Shiloh Ripe Sandbox wrote: » Population and socio-economic stats inc birth/death/crime etc are nearly always based on 'per 1,000 basis' so that's not unusual. And thus this % stat indicates unusualy behaviour from that community, and but the same token it means well over 50million white folks aren't doing it. Also bear in mind these type of gangs are usually high repeat offenders. The (22) dogs in Newcastle last year had around '700 victims' ... link The gang (of 8) in Oxford last week, also had multiple young victims, they even bought a personalised 'SGH' number plate for their van, so busy and proud they were of their actions (between 1998-2005) ... link So for every dog, multiply that by at least x30 or so victims. And that's just the ones that get caught.
Grayson wrote: » You're mixing up your population with your sample size. Yes, you can get a lot of information from a randomly selected sample of 1000. But in this case you can't because that selection isn't random. You're deliberately selecting criminals. If you'd selected 600 muslims at random and all had a criminal record for rape, then you could extrapolate that the majority of muslims are rapists. However if you go to a prison and choose your sample from the rapists there, you're not randomly selecting a sample. The important stat isn't 600 out of the prisoners, it's 600 out of 2.6 million. And is it even that? you'd need to show a trend over time. Next year it could be a 1000 and the year after it could be 100. To gain any meaningful knowledge you'd have to show that there is a trend and that the trend has meaning.
professore wrote: » The biggest problem is the biased way the media reports. If there is a gang rape perpetrated by Irish or western European nationals it is front page news. If its non western European its buried as a footnote on page 10. Why are the media reporting like this? That's what pisses me off.
SnakePlissken wrote: » I won't post the link again because those who don't want to read it, won't read it, but 75% of convicted grooming gangs in the UK hail from a small populace of 3%. Now, whilst you might state the majority of Muslims are not rapists, which I'm obviously not arguing against, I still believe a discussion must be had as to why the majority of sexual abuse gangs and a skewed ratio of sexual abusers of any nature ARE Muslim.
JohnMc1 wrote: » Because if they told the truth the people would be rioting outside of Leinster House for letting them in and then letting them run wild like animals.
professore wrote: » There is a lot of talk lately about "evidence based medicine" and "evidence based policing" in my naivete I thought medicine and policing was evidence based already. Clearly it isn't though. Its based on feelings and political bull crap. Reporting is even worse. This nonsense that we in the west are just as likely to commit all sorts of crimes is PROVABLY FALSE - so ridiculously untrue it's criminal.
Raging_Ninja wrote: » As a side note, "evidence based medicine" is a thing due to the amount of people calling homeopathy and drinking bleach "medicine".
Grayson wrote: » Yes, you can get a lot of information from a randomly selected sample of 1000. But in this case you can't because that selection isn't random. You're deliberately selecting criminals. .
The Ghost Train wrote: » In Sweden two newspapers Friatider (right wing) and Expressen (left) both recently reported that the vast majority of convicted gang rapists in Sweden are migrants. As I said, diversity is our strength.
professore wrote: » You can clearly say based on the numbers that Muslim men are far more likely than non Muslim men to form a rape gang and also far more likely to get away with it. For decades. That's not the same as saying every Muslim is a rapist. I have a degree in mathematics and understand what stats do and don't say. If 75% hail from a population of 3% this means that a Muslim man is 25 times more likely to be a member of a grooming gang than a non Muslim.
Shiloh Ripe Sandbox wrote: » But many Europeans were highly confused with the 15 Moroccan boys treated for rabies (last year) after an 'inducing an intimate gang relation with a donkey'.
Strazdas wrote: » Who exactly is "running wild like animals" in Ireland? You're accusing migrants to the country of doing things that are not even happening.....this is very provocative language.
Blaas4life wrote: » This is the kinda sh1te ya expect to be going on in kilkenny
JohnMc1 wrote: » Well there the Lidl's Digger robbery earlier in the year and 3 Foreign Nationals raped a Woman in Bagenalstown and 3 more [or could be the same 3. The Gardai are looking into it] raped another Woman in Kildare a few days ago. I think that qualifies as running around like wild animals. Just because its not in the same frequency as the Germany,Sweden,France and Britain doesn't mean we won't get it that frequently eventually. The more of them we import the more savage they get.
Shiloh Ripe Sandbox wrote: » Not sure they have donkeys there, but unlikely it would occur even under 'banter' or a game of 'dare-sies' in any European culture.
Odhinn wrote: » Who is "them"?
SnakePlissken wrote: » Homophobes would be an apt descriptor, we don't need them, nor want them.
Odhinn wrote: » You know the precise group involved? Please share your information with the rest of us.
SnakePlissken wrote: » Do you wish to discuss the many reputable polls taken in the UK which clearly indicate the majority of UK Muslims want homosexuality criminalised? Please share your information with the rest of us what research you have undertaken to come to the conclusion that Muslims entering Ireland from similar geographic, cultural, and religious backgrounds as those in the UK will be any less homophobic?
Odhinn wrote: » Just to be clear here - you're saying that the perpetrators of the crime in the OP committed in this state. are muslims?
Marina Calm Adhesive wrote: » Hold on, let me get this straight. He's an illegal immigrant, who was part of a gang rape. The judge grants him asylum because of a potential future in football and he gets off from gang raping a girl whose life has probably been destroyed. So by participating in a sick sexual crime, he gets moved to the top of the asylum list and granted asylum? Those two rugby players up the North had their lives destroyed and were fired from their teams, but this illegal gets rewarded? Where are the feminists now? His other rapist pal was caught by the guards for engaging in a phone scamhttps://www.herald.ie/news/false-name-and-card-used-in-iphones-scam-30946381.html And these two are still in the country because??? So women are below minorities now is it? I actually can't keep up.
SnakePlissken wrote: » Just to be clear here? I never made any suggestion of the sort, have a look through my posts I didn't even come close to such an inference.
SnakePlissken wrote: » Now if you're finished with your disingenuous and childishly obvious attempt at deflection, would you like to answer the question put to you.
Grayson wrote: » Jesus. That's what is called manipulating the figures which is what I was talking about earlier. You are choosing your own sample to make muslims in general seem like a danger. That's not just bad maths, it's deliberately bad maths. The amount of muslims doing this is minuscule. even in a general population the amount doing this would be miniscule. You are picking two extremely small sample sizes to make a point. There are millions of muslims there are hundreds of rapists. If you are willing to deliberately misrepresent the figures it's because you have a bias. You don't want to see the truth, you want to try to illustrate a point that's not possible to illustrate if you're honest. You have an irrational hatred of Muslims. It's irrational because there's no figures to back it up. Yes there are hundreds of Muslim rapists but there are millions that aren't. Rather than see hundreds and assume that millions are the same the logical path would be to ask what made that subset of hundreds different.
