"The last thing we want is a war in this country,but it is the inevitable outcome for the way the country is going. Now, the British people are not going to sit back and take much more."
The reality is this is a war. These people are waging war on us. This has gone on for 1,400 years. This is nothing new. And the whole time while this goes on, the police leaders or political leaders want to invite more! They want to invite more!
Is this really what you think? Can you name how many times Islamic countries have invaded Britain? Or even tried? In 1400 years? I don't even understand where this line of thought is coming from, can you explain?
How about how many times Islam has been the driver for invasions/conquests/crusades on non Islamic countries?
The reality is this is a war. These people are waging war on us. This has gone on for 1,400 years. This is nothing new. And the whole time while this goes on, the police leaders or political leaders want to invite more! They want to invite more!
Is this really what you think? Can you name how many times Islamic countries have invaded Britain? Or even tried? In 1400 years? I don't even understand where this line of thought is coming from, can you explain?
How about how many times Islam has been the driver for invasions/conquests/crusades on non Islamic countries?
Undoubtedly. Any history of Islam is a pretty blood thirsty affair... Mind you these Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh wouldn't exist if we hadn't colonised half the world and tore it up whilst we were at it. The partition of India was especially brutal.
The reality is this is a war. These people are waging war on us. This has gone on for 1,400 years. This is nothing new. And the whole time while this goes on, the police leaders or political leaders want to invite more! They want to invite more!
Is this really what you think? Can you name how many times Islamic countries have invaded Britain? Or even tried? In 1400 years? I don't even understand where this line of thought is coming from, can you explain?
How about how many times Islam has been the driver for invasions/conquests/crusades on non Islamic countries?
Undoubtedly. Any history of Islam is a pretty blood thirsty affair... Mind you these Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh wouldn't exist if we hadn't colonised half the world and tore it up whilst we were at it. The partition of India was especially brutal.
Humans... They don't impress me
Completely agree. It just makes me laugh at the cut off point some use to justify their arguments.
How far back do you go before wars/brutality/oppression/invasions and the like are rendered irrelevant?
It seems that some people's grasp of historical religious wars only goes back to white Britain invading countries.
The reality is this is a war. These people are waging war on us. This has gone on for 1,400 years. This is nothing new. And the whole time while this goes on, the police leaders or political leaders want to invite more! They want to invite more!
Is this really what you think? Can you name how many times Islamic countries have invaded Britain? Or even tried? In 1400 years? I don't even understand where this line of thought is coming from, can you explain?
1625 1626 1640
At one time between 3/5000 English slaves were being held in Algiers. A lot of pubs in Cornwall and Devon are called the Turks Head as captured Arabs were swiftly beheaded.
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75.
It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men.
What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men.
Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by.
The 75 percent figure comes from a 2011 ceop study. The study concludes 75 percent of offenders were Asian men it also concludes that of those surveyed it's only the white men that had a sexual interest in children. Importantly the ceop have also declared the study not for for purpose as the sample size waa to small.
So if you wish to stand by that 75 percent study do so but that very study also concludes its only white men who have a sexual interest in children. I'd find it difficult to believe you would readily agree with the studies conclusion about white men.so considering the studies author has declared the study not to be representative I think we can dismiss its conclusions about both white and Asian men.
I'll go with the.28 percent figure the ceop are willing to stand by myself
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
Interesting article again sample size very small and I'll stick with ceop figures. The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is notlimited to one ethnicity.100 percent of pedo rings are populated by white men that I do find very very hard to believe and will go as far as saying that is incorrect.. Thank you
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
Interesting article again sample size very small and I'll stick with ceop figures. The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity. Thank you
Way to go to distort figures that don't specify a volume by victims.
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
Interesting article again sample size very small and I'll stick with ceop figures. The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity. Thank you
Way to go to distort figures that don't specify a volume by victims.
Me saying I'll stick with ceop figure is distorting figures. The article clearly is not correct it also says 100 percent of pedo ring members are white men. Am I distorting the figures by saying that cannot be right?
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
Interesting article again sample size very small and I'll stick with ceop figures. The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity. Thank you
Way to go to distort figures that don't specify a volume by victims.
Me saying I'll stick with ceop figure is distorting figures. The article clearly is not correct it also says 100 percent of pedo ring members are white men. Am I distorting the figures by saying that cannot be right?
I said in my initial comment that I was referring to grooming gangs. The article backs up the claim. I also acknowledged that white men were the largest perpetrators of online grooming (predominantly solo). You then made the leap that the majority of sex offenders were white, with absolutely no figures to back that up. You'd need victim volume data added to make that assertion. You don't have that.
So, yes, you are distorting the figures....or at least misrepresenting them.
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
Interesting article again sample size very small and I'll stick with ceop figures. The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity. Thank you
Way to go to distort figures that don't specify a volume by victims.
Also let me clarify i agree with the conclusion of my original link that there is a disproportionate number of Asian men commuting this type of offence compared to the population at large.
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
Interesting article again sample size very small and I'll stick with ceop figures. The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity. Thank you
Way to go to distort figures that don't specify a volume by victims.
Also let me clarify i agree with the conclusion of my original link that there is a disproportionate number of Asian men commuting this type of offence compared to the population at large.
Absolutely agree....and proportion is very important.
EDIT: I think we're, vaguely, making the same point...or are, at least, in a similar ballpark.
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
Interesting article again sample size very small and I'll stick with ceop figures. The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity. Thank you
Way to go to distort figures that don't specify a volume by victims.
Me saying I'll stick with ceop figure is distorting figures. The article clearly is not correct it also says 100 percent of pedo ring members are white men. Am I distorting the figures by saying that cannot be right?
I said in my initial comment that I was referring to grooming gangs. The article backs up the claim. I also acknowledged that white men were the largest perpetrators of online grooming (predominantly solo). You then made the leap that the majority of sex offenders were white, with absolutely no figures to back that up. You'd need victim volume data added to make that assertion. You don't have that.
So, yes, you are distorting the figures....or at least misrepresenting them.
No I did not say the majority of sex offenders are white. I have not said that anywhere I qouted parts of the two articles under discussion.
Please direct me to where I have said the majority of sex offenders are white. If the ceop figures are to believe there is no majority in terms of ethnicity in relation to sex offenders.
I stated 100 percent of pedo ring members were white only I did not state this in refer2nced a figure from the article you provided a figure I believe to be untrue. If you can point out where I have said the majority of sex offenders are white please do and I'll apologise because i did not write that intentionally.
The figures the ceop are standing by confirms 30 percent of sexual offences are carried out by white men.this is 21 percent short to be a majority
considering 28 percent are commuted by Asian men I'd say the Asian men figure is diaporportijamly high in comparison to the level of Asian men in the census.
Again I feel the sample size the study you reference is tolow and I do not feel this is an unfair conclusion seeing the ceop conducted a study of a similar sample size and stated it was to low.to draw accurate conclusions.
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
Interesting article again sample size very small and I'll stick with ceop figures. The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity. Thank you
Way to go to distort figures that don't specify a volume by victims.
Me saying I'll stick with ceop figure is distorting figures. The article clearly is not correct it also says 100 percent of pedo ring members are white men. Am I distorting the figures by saying that cannot be right?
I said in my initial comment that I was referring to grooming gangs. The article backs up the claim. I also acknowledged that white men were the largest perpetrators of online grooming (predominantly solo). You then made the leap that the majority of sex offenders were white, with absolutely no figures to back that up. You'd need victim volume data added to make that assertion. You don't have that.
So, yes, you are distorting the figures....or at least misrepresenting them.
No I did not say the majority of sex offenders are white. I have not said that anywhere I qouted parts of the two articles under discussion.
Please direct me to where I have said the majority of sex offenders are white. If the ceop figures are to believe there is no majority in terms of ethnicity in relation to sex offenders.
I stated 100 percent of pedo ring members were white only I did not state this in refer2nced a figure from the article you provided a figure I believe to be untrue. If you can point out where I have said the majority of sex offenders are white please do and I'll apologise because i did not write that intentionally.
The figures the ceop are standing by confirms 30 percent of sexual offences are carried out by white men.this is 21 percent short to be a majority
considering 28 percent are commuted by Asian men I'd say the Asian men figure is diaporportijamly high in comparison to the level of Asian men in the census.
Again I feel the sample size the study you reference is tolow and I do not feel this is an unfair conclusion seeing the ceop conducted a study of a similar sample size and stated it was to low.to draw accurate conclusions.
In your unedited post, which I can't now quote, you said something like the article shows 'who the most offenders are'.
Now, I'll apologise for making a huge leap of faith and misjudgement (which is more than plausible) if you'd be kind enough to clarify that roughly translated statement.
Genuinely have no grief with you so please don't take this as me digging you out.
EDIT: I actually quoted you at 9.47."The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity."
Bad wording and my misinterpretation, pre edit, maybe?
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
Interesting article again sample size very small and I'll stick with ceop figures. The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity. Thank you
Way to go to distort figures that don't specify a volume by victims.
Me saying I'll stick with ceop figure is distorting figures. The article clearly is not correct it also says 100 percent of pedo ring members are white men. Am I distorting the figures by saying that cannot be right?
I said in my initial comment that I was referring to grooming gangs. The article backs up the claim. I also acknowledged that white men were the largest perpetrators of online grooming (predominantly solo). You then made the leap that the majority of sex offenders were white, with absolutely no figures to back that up. You'd need victim volume data added to make that assertion. You don't have that.
So, yes, you are distorting the figures....or at least misrepresenting them.
No I did not say the majority of sex offenders are white. I have not said that anywhere I qouted parts of the two articles under discussion.
Please direct me to where I have said the majority of sex offenders are white. If the ceop figures are to believe there is no majority in terms of ethnicity in relation to sex offenders.
I stated 100 percent of pedo ring members were white only I did not state this in refer2nced a figure from the article you provided a figure I believe to be untrue. If you can point out where I have said the majority of sex offenders are white please do and I'll apologise because i did not write that intentionally.
The figures the ceop are standing by confirms 30 percent of sexual offences are carried out by white men.this is 21 percent short to be a majority
considering 28 percent are commuted by Asian men I'd say the Asian men figure is diaporportijamly high in comparison to the level of Asian men in the census.
Again I feel the sample size the study you reference is tolow and I do not feel this is an unfair conclusion seeing the ceop conducted a study of a similar sample size and stated it was to low.to draw accurate conclusions.
In your unedited post, which I can't now quote, you said something like the article shows 'who the most offenders are'.
Now, I'll apologise for making a huge leap of faith and misjudgement (which is more than plausible) if you'd be kind enough to clarify that roughly translated statement.
Genuinely have no grief with you so please don't take this as me digging you out.
EDIT: I actually quoted you at 9.47."The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity."
Ha ha As you were writing this I was sending you a pm. My proof reading is atrocious that should have read 'not limited to one ethnicity.
We have an Asian grooming gang epidemic in the U.K. and it gets v little coverage - that is not bullshit or a brexiteers opinion its a fact. Tommy is a little too radical for me and people do interpret the things he says a little too literally but I don’t think what he done was that bad and good on him for broadcasting it
That link you have posted says 75% of the grooming attacks are carried out by Pakistani Asian men, I believe that is quite a clear majority.
Enjoy your steak and ale
No it does not it references various studies and there conclusions range from less then 30 percent to 75. It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men. What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men. Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by. The 75 percent t figure the ceop concludes the2013 study was to small a sample but if you did want to draw a conclusion on that small study it was that only the white men surveyed had a sexual interest in children so no I really do think that survey is to small to be statistically correct.
Quilliam any good as a reputable source? You know, the British Pakistani organisation?
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
Interesting article again sample size very small and I'll stick with ceop figures. The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity. Thank you
Way to go to distort figures that don't specify a volume by victims.
Me saying I'll stick with ceop figure is distorting figures. The article clearly is not correct it also says 100 percent of pedo ring members are white men. Am I distorting the figures by saying that cannot be right?
I said in my initial comment that I was referring to grooming gangs. The article backs up the claim. I also acknowledged that white men were the largest perpetrators of online grooming (predominantly solo). You then made the leap that the majority of sex offenders were white, with absolutely no figures to back that up. You'd need victim volume data added to make that assertion. You don't have that.
So, yes, you are distorting the figures....or at least misrepresenting them.
No I did not say the majority of sex offenders are white. I have not said that anywhere I qouted parts of the two articles under discussion.
Please direct me to where I have said the majority of sex offenders are white. If the ceop figures are to believe there is no majority in terms of ethnicity in relation to sex offenders.
I stated 100 percent of pedo ring members were white only I did not state this in refer2nced a figure from the article you provided a figure I believe to be untrue. If you can point out where I have said the majority of sex offenders are white please do and I'll apologise because i did not write that intentionally.
The figures the ceop are standing by confirms 30 percent of sexual offences are carried out by white men.this is 21 percent short to be a majority
considering 28 percent are commuted by Asian men I'd say the Asian men figure is diaporportijamly high in comparison to the level of Asian men in the census.
Again I feel the sample size the study you reference is tolow and I do not feel this is an unfair conclusion seeing the ceop conducted a study of a similar sample size and stated it was to low.to draw accurate conclusions.
In your unedited post, which I can't now quote, you said something like the article shows 'who the most offenders are'.
Now, I'll apologise for making a huge leap of faith and misjudgement (which is more than plausible) if you'd be kind enough to clarify that roughly translated statement.
Genuinely have no grief with you so please don't take this as me digging you out.
EDIT: I actually quoted you at 9.47."The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity."
Ha ha As you were writing this I was sending you a pm. My proof reading is atrocious that should have read 'not limited to one ethnicity.
I thought he was outside the court for the sentencing, if so how could he possibly jeopardise anything?
Unless the judge is looking out of the window and thinks "there's that Robinson bloke, I don't listen to what he says but I've decided he's a racist and I don't like the look of him so I'm going to not sentence these dirty bastards due up in front of me to anytbing more than litter picking"
Lets forget the fact that the backwards perverts who have been ruining the lives of children have been roaming free since beung found guilty. There's no way they could do a bunk or intimidate anyone or Even carry on with their revolting ways
I think the main problem here is that you're not clear on the legal facts. Firstly, it's nothing to do with the judge. It's to do with the jury, who have no legal training and can be swayed by media reporting on cases. Cases take days or weeks to resolve, and that's why Robinson's illegal reporting - which he freely admitted he knew was illegal - was so dangerous. It's been reported that he was performing his nonsense within earshot of jurors entering the building. There are to be three trials regarding this, one of which, separate to the one Robinson was outside of, is ongoing. Cases have to be tried within the bounds of established practice, and it's supremely important that things like reporting bans are adhered to. If enough reporting goes on to jeopardise the neutrality of a jury then the first thing the defence will do is move to have the case stayed. They won't need to grapple with the facts, with trying to defend the disgusting crimes the defendants are accused of, they'll just press the technicality. So - and let's be very clear on this - the 'backwards perverts' that Robinson's supporters are so very concerned about could have walked scot-free from their crimes based on his actions. That point can't be laboured enough; in an attempt to make his point Robinson strongly ran the risk of allowing criminals to get away with their crimes. He's just too stupid or selfish (or both) to understand that
And he knows it. It would suit his purposes to have these people get off on a technicality. He would then claim we treat Muslims different from everyone else and add more fuel to his racist fire.
This is something I probably get more frustrated about than I should. Islam is a religion, a doctrine, I'm pretty sure it isn't a race
The point he has been making, and if you listen to him and put aside your distaste of him, is that it isn't a competition. I hope we all agree that paedophilia is repugnant regardless of what ethnicity, skin pigmentation or fairy tale the perpetrators follow.
The bug difference is these animals who are grooming kids on an industrial scale are all followers of a medieval book, a book that states they are only following the word of the prophet. That on its own is insane, the bit that chills me the most is they are a group of pals, like me and my mates who go to football and have that in common, except their thing is concubines, child sex slaves. If one of my football pals suggested getting involved in something like that, or even hinted they were involved in something like that I'd be at best having a strong chat and at worst delivering a hiding.
At the end of these trials I've seen family members outside the courts screaming that the kids, the victims, are slags and were asking for it. The people screaming this are family members of the perpetrators! Does that not concern anyone?
Forget what they look like or what religion they day they follow, this is similar to the family and friends of that shithouse who was killed whilst burgling the home of 2 pensioners, that sort of shit.
I fully appreciate people don't like him for whatever reason, to a degree I don't as i think he encourages those who are simply bigoted to use him as a hero and like a lot of those who hate him, they aren't listening to what he is saying.
I respect anyone's right to an opinion and their right to disagree with me and him. What I can't take so seriously is people dismissing what he is saying purely because they don't like him.
Well said. Sadly too many on here happy to put the boot into Tommy Robinson than a nonce.
Extremely clever to choose a subject where you literally cannot argue against the crime. And if you offer any dissenting view against what he's doing, you're instantly labelled a paedo or paedo sympathiser in a ludicrous strawman argument. He's a fucking louse. As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming.
I thought he was outside the court for the sentencing, if so how could he possibly jeopardise anything?
Unless the judge is looking out of the window and thinks "there's that Robinson bloke, I don't listen to what he says but I've decided he's a racist and I don't like the look of him so I'm going to not sentence these dirty bastards due up in front of me to anytbing more than litter picking"
Lets forget the fact that the backwards perverts who have been ruining the lives of children have been roaming free since beung found guilty. There's no way they could do a bunk or intimidate anyone or Even carry on with their revolting ways
I think the main problem here is that you're not clear on the legal facts. Firstly, it's nothing to do with the judge. It's to do with the jury, who have no legal training and can be swayed by media reporting on cases. Cases take days or weeks to resolve, and that's why Robinson's illegal reporting - which he freely admitted he knew was illegal - was so dangerous. It's been reported that he was performing his nonsense within earshot of jurors entering the building. There are to be three trials regarding this, one of which, separate to the one Robinson was outside of, is ongoing. Cases have to be tried within the bounds of established practice, and it's supremely important that things like reporting bans are adhered to. If enough reporting goes on to jeopardise the neutrality of a jury then the first thing the defence will do is move to have the case stayed. They won't need to grapple with the facts, with trying to defend the disgusting crimes the defendants are accused of, they'll just press the technicality. So - and let's be very clear on this - the 'backwards perverts' that Robinson's supporters are so very concerned about could have walked scot-free from their crimes based on his actions. That point can't be laboured enough; in an attempt to make his point Robinson strongly ran the risk of allowing criminals to get away with their crimes. He's just too stupid or selfish (or both) to understand that
And he knows it. It would suit his purposes to have these people get off on a technicality. He would then claim we treat Muslims different from everyone else and add more fuel to his racist fire.
This is something I probably get more frustrated about than I should. Islam is a religion, a doctrine, I'm pretty sure it isn't a race
The point he has been making, and if you listen to him and put aside your distaste of him, is that it isn't a competition. I hope we all agree that paedophilia is repugnant regardless of what ethnicity, skin pigmentation or fairy tale the perpetrators follow.
The bug difference is these animals who are grooming kids on an industrial scale are all followers of a medieval book, a book that states they are only following the word of the prophet. That on its own is insane, the bit that chills me the most is they are a group of pals, like me and my mates who go to football and have that in common, except their thing is concubines, child sex slaves. If one of my football pals suggested getting involved in something like that, or even hinted they were involved in something like that I'd be at best having a strong chat and at worst delivering a hiding.
At the end of these trials I've seen family members outside the courts screaming that the kids, the victims, are slags and were asking for it. The people screaming this are family members of the perpetrators! Does that not concern anyone?
Forget what they look like or what religion they day they follow, this is similar to the family and friends of that shithouse who was killed whilst burgling the home of 2 pensioners, that sort of shit.
I fully appreciate people don't like him for whatever reason, to a degree I don't as i think he encourages those who are simply bigoted to use him as a hero and like a lot of those who hate him, they aren't listening to what he is saying.
I respect anyone's right to an opinion and their right to disagree with me and him. What I can't take so seriously is people dismissing what he is saying purely because they don't like him.
Well said. Sadly too many on here happy to put the boot into Tommy Robinson than a nonce.
Sadly? Islam isn't a race that is true but a large proportion of it's followers are non white? Does hating them make it racism? It's an arguable point I agree but at the very least it's islamaphobia.
So basically people are saying I'm not racist I'm islamaphobic. So much better.
I thought he was outside the court for the sentencing, if so how could he possibly jeopardise anything?
Unless the judge is looking out of the window and thinks "there's that Robinson bloke, I don't listen to what he says but I've decided he's a racist and I don't like the look of him so I'm going to not sentence these dirty bastards due up in front of me to anytbing more than litter picking"
Lets forget the fact that the backwards perverts who have been ruining the lives of children have been roaming free since beung found guilty. There's no way they could do a bunk or intimidate anyone or Even carry on with their revolting ways
I think the main problem here is that you're not clear on the legal facts. Firstly, it's nothing to do with the judge. It's to do with the jury, who have no legal training and can be swayed by media reporting on cases. Cases take days or weeks to resolve, and that's why Robinson's illegal reporting - which he freely admitted he knew was illegal - was so dangerous. It's been reported that he was performing his nonsense within earshot of jurors entering the building. There are to be three trials regarding this, one of which, separate to the one Robinson was outside of, is ongoing. Cases have to be tried within the bounds of established practice, and it's supremely important that things like reporting bans are adhered to. If enough reporting goes on to jeopardise the neutrality of a jury then the first thing the defence will do is move to have the case stayed. They won't need to grapple with the facts, with trying to defend the disgusting crimes the defendants are accused of, they'll just press the technicality. So - and let's be very clear on this - the 'backwards perverts' that Robinson's supporters are so very concerned about could have walked scot-free from their crimes based on his actions. That point can't be laboured enough; in an attempt to make his point Robinson strongly ran the risk of allowing criminals to get away with their crimes. He's just too stupid or selfish (or both) to understand that
And he knows it. It would suit his purposes to have these people get off on a technicality. He would then claim we treat Muslims different from everyone else and add more fuel to his racist fire.
This is something I probably get more frustrated about than I should. Islam is a religion, a doctrine, I'm pretty sure it isn't a race
The point he has been making, and if you listen to him and put aside your distaste of him, is that it isn't a competition. I hope we all agree that paedophilia is repugnant regardless of what ethnicity, skin pigmentation or fairy tale the perpetrators follow.
The bug difference is these animals who are grooming kids on an industrial scale are all followers of a medieval book, a book that states they are only following the word of the prophet. That on its own is insane, the bit that chills me the most is they are a group of pals, like me and my mates who go to football and have that in common, except their thing is concubines, child sex slaves. If one of my football pals suggested getting involved in something like that, or even hinted they were involved in something like that I'd be at best having a strong chat and at worst delivering a hiding.
At the end of these trials I've seen family members outside the courts screaming that the kids, the victims, are slags and were asking for it. The people screaming this are family members of the perpetrators! Does that not concern anyone?
Forget what they look like or what religion they day they follow, this is similar to the family and friends of that shithouse who was killed whilst burgling the home of 2 pensioners, that sort of shit.
I fully appreciate people don't like him for whatever reason, to a degree I don't as i think he encourages those who are simply bigoted to use him as a hero and like a lot of those who hate him, they aren't listening to what he is saying.
I respect anyone's right to an opinion and their right to disagree with me and him. What I can't take so seriously is people dismissing what he is saying purely because they don't like him.
Well said. Sadly too many on here happy to put the boot into Tommy Robinson than a nonce.
I don't think that's quite fair.
Nobody, that I've seen, has put more guilt on TR than the criminals.
Whilst I may not agree with, what I believe to be, the tactically motivated character assasination and misrepresentation of TR's motives, I don't believe that anyone is prepared to put TR on a pdestal alongside a child molester.
I thought he was outside the court for the sentencing, if so how could he possibly jeopardise anything?
Unless the judge is looking out of the window and thinks "there's that Robinson bloke, I don't listen to what he says but I've decided he's a racist and I don't like the look of him so I'm going to not sentence these dirty bastards due up in front of me to anytbing more than litter picking"
Lets forget the fact that the backwards perverts who have been ruining the lives of children have been roaming free since beung found guilty. There's no way they could do a bunk or intimidate anyone or Even carry on with their revolting ways
I think the main problem here is that you're not clear on the legal facts. Firstly, it's nothing to do with the judge. It's to do with the jury, who have no legal training and can be swayed by media reporting on cases. Cases take days or weeks to resolve, and that's why Robinson's illegal reporting - which he freely admitted he knew was illegal - was so dangerous. It's been reported that he was performing his nonsense within earshot of jurors entering the building. There are to be three trials regarding this, one of which, separate to the one Robinson was outside of, is ongoing. Cases have to be tried within the bounds of established practice, and it's supremely important that things like reporting bans are adhered to. If enough reporting goes on to jeopardise the neutrality of a jury then the first thing the defence will do is move to have the case stayed. They won't need to grapple with the facts, with trying to defend the disgusting crimes the defendants are accused of, they'll just press the technicality. So - and let's be very clear on this - the 'backwards perverts' that Robinson's supporters are so very concerned about could have walked scot-free from their crimes based on his actions. That point can't be laboured enough; in an attempt to make his point Robinson strongly ran the risk of allowing criminals to get away with their crimes. He's just too stupid or selfish (or both) to understand that
And he knows it. It would suit his purposes to have these people get off on a technicality. He would then claim we treat Muslims different from everyone else and add more fuel to his racist fire.
This is something I probably get more frustrated about than I should. Islam is a religion, a doctrine, I'm pretty sure it isn't a race
The point he has been making, and if you listen to him and put aside your distaste of him, is that it isn't a competition. I hope we all agree that paedophilia is repugnant regardless of what ethnicity, skin pigmentation or fairy tale the perpetrators follow.
The bug difference is these animals who are grooming kids on an industrial scale are all followers of a medieval book, a book that states they are only following the word of the prophet. That on its own is insane, the bit that chills me the most is they are a group of pals, like me and my mates who go to football and have that in common, except their thing is concubines, child sex slaves. If one of my football pals suggested getting involved in something like that, or even hinted they were involved in something like that I'd be at best having a strong chat and at worst delivering a hiding.
At the end of these trials I've seen family members outside the courts screaming that the kids, the victims, are slags and were asking for it. The people screaming this are family members of the perpetrators! Does that not concern anyone?
Forget what they look like or what religion they day they follow, this is similar to the family and friends of that shithouse who was killed whilst burgling the home of 2 pensioners, that sort of shit.
I fully appreciate people don't like him for whatever reason, to a degree I don't as i think he encourages those who are simply bigoted to use him as a hero and like a lot of those who hate him, they aren't listening to what he is saying.
I respect anyone's right to an opinion and their right to disagree with me and him. What I can't take so seriously is people dismissing what he is saying purely because they don't like him.
Well said. Sadly too many on here happy to put the boot into Tommy Robinson than a nonce.
Sadly? Islam isn't a race that is true but a large proportion of it's followers are non white? Does hating them make it racism? It's an arguable point I agree but at the very least it's islamaphobia.
So basically people are saying I'm not racist I'm islamaphobic. So much better.
Is it irrational to fear (phobia) a belief system that rejects transformation and a dragging of some 1400 years in to the future?
Are those that disagree with its barbaric practices Islamophobic?
I thought he was outside the court for the sentencing, if so how could he possibly jeopardise anything?
Unless the judge is looking out of the window and thinks "there's that Robinson bloke, I don't listen to what he says but I've decided he's a racist and I don't like the look of him so I'm going to not sentence these dirty bastards due up in front of me to anytbing more than litter picking"
Lets forget the fact that the backwards perverts who have been ruining the lives of children have been roaming free since beung found guilty. There's no way they could do a bunk or intimidate anyone or Even carry on with their revolting ways
I think the main problem here is that you're not clear on the legal facts. Firstly, it's nothing to do with the judge. It's to do with the jury, who have no legal training and can be swayed by media reporting on cases. Cases take days or weeks to resolve, and that's why Robinson's illegal reporting - which he freely admitted he knew was illegal - was so dangerous. It's been reported that he was performing his nonsense within earshot of jurors entering the building. There are to be three trials regarding this, one of which, separate to the one Robinson was outside of, is ongoing. Cases have to be tried within the bounds of established practice, and it's supremely important that things like reporting bans are adhered to. If enough reporting goes on to jeopardise the neutrality of a jury then the first thing the defence will do is move to have the case stayed. They won't need to grapple with the facts, with trying to defend the disgusting crimes the defendants are accused of, they'll just press the technicality. So - and let's be very clear on this - the 'backwards perverts' that Robinson's supporters are so very concerned about could have walked scot-free from their crimes based on his actions. That point can't be laboured enough; in an attempt to make his point Robinson strongly ran the risk of allowing criminals to get away with their crimes. He's just too stupid or selfish (or both) to understand that
And he knows it. It would suit his purposes to have these people get off on a technicality. He would then claim we treat Muslims different from everyone else and add more fuel to his racist fire.
This is something I probably get more frustrated about than I should. Islam is a religion, a doctrine, I'm pretty sure it isn't a race
The point he has been making, and if you listen to him and put aside your distaste of him, is that it isn't a competition. I hope we all agree that paedophilia is repugnant regardless of what ethnicity, skin pigmentation or fairy tale the perpetrators follow.
The bug difference is these animals who are grooming kids on an industrial scale are all followers of a medieval book, a book that states they are only following the word of the prophet. That on its own is insane, the bit that chills me the most is they are a group of pals, like me and my mates who go to football and have that in common, except their thing is concubines, child sex slaves. If one of my football pals suggested getting involved in something like that, or even hinted they were involved in something like that I'd be at best having a strong chat and at worst delivering a hiding.
At the end of these trials I've seen family members outside the courts screaming that the kids, the victims, are slags and were asking for it. The people screaming this are family members of the perpetrators! Does that not concern anyone?
Forget what they look like or what religion they day they follow, this is similar to the family and friends of that shithouse who was killed whilst burgling the home of 2 pensioners, that sort of shit.
I fully appreciate people don't like him for whatever reason, to a degree I don't as i think he encourages those who are simply bigoted to use him as a hero and like a lot of those who hate him, they aren't listening to what he is saying.
I respect anyone's right to an opinion and their right to disagree with me and him. What I can't take so seriously is people dismissing what he is saying purely because they don't like him.
Well said. Sadly too many on here happy to put the boot into Tommy Robinson than a nonce.
Sadly? Islam isn't a race that is true but a large proportion of it's followers are non white? Does hating them make it racism? It's an arguable point I agree but at the very least it's islamaphobia.
So basically people are saying I'm not racist I'm islamaphobic. So much better.
Fucking hell, listen to what he's saying, do a scratch of background on him man
Don't be so desperate to put a label on someone for the sake of it, it isn't a competition
Read his book, it took me a couple of days. If nothing else it will give you an insight as to where he's coming from.
I do it, I've done it I've been trying to say that I'm not a Tommy Robinson fanboy however I recognise the sense he has come out with. I've done this for people o don't agree with and if nothing else it's given me a sense of perspective
Extremely clever to choose a subject where you literally cannot argue against the crime. And if you offer any dissenting view against what he's doing, you're instantly labelled a paedo or paedo sympathiser in a ludicrous strawman argument. He's a fucking louse. As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming.
Just quoting this so it can be seen again...
You also agree that Robinson is as harmful as gangs of child rapists?
Extremely clever to choose a subject where you literally cannot argue against the crime. And if you offer any dissenting view against what he's doing, you're instantly labelled a paedo or paedo sympathiser in a ludicrous strawman argument. He's a fucking louse. As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming.
Just quoting this so it can be seen again...
You also agree that Robinson is as harmful as gangs of child rapists?
Some messed up people on this forum.
Yes, obviously that's what I and everyone else thinks. Point made.
Extremely clever to choose a subject where you literally cannot argue against the crime. And if you offer any dissenting view against what he's doing, you're instantly labelled a paedo or paedo sympathiser in a ludicrous strawman argument. He's a fucking louse.
Just quoting this so it can be seen again...
You also agree that Robinson is as harmful as gangs of child rapists?
Some messed up people on this forum.
Yes, obviously that's what I and everyone else thinks. Point made.
Thats exactly what the poat you quoted said.
"As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming. "
So if you don't agree, why quote it to be seen later?
Comments
Humans... They don't impress me
How far back do you go before wars/brutality/oppression/invasions and the like are rendered irrelevant?
It seems that some people's grasp of historical religious wars only goes back to white Britain invading countries.
Selective historical context drives me nanas
1625
1626
1640
At one time between 3/5000 English slaves were being held in Algiers.
A lot of pubs in Cornwall and Devon are called the Turks Head as captured Arabs were swiftly beheaded.
Let's all just shut our eyes and imagine there is nothing wrong
Stop
Screwing
Up
The
Quoting
It does not anywhere conclude 75 percent of grooming is commuted by Asian men.
What it does say is according to ceop figures 28 percent of offenders are Asian men.
Me I'll go with the ceop figure they are happy to stand by.
The 75 percent figure comes from a 2011 ceop study. The study concludes 75 percent of offenders were Asian men it also concludes that of those surveyed it's only the white men that had a sexual interest in children. Importantly the ceop have also declared the study not for for purpose as the sample size waa to small.
So if you wish to stand by that 75 percent study do so but that very study also concludes its only white men who have a sexual interest in children. I'd find it difficult to believe you would readily agree with the studies conclusion about white men.so considering the studies author has declared the study not to be representative I think we can dismiss its conclusions about both white and Asian men.
I'll go with the.28 percent figure the ceop are willing to stand by myself
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/quilliam-grooming-gangs-report-asian-abuse-rotherham-rochdale-newcastle-a8101941.html
EDITED TO ADD: This in response to grooming gangs and not the majority dominated field of online grooming which is dominated by seedy white c*nts.
So, yes, you are distorting the figures....or at least misrepresenting them.
EDIT: I think we're, vaguely, making the same point...or are, at least, in a similar ballpark.
Please direct me to where I have said the majority of sex offenders are white. If the ceop figures are to believe there is no majority in terms of ethnicity in relation to sex offenders.
I stated 100 percent of pedo ring members were white only I did not state this in refer2nced a figure from the article you provided a figure I believe to be untrue. If you can point out where I have said the majority of sex offenders are white please do and I'll apologise because i did not write that intentionally.
The figures the ceop are standing by confirms 30 percent of sexual offences are carried out by white men.this is 21 percent short to be a majority
considering 28 percent are commuted by Asian men I'd say the Asian men figure is diaporportijamly high in comparison to the level of Asian men in the census.
Again I feel the sample size the study you reference is tolow and I do not feel this is an unfair conclusion seeing the ceop conducted a study of a similar sample size and stated it was to low.to draw accurate conclusions.
Now, I'll apologise for making a huge leap of faith and misjudgement (which is more than plausible) if you'd be kind enough to clarify that roughly translated statement.
Genuinely have no grief with you so please don't take this as me digging you out.
EDIT: I actually quoted you at 9.47."The article does highlight sexual abuse of children is it limited to one with ethnicity."
Bad wording and my misinterpretation, pre edit, maybe?
So basically people are saying I'm not racist I'm islamaphobic. So much better.
Nobody, that I've seen, has put more guilt on TR than the criminals.
Whilst I may not agree with, what I believe to be, the tactically motivated character assasination and misrepresentation of TR's motives, I don't believe that anyone is prepared to put TR on a pdestal alongside a child molester.
Are those that disagree with its barbaric practices Islamophobic?
With all due respect, I think you're deluded.
Don't be so desperate to put a label on someone for the sake of it, it isn't a competition
Read his book, it took me a couple of days. If nothing else it will give you an insight as to where he's coming from.
I do it, I've done it I've been trying to say that I'm not a Tommy Robinson fanboy however I recognise the sense he has come out with. I've done this for people o don't agree with and if nothing else it's given me a sense of perspective
Some messed up people on this forum.
"As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming. "
So if you don't agree, why quote it to be seen later?