National Grooming Gangs Inquiry Announced

[morqthana]

She said what they were saying was false --- calling them liars in other words

No, absolutely not "in other words". If people are simply wrong because they don't know things, or because they have misinterpreted something, but they genuinely believe what they are saying, then that doesn't make them liars - the element of knowing what you're saying is untrue, but saying it anyway in order to mislead people, is essential.

For example, if someone were to claim that another person had called a 3rd party a liar, when they hadn't, and he knew they hadn't used that word but had instead said that the 3rd party was wrong, would he be a liar?

Or would he simply be incorrect due to not knowing what the word 'liar' actually means?

- and according to the women themselves who it was aimed at - they certainly felt that they were being called liars, considering what they went through with institutions not believing them at the time - this really must be sickening for them.

It really is not Jess Phillips' fault if people don't know the difference between "no, you are wrong", and "you are lying". If someone makes claims about the enquiry which are false, but they do so because they've misinterpreted something, they haven't lied.

But how, in your mind, should someone associated with running or setting up the enquiry respond to claims which are false? What word(s) should they use?

What words can they use which won't be criticised by people who know so little about words that they too don't know the difference between "no, you are wrong", and "you are lying"?

 

[morqthana]

When I was talking to you last week for one instance

Sorry, I thought you were talking about this thread.

 

[pete01]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about this thread.

Just in general, sorry

 

[morqthana]

Yep and the tart thief, morqph, and the weird old man woodworker. All seems to want to continue the cover up. Sickening.

What's sickening is reading disgusting allegations like that made by people who know there's not a shred of evidence to support them, but instead are completely misrepresenting "an enquiry into CSE should enquire into the totality of it" as "an enquiry into CSE should ignore the issue of Asian grooming gangs".

Whether they do that out of sheer malice, or because they are such racists that they only want to come down on Asian grooming gangs, or out of frustration over their inability to make headway with rational observations, or if they are simply incapable of behaving in a coherent, evidence-based way, isn't 100% clear.

 

[fillyboy]

If people are simply wrong because they don't know things, or because they have misinterpreted something,

Are you saying the 'victims' of the grooming gangs 'got it wrong because they didn't know things' or 'misinterpreted something'?

**** me.

 

[aveatry]

Or would he simply be incorrect due to not knowing what the word 'liar' actually means?

It really is not Jess Phillips' fault if people don't know the difference between "no, you are wrong", and "you are lying". If someone makes claims about the enquiry which are false, but they do so because they've misinterpreted something, they haven't lied.

But how, in your mind, should someone associated with running or setting up the enquiry respond to claims which are false? What word(s) should they use?

What words can they use which won't be criticised by people who know so little about words that they too don't know the difference between "no, you are wrong", and "you are lying"?

You are just ranting now.
Its been talked about all day - radio presenters - people ringing in- the women themselves all say Philips was saying they are lying.

 

[johnny2007]

No - what they've seen are your fantasy burblings which have not a shred of proof behind them.

I wonder if the problem is that you genuinely don't understand concepts like truth, and proof, and evidence, or if the problem is that you really DGAS if anything you say is true or not.

In an old thread Himmy brushed off Italians as fascists to attack me.
He's a racist bigot in drags.

 

[johnny2007]

Many times I exposed Himmy as a racist bigot in drags.
Everybody has seen the evidence.
Once again, Himmy's arguments against racism are as valid as those of peadophiles campaign against child cruelty.

No - what they've seen are your fantasy burblings which have not a shred of proof behind them.

Are you Himmy?
Seems more and more like it...

 

[morqthana]

Massive difference in results.

Oh well - one more thing you believe which is not supported by any evidence.

Who told you I don't want an enquiry looking into it.

If you want an enquiry, you must think that white people are also involved in CSE, or at least likely enough to make it worth enquiring into.

And yet if someone says that white people are also involved in CSE you spew out an appalling insult like this:

Himmy is trying to support rape gangs by saying that there are other rape cases involving his hated white people.
What about distancing yourself from all rapists rather than trying to justify gangs of dirty old man raping kids just because they're not white?
Disgraceful!

So which is true?

That you do want an enquiry into CSE carried out by white people?

Or that anybody who says that white people are also involved in CSE is supporting rape gangs?

THEY CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE.

Afaic, there should be dedicated departments of police hunting down all child abusers and rapist with harsh minimum sentences set and applied.

And yet when someone points out to you that "all child abusers" includes "white child abusers" you accuse them of trying to support rape gangs by saying that there are other rape cases involving white people.

So which is true?

That there should be dedicated departments of police hunting down ALL child abusers and rapists?

Or that anybody who says that white people are also child abusers and rapists is supporting rape gangs?

THEY CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE.

 

[morqthana]

Are you saying the 'victims' of the grooming gangs 'got it wrong because they didn't know things' or 'misinterpreted something'?

You seem to be struggling to understand that that observation was about the things they said about the way the enquiry was going to run, not the things they have said/will say about their rapes and other abuse.

Perhaps if you read all the relevant posts you might understand.

**** me.

No thanks.

 

[morqthana]

You are just ranting now.

First lie/liar

Now rant/ranting

It really would be best if you stuck to using words whose meanings you understand.

Its been talked about all day - radio presenters - people ringing in- the women themselves all say Philips was saying they are lying.

As I said, it isn't Jess Phillips' fault if people don't know the difference between "no, you are wrong", and "you are lying".

That applies to the enquiry witnesses who said something incorrect about the way the enquiry was going to run and those phoning into radio stations. Although the latter may have read false claims from people like you, and not bothered to check for themselves.

If a radio presenter made the false claim then that is shameful.

I asked you before, how should someone associated with running or setting up the enquiry respond to claims which are false? What word(s) should they use?

What words can they use which won't be criticised by people who know so little about words that they too don't know the difference between "no, you are wrong", and "you are lying"?

Are you going to answer?

 

[morqthana]

Are you Himmy?
Seems more and more like it...

It might to you.

But that's because your seeming detector is broken.

 

[aveatry]

First lie/liar

View attachment 396603

Now rant/ranting

View attachment 396604

It really would be best if you stuck to using words whose meanings you understand.





As I said, it isn't Jess Phillips' fault if people don't know the difference between "no, you are wrong", and "you are lying".

That applies to the enquiry witnesses who said something incorrect about the way the enquiry was going to run and those phoning into radio stations. Although the latter may have read false claims from people like you, and not bothered to check for themselves.

If a radio presenter made the false claim then that is shameful.

I asked you before, how should someone associated with running or setting up the enquiry respond to claims which are false? What word(s) should they use?

What words can they use which won't be criticised by people who know so little about words that they too don't know the difference between "no, you are wrong", and "you are lying"?

Are you going to answer?

No one reads your long word salad posts - or when you post as knave
all people hear is the voice of your namesake
Morq

 

[morqthana]

No one reads your long word salad posts

Especially when they highlight the appallingly incompetent and mendacious way you post, and your refusal to answer questions because if you did then your falsehoods would be even more exposed, eh?

- or when you post as knave

But I don't.

Why do you think that your repeated dishonesty is acceptable?

 

[aveatry]

Especially when they highlight the appallingly incompetent and mendacious way you post, and your refusal to answer questions because if you did then your falsehoods would be even more exposed, eh?



But I don't.

Why do you think that your repeated dishonesty is acceptable?

You sound like a retired public school headmaster.
No one in here likes you - same as your life in the real world no doubt
Your posting style is exactly the same as the tart stealer including the 6 or 7 posts one after the other and because you have to log in as the other user - the both of you never post at the same time