Timidity of the British Media

Adhamh

As I was flicking through the TV a few minutes ago, I caught a few minutes of a programme called Angry, White and Proud.

It didn't seem particularly enlightening, just following a few yobbish types as they chant racist football songs outside mosques. One sentence the narrator said however, completely caught me off guard:

As it's recently come to light that 1,400 girls were abused in Rotherham over a sixteen year period, the group decide to protest.

No further explanation. Cuts to the ads.

After the ads it showed some condemnation from a Muslim community leader, but the rationale is never provided by the the documentary. Instead, the tinfoil hat Special Brew brigade are shown gallivanting around Rotherham.

This is an example of the increasing timidity of the British media. Only if you were following British news six months ago would you understand that the motivation for them protesting was the fact that 1,400 girls were targeted exclusively by Muslim abusers deliberately because they were where white, for a period of sixteen years, with the informed indifference of the police. Whatever way you choose to interpret this scenario is up to you, but the very least that respectable documentaries should be doing is providing the main facts of the story, and factual the above story unfortunately is.

I can't fathom how this crucial detail was omitted from the documentary (nor how the whole Rotherham case managed to slip into obscurity so quickly, despite it's magnitude).

Sky showed the same attitude during the week. Interviewing a French journalist about the Charlie Hebdo ordeal, the journo says:

I'm very sad that journalists in the UK do not support us, that they betray what journalism is about by thinking that people cannot be mature enough to decide if a drawing is offensive or not because you're not even showing it.

She then pulls out the Charlie Hebdo cover and the cameraman panics and pans wildly away so as to not show it, while the Sky anchor begins to apologize profusely in case anyone watching was offended by something that they broadcast accidentally (thus proving her point).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbwcBYT0DI

Has anyone else noticed this extreme caution in the British media recently? What do you think is causing it? If the media refuse to deal with subjects just because they're sensitive, they completely fail in reporting things at all.

kneemos

The Rotherham Case was extensively covered at the time.

I saw a bit of that program and if it wasn't The Rotherham Case it would have been something else they'd have found. They being racist.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Adhamh wrote: »

As I was flicking through the TV a few minutes ago, I caught a few minutes of a programme called Angry, White and Proud.

It didn't seem particularly enlightening, just following a few yobbish types as they chant racist football songs outside mosques. One sentence the narrator said however, completely caught me off guard:

As it's recently come to light that 1,400 girls were abused in Rotherham over a sixteen year period, the group decide to protest.

No further explanation. Cuts to the ads.

After the ads it showed some condemnation from a Muslim community leader, but the rationale is never provided by the the documentary. Instead, the tinfoil hat Special Brew brigade are shown gallivanting around Rotherham.

This is an example of the increasing timidity of the British media. Only if you were following British news six months ago would you understand that the motivation for them protesting was the fact that 1,400 girls were targeted exclusively by Muslim abusers deliberately because they were where white, for a period of sixteen years, with the informed indifference of the police. Whatever way you choose to interpret this scenario is up to you, but the very least that respectable documentaries should be doing is providing the main facts of the story, and factual the above story unfortunately is.

I can't fathom how this crucial detail was omitted from the documentary (nor how the whole Rotherham case managed to slip into obscurity so quickly, despite it's magnitude).

Sky showed the same attitude during the week. Interviewing a French journalist about the Charlie Hebdo ordeal, the journo says:

I'm very sad that journalists in the UK do not support us, that they betray what journalism is about by thinking that people cannot be mature enough to decide if a drawing is offensive or not because you're not even showing it.

She then pulls out the Charlie Hebdo cover and the cameraman panics and pans wildly away so as to not show it, while the Sky anchor begins to apologize profusely in case anyone watching was offended by something that they broadcast accidentally (thus proving her point).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbwcBYT0DI

Has anyone else noticed this extreme caution in the British media recently? What do you think is causing it? If the media refuse to deal with subjects just because they're sensitive, they completely fail in reporting things at all.

I find it difficult to read posts about the media when they contain phrases line "tinfoil hat" and any type of "brigade". It's like trying to hysterically exagerate the point.

As to the content, the media don't like far-right wing and the media don;t like immigrants. They fact that they may be legal, hard-working and perfectly honest and faithful to their religion makes no difference.

So what you have here is indeicision. The media don't know who they hate more or who they think the governemnt wants you to be scared of more.

Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch. That's pretty much all you need to know.

wretcheddomain

Cowing to the Muslim murderers - absolutely disgraceful.

This sends a firm statement - terrorism works.

malibu4u

Adhamh wrote: »

Sky showed the same attitude during the week. Interviewing a French journalist about the Charlie Hebdo ordeal, the journo says:

I'm very sad that journalists in the UK do not support us, that they betray what journalism is about by thinking that people cannot be mature enough to decide if a drawing is offensive or not because you're not even showing it.

She then pulls out the Charlie Hebdo cover and the cameraman panics and pans wildly away so as to not show it, while the Sky anchor begins to apologize profusely in case anyone watching was offended by something that they broadcast accidentally (thus proving her point).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbwcBYT0DI

Has anyone else noticed this extreme caution in the British media recently? What do you think is causing it? If the media refuse to deal with subjects just because they're sensitive, they completely fail in reporting things at all.

The Irish media is not exactly anything but extremely cautious too, and never criticises muslim extremists.

Adhamh

kneemos wrote: »

I saw a bit of that program and if it wasn't The Rotherham Case it would have been something else they'd have found. They being racist.

That's not what I mean, of course they would have just found another outlet for their racism, but the lack of explanation or rationale given just portrays them as being completely unjustified (in this instance), and makes them look undeservedly foolish. The lack of any background to the Rotherham example only comes across as being deliberate, and shows this true heads-in-the-sand attitude that I'm talking about.

I feel as if certain elements of the British media are too scared to lay the blame where blame is due, even when it's entirely uncontroversial.

AlanS181824

They seem genuinely afraid, it's ridiculous though as it's their job to report the news not sugar coat it for fear of repercussions from extremists!

Adhamh

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I find it difficult to read posts about the media when they contain phrases line "tinfoil hat" and any type of "brigade". It's like trying to hysterically exagerate the point.

As to the content, the media don't like far-right wing and the media don;t like immigrants. They fact that they may be legal, hard-working and perfectly honest and faithful to their religion makes no difference.

I'm not criticizing the protesters as such, but rather the fact that the documentary made no effort to show their rationale in protesting the Rotherham case, making it look like they were tearing around Rotherham with no justification, like they were loonies, when really it was quite valid. That's what I meant about the 'tinfoil hat' reference.

And I'd disagree, on the whole I find British media to be quite impartial- they treat issues of the far-right and immigration with the maturity they deserve I find. But I find that they have started to shy away from the more sensitive aspects of stories.

kneemos

Adhamh wrote: »

That's not what I mean, of course they would have just found another outlet for their racism, but the lack of explanation or rationale given just portrays them as being completely unjustified (in this instance), and makes them look undeservedly foolish. The lack of any background to the Rotherham example only comes across as being deliberate, and shows this true heads-in-the-sand attitude that I'm talking about.

I feel as if certain elements of the British media are too scared to lay the blame where blame is due, even when it's entirely uncontroversial.

Don't think there was any commentary on the program,just somebody asking the odd question.
The nature and purpose of the program was nothing more than to shine a light on these morons.

FluffyAngel

Religion had nothing to do with the abuse of children ,you will discover that abuse is not confined to religion ,colour or any other factor

its down to the indivuial

Spouting that kind of drivel only compounds the effects of abuse

the dark phantom

Rotherham was very well covered by bbc/sky/itv news, The program you were watching was about racist thicko's, They didn't feel the need to go through the details of Rotherham again.

I'm surprised Sky didn't show the Charlie cartoons being Fox's sister channel and all that.

beks101

It's quite popular to rant against the media and how 'you're letting the terrorists win!' at the moment. The reality, however, is that there are very very serious safety and security considerations to be taken into account with the broadcasting and publication of controversial subjects relating to terrorism - and with that, subjects of Islam - that can make them a minefield for media organizations.

The usual course is that any news script or provocative cartoon or ISIS etc videos are run through the company's Standards and/or Rights and Clearances departments and their lawyers will decide on the path to take in terms of what is safely and responsibly reportable and what could land the company in very murky legal waters and put employees' safety at risk. The lawyers decide based on their own professional judgement; not the editors or producers who put any particular news programme or newspaper together.

And each company will be different. If my memory serves me, the BBC and Channel 4 DID choose to show several Charlie Hebdo cartoons in their TV reports. ITN and many others did not. As much as people like to lump all journalists together, the fact is that they are not a collective group with a collective approach to these things and reporting will vary according to the legal advice they are getting.

And back to the safety considerations. In the aftermath of Paris, security measures in my work building, a big media office in the heart of central London, were ratched up to the point of making some of our day-to-day tasks near impossible. New armed security personnel patrolling the building. Two forms of ID needed from any employee or guest trying to enter the building. 48 hours notice required for any guests who may need to enter the building.

Because in the current environment, we are targets. And it doesn't take much to incite. A German newspaper was firebombed for reprinted the Hebdo cartoons last week.

And let's not forget, as emotive and provocative a subject as this is, as devastating as the last few weeks' events have been and as much as people love to finger point for any reason when it comes to media matters...these cartoons don't just only characterize free speech; they also represent a lack of respect for other people's religion, which is a ticking timebomb in terms of the environment of increasing terrorism and violence and attacks on the west that we find ourselves in.

The head of the MI6 said the very same last week. So what everyone likes to call 'tip-toeing around the subject' and 'neglecting their journalistic integrity' is in fact the navigating of some very deep waters which believe it or not, is also infuriating to many journalists whose hands are tied in terms of what and how they can report these events.

catallus

beks101 wrote: »

It's quite popular to rant against the media and how 'you're letting the terrorists win!' at the moment. The reality, however, is that there are very very serious safety and security considerations to be taken into account with the broadcasting and publication of controversial subjects relating to terrorism - and with that, subjects of Islam - that can make them a minefield for media organizations...

This is such a sorry justification for the abdication of responsibility we are witnessing in all its ugly glory from the press; anyone else is fair game but if a journalist is a target then we all have to head for the boats?

Talk about double standards.

And it's all the more horrifying knowing that the media is probably the only thing stopping the powers that be from launching a full out assault on our society's core-values of equality and the presumption of innocence; to think that the press is led by such moral cowards is frightening.

Those who would presume to lead the charge for free speech should at least take upon the responsibility that it brings with it.

blinding

Generally in Britain and Ireland nobody really care what happens to the poor. The poor are just an inconvenient reality. The media don't care whats happening with the poor except to give them a good kicking about social welfare every now and then. I suppose thats just done to frighten the rest that is this is what becomes of you if you don't maintain your place in their rat race.

The timidity of the british media is most obvious in their lack of criticism of the royals (example prince Andrew; the manner in which most of the media are trying to put him in the clear is nauseating)

Its as if they have a default setting that any criticism of the royal family is a career killer ! ! !

TheBeardedLady

It didn't seem particularly enlightening, just following a few yobbish types as they chant racist football songs outside mosques. One sentence the narrator said however, completely caught me off guard:

You called them "yobbish types".

Yobbish: adjective
1. (Brit, slang) typical of aggressive surly youths; vulgar or unrefined





Trouble-makers, in other words? I haven't seen the programme but going by your description, I'm assuming you're talking about far-right British First types (I could be wrong) who find any excuse at all to justify their racist bollocks. Surely you must realise that yourself?

I'd compare them to extremist Left-Wingers I see at protests who piggy-back on an event to cause trouble. Again, I could be wrong but the station referring to Rotherham as a "by the way" sounds as if the news station was aware of that and wasn't willing to give credence to their "cause" because, as you say, they were essentially just "yobs" looking for an excuse to cause trouble.

P_1

Don't Sky have numerous lucrative sponsorship/advertising slots paid for by companies that may remove said lucrative slots if they were to broadcast something that may be deemed 'offensive to Islam'? Perhaps that may also be a factor.

Karl Stein

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Cowing to the Muslim murderers - absolutely disgraceful.

Cowing to them? The UK enables them. The UK sells the Whabbi-fascist Saudi beheading regime billions of GBP's worth of armaments. It invades countries like Iraq, supports jihadi nutcases in Syria and leaves power vacuums that even worse scumbags like ISIS fill.

The French are no better. Countries like the UK, France, US have no problem whatsoever doing business with vicious islamofascist terrorists. So when you bitch about cowing to 'Muslim murderers' maybe you should be bitching about enabling them in the fist place.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Adhamh wrote: »

I'm not criticizing the protesters as such, but rather the fact that the documentary made no effort to show their rationale in protesting the Rotherham case, making it look like they were tearing around Rotherham with no justification, like they were loonies, when really it was quite valid. That's what I meant about the 'tinfoil hat' reference.

And I'd disagree, on the whole I find British media to be quite impartial- they treat issues of the far-right and immigration with the maturity they deserve I find. But I find that they have started to shy away from the more sensitive aspects of stories.

Fair enough, but the reference kinda reduces what you're saying.

You've accused Brirish Media of being timid in your opening post and impartial now? Are you shure you don;t want them to be a leittle bit less impartial, but leaning partially in a direction of your choosing?

It also depends on which organisation: the BBC have drifted recently from impartiality to infavour of whatever the government wants (as least BBC World on the net has - every time I log in it's either a "success" or a "tragedy" in a warzone); Sky, as I said, are only their to frighten you and make money and are basically Fox News with a conscience. ITN, when I last watched it (which in fairness wasn't recently) seem to be the cutesy dumbed-down version of the news for Jeremy Kyle viewers and people who can't or don;t want to follow a proper news source.

Vomit

Adhamh wrote: »

She then pulls out the Charlie Hebdo cover and the cameraman panics and pans wildly away so as to not show it, while the Sky anchor begins to apologize profusely in case anyone watching was offended by something that they broadcast accidentally (thus proving her point).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbwcBYT0DI

Has anyone else noticed this extreme caution in the British media recently? What do you think is causing it? If the media refuse to deal with subjects just because they're sensitive, they completely fail in reporting things at all.

Possible explanations:

1) The more the establishment media says, "Where're afraid of Muslim reaction", the more anti-Muslim sentiment they can whip up.

2) Maybe they consider the Charlie Hebdo cartoon to be genuinely offensive. After all, a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was fired in 2009 for creating a vile anti-Semitic cartoon. This publication is for idiots.

I hope it's the 2nd one. Think about it-- these fools who carried out the shooting had a f*cked up life, and were probably psychopaths (read up on them). Fringe nut-groups of all kinds tend to attract sick individuals. Doesn't mean we need to tar all of the sane ones.

RobYourBuilder

kneemos wrote: »

The Rotherham Case was extensively covered at the time.

Pity that they ignored it for sixteen or seventeen years previous. Nothing new there, of course.

Channel 4 has been forced to pull a documentary, which shows Asian men in Bradford grooming young white girls for sex, after local police claimed the programme could spark race riots

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/c4-pulls-edge-of-the-city/1093804.article

humanji

They ignored child sex rings involving white politicians for much longer than 16 years.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Why does the media continuously emphasise the fact that the victims were "white" girls? Are other girls less news-worthy?

keano_afc

I watched that Angry, White and Proud programme and to be honest the only thing thats stuck with me was the Muslim guy outside the mosque telling the protesters that "your son will be Muslim, your daughter will be Muslim, your grandchildren will be Muslim."

I found the declaration of the aims of these people far more threatening that the skinheads protesting.

Pumpkinseeds

The Rotherham case was extensively covered by the British media. The programme Angry White and Proud highlighted the extreme white racism that's on the rise in the UK. I watched it last week and when you watch the full programme it's obvious that the guys aren't some random idiots, these guys have dedicated police units that follow them around. Tbh, I found the white extremists far more intimidating than the Muslims.

It cost the police half a million pounds to patrol the march in Rotherham and the extremists thought it was great that they'd managed to cost that much. The programme was intended to highlight the increase in violent racism among white English extremists, not cases of child abuse or terrorism. It's about organised groups who's idea of a good day out is heading off to a march to offend as many muslims as possible and to physically hurt people. It also highlighted the fact that they are targetting muslims they 'suspect' of anything then going to their homes, breaking in and assaulting them. If you missed that then you missed the point.

K4t

humanji wrote: »

They ignored child sex rings involving white politicians for much longer than 16 years.

I blame their class system, whereby most of the politicians and law makers come from privileged, wealthy backgrounds. They are raised to absolutely believe they are more valuable, more intelligent and more important citizens than the rest of the population. This leads to cover ups with regards to paedophile rings in westminister, liberal apologist behaviour towards the events in Rotherham and recently the ludicrous attempts to protect the people (the condescension part here) from horrors such as spanking, facesitting, FEMALE EJACULATION, which are all now censored under their new pornography law. It truly is bizarre what is happening in that country. I wouldn't even go into their hate speech/crime legislations. Idiots.

inforfun

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why does the media continuously emphasise the fact that the victims were "white" girls? Are other girls less news-worthy?

The news worthy part of it being white girls is, that they are/were targeted just because of that, being white by these "asian" gangs.

Help!!!!

keano_afc wrote: »

I watched that Angry, White and Proud programme and to be honest the only thing thats stuck with me was the Muslim guy outside the mosque telling the protesters that "your son will be Muslim, your daughter will be Muslim, your grandchildren will be Muslim."

I found the declaration of the aims of these people far more threatening that the skinheads protesting.

Exactly right....& why did none of the so called moderate muslims coming out of the mosque condemn Choudray rather than crowding around the protesters & throwing things at them

Help!!!!

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The programme Angry White and Proud highlighted the extreme white racism that's on the rise in the UK. I watched it last week and when you watch the full programme it's obvious that the guys aren't some random idiots, these guys have dedicated police units that follow them around. Tbh, I found the white extremists far more intimidating than the Muslims.

It also highlighted the fact that they are targetting muslims they 'suspect' of anything then going to their homes, breaking in and assaulting them. If you missed that then you missed the point.

Ill agree that some are racist but there are some that are just sick of the way the non muslins are treated in the U.K. & just want to voice their opinions.
Why are these hate preachers not arrested?

AndonHandon

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why does the media continuously emphasise the fact that the victims were "white" girls? Are other girls less news-worthy?

I don't think this tells a whole lot or can lead to too many inferences other than the fact the girls were white.

Adamantium

keano_afc wrote: »

I watched that Angry, White and Proud programme and to be honest the only thing thats stuck with me was the Muslim guy outside the mosque telling the protesters that "your son will be Muslim, your daughter will be Muslim, your grandchildren will be Muslim."

I found the declaration of the aims of these people far more threatening that the skinheads protesting.

Harry Palmr

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why does the media continuously emphasise the fact that the victims were "white" girls? Are other girls less news-worthy?

The ethnic Pakistani groups in Rotherham regarded white girls as trash, fit to be exploited and not treated as human that's the point.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Harry Palmr wrote: »

The ethnic Pakistani groups in Rotherham regarded white girls as trash, fit to be exploited and not treated as human that's the point.

Which may be a valid point, but the question wasn't why white girls, the question is why doesthe media always sepcifcilly say "white" girls?

Help!!!!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which may be a valid point, but the question wasn't why white girls, the question is why doesthe media always sepcifcilly say "white" girls?

Because they were not blue or any other colour other than " white "

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Help!!!! wrote: »

Because they were not blue or any other colour other than " white "

That's still not asking the question I actually asked.

Harry Palmr

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Which may be a valid point, but the question wasn't why white girls, the question is why does the media always sepcifcilly say "white" girls?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? They were targeted, black and Asian girls were not, so the media has correctly pointed out that fact.

_Kaiser_

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse? They were targeted, black and Asian girls were not, so the media has correctly pointed out that fact.

No, it's just another example of political-correctness gone mad. Specifically mentioning "White" girls (or any colour) = you must be racist .. why does it matter etc :rolleyes:
The reality that it's just simply a statement of fact (as you highlight in this instance) gets lost in that outrage

In short, it's a mix of people actively looking to be offended and competing with similar types to show how MORE PC they are!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No, it's just another example of political-correctness gone mad. Specifically mentioning "White" girls (or any colour) = you must be racist .. why does it matter etc :rolleyes:
The reality that it's just simply a statement of fact (as you highlight in this instance) gets lost in that outrage

In short, it's a mix of people actively looking to be offended and competing with similar types to show how MORE PC they are!

Nothign to do with PC or being offended.

I'm merely pointing out that the media is trying to evoke more sympathy by discribing the girls as white and that raping a white girl is in some way an even bigger crime than a non-white girl.

DeadHand

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Why does the media continuously emphasise the fact that the victims were "white" girls? Are other girls less news-worthy?

The media emphasised this fact because there were important racial and cultural elements to the case.

As indigenous Christian or non-religious girls they were seem as inherently inferior human beings and immoral sluts deserving of any degradation they suffered by the Muslim men who raped and tortured them with impunity for years. The rapists were informed by their beliefs to see it as a just and proper way to treat those young women and children.

Another key factor in the case was the fact that most of the victims came from working/welfare class backgrounds. No-one in authority cared enough about them to risk their careers by making accusations that would automatically be construed as racist. Had the same horrors befallen middle class girls, a stop would have been put to it much more swiftly.

As it was, the fear of being branded racist far outweighed any sense of duty or compassion those in a position to help may have had. They were paralysed utterly by political correctness.

The authorities, in fact, at times protected and aided these rapists. Those who did speak up were immediately silenced and forced to attend equality and diversity courses. One unfortunate man who went to retrieve his daughter from one of these Muslim rape gangs was promptly arrested by the police.

No, the suffering of non-white girls is in no way less newsworthy. That is why the suffering of Syrian and Iraqi girls at the hands of ISIS and Nigerian girls at the hands of Boko Haram is, rightly, reported in the media constantly.

Mentioning the victims were white was reporting a relevant fact, not an attempt to evoke greater sympathy.

Harry Palmr

DeadHand - top post. Class was an important factor. Certaintly would have come to light much quicker had the girls been from well educated assertive middle class families

Harry Palmr

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nothign to do with PC or being offended.

I'm merely pointing out that the media is trying to evoke more sympathy by discribing the girls as white and that raping a white girl is in some way an even bigger crime than a non-white girl.

You really don't seem to get it - the white girls were deliberately targeted by the ethnic Pakistani groups to the exclusion of all other races. This was their whole modus operandi. Its got nothing to do with racism in the media - it about racism among paedo rapists.

_Kaiser_

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nothign to do with PC or being offended.

I'm merely pointing out that the media is trying to evoke more sympathy by discribing the girls as white and that raping a white girl is in some way an even bigger crime than a non-white girl.

No.. it's a factual statement. If the girls had been Asian and were identified as such in the report is that "wrong" too?

If someone robs a shop and I witness it, and the guy happened to be black (or white, or Asian or whatever) - am I "racist" by repeating this in my statement to the Gardai, or am I simply stating the facts of the matter?

The point is that there is a certain element who seem determined to find something objectionable in everything and usually by throwing out PC-terms or accusations against the one making the statement without considering the content or intent of what they said.

By doing so it also serves to deflect from the point itself - which in this instance that young girls are being sexually assaulted and raped.

Now you tell me.. which is more important? Highlighting their plight, or confusing the matter by objecting over some perceived slight to someone's personal sensibilities that has no basis in the facts.

DeadHand

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nothign to do with PC or being offended.

I'm merely pointing out that the media is trying to evoke more sympathy by discribing the girls as white and that raping a white girl is in some way an even bigger crime than a non-white girl.

In nothing I saw or read in the media about the case was it implied that raping a white girl is a greater crime than raping a non-white girl.

Pumpkinseeds

Help!!!! wrote: »

Ill agree that some are racist but there are some that are just sick of the way the non muslins are treated in the U.K. & just want to voice their opinions.
Why are these hate preachers not arrested?

They were all racist thugs. They are stereotypical football hooligans. As for the hate preachers, well as the documentary said, the Imam of the Mosque didn't agree with the hate preacher and wouldn't let him preach in the Mosque, which was why he was preaching outside of it. Turning up outside any religious place of worship and shouting abuse is out of order and could be viewed has 'hate preaching'.

world_weary

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No, it's just another example of political-correctness gone mad. Specifically mentioning "White" girls (or any colour) = you must be racist .. why does it matter etc :rolleyes:
The reality that it's just simply a statement of fact (as you highlight in this instance) gets lost in that outrage

In short, it's a mix of people actively looking to be offended and competing with similar types to show how MORE PC they are!

being PC is about sounding good rather than doing good

Help!!!!

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

They were all racist thugs. They are stereotypical football hooligans. As for the hate preachers, well as the documentary said, the Imam of the Mosque didn't agree with the hate preacher and wouldn't let him preach in the Mosque, which was why he was preaching outside of it. Turning up outside any religious place of worship and shouting abuse is out of order and could be viewed has 'hate preaching'.

So are the people of Rotherham who clapped them as they walked down the streets racist too?
There are a great deal of of non Muslim people in the U.K. who feel let down by the government & are tired of being accused of being a racist if they put up the St Georges flag outside their home
They said they were going on a peaceful protest & they did, they were not the ones throwing things

Nodin

Help!!!! wrote: »

Ill agree that some are racist but there are some that are just sick of the way the non muslins are treated in the U.K. & just want to voice their opinions.
Why are these hate preachers not arrested?

Do please elaborate.

Pumpkinseeds

Help!!!! wrote: »

So are the people of Rotherham who clapped them as they walked down the streets racist too?
There are a great deal of of non Muslim people in the U.K. who feel let down by the government & are tired of being accused of being a racist if they put up the St Georges flag outside their home
They said they were going on a peaceful protest & they did, they were not the ones throwing things

So, where were the clapping people of Rotherham when the kids were being abused? The kids that were abused largely came from families where the parents didn't really give a rats arse where their kids where, who they were with or what they were doing. These fine upstanding citizens weren't interested in the welfare of those kids and they couldn't give a flying fig about them now.

DeadHand

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

So, where were the clapping people of Rotherham when the kids were being abused? The kids that were abused largely came from families where the parents didn't really give a rats arse where their kids where, who they were with or what they were doing. These fine upstanding citizens weren't interested in the welfare of those kids and they couldn't give a flying fig about them now.

The rampant, widespread rape and torture of white children and young women by gangs of Muslim men was commonly known about by the rest of the community in Rotherham. Anyone who brought it to the attention of the authorities was roundly ignored, thanks to political correctness. Many in authority who brought it to the attention of their superiors were not only ignored but undermined and disciplined. Thanks, again, to political correctness.

The father who desperately tried to free his daughter from the clutches of one of these rings only to be arrested by the police for doing so. Did he not give a rats arse?

True, failure of parenting was a huge factor in the case. Still, the ultimate blame for the horror lies with the crippling culture of political correctness and moral cowardice within the authorities and those doing the actual raping.

I agree that the social standing of the victims delayed moves to protect them but the fault lies squarely with those who had the official power to act. What would you have the plain people of Rotherham do after the law failed them, after their misgivings and suspicions were dismissed out of hand? Round up the men suspected of involvement and lynch them?

Pumpkinseeds

DeadHand wrote: »

The rampant, widespread rape and torture of white children and young women by gangs of Muslim men was commonly known about by the rest of the community in Rotherham. Anyone who brought it to the attention of the authorities was roundly ignored, thanks to political correctness. Many in authority who brought it to the attention of their superiors were not only ignored but undermined and disciplined. Thanks, again, to political correctness.

The father who desperately tried to free his daughter from the clutches of one of these rings only to be arrested by the police for doing so. Did he not give a rats arse?

True, failure of parenting was a huge factor in the case. Still, the ultimate blame for the horror lies with the crippling culture of political correctness and moral cowardice within the authorities and those doing the actual raping.

I agree that the social standing of the victims delayed moves to protect them but the fault lies squarely with those who had the official power to act. What would you have the plain people of Rotherham do after the law failed them, after their misgivings and suspicions were dismissed out of hand? Round up the men suspected of involvement and lynch them?

Rounding up the men suspected of involvement is the kind of thing that the white extremists are trying to do. There is no doubt that there were many contributing factors that allowed the abuse to be covered up. I don't believe that bringing white extremists into a community to stir up tension in any way helps anybody in the community. Half a million pounds was spent on policing that 1 march. That's half a million pounds that could have been put to better use such as providing better services within Rotherham.

Help!!!!

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Rounding up the men suspected of involvement is the kind of thing that the white extremists are trying to do. There is no doubt that there were many contributing factors that allowed the abuse to be covered up. I don't believe that bringing white extremists into a community to stir up tension in any way helps anybody in the community. Half a million pounds was spent on policing that 1 march. That's half a million pounds that could have been put to better use such as providing better services within Rotherham.

Don't you mean white protestors? If you look at the program they said they were going on a peaceful protest. The main cause of the problems were the police. It doesn't matter what a person looks like

DeadHand

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Rounding up the men suspected of involvement is the kind of thing that the white extremists are trying to do

No, they aren't. Not yet, at least.

Produce one case of a lynching or attempted lynching by a "white extremist" group in Britain in modern times. As much as the leftwing, liberal media and many national governments would have us believe that the far right are as big threat to European society as Muslim extremists are it simply isn't true.

There is no doubt that there were many contributing factors that allowed the abuse to be covered up. I don't believe that bringing white extremists into a community to stir up tension in any way helps anybody in the community

Had the authorities had the courage and conviction to do their jobs in the first place these idiots wouldn't have bothered coming to Rotherham and the indigenous people of that unhappy city wouldn't have felt drawn to them.

It's a story we're seeing all over Europe- ordinary people being drawn to the far right by disillusionment at all the failure of mainstream politics to do anything about the Islamification of swathes of European cities, the culture of appeasement toward aggressive Islam and by frustration at the poisoning of open, honest debate by the perpetually, professionally offended scouring the press and airwaves for an opportunity to scream "racist" and "bigot" at anyone who expresses even the mildest misgiving at the affects of mass immigration on our societies and the now obvious problem of Islam and it's compatibility with Western values.

Half a million pounds was spent on policing that 1 march. That's half a million pounds that could have been put to better use such as providing better services within Rotherham.

Agreed. Doing something about Muslim rape gangs, for example.