Tommy Robinson et. al winning the PR war

[Dogmaphobe]

Yes. Tommy Robinson represents resistance to the prevailing attitude that allows Muslims to rape thousands of children in Great Britain.

You represent the attitude that actively facilitates the rapes by calling the objection to them an act of hatred.


I'm sure glad we have that one settled.

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

It's the attitude you promote where your first reaction shows no sympathy for the victims whatsoever while looking for ways to defend the perps while turning around and calling any who are actually aghast at these acts of brutality racists and haters.

in Britain this acts to intimidate opposition into silence just as you try to silence me here in this forum.

Ok so this is really about you then, not what happened in Britain.

But I fail to see how your claims about my “attitude” effect policing and rape rings in the UK. That is quite a stretch. In fact it is a bit delusional to think that what you claim I feel has any effect on events in the UK. Most rational people would condemn the “torch and pitchfork” mob mentality you seem to want to promote, in favor of a rational and thorough investigation of what went wrong, and how we make sure this does not happen again going forward. That is what I support.

So what is it that incenses you? The fact that children were raped (which I fully condemned multiple times) or the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim?

I don’t know about you, but what enrages me was the fact that so many kids were trafficked because the police didn’t act quickly enough because of fear of “racial insensitivity” and it was ignored for so long because they were troubled kids from poor backgrounds.

What do you think can be done to fix the issues that lead to this tragedy? It isn’t going to be a simple fix and it is going to need more than internet rage against Muslims.

Yes. Tommy Robinson represents resistance to the prevailing attitude that allows Muslims to rape thousands of children in Great Britain.

You represent the attitude that actively facilitates the rapes by calling the objection to them an act of hatred.


I'm sure glad we have that one settled.

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

It's the attitude you promote where your first reaction shows no sympathy for the victims whatsoever while looking for ways to defend the perps while turning around and calling any who are actually aghast at these acts of brutality racists and haters.

in Britain this acts to intimidate opposition into silence just as you try to silence me here in this forum.

Ok so this is really about you then, not what happened in Britain.

But I fail to see how your claims about my “attitude” effect policing and rape rings in the UK. That is quite a stretch. In fact it is a bit delusional to think that what you claim I feel has any effect on events in the UK. Most rational people would condemn the “torch and pitchfork” mob mentality you seem to want to promote, in favor of a rational and thorough investigation of what went wrong, and how we make sure this does not happen again going forward. That is what I support.

So what is it that incenses you? The fact that children were raped (which I fully condemned multiple times) or the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim?

I don’t know about you, but what enrages me was the fact that so many kids were trafficked because the police didn’t act quickly enough because of fear of “racial insensitivity” and it was ignored for so long because they were troubled kids from poor backgrounds.

What do you think can be done to fix the issues that lead to this tragedy? It isn’t going to be a simple fix and it is going to need more than internet rage against Muslims.

I said nothing at all to indicate it is about me. that is just you getting hysterical.

if you cannot understand why I an offended by those of one culture systematically raping the children of another, you are beyond all hope.

the better question would be why aren't YOU incensed by it? if it were native British men raping thousands of Muslim children, you would be in an absolute rage. Reverse the roles, though, and your first reaction is to defend.

So...let me clarify this before moving on. You are offended but have no desire to explore solutions? Is that correct? You are just hear to bemoan your impression of being "silenced" (that is about you) and be offended?

I find any rape of children offensive, but I am MORE interested in finding solutions than I am in sitting here proclaiming offense.

Solutions would certainly make for a more productive discussion then your endless claims of being offended.

So watcha got for solutions?

your continual attacks against those talking about the source of the rapes is a solution? in what twisyed, psychotic world would that be?

the solution to this problem lies in vetting potential immigrants, proper assimilation and the deportation of all those adhering to the notion that their culture should replace British culture.

Nominal Muslims who emigrate to the west eager to embrace Western values and wanting to escape primitive attitudes should be encouraged. those who only want their primitive values to dominate should not.

 

[Coyote]

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

It's the attitude you promote where your first reaction shows no sympathy for the victims whatsoever while looking for ways to defend the perps while turning around and calling any who are actually aghast at these acts of brutality racists and haters.

in Britain this acts to intimidate opposition into silence just as you try to silence me here in this forum.

Ok so this is really about you then, not what happened in Britain.

But I fail to see how your claims about my “attitude” effect policing and rape rings in the UK. That is quite a stretch. In fact it is a bit delusional to think that what you claim I feel has any effect on events in the UK. Most rational people would condemn the “torch and pitchfork” mob mentality you seem to want to promote, in favor of a rational and thorough investigation of what went wrong, and how we make sure this does not happen again going forward. That is what I support.

So what is it that incenses you? The fact that children were raped (which I fully condemned multiple times) or the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim?

I don’t know about you, but what enrages me was the fact that so many kids were trafficked because the police didn’t act quickly enough because of fear of “racial insensitivity” and it was ignored for so long because they were troubled kids from poor backgrounds.

What do you think can be done to fix the issues that lead to this tragedy? It isn’t going to be a simple fix and it is going to need more than internet rage against Muslims.

Ok. Let’s be specific here. What attitude and how does it “allow” Muslims to rape children?

If you mean the overly PC environment that hindered effective policing, then we are in agreement.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.

It's the attitude you promote where your first reaction shows no sympathy for the victims whatsoever while looking for ways to defend the perps while turning around and calling any who are actually aghast at these acts of brutality racists and haters.

in Britain this acts to intimidate opposition into silence just as you try to silence me here in this forum.

Ok so this is really about you then, not what happened in Britain.

But I fail to see how your claims about my “attitude” effect policing and rape rings in the UK. That is quite a stretch. In fact it is a bit delusional to think that what you claim I feel has any effect on events in the UK. Most rational people would condemn the “torch and pitchfork” mob mentality you seem to want to promote, in favor of a rational and thorough investigation of what went wrong, and how we make sure this does not happen again going forward. That is what I support.

So what is it that incenses you? The fact that children were raped (which I fully condemned multiple times) or the fact that the perpetrators were Muslim?

I don’t know about you, but what enrages me was the fact that so many kids were trafficked because the police didn’t act quickly enough because of fear of “racial insensitivity” and it was ignored for so long because they were troubled kids from poor backgrounds.

What do you think can be done to fix the issues that lead to this tragedy? It isn’t going to be a simple fix and it is going to need more than internet rage against Muslims.

I said nothing at all to indicate it is about me. that is just you getting hysterical.

if you cannot understand why I an offended by those of one culture systematically raping the children of another, you are beyond all hope.

the better question would be why aren't YOU incensed by it? if it were native British men raping thousands of Muslim children, you would be in an absolute rage. Reverse the roles, though, and your first reaction is to defend.

So...let me clarify this before moving on. You are offended but have no desire to explore solutions? Is that correct? You are just hear to bemoan your impression of being "silenced" (that is about you) and be offended?

I find any rape of children offensive, but I am MORE interested in finding solutions than I am in sitting here proclaiming offense.

Solutions would certainly make for a more productive discussion then your endless claims of being offended.

So watcha got for solutions?

your continual attacks against those talking about the source of the rapes is a solution? in what twisyed, psychotic world would that be?

the solution to this problem lies in vetting potential immigrants, proper assimilation and the deportation of all those adhering to the notion that their culture should replace British culture.

Exactly how would you "vet them"? How would you create a workable definition of "the notion that their culture should replace British culture" in such a way it could be applied in a lawful and unbiased way?

How would you address the flaws in the social services that let these children down?

How would you address the broader problem of child trafficking in the UK that leads to things like this? It didn't start with immigration, it won't end with immigration.

Nominal Muslims who emigrate to the west eager to embrace Western values and wanting to escape primitive attitudes should be encouraged. those who only want their primitive values to dominate should not.

How do you define "nominal" Muslims?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Who failed them? They were failed on multiple levels: by the broken social services system, by police afraid of being labeled as racist, by a class system that doesn't take their complaints seriously, and by the rapists themselves.

How can this be fixed?

You left out one of the biggest failures—allowing the country in which these children live to be inundated with uncivilized foreign savages from shithole countries known to be infested with such savages who think that it's OK to rape women and children.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Exactly how would you "vet them"? How would you create a workable definition of "the notion that their culture should replace British culture" in such a way it could be applied in a lawful and unbiased way?

How would you address the flaws in the social services that let these children down?

How would you address the broader problem of child trafficking in the UK that leads to things like this? It didn't start with immigration, it won't end with immigration.

Nobody suggests Pakistani rape gangs were the start of child sex trafficking in the UK.
That is disingenuous blather. But they, Muslim based gangs, have taken an existing problem and greatly magnified it and increased the incidents of preying on young English girls.

How do you define "nominal" Muslims?

Muslims that aren't known Islamists, i.e. Muslims that belong to fundamentalist mosques, listen to fundamentalist Imams and have known views that advocate Islamic caliphates that work to make Islam a supreme religion above all others through the eventually combining of their religion and the government.

It's a pretty easy standard to determine.

 

[Coyote]

Exactly how would you "vet them"? How would you create a workable definition of "the notion that their culture should replace British culture" in such a way it could be applied in a lawful and unbiased way?

How would you address the flaws in the social services that let these children down?

How would you address the broader problem of child trafficking in the UK that leads to things like this? It didn't start with immigration, it won't end with immigration.

Nobody suggests Pakistani rape gangs were the start of child sex trafficking in the UK.
That is disingenuous blather. But they, Muslim based gangs, have taken an existing problem and greatly magnified it and increased the incidents of preying on young English girls.

Nope. Not blather. But looking for SOLUTIONS. It's a larger problem than just Pakistani rape gangs and if you don't address it, it will just continue.

How do you define "nominal" Muslims?

Muslims that aren't known Islamists, i.e. Muslims that belong to fundamentalist mosques, listen to fundamentalist Imams and have known views that advocate Islamic caliphates that work to make Islam a supreme religion above all others through the eventually combine their religion and the government.

It's a pretty easy standard to determine.

Easy?

So "fundamentalism" is an automatic rejection? In other words - belief, not behavior? We are going to institute a "religious police" of sorts and apply it only to Muslims?

To be blunt - most fundamentalists of any religious stripe tend to believe in the supremacy of their chosen religion. Who cares what they believe - we aren't and shouldn't be thought police.

If they act in such a way that violates law, or are part of a terrorist network - that is a different matter.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Why not address the root causes of the rape rings in England? Bad policing.

What an amazingly ignorant remark, even for you.

Good policing would only be to address the consequences of terrible mistakes that never should have been made in the first place.

The child rape rings exist because of concentrations of uncivilized savages who think that it's OK to rape children. They exist in England and in other parts of Europe because those places allowed themselves to be swamped with such savages immigrating from shithole countries known to be infested with them; and because of the complicity of worthless, sociopathic, cowardly scum such as yourself who defend these savages, and condemn as “bigots” those who dare to stand against them. And who, of course, have contributed to the very social environment that has allowed the police to be shamed and intimidated out of doing their jobs properly.

She can't bring herself to criticize the actual rapists who target the children of the host culture, calling them "easy meat" while degrading them in the worst possible ways as a show of cultural superiority.

She chooses to go after the police, instead, even as she is contributing to the same mind set that is responsible for their inaction.

It is all very sick.

Well...I have to thank you for providing an excellent example of what is wrong in all this. I'm not sure if it's a deliberate ignorance or if it's that you just have not actually read any of the news related to it.

Here's some information to enlighten you.

'1,400 children abused' in Rotherham

Racism' fear
The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

It should have been stopped and prevented

Failures by those charged with protecting children happened despite three reports between 2002 and 2006 which both the council and police were aware of, and "which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham".

Prof Jay said the first of these reports was "effectively suppressed" because senior officers did not believe the data. The other two were ignored, she said.

The inquiry team found that in the early-2000s when a group of professionals attempted to monitor a number of children believed to be at risk, "managers gave little help or support to their efforts".

The report revealed some people at a senior level in the police and children's social care thought the extent of the problem was being "exaggerated".

Prof Jay said: "The authorities involved have a great deal to answer for."

A victim of abuse in Rotherham, who has been called "Isabel" to protect her identity, told BBC Panorama: "I was a child and they should have stepped in.

"No matter what's done now... it's not going to change that it was too late, it should have been stopped and prevented."​

Who failed them? They were failed on multiple levels: by the broken social servy

How can this be fixed?

Exactly how would you "vet them"? How would you create a workable definition of "the notion that their culture should replace British culture" in such a way it could be applied in a lawful and unbiased way?

How would you address the flaws in the social services that let these children down?

How would you address the broader problem of child trafficking in the UK that leads to things like this? It didn't start with immigration, it won't end with immigration.

Nobody suggests Pakistani rape gangs were the start of child sex trafficking in the UK.
That is disingenuous blather. But they, Muslim based gangs, have taken an existing problem and greatly magnified it and increased the incidents of preying on young English girls.

Nope. Not blather. But looking for SOLUTIONS. It's a larger problem than just Pakistani rape gangs and if you don't address it, it will just continue.

How do you define "nominal" Muslims?

Muslims that aren't known Islamists, i.e. Muslims that belong to fundamentalist mosques, listen to fundamentalist Imams and have known views that advocate Islamic caliphates that work to make Islam a supreme religion above all others through the eventually combine their religion and the government.

It's a pretty easy standard to determine.

Easy?

So "fundamentalism" is an automatic rejection? In other words - belief, not behavior? We are going to institute a "religious police" of sorts and apply it only to Muslims?

To be blunt - most fundamentalists of any religious stripe tend to believe in the supremacy of their chosen religion. Who cares what they believe - we aren't and shouldn't be thought police.

If they act in such a way that violates law, or are part of a terrorist network - that is a different matter.

do you do this intentipnally?

you say you are looking for solutions even as you make it so crystal clear that you are part of the problem.

a person cannot even NAME the problem without you jumping in with your dedense.

the problem is cultural. until you are willing to acknowledge that and blame the rapes on the actual rapists, all you are doing is facilitating the problem, not addressing it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Exactly how would you "vet them"? How would you create a workable definition of "the notion that their culture should replace British culture" in such a way it could be applied in a lawful and unbiased way?

How would you address the flaws in the social services that let these children down?

How would you address the broader problem of child trafficking in the UK that leads to things like this? It didn't start with immigration, it won't end with immigration.

Nobody suggests Pakistani rape gangs were the start of child sex trafficking in the UK.
That is disingenuous blather. But they, Muslim based gangs, have taken an existing problem and greatly magnified it and increased the incidents of preying on young English girls.

How do you define "nominal" Muslims?

Muslims that aren't known Islamists, i.e. Muslims that belong to fundamentalist mosques, listen to fundamentalist Imams and have known views that advocate Islamic caliphates that work to make Islam a supreme religion above all others through the eventually combining of their religion and the government.

It's a pretty easy standard to determine.

in recent Pew research surveys, 40% of British Muslims supported the imposition of sharia law, and 67% wanted criticism of Islam to be punishable by British law.

I forget the number who supported violence to spread Islam but it was alarmingly high.

I applaud those Muslims who do not want to live according to sharia and who support free speech. I would say that those would be a good start by way of the word nominal - those who were born in a country where they are expected to be Muslim, but don't follow all the Islamic dictates.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Nope. Not blather. But looking for SOLUTIONS. It's a larger problem than just Pakistani rape gangs and if you don't address it, it will just continue.

The problem of Pakistani rape gangs (and the see nothing, do nothing attitude among UK officials) has been the largest and most organized road block to doing something about the problem you say you want to do something about.

You say you want to do something about the problem yet you resist taking on the largest part of the problem.
It's like saying you are against child trafficking in the US yet you continually downplay or rationalize the part that
organized Latin American gangs play in it (the actual largest part).

You are simply not believable. Or reasonable, Or moderately bright, it appears.

Easy?

So "fundamentalism" is an automatic rejection? In other words - belief, not behavior? We are going to institute a "religious police" of sorts and apply it only to Muslims?

Beliefs inform behavior. What part of that confuses you?
If you are a good fundamentalist Muslim then you necessarily believe all other religions are inferior to and
should be subservient to Islam.
Where have you been the last fifty years?

To be blunt - most fundamentalists of any religious stripe tend to believe in the supremacy of their chosen religion. Who cares what they believe - we aren't and shouldn't be thought police.

Believing in your religion as superior to other belief systems is one thing. To actually codify in your religion the need for good and true believers to
subjugate Catholics, Hindus, Jews, etc. is another.
It is the duty of good believing Muslims to serve the caliphate. This isn't just preferred behavior...it is required of fundamentalist Muslims.

Fill the UK with non secular Muslims....I don't give a crap. But if the UK actually wants to exist in a semblance of ther form it has existed in for the last thousand years then it is vital that they screen out regressive, raping, knife wielding fundamentalist Muslims that truly believe it is their duty to place Islam above all other forms of belief on earth..

If they act in such a way that violates law, or are part of a terrorist network - that is a different matter.

So you place no value at all in preventative proactive measures that act to reduce problems
before they become out of hand? Well, that's real bright.

Let's not do anything to prevent cancer and heart attacks until someone actually winds up
in intensive care. That's how you operate?

 

[Coyote]

Nope. Not blather. But looking for SOLUTIONS. It's a larger problem than just Pakistani rape gangs and if you don't address it, it will just continue.

The problem of Pakistani rape gangs (and the see nothing, do nothing attitude among UK officials) has been the largest and most organized road block to doing something about the problem you say you want to do something about.

Didn’t I just spend several posts saying exactly that? Where have you been?

You say you want to do something about the problem yet you resist taking on the largest part of the problem.
It's like saying you are against child trafficking in the US yet you continually downplay or rationalize the part that
organized Latin American gangs play in it (the actual largest part).

What is the largest part of the problem?
The system that failed these kids?
The culture that leads to vulnerable youth who go unnoticed?
The predators that exploit them?
The religion of some of the predators?

Which one alone will magically fix the problem? If you get rid of one set of predators how will you protect children from the next set, of a different ethnic, that moves in to take over? Let’s hear your brilliant ideas here

You are simply not believable. Or reasonable, Or moderately bright, it appears.

No problem, I am not too impressed with you, but I am open to revising my opinion.

Easy?

So "fundamentalism" is an automatic rejection? In other words - belief, not behavior? We are going to institute a "religious police" of sorts and apply it only to Muslims?

Beliefs inform behavior. What part of that confuses you?
If you are a good fundamentalist Muslim then you necessarily believe all other religions are inferior to and
should be subservient to Islam.
Where have you been the last fifty years?

Clearly not under your rock.

To be blunt - most fundamentalists of any religious stripe tend to believe in the supremacy of their chosen religion. Who cares what they believe - we aren't and shouldn't be thought police.

Believing in your religion as superior to other belief systems is one thing. To actually codify in your religion the need for good and true believers to
subjugate Catholics, Hindus, Jews, etc. is another.
It is the duty of good believing Muslims to serve the caliphate. This isn't just preferred behavior...it is required of fundamentalist Muslims.[quote

Fill the UK with non secular Muslims....I don't give a crap. But if the UK actually wants to exist in a semblance of ther form it has existed in for the last thousand years then it is vital that they screen out regressive, raping, knife wielding fundamentalist Muslims that truly believe it is their duty to place Islam above all other forms of belief on earth..

Why not screen out all regressive knife wielding mysogonists? ( though I think you know less Islam than you think. You might ask one of the Muslim members here about this).

If they act in such a way that violates law, or are part of a terrorist network - that is a different matter.

So you place no value at all in preventative proactive measures that act to reduce problems
before they become out of hand? Well, that's real bright.

Let's not do anything to prevent cancer and heart attack until someone actually winds up
in intensive care. That's how you operate?

What preventive pro-active measures do you think will really help the problem?

Here some options.
Increase police budgets for areas at risk.
Fix the broken community and social services systems that creating kids vulnerable to exploitation and take their accounts more seriously.
What measures are needed to combat child trafficking, because that is essentially what this is?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

What is the largest part of the problem?
The system that failed these kids?
The culture that leads to vulnerable youth who go unnoticed?
The predators that exploit them?
The religion of some of the predators?

Which one alone will magically fix the problem? If you get rid of one set of predators how will you protect children from the next set, of a different ethnic, that moves in to take over? Let’s hear your brilliant ideas here

This isn't football. There aren't eleven predators waiting to move in the minute these eleven are sent away.

Let's take care of the biggest most glaring problem first, rape gangs exacerbated by British unwillingness to appear
illiberal and racist by attacking this rat's nest.

Then let's move on to the next problem and so on and so forth. You have so many ways of avoiding getting to the root of things. There will always be some kids who fall between the cracks in any society.

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Coyote]

Exactly how would you "vet them"? How would you create a workable definition of "the notion that their culture should replace British culture" in such a way it could be applied in a lawful and unbiased way?

How would you address the flaws in the social services that let these children down?

How would you address the broader problem of child trafficking in the UK that leads to things like this? It didn't start with immigration, it won't end with immigration.

Nobody suggests Pakistani rape gangs were the start of child sex trafficking in the UK.
That is disingenuous blather. But they, Muslim based gangs, have taken an existing problem and greatly magnified it and increased the incidents of preying on young English girls.

How do you define "nominal" Muslims?

Muslims that aren't known Islamists, i.e. Muslims that belong to fundamentalist mosques, listen to fundamentalist Imams and have known views that advocate Islamic caliphates that work to make Islam a supreme religion above all others through the eventually combining of their religion and the government.

It's a pretty easy standard to determine.

in recent Pew research surveys, 40% of British Muslims supported the imposition of sharia law, and 67% wanted criticism of Islam to be punishable by British law.

I forget the number who supported violence to spread Islam but it was alarmingly high.

I applaud those Muslims who do not want to live according to sharia and who support free speech. I would say that those would be a good start by way of the word nominal - those who were born in a country where they are expected to be Muslim, but don't follow all the Islamic dictates.

What people believe and what they ACT on are two different things. I think it's dangerous to try to make assumptions on "belief" alone (comes close to "thought police").

I also think people do not really have any idea what "Sharia" is exactly and that misconception has lead to a lot of senseless attempts to legislate against it because Sharia in it's penal applications would never pass Constitutional muster. Sharia also means the dietary restrictions, the pray and fast cycles, and finances. That is living according to Sharia. Even in Muslim majority countries, different cultures incorporate Sharia differently and many don't include Sharia in their penal code.

I think it would be hard to develop a rule that is fair and unbiased in immigration, other than excluding those with ties to extremism. I have heard - and might agree with - excluding the importation of foreign Imams - I will have to find the article.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Why not screen out all regressive knife wielding mysogonists? ( though I think you know less Islam than you think. You might ask one of the Muslim members here about this).

Great idea! And to the degree possible lets not let more knife wielding misogynists into the country to start with.
I'm sure England already has it's share from it's base of citizens. Why compound the problem?

 

[DOTR]

It's not surprising given what the "International Free Press Society" is: International Free Press Society - Wikipedia

Coyote, why do you liberals hate the idea of the Christian West staying Christian?

They hate Christianity.

 

[Coyote]

What is the largest part of the problem?
The system that failed these kids?
The culture that leads to vulnerable youth who go unnoticed?
The predators that exploit them?
The religion of some of the predators?

Which one alone will magically fix the problem? If you get rid of one set of predators how will you protect children from the next set, of a different ethnic, that moves in to take over? Let’s hear your brilliant ideas here

This isn't football. There aren't eleven predators waiting to move in the minute these eleven are sent away.

No. It isn't football. It's more like the Mafia or drug cartels or gangs. When one is removed, another moves in to take over the territory. Human trafficking is Big Money.

Let's take care of the biggest most glaring problem first, rape gangs exacerbated by British unwillingness to appear
illiberal and racist by attacking this rat's nest.

Ok. So how? How do you weed out immigrants likely to conduct child trafficking? Any with known ties are likely already flagged. Or maybe not - maybe that is a place to start. In the background checks.

Then let's move on to the next problem and so on and so forth. You have so many ways of avoiding getting to the root of things. There will always be some kids who fall between the cracks in any society.

Actually, I think I'm the only one wanting to get at the ROOT of the problem - the societal ills that lead these kids to become vulnerable in the first place AND the system, both social services and policing/PC that allowed it to continue unchecked for so long.

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Agree, but let's not fall prey to the simple solution.

There is a quote: Every complex problem has a simple solution, and it's usually wrong.

FYI: to understand the true scope of this problem, reports like this are helpful https://www.norfolklscb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CEOP_Threat-Assessment_CSE_JUN2013.pdf

 

[Coyote]

Why not screen out all regressive knife wielding mysogonists? ( though I think you know less Islam than you think. You might ask one of the Muslim members here about this).

Great idea! And to the degree possible lets not let more knife wielding misogynists into the country to start with.
I'm sure England already has it's share from it's base of citizens. Why compound the problem?

Ok. So how will you screen them out?

 

[DOTR]

"an internationally prestigious and coveted prize given to"............. right wing trash.

I love to see the losers...on both sides of the Atlantic...calling the people, who defeated them, trash.

Happy Feb 1st...Independence Day for England. Like the leftists here you pushed too hard in your desperation and got your ass handed to you. Now you can’t even influence the terms can you?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Ok. So how will you screen them out?

It's never foolproof or easy. Background checks are a good way to start.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ok. So how will you screen them out?

It's never foolproof or easy. Background checks are a good way to start.

Some places are known to be badly infested with dangerous, violent savages. Common sense would seem to dictate a policy of now allowing anyone from such a place to immigrate, unless that individual can be reliably vetted and established to not be a dangerous, violent savage.

Of course, our President Trump was branded as a hateful bigot for trying to establish such a policy for the U.S., and I think that's still fighting its way through the courts, even thought under extant laws, he undeniably has that authority.

 

[Mindful]

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is the largest part of the problem?
The system that failed these kids?
The culture that leads to vulnerable youth who go unnoticed?
The predators that exploit them?
The religion of some of the predators?

Which one alone will magically fix the problem? If you get rid of one set of predators how will you protect children from the next set, of a different ethnic, that moves in to take over? Let’s hear your brilliant ideas here

This isn't football. There aren't eleven predators waiting to move in the minute these eleven are sent away.

No. It isn't football. It's more like the Mafia or drug cartels or gangs. When one is removed, another moves in to take over the territory. Human trafficking is Big Money.

Let's take care of the biggest most glaring problem first, rape gangs exacerbated by British unwillingness to appear
illiberal and racist by attacking this rat's nest.

Ok. So how? How do you weed out immigrants likely to conduct child trafficking? Any with known ties are likely already flagged. Or maybe not - maybe that is a place to start. In the background checks.

Then let's move on to the next problem and so on and so forth. You have so many ways of avoiding getting to the root of things. There will always be some kids who fall between the cracks in any society.

Actually, I think I'm the only one wanting to get at the ROOT of the problem - the societal ills that lead these kids to become vulnerable in the first place AND the system, both social services and policing/PC that allowed it to continue unchecked for so long.

Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Agree, but let's not fall prey to the simple solution.

There is a quote: Every complex problem has a simple solution, and it's usually wrong.

FYI: to understand the true scope of this problem, reports like this are helpful https://www.norfolklscb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CEOP_Threat-Assessment_CSE_JUN2013.pdf

You are the only one wanting to get to the root of the problem?

In an earlier thread, one of your people indicated that the children were not actually raped, but indulging in voluntary sex, instead, He said that the men were just "tapping up" these children -- a crude reference to cheap and easy sex. You agreed with him, even going so far as to defend his use of "tapping up" With this in mind, I have a couple of questions relating to you claim you are the only one wanting to get to the root of the problem.

My first one is where you place the age of consent. Some of these children were just 11, so I'm wondering how young can British children be to consent to sex with Muslim men?

My second question is this: All reports are that the children were actually raped, often in very violent and disgusting ways. If you are the only one who is wanting to get to the root of the problem, how is your agreement that these were not rapes actually helpful to getting to the root of the problem, especially since you defended the poster's use characterizing the rapes as the children just getting "tapped up"?