UK Grooming Gangs - girls raped and sold for sex - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15061395
Westminster paedophile dossier

A dossier on paedophiles allegedly associated with the British government was assembled by the British Member of Parliament Geoffrey Dickens, who handed it to the then-Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, in 1984. The whereabouts of the dossier is unknown, along with other files on organised child abuse that had been held by the Home Office.[1]

In 2013, the Home Office stated that all relevant information had been passed to the police, and that Dickens' dossier had not been retained. It was later disclosed that 114 documents concerning child abuse allegations were missing. In July 2014, the Labour Party called for a new inquiry into the way that the allegations had been handled, and the Prime Minister, David Cameron, ordered the permanent secretary of the Home Office, Mark Sedwill, to investigate the circumstances of the lost dossier.

On 7 July 2014, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced a review into the handling of historic child abuse allegations, to be led by Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, and the establishment of a public panel inquiry into the duty of care taken in the protection of children from paedophiles by British public institutions, led by an independent panel of experts and chaired by Baroness Butler-Sloss. Butler-Sloss later stood down as chair of the inquiry.[2] On 5 September 2014, it was announced that it would instead be chaired by Fiona Woolf[3] but on 31 October 2014 she, too, resigned from the role.[4] On 4 February 2015 it was announced that the inquiry would be chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard, a New Zealand High Court judge. The existing panel would be disbanded, and the inquiry would be given new powers.[5] On 4 August 2016, she also resigned from the role.[6]

Between 1981 and 1985 Dickens campaigned against a suspected paedophile ring he claimed to have uncovered that was connected to trading child pornography.[7] In 1981, Dickens in the House of Commons accused Sir Peter Hayman, the former senior diplomat, civil servant and MI6 operative, of being a paedophile in the House of Commons, using parliamentary privilege. Dickens further questioned why Hayman had not been jailed after it was discovered he had left a package containing child pornography on a bus.[7]

In 1983, Dickens claimed there was a paedophile network involving "big, big names - people in positions of power, influence and responsibility" and threatened to name them in the Commons.[7] The next year, he campaigned for the banning of the pro-paedophile activism group of which Hayman was a member, the Paedophile Information Exchange.[7]

On 29 November 1985, Dickens said in a speech to the Commons that paedophiles were "evil and dangerous" and that child pornography generated "vast sums". He further claimed that: "The noose around my neck grew tighter after I named a former high-flying British diplomat [Hayman] on the Floor of the House. Honourable Members will understand that where big money is involved and as important names came into my possession so the threats began. First, I received threatening telephone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home. Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer's hit list".[8]

Dickens gave his 40-page dossier to the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, in a 30-minute meeting in 1984.[7] A second copy of the dossier was reported to have been given to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Thomas Hetherington.[9]

Dickens described the dossier as having the potential to "blow the lid off" the lives of notable child abusers.[1][10] It included details on eight prominent figures, and was reported to have contained the name of a former Conservative MP who had been found with child pornography videos, against whom no arrests or charges were brought.[1][11] Dickens told his son, Barry, that the dossier was "explosive".[10]

Dickens had asked Brittan in 1983 to investigate the diplomatic and civil services and the royal court at Buckingham Palace over claims of child sexual abuse.[12] Dickens said that he was "going to give him [Brittan] a glimpse inside my private files, where people have written to me with information."[12]
In a 2013 review on its handling of the dossier, the Home Office discovered that parts of the dossier described as "credible" and which contained "realistic potential" for further investigation were passed to prosecutors and the police.[10] Other elements of the dossier were not retained or were destroyed.[10] A letter was found from Brittan to Dickens which stated that the allegations contained in the dossier had been acted on.[10]

It was discovered in 2013 that 114 documents that also concerned child abuse allegations were missing from the Home Office's records.[1] The 114 missing documents were identified after an independent review was conducted into information received by the department about organised child sex abuse.[1] The government has declined to publish the 2013 review, with a spokesperson saying that "My understanding is that the executive summary reflects very fully the report...If there are allegations, evidence of wrongdoing that people have they should bring that to the attention of the relevant authorities including the police."[10] The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, said the circumstances in which the dossier had gone missing was alarming and recommended an inquiry into the fate of the dossier.[8] The Labour Party has called for a new inquiry into the way that the dossier's allegations were handled, claiming that the previous investigation was conducted in four weeks, with just two officials.[10]

The permanent secretary of the Home Office, Mark Sedwill, was ordered to investigate the circumstances of the lost dossier by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, in July 2014.[1] Sedwill had told the Prime Minister that an independent legal figure will assess whether the conclusions of the Home Office's 2013 review "remain sound".[1] Sedwill had already informed Keith Vaz, the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee that the Home Office had found "no evidence of the inappropriate removal or destruction of material".[1] Vaz had also written to the Home Office's most senior civil servant to ask questions about its 2013 review.[10] Danczuk described Cameron's ordering of the new inquiry as representing "...little more than a damage limitation exercise. It doesn't go far enough. The public has lost confidence in these kind of official reviews, which usually result in a whitewash. The only way to get to the bottom of this is a thorough public inquiry."[11]

In July 2014, Norman Tebbit, who had held a variety of ministerial posts in the 1980s, when asked if there had been a "big political cover-up", said that "there may well have been", describing it as "...almost unconscious. It was the thing that people did at that time."[1] Tebbit also spoke of the political atmosphere of the time, saying that "At that time I think most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected and if a few things had gone wrong here and there that it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it..That view, I think, was wrong then and it is spectacularly shown to be wrong because the abuses have grown."[1]

On 7 July 2014, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced that a more thorough review of historic child abuse allegations would be carried out by Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, assisted by a senior legal figure. This would cover how police and prosecutors handled information given to them, and was expected to report by the end of September. She said:

"I want to address two important public concerns: first that in the 1980s the Home Office failed to act on allegations of child sex abuse and second, that public bodies and other important institutions have failed to take seriously their duty of care towards children."[24]

In addition, a "Hillsborough-style" inquiry, the Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, would be held, led by a panel of legal and child protection experts. This would be wide-ranging, would not report before the next election, and could be converted into a full public inquiry if necessary. For Labour, Yvette Cooper welcomed the announcements.[24] On 8 July it was announced that the wide-ranging review would be chaired by Baroness Butler-Sloss,[25] but she stood down on 14 July after mounting pressure from victims' groups and MPs over her suitability regarding the fact that her brother was the Attorney General at the time of some of the abuses in question.[26][27] In October 2014, her replacement, Fiona Woolf, also stood down after concerns were raised over her connections with involved parties, including Lord Brittan.[3][28]

Wanless Inquiry report Edit
On 11 November 2014, Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC published their findings into the disappearance of the Home Office files, saying that they had "found nothing to support a concern that files had been deliberately or systematically removed or destroyed to cover up organised child abuse". They also reported that they had found no evidence to support allegations that the Paedophile Information Exchange had been funded by the Home Office. However, their report acknowledged that Home Office filing procedures had created "significant limitations… It is, therefore, not possible to say whether files were ever removed or destroyed to cover up or hide allegations of organised or systematic child abuse by particular individuals because of the systems then in place".[29]

Responding to the report, Home Secretary Theresa May told Parliament that it had returned a verdict of “not proven”, saying: “There might have been a cover-up. I cannot stand here and say the Home Office was not involved in a cover-up in the 1980s and that is why I am determined to get to the truth of this”. She therefore asked Wanless to further investigate whether any material relevant to his review had been passed to the security services, and if so what action had subsequently been taken by them. She also requested that he look into how police and prosecutors had handled any allegations of child abuse passed onto them by the Home Office at the time of Geoffrey Dickens’ dossier. In addition, May informed Parliament that the Metropolitan Police would investigate claims made by journalist Don Hale, that Special Branch officers had seized a file containing allegations about MPs and other prominent figures which former Labour Party minister Barbara Castle had given to him.[30]

IPCC investigation Edit
In March 2015, it was announced that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) would "manage" an investigation that was already being conducted by the London Metropolitan Police's Directorate of Professional Standards into claims of "high-level corruption of the most serious nature" over four decades, including 16 allegations that the Met had covered up historical child sex offences because of the involvement of MPs and police officers.[31] Scotland Yard said it had voluntarily referred the allegations, which arose from investigation ‘Operation Fairbank' launched in 2012, to the IPCC. The allegations being considered by the IPCC relate to the period between 1970 and 2005 and include failures to properly investigate child sex abuse offenses; the halting of an investigation relating to the abuse of young men in Dolphin Square, near Westminster because "officers were too near prominent people"; and that a Houses of Parliament document was found at a paedophile's address which linked "highly-prominent individuals" – including MPs and senior police officers – to a paedophile ring, but that no further action was taken.[32]

The IPCC will also consider claims that a child sex abuse victim's account was altered to remove the name of a senior politician, and that surveillance of a child abuse ring was curtailed because of "high-profile people being involved".[32] Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: "Given the gravity of the crimes being investigated, it is worrying that this is not a fully independent investigation. Instead the Met will lead this work with oversight from the IPCC. Surely this should be done by an independent investigator or, at the very least an alternate force".[31]

However, Labour MP Simon Danczuk, who had been calling for such an inquiry, told the BBC: "We are on the cusp of finding out exactly what went on in the 70s and 1980s and, I'm sorry to say, I think it will be shown that senior politicians were involved in abuse and there was a cover up. I think that's inevitable now".[32] The BBC also reported that former Daily Mirror crime correspondent Jeff Edwards, who stated he was told by a detective in the 1980s that an investigation into paedophiles was closed on the orders of a senior politician, had recently been contacted by the police. He told the BBC: "I think this was a cynical cover up. There was no doubt in their minds the way they would deal with this was simply to expunge it from the record. As far as they were concerned they could make it go away forever".[32]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmin ... le_dossier
#15061396
United Kingdom football sexual abuse scandal

A child sexual abuse scandal involving the abuse of young players at football clubs in the United Kingdom began in mid-November 2016. The revelations began when former professional footballers waived their rights to anonymity and talked publicly about being abused by former coaches and scouts in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. This led to a surge of further allegations, as well as allegations that some clubs had covered them up.

Echoing similar revelations in the 1990s, the initial 2016 allegations centred on abuse of young players at Crewe Alexandra and Manchester City due to the clubs' associations with Barry Bennell (previously convicted of sexual abuse offences in the UK and US) who, on 29 November 2016, was charged with new offences. Allegations were also made against George Ormond, a former Newcastle United youth coach and scout (who also had previous convictions), former Chelsea scout Eddie Heath, and former Southampton and Peterborough coach Bob Higgins. In early December 2016, allegations about former youth coaches and scouts in Northern Ireland and Scotland also started to emerge.

Within a month of the initial reporting, the Football Association, the Scottish Football Association, several football clubs and over 20 UK police forces had established various inquiries and investigations and over 350 alleged victims had come forward. By July 2018, 300 suspects were reported to have been identified by 849 alleged victims, with 2,807 incidents involving 340 different clubs. By the end of 2019, 15 men had been charged with historical sexual abuse offences, 14 of whom were tried. Thirteen – Bennell, Ormond, Higgins, William Toner, Michael Coleman, Jim McCafferty, Robert Smith, James Torbett, Gerald King, Frank Cairney, Norman Shaw, David Daniel Hayes, and Dylan Lamb – were convicted; all, except King (given a three-year probation order) were jailed. Paul McCann was cleared. Michael Carson took his own life before his trial opened. Other allegations involve individuals who had died prior to the revelations or died before charges could be brought.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... se_scandal
#15061445
Q. Can anyone furnish me with details of the last gang of white English men who were charged with raping, trafficking and selling children for sex in this country?


British-born Pakistani men and Pakistani migrants are behind a ‘disproportionately high’ number of on-street child sex exploitation cases in Birmingham and the West Midlands, an official investigation has found. And white middle-aged men have been identified as being involved in the majority of online grooming, with an increasing number of teenage boys targeting girls. When their provisional on-street and online grooming data are combined, 39 per cent of offenders are white and 26 per cent Asian.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... ni-8439716

The BBC has a channel specially for British Asians from the former British colony of India. The Chinese community is negligibly small compared to Pakistani and Indian communities and British Asians make up the largest minority group in Britain. The most significant wave of Asian immigration to the United Kingdom came following World War II, the breakup of the British Empire during the 1950s and 1960s.

Last edited by ThirdTerm on 24 Jan 2020 20:53, edited 2 times in total.
#15061446
Potemkin wrote: South Asians, in general, tend to be very strict on sexual propriety, especially the Muslims.

Only in the sense that they regard female sexuality as the property of Muslim males. There is no real limit of propriety on what Muslim males can do sexually to non-Muslim females, because in Islam there are no human rights, and non-Muslims are not considered to have any claim to be treated as human beings.
#15061455
Truth To Power wrote:Only in the sense that they regard female sexuality as the property of Muslim males. There is no real limit of propriety on what Muslim males can do sexually to non-Muslim females, because in Islam there are no human rights, and non-Muslims are not considered to have any claim to be treated as human beings.

I would not disagree with that.
#15061457
Truth To Power wrote:Only in the sense that they regard female sexuality as the property of Muslim males. There is no real limit of propriety on what Muslim males can do sexually to non-Muslim females, because in Islam there are no human rights, and non-Muslims are not considered to have any claim to be treated as human beings.


The idea that Muslims are permitted to do anything they please to non-Muslims is simply not true and largely stems from a misinterpretation of Islam's warfare teachings.

Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

I say: based on that, kind treatment of neighbours is enjoined and is recommended, whether they are Muslim or not. And this is the right thing to do. Kind treatment may be in the sense of helping or it may be in the sense of being kind, refraining from annoyance and standing by them. Al-Bukhaari narrated from ‘Aa’ishah that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Jibreel kept urging me to treat neighbours kindly until I thought that he would make them heirs.” And it was narrated from Abu Shurayh that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “By Allah, he does not believe; by Allah, he does not believe; by Allah, he does not believe.” It was said: O Messenger of Allah, who is that? He said: “The one whose neighbour is not safe from his annoyance.” This is general in meaning and applies to all neighbours, and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) affirmed that the neighbour should not be annoyed by swearing three times and stating that the one who annoys his neighbour is not a believer in the complete sense. So the believer should avoid annoying his neighbour and refrain from doing what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden; he should strive to do that which pleases Him and encourage others to do likewise.

Concerning that Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:8].
#15061459
Atlantis wrote:If it went on for 40 years, it's not for "fear of racism". The term political correctness didn't even exist in those days. It's more like "we don't want anything to do with those Asians" or "let them do what they want in their corner, just don't bother us, we have other things to do" ...

Enoch Powell made his Rivers of Blood speech over 60 years ago. Its rare in history for the destruction of a culture to owe so much to the nasty shameful, narcissistic, bigoted speeches of one member of the elite. So yes the fear of being associated with Enoch Powell's vile and repulsive racism, if one made any attempt to challenge immigration, or challenge the overall behaviour and cultural tendencies of an immigrant community has been around for over 40 years. The Muslim community was not sticking to their corner. It was our girls that they were raping, assaulting, drugging, prostituting and pimping off.

Now its certainly that true that back in the seventies many police had deeply sexist attitudes that enabled this behaviour. One only has to look at the Yorkshire Ripper case to see the incredibly misogynistic attitudes of some of the police back then, but also of many of the general public, both men and women. They desperately wanted to believe that this murderous sex pervert was really on a moral crusade.
#15061462
Unfortunately both approaches have been incorrect. The fact is that there is racism on the part of these gangs, i.e. they are Asian racist gangsters who like to target white British girls and women for exploitation. The police and public services did and continue to do very little about this. Left liberal types also ignore it and downplay it whenever it is raised as a serious issue. That it was taken up as a cause by the far right has actually de-legitimised it and made it a controversial subject of public conversation in polite society.

However, the far right are incorrect to try and communalise the issue. It is not a particular problem of any one community, but rather the impotence and stupidity of left liberals as well as the police and local government.

Criminality is not confined to any particular community but at the same time the criminal class, regardless of their ethnicity or religion will possess the worst traits of humanity. It is no surprise that these types of gangsters are racist. But the refusal of the culture to recognise that whites can be victims of racism is problematic because it leads to inaction and denial, especially among the middle classes.

Anyone can be a racist irrespective of race or religion. A lot of gangs have racist tendencies. Is it any surprise that these Asian gangs are supremacist and hold contemptuous opinions of white British people? They are criminals at the end of the day.

The real issue is that the people who have and had the means to sort this problem out chose not to act. Police, politicans and local government.

Also remember that a lot of Asians worked to bring this issue to light. Therefore the far right arguments are simply invalid.

So is the left liberal middle class impotence.

All of this is typical of the UK. First of all a failure of society to understand the real issues going on, and then a refusal to talk about it, complete denial of problems. Denial of problems, refusing to talk about them and pretending they will go away is unfortunately a negative trait of the British culture. Whenever there is a problem or controversey the English cultural response is to just keep quiet about it for fear of upsetting someone or expressing a controversial opinion.
#15061484
Political Interest wrote:Unfortunately both approaches have been incorrect. The fact is that there is racism on the part of these gangs, i.e. they are Asian racist gangsters who like to target white British girls and women for exploitation. The police and public services did and continue to do very little about this. Left liberal types also ignore it and downplay it whenever it is raised as a serious issue. That it was taken up as a cause by the far right has actually de-legitimised it and made it a controversial subject of public conversation in polite society.

However, the far right are incorrect to try and communalise the issue. It is not a particular problem of any one community, but rather the impotence and stupidity of left liberals as well as the police and local government.

Criminality is not confined to any particular community but at the same time the criminal class, regardless of their ethnicity or religion will possess the worst traits of humanity. It is no surprise that these types of gangsters are racist. But the refusal of the culture to recognise that whites can be victims of racism is problematic because it leads to inaction and denial, especially among the middle classes.

Anyone can be a racist irrespective of race or religion. A lot of gangs have racist tendencies. Is it any surprise that these Asian gangs are supremacist and hold contemptuous opinions of white British people? They are criminals at the end of the day.

The real issue is that the people who have and had the means to sort this problem out chose not to act. Police, politicans and local government.

Also remember that a lot of Asians worked to bring this issue to light. Therefore the far right arguments are simply invalid.

So is the left liberal middle class impotence.

All of this is typical of the UK. First of all a failure of society to understand the real issues going on, and then a refusal to talk about it, complete denial of problems. Denial of problems, refusing to talk about them and pretending they will go away is unfortunately a negative trait of the British culture. Whenever there is a problem or controversey the English cultural response is to just keep quiet about it for fear of upsetting someone or expressing a controversial opinion.


There are a number of problems with this.

Firstly, you are building a straw man of a leftist liberal that is just as unfounded as saying that all Asians are rapists. I don't like these categories, but I guess that leftist liberal is as close as I would come to describe myself. Yet, I have never in my life, not today and not 50 years ago, assumed that non-Westerners are free of vice. In fact, while humans are all basically the same, it is obvious that non-Westerners are more retarded in some respects than Westerners. Yes, here you have a "leftist liberal" calling non-Westerners retarded. How does that fit your straw man?

What I mean is obviously not that non-Westerners are inferior humans, not at all. What I mean is that awareness of racism, gender inequality, sexual abuse of minors, etc., is higher in Western society than it is in traditional non-Western societies. Thus, sexual abuse of minors or women is seen as "normal". There is no awareness of wrongdoing. Just like we have our resident Middle-Eastern Pofoer who will always argue that grown man can have sex with minors because in their culture girls are mature at an early age and that there is nothing wrong with having sex with a dependent child, cultural norms in non-Western society simple haven't evolved as in Western society. That is totally obvious. And there is no reason not to state the obvious.

Thus, your attempt to put the blame on leftist liberals is completely pointless. And no, the problem is not specific to British society. In France and in Germany there is basically the same problem, even if it manifests itself differently. Both have immigrant communities that were left to their own devices without any effort of integration. To the authorities it was the easiest way to say, oh, they are what they are, just let them be, let them sort out their own problems in their own way.

That doesn't mean that all immigrants had to go that way. No, there are many others who got an education to become pillars of society far surpassing retarded natives.

Racism is not confined to whites, but I think in the present case racism is not the right word. The Asian rapists just exploited the most vulnerable members of society. People at the bottom of society like to feel that there are others who are even worse off than themselves. They themselves have no illusion about being superior to their white masters whose menial tasks they serve.

PS: Just in case you harbor certain "leftist liberal" hangups about viewing non-Western society with a critical eye, please note that Turkey just proposed that rapists should be forced to marry their rape victim. Yes, this is the year 2020 of the Lord and there are people who seriously propose that the rapist should be rewarded by getting to marry the rape victim.
#15061488
Atlantis wrote:PS: Just in case you harbor certain "leftist liberal" hangups about viewing non-Western society with a critical eye, please note that Turkey just proposed that rapists should be forced to marry their rape victim. Yes, this is the year 2020 of the Lord and there are people who seriously propose that the rapist should be rewarded by getting to marry the rape victim.

Within the context of their culture, that ruling actually makes a lot of sense. The rapist is being forced to support his rape victim for the rest of her life. After all, as a rape victim, she is now unsuitable marriage material; her rapist has therefore deprived her and her family of the material benefits of marriage. It is only fair that the rapist should himself be forced to materially support his victim for the rest of her life, and marriage is the most effective way of ensuring that he does this. This horrifies us because, of course, it forces the woman to cohabit with her rapist for the rest of her life. But in those cultures, the individual counts for almost nothing; the smallest social unit is the family, not the individual. And after all, what is the alternative for her? No man will now marry her. A lifetime of spinsterhood and therefore grinding poverty awaits her. Realistically, only a life of prostitution or crime is in her future. If we object to this ruling, then what alternative can we offer her, in the context of that culture?
#15061498
Potemkin wrote:If we object to this ruling, then what alternative can we offer her, in the context of that culture?


:knife: The rapist could become the chattel property of the victim. There are plenty of alternatives that are in keeping with retarded islamo hick culture, they just picked the most heinous "remedy" imaginable because they want to keep using their females as livestock.
#15061517
Sivad wrote::knife: The rapist could become the chattel property of the victim. There are plenty of alternatives that are in keeping with retarded islamo hick culture, they just picked the most heinous "remedy" imaginable because they want to keep using their females as livestock.

Indeed, because that is their culture, as Atlantis pointed out. The smallest unit of society is the family, not the individual, and in the context of the family unit, females are in effect chattel property.
#15061585
Atlantis, I appreciate what you've written here.

Atlantis wrote:Firstly, you are building a straw man of a leftist liberal that is just as unfounded as saying that all Asians are rapists. I don't like these categories, but I guess that leftist liberal is as close as I would come to describe myself. Yet, I have never in my life, not today and not 50 years ago, assumed that non-Westerners are free of vice. In fact, while humans are all basically the same, it is obvious that non-Westerners are more retarded in some respects than Westerners. Yes, here you have a "leftist liberal" calling non-Westerners retarded. How does that fit your straw man?


True, I should have employed more nuance. The centre right are just as appalling in their complete ignorance around this issue.

But you must surely acknowledge that among Westerners there is a refusal to see that whites can experience racism. You mention this to the average Westerner and they look at you like you're insane.

This is hardly surprising, most have not travelled widely outside Europe or spent any significant amount of time actually living in Asia or Africa.

As you said, stupidity is not bound by the limits of background. There are these types of people among both Westerners and non-Westerners alike.

Atlantis wrote:What I mean is obviously not that non-Westerners are inferior humans, not at all. What I mean is that awareness of racism, gender inequality, sexual abuse of minors, etc., is higher in Western society than it is in traditional non-Western societies. Thus, sexual abuse of minors or women is seen as "normal". There is no awareness of wrongdoing. Just like we have our resident Middle-Eastern Pofoer who will always argue that grown man can have sex with minors because in their culture girls are mature at an early age and that there is nothing wrong with having sex with a dependent child, cultural norms in non-Western society simple haven't evolved as in Western society. That is totally obvious. And there is no reason not to state the obvious.


I agree with you that sensitivity to racism is less developed in non-Western societies.

In the West we will go to every length to ensure that no one is excluded. Issues of discrimination and gender equality are openly discussed and are not considered strange at all. In almost every organisation there are provisions against discrimination. This includes rights protecting sexual minorities.
Open discrimination is socially unacceptable and can in many cases result in prosecution.

In this respect we’re much more developed than non-Western societies, although in many ways this is reaching its own extreme and is becoming counter-productive.

We’re probably more sensitive to it given our history, both in the English speaking world and in continental Europe.

Atlantis wrote:Thus, your attempt to put the blame on leftist liberals is completely pointless. And no, the problem is not specific to British society. In France and in Germany there is basically the same problem, even if it manifests itself differently. Both have immigrant communities that were left to their own devices without any effort of integration. To the authorities it was the easiest way to say, oh, they are what they are, just let them be, let them sort out their own problems in their own way.


I only comment on British society because that is the country I have authority to speak on. I don’t know German or French societies with any level of intimacy because I’ve never lived in them and don’t speak their languages. What I have noticed, however, is that in England there is a huge tendency to ignore problems or controversial subjects. This does not only pertain to social or political issues but even problems in daily life. “Oh, that makes me and other people uncomfortable. I better not express an opinion or talk about that because it might upset people.” I’m not wanting to be rude but this is a huge cultural problem. The Eastern Europeans I have talked to are always much more frank and open about historical and political subjects. For example, a Polish man I knew for barely five minutes invited me to his house for tea and cake and told me his life story, about his family history and the political situation of his country.

At the same time the British politeness is not better or worse. It gives people a lot of personal space and is non-coercive. It’s not better or worse, it’s just different. But of course it also has it’s own problems and challenges, i.e. refusal to discuss problems. I’m sure if I lived in Poland I’d also encounter cultural problems.

The immigrant communities were very much left to their own devices, yes. Racist elites probably didn’t want to give them a second thought. It is controversial to say this but I think that the political elite in the UK failed a lot of the migrants who came to this country. The Windrush scandal is a perfect illustration of the way in which migration brought the ruling class labour and a continuation of empire by other means while this very same ruling class actually cared nothing for these immigrants. That there is even a possibility of senior citizens being deported on some bureaucratic technicality goes to show that the government is willing to exploit immigrant communities for their own purposes whenever it is convenient.

Atlantis wrote:That doesn't mean that all immigrants had to go that way. No, there are many others who got an education to become pillars of society far surpassing retarded natives.


It goes without saying that their contribution has been immense and their absence would be a loss for our continent.

Atlantis wrote:Racism is not confined to whites, but I think in the present case racism is not the right word. The Asian rapists just exploited the most vulnerable members of society. People at the bottom of society like to feel that there are others who are even worse off than themselves. They themselves have no illusion about being superior to their white masters whose menial tasks they serve.


Racist is exactly what they are. They are gangsters and criminals, hardly the embodiment of virtuous qualities. They insult and deride their victims on the basis of their race. I don’t know how it is in Germany but in the UK white criminality is in many cases a gateway to the far right. Among Asian gangsters it is no different, notions of ethnic supremacy and chauvinism predominate among these types of criminal elements.
#15061609
Political Interest wrote:But you must surely acknowledge that among Westerners there is a refusal to see that whites can experience racism. You mention this to the average Westerner and they look at you like you're insane.


I don't know, I have more the impression that mass immigration has brought out plain old ugly racism in many average Westerners.

But there is an unthinking assumption that racism is something typically white because of a lack of experience of other cultures and also because whites have ruled the world for so long that they have a privileged position even in non-white countries.

In places like Japan, people highly respect you as foreigner as long as you are European or American, but many Japanese have a low opinion of other Asians. Arabs or blacks are even more discriminated. I know a colored Dutch woman who loves Japanese culture, but she just couldn't take the discrimination and left after a year. As white, I never had any problems in 15 years.

So yes, non-Westerners can be ferociously racist, but let's not adopt a victim attitude. Whites still enjoy enormous privileges in most countries, except for white women in Arab countries. I know several cases of white women following their Arab husband back to his home country. That almost never works. It's pure hell for most of them. Remarkably, Kurds are different in that respect even though they are surrounded by Arabs.

In this respect we’re much more developed than non-Western societies, although in many ways this is reaching its own extreme and is becoming counter-productive.


True, excesses of political correctness are responsible for driving right-wing populism. Living beings and politics are dynamic. People think they start a beneficial movement, but it's so easy for the movement to be derailed to turn into something harmful.

Personally, as a leftist liberal I have never been afraid of pointing out deficiencies in other cultures, while always respecting cultural difference and the degree people are prepared to accept criticism. But I know of people who will excuse everything in foreign cultures while viewing their own culture with excessive criticism. I almost exploded when somebody told me that we shouldn't talk about a case of somebody being raped by a refugee because it would cast a negative light on refugees in general. That's certainly an attitude to be condemned. I think all refugees/immigrants who don't behave should just bugger off. They give all others a bad name.

What I have noticed, however, is that in England there is a huge tendency to ignore problems or controversial subjects.


What got me in the end was English politeness. In the beginning I was so taken by the country because everybody was so "nice", but at the end of 5 years, I often felt that the politeness covered a lack of true feelings for others and that people didn't mean many things they said. I still feel great cultural affinity for the Brits, but I'm not sure I would have liked to stay there for the rest of my life. Well, Brexit proved me right.

The Eastern Europeans I have talked to are always much more frank and open about historical and political subjects. For example, a Polish man I knew for barely five minutes invited me to his house for tea and cake and told me his life story, about his family history and the political situation of his country.


That's often the case when we get to know another culture. Many things seem so new and refreshing because we are not yet entangled in the net of relations that bind us to the conventions of our own culture. But make no mistake, the same net of relations will bind you once you integrate into another culture. After 50 years abroad, I see my native country a lot more positive than I ever did while still living there.

I don’t know how it is in Germany but in the UK white criminality is in many cases a gateway to the far right.


I get what you are saying, but I think it only applies to a small minority. White thugs might join a bike gang, become football hooligans or join the neo-Nazis because they need the group as a family they never had, just like others become Islmaists to find a meaning in life and a group that props up their frail self-esteem. Funny enough, there are even cases of neo-Nazis becoming Islamist. It's all the same.
#15061636
Patrickov wrote:No, they should be stopped no less, but I doubt that blaming it on a certain racial group is constructive.

Or I should ask this question instead: What should be the solution if we assume this hypothesis to be true?


Incredible. You say that blaming a certain racial group is not constructive! Do I assume too much if I assume you actually read the OP? There is an absolute mass of evidence to show that in this country Pakistanis, or British Pakistanis, or men of Pakistani heritage who lets not forget make up a fraction of the UK population, are responsible for the vast majority of what is euphemistically called, 'sex grooming' gangs, in which children are repeatedly raped, trafficked and sold for sex.

For at least two decades political correctness has ruled supreme. The government police and social services have officially endorsed your point of view and steadfastly stood by the minority appeasing dictum, for the sake of 'community cohesion', that gangs of Pakistani men are no more likely to rape traffic and sell children for sex than any other group including the white English majority. Yet with each new gang of Pakistani child rapists that are sent to prison [36 so far and counting] This disgusting minority appeasing argument is becoming increasingly transparent.

Were it not for Nazir Afzal, the former chief crown prosecutor for the north west of England, the Rochdale 'grooming gang' would never have gone to trial. He insisted the police took action and was very vocal in his condemnation of Pakistani child rapists in this country. The Home Secretary Sajid Javid when talking about this crime referred to the offenders as "Sick Asian Paedophiles" and suggested he may, where possible, look at stripping those convicted of British citizenship. And rightly so.

I'm embarrassed that the only people in this country who are willing to put their heads above the politically correct parapet and tell the truth, are themselves, of Pakistani heritage. Don't missunderstand me, I'm not embarrassed for them, I'm embarrassed for the many powerful police councilors social workers and politicians [Other than Sarah Champion] who are afraid to tell the truth in case some weak spineless liberal shouts 'racist', the word of our epoch.
#15061642
Red Rackham wrote:Incredible. You say that blaming a certain racial group is not constructive! Do I assume too much if I assume you actually read the OP? There is an absolute mass of evidence to show that in this country Pakistanis, or British Pakistanis, or men of Pakistani heritage who lets not forget make up a fraction of the UK population, are responsible for the vast majority of what is euphemistically called, 'sex grooming' gangs, in which children are repeatedly raped, trafficked and sold for sex.


The video was too long and I admit I do not have the heart to watch it in full. But seriously, the OP did not explicitly say any racial group being solely responsible, only the comments under it are. One thing I do agree is that the authorities are being criminally incompetent.


Red Rackham wrote:For at least two decades political correctness has ruled supreme. The government police and social services have officially endorsed your point of view and steadfastly stood by the minority appeasing dictum, for the sake of 'community cohesion', that gangs of Pakistani men are no more likely to rape traffic and sell children for sex than any other group including the white English majority. Yet with each new gang of Pakistani child rapists that are sent to prison [36 so far and counting] This disgusting minority appeasing argument is becoming increasingly transparent.

Were it not for Nazir Afzal, the former chief crown prosecutor for the north west of England, the Rochdale 'grooming gang' would never have gone to trial. He insisted the police took action and was very vocal in his condemnation of Pakistani child rapists in this country. The Home Secretary Sajid Javid when talking about this crime referred to the offenders as "Sick Asian Paedophiles" and suggested he may, where possible, look at stripping those convicted of British citizenship. And rightly so.

I'm embarrassed that the only people in this country who are willing to put their heads above the politically correct parapet and tell the truth, are themselves, of Pakistani heritage. Don't missunderstand me, I'm not embarrassed for them, I'm embarrassed for the many powerful police councilors social workers and politicians [Other than Sarah Champion] who are afraid to tell the truth in case some weak spineless liberal shouts 'racist', the word of our epoch.


I'd blame it on the Nazis, who made a rather reckless approach in implementing their ideal society, and subsequently losing a World War, that made racism suffer a major (some might call reactionary) rebuttal.

----------

On a side note, this is why I do not prefer emigration despite many around me urge me to. IMHO the West had made a mistake of allowing their colonies to gain independence or be returned to the host country before the said occupation. Local incompetence forced people to run to the West, but the immigrants' ways are incompatible or even inferior that the migration simply caused more problems.
#15062000
Truth To Power wrote:Where have Muslims come to political dominance and not mistreated non-Muslims with impunity?


Mistreating minorities? That pretty much sounds like literally everyone through out human history.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Coronavirus fvcking my portfolio got me feeling li[…]

You're missing the point. The point is that so[…]

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange claims that Presi[…]

Gettin' wrecked by Hindsite up in here might be ti[…]