So a left wing politician dares to point out that

[Monty92]

the grooming of underage white girls is predominantly a Pakistani problem and is promptly forced to resign following the backlash.

And the rumours are that Corbyn would have pushed her had she not jumped.

When thousands of child rapes isn't enough to force our political class to prioritise child protection over political correctness, it becomes literally impossible to have any hope left for where we are heading.

[Sir C]

the grooming of underage white girls is predominantly a Pakistani problem and is promptly forced to resign following the backlash.

And the rumours are that Corbyn would have pushed her had she not jumped.

When thousands of child rapes isn't enough to force our political class to prioritise child protection over political correctness, it becomes literally impossible to have any hope left for where we are heading.

Meanwhile, the world loses its collective shít over a march by 'nazis', but watches on without comment when the Left regularly marches under the hammer and sickle. :shrug:

We're fúcked.

[Burney]

the grooming of underage white girls is predominantly a Pakistani problem and is promptly forced to resign following the backlash.

And the rumours are that Corbyn would have pushed her had she not jumped.

When thousands of child rapes isn't enough to force our political class to prioritise child protection over political correctness, it becomes literally impossible to have any hope left for where we are heading.

It's not even political correctness. It's hard electoral calculation. These people already wield enough political clout to divert public discourse away from topics that paint them in a bad light. As their demographic strength gets greater, there will be much worse to follow as they start to set the public agenda.

[Monty92]

It's not even political correctness. It's hard electoral calculation. These people already wield enough political clout to divert public discourse away from topics that paint them in a bad light. As their demographic strength gets greater, there will be much worse to follow as they start to set the public agenda.

Yes, but the tacit support they receive from your average liberal is, I believe, in the name of political correctness rather than electoral calculation. When a liberal in the street doesn't speak out against Pakistani grooming gangs, it's not because they worry about it losing Labour the next election by alienating Asian voters. They're just scared of being called racist or aligning themselves with individuals and parties that their Facebook friends deem beyond the pale.

[Burney]

Meanwhile, the world loses its collective shít over a march by 'nazis', but watches on without comment when the Left regularly marches under the hammer and sickle. :shrug:

We're fúcked.

I'm a bit confused with all these statues. Are these people just being allowed to haul them down as they see fit or what? Surely this is illegal destruction of public property?

By the way, some idiot septic was on twitter last night asking what sort of country has statues to people who lost wars. I pointed him in the direction of Ireland. :hehe:

[Burney]

Yes, but the tacit support they receive from your average liberal is, I believe, in the name of political correctness rather than electoral calcuilation. When a liberal in the street doesn't speak out against Pakistani grooming gangs, it's not because they worry about it losing Labour the next election by alienating Asian voters. They're just scared of being called racist or aligning themselves with individuals and parties that their Facebook friends deem beyond the pale.

Of course. But they're just the easily-cowed useful idiots. It's scumbag MPs across the House who look at their seat's demographics before deciding how they feel about mass rape of underage girls for whom I reserve my most vicious condemnation.

[Monty92]

Of course. But they're just the easily-cowed useful idiots. It's scumbag MPs across the House who look at their seat's demographics before deciding how they feel about mass rape of underage girls for whom I reserve my most vicious condemnation.

Sarah Champion herself has also shown her true colours, despite her commendable response after the Newcastle convictions, when she said she'd been awake all night thinking about all of these girls who had been raped and enough was enough, we have to face the reality of where this problem is coming from.

Now she's effectively been forced out of her job. So if she truly cared about those young white girls that she claimed lost her a night's sleep, she would be all over the press, condemning the fact she's been forced out, and being more vocal than ever about the whole issue.

But of course, the chances of her doing so are zero, and she will keep a low profile and wait to be offered another job within the Labour party.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

Hopefully she will save it all up for the weekend and speak out on the Andrew Marr show

[Peter]

Sarah Champion herself has also shown her true colours, despite her commendable response after the Newcastle convictions, when she said she'd been awake all night thinking about all of these girls who had been raped and enough was enough, we have to face the reality of where this problem is coming from.

Now she's effectively been forced out of her job. So if she truly cared about those young white girls that she claimed lost her a night's sleep, she would be all over the press, condemning the fact she's been forced out, and being more vocal than ever about the whole issue.

But of course, the chances of her doing so are zero, and she will keep a low profile and wait to be offered another job within the Labour party.

Give her a ****ing chance. She said one thing and got fired for it, watching the political class close its ranks.

Only fair to let her have a think about her next move.

Anyway, you are missing a crucial point here. A local councillor in Newcastle (Asian) explained that asking the Asian community to take responsibility for this is like asking the white community to take responsibility for Jimmy Saville.

Even I wanted to smack the smug **** in the face.

[Peter]

Of course. But they're just the easily-cowed useful idiots. It's scumbag MPs across the House who look at their seat's demographics before deciding how they feel about mass rape of underage girls for whom I reserve my most vicious condemnation.

See, this is where your principle of representation runs aground. Looking at their seat's demographics can just as easily be described as representing the views of their constituents.

[Monty92]

Give her a ****ing chance. She said one thing and got fired for it, watching the political class close its ranks.

Only fair to let her have a think about her next move.

Anyway, you are missing a crucial point here. A local councillor in Newcastle (Asian) explained that asking the Asian community to take responsibility for this is like asking the white community to take responsibility for Jimmy Saville.

Even I wanted to smack the smug **** in the face.

But you won't admit it's a Muslim problem :shrug:

[Burney]

See, this is where your principle of representation runs aground. Looking at their seat's demographics can just as easily be described as representing the views of their constituents.

If your constituents' views are that the mass rape of white girls isn't that big a deal, I don't think there's any duty to represent them. Indeed, you have a duty not to.

[Burney]

Give her a ****ing chance. She said one thing and got fired for it, watching the political class close its ranks.

Only fair to let her have a think about her next move.

Anyway, you are missing a crucial point here. A local councillor in Newcastle (Asian) explained that asking the Asian community to take responsibility for this is like asking the white community to take responsibility for Jimmy Saville.

Even I wanted to smack the smug **** in the face.

If Jimmy Savile had selectively and systematically targeted girls of a different race, culture and religion because of those factors, the stupid cùnts who come out with this argument might have a point.

As it is, they don't.

[Monty92]

If your constituents' views are that the mass rape of white girls isn't that big a deal, I don't think there's any duty to represent them. Indeed, you have a duty not to.

I think Peter might argue that their consituents' views are more likely to be along the lines of "We condemn the mass rape of white girls, but we refuse to be held responsible simply because we share the same ethnicity as the perpetrators and reject any suggestion that their actions are rooted in the faith that we also share. Please represent our views by pushing back against the idea that this is a problem within our community, as this will only add fuel to the racism and bigotry that we already experience as a minority group"

[Peter]

But you won't admit it's a Muslim problem :shrug:

Its committed by asian men, most of whom are Muslims. It strongly suggests that there is some issue with how members of these communities view young white women (as they are always the target).

Without question, it is an issues for these communities to address. Refusing to do so, refusing to even accept that there is an issue, is bull****. Its also a tremendously inhumane response to see this as a race issue and ignore the multitude of victims.

The whole situation becomes rather difficult when you refer to it as a 'muslim problem' or refer to the perpetrators as Pakistani when plenty of them aren't. It is also rather difficult to refer to a single community which doesn't actually exist.

I have no problem saying that the members of these gangs seem to be almost exclusively muslim. I know you want to go back down the path of blaming the entire religion for it. Would I help if I told you that was exactly the wrong thing to do if you are actually interested in stopping it happening?

[Burney]

I think Peter might argue that their consituents' views are more likely to be along the lines of "We condemn the mass rape of white girls, but we refuse to be held responsible simply because we share the same ethnicity as the perpetrators and reject any suggestion that their actions are rooted in the faith that we also share. Please represent our views by pushing back against the idea that this is a problem within our community, as this will only add fuel to the racism and bigotry that we already experience as a minority group"

He probably would. But those sentiments are really just a smokescreen for a group who either don't care or don't want to face up to red reality that there is a demonstrable link between these crimes and the ethnicity, culture and religion of most of their perpetrators.

[Peter]

If Jimmy Savile had selectively and systematically targeted girls of a different race, culture and religion because of those factors, the stupid cùnts who come out with this argument might have a point.

As it is, they don't.

You could also argue that the white community has dealt very decisively with the whole 'celebrities abusing children' issue. Some would say they went too far in chasing historic allegations.

[Sir C]

Its committed by asian men, most of whom are Muslims. It strongly suggests that there is some issue with how members of these communities view young white women (as they are always the target).

Without question, it is an issues for these communities to address. Refusing to do so, refusing to even accept that there is an issue, is bull****. Its also a tremendously inhumane response to see this as a race issue and ignore the multitude of victims.

The whole situation becomes rather difficult when you refer to it as a 'muslim problem' or refer to the perpetrators as Pakistani when plenty of them aren't. It is also rather difficult to refer to a single community which doesn't actually exist.

I have no problem saying that the members of these gangs seem to be almost exclusively muslim. I know you want to go back down the path of blaming the entire religion for it. Would I help if I told you that was exactly the wrong thing to do if you are actually interested in stopping it happening?

A Muslim mayor speaks:

700

[Peter]

If your constituents' views are that the mass rape of white girls isn't that big a deal, I don't think there's any duty to represent them. Indeed, you have a duty not to.

And what if your constituents' views are that they don't like foreigners, they hate them coming over here and taking our jobs and therefore want a referendum on the EU? Is it ok to view that kind of racism as unacceptable and ignore their wishes for 40 years?

[Monty92]

Its committed by asian men, most of whom are Muslims. It strongly suggests that there is some issue with how members of these communities view young white women (as they are always the target).

Without question, it is an issues for these communities to address. Refusing to do so, refusing to even accept that there is an issue, is bull****. Its also a tremendously inhumane response to see this as a race issue and ignore the multitude of victims.

The whole situation becomes rather difficult when you refer to it as a 'muslim problem' or refer to the perpetrators as Pakistani when plenty of them aren't. It is also rather difficult to refer to a single community which doesn't actually exist.

I have no problem saying that the members of these gangs seem to be almost exclusively muslim. I know you want to go back down the path of blaming the entire religion for it. Would I help if I told you that was exactly the wrong thing to do if you are actually interested in stopping it happening?

You say "some issue with how members of these communities view young white women" as if we don't know what that issue is. As if it's a big fúcking mystery that we just can't unravel, however hard we look

But it isn't. The answer is in the The Holy Quran and its associated scriptures. Honestly, read it. It's all there, and leaves absolutely no ambiguity about why those who believe the book is the immutable word of God may feel justified in raping underage white girls.

So yes, in this sense, I do blame the whole religion. How can you not?

[Burney]

Its committed by asian men, most of whom are Muslims. It strongly suggests that there is some issue with how members of these communities view young white women (as they are always the target).

Without question, it is an issues for these communities to address. Refusing to do so, refusing to even accept that there is an issue, is bull****. Its also a tremendously inhumane response to see this as a race issue and ignore the multitude of victims.

The whole situation becomes rather difficult when you refer to it as a 'muslim problem' or refer to the perpetrators as Pakistani when plenty of them aren't. It is also rather difficult to refer to a single community which doesn't actually exist.

I have no problem saying that the members of these gangs seem to be almost exclusively muslim. I know you want to go back down the path of blaming the entire religion for it. Would I help if I told you that was exactly the wrong thing to do if you are actually interested in stopping it happening?

Hmmm. This community that doesn't exist is regularly referred to by these same politicians in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, when we are regularly told not to hold them responsible for the actions of a crazy few and their 'community leaders' are wheeled out to mouth some half-arsed platitudes. So it seems that they do exist when it suits and not when it doesn't.

Equally, of course, 'white people' regularly get called out for every ill under the sun and they're not a single community, either.

[Monty92]

And what if your constituents' views are that they don't like foreigners, they hate them coming over here and taking our jobs and therefore want a referendum on the EU? Is it ok to view that kind of racism as unacceptable and ignore their wishes for 40 years?

Why is not liking a foreigner for taking your job racist?

[Peter]

He probably would. But those sentiments are really just a smokescreen for a group who either don't care or don't want to face up to red reality that there is a demonstrable link between these crimes and the ethnicity, culture and religion of most of their perpetrators.

That is, without hesitation, accurate. A very clear and undeniable link involving those three aspects.

[Peter]

Why is not liking a foreigner for taking your job racist?

Why don't you read the entire sentence?

[Peter]

Hmmm. This community that doesn't exist is regularly referred to by these same politicians in the aftermath of terrorist attacks, when we are regularly told not to hold them responsible for the actions of a crazy few and their 'community leaders' are wheeled out to mouth some half-arsed platitudes. So it seems that they do exist when it suits and not when it doesn't.

Equally, of course, 'white people' regularly get called out for every ill under the sun and they're not a single community, either.

It doesn't exist as one community. It isn't as easy to control as some people like to make out. Which is also why this issue is no quick fix.

[Burney]

And what if your constituents' views are that they don't like foreigners, they hate them coming over here and taking our jobs and therefore want a referendum on the EU? Is it ok to view that kind of racism as unacceptable and ignore their wishes for 40 years?

Even if we accept your rather crude representation of those feelings and accept that they underlie the leave vote (which I do not, for the record), the fact remains that none of those views involves tacitly supporting illegality. You may not like those views, but they are nonetheless valid.

[Peter]

You say "some issue with how members of these communities view young white women" as if we don't know what that issue is. As if it's a big fúcking mystery that we just can't unravel, however hard we look

But it isn't. The answer is in the The Holy Quran and its associated scriptures. Honestly, read it. It's all there, and leaves absolutely no ambiguity about why those who believe the book is the immutable word of God may feel justified in raping underage white girls.

So yes, in this sense, I do blame the whole religion. How can you not?

The problem with blaming the whole religion is that it implies that you blame everyone in it. Do you?

[Monty92]

Why don't you read the entire sentence?

I refer you to Burney's previous response. If your constituents don't like foreigners because of bare-faced ethno-nationalism, then they don't have any duty to represent them.

[Peter]

Even if we accept your rather crude representation of those feelings and accept that they underlie the leave vote (which I do not, for the record), the fact remains that none of those views involves tacitly supporting illegality. You may not like those views, but they are nonetheless valid.

So it is illegal to think that grooming gangs are 'not a big deal'....?

I wasn't suggesting that the leave vote was based on racism, don't drag me there. It was, as you say, a crude representation.

[Peter]

I refer you to Burney's previous response. If your constituents don't like foreigners because of bare-faced ethno-nationalism, then they don't have any duty to represent them.

That isn't what Berni said. Quite the opposite.

[Monty92]

The problem with blaming the whole religion is that it implies that you blame everyone in it. Do you?

Of course not and why on earth does it imply that? Islam is a set of ideas, nothing more. Bad ideas provoke people into doing bad things. But people who believe in bad ideas but don't do bad things cannot be held responsible for those who do. They should, of course, be ridiculed out of believing bad ideas and sharply reminded where bad ideas can lead, but that is where the opprobrium should end.

[Burney]

It doesn't exist as one community. It isn't as easy to control as some people like to make out. Which is also why this issue is no quick fix.

My point is that no all-encompassing 'community' exists in that sense. Such terms are always imposed from without and are invariably inaccurate.

That does not, however, alter the fact that, were one to look at these crimes in an epidemiological manner, only a fool would dismiss the clear correlation between the ethnicity, culture and religion of its perpetrators and the incidence of such criminality. From such evidence, any decent epidemiologist would feel there were reasonable grounds for assuming and investigating a causal link.

So the point is this: if we would apply this logic in a scientific sense without a moment's hesitation, why would we not apply it here?

The answer, of course, is cowardice.

[Peter]

Of course not and why on earth does it imply that? Islam is a set of ideas, nothing more. Bad ideas provoke people into doing bad things. But people who believe in bad ideas but don't do bad things cannot be held responsible for those who do. They should, of course, be ridiculed out of believing bad ideas, but that is where it should end.

Islam effectively tells muslim men that it is ok to rape young white girls. The religion itself is therefore to blame when muslim men do this.

Thus every muslim man is a potential raper of young white girls. Indeed, the more devout his faith, the more likely he is to do it. Or something similar.

I am not accusing you of this, by the way. But can you see how someone might follow that thread? And why it is dangerous?

[Peter]

My point is that no all-encompassing 'community' exists in that sense. Such terms are always imposed from without and are invariably inaccurate.

That does not, however, alter the fact that, were one to look at these crimes in an epidemiological manner, only a fool would dismiss the clear correlation between the ethnicity, culture and religion of its perpetrators and the incidence of such criminality. From such evidence, any decent epidemiologist would feel there were reasonable grounds for assuming and investigating a causal link.

So the point is this: if we would apply this logic in a scientific sense without a moment's hesitation, why would we not apply it here?

The answer, of course, is cowardice.

I am not disagreeing with the link. I am saying that this is not one, clear cut community you can enter and deal with.

When we criticise 'community leaders' for not dealing with it we are often drastically exaggerating their ability to do so.

[Monty92]

Islam effectively tells muslim men that it is ok to rape young white girls. The religion itself is therefore to blame when muslim men do this.

Thus every muslim man is a potential raper of young white girls. Indeed, the more devout his faith, the more likely he is to do it. Or something similar.

I am not accusing you of this, by the way. But can you see how someone might follow that thread? And why it is dangerous?

But no-one thinks that every Christian or Jew is a potential killer of homos, even though their respective holy books advocates them being so. That is because the Christian and Hebrew holy books have been neutered after we decided as a civilisation that they were no longer compatible with how we want to live and co-exist.

Our job is to do the exact same with Islam. That begins with naming and being honest about the problem. There follows a very long and painful - but necessary - journey. But you just won't come along.

[Burney]

The problem with blaming the whole religion is that it implies that you blame everyone in it. Do you?

This is the problem right here. We have conflated race and religion to such an extent in the case of Islam that we have forgotten that they aren't even close to being the same thing. Islam is a religion - a set of ideas upon which people are expected to base their lives and - like any set of ideas - it is a valid target for criticism.

I'm a Catholic (albeit nominally) and, if you ask me whether Catholicism bears some responsibility for the many crimes of priests against children I would say that it absolutely does. Nothing controversial about that whatsoever.

However, if you suggest that Islam as a creed may bear some responsibility for the actions and attitudes we see in Rotherham, Rochdale and Newcastle, it won't be long before you're shouted down as racist. Why the difference?

[Peter]

But no-one thinks that every Christian or Jew is a potential killer of homos, even though their respective holy books advocates them being so. That is because the Christian and Hebrew holy books have been neutered after we decided as a civilisation that they were no longer compatible with how we want to live and co-exist.

Our job is to do the exact same with Islam. That begins with naming and being honest about the problem. There follows a very long and painful - but necessary - journey. But you just won't come along.

Hmmm... well, of course, the holy books themselves have not been amended in any way. This neutering you speak is of is our modern understanding of the literal passages and our shared belief in how they should shape our behaviour.

In other words, our interpretation of the original scripture. This is the very point I was making to you last week and that you described as a red herring. That a religion can be separated from its original incarnation. And by definition, from any ghastly future *******isation of it.

So when the KKK lynch black people the world is able to separate this from global christianity, even though the clowns are claiming to do it in the name of Christ.

The situation with Islam is the same but for some reason you refuse to accept that it has already happened. You still wish to blame Islam for everything done in its name and resist any argument regarding interpretation as a red herring or a straw man.

I am happy to sit here and agree that some muslin men in britain clearly have an appalling attitude to young, white women and a very small minority do horrific things to them. I would also agree that we are reluctant to admit this because of fears about being labelled racist. I would also agree that the communities these men stem from should be concerned by this and should tackle it in some way.

What I refuse to do is partially absolve these ****s by believing that their religion told them to do it. **** that.

[Peter]

This is the problem right here. We have conflated race and religion to such an extent in the case of Islam that we have forgotten that they aren't even close to being the same thing. Islam is a religion - a set of ideas upon which people are expected to base their lives and - like any set of ideas - it is a valid target for criticism.

I'm a Catholic (albeit nominally) and, if you ask me whether Catholicism bears some responsibility for the many crimes of priests against children I would say that it absolutely does. Nothing controversial about that whatsoever.

However, if you suggest that Islam as a creed may bear some responsibility for the actions and attitudes we see in Rotherham, Rochdale and Newcastle, it won't be long before you're shouted down as racist. Why the difference?

You know why. Not that that makes it ok.

[Burney]

You know why. Not that that makes it ok.

Of course I do. It's because most muslims are brown. And to a certain type of white liberal, having brown skin exempts you from having to answer hard questions about your beliefs and ideas.

Which, if you think about it, is pretty fúcking racist. :hehe:

[Peter]

Of course I do. It's because most muslims are brown. And to a certain type of white liberal, having brown skin exempts you from having to answer hard questions about your beliefs and ideas.

Which, if you think about it, is pretty fúcking racist. :hehe:

I was going to say they are almost exlusively asian, ethnic minorities and there is a global tension between islam as a creed and, well, everyone else but mainly white, western people. You know, the whole fundamental islamic terrorism thing.

White western people tend to refer to muslims as one great mass of people.

[Monty92]

Hmmm... well, of course, the holy books themselves have not been amended in any way. This neutering you speak is of is our modern understanding of the literal passages and our shared belief in how they should shape our behaviour.

In other words, our interpretation of the original scripture. This is the very point I was making to you last week and that you described as a red herring. That a religion can be separated from its original incarnation. And by definition, from any ghastly future *******isation of it.

So when the KKK lynch black people the world is able to separate this from global christianity, even though the clowns are claiming to do it in the name of Christ.

The situation with Islam is the same but for some reason you refuse to accept that it has already happened. You still wish to blame Islam for everything done in its name and resist any argument regarding interpretation as a red herring or a straw man.

I am happy to sit here and agree that some muslin men in britain clearly have an appalling attitude to young, white women and a very small minority do horrific things to them. I would also agree that we are reluctant to admit this because of fears about being labelled racist. I would also agree that the communities these men stem from should be concerned by this and should tackle it in some way.

What I refuse to do is partially absolve these ****s by believing that their religion told them to do it. **** that.

Yes, I refuse to accept that it has already happened because it demonstrably hasn't. Jihadists and child rapists are merely on the inside of a collection of concentric circles, but on the outside are the millions upon millions with views about human rights, women’s rights, and gay rights that are incompatible with the kind of civilisation we should all want to live in.

Have you not seen the polls conducted in recent years about the views of Muslims in the UK and Europe on such issues? And you believe that Islam has already achieved a kind of reformation?

[Burney]

I was going to say they are almost exlusively asian, ethnic minorities and there is a global tension between islam as a creed and, well, everyone else but mainly white, western people. You know, the whole fundamental islamic terrorism thing.

White western people tend to refer to muslims as one great mass of people.

But the liberal pandering to these communities pre-dates all that. Ray Honeyford was sacked in the early 80s for daring to suggest that certain practices of the local Pakistani muslims in Bradford mitigated against good educational practice. Why? Because even then the fear of being called racist to people of brown skin trumped all other concerns for the sort of people who populate local government and the educational establishment. With time, it's got even worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Honeyford

The white liberal is still labouring under the delusion that this is still about race. It's not,They don't even grasp that the game has moved on from race and into ideology and practical considerations of the rule of law.

[World's End Stella]

Give her a ****ing chance. She said one thing and got fired for it, watching the political class close its ranks.

Only fair to let her have a think about her next move.

Anyway, you are missing a crucial point here. A local councillor in Newcastle (Asian) explained that asking the Asian community to take responsibility for this is like asking the white community to take responsibility for Jimmy Saville.

Even I wanted to smack the smug **** in the face.

She's already apologized and said she regretted her actions, has she not? :shrug:

[Monty92]

She's already apologized and said she regretted her actions, has she not? :shrug:

Indeed. The morally bankrupt ****.

[Peter]

Indeed. The morally bankrupt ****.


She also approved the piece before it was published save for one amendment. She felt the photo of her wasn't very flattering and sent five different photos for them to use instead.

Oh dear

[Monty92]

She also approved the piece before it was published save for one amendment. She felt the photo of her wasn't very flattering and sent five different photos for them to use instead.

Oh dear

In fairness to the silly bitch, I'd imagine there's a fair chance she didn't give final approval on the piece and she may well have objected to the headline and opening paragraph which were deliberately provocative, had it been here and not her team that gave sign off.

The photo thing is weird. It really is only women who give a shít about that kind of thing, isn't it? Why not just be mildly miffed and then get on with your life? How can it be so important to have an up-to-date photo?

[Peter]

Yes, I refuse to accept that it has already happened because it demonstrably hasn't. Jihadists and child rapists are merely on the inside of a collection of concentric circles, but on the outside are the millions upon millions with views about human rights, women’s rights, and gay rights that are incompatible with the kind of civilisation we should all want to live in.

Have you not seen the polls conducted in recent years about the views of Muslims in the UK and Europe on such issues? And you believe that Islam has already achieved a kind of reformation?

Oh, I am not saying they are all wonderfully enlightened liberals. And when I say it has happened I am not saying it is done and dusted.

In the broader scheme of women's rights and gay rights they are not alone. Plenty of the rest of the world has some catching up to do.


It is clear there is work to do within our own muslim communities. I can only tell you, having lived among huge muslin communities since I was a child, that the very idea of this kind of behaviour is as appalling to them to them as it is to you. There is plenty of goodwill to work with.

[Peter]

In fairness to the silly bitch, I'd imagine there's a fair chance she didn't give final approval on the piece and she may well have objected to the headline and opening paragraph which were deliberately provocative, had it been here and not her team that gave sign off.

The photo thing is weird. It really is only women who give a shít about that kind of thing, isn't it? Why not just be mildly miffed and then get on with your life? How can it be so important to have an up-to-date photo?

Her biggest mistake seems to have been suggesting it was a problem with pakistani men. THat isn't terribly accurate given the ethnic make up of most of these gangs.

****ing stupid mistake to make.

[Monty92]

Her biggest mistake seems to have been suggesting it was a problem with pakistani men. THat isn't terribly accurate given the ethnic make up of most of these gangs.

****ing stupid mistake to make.

Lols. You seriously reckon she'd have been fine had she been more forensic in how she described the statistical make-up of these blokes?

[redgunamo]

Oh, I am not saying they are all wonderfully enlightened liberals. And when I say it has happened I am not saying it is done and dusted.

In the broader scheme of women's rights and gay rights they are not alone. Plenty of the rest of the world has some catching up to do.


It is clear there is work to do within our own muslim communities. I can only tell you, having lived among huge muslin communities since I was a child, that the very idea of this kind of behaviour is as appalling to them to them as it is to you. There is plenty of goodwill to work with.

Do you speak their language, P, whatever it is?

[Monty92]

Oh, I am not saying they are all wonderfully enlightened liberals. And when I say it has happened I am not saying it is done and dusted.

In the broader scheme of women's rights and gay rights they are not alone. Plenty of the rest of the world has some catching up to do.


It is clear there is work to do within our own muslim communities. I can only tell you, having lived among huge muslin communities since I was a child, that the very idea of this kind of behaviour is as appalling to them to them as it is to you. There is plenty of goodwill to work with.

Can I ask, are you or are you not in favour of secularising Islam?

[Pokster]

Can I ask, are you or are you not in favour of secularising Islam?

Have you and Peter thought of setiing up a REHASHWIMB as you seem to keep posting the same crap over and over again every month or so

[Monty92]

Do you speak their language, P, whatever it is?

I do:

White girl = trash
Non-muslim = kuffir
Muslim who questions Islam = heretic
Anyone who draws a cartoon of Muhammed = blasphemer

It's a pretty simple language to learn, to be honest.

[Peter]

Lols. You seriously reckon she'd have been fine had she been more forensic in how she described the statistical make-up of these blokes?

Not necessarily. But she gave them a very easy stick to beat her with. Its one thin g to be thought a racist, quite another to be racist AND wrong.

[Sir C]

Have you and Peter thought of setiing up a REHASHWIMB as you seem to keep posting the same crap over and over again every month or so

I find their exchanges both enlightening and thought provoking :shrug:

[Peter]

Have you and Peter thought of setiing up a REHASHWIMB as you seem to keep posting the same crap over and over again every month or so

You always say that. Quite frankly it is becoming a bit ****ing boring. ;)

[Pokster]

You always say that. Quite frankly it is becoming a bit ****ing boring. ;)

touche wd p

[redgunamo]

I find their exchanges both enlightening and thought provoking :shrug:

Your mum is both enlightening and thought provoking.

[Sir C]

Your mum is both enlightening and thought provoking.

ty r. When I asked her her opinion of you she just told me you've got a huge knob. :-(

[Peter]

Can I ask, are you or are you not in favour of secularising Islam?

I want Islam to lighten the **** up and have a beer, metaphorically.

Good advice for anyone.

I care nothing for the religion itself, nor any other religion. I find them equally daft.

[Sir C]

I want Islam to lighten the **** up and have a beer, metaphorically.

Good advice for anyone.

I care nothing for the religion itself, nor any other religion. I find them equally daft.

There you have it. You understand, I hope, that it was your generation of leftists who discarded the religion which provided us with a ready-made, robust moral framework, and replaced it with... a vacuum, into which rolled the twin evils of cultural Marxism and Islam whihc are destroying our society.

[redgunamo]

I want Islam to lighten the **** up and have a beer, metaphorically.

Good advice for anyone.

I care nothing for the religion itself, nor any other religion. I find them equally daft.

I think you're incorrigible, you'll never learn :hehe:

[redgunamo]

ty r. When I asked her her opinion of you she just told me you've got a huge knob. :-(

I'm surprised she could tell, to be honest.

[Monty92]

I want Islam to lighten the **** up and have a beer, metaphorically.

Good advice for anyone.

I care nothing for the religion itself, nor any other religion. I find them equally daft.

I know that. I just wondered if you think it necessary for Islam to secularise to make the progress you acknowledge needs to be made. You seem to think we are already on a path towards a better Islam (i.e. a less devoutly practised Islam) though you beat around the bush of saying it by refusing to directly acknowledge the role of religion in the problems we see.

But that's fine, that's your perogative and I'm sure your motives are good, since you're not normally motivated by political correctness.

My question is whether your course of action is likely to work. I simply don't see how it can in a globalised world in which everyone who is in a position to do something about the problem, or is simply invested in solving this problem, is in one way of another stymied from doing so.

Am I right in saying that you believe Muslims must be on the frontline of reform? If so, are you aware quite how hard it is for Muslims to do this, and that the barriers to them doing so are erected by everyone, from other muslims, to politicians, to progressives?

[World's End Stella]

Hmmm... well, of course, the holy books themselves have not been amended in any way. This neutering you speak is of is our modern understanding of the literal passages and our shared belief in how they should shape our behaviour.

In other words, our interpretation of the original scripture. This is the very point I was making to you last week and that you described as a red herring. That a religion can be separated from its original incarnation. And by definition, from any ghastly future *******isation of it.

So when the KKK lynch black people the world is able to separate this from global christianity, even though the clowns are claiming to do it in the name of Christ.

The situation with Islam is the same but for some reason you refuse to accept that it has already happened. You still wish to blame Islam for everything done in its name and resist any argument regarding interpretation as a red herring or a straw man.

I am happy to sit here and agree that some muslin men in britain clearly have an appalling attitude to young, white women and a very small minority do horrific things to them. I would also agree that we are reluctant to admit this because of fears about being labelled racist. I would also agree that the communities these men stem from should be concerned by this and should tackle it in some way.

What I refuse to do is partially absolve these ****s by believing that their religion told them to do it. **** that.

I have heard many members of the KKK or similar groups spout their garbage over the years, I don't recall any of them ever claiming that the bible was their justification. Every member of ISIS I have ever heard speak claims that Islam and the Koran is their justification, without exception.

And my point isn't so much that Islam is to blame, more that Islam must therefore be part of the solution. This then goes back to community leaders, mosques, imams etc having to be involved. Blaming only the individuals involved is too easy and won't solve the problem.

[Peter]

I know that. I just wondered if you think it necessary for Islam to secularise to make the progress you acknowledge needs to be made. You seem to think we are already on a path towards a better Islam (i.e. a less devoutly practised Islam) though you beat around the bush of saying it by refusing to directly acknowledge the role of religion in the problems we see.

But that's fine, that's your perogative and I'm sure your motives are good, since you're not normally motivated by political correctness.

My question is whether your course of action is likely to work. I simply don't see how it can in a globalised world in which everyone who is in a position to do something about the problem, or is simply invested in solving this problem, is in one way of another stymied from doing so.

Am I right in saying that you believe Muslims must be on the frontline of reform? If so, are you aware quite how hard it is for Muslims to do this, and that the barriers to them doing so are erected by everyone, from other muslims, to politicians, to progressives?

Yes, of course it does. and it has more work to do than most, and it has to come from them.

However....the fact that plenty of muslims deplore this stuff (and the terrorism by the way) shows that there are large parts of our muslim communities (the overwhelming majority I would say) that have made this progress already. If you want their broader attitudes to women and gays to be consistent with ours then that will take longer.

I am not saying the religion plays no role in it. My point is that demonising the entire religion demonises all those within it. It is ok for someone like you to think like this. When notions like this are given the terminally hard of thinking we have a problem on our hands.

[Peter]

I have heard many members of the KKK or similar groups spout their garbage over the years, I don't recall any of them ever claiming that the bible was their justification. Every member of ISIS I have ever heard speak claims that Islam and the Koran is their justification, without exception.

And my point isn't so much that Islam is to blame, more that Islam must therefore be part of the solution. This then goes back to community leaders, mosques, imams etc having to be involved. Blaming only the individuals involved is too easy and won't solve the problem.

You don't think the KKK espoused Christianity?

The burning cross didn't give you a clue??

[Peter]

I think you're incorrigible, you'll never learn :hehe:

what one learns depends on what one knows.

You know that.

[World's End Stella]

You don't think the KKK espoused Christianity?

The burning cross didn't give you a clue??

Is burning a cross and using the bible and Christianity as a justification for your actions and views the same thing?

No, no it isn't.

[Peter]

Is burning a cross and using the bible and Christianity as a justification for your actions and views the same thing?

No, no it isn't.

No, it isn't. Its a clue. As is the oath to uphold Christian values. As is their victimisation of catholics and jews from WWI onwards....

Plenty more in there....take your pick.

[Burney]

No, it isn't. Its a clue. As is the oath to uphold Christian values. As is their victimisation of catholics and jews from WWI onwards....

Plenty more in there....take your pick.

Hang on. Victimising Catholics is Christian?

[World's End Stella]

No, it isn't. Its a clue. As is the oath to uphold Christian values. As is their victimisation of catholics and jews from WWI onwards....

Plenty more in there....take your pick.

I've not suggested that they have behaved abominably, quite the opposite. I've said that these groups do not use the bible and Christianity to justify their actions in the same way that ISIS uses Islam and the Koran.

Are you actually making the argument that they do? Seriously?

[Peter]

I've not suggested that they have behaved abominably, quite the opposite. I've said that these groups do not use the bible and Christianity to justify their actions in the same way that ISIS uses Islam and the Koran.

Are you actually making the argument that they do? Seriously?

I am suggesting that they always did, very publicly and with no reticence or doubt. They attacked Jews because they rejected Christ, they attacked Catholics for not being protestants and they take an oath to uphold Christian values. What more do you want?

I am not saying the current day clowns do the same. I don't know anything about them.

And I am not saying they were good, devout christians. Just that they aligned themselves with Christianity. It is a matter of fact.

[Peter]

Hang on. Victimising Catholics is Christian?

Not of itself. See my answer to WES.

[redgunamo]

Indeed. The morally bankrupt ****.

Exactly. You all have blood on your hands.

[Monty92]

Exactly. You all have blood on your hands.

Serves me right for assuming your mum was menopausal.

[redgunamo]

Serves me right for assuming your mum was menopausal.

Yeah, gpwm :-\

[Monty92]

Yes, of course it does. and it has more work to do than most, and it has to come from them.

However....the fact that plenty of muslims deplore this stuff (and the terrorism by the way) shows that there are large parts of our muslim communities (the overwhelming majority I would say) that have made this progress already. If you want their broader attitudes to women and gays to be consistent with ours then that will take longer.

I am not saying the religion plays no role in it. My point is that demonising the entire religion demonises all those within it. It is ok for someone like you to think like this. When notions like this are given the terminally hard of thinking we have a problem on our hands.

I don't agree that demonising the entire religion serves to demonise all those within it, and the claim that it does is used almost exclusively by people who have bad motives and want to shut down debate. In the Cold War, this was called 'semantic infiltration' and is a tactic used to control the parameters of debate through the control of language. In the case of Islamists, this tactic is seen in the reframing of the utterly meaningless word 'Islamopobia' to make it impossible for people to criticise Islam without being called a bigot.

If you're worried about a rise in anti-Muslim bigotry (of which there is of course plenty), then the best thing you could do to tackle this IS demonise the religion. Because it is the perpetual, almost pathalogical, reluctance to say that these problems are rooted in Islamic scripture that is doing more than anything to make people less inclined to differentiate between good and bad muslims and just lump them all in together.

[eastgermanautos]

Yes, but the tacit support they receive from your average liberal is, I believe, in the name of political correctness rather than electoral calculation. When a liberal in the street doesn't speak out against Pakistani grooming gangs, it's not because they worry about it losing Labour the next election by alienating Asian voters. They're just scared of being called racist or aligning themselves with individuals and parties that their Facebook friends deem beyond the pale.

Come on, you clowns. Looks at you, working yourselves into a froth about white hookers. As a black man, I resent it.

:-D

[Peter]

I don't agree that demonising the entire religion serves to demonise all those within it, and the claim that it does is used almost exclusively by people who have bad motives and want to shut down debate. In the Cold War, this was called 'semantic infiltration' and is a tactic used to control the parameters of debate through the control of language. In the case of Islamists, this tactic is seen in the reframing of the utterly meaningless word 'Islamopobia' to make it impossible for people to criticise Islam without being called a bigot.

If you're worried about a rise in anti-Muslim bigotry (of which there is of course plenty), then the best thing you could do to tackle this IS demonise the religion. Because it is the perpetual, almost pathalogical, reluctance to say that these problems are rooted in Islamic scripture that is doing more than anything to make people less inclined to differentiate between good and bad muslims and just lump them all in together.

We will have to pick this up again later, I am a bit busy this morning.

[Monty92]

In your own time


We will have to pick this up again later, I am a bit busy this morning.

[Peter]

I don't agree that demonising the entire religion serves to demonise all those within it, and the claim that it does is used almost exclusively by people who have bad motives and want to shut down debate. In the Cold War, this was called 'semantic infiltration' and is a tactic used to control the parameters of debate through the control of language. In the case of Islamists, this tactic is seen in the reframing of the utterly meaningless word 'Islamopobia' to make it impossible for people to criticise Islam without being called a bigot.

If you're worried about a rise in anti-Muslim bigotry (of which there is of course plenty), then the best thing you could do to tackle this IS demonise the religion. Because it is the perpetual, almost pathalogical, reluctance to say that these problems are rooted in Islamic scripture that is doing more than anything to make people less inclined to differentiate between good and bad muslims and just lump them all in together.

We can argue back and forth about whether it demonises the entire religion. Likewise, we can argue over whether different interpretations of Islam already exist. For example, many Islamic scholars will tell you that fundamentalism (strict adherence to archaic values and the most vicious forms of sharia) is a relatively recent movement in Islam and a reaction to the dispersal of muslim populations to (particularly) non-muslim countries. I wouldn’t be confident enough to comment on that.

The bigger, broader principle here is whether you can blame an original text for what people or groups choose to do with it. Is Catcher in the Rye responsible for the death of John Lennon? Was Clause 4 to blame for British Rail being so ****? Would the Old Testament be to blame if some new crazy organisation decided to start enacting some of the crazy **** contained in it?

By blaming the script you partially absolve these individual rapists of their desire to rape, or of the horrific consequences of their views on white women. You also present the millions of good muslims with the notion that their religion is sick and twisted in a way that others aren’t. You also ignore the fact that these guys, alongside being evil ****s, were also pretty **** muslims- for one thing, they were drinking and taking drugs. Proof if any were needed that they are not exactly Quran-clutching zealots on some sort of holy mission.

I am not suggesting there is no link whatsoever between these acts and the ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds of those committing them. The numbers confirm that. You seem to skate past this clutch of issues and go straight back to scripture despite the fact that these individuals never mentioned it, never cited it as motive and clearly haven’t ****ing read or taken note of significant parts of it.

There is a difference between saying there are problems with social attitudes within our muslim communities and there is a problem with Islamic scripture. Apart from anything else, if scripture is the problem how do you propose to solve it? You can’t change the word of God? I don't see how blaming scripture helps separate good and bad muslims.

[redgunamo]

We can argue back and forth about whether it demonises the entire religion. Likewise, we can argue over whether different interpretations of Islam already exist. For example, many Islamic scholars will tell you that fundamentalism (strict adherence to archaic values and the most vicious forms of sharia) is a relatively recent movement in Islam and a reaction to the dispersal of muslim populations to (particularly) non-muslim countries. I wouldn’t be confident enough to comment on that.

The bigger, broader principle here is whether you can blame an original text for what people or groups choose to do with it. Is Catcher in the Rye responsible for the death of John Lennon? Was Clause 4 to blame for British Rail being so ****? Would the Old Testament be to blame if some new crazy organisation decided to start enacting some of the crazy **** contained in it?

By blaming the script you partially absolve these individual rapists of their desire to rape, or of the horrific consequences of their views on white women. You also present the millions of good muslims with the notion that their religion is sick and twisted in a way that others aren’t. You also ignore the fact that these guys, alongside being evil ****s, were also pretty **** muslims- for one thing, they were drinking and taking drugs. Proof if any were needed that they are not exactly Quran-clutching zealots on some sort of holy mission.

I am not suggesting there is no link whatsoever between these acts and the ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds of those committing them. The numbers confirm that. You seem to skate past this clutch of issues and go straight back to scripture despite the fact that these individuals never mentioned it, never cited it as motive and clearly haven’t ****ing read or taken note of significant parts of it.

There is a difference between saying there are problems with social attitudes within our muslim communities and there is a problem with Islamic scripture. Apart from anything else, if scripture is the problem how do you propose to solve it? You can’t change the word of God? I don't see how blaming scripture helps separate good and bad muslims.

Right. Rather like blaming football, or football supporters in general, for football hooliganism, back in the day.

[Ash]

Right. Rather like blaming football, or football supporters in general, for football hooliganism, back in the day.

It's what St Margaret did. :shrug:

[Peter]

It's what St Margaret did. :shrug:

Yes but then she also blamed unemployment on the unemployed. She had a habit of being quite dismissive of things she didn't give a **** about.

[redgunamo]

It's what St Margaret did. :shrug:

Yes, and we all know, and knew, she was very wrong. That's the point.

[Burney]

Yes but then she also blamed unemployment on the unemployed. She had a habit of being quite dismissive of things she didn't give a **** about.

Yes. She was great, wasn't she? :cloud9:

[redgunamo]

Yes but then she also blamed unemployment on the unemployed. She had a habit of being quite dismissive of things she didn't give a **** about.


Representing the views of her constituents, some might call it :-)

[Burney]

Yes, and we all know, and knew, she was very wrong. That's the point.

I'm not sure she was, tbf. Football fans used to love the violence - even if just vicariously. Football fans tolerated and even encouraged it.

[Peter]

I'm not sure she was, tbf. Football fans used to love the violence - even if just vicariously. Football fans tolerated and even encouraged it.

I didn't like it. I am a coward. I was quite scared.

[Peter]

Representing the views of her constituents, some might call it :-)

The ones who voted for her, yes.

[Burney]

I didn't like it. I am a coward. I was quite scared.

Yes, well it was quite scary close up. But people still cheered when it was going off at the other end of the ground.

[redgunamo]

I'm not sure she was, tbf. Football fans used to love the violence - even if just vicariously. Football fans tolerated and even encouraged it.

No doubt there was a little crossover, at least in spirit, but the proper hoolies, which were the real concern, were mainly of a different sort altogether from the vast majority of regular football supporters.

[Peter]

Yes, well it was quite scary close up. But people still cheered when it was going off at the other end of the ground.

Blokes innit. Trying to look hard.

[Burney]

Blokes innit. Trying to look hard.

Sure, but it's easy to see how that might be perceived as encouraging violence isn't it?

[redgunamo]

Sure, but it's easy to see how that might be perceived as encouraging violence isn't it?

Nobody really minds violence, I think. It just seems to matter whether one gets it coming or going, as it were.

[Burney]

Nobody really minds violence, I think. It just seems to matter whether one gets it coming or going, as it were.

Well this is the thing. And did Mrs T not realise that the lads who won her The Falklands had learned their trade on the terraces?

[redgunamo]

Well this is the thing. And did Mrs T not realise that the lads who won her The Falklands had learned their trade on the terraces?

Of course. And the picket lines. Which is why she sent them to the Falklands #GreenEyedBoys

[Monty92]

Will respond to this next week


We can argue back and forth about whether it demonises the entire religion. Likewise, we can argue over whether different interpretations of Islam already exist. For example, many Islamic scholars will tell you that fundamentalism (strict adherence to archaic values and the most vicious forms of sharia) is a relatively recent movement in Islam and a reaction to the dispersal of muslim populations to (particularly) non-muslim countries. I wouldn’t be confident enough to comment on that.

The bigger, broader principle here is whether you can blame an original text for what people or groups choose to do with it. Is Catcher in the Rye responsible for the death of John Lennon? Was Clause 4 to blame for British Rail being so ****? Would the Old Testament be to blame if some new crazy organisation decided to start enacting some of the crazy **** contained in it?

By blaming the script you partially absolve these individual rapists of their desire to rape, or of the horrific consequences of their views on white women. You also present the millions of good muslims with the notion that their religion is sick and twisted in a way that others aren’t. You also ignore the fact that these guys, alongside being evil ****s, were also pretty **** muslims- for one thing, they were drinking and taking drugs. Proof if any were needed that they are not exactly Quran-clutching zealots on some sort of holy mission.

I am not suggesting there is no link whatsoever between these acts and the ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds of those committing them. The numbers confirm that. You seem to skate past this clutch of issues and go straight back to scripture despite the fact that these individuals never mentioned it, never cited it as motive and clearly haven’t ****ing read or taken note of significant parts of it.

There is a difference between saying there are problems with social attitudes within our muslim communities and there is a problem with Islamic scripture. Apart from anything else, if scripture is the problem how do you propose to solve it? You can’t change the word of God? I don't see how blaming scripture helps separate good and bad muslims.

[Peter]

Sure, but it's easy to see how that might be perceived as encouraging violence isn't it?

Not really.

[Peter]

Will respond to this next week

Don't feel as though you have to :D

[Burney]

Don't feel as though you have to :D

You speak for us all there, p.

[redgunamo]

Not really.

Well, yes. And no. If violence is already a part of life then one doesn't actually need to be seen to encourage it while very much encouraging it indeed. Like Tony Blair wearing his anti-War/CND credentials (metaphorically) while launching Iraqi Freedom.

Maybe the important thing is that you don't actually condone violence.

[redgunamo]

My point is that no all-encompassing 'community' exists in that sense. Such terms are always imposed from without and are invariably inaccurate.

That does not, however, alter the fact that, were one to look at these crimes in an epidemiological manner, only a fool would dismiss the clear correlation between the ethnicity, culture and religion of its perpetrators and the incidence of such criminality. From such evidence, any decent epidemiologist would feel there were reasonable grounds for assuming and investigating a causal link.

So the point is this: if we would apply this logic in a scientific sense without a moment's hesitation, why would we not apply it here?

The answer, of course, is cowardice.

No, cowardice is unfair. I doubt you, or any of us, have had the environmental upbringing and education that would prompt us to automatically conclude that these crimes demand to be be seen through the prism of the current interpretation of the ethnicity, culture and religion of their perpetrators.

Rules are only useful if everyone agrees to, and accepts, them before the game begins. After the fact is no good.