fucking shit.  I would NEVER serve somebody kosher meat if they had a problem with it.  Ever.  What I choose (or do not choose, I don't keep strictly kosher at all tbh) to eat is my choice and thus, it is other people's choice too.  I wouldn't force a veggie to eat meat and I would prepare their meal with different utensils.  Likewise, I wouldn't make somebody who ate kosher eat non kosher meat, nor would I make somebody who has a problem with it eat it.  Some of my quite religious Christian friends would have a problem eating kosher produce because the blessing said over it is not of their faith.  That's fine by me, they don't have to eat it, they're not being anti-Semitic as a consequence ffs. 

Race has nothing to do with it.  Just because you see race and religion as the same thing doesn't mean the rest of us do.  Judaism perceived as a race has been half our fucking problem to be perfectly frank.


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> as your post indicates, the process to which you refer is draining, bleeding only occurring while life survives.


 
Hmm, ok, if you're not defining that as 'bleeding' then that's fair enough (though the word isn't as semantically clear as that).

And by that definition it's also fair of ymu to say the animals do not bleed to death in halal slaughter.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

8ball said:


> Hmm, ok, if you're not defining that as 'bleeding' then that's fair enough (though the word isn't as semantically clear as that).
> 
> And by that definition it's also fair of ymu to say the animals do not bleed to death in halal slaughter.


That being the case how do the animals die? You cut someone's throat, they bleed out. Simples, as they say.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2012)

8ball said:


> And by that definition it's also fair of ymu to say the animals do not bleed to death in halal slaughter.


 
No. It's not.


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> That being the case how do the animals die? You cut someone's throat, they bleed out. Simples, as they say.


 
No - they cut the carotid artery which disrupts blood flow to the brain.  No oxygen to the brain, death results.  'Bleeding out' involves death due to a reduction in blood pressure, not a disruption in flow.  You just cut the jugular, they bleed out.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

8ball said:


> No - they cut the carotid artery which disrupts blood flow to the brain.  No oxygen to the brain, death results.  'Bleeding out' involves death due to a reduction in blood pressure, not a disruption in flow.  You just cut the jugular, they bleed out.


It takes about four minutes without oxygen before brain death occurs. What is happening in those four minutes?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

According to wikipedia dhabiha, the muslim method of slaughter, involves severing the carotid artery, the windpipe and the jugular vein. How did you say the animal died?


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Part 4: What the fuck did you intend with this:


I couldn't see why else you thought your wife's religion was relevant to your argument. You say your wife only eats Jhatka meat because she is Sikh. That means she can't eat most of the meat produced in the UK, regardless of whether it is labelled halal/kosher. So, that part of your post is pointless, unless you were relying on a subtext of "brown people aren't racist towards brown people". I had said nothing about people not eating it on religious grounds, only those who object to it existing on racist grounds.


----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Bull fucking shit. I would NEVER serve somebody kosher meat if they had a problem with it. Ever. What I choose (or do not choose, I don't keep strictly kosher at all tbh) to eat is my choice and thus, it is other people's choice too. I wouldn't force a veggie to eat meat and I would prepare their meal with different utensils. Likewise, I wouldn't make somebody who ate kosher eat non kosher meat, nor would I make somebody who has a problem with it eat it. Some of my quite religious Christian friends would have a problem eating kosher produce because the blessing said over it is not of their faith. That's fine by me, they don't have to eat it, they're not being anti-Semitic as a consequence ffs.
> 
> Race has nothing to do with it. Just because you see race and religion as the same thing doesn't mean the rest of us do. Judaism perceived as a race has been half our fucking problem to be perfectly frank.


 
good post.


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> It takes about four minutes without oxygen before brain death occurs. What is happening in those four minutes?


 
Perhaps the slaughterman has popped out for a fag so I suppose the animal must have died of lung cancer...


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Just to clear this up, don't think you've been clever here.
> 
> 1) Jhatka slaughtered meat is readily available in certain places. If Kris is going to eat it we get it from butchers in Southall. It hasn't always been readily available and Sikh clerics decreed that the principle of minimal suffering to the animal was more important than the actual method of slaughter. Therefore Sikh's could eat any meat that they were satisfied abided by *this* principle, to the specific exclusion of kuttha meat (ritualistically slaughtered), which they believe certainly does *not.*
> 
> ...


 
Bit off topic but then again so is most of the rest of the thread so I'll ask anyway. Do you know if it's it common for Sikhs to take the principle of minimal suffering even further and become vegetarians? Only as far as I can remember all the sikhs I've known have been vegetarians. Or could it just be that it's harder to get the right meat up here where there isn't a big sikh community with its own butchers etc.?


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm in a bit of a hurry as I have to go out, but I disagree with all your replies. I'm sure Spymaster will continue on 1 and 2 in the time being.
> 
> But on 3, can I clarify: I'm not racist that I refuse to eat Halal or Kosher meat, but I'm "fooled by racists". Does that apply to all who refuse to eat Halal and Kosher meat and meat products on welfare grounds?
> 
> And point 2, does that apply to all restaurants and cafes which refuse to serve Halal or Kosher meat?


If you're rejecting it on welfare grounds, then you have to reject virtually all meat slaughtered in the UK. If that is your position, then you are an animal rights enthusiast, not a racist. If it not, then you have been misled by racists (given that I don't believe you are a racist yourself).

Not sure what you mean by 'point 2'. Does what apply to them? Anyone has the right to not eat/serve halal/kosher meat. Whether it is racist or not depends on their justification for it, and their consistency in applying the same principles to other meat which has been killed in exactly the same way.


----------



## bamalama (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Bull fucking shit. I would NEVER serve somebody kosher meat if they had a problem with it. Ever. What I choose (or do not choose, I don't keep strictly kosher at all tbh) to eat is my choice and thus, it is other people's choice too. I wouldn't force a veggie to eat meat and I would prepare their meal with different utensils. Likewise, I wouldn't make somebody who ate kosher eat non kosher meat, nor would I make somebody who has a problem with it eat it. Some of my quite religious Christian friends would have a problem eating kosher produce because the blessing said over it is not of their faith. That's fine by me, they don't have to eat it, they're not being anti-Semitic as a consequence ffs.
> 
> Race has nothing to do with it. Just because you see race and religion as the same thing doesn't mean the rest of us do. Judaism perceived as a race has been half our fucking problem to be perfectly frank.


I've always found the two most vocal groups concerning jewish people being a race apart are fascists and hassidim/ashkenazi fundamentalists...fucking strange

edit : i know it's off topic,but the threads waaay off topic anyway.Religious dietry requirements...who gives a fuck,apart from those who abide by them...


----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)

I always thought most sikhs were vegetarians tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> If you're rejecting it on welfare grounds, then you have to reject virtually all meat slaughtered in the UK.


Are you being wilfully obtuse?


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Fyi: bleeding stops when life is extinct as the pump - the heart - has stopped.


Utter nonsense. Cook up a steak that hasn't been allowed to bleed after slaughter and post up the video of you gagging on it.

Blood stops pumping out of the wound when the heart stops. It does not magically stop draining away when you hang the carcass up to bleed.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Here is a big problem, I think. You brand as 'racist' opinions about religious beliefs. One is not allowed to say a particular belief is absurd because it is a 'protected' belief. Religious beliefs are not to be subject to the same level of scrutiny as other kinds of beliefs.
> 
> 
> Hmmm.


That's because you're an atheist, not a secularist. You don't have to agree with someone's religious views to respect them.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

bamalama said:


> I've always found the two most vocal groups concerning jewish people being a race apart are fascists and hassidim/ashkenazi fundamentalists...fucking strange
> 
> edit : i know it's off topic,but the threads waaay off topic anyway.Religious dietry requirements...who gives a fuck,apart from those who abide by them...


 
That's because fundamentalists, on either side of an argument are about as mad as each other.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Just to clear this up, don't think you've been clever here.
> 
> 1) Jhatka slaughtered meat is readily available in certain places. If Kris is going to eat it we get it from butchers in Southall. It hasn't always been readily available and Sikh clerics decreed that the principle of minimal suffering to the animal was more important than the actual method of slaughter. Therefore Sikh's could eat any meat that they were satisfied abided by *this* principle, to the specific exclusion of kuttha meat (ritualistically slaughtered), which they believe certainly does *not.*
> 
> ...


So why did you single out halal, rather than pointing out that virtually all UK abattoirs use killing methods that she disagrees with?

You were using her religion to justify your racism. Very low.


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> That's because you're an atheist, not a secularist. You don't have to agree with someone's religious views to respect them.


 
Respecting someone's right to their views is not the same as respecting the actual views.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> That's because you're an atheist, not a secularist. You don't have to agree with someone's religious views to respect them.


No it's not. Being secularist does not mean refraining from commenting on any belief because it is 'religious'.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Bull fucking shit. I would NEVER serve somebody kosher meat if they had a problem with it. Ever. What I choose (or do not choose, I don't keep strictly kosher at all tbh) to eat is my choice and thus, it is other people's choice too. I wouldn't force a veggie to eat meat and I would prepare their meal with different utensils. Likewise, I wouldn't make somebody who ate kosher eat non kosher meat, nor would I make somebody who has a problem with it eat it. Some of my quite religious Christian friends would have a problem eating kosher produce because the blessing said over it is not of their faith. That's fine by me, they don't have to eat it, they're not being anti-Semitic as a consequence ffs.
> 
> Race has nothing to do with it. Just because you see race and religion as the same thing doesn't mean the rest of us do. Judaism perceived as a race has been half our fucking problem to be perfectly frank.


 
Danny said he would refuse to serve it in his restaurant, not that he would not force someone to eat it. Your post has nothing to do with anything I have said.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> It takes about four minutes without oxygen before brain death occurs. What is happening in those four minutes?


I posted the RSPCA factsheet earlier. Eduate yourself, for fuck's sake. It takes seconds for the animal to die and most halal and kosher meat is pre-stunned. When it is pre-stunned, the method is precisely the same as that used for most animals in most UK abattoirs, precisely because it is the most humane method.

Fucking hell, this is like wading through treacle.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I posted the RSPCA factsheet earlier. Eduate yourself, for fuck's sake. It takes seconds for the animal to die and most halal and kosher meat is pre-stunned. When it is pre-stunned, the method is precisely the same as that used for most animals in most UK abattoirs, precisely because it is the most humane method.
> 
> Fucking hell, this is like wading through treacle.


 
I think it's the "most" part that is the problem. The worry is (not for me, I just don't consider it that important) how do you know whether your meat has come from one of the places that doesn't stun?


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I posted the RSPCA factsheet earlier. Eduate yourself, for fuck's sake. It takes seconds for the animal to die and most halal and kosher meat is pre-stunned. When it is pre-stunned, the method is precisely the same as that used for most animals in most UK abattoirs, precisely because it is the most humane method.
> 
> Fucking hell, this is like wading through treacle.


 
I think if DLR, LBJ etc. could be confident they were getting the pre-stunned stuff there wouldn't be such a problem, but it is the (potential) difference between a few seconds of suffering and perhaps a fraction of a second of suffering that they are concerned about (if I'm reading things right).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I posted the RSPCA factsheet earlier. Eduate yourself, for fuck's sake. It takes seconds for the animal to die and most halal and kosher meat is pre-stunned. When it is pre-stunned, the method is precisely the same as that used for most animals in most UK abattoirs, precisely because it is the most humane method.
> 
> Fucking hell, this is like wading through treacle.


Educate yourself fffs. That document is covered in big letters stating the RSPCA's opinion that not stunning the animal ought not to be allowed. It is allowed. So far you have had absolutely nothing to say about that fact.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Danny said he would refuse to serve it in his restaurant, not that he would not force someone to eat it. Your post has nothing to do with anything I have said.


 
Yes it does.  If I ran a restaurant I wouldn't sell people kosher / halal meat without clearly informing them they were about to eat it, in case they have cultural or religious reasons as to why they would prefer not to.  That would be hugely disingenuous of me as a restaurant owner to try and serve my customers something they might feel uncomfortable about. 

Race has nothing to do with it.  You are not racist for not wanting to eat kosher or halal meat.  You're not anything.  It's personal preference.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think it's the "most" part that is the problem. The worry is (not for me, I just don't consider it that important) how do you know whether your meat has come from one of the places that doesn't stun?


It's not something of massive importance to me tbh, but I think this argument is illustrative of the wider point - the thing that stops people from discussing religious or cultural aspects to subjects such as the OP.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

8ball said:


> Respecting someone's right to their views is not the same as respecting the actual views.


Comes down to semantics really - I think it's fine to think it is absurd, but not to ridicule people for a religious belief that harms no one.

Denying others the right to follow their religious beliefs is racist - suppressing other cultures is a defining feature of fascism. Islamic and Jewish scholars have found a way to ensure that their religious rules can be followed whilst being compliant with UK law on animal welfare. It is not (yet) a legal requirement, but in practice it is only a tiny percentage of halal/kosher meat that is not stunned before slaughter. To continue to object to all halal/kosher based on this tiny percentage is absurd.

Those who campaign for the law to be changed to cover all religious slaughter would get a lot further if they weren't so prone to repeating racist tropes on the subject. It makes it harder to change the law when the debate is flooded with misinformation, most of it published by racists (or extremist Christians).


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think it's the "most" part that is the problem. The worry is (not for me, I just don't consider it that important) how do you know whether your meat has come from one of the places that doesn't stun?


Food laws ensure that meat can be traced back from the retail outlet to the farm it came from. The butcher will know, and if they don't, go somewhere else.


----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)

My mum doesn't like kosher meat because there's too LITTLE blood in it


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> To continue to object to all halal/kosher based on this tiny percentage is *absurd*..


 
Absurd?

Really?

Absurd. That word?


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Yes it does. If I ran a restaurant I wouldn't sell people kosher / halal meat without clearly informing them they were about to eat it, in case they have cultural or religious reasons as to why they would prefer not to. That would be hugely disingenuous of me as a restaurant owner to try and serve my customers something they might feel uncomfortable about.
> 
> Race has nothing to do with it. You are not racist for not wanting to eat kosher or halal meat. You're not anything. It's personal preference.


I didn't say anything about serving it to people without telling them.

The scenario Danny gave me was him running a restaurant that refused to serve it on welfare grounds. Stop trying to twist what I said to the arguments you want to make, please.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

This may (or may not) be of interest to folk; kosher slaughterers discussing the process.  There is some blood, but no actual footage of the animal being killed, in case anybody's a wee bit squeamish.



They seem to believe it is the blood pressure that goes quick, so for them it is a bleeding out method.  Remember there are far fewer kosher slaughter houses than there are halal, because the Jewish population is considerably smaller and stunning is not used here, so you're quite likely to have unstunned meat should you go kosher (in fact there might only now be one or two serving the whole UK).


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Absurd?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Absurd. That word?


Yes.


----------



## nino_savatte (May 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> I always thought most sikhs were vegetarians tbh.


 
No. The Gurdwaras offer vegetarian food because everyone can eat it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Yes.


Well your whole argument, such as it was, is entirely discredited by your own fucking shit attitude towards those who object to halal slaughtering without stunning.

You're all over the shop.


----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)

to be honest, i'm jewish, but there's plenty of things about the jewish religion i don't like, and this is one of them. i don't know how anyone can object to stunning the animals  I am sure most religious Jews wouldnt have a problem with stunning them either. A lot of people probably don't even know they're not pre-stunned.


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Comes down to semantics really - I think it's fine to think it is absurd, but not to ridicule people for a religious belief that harms no one.


 
I agree there, but when beliefs are up for discussion I don't believe those of a religious nature should enjoy any special privilege.



ymu said:


> Denying others the right to follow their religious beliefs is racist...


 
I don't think it is racist by definition, though I think it can be a facet of generally racist policies.  The distinction is important though.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I didn't say anything about serving it to people without telling them.
> 
> The scenario Danny gave me was him running a restaurant that refused to serve it on welfare grounds. Stop trying to twist what I said to the arguments you want to make, please.


 
Well what's wrong with that argument?  If he doesn't think it's killed humanely, why should he have to serve it?  How is that racist in any way whatsoever?  I just don't understand your point at all.  There is nothing racist, or wrong, about not wanting to eat kosher or halal meat.  

Personally, I think the process is humane.  But I understand the concerns of those who think it should be stunned (and I have to say I wouldn't be bothered at all if it came to be that kosher / hahal meat had to be stunned before killing), because it could be argued that we can't necessarily know 100%.  So if somebody wants to err on the side of caution, I see no issue with that.  I just do not understand how it's racist.


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest, i'm jewish, but there's plenty of things about the jewish religion i don't like, and this is one of them. i don't know how anyone can object to stunning the animals  I am sure most religious Jews wouldnt have a problem with stunning them either. A lot of people probably don't even know they're not pre-stunned.


 
As a wild guess, it might be to ensure the quality of the meat - an animal that doesn't seem fully alert may have been drugged to make capture/transport easier, or it could be sick.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Food laws ensure that meat can be traced back from the retail outlet to the farm it came from. The butcher will know, and if they don't, go somewhere else.


 
Yes, when out shopping it's reasonable to expect people to trace the food back to source. In order to do that you'd have to go through the retailer's purchasing department, then probably through another purchasing department for the supplier. You're getting silly now.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest, i'm jewish, but there's plenty of things about the jewish religion i don't like, and this is one of them. i don't know how anyone can object to stunning the animals  I am sure most religious Jews wouldnt have a problem with stunning them either. A lot of people probably don't even know they're not pre-stunned.


 
Well the argument against stunning would be that it is modern practice interfering with tradition.  The Talmud doesn't talk about stunning equipment so they cant use it.  Remember, the Beth Din are the extreme of the extreme, we're not dealing with hugely rational people here.


----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)

There's a difference between the way the RSPCA talk about religious slaughter and the way fash (or whoever) talk about it. The RSPCA don't want people to change their practices, just the crueller elements of them, so they'd want people to make sure the animal was stunned before was killed. The fash don't give a shit about animal cruelty and would just like it to be banned because it's "not compatible with our traditions" or whatever, they'd use it in propaganda sure, but they'd otherwise pay absolutely no mind to the fact that the procedures were changed because they weren't as cruel any more, that's not what they're about.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

8ball said:


> As a wild guess, it might be to ensure the quality of the meat - an animal that doesn't seem fully alert may have been drugged to make capture/transport easier, or it could be sick.


 
No, that is checked out beforehand.  Any animal killed for kosher must be in good enough health to live for at least another year should it not be slaughtered (i.e. it needs to be completely healthy).  That stuff is checked out prior to the slaughterers going in to kill the animal itself.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I posted the RSPCA factsheet earlier. Eduate yourself, for fuck's sake. It takes seconds for the animal to die and most halal and kosher meat is pre-stunned. When it is pre-stunned, the method is precisely the same as that used for most animals in most UK abattoirs, precisely because it is the most humane method.
> 
> Fucking hell, this is like wading through treacle.


you will recall I was replying to a post saying the animal didn't bleed to death but died of oxygen starvation to the brain. You seem to be arguing that brain death takes a couple of seconds when the incision is made. I do not believe you.


----------



## youngian (May 15, 2012)

They'll be plenty of time for these men to have interfaith discussions on how culture impacts on their crimes now they are thankfully banged up on a multi-racial nonce wing for the next few years.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Utter nonsense. Cook up a steak that hasn't been allowed to bleed after slaughter and post up the video of you gagging on it.
> 
> Blood stops pumping out of the wound when the heart stops. It does not magically stop draining away when you hang the carcass up to bleed.


do you bother reading other people's posts? I wonder as we covered this ground before your tardy intervention


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well your whole argument, such as it was, is entirely discredited by your own fucking shit attitude towards those who object to halal slaughtering without stunning.
> 
> You're all over the shop.


Why are you pretending that I have condoned killing without stunning? I am criticising those who blithely declare that it is a barbaric method of killing without making the distinction or noting that the vast majority is stunned in the UK, and without acknowledging that with stunning it is precisely the same method as used by virtually all UK abattoirs.

In this form, the argument comes straight from racists and/or extremist Christian groups. Take a bit more care with how you formulate your argument, and you won't look like you've been taken in by them. If the absence of stunning bothers you, you could avoid all halal/kosher meat just in case, or you could ask the butcher before buying it. If you choose the former option, be clear about your reasons - don't rely on crass generalisations lifted straight from anti-semitic/islamophobic pamphleteers.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Well what's wrong with that argument? If he doesn't think it's killed humanely, why should he have to serve it? How is that racist in any way whatsoever? I just don't understand your point at all. There is nothing racist, or wrong, about not wanting to eat kosher or halal meat.
> 
> Personally, I think the process is humane. But I understand the concerns of those who think it should be stunned (and I have to say I wouldn't be bothered at all if it came to be that kosher / hahal meat had to be stunned before killing), because it could be argued that we can't necessarily know 100%. So if somebody wants to err on the side of caution, I see no issue with that. I just do not understand how it's racist.


If he's refusing to serve any kosher/halal regardless of whether stunning was used, and he justifies it on animal welfare grounds, then he should also refuse to serve most of the meat slaughtered in the UK *because most of it it slaughtered using exactly the same method* (how many times do I have to point this out? ).

I made this point directly to Danny when I responded to his post. He hasn't had a chance to respond to that post yet, so I don't know whether he's consistent in his beliefs or not. If he doesn't apply the same rules to meat slaughtered by exactly the same methods, then I consider him ill-informed (because I don't believe he is a racist). If he does apply the same rules equally to all meat, then I don't understand why he singled out halal and kosher in his post instead of mentioning that he has to get his meat from a specialist supplier in order to live up to his beliefs about animal welfare.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Why are you pretending that I have condoned killing without stunning? I am criticising those who blithely declare that it is a barbaric method of killing without making the distinction or noting that the vast majority is stunned in the UK, and without acknowledging that with stunning it is precisely the same method as used by virtually all UK abattoirs.
> 
> In this form, the argument comes straight from racists and/or extremist Christian groups. Take a bit more care with how you formulate your argument, and you won't look like you've been taken in by them. If the absence of stunning bothers you, you could avoid all halal/kosher meat just in case, or you could ask the butcher before buying it. If you choose the former option, be clear about your reasons - don't rely on crass generalisations lifted straight from anti-semitic/islamophobic pamphleteers.


You've dodged the issue again. It is illegal to kill without stunning first except for the case of halal/kosher, where an exception is made to that law on religious grounds.

Because of that exception, animals are killed without stunning first in the UK totally legally.

Perhaps you don't think this has anything to do with religion? I don't know. You're certainly running around here accusing people of being racists or stupid dupes if they do.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, when out shopping it's reasonable to expect people to trace the food back to source. In order to do that you'd have to go through the retailer's purchasing department, then probably through another purchasing department for the supplier. You're getting silly now.


Any halal butcher can tell you where their meat came from. They're not fucking Tesco.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Any halal butcher can tell you where their meat came from. They're not fucking Tesco.


Thinking about the various large, busy butchers I used to go to on Green Lanes in London, I doubt this. Most of the people serving at the counter would have no idea.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Any halal butcher can tell you where their meat came from. They're not fucking Tesco.


 
No but tesco are aren't they?


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thinking about the various large, busy butchers I used to go to on Green Lanes in London, I doubt this. Most of the people serving at the counter would have no idea.


I think you should probably ask them before dismissing their professionalism. If you can't be bothered to ask, no problem - just don't make crass generalisations in order to justify your own laziness.


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> No, that is checked out beforehand. Any animal killed for kosher must be in good enough health to live for at least another year should it not be slaughtered (i.e. it needs to be completely healthy). That stuff is checked out prior to the slaughterers going in to kill the animal itself.


 
Fair enough - like I said, wild guess.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I think you should probably ask them before dismissing their professionalism. If you can't be bothered to ask, no problem - just don't make crass generalisations in order to justify your own laziness.


Oh fuck off. You don't even know the kinds of places I'm talking about.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> No but tesco are aren't they?


Tesco don't sell unstunned halal.

Apologies for the EDL link. They followed it up when the Daily Mail ran some hysterical headline about Tesco secretly selling halal.

http://englishdefenceleague.........org/forum/e-activism/tesco-response-regarding-halal/



> Dear Mr
> 
> Thank you for contacting us regarding the sale of Halal meat in our stores.
> 
> ...


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 15, 2012)

phildwyer said:


> Good job white blokes never do that eh?


 

That was a fairly selective quote.

I think you're a safe guy, dwyer, but let anyone who's never lived in rochdale chat about rochdale.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Any halal butcher can tell you where their meat came from. They're not fucking Tesco.


 
No halal meat in major supermarket chains?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Why are you pretending that I have condoned killing without stunning? I am criticising those who blithely declare that it is a barbaric method of killing without making the distinction or noting that the vast majority is stunned in the UK, and without acknowledging that with stunning it is precisely the same method as used by virtually all UK abattoirs.
> 
> In this form, the argument comes straight from racists and/or extremist Christian groups. Take a bit more care with how you formulate your argument, and you won't look like you've been taken in by them. If the absence of stunning bothers you, you could avoid all halal/kosher meat just in case, or you could ask the butcher before buying it. If you choose the former option, be clear about your reasons - don't rely on crass generalisations lifted straight from anti-semitic/islamophobic pamphleteers.


I can't be alone in feeling that all ways of killing animals for human consumption are barbaric


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Tesco don't sell unstunned halal.
> 
> Apologies for the EDL link. They followed it up when the Daily Mail ran some hysterical headline about Tesco secretly selling halal.
> 
> http://englishdefenceleague.........org/forum/e-activism/tesco-response-regarding-halal/


 
Fair enough - I'd break that link if I were you though. And I still maintain that you're living in a dream world if you really think it's possible for people to check the origin of every piece of meat.

What's happened here is that you've flown off the handle without engaging your brain and now you've gone too far in your accusations about others to admit you were wrong.


----------



## Ranbay (May 15, 2012)




----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Any halal butcher can tell you where their meat came from. They're not fucking Tesco.


 
These people seem to disagree.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fair enough - I'd break that link if I were you though. And I still maintain that you're living in a dream world if you really think it's possible for people .e origin of every piece of meat.
> 
> What's happened here is that you've flown off the handle without engaging your brain and now you've gone too far in your accusations about others to admit you were wrong.


I can only assume she was unaware of the longstanding prohibition of linking to far right sites


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Fair enough - I'd break that link if I were you though. And I still maintain that you're living in a dream world if you really think it's possible for people to check the origin of every piece of meat.
> 
> What's happened here is that you've flown off the handle without engaging your brain and now you've gone too far in your accusations about others to admit you were wrong.


I did break the link - you quoted a broken link (and saw no need to break it yourself). Great to know how carefully my posts are being read though. 

If you're buying from a supermarket, they almost certainly have a corporate policy of only selling meat which complies with the highest welfare standards, ie stunned. I haven't checked them all, but I'd be amazed to find a corporate without that policy.

If you're buying from a butcher, they will know where their meat comes from. If they're specifically selling it as halal, they will know whether it is stunned because they get asked about it all the time.

I do fly off the handle when I hear people repeating racist tropes - it causes harm to innocent people and has had a rather devastating impact on my life as well as that of much of my family. It's not something I can find easy to be laid back about. I don't think it is me getting their facts wrong. But facts are different from opinions, and you are entitled to yours.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I did break the link - you quoted a broken link. Great to know how carefully my posts are being read though.
> 
> If you're buying from a supermarket, they almost certainly have a corporate policy of only selling meat which complies with the highest welfare standards, ie stunned. I haven't checked them all, but I'd be amazed to find a corporate without that policy.
> 
> ...


 
It's your facts that are being disputed though. See the link Louis MacNeice just posted - are those Muslims also repeating racist tropes about themselves? And if you asked the butcher's at my local meat market where the meat came from they'd laugh at you. Maybe you can make such demands of quality mutchers, but not the cheap ones a hell of a lot of people use.

And I've already said I don't really care whether my meat is stunned or not - so long as it's cheap, tastes good and doesn't give me the shits I'm a happy customer. What I'm bothered about is unfair accusations of racism flying about - I've been the victim of such smears myself in the past and it's not acceptable.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> No halal meat in major supermarket chains?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
I see you've already decided that this point won't wash, so you're trying this instead:



Louis MacNeice said:


> These people seem to disagree.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Bit desperate, no? That's a commercial site selling its wares by complaining that other suppliers are not halal enough. They're a niche, serving the market that is not happy about the much laxer approach to halal necessitated by the mass production of meat.

There are only about a dozen licensed halal abattoirs in the UK. The majority of halal meat is produced in standard abattoirs, which is easy, because they use exactly the same killing methods as those required for halal (as I think I may have mentioned one or two times before). The only other requirement is that someone of an Abrahamic faith says a prayer. Some Muslims would prefer that it was specifically a Muslim who says the prayer, and some would prefer that a prayer is said for each individual carcass rather than one for a load of them.

That's what your site is all about. It has nothing to do with whether a butcher selling halal meat will know whether it is stunned or not. There are only a dozen abattoirs in the country that could supply them with stunned meat in the first place. To assume that they wouldn't know is just ridiculous.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 15, 2012)

So, anyway, child abusers...


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I see you've already decided that this point won't wash, so you're trying this instead:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Can you tell us what concerned consumers should do when using cheap meat markets where almost all the meat is imported? Thanks.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> It's your facts that are being disputed though. See the link Louis MacNeice just posted - are those Muslims also repeating racist tropes about themselves? And if you asked the butcher's at my local meat market where the meat came from they'd laugh at you. Maybe you can make such demands of quality mutchers, but not the cheap ones a hell of a lot of people use.
> 
> And I've already said I don't really care whether my meat is stunned or not - so long as it's cheap, tastes good and doesn't give me the shits I'm a happy customer. What I'm bothered about is unfair accusations of racism flying about - I've been the victim of such smears myself in the past and it's not acceptable.


You could have checked the site more carefully before assuming he had made a valid point.

I am not calling anyone racist. I am calling the description of halal/kosher slaughter as letting the animal "bleed to death" a racist trope. I have been quite careful to assume that people have been taken in by racist/extremist Christian literature on this rather than being knowingly racist when they repeat it/act on it.

Any more straws you wanna grab at?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> I see you've already decided that this point won't wash, so you're trying this instead:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
What is ridiculous is the position you've got yourself in where you cannot even admit the obvious possibility, that the pressures of profitability and demands for affordable meat, may produce a situation where both consumer and butcher are not at all fussed with their meat's provenance, so long as it at least superficially fits the bill. Is that your class blindness showing?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. the last sentence was a joke.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Can you tell us what concerned consumers should do when using cheap meat markets where almost all the meat is imported? Thanks.


Almost all imported meat slaughtered abroad is halal-compliant and stunned. If the label/butcher says it come from an Islamic country and you care about it, don't buy it - same as I don't buy stuff that comes from Israel because I care about that.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> You could have checked the site more carefully before assuming he had made a valid point.
> 
> I am not calling anyone racist. I am calling the description of halal/kosher slaughter as letting the animal "bleed to death" a racist trope. I have been quite careful to assume that people have been taken in by racist/extremist Christian literature on this rather than being knowingly racist when they repeat it/act on it.
> 
> Any more straws you wanna grab at?


 
It is a valid point. I checked the link. If we can trust the accuracy of what Tesco tell us why can't we trust the Islamohippies(JHE would like that one lol) on that link? And it's more a rope than a straw, see my last post.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Almost all imported meat slaughtered abroad is halal-compliant and stunned. If the label/butcher says it come from an Islamic country and you care about it, don't buy it - same as I don't buy stuff that comes from Israel because I care about that.


 
I've already said I don't care about it. And if we go back a bit you'll find you were calling people racist for doing what you are now suggesting they do. Nevermind that some people can't afford to buy their meat from the kind of upmarket establishments that can give you the family tree and dietary history of the animal.

You've ruined 2 very interesting threads with your unfounded smears over the last day or so. Can't you go and do it on a boring shit one instead?


----------



## Citizen66 (May 15, 2012)

Or at least start another thread for epic off-topic tangents.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> If you're rejecting it on welfare grounds, then you have to reject virtually all meat slaughtered in the UK. If that is your position, then you are an animal rights enthusiast, not a racist. If it not, then you have been misled by racists (given that I don't believe you are a racist yourself).


What has other meat got to do with it?  Many people find it very hard to keep fully informed about every single food production practice, but never-the-less form opinions about certain processes, which they believe are worth taking a position on.

And appealing to the RSPCA as the arbiter of animal welfare is not the final word.  For example, I know people who think that the RSPCA Freedom Food label does not go far enough in chicken welfare, since they do not require the chickens to have any time outdoors.  These people would rather have free range chicken, believing it to be a higher animal welfare standard than the RSPCA requires.  





> Not sure what you mean by 'point 2'. Does what apply to them? Anyone has the right to not eat/serve halal/kosher meat. Whether it is racist or not depends on their justification for it, and their consistency in applying the same principles to other meat which has been killed in exactly the same way.


I meant my second point.  I realise that I'd numbered the previous questions also, so I apologise for any confusion caused.  You said _a refusal to serve (stunned) halal/kosher would be racist_.  I think you're wrong.  Even inserting the word "stunned", people are free to make decisions  It doesn't make them racist, even unwittingly so.  You seem to back-pedal on that yourself, when you say that it depends on their justification.  Well, their justification is on welfare grounds.  (That's certainly mine).  And then you talk about consistency.  It's not always possible to be consistent in food production.  There is no legal definition for free range pork, for example.  So some people might feel it's important to take a stance on chicken because they are well-informed on the issue, but can't make the same level of judgement on pork.  So leave other meat out of the equation for now.  Just on Halal and Kosher meat, is it racist for a cafe to refuse to sell it on welfare grounds?

I'm sorry if this seems like a derail, but I think there is a general principle here about culture and race on which you are wrong.  It is relevant to the issue the thread is dealing with.


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What is ridiculous is the position you've got yourself in where you cannot even admit the obvious possibility, that the pressures of profitability and demands for affordable meat, may produce a situation where both consumer and butcher are not at all fussed with their meat's provenance, so long as it at least superficially fits the bill. Is that your class blindness showing?
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. the last sentence was a joke.


It's very well known (to those who care that most abattoirs do not stun properly because they are huge fucking factories expecting a higher throughput than is possible whilst maintaining professional standards.

This is a concern for all animal welfare enthusiasts, and rightly so. Those who genuinely care about it - enough to inform themselves about the nature of the problem - do not pretend it only applies to stuff that is labelled halal/kosher. It's like saying we have to tackle the attitudes of Pakistani men towards white women but there is no need to tackle the attitudes of the police towards sex crimes. Why focus on one small part of the problem whilst ignoring the much bigger issue that makes the smaller one more likely to happen in the first place? 

Back to the derail ... A butcher selling unstunned meat would have had to source it specially, very few butchers will have more than one local halal abattoir available to them, many will have none. If they're sourcing unstunned halal


----------



## ymu (May 15, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> What has other meat got to do with it? Many people find it very hard to keep fully informed about every single food production practice, but never-the-less form opinions about certain processes, which they believe are worth taking a position on.
> 
> And appealing to the RSPCA as the arbiter of animal welfare is not the final word. For example, I know people who think that the RSPCA Freedom Food label does not go far enough in chicken welfare, since they do not require the chickens to have any time outdoors. These people would rather have free range chicken, believing it to be a higher animal welfare standard than the RSPCA requires.
> 
> ...


Read the fucking thread Danny. If your concern is on welfare grounds, then you should be refusing to serve (and eat) most other meat sold in the UK. It is virtually all halal compliant. (see Tesco letter to the EDL). It is very easy to ascertain whether meat is unstunned because it would have to be especially sourced and retailer would know (because they get asked this question a lot).

It's not me wriggling here, it's a bunch of people who can't admit that they fell for some propaganda shite, and that they are just as guilty of cultural relativism as the other type of cultural relativist that they so rightly dismiss. Get a fucking grip. Most of you are much, much better than this.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Back to the derail ... A butcher selling unstunned meat would have had to source it specially, very few butchers will have more than one local halal abattoir available to them, many will have none. If they're sourcing unstunned halal


 
Louis MacNeice mentioned your class blindness in his last post and I suspect that's also behind this. The cheaper meat markets _don't_ source their produce locally, most of it comes from abroad, much of it off the back of a lorry, and there's no way for even the retailer to know where it came from.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> It's not me wriggling here, it's a bunch of people who can't admit that they fell for some propaganda shite, and that they are just as guilty of cultural relativism as the other type of cultural relativist that they so rightly dismiss. Get a fucking grip. Most of you are much, much better than this.


 
1) I haven't fallen for anything. Unless they kicked the beast to death or put electrodes on its gonads I really don't care. So you're mischaracterising people again there.

2) What do you think cultural relativism means? I don't see how, even if you were right, this could be classed as cultural relativism.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Part 1: Yes (given that I regard religious/cultural differences as equivalent to 'race' in most circumstances).


I disagree quite strongly. Leaving aside the question of what "race" is for now, religious and cultural differences are not equivalent to it. There is absolutely nothing  congenital, genetic or inherent about culture. You said to me earlier in the thread that "it is easy to throw around accusations of cultural relativism". Well, it is the sort of statement you make above that justifies the term. You are saying first of all that religion and culture are beyond criticism where you decide they are equivalent to race. Nonsense. If I criticise an aspect of a religion, that is a philosophy, a set of ideas. If I criticise an aspect of a culture, that is a behaviour or set of ideas. Behaviours and ideas are not immutable. They change. Nor are they a necessary part of anyone's being. There is no gene for particular cultural traditions. It is not a part of anyone's _nature_ to belong to a particular culture. Indeed, I'd argue, to suggest so is itself racist.



> Part 2: Yes and no. In the UK most halal/kosher meat is stunned: blanket condemnation is based on racist propaganda. To be strictly accurate though, Jhatka requires that the animal is killed instantly with a single blow (not sure how that is not a form of ritual slaughter, but never mind), and these are the grounds given for her not eating halal. I presume this means that she avoids most meat in the UK unless it is known to have been killed by a bolt through the head (rarely used in UK abattoirs for animals other than cattle, and not always then). Her husband then chose to add the racist trope. She's a much better thinker than he is, so I'm not ascribing his views to her.


"Yes _and_ no"? I think you mean "no". You must do unless you also think your own statement that you're "not sure how Jhakta isn't ritual slaughter" is racist.


> Part 3: I think you've been fooled by racists, and a refusal to serve (stunned) halal/kosher would be racist, albeit unknowingly so.


I've covered this above.

You need to think harder about race and culture, and the differences between the two.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Read the fucking thread Danny.


I have done.



> If your concern is on welfare grounds, then you should be refusing to serve (and eat) most other meat sold in the UK.


Or I'm racist?



> It is virtually all halal compliant. (see Tesco letter to the EDL).


Does it not embarrass you that you need to use the EDL in support of your point?  They, too, are confused about the distinction between culture and race.



> It's not me wriggling here, it's a bunch of people who can't admit that they fell for some propaganda shite, and that they are just as guilty of cultural relativism as the other type of cultural relativist that they so rightly dismiss. Get a fucking grip.


You're wrong.


----------



## Riklet (May 15, 2012)

Halal meat zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz boring. this shit is an injustice to a serious topic.  I thought trying to dig your way out of a big fucking hole  was widely accepted as dumbness...

weren't we discussing serious sexual abuse and the implications of these various current scandals, the ramifications of conflating culture/race/religion and the importance of people discussing this topic instead of just letting the wiberal "nothing to see here" or fascist types hijack and dominate the discussion?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> It's very well known (to those who care that most abattoirs do not stun properly because they are huge fucking factories expecting a higher throughput than is possible whilst maintaining professional standards.
> 
> This is a concern for all animal welfare enthusiasts, and rightly so. Those who genuinely care about it - enough to inform themselves about the nature of the problem - do not pretend it only applies to stuff that is labelled halal/kosher. It's like saying we have to tackle the attitudes of Pakistani men towards white women but there is no need to tackle the attitudes of the police towards sex crimes. Why focus on one small part of the problem whilst ignoring the much bigger issue that makes the smaller one more likely to happen in the first place?
> 
> Back to the derail ... A butcher selling unstunned meat would have had to source it specially, very few butchers will have more than one local halal abattoir available to them, many will have none. If they're sourcing unstunned halal


how do you square the final paragraph of your post with the first paragraph? it seems to me that your argument, such as it is, that it is very difficult to find unstunned meat in the uk is undermined by your unforced admission that MOST abbatoirs DO NOT stun properly. as opposed to your shrill refrain that people would have to search about to find unstunned meat.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

Riklet said:


> Halal meat zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz boring. this shit is an injustice to a serious topic. I thought trying to dig your way out of a big fucking hole was widely accepted as dumbness...
> 
> weren't we discussing serious sexual abuse and the implications of these various current scandals, the ramifications of conflating culture/race/religion and the importance of people discussing this topic instead of just letting the wiberal "nothing to see here" or fascist types hijack and dominate the discussion?


 
Agree with most of that, but I don't see any "fascist types" on this thread. To be fair I don't think even YMU suggested that.


----------



## Riklet (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Agree with most of that, but I don't see any "fascist types" on this thread. To be fair I don't think even YMU suggested that.


 
Hah 

That's not what I meant! I meant in society as a whole, it wasn't a dig at ymu and others, i was talking about the importance of this being discussed in society at large without the topic being diverted from and the victims being forgotten in favour of an excuse to bring up any old shit and divert from discussing the relevant issue(s).

My dig about holes and digging was probably more directed at ymu (and phil of course), unfairly or not i dunno, it's still interesting bunfightery and it just wouldn't be urban if this kinda crazy tangent stuff didn't happen, it certainly clarifies one or two things a bit....


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2012)

Riklet said:


> Hah
> 
> That's not what I meant! I meant in society as a whole, it wasn't a dig at ymu and others, i was talking about the importance of this being discussed in society at large without the topic being diverted from and the victims being forgotten in favour of an excuse to bring up any old shit and divert from discussing the relevant issue(s).
> 
> My dig about holes and digging was probably more directed at ymu (and phil of course), unfairly or not i dunno, it's still interesting bunfightery and it just wouldn't be urban if this kinda crazy tangent stuff didn't happen, it certainly clarifies one or two things a bit....


sorts out the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats usw.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 15, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> I disagree quite strongly. Leaving aside the question of what "race" is for now, religious and cultural differences are not equivalent to it. There is absolutely nothing congenital, genetic or inherent about culture. You said to me earlier in the thread that "it is easy to throw around accusations of cultural relativism". Well, it is the sort of statement you make above that justifies the term. You are saying first of all that religion and culture are beyond criticism where you decide they are equivalent to race. Nonsense. If I criticise an aspect of a religion, that is a philosophy, a set of ideas. If I criticise an aspect of a culture, that is a behaviour or set of ideas. Behaviours and ideas are not immutable. They change. Nor are they a necessary part of anyone's being. There is no gene for particular cultural traditions. It is not a part of anyone's _nature_ to belong to a particular culture. Indeed, I'd argue, to suggest so is itself racist.


 
I haven't been following the debate that proceeded this, but just a few words about the above analysis. As you implicitly note, 'race' is a rather slippery concept: the findings of the Human Genome Project suggested that is greater genetic variation within "races" than between them and melanin variations hardly are an adequate explanation of racism as tje English/Irish, Hutu/Tutsi, Serbian/Croatian, Greek/Turkish conflicts reveal. Racism is therefore far more deeply inbedded in "cultural" (in the broadest sense) conflicts than any sort of pseudo-scientific category. This is not to say that "cultural" practices (which as you say are dynamic and heterogeneous) are beyond the realm of criticism, but it does rather illustrate that issues of race and cultural are imbricated and hence the latter sort of criticisms are not immune from racism.

Whilst I think cultural relativism is a deadend, I think there is a point that people who often claim to disavowal it often are only universalising their own cultural 'particularisms' and in the process failing to critically evaluate their own cultural practices, making them both the mirror image of the 'cultural relativist' they are attacking and potentially bolstering racism in the process. The anti-halal stance on grounds of animal welfare is _potentially _an indication of this. Frankly anybody who eats meat can STFU about the cruelness of halal - the commerical meat industry is just very cruel to animals: halal, kosher or regular. I'd suggest that somebody utterly unconcerned with the meat industry in general but particularly concerned about the cruelness of halal in particular (not leveling this accusation against you personally, like I said I haven't read the previous corrispondence) has on some level internalised some sort of racist prejudice (its hardly any surprise that the EDL campiagn around this issue, nor that in the 1970s the NF organised 'animal welfare' demos to protest kosher food). 

So the question of whether cultural criticism is racist is always a contextual one, never one that can be answered a priori in the negative or positive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

bamalama said:


> I've always found the two most vocal groups concerning jewish people being a race apart are fascists and hassidim/ashkenazi fundamentalists...fucking strange
> 
> edit : i know it's off topic,but the threads waaay off topic anyway.Religious dietry requirements...who gives a fuck,apart from those who abide by them...


 
Not strange at all. Ashke*nazis*, innit?


----------



## Ranbay (May 15, 2012)




----------



## goldenecitrone (May 15, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


>


 
EDL is really one big nonce ring shocker!


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'd suggest that somebody utterly unconcerned with the meat industry in general but particularly concerned about the cruelness of halal in particular (not leveling this accusation against you personally, like I said I haven't read the previous corrispondence) has on some level internalised some sort of racist prejudice (its hardly any surprise that the EDL campiagn around this issue, nor that in the 1970s the NF organised 'animal welfare' demos to protest kosher food).


On this and your other comments, you need to really read the thread and how the issue came up.  There's a context.  It is a tangent, but at the heart of it lies the absolute certainty of some (very few, as it happens) that culture and religion are the equivalent of race, and that any criticism is therefore racist.  This is hogwash.  You are right to say that racists do latch onto culture.  But there is a fundamental point at stake here, and that is the tendency of some people who see themselves as anti racists viewing cultural identity as a biological phenomenon, or as being functionally inseparable from one.

I don't want to prolong the Halal/Kosher issue, but while there are certainly people for whom it is a part and parcel of their bigotry, that is not necessarily so for all who refuse to eat Halal/Kosher meat but who eat other meat.   A poster here whose wife is Sikh will not eat Halal/Kosher meat.  For ymu, her Sikh principle of Jhatka might itself be racist.  Indeed, despite saying that criticism of religion and culture is equivalent to racism, ymu ridiculed the Sikh belief that Jhakta is the antithesis of ritual slaughter.  This is the hole that she'd dug herself.

The earlier part of the thread is where (if you'll excuse the expression) the real meat is.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


>


 
His failure to grasp basic grammar says it all, really.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> My mum doesn't like kosher meat because there's too LITTLE blood in it


 
Worst food I've ever had was a piece of lamb's liver in a _kosher_ household. It'd been washed in cold water, and then seared in a frying pan and cooked until it had the texture and taste of old boot. If the piece had been bigger, I'd have patched my sole with it!


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Worst food I've ever had was a piece of lamb's liver in a _kosher_ household. It'd been washed in cold water, and then seared in a frying pan and cooked until it had the texture and taste of old boot. If the piece had been bigger, I'd have patched my sole with it!


 
It's a common joke amongst my family that kosher catering is all mammoth portions but pretty mediocre quality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest, i'm jewish, but there's plenty of things about the jewish religion i don't like, and this is one of them. i don't know how anyone can object to stunning the animals  I am sure most religious Jews wouldnt have a problem with stunning them either. A lot of people probably don't even know they're not pre-stunned.


 
Thing is, I'd far rather slaughter a chicken with a knife or hatchet then parboil the poor fucker the way waterbath stunning does. One of the reasons abattoirs use it is that it makes the poultry easier to pluck.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> It's a common joke amongst my family that kosher catering is all mammoth portions but pretty mediocre quality.


 
We always used to rib my nan that her love of spicy food was her making up for having had her tastebuds blanded out during childhood. She absolutely loathed potatoes because that was one of the main things they ate as kids, along with cabbage.
And yep, agree about the mammoth portions, like that makes up for the rest of it!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (May 15, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> On this and your other comments, you need to really read the thread and how the issue came up. There's a context. It is a tangent, but at the heart of it lies the absolute certainty of some (very few, as it happens) that culture and religion are the equivalent of race, and that any criticism is therefore racist. This is hogwash. You are right to say that racists do latch onto culture. But there is a fundamental point at stake here, and that is the tendency of some people who see themselves as anti racists viewing cultural identity as a biological phenomenon, or as being functionally inseparable from one.


 
My point was that the notions of 'race' and biological phenomena are not important in most modern discussions of racism and to introduce them and to contrast them to 'culture' obscures rather than clarifies the issues at stake.


----------



## manny-p (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> His failure to grasp basic grammar says it all, really.


Her grammar is shite too. Still I don't think we should give a fuck about their grammar. I don't judge people on that, but their actions and how they are as a person. And Tommy is a bellend.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> This may (or may not) be of interest to folk; kosher slaughterers discussing the process. There is some blood, but no actual footage of the animal being killed, in case anybody's a wee bit squeamish.
> 
> 
> 
> They seem to believe it is the blood pressure that goes quick, so for them it is a bleeding out method. Remember there are far fewer kosher slaughter houses than there are halal, because the Jewish population is considerably smaller and stunning is not used here, so you're quite likely to have unstunned meat should you go kosher (in fact there might only now be one or two serving the whole UK).




The Yanks had a fun name for it - "fatal traumatic hypotension" (yes, I know!  ). Loss of blood is so massive and so fast that everything (including consciousness, apparently) shuts down.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> No. The Gurdwaras offer vegetarian food because everyone can eat it.


 
And the Haris offer lentils because they make you fart. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## phildwyer (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Read the fucking thread Danny. If your concern is on welfare grounds, then you should be refusing to serve (and eat) most other meat sold in the UK. It is virtually all halal compliant. (see Tesco letter to the EDL). It is very easy to ascertain whether meat is unstunned because it would have to be especially sourced and retailer would know (because they get asked this question a lot).
> 
> It's not me wriggling here, it's a bunch of people who can't admit that they fell for some propaganda shite, and that they are just as guilty of cultural relativism as the other type of cultural relativist that they so rightly dismiss. Get a fucking grip. Most of you are much, much better than this.


 
You're mad you are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

8ball said:


> As a wild guess, it might be to ensure the quality of the meat - an animal that doesn't seem fully alert may have been drugged to make capture/transport easier, or it could be sick.


 
As I mentioned a while back, that's been mooted as one of the reasons for the original dietary laws - the animal needs to be conscious so that the slaughterer can tell whether it is ill.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

manny-p said:


> Her grammar is shite too. Still I don't think we should give a fuck about their grammar. I don't judge people on that, but their actions and how they are as a person. And Tommy is a bellend.


 
I know.  But the guy's a massive bellend as you say, so I say anything extra he does is fair game.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> My point was that the notions of 'race' and biological phenomena are not important in most modern discussions of racism and to introduce them and to contrast them to 'culture' obscures rather than clarifies the issues at stake.


I know what your point is. I disagree. I think any rational critique of how anti racism got entangled with Multiculturalism, and where what passes for anti racism has taken us, requires those issues to be raised. I think you have misunderstood my point. I also think it's perhaps a tangent too far to labour the point here.

But for what it's worth, I'm saing the opposite of what you think.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> We always used to rib my nan that her love of spicy food was her making up for having had her tastebuds blanded out during childhood. She absolutely loathed potatoes because that was one of the main things they ate as kids, along with cabbage.
> And yep, agree about the mammoth portions, like that makes up for the rest of it!


 
Hah, exactly.   I don't know why they have to worry about quantity vs quality so much, I'd far rather get a smaller portion that tasted excellent.  Home cooking with my family is just fine, it's eating out / weddings etc that it all goes to pot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> No, that is checked out beforehand. Any animal killed for kosher must be in good enough health to live for at least another year should it not be slaughtered (i.e. it needs to be completely healthy). That stuff is checked out prior to the slaughterers going in to kill the animal itself.


 
Nowadays, yes. As recently as the '30s and '40s over here, not all the time, even for kosher, especially at certain times of year.
Nowadays vetinary checks and sampling are S.O.P. Back then any healthchecks were dependent on throughput, even at kosher slaughterhouses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

ymu said:


> Any halal butcher can tell you where their meat came from. They're not fucking Tesco.


 
Yes, they can.

The local wholesaler or, if they're in London, a trader at Smithfield market.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> No but tesco are aren't they?


 
Tesco are Zionists. They'd probably lie.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Can you tell us what concerned consumers should do when using cheap meat markets where almost all the meat is imported? Thanks.


 
Stop being such pissants if they want to remain omnivores?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Louis MacNeice mentioned your class blindness in his last post and I suspect that's also behind this. The cheaper meat markets _don't_ source their produce locally, most of it comes from abroad, much of it off the back of a lorry, and there's no way for even the retailer to know where it came from.


 
And sometimes it is local and came from "a field near you", freshly "rustled" a couple of days before market day.


----------



## bamalama (May 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not strange at all. Ashke*nazis*, innit?


 I've developed a wee interest in their culture and way of life recently,could you point me in the right direction?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

bamalama said:


> I've developed a wee interest in their culture and way of life recently,could you point me in the right direction?


 
Hmm, not as easy as it sounds, even when just reduced to Yiddish-speakers (4 linguistic variants of Yiddish at one time, BTW!), and the _Ashkenazim_ arguably spread at least as far east as the _Caucasus_. Then you've got the various factions, fractions and sub-sects of Jewry, covering everything from the spiritually-relaxed to the ultra-Orthodox. Probably a good starting point in terms of general history would be anything dealing with the Pale of Settlement, how and why it came about, and the social engineering (besides pogroms) that took place to shift Jews there.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

bamalama said:


> I've developed a wee interest in their culture and way of life recently,could you point me in the right direction?


 
If you want a look at 'modern ultra orthodox Ashkenazi life' there are a few docus on youtube which are interesting to watch: 

Jewish Law (I linked to a clip from this earlier in the thread - a look at the Manchester orthodox community)

The Hasidic Drug Dealer (this follows a member of the ultra orthodox Hasidic community in Stamford Hill who has recently been released for smuggling drugs.  It basically follows his attempt to reintergrate back into the community and also looks at how they live their life.  These are the ultra end of the spectrum)

A Hasidic Guide to Love, Marriage and Finding a Bride (our drug dealing friend features in this too, although it's not directly about him.  It looks at the extensive matchmaking services that exist within the ultra orthodox community)

A bit less academic than what VP has suggested, but great watches nonetheless.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

I should say, there's not a lot 'modern' about it, really.


----------



## bamalama (May 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm, not as easy as it sounds, even when just reduced to Yiddish-speakers (4 linguistic variants of Yiddish at one time, BTW!), and the _Ashkenazim_ arguably spread at least as far east as the _Caucasus_. Then you've got the various factions, fractions and sub-sects of Jewry, covering everything from the spiritually-relaxed to the ultra-Orthodox. Probably a good starting point in terms of general history would be anything dealing with the Pale of Settlement, how and why it came about, and the social engineering (besides pogroms) that took place to shift Jews there.


 I know a bit of the history and the whole yiddish thing.That was told to me when me and some german mates were watching blazing saddles pissed I'm quite interested in the ultra-orthodox lot,and i was hoping you could recommend a good book which could explain their beliefs and how they live today.There is a yank book called postville,but i'm not sure i'd want to spend my money on it.I'd like to find some sort of anthropological study or maybe a book by someone whose left the life.I'll be looking up the pale of settlement,cheers vp


----------



## bamalama (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> If you want a look at 'modern ultra orthodox Ashkenazi life' there are a few docus on youtube which are interesting to watch:
> 
> Jewish Law (I linked to a clip from this earlier in the thread - a look at the Manchester orthodox community)
> 
> ...


 Cheers pure i've seen those,except the manchester one i think.They were interesting but i thought they were a wee bit flat,not enough meat,i didn't think i was any the wiser after watching them.I'll see about looking the manchester one later


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

bamalama said:


> Cheers pure i've seen those,except the manchester one i think.They were interesting but i thought they were a wee bit flat,not enough meat,i didn't think i was any the wiser after watching them.I'll see about looking the manchester one later


 
I suppose it depends what you already know about them.  The Manchester one is quite good as it does explain why certain things are done (i.e. stuff like in kosher bakeries the portion of dough set aside to make holy which has to be respectfully disposed of).  It's worth having a search of youtube for some of the Chief Rabbi's wee videos about various topics which explain more about the specific bits of the Torah / Talmud that dictate the reasons behind a specific practice. Stuff like The Big Jewish Book of Why also gives specific reasoning behind practices.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia also.


----------



## bamalama (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> I suppose it depends what you already know about them. The Manchester one is quite good as it does explain why certain things are done (i.e. stuff like in kosher bakeries the portion of dough set aside to make holy which has to be respectfully disposed of). It's worth having a search of youtube for some of the Chief Rabbi's wee videos about various topics which explain more about the specific bits of the Torah / Talmud that dictate the reasons behind a specific practice. Stuff like The Big Jewish Book of Why also gives specific reasoning behind practices.
> 
> The Jewish Encyclopaedia also.


 The big jewish book of why.There should be one of these for all organised religions.or we could cut to the chase and just call it the big religious book of why?ffs why?


----------



## purenarcotic (May 15, 2012)

bamalama said:


> The big jewish book of why.There should be one of these for all organised religions.or we could cut to the chase and just call it the big religious book of why?ffs why?


 
There are now two big jewish books of why, there may even be a third.   It's quite the thing now to give it as a bar / bat mitzvah present, because it just has the answers to absolutely hundreds of questions relating to jewish practice and you dip in and out all your life.  Great books.


----------



## bamalama (May 15, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> There are now two big jewish books of why, there may even be a third.  It's quite the thing now to give it as a bar / bat mitzvah present, because it just has the answers to absolutely hundreds of questions relating to jewish practice and you dip in and out all your life. Great books.


 I'm there!


----------



## goldenecitrone (May 15, 2012)

There was a good Wonderland on BBC2 recently about my ex-neighbours up in Stamford Hill. Some great characters in it. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011crqs


----------



## danny la rouge (May 15, 2012)

Jeff Robinson said:


> My point was that the notions of 'race' and biological phenomena are not important in most modern discussions of racism and to introduce them and to contrast them to 'culture' obscures rather than clarifies the issues at stake.


What the hell, I've decided to labour the point. Perhaps it'll inject something new into the thread.

I didn't think it necessary to say until now, but I should make it clear that I do not think race is valid a scientific category; it is neither consistent nor reliable nor reproducible. It is instead a social construct.

However, that is not the same as saying that it is unreal. Racial differences are a fact of life. The question is how to respond that. I think antiracism has taken a wrong turn.

There is now in what passes as antiracism a trend that demands we treat people differently. It says that respecting difference means that someone’s culture, ethnicity, religion and so on are so fundamental to their being, that we must treat them not according to universalised principles, but according to the internal mores of each individual culture.

The big cause is to seek and protect cultural “authenticity”. Often this is an ersatz authenticity. I saw a programme on TV some time ago in which people were using mitochondrial DNA to trace their haplogroups. British people were tracing back their genetic ancestry. In one episode, some black Britons traced their genetic origins to specific areas of Africa. They had not known they had any connection with these specific areas before, nor of the culture of the area. But they came away saying that they had found out something about their own cultural identity. This is the sort of thing I meant when I said that there is a tendency to view cultural identity as a biological phenomenon.
I submit that these people were mistaken in thinking they’d discovered anything about their cultural identity. Cultural identity is passed socially, not by mDNA. This is the biologicalisation of the politics of difference. This is what makes distinguishing racism from antiracism increasingly difficult.

This fetishism of “authenticity” (however ersatz) has been amongst the causes that propelled the most conservative sections of minority communities back to prominence, allowing them to reassert their reactionary impulses at the expense of more vulnerable groups.

The ridiculous antirationalism of postmodern cultural relativism has served to baffle people and make them distrust any questioning of cultural mores. Thus women with a reactionary minority culture can be condemned to accepting standards that would not be thought acceptable more generally, merely because “it’s their culture”, when police guidelines advise that sensitivity to “cultural differences”. In Australia, for example, courts often accept that Aborigines should be treated according to their own customs rather than Australian law (which is presumably seen as colonialist), resulting in people convicted of rape being treated differently according to their race. (C/f the case of Pascoe Jamilmira in 2002).

We become so cowed by reactionary politics of difference that we shy from “disrespecting” cultural identity by challenging or offending their values, beliefs or ways of being.

It is this racialisation that I think should be challenged, along with traditional racism.

In the face of relativism, we need to rediscover the courage of our convictions. If we believe something to be anti progressive, we should say so.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 15, 2012)

Tell us about rochdale,,,,,no way can anyone


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Stop being such pissants if they want to remain omnivores?


 
I agree. The only things I care about in meat are taste and price!


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Tell us about rochdale,,,,,no way can anyone


 
I'm told it's hard being a cowboy there.


----------



## Belushi (May 15, 2012)

One of the best posts I've read on urban in a long time danny.


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 15, 2012)

potentially warrants a new thread


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

bamalama said:


> The big jewish book of why.There should be one of these for all organised religions.or we could cut to the chase and just call it the big religious book of why?ffs why?


 
Unfortunately for the world, not all cultures are quite as inquisitive and argumentative as Jews? "Why" is the first word we learn after birth!


----------



## bamalama (May 15, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately for the world, not all cultures are quite as inquisitive and argumentative as Jews? "Why" is the first word we learn after birth!


 Dunno about the argumentative bit,irish catholics'd give ye a run for your money on that one


----------



## temper_tantrum (May 15, 2012)

No, it warrants a response.


----------



## bamalama (May 15, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> potentially warrants a new thread


 Do it.Better than reading page after page about religious dietry shite...


----------



## Das Uberdog (May 15, 2012)

done it, if anyone's interested

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...ty-politics-attitudes-of-progressives.293453/


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> What the hell, I've decided to labour the point. Perhaps it'll inject something new into the thread.
> 
> I didn't think it necessary to say until now, but I should make it clear that I do not think race is valid a scientific category; it is neither consistent nor reliable nor reproducible. It is instead a social construct.


 
It's not even been taken seriously as a sociological category for the last 40 years, hence so much of the literature since the '70s putting the word in " "s, what the youngster now touchingly call "scare quotes". They know that even as a social construction, race isn't a valid category - it's far too amorphous and open to interpretation as to what the category contains and defines, hence the seemingly "politically correct" shift to attempts at classification by ethno-cultural allegiance as well as nationality, for example.



> However, that is not the same as saying that it is unreal. Racial differences are a fact of life. The question is how to respond that. I think antiracism has taken a wrong turn.
> 
> There is now in what passes as antiracism a trend that demands we treat people differently. It says that respecting difference means that someone’s culture, ethnicity, religion and so on are so fundamental to their being, that we must treat them not according to universalised principles, but according to the internal mores of each individual culture.


 
I'm sure I remember Stuart Hall arguing against this way back in the days of rampant identity politics in the '80s. His contention (I think he was replying to a letter or an article in _New Society_) was that respect should only ever extend as far as legislative rule allowed, because otherwise _de facto_ sanction would be given to practices would transgress it.
And of course, the mess that identity politics became are part of what informs the current approach.



> The big cause is to seek and protect cultural “authenticity”. Often this is an ersatz authenticity. I saw a programme on TV some time ago in which people were using mitochondrial DNA to trace their haplogroups. British people were tracing back their genetic ancestry. In one episode, some black Britons traced their genetic origins to specific areas of Africa. They had not known they had any connection with these specific areas before, nor of the culture of the area. But they came away saying that they had found out something about their own cultural identity. This is the sort of thing I meant when I said that there is a tendency to view cultural identity as a biological phenomenon.
> I submit that these people were mistaken in thinking they’d discovered anything about their cultural identity. Cultural identity is passed socially, not by mDNA. This is the biologicalisation of the politics of difference. This is what makes distinguishing racism from antiracism increasingly difficult.


 
You *live* your cultural identity. You live IN your biological heritage, quite literally.
The problem with this biologicisation of "race" is that it's an old trope that's been with us since at least late-medieval times, wearing various sets of clothes from religious vestments to a lab coat. It's an easy argument to make because it for some it sounds right, it can sound *fitting* in any society that's hierarchic.



> This fetishism of “authenticity” (however ersatz) has been amongst the causes that propelled the most conservative sections of minority communities back to prominence, allowing them to reassert their reactionary impulses at the expense of more vulnerable groups.


And authenticity is very often ersatz, it's usually an essentialised ideal rather than being grounded in actuality.



> The ridiculous antirationalism of postmodern cultural relativism has served to baffle people and make them distrust any questioning of cultural mores. Thus women with a reactionary minority culture can be condemned to accepting standards that would not be thought acceptable more generally, merely because “it’s their culture”, when police guidelines advise that sensitivity to “cultural differences”. In Australia, for example, courts often accept that Aborigines should be treated according to their own customs rather than Australian law (which is presumably seen as colonialist), resulting in people convicted of rape being treated differently according to their race. (C/f the case of Pascoe Jamilmira in 2002).
> 
> We become so cowed by reactionary politics of difference that we shy from “disrespecting” cultural identity by challenging or offending their values, beliefs or ways of being.
> 
> ...


 
The problem being that our political overseers find it more profitable politically to preserve this set of reactionary "communities" (or, more realistically, the political power of the "leaders" of such communities), rather than acknowledge that under their own law, every person is equal before that law, *without fear or favour*.

Great post, by the way.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Bit off topic but then again so is most of the rest of the thread so I'll ask anyway. Do you know if it's it common for Sikhs to take the principle of minimal suffering even further and become vegetarians? Only as far as I can remember all the sikhs I've known have been vegetarians. Or could it just be that it's harder to get the right meat up here where there isn't a big sikh community with its own butchers etc.?


 
Hallo SpineyNorman. This is Kris writing. I'm Simon's wife. You're right about alot of sikhs being veggies, I almost am but not completely. It's funny but all the girls in our family (almost) don't eat meat. That's because we cant guarantee that the meat is humanely killed and we don't believe that it's right to offer sacrifices to god(s) that may not exist. It's against our principles to eat anything that has suffered for our pleasure. I dpn't eat any processed meat products or meat in restaurants that I don't know and trust. Chatka is a way of life for us. It doesn't just mean "one blow" like Emu said (although that is the idea and what wikipedia would have you believe). It is an understnding that you shoudn't cause pain and suffering to any animals that serve you. To answer your question about vegetarianism, I find that most sikh men coukdn't care less about the provenance of the meat they eat. Certainly not in my family (haha). But most who are even slightly observant won't eat kuttha (halal or kosher) because it's ritually killed. You ask if that's why lot of us are veggies and I can only say that we're the same as eveyone else. My sisters generally don't eat meat and would NEVER eat kuttha. The reasons for that are various, not just religious. Personally, I don't really like it and animal suffering is big for me (haha I married Simon who shoots alot of animals-hence Cunty Simon-) but i'd rather eat stuff that he brings home than stuff from Tesco. We have a little deer in the freezer that he killed in December. He shoots them to break the neck or spine which would be observant but I won't eat it because he also stalked it (which must have caused it distress, so it isn't chatka, FOR ME). Chatka doesn't just mean "one blow" for most sikh's. It is a principle that all life is sacred and if you take a life, you must do it without reference to God, because it's God's animal anyway and God has given you that animal anyway. The crime is to frighten or hurt it. I know it sounds silly but that's what we are taught as children. Again, to answer your question, most sikh girls that I know (all of out family) are vegetarian. Mainly because of animal we lfare. Most sikh blokes couldn't care less so long as they have a kebab after they get pissed, but most sikh blokes are wankers (I've been told to say here that Simon is not sikh -although he can be a wanker- haha). So, most sikh's can eat meat if they want to, but the reasons for NOT eating meat are many and varied, usually because we respect animals. Most sikh's (girls) won't eat kuttha because we have been brought up to believe causing an animal distress (stringing it up, saying a prayer, and slashing its neck) is cruel. I don't think that's racist, but if it is, I'm a racist.

Can I just say hallo to Blue Streak and the lovely Dot Communist.

Bye!

Kris.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 16, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Hallo SpineyNorman. This is Kris writing. I'm Simon's wife. You're right about alot of sikhs being veggies, I almost am but not completely. It's funny but all the girls in our family (almost) don't eat meat. That's because we cant guarantee that the meat is humanely killed and we don't believe that it's right to offer sacrifices to god(s) that may not exist. It's against our principles to eat anything that has suffered for our pleasure. I dpn't eat any processed meat products or meat in restaurants that I don't know and trust. Chatka is a way of life for us. It doesn't just mean "one blow" like Emu said (although that is the idea and what wikipedia would have you believe). It is an understnding that you shoudn't cause pain and suffering to any animals that serve you. To answer your question about vegetarianism, I find that most sikh men coukdn't care less about the provenance of the meat they eat. Certainly not in my family (haha). But most who are even slightly observant won't eat kuttha (halal or kosher) because it's ritually killed. You ask if that's why lot of us are veggies and I can only say that we're the same as eveyone else. My sisters generally don't eat meat and would NEVER eat kuttha. The reasons for that are various, not just religious. Personally, I don't really like it and animal suffering is big for me (haha I married Simon who shoots alot of animals-hence Cunty Simon-) but i'd rather eat stuff that he brings home than stuff from Tesco. We have a little deer in the freezer that he killed in December. I won't eat it because he stalked it (which must have caused it distress, so it isn't chatka, FOR ME). Chatka doesn't just mean "one blow" for most sikh's. It is a principle that all life is sacred and if you take a life, you must do it without reference to God, because it's God's animal anyway and God has given you that animal anyway. The crime is to frighten or hurt it. I know it sounds silly but that's what we are taught as children. Again, to answer your question, most sikh girls that I know (all of out family) are vegetarian. Mainly because of animal welfare. Most sikh blokes couldn't care less so long as they have a kebab after they get pissed, but most sikh blokes are wankers (I've been told to say here that Simon is not sikh -although he can be a wanker- haha). So, most sikh's can eat meat if they want to, but the reasons for NOT eating meat are many and varied, usually because we respect animals. Most sikh's (girls) won't eat kuttha because we have been brought up to believe causing an animal distress (stringing it up, saying a prayer, and slashing its neck) is cruel. I don't think that's racist, but if it is, I'm a racist.
> 
> Can I just say hallo to Blue Streak and the lovely Dot Communist.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the reply Kris 

And no, of course it's not racist. Only an idiot would say it was.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 16, 2012)

I think that brings an end to the dietary detour.


----------



## claphamboy (May 16, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> (I've been told to say here that Simon is not sikh -although he can be a wanker- haha).


 
There was no need to mention that on here.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not even been taken seriously as a sociological category for the last 40 years, hence so much of the literature since the '70s putting the word in " "s, what the youngster now touchingly call "scare quotes".


Yes, I'd spurned doing that in the past, but actually given the confusion Jeff had with a couple of my previous posts, I perhaps ought to.  I suppose I just assume that people know where I'm coming from, but of course why should they?  There's hundreds of posters on here.  I also have a bad habit of using phrases sarcastically, which I don't suppose helps.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> There was no need to mention that on here.


 
Oh, I don't know.


----------



## purenarcotic (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately for the world, not all cultures are quite as inquisitive and argumentative as Jews? "Why" is the first word we learn after birth!


 
Ask two Jews a question and get at least three different responses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, I'd spurned doing that in the past, but actually given the confusion Jeff had with a couple of my previous posts, I perhaps ought to. I suppose I just assume that people know where I'm coming from, but of course why should they? There's hundreds of posters on here. I also have a bad habit of using phrases sarcastically, which I don't suppose helps.


 
It doesn't, really! 

I know people can see using "scare quotes" as pretentious and/or portentous, but I've found, over the years, that it's a fairly pithy way of encapsulating the fact that you (as a writer of a post/essay/article) are aware that the category you're using is very open to question.
And yeah, it also means that you don't get *as many* people getting the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Ask two Jews a question and get at least three different responses.


 
No, it's definitely "ask three Jews a question, get *six* different responses *and* an argument about whose mother makes the best _kugel_".


----------



## danny la rouge (May 16, 2012)

Oh, here we go again with the dietary diatribes.


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 16, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, it's definitely "ask three Jews a question, get *six* different responses *and* an argument about whose mother makes the best _kugel_".


 

Stop with the kvetching


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 16, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, here we go again with the dietary diatribes.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 16, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, here we go again with the dietary diatribes.


It's enough to make you sick


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 18, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> I can't be alone in feeling that all ways of killing animals for human consumption are barbaric[/q
> yeah, you are alone in that...._fuck_ animals, personallly, I  couldn't give two about animals.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2012)

Good for you


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Good for you


 
What, killing animals and eating them? I agree!


----------



## Citizen66 (May 18, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> fuck animals



You beastie.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 18, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, killing animals and eating them? I agree!


Frances appears to be saying something about her desire to "fuck animals".


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 18, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Frances appears to be saying something about her desire to "fuck animals".


 
Ah, "zoophilia". AKA "liking animals too much, and for the wrong reasons".


----------



## Frances Lengel (May 18, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Frances appears to be saying something about her desire to "fuck animals".


 

Only when I can catch them though, and TBH it's not that easy to run with your kex round yer ankles - Remember when the guardian were giving away posters? They did a few of them, I think there was one of jellyfish, one of mushrooms but there was definately one of _sheep_ - I know coz it's on my wall - And some of those sheep have got _ticks_ next to them (ticks as in affermative strokes of a pen, not the parasitical animal), but we all know what those ticks mean. Oh yes, Liecester Longwool, Castlemilk Moorit,Beulah Speckled Face and even old Jacob got a portion. I mean _come on,_ it's taken 28 pages on a thread about Rochdale before sheepshagging gets a mention?


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 19, 2012)

articul8 said:


> My criticism is not directed at everyone in general but at Joe and the people who tend to fall in with his interpretation(s). It is deduced from what I've read on this thread.
> 
> Disgraceful straw man? Well some people seem to be sailing perilously close to arguing just that.


 
Trevor Phillips argues that to deny the link between the grooming gangs and race is "fatous" while Baroness Warsi states that a minority of men in the Pakistani community see "white women as third class citizens".

Remind me again what it is we are all 'sailing periliously close to'?

In composing this post it has just struck me that in previous threads you have pushed the line that anti-fascists were often mere thugs while the 'Reebok rioters' could/should be seen as proto revolutionaries.

I forget now what your contributions were in discussions on the IWCA, (though I could make a stab at an educated guess) but in any case the Rochdale case makes for an impressive hat-trick.

And as I don't think that you are in anyway unrepresentative (if that's any consolation) it does show how amusingly warped the conservative Left/liberal instinct has become.


----------



## articul8 (May 19, 2012)

> In composing this post it has just struck me that in previous threads you have pushed the line that anti-fascists were often mere thugs


I didn't say that, I said there was a danger of the violence and confrontation becoming an end in itself. This isn't the same at all.



> while the 'Reebok rioters' could/should be seen as proto revolutionaries.


I most certainly didn't say this either.



> I forget now what your contributions were in discussions on the IWCA, (though I could make a stab at an educated guess) but in any case the Rochdale case makes for an impressive hat-trick.


I have only said that it's one sided to look _only_ at the question of ethnicity/religion, not that there aren't specific issues to be raised there. Interesting that you are lining yourself up with Warsi and Philips



> And as I don't think that you are in anyway unrepresentative (if that's any consolation) it does show how amusingly warped the conservative Left/liberal instinct has become.


You want me to be your token "liberal left" opponent and are determined to misrepresent and misconstrue what I've actually said for what you'd imagine I'd be saying. Slack.


----------



## Joe Reilly (May 19, 2012)

articul8 said:


> You want me to be your token "liberal left" opponent and are determined to misrepresent and misconstrue what I've actually said for what you'd imagine I'd be saying. Slack.


 
I don't want you to be anything, merely pointing out how effortlessly you and your travelling companions effortlessly find yourselves on the wrong and losing sides of practically any given debate.


----------



## articul8 (May 19, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> I don't want you to be anything, merely pointing out how effortlessly you and your travelling companions effortlessly find yourselves on the wrong and losing sides of practically any given debate.


By inventing what I'm meant to have argued?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 8, 2012)

Expect this to become focal point again next week when the "Home Affairs Committee holds evidence session on 'localised child grooming'."


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 8, 2012)

rochdale demo tomorrow with the edl which the casuals are claiming to support despite the huge fallouts with mr tommy this week (and despite all the denials, recriminations flew!)
http://www.edlnews.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/latest-news/762-marsh-steps-up-war-of-words-with-edl
and on the same day the BNP in blackpool on the charlene downes thing having basically taken it over and booted out the casuals much to stabber marsh's chagrin. mrs downes has been courted by griffin who is happy to capitalise on it all! as ever great timing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 21, 2012)

30 child rape guilties for bloke said to be ringleader.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 22, 2012)

add a current court case ,which involves and allegation that a Muslim couple were planning a bombing campaign against Manchester's Jewish community to this Rochdale grooming case and with at least one more GM grooming trial in the pipe line ..........


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 23, 2012)

There are child abuse rings all over the country all involving girls and boys of different race. The problem with the Roachdale gang is that too many fascists want to capitalise on it. This gang did not just go for white girls it went for any girl . Another angle is yes there was a few innocent girls who were groomed and manipulated but there was also girls manipulating these men for money and gifts time to look at the bigger picture.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 23, 2012)

When did the EDL bnp etc hold demo's outside the Catholic church ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 23, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> There are child abuse rings all over the country all involving girls and boys of different race. The problem with the Roachdale gang is that too many fascists want to capitalise on it. This gang did not just go for white girls it went for any girl . Another angle is yes there was a few innocent girls who were groomed and manipulated but there was also girls manipulating these men for money and gifts time to look at the bigger picture.


Oh shut up.


----------



## Belushi (Jun 23, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> T yes there was a few innocent girls who were groomed and manipulated but there was also girls manipulating these men for money and gifts time to look at the bigger picture.


 
Fuck off.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 23, 2012)

Why have I offended you two?


----------



## free spirit (Jun 23, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> This gang did not just go for white girls it went for any girl .


really?

I was under the impression they were all white, or at least that none of them were Asian.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 23, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Why have I offended you two?


 
Because you're phrasing things like victim blaming scum.

Have you read the thread? Do you have anything but shit contributions to add to it? If not, shut up and fuck off.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 23, 2012)

free spirit said:


> really?
> 
> I was under the impression they were all white, or at least that none of them were Asian.


 
Yes thats what the media wants people to think. This gang has proboly abused hundreds of girls and some were proboly Asian . The truth is these men were looking for vulnerable girls not white girls.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 23, 2012)

Riklet said:


> Because you're phrasing things like victim blaming scum.
> 
> Have you read the thread? Do you have anything but shit contributions to add to it? If not, shut up and fuck off.


 
Im just looking at things from different angles.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 23, 2012)

Except vulnerable white girls were primarily (and seemingly almost exclusively) targeted though.

Predators aren't going to want to bring extra attention and grief upon themselves. They went for those easiest to abuse. A recurring theme no?

Are there any reports of young Asian girls hanging around the take aways with this same kind of stuff going on to them? This trial relates to organised gangs and street grooming/sex offences. I certainly don't deny that maybe abuse was happening within more closed circles (their families or those close to them) as well, and perhaps that has yet to come to light. There's also the possibility this didn't go on so much. What questions does that raise?

There recurring pattern with the street grooming, your "looking at things from a different angle" would be better if it didn't stray into la la "what ifs" and probably-s in order to avoid critical analysis and engagement.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 23, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> There are child abuse rings all over the country all involving girls and boys of different race. The problem with the Roachdale gang is that too many fascists want to capitalise on it. This gang did not just go for white girls it went for any girl . Another angle is yes there was a few innocent girls who were groomed and manipulated but there was also girls manipulating these men for money and gifts time to look at the bigger picture.


 
Some of these so called "victims" were nothing more than mercenary little slags weren't they?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Another angle is yes there was a few innocent girls who were groomed and manipulated but there was also girls manipulating these men for money and gifts time to look at the bigger picture.


 
Because 12 and 13 year-old kids really are that calculating and able to play on human nature, the predatory little bitches!

Ya fucking twonk.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2012)

free spirit said:


> really?
> 
> I was under the impression they were all white, or at least that none of them were Asian.


 
For some really odd reason, only a very small number of the local children in care in that part of the country are "Asian".


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jun 23, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Another angle is yes there was a few innocent girls who were groomed and manipulated but there was also girls manipulating these men for money and gifts time to look at the bigger picture.


 
Fuck off.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 23, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> For some really odd reason, only a very small number of the local children in care in that part of the country are "Asian".


what point are you trying to make there?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2012)

free spirit said:


> what point are you trying to make there?


 
That a *part* of the reason for the ethnic composition of their prey may reside in the demography of "children in care in South Yorkshire" - they didn't molest Asian children because there are hardly any in care up there.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 23, 2012)

Rochdale? South Yorks? _I mean to say._


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 23, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Rochdale? South Yorks? _I mean to say._


 
I knew that'd wind you up! 

We southerners are all the same though, it's all "Rochdale, Rotherham, they all sound the same, the people all sound the same - incomprehensible. No-one will notice".


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because 12 and 13 year-old kids really are that calculating and able to play on human nature, the predatory little bitches!


 
Yeah, it's the Muslim victims in all this we should really feel sorry for.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That a *part* of the reason for the ethnic composition of their prey may reside in the demography of "children in care in South Yorkshire" - they didn't molest Asian children because there are hardly any in care up there.


well, it's a theory I suppose.

I don't buy it myself though, and think it far more likely that they were simply racist bigoted pedophile twats who'd got the idea into their heads that it was somehow ok for them to be doing this to these girls as they were heathen white trash who nobody gave a shit about.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jun 24, 2012)

for what my two cents is worth i think it was a bit of both


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

free spirit said:


> well, it's a theory I suppose.
> 
> I don't buy it myself though, and think it far more likely that they were simply racist bigoted pedophile twats who'd got the idea into their heads that it was somehow ok for them to be doing this to these girls as they were heathen white trash who nobody gave a shit about.


 
A mag, I think it was _Community Care_ (the health and social welfare fortnightly) did a year on year of ethnic composition of carees for the area that showed the number of "Asian" carees as statistically insignificant, so while you're probably right, we simply don't know whether they didn't rape Asian carees because there wasn't an opportunity, or because they had some twisted sort of "principles", just as we don't know, due to community dynamics, whether they were molesting females within their own communities. It's not safe or sensible to just assume one scenario or the other.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

Das Uberdog said:


> for what my two cents is worth i think it was a bit of both


 
That's pretty much my own opinion. Knowing a bit about this sort of crime, I'm not convinced that you'd get a group of paedophiliac predators that'd be able to resist "their own kind" even given some twisted set of principles such as free spirit suggests.


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2012)

From the Telegraph, as a point of information


> Shabir Ahmed, 59, led a child sex exploitation ring of nine men who targeted vulnerable young girls in the Rochdale and Oldham areas of Greater Manchester.
> He was jailed for 19 years last month following an 11-week trial at Liverpool Crown Court.
> But Ahmed - known to his victims by the nickname "Daddy" - could not be named as he was awaiting trial on separate child rape charges.
> Today he was convicted of 30 charges of rape by a jury at Manchester Crown Court and Judge Mushtaq Khokhar lifted reporting restrictions, which means he can be identified for the first time.
> The court heard that he raped and sexually abused a young Asian girl over many years.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

newbie said:


> From the Telegraph, as a point of information


 
Cheers for posting that.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

Riklet said:


> Except vulnerable white girls were primarily (and seemingly almost exclusively) targeted though.
> 
> Predators aren't going to want to bring extra attention and grief upon themselves. They went for those easiest to abuse. A recurring theme no?
> 
> ...


 
No I dont believe that race of the girls had nothing to do with it. They were after vulnerable girls which could of been any race.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2012)

I thought these girls were manipulative schemers guilty of entrapment with only "a few innocent girls"?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Some of these so called "victims" were nothing more than mercenary little slags weren't they?


 
What Im saying is that some of the girls were victims and abused but I believe some of the girls knew exactly what they were doing and made alot of things up in the papers which fascists agree upon. There was even one white girl who was found to be bringing girls back to be abused and she got paid for it. So we cant just blame the men .


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2012)

come again?  it's never happened but I reckon if a 14yo offered to procure another 14yo for me I might just say no.


can't blame the men. sheesh.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because 12 and 13 year-old kids really are that calculating and able to play on human nature, the predatory little bitches!
> 
> Ya fucking twonk.


 
None of them are ? Like i mentioned there was one young girl who was bringing girls back to be abused. How many more of these girls were bringing other girls to be abused?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

newbie said:


> come again? it's never happened but I reckon if a 14yo offered to procure another 14yo for me I might just say no.
> 
> 
> can't blame the men. sheesh.


 
What happens if this girl had make up on and looked alot older.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What Im saying is that some of the girls were victims and abused but I believe some of the girls knew exactly what they were doing and made alot of things up in the papers which fascists agree upon. There was even one white girl who was found to be bringing girls back to be abused and she got paid for it. So we cant just blame the men .


Moral vacuum. Even if this is a wind-up. Or some far-righter trying to show that the UAF defend paedos.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What happens if this girl had make up on and looked alot older.


 
What the fuck?!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 24, 2012)




----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That a *part* of the reason for the ethnic composition of their prey may reside in the demography of "children in care in South Yorkshire" - they didn't molest Asian children because there are hardly any in care up there.


 
How do we know they did not abuse Asian girls?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> Yeah, it's the Muslim victims in all this we should really feel sorry for.


 


These men were not muslim .They drank alcohol which is against Islam so we cant really call them muslim.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What Im saying is that some of the girls were victims and abused but I believe some of the girls knew exactly what they were doing and made alot of things up in the papers which fascists agree upon. There was even one white girl who was found to be bringing girls back to be abused and she got paid for it. So we cant just blame the men .


 
I think we can indeed blame the men entirely.  There are cases of young people grooming other young people; these young people do it because they tend to have grown up suffering years of sexually violent and abusive behaviour themselves; mentally they're not on the same page as the rest of us.  

They are the victims too.  Those who perpetrate the abuse are not who I feel sorry for in these situations.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What happens if this girl had make up on and looked alot older.


 
Are you trolling?

Fuck off.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

free spirit said:


> well, it's a theory I suppose.
> 
> I don't buy it myself though, and think it far more likely that they were simply racist bigoted pedophile twats who'd got the idea into their heads that it was somehow ok for them to be doing this to these girls as they were heathen white trash who nobody gave a shit about.


 

This was not racism these gangs were after vulnerable girls.Why has race even got to be mentioned ? There are sex gangs all up and down the country and has nothing to do with race. Why do you bring race into it?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Are you trolling?
> 
> Fuck off.


 

Trolling what you on about


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> These men were not muslim .They drank alcohol which is against Islam so we cant really call them muslim.


Note it's not the description of the convicted child abusers as victims here that this muppet has a problem with.


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What happens if this girl had make up on and looked alot older.


why are you making excuses for a 59 year old man who raped children?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Are you trolling?
> 
> Fuck off.


 

I go to night clubs and there are girls in there that do look alot older than they are. I was out christmas time and was chatting to two girls my mate came over and mentioned they were only 14 year old. But they looked like they were in the early 20s . Now if i would of chatted one up and gone home with her .A couple of days later police could come and arrest me . Some girls do look alot older than they really are.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

newbie said:


> why are you making excuses for a 59 year old man who raped children?


 

Im not these men are scum .


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 24, 2012)

This is not my anti-fascism.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> I go to night clubs and there are girls in there that do look alot older than they are. I was out christmas time and was chatting to two girls my mate came over and mentioned they were only 14 year old. But they looked like they were in the early 20s . Now if i would of chatted one up and gone home with her .A couple of days later police could come and arrest me . Some girls do look alot older than they really are.


 
It is your responsibility to make sure that you are sleeping with somebody who is not a child.  Boo fucking hoo. 

Also, you moron, this was a group of pedophiles; they wanted children you arse.  This wasn't a mistake, they wanted to fuck kids.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Im not these men are scum .


 
Yes you are; 'but they might have looked older' 'we can't just blame the men'

Fuck the fuck off.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I thought these girls were manipulative schemers guilty of entrapment with only "a few innocent girls"?


 

No I would say that most were victims but there were ones who knew exactly what they were doing. some young girls enjoyed the money ,weed presents etc.Im not saying its a good thing its a very twisted thing.But girls from broken homes and vulnerable crave the attention that leads to the abuse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> No I would say that most were victims but there were ones who knew exactly what they were doing. some young girls enjoyed the money ,weed presents etc.Im not saying its a good thing its a very twisted thing.But girls from broken homes and vulnerable crave the attention that leads to the abuse.


I think it's time you shut up or fucked off.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think it's time you shut up or fucked off.


 
Why you so abusive?


----------



## JimW (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Why you so abusive?


No-one likes a pedo apologist.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Why you so abusive?


Only one person justifying abuse of the worst sort here.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Why you so abusive?


 
Because you're a cunt, that's why.

You have made excuses for pedophiles, you have attempted to lay the blame at the victims door, you have failed to show some basic level understanding of abuse cycles, you are saying vile things.


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> I go to night clubs and there are girls in there that do look alot older than they are. I was out christmas time and was chatting to two girls my mate came over and mentioned they were only 14 year old. But they looked like they were in the early 20s . Now if i would of chatted one up and gone home with her .A couple of days later police could come and arrest me . Some girls do look alot older than they really are.


How old are you?


----------



## Belushi (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Why you so abusive?


 
Because you're a cunt.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 24, 2012)

'She was wearing a short skirt, your honour!'


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 24, 2012)

newbie said:


> How old are you?


 
19 why ?


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> 19 why ?


fair enough.  you've got a hell of a lot of growing up to do, and simply calling you names isn't going to do anyone any good.  

These men were not 19. The one locked up last week, the one they called 'the daddy' was 59.  Old enough to be your grandfather.  You, with your youth and obvious naivety, might- and I say might- have some sort of confusion about the exact age of near contemporaries. These men didn't.    

You need to think about victims and predators.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> This was not racism these gangs were after vulnerable girls.Why has race even got to be mentioned ? There are sex gangs all up and down the country and has nothing to do with race. Why do you bring race into it?


You seem very sure of yourself here.

How do you know that a gang of men from Pakistani backgrounds who seem to have targeted young white girls almost exclusively* were not at least partially motivated to select these girls based on their race among other factors?

I'm sure the overriding factor involved here was that they were vulnerable young girls who were essentially from outside their immediate community, and who they thought they could get away with this with, but I think it'd be naive to entirely exclude the racial element to their selection of their victims.


*I note the one exception now posted up, though it's not clear if this girl was an exception, and it certainly seems as if this girl was only abused by one of the men, which seems a significant difference. It's also not clear if this girl was a Pakistani muslim, or from a Sikh or Hindu background.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> No I would say that most were victims but there were ones who knew exactly what they were doing. some young girls enjoyed the money ,weed presents etc.Im not saying its a good thing its a very twisted thing.But girls from broken homes and vulnerable crave the attention that leads to the abuse.


 
The *victims* probably did enjoy the money, weed and presents - Which is why their abusers plied them with weed etc - In order to facilitate the *abuse.* You worthless prick.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What happens if this girl had make up on and looked alot older.



And a short skirt and cute painted nails. Nomnomnom.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What happens if this girl had make up on and looked alot older.



Then you'd be intentionally raping and systematically abusing a young adult, rather than the child that you are accidentally raping and systematically abusing. Dickweed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> None of them are ? Like i mentioned there was one young girl who was bringing girls back to be abused. How many more of these girls were bringing other girls to be abused?


 
You know why that happens? It's not because they want gifts or approval, it's not even particularly about putting someone else in the line of abuse because that means you *won't* be abused, at least that day, it's about the dynamic between the abused and the abuser(s), and the fact that in order to stay sane, people will convince themselevs to do all sorts of counterintuitive things, including "feeding" their abusers with new victims.
Get a fucking clue, for fucks' sake.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What happens if this girl had make up on and looked alot older.


 
Fuck off. Really. You're coming across like someone who fucks his kid cousin, then whines "but she doesn't look 12, she's got tits and she was wearing lipstick and everything".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> How do we know they did not abuse Asian girls?


 
Read the post properly, ern.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> These men were not muslim .They drank alcohol which is against Islam so we cant really call them muslim.


 
YOu don't know a lot about the religions of the book, do you? C of E, by any chance?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 24, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> Because you're a cunt, that's why.
> 
> You have made excuses for pedophiles, you have attempted to lay the blame at the victims door, you have failed to show some basic level understanding of abuse cycles, you are saying vile things.


 
He probably thinks an abuse cycle is something you buy from Halfords.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> I go to night clubs and there are girls in there that do look alot older than they are. I was out christmas time and was chatting to two girls my mate came over and mentioned they were only 14 year old. But they looked like they were in the early 20s . Now if i would of chatted one up and gone home with her .A couple of days later police could come and arrest me . Some girls do look alot older than they really are.


 
You will be aware the court's familiarity with that line I suppose? But that aside /how would it look if after you had gone home with her, and found out her real age, you still decided to ply her with drink/drugs and invite your mates or male relatives around? Later on in 'the relationship' you might decide to bring her to other towns and other cities for commercial reasons and to boost your standing. And after you got tired of her you cast her aside, or use her to procure other youngsters for your entertainment? What then?

On a broader point reason the youngsters are targetted is because to the perps _all_ women are slags and white women even slaggier.

The particular attraction of underage girls is that they are more pliable to begin with and more easily intimidated and manipulated thereafter.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 25, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> You will be aware the court's familiarity with that line I suppose? But that aside /how would it look if after you had gone home with her, and found out her real age, you still decided to ply her with drink/drugs and invite your mates or male relatives around? Later on in 'the relationship' you might decide to bring her to other towns and other cities for commercial reasons and to boost your standing. And after you got tired of her you cast her aside, or use her to procure other youngsters for your entertainment? What then?
> 
> On a broader point reason the youngsters are targetted is because to the perps _all_ women are slags and white women even slaggier.
> 
> The particular attraction of underage girls is that they are more pliable to begin with and more easily intimidated and manipulated thereafter.


 
Exactly, that line to the judge only 'works' if it is a one off and no repeat not to mention the kind of revolting add-ons that you mention.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> These men were not muslim .They drank alcohol which is against Islam so we cant really call them muslim.


are you for real? There are LOADS of muslims who observe every other Islamic requirement but who drink!


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

free spirit said:


> You seem very sure of yourself here.
> 
> How do you know that a gang of men from Pakistani backgrounds who seem to have targeted young white girls almost exclusively* were not at least partially motivated to select these girls based on their race among other factors?
> 
> ...


 
This had nothing to do with racism.Grooming happens all over the country and involves groomers from all races so how can this be a racial crime.
Just just giving fascists ammnunition.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

Joe Reilly said:


> You will be aware the court's familiarity with that line I suppose? But that aside /how would it look if after you had gone home with her, and found out her real age, you still decided to ply her with drink/drugs and invite your mates or male relatives around? Later on in 'the relationship' you might decide to bring her to other towns and other cities for commercial reasons and to boost your standing. And after you got tired of her you cast her aside, or use her to procure other youngsters for your entertainment? What then?
> 
> On a broader point reason the youngsters are targetted is because to the perps _all_ women are slags and white women even slaggier.
> 
> The particular attraction of underage girls is that they are more pliable to begin with and more easily intimidated and manipulated thereafter.


 

You sound like edl why would these men think white girls are slaggier race never came into it.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> are you for rewal? There are LOADS of muslims who observe every other Islamic requirement but who drink!


But these are not real muslims .I am muslim and alcohol is haram.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 25, 2012)

Since their allowed out on their own and can dress how they like.Their precived as slags by some asian men and seen as fair game.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> You sound like edl why would these men think white girls are slaggier race never came into it.



Because they don't cover themselves from head to foot in cloth and don't spend their evenings indoors in domestic subservience perhaps? It's cultural so no idea why you're mentioning race. Of course not all Muslim men are rapists. But these cultural elements are feeding the mentality of the ones that are.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> You sound like edl why would these men think white girls are slaggier race never came into it.


Slaggier? Really?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

dylanredefined said:


> Since their allowed out on their own and can dress how they like.Their precived as slags by some asian men and seen as fair game.


 
Do you know how racist you sound


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Slaggier? Really?



Joe Reilly used that expression.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> But these are not real muslims .I am muslim and alcohol is haram.


         Well people are weak.Some Muslims would claim as your not fighting the jihad your not a real Muslim.I think the whole raping and abusing women is pretty higher up the list of reasons they are not good Muslims rather than drinking


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Do you know how racist you sound


Have you got any idea, the slightest inkling of how misogynistic you sound? The poster you replied to is a right-winger. You seem to think you're of the left. You're not.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> But these are not real muslims .I am muslim and alcohol is haram.


Yes I KNOW  that but you're missing the point-by a mile.
There are millions of people who call themselves muslim - and drink alcohol. As far as thedy are concerned, they are every bit as devout as you.
And btw your defence of these scumbags in Rochdale is utterly vile and despicable. Shame on you!


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Joe Reilly used that expression.


Yep, and and this clown endorsed it - seemingly not realising that Joe was attacking that sort of thinking.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Because they don't cover themselves from head to foot in cloth and don't spend their evenings indoors in domestic subservience perhaps? It's cultural so no idea why you're mentioning race. Of course not all Muslim men are rapists. But these cultural elements are feeding the mentality of the ones that are.


 
What you got against muslims? Domestic subservience? been reading the daily mail again


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

Do you really think that?  You think there aren't white men who go after black kids specifically?  Pedophiles will have their personal turn ons I'm afraid; they'll be after one thing more than something else.  It's sickening to contemplate, but it would be stupid to not recognise it.  The culture somebody grows up in may well influence and affect this choice. 

Pedophilia occurs worldwide in every culture, nobody is suggesting it's a problem only specific to Asian men, just that in this specific case, it was white girls who were targeted.  

Also, you seem very sure of yourself; do you know these people?  How do you know race didn't come into it; have you had a personal conversation with them?

Did you know that most online grooming is carried out by white males (it's something like 90% of online pedophilia is carried out by white males)?  What's your opinion on that?  Do you think that's at all relevant?   Do you think there's something about our culture that influences this?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Do you know how racist you sound


  Again and again that view is seen in young asians though.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Yes I KNOW that but you're missing the point-by a mile.
> There are millions of people who call themselves muslim - and drink alcohol. As far as thedy are concerned, they are every bit as devout as you.
> And btw your defence of these scumbags in Rochdale is utterly vile and despicable. Shame on you!


 
But if they drink alcohol they are not considered muslim. Alcohol is haram so if you drink it your not muslim. You can call yourself muslim but you are not really muslim.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What you got against muslims? Domestic subservience? been reading the daily mail again



I have nothing against Muslims. I do have a problem with some of the more conservative interpretations of Islam that places women as second class citizens, though. I'm libertarian left so that would make sense, no?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

dylanredefined said:


> Again and again that view is seen in young asians though.


 

Why has race got to come into it? this is about men abusing girls.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> But if they drink alcohol they are not considered muslim. Alcohol is haram so if you drink it your not muslim. You can call yourself muslim but you are not really muslim.



But raping white girls isn't haram?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Yes I KNOW that but you're missing the point-by a mile.
> There are millions of people who call themselves muslim - and drink alcohol. As far as thedy are concerned, they are every bit as devout as you.
> And btw your defence of these scumbags in Rochdale is utterly vile and despicable. Shame on you!


 
I dont defend this scum i have no respect for these vile creatures.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 25, 2012)

They were all Asian and the abused girls were white of course race comes into it.Whether it is important or not I don't know if your a child abuser it shouldn't matter what colour your skin or your victim skin is.
   You could probably find justification for any sort of crime in the bible or the Koran
if you look hard enough.
         The war crimes in Bosnia were seen by some as doing gods works.
As is the shit going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> I dont defend this scum i have no respect for these vile creatures.


The girls you mean?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

Yes 





purenarcotic said:


> Do you really think that? You think there aren't white men who go after black kids specifically? Pedophiles will have their personal turn ons I'm afraid; they'll be after one thing more than something else. It's sickening to contemplate, but it would be stupid to not recognise it. The culture somebody grows up in may well influence and affect this choice.
> 
> Pedophilia occurs worldwide in every culture, nobody is suggesting it's a problem only specific to Asian men, just that in this specific case, it was white girls who were targeted.
> 
> ...


 
90% of online grooming is carried out by white males. But I dont care about what race it is .The main thing is protecting the victims groomers go after the easiest girls they can get its nothing to do with race but vulnerability.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

Oh for fuck's sake.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Why has race got to come into it? this is about men abusing girls.


No, this is now about you justifying this abuse on the basis that the girls manipulated the rapists into raping them, into trading them and into passing them on. Apart from the 'few innocent' ones.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> But raping white girls isn't haram?


 
Raping any girl is forbidden race does not come into it.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> This had nothing to do with racism.Grooming happens all over the country and involves groomers from all races so how can this be a racial crime.
> Just just giving fascists ammnunition.


Are you denying that there is a problem specifically with the attitudes engendered within muslim males, and the way it can lead to terrible things as happened in Rochdale?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No, this is now about you justifying this abuse on the basis that the girls manipulated the rapists into raping them, into trading them and into passing them on. Apart from the 'few innocent' ones.


sounds like a lot of hard work for no real reward


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Raping any girl is forbidden race does not come into it.



It's just you keep banging on about drinking alcohol is their big crime gainst Islam that makes them not muslim irrespective of the enormity of what other things they've been up to. Which says quite a few things about your mindset too.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

scooby doo -are you claiming these victims 9the ones (convicted of multiple rapes) are apostates?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> I have nothing against Muslims. I do have a problem with some of the more conservative interpretations of Islam that places women as second class citizens, though. I'm libertarian left so that would make sense, no?


 
Muslim women are very looked after and are not second class citizens .If you ask Muslim women if they feel like 2nd class citizens they will start laughing. These attitudes come from the far right and the daily mail.

There seems to be an undercurrent of racism on this site .Ive been a member of UAF for the last year and you never get the racist under current with the UAF.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> scooby doo -are you claiming these victims 9the ones (convicted of multiple rapes) are apostates?


 
If they drink alcohol they are not muslims.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> If they drink alcohol they are not muslims.


oh dear oh dear

fucking pitiful


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> If they drink alcohol they are not muslims.


Are you saying that if you break any single law of Islam you are forever not a muslim?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> oh dear oh dear
> 
> fucking pitiful


 
Islamists consider scoobydoo to be correct.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

No 





butchersapron said:


> The girls you mean?


 
I mean the men are vile creatures.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

If you drink alcohol you are not muslim.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Muslim women are very looked after and are not second class citizens .If you ask Muslim women if they feel like 2nd class citizens they will start laughing. These attitudes come from the far right and the daily mail.
> 
> There seems to be an undercurrent of racism on this site .Ive been a member of UAF for the last year and you never get the racist under current with the UAF.


 

What a fucking ridiculous statement to make, that every single woman is treated perfectly.  You sound about three years old, grow up.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> No, this is now about you justifying this abuse on the basis that the girls manipulated the rapists into raping them, into trading them and into passing them on. Apart from the 'few innocent' ones.


 
I would say most of the girls were innocent victims but there were some who enticed these men for alcohol,weed,money, 

What were these girls doing out so late? Do you not think the parents should be accountable for this crime aswel.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

dylanredefined said:


> Again and again that view is seen in young asians though.


 

That view is seen in alot of young lads .Whats Asian got to do with it? Why do you feel the need to say Asian?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> I would say most of the girls were innocent victims but there were some who enticed these men for alcohol,weed,money,
> 
> What were these girls doing out so late? Do you not think the parents should be accountable for this crime aswel.


For the choice of the rapists to rape them over and over to trade them as things to be raped? No, i course i don't.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

What's your view on arranged marriage; do you think that's a myth created by the far right then?  Do you think we need to discuss cultural attitudes then?


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> What a fucking ridiculous statement to make, that every single woman is treated perfectly. You sound about three years old, grow up.


 
You get 100 muslim women and ask them if they feel suppressed they will laugh at you. Muslim women are looked after respected of course you get one or two like all cultures who are abused but the vast majority are happy.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Muslim women are very looked after and are not second class citizens .If you ask Muslim women if they feel like 2nd class citizens they will start laughing. These attitudes come from the far right and the daily mail.


 I have known PLENTY of muslim women whose beef is precisely that


> There seems to be an undercurrent of racism on this site .Ive been a member of UAF for the last year and you never get the racist under current with the UAF.


but you said this wasn't about race....


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

'Looked after'? What are we, a piece of furniture?

Your misogynistic attitudes say it all, really, don't they.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> You get 100 muslim women and ask them if they feel suppressed they will laugh at you. Muslim women are looked after respected of course you get one or two like all cultures who are abused but the vast majority are happy.


Nah, you're fake. Should have went with my instincts..


----------



## likesfish (Jun 25, 2012)

Of course race comes into much easier if you can see your prey as "other"

To their mates it was obviously white slags so worthless a white group would have classed them as chavs So disposable.

Newsflash scoobydo there are just as many evil people claiming to be muslim as claim to be christian  athesit or tory (tbf there probably arnt any non evil torys ).
   if you start claiming anybody who does wrong isn't a proper muslim islam is going to exsist of one sufi mystic on a mountain top


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> What's your view on arranged marriage; do you think that's a myth created by the far right then? Do you think we need to discuss cultural attitudes then?


 
Arranged marriages can work .The women always has a choice and can decline. Forced marriages is different and this is very rare ive never heard of it in my community. 
All cultures have pro's and cons.

The white western culture is to put old people into care homes sons and daughters putting their parents into care homes when they get older. This would never happen in my community.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Arranged marriages can work .The women always has a choice and can decline. Forced marriages is different and this is very rare ive never heard of it in my community.
> All cultures have pro's and cons.
> 
> The white western culture is to put old people into care homes sons and daughters putting their parents into care homes when they get older. This would never happen in my community.


WTF are you bringing race into it for?


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Arranged marriages can work .The women always has a choice and can decline. Forced marriages is different and this is very rare ive never heard of it in my community.
> All cultures have pro's and cons.
> 
> The white western culture is to put old people into care homes sons and daughters putting their parents into care homes when they get older. This would never happen in my community.


 
Pros and cons?  Forced marriage isn't a 'con', it's a fucking disgrace.


----------



## scoobydoo (Jun 25, 2012)

Im going to put this on uaf facebook page some of you racists need exposing.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jun 25, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> What a fucking ridiculous statement to make, that every single woman is treated perfectly. You sound about three years old, grow up.


 
i think there's a question of perspective here which feeds back into the original question though. comparatively, Muslim girls in Rochdale _are_ well looked after (as in, there are people looking out for them in the community in however patriarchal a form). the white girls who were preyed upon were not looked after at all, in many cases rejected even by their own families. this is one of the main reasons they were able to be abused.

alongside this there are ingrained attitudes within many Pakistani communities in the North West which encourage the idea that these girls are nothing more than 'sluts' who, because of their decadent Western lifestyles deserve anything that comes to them, which acts as a self-justification. Muslim girls deserve protecting and treating 'right' because they are worthy, non-Muslim girls are lower than dirt. these views are held by significant groups within the community and are not just relegated to the 'usual suspects' of boisterous young men, but also (as this grooming case shows) permeate some respected layers of the community (it should be noted that the community itself is encouraged in these ideas by general non-Muslim society at large, who constantly label these layers of girls as being trashy chav slags as well).

it's indicative of the strength of the above attitudes that for some, 'drinking' is considered a more serious religious crime than grooming underage girls. just pointing out to scoobydoo that the reason you're claiming these guys aren't Muslims bears no relation to the most serious of their crimes. it also doesn't pay any attention to the fact that these men were respected in their communities, regular mosque-goers and certainly not purged for their 'haram' habits. you can subjectively consider them whatever you want but the reality is that they were accepted by the Pakistani community in Rochdale and, as has been noted earlier in the thread, the depth of this gang goes far deeper than the 9 men who were convicted.

personally i also think it's a gross over-simplification to label this scandal an issue of paedophilia... i genuinely think the main question here is an utterly divided community in Rochdale where cultural/religious bullshit is being used to justify horrendous acts of sectarian abuse. i think most of these men would have been quite happy to be raping drugged up 20+ year olds too but for logistic reasons it was more convenient to pick on vulnerable teenagers. paedophilia is arguably a question of atomised perversion - whereas this was systematic.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Im going to put this on uaf facebook page some of you racists need exposing.


Oh please do.


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Arranged marriages can work .The women always has a choice and can decline. Forced marriages is different and this is very rare ive never heard of it in my community.
> All cultures have pro's and cons.
> 
> The white western culture is to put old people into care homes sons and daughters putting their parents into care homes when they get older. This would never happen in my community.


 
not sure that a) white western culture exists and b) that this is a key part of it. Vast majority of our older population live at home


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Im going to put this on uaf facebook page some of you racists need exposing.


 
Your misogyny is the only thing that has been exposed here.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Im going to put this on uaf facebook page some of you racists need exposing.


 
Go on then


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> I dont defend this scum i have no respect for these vile creatures.


you certainly have - at the very least - attempted to provide mitigation for their vile crimes, and blamed the victims


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Muslim women are very looked after and are not second class citizens .If you ask Muslim women if they feel like 2nd class citizens they will start laughing. These attitudes come from the far right and the daily mail.



So you deny forced marriage exisis within some Muslim communities?

Oh beaten to it I see.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

There's thick fuckers in all communities - esp the 19 years old one


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What were these girls doing out so late? Do you not think the parents should be accountable for this crime aswel.



Do you not think young women and girls should be allowed to walk the streets whenever they want without being preyed on by men?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> You get 100 muslim women and ask them if they feel suppressed they will laugh at you. Muslim women are looked after respected of course you get one or two like all cultures who are abused but the vast majority are happy.


 
I'm a white British woman and I was oppressed as all fuck having a relationship with a Muslim man. He got pissed off when I wished the chap working in Costcutter a happy birthday. It wasn't necessary for me to talk to anyone except him.


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> So you deny forced marriage exisis within some Muslim communities?
> 
> Oh beaten to it I see.


 
The more the merrier.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Arranged marriages can work .The women always has a choice and can decline. Forced marriages is different and this is very rare ive never heard of it in my community.
> All cultures have pro's and cons.
> 
> The white western culture is to put old people into care homes sons and daughters putting their parents into care homes when they get older. This would never happen in my community.


there are no old people in your community?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Im going to put this on uaf facebook page some of you racists need exposing.


oh dear oh dear it gets worse and worse 

 my aching sides


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you not think young women and girls should be allowed to walk the streets henever they want without bein preyed on by men?


or forced to pray by men


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> I go to night clubs and there are girls in there that do look alot older than they are.



Isn't going to nightclubs where alcohol is served, music enjoyed and scantily clad girls present also haram?

Ergo, you're not actually a muslim either.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Im going to put this on uaf facebook page some of you racists need exposing.



Would be interesting to see if any uaf support your misogyny.

Beaten to this aswell.


----------



## likesfish (Jun 25, 2012)

Dont think anyones defending uk western communitys the depressing reguarly murders of ex partners and or there  children should give those that would claim we are so much more enlightened  pause for for thought among other issues.
  Islam and hating women pretty common though.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

He has as well.  

http://www.facebook.com/UAFpage?ref=ts


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 25, 2012)

Who was that other nutter from lancaster uni who called us all racist as well? Also a UAF one.


----------



## Jackobi (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Another angle is yes there was a few innocent girls who were groomed and manipulated but there was also girls manipulating these men for money and gifts time to look at the bigger picture.


 


scoobydoo said:


> ...I would say that most were victims but there were ones who knew exactly what they were doing. some young girls enjoyed the money ,weed presents etc.Im not saying its a good thing its a very twisted thing.But girls from broken homes and vulnerable crave the attention that leads to the abuse.


 
"The appalling thing is that, in the enclaves where these men came from, families will be blaming the abused teenagers." Yasmin Alibhai-Brown


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

Attempting to cause a board war is against the terms and conditions. So he's banned as soon as anyone is bored with him.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 25, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> He has as well.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/UAFpage?ref=ts


 
Brilliant. 

Hope he doesn't get banned from here for that. This should be fun!!!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Who was that other nutter from lancaster uni who called us all racist as well? Also a UAF one.



Coincidentally, Lancaster university is one of Al's 'interests' too.

http://www.facebook.com/al.ahmed.581


----------



## likesfish (Jun 25, 2012)

Maybe he'd lke to go to an non alcoholic rave in a minefield?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> But these are not real muslims .I am muslim and alcohol is haram.


 
And yet hundreds of millions of otherwise-devout followers of The Book take alcohol.
What part of your own religion's injunction to strive to be a better Muslim don't you understand?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Im going to put this on uaf facebook page some of you racists need exposing.



Looking forward to the three of them arriving.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Looking forward to the three of them arriving.


it's worse than that, they might bring down a crowd of dozens and bore you to tears


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> You sound like edl why would these men think white girls are slaggier race never came into it.


 
Let's not focus on race, then. Let's focus on cultural perceptions. It's entirely possible for these nonce pieces of shit to view it as more acceptable to molest children from outside their culture than children inside of it. A concomitant of that cultural perception, *in this case* might be a perception that it's to do with "race", not just on the part of the public, but on the part of the men themselves. This is classic behaviour of any "in-group" - to justify their behaviour through denigrating the "out-group".
So I'm pretty sure that culture and race were *part* of it, but a part secondary to the gang being a bucn of dirt nonces who wanted to fuck children.


----------



## krink (Jun 25, 2012)

looking at his profile on fb it looks like a troll account to me. probably thinks it is a successful covert black ops against the 'uaf scum'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

krink said:


> looking at his profile on fb it looks like a troll account to me. probably thinks it is a successful covert black ops against the 'uaf scum'.


i want to know what he's done with the old people from his community.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it's worse than that, they might bring down a crowd of dozens and bore you to tears



Doesn't seem to be on the uptake at present. Maybe they're all out protesting that opposing forced marriage is racist or something.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> But if they drink alcohol they are not considered muslim. Alcohol is haram so if you drink it your not muslim. You can call yourself muslim but you are not really muslim.


 
Which branch of Islam do you follow?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which branch of Islam do you follow?


i wonder if it's the special branch


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder if it's the special branch


 
Wasn't SB "re-branded" so that modern-day spook-cops didn't feel tainted by the history of inept fuckery that was the legacy of their predecessors?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wasn't SB "re-branded" so that modern-day spook-cops didn't feel tainted by the history of inept fuckery that was the legacy of their predecessors?


now (at least in the met) part of counter terrorist command


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> If they drink alcohol they are not muslims.


 
Nope, Muslims are injuncted to abstain from taking alcohol - that is, to make their own best efforts not to allow alcohol to pass their lips; to not attend prayers while intoxicated. There's also a great deal of commentary by Islamic scholars over the centuries that the injunction applies to "the fruit of the grape" (i.e. wine), but not to beer, which in the Middle East of the time was one of the best ways to make sure that your fluid intake didn't give you cholera, typhoid or a host of other freshwater-borne diseases.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Muslim women are very looked after and are not second class citizens .If you ask Muslim women if they feel like 2nd class citizens they will start laughing. These attitudes come from the far right and the daily mail.
> 
> There seems to be an undercurrent of racism on this site .Ive been a member of UAF for the last year and you never get the racist under current with the UAF.


 
What you get with the UAF is uncritical acceptance of any old balls anyone comes out with, as long as the balls lines up with their political plans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope, Muslims are injuncted to abstain from taking alcohol - that is, to make their own best efforts not to allow alcohol to pass their lips; to not attend prayers while intoxicated. There's also a great deal of commentary by Islamic scholars over the centuries that the injunction applies to "the fruit of the grape" (i.e. wine), but not to beer, which in the Middle East of the time was one of the best ways to make sure that your fluid intake didn't give you cholera, typhoid or a host of other freshwater-borne diseases.


plus pretty much every religion has a host of regulations a lot of adherents will honour more in the breach than the observance


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> I would say most of the girls were innocent victims but there were some who enticed these men for alcohol,weed,money,
> 
> What were these girls doing out so late? Do you not think the parents should be accountable for this crime aswel.


 
So you missed that some of these girls were in care, then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Im going to put this on uaf facebook page some of you racists need exposing.


 
Good.


----------



## krink (Jun 25, 2012)

hmmm i'm curios now, i wonder which edl member scoobydoo is? not really got the same style as arthur...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

krink said:


> looking at his profile on fb it looks like a troll account to me. probably thinks it is a successful covert black ops against the 'uaf scum'.


 
I love the fact that he's posted links to some Wahhabi douchebag telling people that being friends with _kuffar_ is haram.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i want to know what he's done with the old people from his community.


 
He's rattling on about doing MMA and cage-fighting on his faecesbook page, so maybe he used them all up as sparring partners?


----------



## purenarcotic (Jun 25, 2012)

He also has told us he's 19, but appears to have completed a three year degree already at Lancaster and now works in social services in London.  That doesn't add up; he'd have started uni at 16.  

More effort required.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 25, 2012)

krink said:


> hmmm i'm curios now, i wonder which edl member scoobydoo is? not really got the same style as arthur...


 
Not enough rantage to be Yaksmeat-Lemon, either.


----------



## krink (Jun 25, 2012)

look at his hastily compiled 'likes' v.poor!


----------



## krink (Jun 25, 2012)

purenarcotic said:


> He also has told us he's 19, but appears to have completed a three year degree already at Lancaster and now works in social services in London. That doesn't add up; he'd have started uni at 16.
> 
> More effort required.


 
just about to post that. in fact, it's so half-hearted a troll, is it not some daft bugger off here?


----------



## likesfish (Jun 25, 2012)

So he's some edl fuckwit pretending to be a muslim UAF fuckwit?
   As if the UAF cant provide its own fuckwits


----------



## krink (Jun 25, 2012)

either way it is someone with too much time on their hands. in chokey?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jun 25, 2012)

Seems very busy doing something else far away now


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> What were these girls doing out so late? Do you not think the parents should be accountable for this crime aswel.


 
No, I certainly don't. It is a cop-out to blame victims for the crimes they suffer from. No matter how late a girl stays out it can never be any kind of an excuse to rape her.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 25, 2012)

All right, I wasn't going to ban him before but we can't be having this sort of board war rubbish.


----------



## krink (Jun 25, 2012)

so can i unlike the uaf page now


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> If they drink alcohol they are not muslims.


fuck off have you been to bosnia?


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 25, 2012)

scoobydoo said:


> Im going to put this on uaf facebook page some of you racists need exposing.


you have no idea who you are addressing here and how long some of the antifascists on here have been at this lark. here, read this: http://beatingthefascists.org/


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 25, 2012)

He's been banned.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jun 25, 2012)

krink said:


> hmmm i'm curios now, i wonder which edl member scoobydoo is? not really got the same style as arthur...


arthur is no more mate! got the boot a bit back. he is currently comatose somewhere.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

Can still read the thad though if he logs out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 25, 2012)

Lock&light next


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Lock&light next



Hopefully. He adds zero content and just derails interesting discussions. Just like, errr, he used to.


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 25, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> Lock&light next


 
Moving around your bitterness to every thread, Pick?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 25, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> All right, I wasn't going to ban him before but we can't be having this sort of board war rubbish.


thank you.


----------



## articul8 (Jul 23, 2012)

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2012/jul/22/how-racism-takes-root

Illustrates that causation is more complex than saying it's an issue that is only in one community.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Jul 23, 2012)

again though that article misses the point that its exactly the 'gang' and 'communal' nature of the Rochdale events which makes it so unique. it even starts by noting that the main comparative paedos from Derby were not acting as a gang, so they were acting as isolated individuals. as has been noted several times of this thread the Rochdale groomers must have operated with a degree of communal acquiescence and with much higher numbers of participants than only those who were arrested and charged.

i've also said that i'm of the opinion that the 'paedo' element of the Rochdale events is a bit of a red herring, the main issue is the misogyny and the general communal sectarianism and hatred. in Rochdale the girls were chosen primarily because of their social vulnerability imo (their youth being a part of that, rather than them being chosen for the actual fact they were underage) and their abuse was justified on the basis that they were slutty non-Muslim western girls with no morals who were asking for it. scooby doos comments on this thread help to illustrate that these are genuinely not uncommon views amongst significant sections of the Islamic community.

so, still missing the point and not comparing like with like.


----------



## Riklet (Aug 23, 2012)

This is def worth a read through.  A real decent article in terms of maintaining a focus upon the victims in the situation n how things have panned out in Rochdale since.

Plenty worth looking at in terms of political insights but these bits worth a think perhaps:

'Shafiq told me that he first heard about child sexual exploitation in 2006, when he encountered a mother in Blackburn whose daughter had been abused. “At the time, she was blaming Islam. She had gone to the mosque leaders for help but they had slammed the door in her face.”  This wasn’t out of contempt, he explained, but rather a complete unwillingness to accept that it was anything to do with them.'

'A month later, Ahmed was convicted, in a second trial, on 30 counts of child rape. This time his victim was Asian. The abuse had gone on for longer than a decade, but it was not until after Ahmed’s arrest in the grooming case that his victim found the courage to give the police full details of what she had suffered.'


----------



## PursuedByBears (Aug 23, 2012)

Good article, thanks.


----------



## october_lost (Aug 24, 2012)

> But according to Danczuk, when health workers for Rochdale’s crisis intervention team, an NHS clinic offering advice on abortions and sexual health to vulnerable young women, alerted social services about girls they suspected were being abused, their concerns were ignored. According to Danczuk, they were told that the girls were making “life choices” and that they were sleeping with their abusers voluntarily.
> 
> “Social services believed that these girls were choosing to be prostitutes,” Danczuk says now, “and they concluded, absolutely wrongly, that they should be allowed to get on with it.”


How utterly disgraceful.


----------



## trashpony (Aug 24, 2012)

I'd like to think that social services would revise their perspective on young women 'choosing' to enter prostitution and examine every case more closely but I think that's very unlikely. It's easier to turn a blind eye


----------



## purenarcotic (Aug 24, 2012)

That's appalling, utterly appalling.  Heads in that department should fucking roll.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Aug 24, 2012)

"Life choices" about being teenage prostitutes, ffs.


----------



## purenarcotic (Aug 24, 2012)

Anybody who works with children / vulnerable young people should have a big fucking warning sign going off in their head when they're being told somebody underage is engaging in sexual activity with somebody so much older.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 24, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Attempting to cause a board war is against the terms and conditions. So he's banned as soon as anyone is bored with him.


I should have been banned then...no one was up for invading Mumsnet either, even if we waited till we were all drunk not just me.


----------



## trashpony (Aug 24, 2012)

Years ago, I transcribed a load of interviews a friend who was a youth worker did as part of his MA. He worked with loads of young people in care in Westminster and basically, once they were approaching 'no longer the council's responsibility' age so 15/16/17, they just totally lost interest in them. There will be many, many more young women this kind of thing happens to, I'm pretty sure. They are so vulnerable and the predators know damn well that no one really cares


----------

