Huddersfield grooming case

Someone, somewhere is counting down those 18 years.

autumn2018 wrote: »

we complain in ireland but i feel so sorry for the people over in england
its sadistic
close the common travel area before this cancer infects our children's future

and leo the liar and rte and dennis o brien fm can all go to hell

Huh? Ireland had the clergy who abused children with impunity for decades. Worse, the state ignored it. I know not all priests are the same, but it was a real problem.

Meanwhile, there are thousands (if not millions) of law abiding Muslim men in England who would never dream of committing these horrors.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Trust me there is Tommy Robinson has plenty of support from ordinary decent British people but then mainstream media are too afraid to report on it.

Tommy Robinson is a vainglorious thug who almost destroyed this court case by blabbing about it and using it to boost his wretched ego. Not only that, people went ape**** when he was sent to prison for contempt of court. These peadophiles almost walked free because of him.

Wibbs wrote: »

Not this moral equivalence, Irish guilt/self hate nonsense again. Jesus.

We have had many issues with child abuse and we have been pretty successful in weeding them out and changing the culture that fostered them. They were for the majority of cases single offenders, though too damned many of them with too damned many blind eyes turned.

This is like the go to mantra when it comes to the immigration question coming up: we were immigrants once and so therefore... Ignoring of course the very different times and circumstances.

Never mind that a generation of Irish who "went on the missions" helped whole countries and their peoples. Peoples and countries who recognise and celebrate that.

But let's say "we exported them all over the world"("we" didn't) and saw the damage they did. Do we really need to import the same thing now in the 21st century?

Legally difficult if they're UK citizens S, which I'm sure many if not most of them are.

It wasn't turning a blind eye, it was covering up by people in power. A lot of whom are still knocking around. And we know that people knew about them. people would talk in private but little to nothing could be done because they were rumours and there was no truth. I'd imagine it's the same with these guys. I have no doubt that people had their suspicions. There were probably plenty of people who told their daughters not to go near them. But did they have proof? was there more they could do? Probably not, the sam as here.

As for importing offenders, no-one is suggesting that. Literally no-one. And the number of people in the muslim community who commit these offences is tiny. It's really small.

There should be questions asked about how grooming gangs appear to be more prevalent in east asian communities. It appears that the method of offending is tied to their communities in some way. But to say that in general a muslim is more likely to be an abuser is wrong. They're not significantly more likely. The number of them per capita is tiny and to infer that because someone is muslim and therefore likely to be a predator is wrong. Just like other religious/ethnic groups, they are incredibly unlikely to be abusers.

Throughout history there's always been a supposed tie between a persecuted group and sex crimes. Jews, black people, gay people. All have been considered to be a threat based on the flimsiest evidence. I don't see any evidence to suggest that your average muslim is a threat to children.

Grayson wrote: »

It wasn't turning a blind eye, it was covering up by people in power. A lot of whom are still knocking around. And we know that people knew about them. people would talk in private but little to nothing could be done because they were rumours and there was no truth. I'd imagine it's the same with these guys. I have no doubt that people had their suspicions. There were probably plenty of people who told their daughters not to go near them. But did they have proof? was there more they could do? Probably not, the sam as here.

As for importing offenders, no-one is suggesting that. Literally no-one. And the number of people in the muslim community who commit these offences is tiny. It's really small.

There should be questions asked about how grooming gangs appear to be more prevalent in east asian communities. It appears that the method of offending is tied to their communities in some way. But to say that in general a muslim is more likely to be an abuser is wrong. They're not significantly more likely. The number of them per capita is tiny and to infer that because someone is muslim and therefore likely to be a predator is wrong. Just like other religious/ethnic groups, they are incredibly unlikely to be abusers.

Throughout history there's always been a supposed tie between a persecuted group and sex crimes. Jews, black people, gay people. All have been considered to be a threat based on the flimsiest evidence. I don't see any evidence to suggest that your average muslim is a threat to children.

There was a poster here a few weeks ago who had all the facts and figures about Muslim sex crimes in the UK and according to his statistics they actually were significantly more likely to commit such crimes. And in particular grooming. Hopefully he’s lurking here and could give a synopsis.

Pug160 wrote: »

I think that goes without saying, and any reasonable critical thinking person would come to that conclusion. But we're not discussing the clergy abusing children in Ireland. I will admit to being a bit perplexed by the rather strange relationship the left seems to have with Islam.

Of course, and it's not my intention to derail the thread by bringing it up. However, the post I quoted came from someone saying they felt sorry for the English because of the number of paedophiles roaming around. As if Ireland didn't have any of their own to contend with.

The left's relationship with Islam and those who practise it is really quite straight forward: live and let live. If they don't force it on us, we won't force them to change. All should be free to practise whatever ancient superstition they wish.

Grayson wrote: »

It wasn't turning a blind eye, it was covering up by people in power. A lot of whom are still knocking around. And we know that people knew about them. people would talk in private but little to nothing could be done because they were rumours and there was no truth. I'd imagine it's the same with these guys. I have no doubt that people had their suspicions. There were probably plenty of people who told their daughters not to go near them. But did they have proof? was there more they could do? Probably not, the sam as here.

As for importing offenders, no-one is suggesting that. Literally no-one. And the number of people in the muslim community who commit these offences is tiny. It's really small.

There should be questions asked about how grooming gangs appear to be more prevalent in east asian communities. It appears that the method of offending is tied to their communities in some way. But to say that in general a muslim is more likely to be an abuser is wrong. They're not significantly more likely. The number of them per capita is tiny and to infer that because someone is muslim and therefore likely to be a predator is wrong. Just like other religious/ethnic groups, they are incredibly unlikely to be abusers.

Throughout history there's always been a supposed tie between a persecuted group and sex crimes. Jews, black people, gay people. All have been considered to be a threat based on the flimsiest evidence. I don't see any evidence to suggest that your average muslim is a threat to children.

It seems to be Muslims of Pakistani heritage in particular, although I haven't looked at it extensively. Why that would be the case is anyone's guess at this point. Do bear in mind that a lot of people who use these forums are at least somewhat well read and rational, so no moral lecture is needed. If there is a suggestion that some kind of tax needs to be paid by all of us for past crimes I really do think it's fudging the issue at hand.

Certain subjects are delicate - I get it. But it doesn't mean they can't be tackled in some kind of pragmatic way.

Lady Spangles wrote: »

Tommy Robinson is a vainglorious thug who almost destroyed this court case by blabbing about it and using it to boost his wretched ego. Not only that, people went ape**** when he was sent to prison for contempt of court. These peadophiles almost walked free because of him.

he didn't do anything to destroy the court case he was merely raising awareness because these guys were walking free on bail and still in contact with kids and working in businesses with direct access to kids. one of them who got 17 years packed his bags and flew to Pakistan on the same day robinson was thrown in to custody for 2 months. only reason I know this is because of robinson. haven't seen that small fact reported by the media today

Dunston wrote: »

he didn't do anything to destroy the court case he was merely raising awareness because these guys were walking free on bail and still in contact with kids and working in businesses with direct access to kids. one of them who got 17 years packed his bags and flew to Pakistan on the same day robinson was thrown in to custody for 2 months. only reason I know this is because of robinson. haven't seen that small fact reported by the media today

And in doing so, he jeopardised the whole case. Don't you understand that? He was in contempt of court. By running off at the mouth, the whole trial could have been thrown out of court and those "men" would still be walking free, contacting vulnerable children right now.

Harry Palmr wrote:

Here's another pair of horrors but not nearly the coverage (white)

Both cases are horrible, but you find it necessary to try and balance the scales by introducing the "white" crimes just to prove a point - whatever that might be.

Lady Spangles wrote: »

And in doing so, he jeopardised the whole case. Don't you understand that? He was in contempt of court. By running off at the mouth, the whole trial could have been thrown out of court and those "men" would still be walking free, contacting vulnerable children right now.

More scutter thrown about by left. How could these men simply walk free by Tommy Robinson being contempt of court?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

More scutter thrown about by left. How could these men simply walk free by Tommy Robinson being contempt of court?

The laws surrounding fair trials are not merely "scutter thrown around by the left". I have already posted links to articles explaining why Robinson nearly got the case thrown out of court, but it's up to you to read and learn. LINK


A quote from the article:

A judge paused jury deliberations in the second of three linked trials over fears that the far-right figurehead’s live stream of the case from outside Leeds Crown Court would result in the case collapsing and rapists going free.