Hunky Monster wrote: » What's Mancs got to do with this. It was 6% Asian background last time I looked.
jackboy wrote: » You are badly badly letting yourself down. Stop the propaganda.
alastair wrote: » I’m not remotely angry. Now, you were shouting ‘WRONG!’ I believe?
alastair wrote: » The tweet is about Manchester abuse investigations - hence Mancs. And no, not 6%.
Hunky Monster wrote: » You quoted Nazir Afzal who said only 40% of these offenders are "Asian" as you call it to show how few Muslims are involved in this sort of thing. Your argument fell apart when I told you that 6% of Britian is "Asian". What a wildly disproportionate amount of offenders. So yeah, WRONG.
TheRepentent wrote: » No...so he'll understand why people think he's a racist **** and nobody believes him except other racist ****s.
" .. I've already looked at some CCTV cameras, so I know exactly where it happened .."
Hunky Monster wrote: » It's happening in a lot more places than Manchester, It happened in Oxford, Rotherham, Bradford and a tonne other places. I'm going off the total population of the UK, I'm not going to break it down by Counties, cities or neighborhoods because that would be ridiculous.
alastair wrote: » Far more convictions for white abusers though. Strange that they’re not prominent in these displays.
alastair wrote: » Shouting aside. There’s nothing wrong about it - there’s a greater proportion of Asian background in Manchester than the national average. And Nazir’s point relates purely to Manchester prosecutions. Nazir is also very clear that the greater number of abusers nationally are not Asian - if you were to stick up a showcase of all convicted abusers you’d see far more white faces than Asian ones - even if there was over-representation of Asians amongst the convicted - which there is. 81% of people convicted of sexual offences in 2014 were white, 7% were black and 9% were Asian in 2014. That’s not an atypical year in terms of ethnicity breakdown. In 2015-16 Of the 6,200 or so defendants prosecutions for sexual crimes relating to children, 67% were white, 4% were Asian, 3% were black, 1% were mixed race and 1% were other.
Lefty Bicek wrote: » Even if there was... which there is.:D:D
Lefty Bicek wrote: » Strange, how ? Why would white abusers be in a display about the widely-acknowledged specific problem of 'Asian' (sic) rape gang culture in the UK ? Not sure how that scandal has passed you by, and you so well-informed. About everything.
alastair wrote: » Still a remarkable under-representation of the primary ethnicity responsible for sex abuse in this thread all the same. Wonder how that’s happened?
alastair wrote: » That’s rather my point. Once again - if all you opt to show is Asian offenders, don’t be surprised if all you see is Asian offenders. Not sure how that passed you by.
Lefty Bicek wrote: » Wonder away. A not very interesting avenue of inquiry, so you can keep it. More to the point - if there were no 'Asian'-rape-gang-scumbags in UK prisons, the 'white' percentage would be even higher. Yet Britain would be better off. Because the overall number of incarcerated offenders would be significantly lower, and vulnerable white British girls would be safer.
Snake Plisken wrote: » You've lost all crredability on this thread and others. But keep spinning!
Lefty Bicek wrote: » The people who are discussing it now who are not the ones who tried to systematically cover it up for years.
alastair wrote: » Britain would be better off for sure, but not as much as they would be if you removed the greater problem of incarcerated white men’s sexual crimes against white British girls (amongst the rest). Rather a silly argument.
Lefty Bicek wrote: » We must constantly remind ourselves when dealing with you - that you see no problem with Britain exacerbating it's social problems by importing from the far reaches of the sub-continent, with no great corresponding benefit to herself, the kind of filth to whom rape is not so much a crime, as it is an attitude towards women. Hang your head in shame.
alastair wrote: » Well - that’s nobody in this thread - so I’m not sure who you think you’re referring to.
Lefty Bicek wrote: » Most of us have wider horizons. YMMV. And does.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » So you admit the police weren't sympathetic towards him. Don't you think that's unprofessional?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » I see ti SYL fan club managed to derail the thread for a few pages.....as usual.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » I see Tommy continues to release private phonecalls. Another action that would threaten the investigation and any resulting prosecution. Yep, that's absolutely normal behavior for the father of a child abuse victim. Still, if his complaint turns out to be rubbish, he can claim cover up. If it is true but collapses, he can blame the police and many will fall for it.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I haven't fallen for anything. I listened to his daughter describe what happened to her and I believe she wasn't lying or making it up because of the way she came across whilst she did so. Multiple times I've said that but yet certain users keep suggesting this guy is my hero or something and that's the reason I believe her. Again: I also suspected there might be chance she was fed a story and relayed it to impress her father, kids are capable of that, but there is no chance that is what that kid was doing in that audio. Tommy was great with her, I felt, and let her give her side of the story, even asking her was she sure it wasn't an accident.My opinion is based on the facts and it's quite clear others is based on their political leanings.
Boggles wrote: » He is all ready claiming cover up. The media, the police, everyone - they are all pro-pedophile.
WrenBoy wrote: » Well they have form, they did cover up or at least refuse to seriously investigate Grooming gangs for a time. Being sceptical wouldn't be unreasonable.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)