• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Tommy Robinson

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
One of his supporters was spouting racist rubbish on a train last night he was staring at people looking for reactions; I shook my head and as a result got sworn at.

He was going on about the EDL and how he didn't want people like me and the other people I was with in this country and how he wanted to knock us out.

He really showed himself up and demonstrated perfectly what the far right are like. Unfortunately I didn't have my camera in video mode to get the worst of his actions.

How anyone can do anything other than condemn the actions of his ilk I will never really comprehend but I've accepted the unfortunate fact that there are several thousand thick, obnoxious individuals out there and that some people do appear to at least partially condone their actions/views. It's disappointing.

That is appalling. There are lots of idiots out there, but I’m sure everyone commenting on this thread would condemn that behaviour in the strongest possible terms.

Did you consider calling the police (or asking the guard to)? It might be worth doing if you’re in that situation again, with witnesses and CCTV, it’s likely charges could be brought.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,486
Location
Isle of Man
Almost certainly, but ignoring why he's become a poster-boy for both the far right and people who are far from that helps no-one.

He's becoming a poster boy for the far right because wealthy far right extremists are funding his promotion. There's not a great deal more to it than that.

A lot of Muslims have organised to rape a lot of kids; that’s a problem that needs sorting.

Have they? Really?

Leaving aside the horrendous assumption you make that anyone with an Islamic-sounding name is a "Muslim", have they really? There have been a few grooming gangs up and down the country, with 5-10 people in them and a few others who protect them, but they are isolated incidents. That's not to downplay the effect they have on their victims, but the idea of marauding gangs of tens of thousands of noncing Muslims is quite frankly bollocks.

And that's the real issue with what is happening. The media are creating a bogeyman where there isn't one. It's what they've done all along. You cannot solve a bogeyman that doesn't exist.

The double standard is wrong. Just because someone’s making a point about one thing doesn’t mean to say they need to make a point about another.

But what is Yaxley-Lennon's point?

It sure isn't that raping children is bad. It's that those them Pakis are bad.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,486
Location
Isle of Man
I posted on here months ago that I thought people insisting on calling him Yaxley-Lennon were unfortunately misguided if they thought that made any difference whatsoever. It's Tommy Robinson, being pedantic about his pseudonym won't help in the slightest, more likely the opposite.

I disagree. I think the mainstream media should be calling him by his real name, not the nom-de-plume he has taken (which is based on a football hooligan). Of course it won't change the minds of the far right, and Breitbart will call him what's most convenient for their KKK funders, but it will provide the full facts to people who would otherwise be swayed by him.

I don't think people should be indulging his pseudonym. I can't think of any other political figure who would be allowed to hide their history of criminality behind a fake name and a fake history. Using his pseudonym gives him credence that he does not deserve. The BBC should not be indulging it.

The BBC are happy to speak of "so called Islamic State". Why not "so called Tommy Robunson"?
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,486
Location
Isle of Man
As for the solution, it is slow news and boring news.

Abusers pick on people who either can't defend themselves, or who won't be believed, or both. Teachers never groom the popular kid in class. Football coaches threaten the ruination of childhood dreams. TV stars know they can front it out. Grooming gangs pick on kids in care or other vulnerable kids who are desperate for affection and will be ignored as troublemakers if they speak out.

The solution is believing people who speak out and supporting them in being able to speak out.

Ironic, really, thar Yaxley-Lennon and his Breitbart cheerleaders are so vehemently against the #metoo movement, which is about, er, believing the victims of sexual violence.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
11,957
Location
here to eternity
Using his pseudonym gives him credence that he does not deserve. The BBC should not be indulging it.

I would agree with that - I also think that he is getting far too much media coverage anyway. I mean how many others who are guilty of contempt of court are getting the attention he is getting?
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,486
Location
Isle of Man
No, but the alternative is to say that there is a big problem in some areas with Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim men raping white children. It can be said as dispassionately as you like yet never sounds pleasant and leads to a lot of accusations of racism.

The first politician to discuss this was Ann Cryer, long-standing MP for Keighley, almost 20 years ago. As left as they come, and a damn good politician for her town. It caused her a lot of grief but she did it anyway.

It was those notorious commies at West Yorkshire Police who refused to do anything, as they preferred to dismiss the victims as simply girls who went off the rails. Too much like hard work.

One must also wonder why the media didn't give a toss about this when Cryer was desperate to get it sorted, but hey ho.

The idea of "lefties hiding it for social cohesion" is also, of course, utter codswallop. It was Labour MPs- Cryer, Champion, Danczuk- who brought it to light.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,318
Location
LBK
You're right that whataboutism isn't helpful.

Yet you're preceding paragraphs are all whataboutism.

No they aren’t, giving examples of whataboutery to show that people are engaging in it isn’t whataboutery.

This thread has been derailed by whataboutery - namely people asking “what about (insert non Muslim sex abuser here). It would be helpful to focus on the issue. There was a much better discussion on why a minority of Muslim men rape white children before the whataboutery came along.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,318
Location
LBK
Have they? Really?

Leaving aside the horrendous assumption you make that anyone with an Islamic-sounding name is a "Muslim", have they really?

Come off it. The ones we’re talking about are Muslims. Don’t deflect.

There have been a few grooming gangs up and down the country, with 5-10 people in them and a few others who protect them, but they are isolated incidents. That's not to downplay the effect they have on their victims, but the idea of marauding gangs of tens of thousands of noncing Muslims is quite frankly bollocks.

I think there really are thousands of Muslim paedophiles, either in rape gangs or otherwise. There are tens of thousands - maybe hundreds of thousands - of paedophiles of all flavours across the country.

The issue at hand is why some Muslim men are raping white girls.

We could have a discussion about why for example, some priests rape boys, but that’s an entirely different discussion. The motivations are also different and the problem can be fixed in a different way.

There are a number of issues to discuss when it comes to Muslim rape gangs (or any rape gang). They are, the cultural background of the offenders, how they access children, how they view children (and particularly white girls), the complicity of others, and why they’re able to perpetrate the crime for a long time. The answers to those questions are a little different to other paedos of differing demographic backgrounds.

Doesn’t look like we will get our discussion though, which is a shame.
 

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,992
Come off it. The ones we’re talking about are Muslims. Don’t deflect.

The ones we are talking about are men with Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Iraqi, Turkish (and other) heritage. We don't know for definite what religion they are, or whether they practice a particular religion.

I'm of British and Irish heritage. Is it right to label me Anglican or Catholic without actually knowing if I am, or even whether I identify with a religion? If I was convicted of shoplifting would I be a Catholic thief? If I was convicted of GBH would I be an Anglican thug?

These are grooming and rape gangs. Sick, vile disgusting men. There's no need for the religion prefix when describing them. It tars all with the same brush.

And I'll say it again. These gangs included enablers who were White British. And there were non-white victims too.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
4,250
The ones we are talking about are men with Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Iraqi, Turkish (and other) heritage. We don't know for definite what religion they are, or whether they practice a particular religion.

I'm of British and Irish heritage. Is it right to label me Anglican or Catholic without actually knowing if I am, or even whether I identify with a religion? If I was convicted of shoplifting would I be a Catholic thief? If I was convicted of GBH would I be an Anglican thug?

Oh come on. The countries you listed are massively majority Muslim, with most people actively practising. It's reasonable to assume if you have 100 Pakistani men that the overwhelming majority of them will be Muslim. Actually, if you have a group of 100 who know each other the chance is all of them will be, as the cultures are largely arranged and divided on religious lines.

The same doesn't apply for men of British origin - if you got 100 perhaps half or more would say they're Christian, but a very small number will go to church other than for funerals and weddings, and it's likely they won't have prayed since they were made to in school assembiles.

Denying this helps no-one except the far right.

From May 2012: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18092605

Groups representing Sikh and Hindu communities have complained about the term "Asian" being used to describe the men involved in grooming trials.

Earlier this month, nine men were jailed for being part of a sex ring in Rochdale which groomed girls for sex.

The groups said the men involved were "almost always of Pakistani origin" and the term "Asian" was inaccurate.

The Ramadan Foundation has said grooming is "a significant problem for the British Pakistani community".

The joint statement was released by the Network of Sikh Organisations UK, The Hindu Forum of Britain, and The Sikh Media Monitoring Group UK.

It says the reluctance of the media and the government to discuss the "disproportionate representation of Muslims in such cases" and the fact victims are "almost always non-Muslim girls" is adding to the cause of far-right groups such as the BNP.

It said blanket use of the word "Asian" was "unfair to other communities of Asian origin".

"We believe that in this case the government itself is sanctioning the use of term Asian as a way of clouding responsibility," the groups say.

The groups say sex gangs have targeted Hindu and Sikh girls but the cases are rarely reported as they seldom reach the courts.

The statement says: "We believe that political correctness stifles debate and will not facilitate a frank and mature discussion or solutions to get to the root of why the above pattern is emerging in these crimes and how to help find a solution to the problem.

"We will not be able to do that if we mask the identity of those involved based on misguided views of 'protecting a vulnerable community' of the perpetrators and not looking at the vulnerable community of victims."

These are grooming and rape gangs. Sick, vile disgusting men. There's no need for the religion prefix when describing them. It tars all with the same brush.

And I'll say it again. These gangs included enablers who were White British. And there were non-white victims too.

Nobody is denying that.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
The ones we are talking about are men with Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Iraqi, Turkish (and other) heritage. We don't know for definite what religion they are, or whether they practice a particular religion.

The men involved in these gangs are disproportionately from a Pakistani/Bangladeshi heritage - one of the reports above references 80% of those convicted, while making up less than 10% of the population. As per @AlterEgo ’s comment above, is important to understand the cultural factors, the way children are viewed etc., by this particular group if we want to stop this abuse

You continued attempts at obfustification do not change this fact. If we were talking about catholic priests you would have no qualms about admitting the problem, of course.

These are grooming and rape gangs. Sick, vile disgusting men. There's no need for the religion prefix when describing them. It tars all with the same brush.

You seem to struggle with the concept that identifying perpetrators as coming from a particular background isn’t the same as tarring all men from that background with the same brush.

Acknowledging Islamic extremism doesn’t mean all Muslims are extremists.

Acknowledging high rates of child abuse amongst catholic priests doesn’t mean all catholic priests are child abusers.

As with grooming gangs, these are all distinct problems which need to be addressed. Minimising and denying basic facts to further a political agenda, as you appear to be doing, only benefits people like Tommy Robinson.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
Oh come on. The countries you listed are massively majority Muslim, with most people actively practising. It's reasonable to assume if you have 100 Pakistani men that the overwhelming majority of them will be Muslim. Actually, if you have a group of 100 who know each other the chance is all of them will be, as the cultures are largely arranged and divided on religious lines.

The same doesn't apply for men of British origin - if you got 100 perhaps half or more would say they're Christian, but a very small number will go to church other than for funerals and weddings, and it's likely they won't have prayed since they were made to in school assembiles.

Denying this helps no-one except the far right.

From May 2012: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18092605





Nobody is denying that.

Interesting to note that the Ramadan foundation has admitted to the problem. Strange that some on this thread cannot (or more likely don’t want to!).
 
Last edited:

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
The following article answers the preceding two posts. I wholeheartedly concur with it.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/when-will-we-effectively-deal-sexual-violence-1811870485

And to be clear, I'm not making any political points, not struggling with the concepts of the debate, not minimising or denying basic facts, nor am I making any obfustification (sic), whatever the heck that is.

It doesn’t.

It’s an opinion piece written by a GP who happens to be a Muslim urging us to disregard ethnicity/culture in these cases but not really giving us any evidence as to why we should.

It acknowledges the overwhelming majority of perpetrators in these cases are Muslim (which you refuse to do).

It cites figures showing this fact from the national crime agency and refutes them with an irrelevant quote from a Criminology professor.

It selectively quotes Nazir Afzal. Afzal has also acknowledged the cultural issues underpinning this abuse and has written:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4785674/Will-Asian-community-end-vile-misogyny.html

It is a pattern we simply cannot ignore. In no fewer than 16 British towns and cities, grooming gangs have been prosecuted for raping young females since 2011, culminating last week in the conviction of 17 men and one woman at Newcastle Crown Court.

With the exception of two cases the perpetrators were from South Asian backgrounds. All but three victims were young white girls.

As the Chief Crown Prosecutor who brought the cases against the Rochdale grooming gang in 2012, I've come to know a disturbing amount about this crime.

And I'm sorry to say that while courts have changed a lot to make justice more accessible to victims, I don't believe that attitudes have changed for the better. If anything, they're getting worse.

Will South Asian communities condemn these atrocities – and take the necessary action? I'm not convinced. As for wider society, we must start to understand what drives this abuse if we want to stop it. Child grooming is happening under our noses – everywhere. At bus stops, in takeaways, on street corners. But we walk past, because we don't see what's happening. And neither do we see the attitudes driving it.

In particular, the appalling misogyny fuelling the growth of grooming gangs has barely been discussed.

I recall a conversation I once had at an Asian wedding where a young man told me, 'men are like gold and women are like silk'. I thought he was going to tell me something profound but

This encapsulates the hardline bias against women that has become part of the South Asian mindset. It demonstrates how Asian child abusers see teenage girls on our streets. Partly, they hate them because they're free. Girls should be pure and locked up away from temptation. When teenage girls are on the streets or drinking alcohol, the men see them as tarnished goods, available for sex. It gives them a licence to abuse.

This viewpoint wasn't always so prevalent. As a young man, I saw women in Afghanistan going to university in skirts. I marvelled at the Taj Mahal, built by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his wife. And as a Muslim I knew the Prophet himself said that your mother is three times more important than your father.

But over the past few decades ultraconservatism has swept across South Asia, and the killing of unborn babies because they are female is on the rise. There are huge parties to celebrate a boy's first birthday but nothing to mark a girl's. Men can get away with anything and women have become second-class citizens.

EDIT: if you cannot admit there is a problem in the U.K. with Asian/predominantly Muslim grooming gangs then, yes, you are in denial of basic facts.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,486
Location
Isle of Man
Come off it. The ones we’re talking about are Muslims. Don’t deflect.

Some of them may be of Pakistani origin (though in Rotherham about 20% of the members were actually white British). But you don't know what religion they follow, or even if they follow a religion. The prefix is not only inaccurate but also unhelpful and entirely unnecessary.

There are problems with rape gangs. Of course there are. But focusing on their ethnic background is wrong and will not protect future victims. As we're seeing with rapey football coaches, the malaise is not an ethnic one and the cultural problems behind it are not exclusive to Bangladesh.

As per @AlterEgo ’s comment above, is important to understand the cultural factors, the way children are viewed etc., by this particular group if we want to stop this abuse

You make it sound like these abusers are different to any other abuser.

These abusers are the same as any other abuser: they do it because they can. They get away with it because their victims either can't speak up or won't be believed if they do. It's no different to how any other abuser acts towards their victims.

There's absolutely no difference culturally between these men and the fine upstanding Magistrate I used to work with who spent fifteen years systematically raping his daughter. They do it because they want to and because they can.

Interesting to note that the Ramadan foundation has admitted to the problem.

The exotically named "Ramadan Foundation" is just one person, Mohammed Shafiq. "Some random bloke down the pub" has as much credence. Private Eye have some interesting tales to tell of him, as well as his fellow rentagob Mo Ansar, too.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,486
Location
Isle of Man
We could have a discussion about why for example, some priests rape boys, but that’s an entirely different discussion. The motivations are also different and the problem can be fixed in a different way.

There are a number of issues to discuss when it comes to Muslim rape gangs (or any rape gang). They are, the cultural background of the offenders, how they access children, how they view children (and particularly white girls), the complicity of others, and why they’re able to perpetrate the crime for a long time. The answers to those questions are a little different to other paedos of differing demographic backgrounds.

Priests abuse kids, teachers abuse kids, parents abuse kids, football coaches abuse kids, bored young men abuse kids, siblings abuse kids, drug dealers abuse kids, politicians abuse kids.

The banal truth is that there is precious little difference between any of these groups in how they choose their victims and how they prevent disclosure. There isn't some magic cultural bullet that makes Pakistanis more prone to raping children.

There's absolutely naff all difference ethically between a Pakistani man who goes out to find vulnerable young girls to rape them and a Welsh footballer named Chedwyn who goes out to find vulnerable young girls to (emphatically not, for he is innocent you hear) rape them. And whilst we're on that subject, how Chedwyn's victim has been treated shows just how many white British men have issues with how they view women.

The solution is simple: believe victims. Its a solution that failed the children in Rochdale and Rotherham. It also failed the victims of Savile, for that matter.

It selectively quotes Nazir Afzal.

Is that the same Nazir Afzal who hounded a rape victim to her suicide by enabling her abuser to prosecute her?
 
Last edited:

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
Is that the same Nazir Afzal who hounded a rape victim to her suicide by enabling her abuser to prosecute her?

If it’s the case I’m thinking of it wasnt a rape victim at all. It was a devious woman who made false allegations, probably ruining her victim’s life. She later admitted the allegations were false and he brought a private prosecution. Then she topped herself. Diddums.

The solution, as with any other crime, is not to automatically believe allegations which may or may not come from “victims”. We don’t know if they’re victims until the accused is found guilty, in just the same way as we don’t know whether the accused is a criminal or not until that point.

Allegations should be objectively investigated, as the police and CPS have recently learned to their cost after a spate of collapsed rape trials where charges were trumped up and evidence was withheld to massage conviction figures.

There's absolutely naff all difference ethically between a Pakistani man who goes out to find vulnerable young girls to rape them and a Welsh footballer named Chedwyn who goes out to find vulnerable young girls to (emphatically not, for he is innocent you hear) rape them. And whilst we're on that subject, how Chedwyn's victim has been treated shows just how many white British men have issues with how they view women.

Naff all difference ethically for sure, but there are differences in how women are viewed by these cultures. You light want to try speaking to a few Pakistani/Bangladeshi women, or reading about the way women are objectified in those cultures.

That’s a distinct problem we need to address - just as we need to address abuse by catholic priests.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,486
Location
Isle of Man
Naff all difference ethically for sure, but there are differences in how men from these cultures tend to view women. You light want to try speaking to a few Pakistani/Bangladeshi women, or reading about the way women are objectified in those cultures

I'm from Bradford. I grew up in Bradford and went to school in the area where the riots were. I have some insight into the problems.

The people I speak to struggle with the conservatism, struggle with the traditional gender roles, but don't feel any more objectified than anyone else. Some women I worked with in London liked wearing headscarves and felt that near-naked women being used to sell everything from cars to toothpaste was far more objectifying.

I truthfully don't think there are many differences across the communities. You have the ultra-conservatives on one side, the ultra-liberal on the other, and everyone else bumbling along in the middle. It's the same in any community: the orthodox Jews who won't sit next to women on planes and the evangelical Christians in university Christian Unions who won't allow women to be president are all cut from the same cloth. Same with homophobia, the other big stick used to beat the Muslim community: at one Students Union I worked at we had to expel the Christian Union because they kept lecturing that gay people were absolutely and objectively evil and it was evil to suggest women can lead men. They were far worse than any of the Islamic societies we had.

Honestly, none of us are very different. These young Pakistani men targeted girls in care or girls with significant mental health problems because they were a) desperate for affection and therefore easy to groom and b) not going to be believed by the authorities. You'll notice that internet paedos target the exact same young people for the exact same reasons.

But if they had access to kids in different ways- football coaching, teaching, scouting, religion- they'd use those routes instead to find the kids who would acquiesce and who can't or won't speak out.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
I'm from Bradford. I grew up in Bradford and went to school in the area where the riots were. I have some insight into the problems.

The people I speak to struggle with the conservatism, struggle with the traditional gender roles, but don't feel any more objectified than anyone else. Some women I worked with in London liked wearing headscarves and felt that near-naked women being used to sell everything from cars to toothpaste was far more objectifying.

I truthfully don't think there are many differences across the communities. You have the ultra-conservatives on one side, the ultra-liberal on the other, and everyone else bumbling along in the middle. It's the same in any community: the orthodox Jews who won't sit next to women on planes and the evangelical Christians in university Christian Unions who won't allow women to be president are all cut from the same cloth. Same with homophobia, the other big stick used to beat the Muslim community: at one Students Union I worked at we had to expel the Christian Union because they kept lecturing that gay people were absolutely and objectively evil and it was evil to suggest women can lead men. They were far worse than any of the Islamic societies we had.

Honestly, none of us are very different. These young Pakistani men targeted girls in care or girls with significant mental health problems because they were a) desperate for affection and therefore easy to groom and b) not going to be believed by the authorities. You'll notice that internet paedos target the exact same young people for the exact same reasons.

But if they had access to kids in different ways- football coaching, teaching, scouting, religion- they'd use those routes instead to find the kids who would acquiesce and who can't or won't speak out.

I don’t disagree with much of the above, but I acknowledge that there are differences between communities. Especially with young people from conservative, patriarchal religious backgrounds who are brought up in a culture that views women as objects.

On a personal level I know quite a few Muslims and have even dated a one or two Muslim women. The recurring theme is the conflict between western liberalism and the ultra conservative views of their culture/parents.

If those cultural differences have led to child abuse in the case of grooming gangs, as a distinct problem, different from other areas of paedophilia, that isn’t something we should shy away from admitting to.

The problem is that, as a society, we seem more comfortable with admitting to the problem when it comes to catholic priests than we do Muslim grooming gangs.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,486
Location
Isle of Man
On a personal level I know quite a few Muslims and have even dated a one or two Muslim women. The recurring theme is the conflict between western liberalism and the ultra conservative views of their culture/parents.

There very definitely is that conflict, something that we in Western society went through in the 1960s. It causes significant issues for people who don't want to fit into the traditional patriarchal system, especially young women and gay men. I think it does also cause issues for young men who aren't quite sure where they identify.

Don't get me wrong, I do think they target girls outside the community. Of course they do: it's easier to get away with it if they do. There is also an element of the perpetrators trying to persuade themselves that it's ok because the girls are sluts who secretly want it anyway. But that's no different to the idea of the Lolita seductress so common in white paedo circles. The likes of the MBLA in America similarly try to argue their victims want it to justify their abuse to themselves.

Sexual violence against young girls in "black" (for want of a better word) gangs is just, if not more, prevalent though. Rape is used as a gangland weapon against other gangs, it's also used as initiation into their own gang. But nobody is caring about that, because the victims there are not white. The focus there is on stabbings and muggings, because that's what affects white people.

I think there are issues with the way a lot of young men view women and girls. The self-entitlement of the likes of Chedwyn Evans or Adam Johnson is precisely the same as the self-entitlement of these gangs.

My issue is that focusing on the "Muslim" element means that the underlying issues will not be resolved, because all it does is "other" the perpetrators. They're not any different to the rest of us. Their motivations ARE the same.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,486
Location
Isle of Man
The problem is that, as a society, we seem more comfortable with admitting to the problem when it comes to catholic priests than we do Muslim grooming gangs.

I don't agree with that at all. I think it's the opposite. Too many people believe that it's only the others who rape kids. It's the Muslim gangs, it's the weird priests. It can't possibly be that nice Mr Jones from number 47, he always helps the neighbours with their shopping.

As I've said before, t'missus is a clinical psychologist. She, needless to say, works with a lot of victims of childhood sexual abuse. A lot of their stories are depressingly common: it was dad, it was uncle, it was their brother who wanted to "practice blowjobs". Those are the perpetrators that people refuse to accept.

Look how many people automatically assumed that Ched Evans or Adam Johnson's victims secretly wanted it and were just trying to cash in. It's the same defence the likes of Weinstein or Cliff Richard use.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,900
Look how many people automatically assumed that Ched Evans or Adam Johnson's victims secretly wanted it and were just trying to cash in. It's the same defence the likes of Weinstein or Cliff Richard use.
Have I missed something or are you privvy to information not in the public domain?
 

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,992
Hang on, hang on. Let's stick to only naming those accused and arrested for a crime and/or charged. And then only naming those not subject to reporting restrictions.

Naming someone who hasn't even been arrested, let alone charged, in the same sentence as someone who has been arrested and charged, runs the very real risk that this forum could be sued.
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,318
Location
LBK
Hang on, hang on. Let's stick to only naming those accused of a crime and/or charged.

Naming those who haven't even been arrested, let alone charged, runs the very real risk that this forum could be sued.

Agreed. And let’s also not call Ched Evans a rapist, as he was found innocent by a court, even if many of us are appalled by that.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,486
Location
Isle of Man
Naming someone who hasn't even been arrested, let alone charged, in the same sentence as someone who has been arrested and charged, runs the very real risk that this forum could be sued.

It's the defence Cliff Richard, who was arrested, used. His innocence was used as an example of how hard it is to separate the innocent and the liars.

I was also clear that Ched Evans is completely innocent and not at all guilty of rape. However he and his friends admitted that they targeted very drunk women to pull, which shows an interesting attitude towards women, even if it is a legal one.
 

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,992
I am under the impression he was arrested by South Yorkshire Police, who subsequently released him without charge.

An incorrect impression. Easily verified with the simplest of online searches. There was no arrest. He twice attended a SYP police station of his own free will. CPS thresholds were not met for any charges. And the Court of Appeal reaffirmed this when his accusers used their right to review the CPS decision.

A wholly innocent man who shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as others named in this thread.

We have a justice system. Personal impressions and the court of public opinion are not the arbiters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top