The Politics Thread 3.0

Our best bits.
User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by BID0 » Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:47 pm

They should label it as men raping girls and then tackle the issue properly.

User avatar
Knoyleo
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Knoyleo » Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:08 pm

twitter.com/trobinsonnewera/status/897550431014051840


twitter.com/AGlasgowGirl/status/897550603357872130


pjbetman wrote:That's the stupidest thing ive ever read on here i think.
User avatar
Grumpy David
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Cubeamania

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Grumpy David » Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:55 am

Karl wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:
KK wrote:
The Guardian wrote:Sarah Champion distances herself from Sun article on British Pakistani men


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4218648/british-pakistani-men-raping-exploiting-white-girls/

The full article from The Sun. I don't see how anyone could disagree with any of that.

She's not even wrong to highlight the uncomfortable truth. It's not the deliberately broad and vague term of Asian that includes Turkish men all the way to Japanese men (and clumps in Hindus and Sikhs who commit very few crimes and are probably the best integrated non European people) that is going around in rape gangs targeting white girls.

How are you supposed to solve a problem when you won't tackle the issue head on? Fear of being called racist/Islamophobic is allowing children to be raped. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/fear-called-racist-stops-people-reporting-child-sexual-exploitation/

If the MP of Rotherham can't say there's a problem with Muslim rape gangs in this country, who the strawberry float can? Such messed up priorities.


Are there proportionally more rapists amongst the Muslim population compared to amongst other ethnic groups once adjusted to sample the same distribution of socioeconomic status, to the extent that it is statistically significant? Have we thoroughly investigated alternative models that might be more selective (can we exclude Muslims from certain regions, or who are nth generation immigrants for some value of n and above, or...?) and rejected them as less accurate explanations? That would be the condition for me to begin to accept there "is a problem with Muslim rape gangs in this country". Even then, it may or may not be helpful to actually frame the offences in that manner (does the increased awareness decrease the incidence rate enough to justify the increased Islamophobia?).

Shouting about "Muslim rape gangs" is an EDL-level statement so we should only go with it if we're absolutely sure about it. My instinct is always to reject any rhetoric that the dog-whistle racists in The Telegraph want me to internalise.

That being said I haven't been following this story super closely. I am sure you will let me know if my lefty instincts are off the mark on this one. But out of the available options I am happy to be thought of someone who is too-cautious about adopting a potentially racist worldview.


I don't think I'll find a sufficient level of statistical data to convince you to the level you require. You've set a very high burden of proof.

I believe that the government records crime and race but not sure about religious beliefs and crime.

As an example, this article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/21/children-commissioner-defends-sex-abuse-report states:

The report identified 1,514 perpetrators, of which 43% were white and 33% were "Asian" (compared to 87% and 7% of the population).

Which is definitely very high, but not every case recorded ethnicity of perpetrators, the article states almost 2/3 didn't record this. Of the 1/3, "Asian" accounts for a third. You can also rightfully argue "Asian could mean anyone from Turkey all the way to Japan".

Other data such as the prison population shows Muslims over represented behind bars whilst Hindus and Sikhs are under represented compared to their general UK population.

You can also argue that "the stats only show those who got caught, not the total amount of sexual crimes committed" but I find that a rather pointless deflection as absence of evidence doesn't imply a better attempt at getting away with a crime.

Socioeconomic factors might explain certain crimes like stealing food but it wouldn't explain raping children.

The Telegraph article is actually commenting on Champion's comments from years ago. I didn't know you considered The Telegraph in such disdain?

We probably can't be "absolutely sure" on British Pakistani Muslim men being more likely than men of other adjectives to form huge rape gangs specifically targeting white children. But it does seem to be happening on a scale that warrants further study since I know of no Hindu Indian rape gangs or Chinese Buddhist rape gangs in the UK and I'd like to prevent children from getting raped even if that means confirming the facts that might make you uncomfortable.

User avatar
DML
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by DML » Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:00 am

A high burden of proof is surely fair though when you consider the controversy of the statement?

If I was claiming the Earth was flat, the burden of proof would also be very high!

User avatar
BID0
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Essex

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by BID0 » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:37 am

Grumpy David wrote:
Karl wrote:
Grumpy David wrote:
KK wrote:
The Guardian wrote:Sarah Champion distances herself from Sun article on British Pakistani men


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4218648/british-pakistani-men-raping-exploiting-white-girls/

The full article from The Sun. I don't see how anyone could disagree with any of that.

She's not even wrong to highlight the uncomfortable truth. It's not the deliberately broad and vague term of Asian that includes Turkish men all the way to Japanese men (and clumps in Hindus and Sikhs who commit very few crimes and are probably the best integrated non European people) that is going around in rape gangs targeting white girls.

How are you supposed to solve a problem when you won't tackle the issue head on? Fear of being called racist/Islamophobic is allowing children to be raped. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/fear-called-racist-stops-people-reporting-child-sexual-exploitation/

If the MP of Rotherham can't say there's a problem with Muslim rape gangs in this country, who the strawberry float can? Such messed up priorities.


Are there proportionally more rapists amongst the Muslim population compared to amongst other ethnic groups once adjusted to sample the same distribution of socioeconomic status, to the extent that it is statistically significant? Have we thoroughly investigated alternative models that might be more selective (can we exclude Muslims from certain regions, or who are nth generation immigrants for some value of n and above, or...?) and rejected them as less accurate explanations? That would be the condition for me to begin to accept there "is a problem with Muslim rape gangs in this country". Even then, it may or may not be helpful to actually frame the offences in that manner (does the increased awareness decrease the incidence rate enough to justify the increased Islamophobia?).

Shouting about "Muslim rape gangs" is an EDL-level statement so we should only go with it if we're absolutely sure about it. My instinct is always to reject any rhetoric that the dog-whistle racists in The Telegraph want me to internalise.

That being said I haven't been following this story super closely. I am sure you will let me know if my lefty instincts are off the mark on this one. But out of the available options I am happy to be thought of someone who is too-cautious about adopting a potentially racist worldview.


I don't think I'll find a sufficient level of statistical data to convince you to the level you require. You've set a very high burden of proof.

I believe that the government records crime and race but not sure about religious beliefs and crime.

As an example, this article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/nov/21/children-commissioner-defends-sex-abuse-report states:

The report identified 1,514 perpetrators, of which 43% were white and 33% were "Asian" (compared to 87% and 7% of the population).

Which is definitely very high, but not every case recorded ethnicity of perpetrators, the article states almost 2/3 didn't record this. Of the 1/3, "Asian" accounts for a third. You can also rightfully argue "Asian could mean anyone from Turkey all the way to Japan".

Other data such as the prison population shows Muslims over represented behind bars whilst Hindus and Sikhs are under represented compared to their general UK population.

You can also argue that "the stats only show those who got caught, not the total amount of sexual crimes committed" but I find that a rather pointless deflection as absence of evidence doesn't imply a better attempt at getting away with a crime.

Socioeconomic factors might explain certain crimes like stealing food but it wouldn't explain raping children.

The Telegraph article is actually commenting on Champion's comments from years ago. I didn't know you considered The Telegraph in such disdain?

We probably can't be "absolutely sure" on British Pakistani Muslim men being more likely than men of other adjectives to form huge rape gangs specifically targeting white children. But it does seem to be happening on a scale that warrants further study since I know of no Hindu Indian rape gangs or Chinese Buddhist rape gangs in the UK and I'd like to prevent children from getting raped even if that means confirming the facts that might make you uncomfortable.

A rape is a rape, does it really matter the colour of someones skin? The native population statistically commit more rape offences but that goes largely ignored because it's harder to paint a villain character when that villain could be you, the person reading the article.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:40 am

It’s odd how the people that make the biggest noise about Muslim/Asian rape gangs seemed to be pretty silent when the Catholic child abuse scandal was going on. They also seem to be the same people that want to ban the burka to improve female rights, but also are the people that go insane when the new Doctor Who was announced as a woman. It’s almost like they have another agenda….

I don’t think this is a non-issue or something to be ignored, but it also isn’t going to be solved by inflammatory media editorials about “the Muslim problem”. The problem isn’t just confined to Muslims or men of Pakistani origin, as the Catholic (and CoE!) Church shows, singling them out is only going to whip up hatred from the racists while also making that community more insular and therefore less likely to integrate and change any cultural reasons that might be letting this occur.

It wasn’t so long ago (strawberry float, you still hear it now sometimes) that the stereotype amongst NF/BNP types was that black men are thieves and drug dealers. Even if the statistics showed a higher proportion of crime amongst black men, would you be comfortable with headlines about “the black problem”?

User avatar
Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Denster » Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:11 am

I don't think anyone would or should be comfortable with a headline such as that. Unfortunately, as in all these instances, the racist idiots use this as propaganda.
There are issues here. Pakistani men have arranged and organised to rape white girls. Race does seem to be an issue there from the aspect of the perpetrators. Their motivations are going to be a source of debate. However, any debate is always difficult because of the behaviours of those with a different agenda - like that EDL banana split.

The motivations of the Pakistani men is a subject that should be discussed. The motivations of several others with a viewpoint are sadly all too clear.

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:35 pm

According to their latest video, Rebel Media have been black mailed by a couple of kiddies that used to work for them with Tommy Robinson. Apparently they have footage of Robinson saying "something". :lol:

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Thu Aug 17, 2017 6:45 pm

captain red dog wrote:According to their latest video, Rebel Media have been black mailed by a couple of kiddies that used to work for them with Tommy Robinson. Apparently they have footage of Robinson saying "something". :lol:


That would be the least surprising thing of all time. :lol:

User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by captain red dog » Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:08 pm

Moggy wrote:
captain red dog wrote:According to their latest video, Rebel Media have been black mailed by a couple of kiddies that used to work for them with Tommy Robinson. Apparently they have footage of Robinson saying "something". :lol:


That would be the least surprising thing of all time. :lol:

I've heard both sides and heard Ezra's comments on the secret recording and it's pretty damning. It seems Lauren Southern left as she was asked to fund raise for the Israel trip despite them already having it fully funded. She has been silenced through NDAs apparently. Seems accurate, Ezra admits as much on the tapes.

Looks like Rebel Media are dead in the water, which is quite a fail for the "new media"! :slol:

Edit: Faith Goldy has now left (although Ezra says he sacked her) and apparently Gavin Mcinnes has left too. Rebel is dead!

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Squinty » Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:04 am

captain red dog wrote:According to their latest video, Rebel Media have been black mailed by a couple of kiddies that used to work for them with Tommy Robinson. Apparently they have footage of Robinson saying "something". :lol:


Did not realise this at all. Wow.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:48 am

twitter.com/thetimes/status/898990456461295616



Are UKIP still pretending to be a non-racist party? :slol:

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:49 am

And is anybody with a double barrelled name that starts with "Rees" automatically a banana split?

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Squinty » Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:00 am

Moggy wrote:And is anybody with a double barrelled name that starts with "Rees" automatically a banana split?


Seems like it.

UKIP are becoming more extreme because they have no actual point at this current time. Death throes of a one note party.

User avatar
Blue Eyes
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Blue Eyes » Mon Aug 21, 2017 10:12 am

I'm sort of hoping but not really that some terrorist nutbag decides to go on a mowing down rampage in Westminster at 12pm today. Lorry with a big grill with Rees Mogg plastered all over it is wank material.

User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Oblomov Boblomov » Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:46 am

...or maybe not?

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:10 pm

Blue Eyes wrote:I'm sort of hoping but not really that some terrorist nutbag decides to go on a mowing down rampage in Westminster at 12pm today. Lorry with a big grill with Rees Mogg plastered all over it is wank material.


Have a (mostly) civil argument with vegetarians over a chicken advert = going too far.

Hoping for a terrorist incident in London = ?

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Hexx » Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:10 pm

Who said that was too far?

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Squinty » Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:07 pm

Blue Eyes :lol:

User avatar
Blue Eyes
Member
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Politics Thread 3.0
by Blue Eyes » Mon Aug 21, 2017 1:31 pm

Moggy wrote:
Blue Eyes wrote:I'm sort of hoping but not really that some terrorist nutbag decides to go on a mowing down rampage in Westminster at 12pm today. Lorry with a big grill with Rees Mogg plastered all over it is wank material.


Have a (mostly) civil argument with vegetarians over a chicken advert = going too far.

Hoping for a terrorist incident in London = ?

Not really hoping, but were some of these strawberry floating idiot MPs to be killed by anyone I would not be too upset about it.


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 231 guests