Child protection

[noseall]

It's one thing to have our own indigenous pedos, who mainly operate on their own or in small groups

You naive, ignorant silly little man. Bless.
http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/jimmy-s...ren-were-loaned-to-rich-paedophile-yachtsmen/
I know the story is historic, but if you think that indigenous white peados are without a large clever infrastructure of child abuse then you must be a complete idiot. And if you think it is not going on today then you are dumber than I thought. Difficult to believe I know.

 

[noseall]

Garbage.

Those English lessons not going well then Norcs?

 

[noseall]

JBR, you listening? Care to answer something for me for a change?

What is an apologist? Do you consider me an apologist and can you explain why? You can quote me if you like.

Do you agree that it was Norcon who steered this thread onto Muslims? If you are struggling to remember, you thanked him for it along with a cheap shot hoax photo lower down the first page of the thread. You must be very embarrassed.

Don't forget, I'm only here to expose the racists and restore parity to the debate. Pity you can't see that though.

 

[Dextraneous]

If I might momentarily return to the intended discussion point of this thread ( ), the age of consent in the UK was set at 13 in 1875 which isn't really all that long ago. It again highlights how arbitrarily our sense of moral indignation can be "learned" and embedded into our culture and how easily we seem to forget that what is now considered reprehensible was fairly recently thought as being acceptable and normal.

 

[noseall]

If I might momentarily return to the intended discussion point of this thread ( ), the age of consent in the UK was set at 13 in 1875 which isn't really all that long ago. It again highlights how arbitrarily our sense of moral indignation can be "learned" and embedded into our culture and how easily we seem to forget that what is now considered reprehensible was fairly recently thought as being acceptable and normal.

We also realise that just because children have reached an age where they can have children themselves does not necessarily mean that they are mature enough to deal with it.

Education plays a part in this in that children are expected to be in education 'till 16 years of age or even greater now (18 yrs) depending upon when they were born.

People are living much longer also.

Women are not just wives and mothers any more either.

Of course many things have changed a lot in a few hundred years and rightly so. Thank goodness.

 

[Dextraneous]

If I might momentarily return to the intended discussion point of this thread ( ), the age of consent in the UK was set at 13 in 1875 which isn't really all that long ago. It again highlights how arbitrarily our sense of moral indignation can be "learned" and embedded into our culture and how easily we seem to forget that what is now considered reprehensible was fairly recently thought as being acceptable and normal.

We also realise that just because children have reached an age where they can have children themselves does not necessarily mean that they are mature enough to deal with it.

Education plays a part in this in that children are expected to be in education 'till 16 years of age or even greater now (18 yrs) depending upon when they were born.

People are living much longer also.

Women are not just wives and mothers any more either.

Of course many things have changed a lot in a few hundred years and rightly so. Thank goodness.

Totally agree.

 

[JBR]

JBR, you listening?

I'm afraid that I can no longer reply directly to any of your posts in case it upsets you.

Of course, it may have been one of your fellow apologists who have been deleting posts which you find offensive but, just to be on the safe side, no more responses from me.

 

[JBR]

If I might momentarily return to the intended discussion point of this thread ( ), the age of consent in the UK was set at 13 in 1875 which isn't really all that long ago. It again highlights how arbitrarily our sense of moral indignation can be "learned" and embedded into our culture and how easily we seem to forget that what is now considered reprehensible was fairly recently thought as being acceptable and normal.

Over 150 years, we appear to have moved on.

If 13-year-olds are adjudged as being not old enough to vote or drive a car, surely they're not old enough to have sex.

Call me a dinosaur, but I think 21 would be a more suitable age for all three.

 

[noseall]

JBR, you listening?

I'm afraid that I can no longer reply directly to any of your posts in case it upsets you.

PM me if you like then no one gets offended, especially not me.

Of course, it may have been one of your fellow apologists who have been deleting posts which you find offensive but

Can you explain what an apologist is please? I'm pretty sure you can do that without offence.

 

[RNReindeer]

It's one thing to have our own indigenous pedos, who mainly operate on their own or in small groups as you have given examples.

Where do you get those fliltering specs' that you use, the type that filter out the material that you refuse to acknowledge?

Five Westminster paedophile rings probed by Scotland Yard
Claims emerge of a complex web of child abuse at the heart of government, as leading MP in campaign for justice hands list of 22 names to police
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...le-rings-probed-by-Scotland-Yard.html[/QUOTE]

Quite another to import backwards people whose backgrounds we know nothing about, and then discover that it's in their culture to systematically target white children for sex.

That's quite a leap from culturally acceptable child brides to "systematically targetting white children"

This is a dangerous new phenomenon, where whole groups of ROP organise themselves into pedo rings. It's happening all over the country where you find any concentrations of them.

Another of your absurdly exagerated statements, based solely on your prejudiced viewpoint.

I find it amazing that you rail against pedos, but seem to stand up for cultures where it seems to be almost accepted - until they get caught and the 'community' affects shock. But then, you are full of contradictions.

In which culture is pedophilia acceptable?
Are you even aware of the definition of pedophilia?

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia[/QUOTE]

The white pedos in Bristol seem to work alone as seen in the Gary Glitter conviction, but the ROP always hunt in packs as in this recent Bristol case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30095960[/QUOTE]
So your assertions are based on just two conflicting examples to highlight a general principle?

You should change your name to "whatspirit". You make absurd sweeping assertions, then behave like a child with its fingers in their ears repeating to themselves "I can't hear you" to avoid any discussion.

You obviously find it easier to make yourself look a fool than to defend your beliefs.
How do you view bible-thumpers who state that they know God exists because they've felt his pesence in their lives and they refuse to entertain any discussion or contemplate any argument.
That's the position that you and Just Being Racist have adopted. You insist on your racist approach and refuse to enter into any discussion about your position.

Excellent examples of racists, totally closed minds, refusing to consider anything else, and incapable of justifying your beliefs in rational discusion.

 

[RNReindeer]

If I might momentarily return to the intended discussion point of this thread ( ), the age of consent in the UK was set at 13 in 1875 which isn't really all that long ago. It again highlights how arbitrarily our sense of moral indignation can be "learned" and embedded into our culture and how easily we seem to forget that what is now considered reprehensible was fairly recently thought as being acceptable and normal.

Quite so Dex. Additionally, what is now considered reprehensible in the UK is still considered acceptable and normal in other European countries.

 

[RNReindeer]

If 13-year-olds are adjudged as being not old enough to vote or drive a car, surely they're not old enough to have sex.

Call me a dinosaur, but I think 21 would be a more suitable age for all three.

Yet in other European countries 13 and even 12 is the legal age of consent.
I'm not supporting or condemming that, just indicating how precise Dex's comments are and how illogical is the approach to determining the age of consent.

 

[Brigadier]

Rather than bring it back on track, you were content to persue that islamophobic direction.

Nice dodge

The Islamic slant on this thread had been going for three and a half pages (to which you were contributing, for at least the last half-page of). You asked for referenced sources.
So I obliged.

You seemed ok with the direction of the thread, until you got what you asked for.
Why are you afraid of the spotlight?

As I said, you were content to persue the Islamophobic avenue rather than draw attention to the true state of young brides happening throughout the developing world, not just under Islam.
Like JBR, you wanted to exploit an example of something, like animal slaughter to persue your islamophobia.

You keep telling yourself that, RN - it'll become true (in your own head) eventually

You asked for referenced evidence - that's what I gave you (you thanked me for it, remember?)

 

[Brigadier]

As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of child brides has nothing to do with Islam. Where's the racists concern for those children?
No where to be seen, as usual..

Islam is not a race - it is an ideology.

You want referenced facts - hear you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage#Prevalence_data

Scroll down to the Prevalence Data table.
Click on the link for each of the top 20 child marriage countries in it (I got bored after India). (all percentages from wikipedia, as well)

Highest prevalence of child marriage - Niger (99% muslim)
2nd - Chad - 54% muslim
3rd - Bangladesh - 86.6%
4th - Guinea - 85%
5th - Central African Republic - 15%
6th - Mali - 90%
7th - Mozambique - 17.9%
8th - Malawi - 13-25% (disputed figures)
9th - Madagascar - 7%
10th - Sierra Leone - 71.3%
11th - Burkina Faso - 60.5%
12th - India - 13.4%


I then decided to look up some more Wiki-links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_India

Child marriage in India, according to Indian law, is a marriage where either the woman is below age 18 or the man is below age 21.[1] Most child marriages involve underage women, many of whom are in poor socio-economic conditions.[2]

Child marriages are prevalent in India. Estimates vary widely between sources as to the extent and scale of child marriages. The International Center for Research on Women-UNICEF publications have estimated India's child marriage rate to be 47% from small sample surveys of 1998,[3] while the United Nations reports it to be 30% in 2005.[4] The Census of India has counted and reported married women by age, with proportion of females in child marriage falling in each 10 year census period since 1981. In its 2001 census report, India stated zero married girls below age 10, 1.4 million married girls out of 59.2 million girls in the age 10-14, and 11.3 million married girls out of 46.3 million girls in the age 15-19 (which includes 18-19 age group).[5] Since 2001, child marriage rates in India have fallen another 46%, reaching an overall nationwide average 7% child marriage rates by 2009.[6] Jharkhand is the state with highest child marriage rates in India (14.1%), while Kerala is the only state where child marriage rates have increased in recent years, particularly in its Muslim community.[6][7] Rural rates of child marriages were three times higher than urban India rates in 2009.[6]

Child marriage was outlawed in 1929, under Indian law. However, in the British colonial times, the legal minimum age of marriage was set at 15 for girls and 18 for boys. Under protests from Muslim organizations in the undivided British India, a personal law Shariat Act was passed in 1937 that allowed child marriages with consent from girl's guardian.[8] After independence and adoption of Indian constitution in 1950, the child marriage act has undergone several revisions. The minimum legal age for marriage, since 1978, has been 18 for women and 21 for men.[9] The child marriage prevention laws have been challenged in Indian courts,[8] with some Muslim Indian organizations seeking no minimum age and that the age matter be left to their personal law.[10][11] Child marriage is an active political subject as well as a subject of continuing cases under review in the highest courts of India.[10]

Several states of India have introduced incentives to delay marriages. For example, the state of Haryana introduced the so-called Apni Beti, Apna Dhan program in 1994, which translates to "My daughter, My wealth". It is a conditional cash transfer programme dedicated to delaying young marriages by providing a government paid bond in her name, payable to her parents, in the amount of INR25000 (US$390), after her 18th birthday if she is not married.[12]

Under protests from Muslim organizations in the undivided British India, a personal law Shariat Act was passed in 1937 that allowed child marriages with consent from girl's guardian.[8]

The child marriage prevention laws have been challenged in Indian courts,[8] with some Muslim Indian organizations seeking no minimum age and that the age matter be left to their personal law.[10][11]

Jharkhand is the state with highest child marriage rates in India (14.1%), while Kerala is the only state where child marriage rates have increased in recent years, particularly in its Muslim community.[6][7]

Jharkand, with the highest child marriage rate in India (14.1%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jharkhand#Religion

Hinduism is the major religion in the state with 68.57% adherents followed by Islam (14.5%) and Christianity (4.5%) as per 2001 census.[14][15]

Now, shoot my maths down if you want, but logic alone might dictate that if approx. 14% of the population of a state are child married, and 14% of the population of that same state are a particular religion, there is a good likelihood that particular religion account for almost all of the child marriages?


Do you still insist that the "vast majority of child brides are nothing to do with Islam."?

 

[Micilin]

Brigadier- some good links there.

Obviously there are cultural factors and the use of religion in those cultures in the subject under discussion .



( But it is there is no logic at all to make a link between your '14%'s, that not how stats work- even when a more demonstrable correlation is present')