National Grooming Gangs Inquiry Announced

morqthana said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Six men from 'depraved' Bolton grooming gang jailed

A further six men from a ten-man Bolton gang that abused under-age girls for years are sentenced.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Withdrawal awaited.

Will you also withdraw the allegations that people who point out the truth about non-Asian sex offenders are supporting or seeking to excuse the Asian ones?
Click to expand...
Yes, they caught 3 white dirty b@stards recently.
Hardly comparable with historical gangs operating systematically since the 90s and involving more than 3 criminals.
The difference between the sex offenders and the organised groups logistically planning their dirty acts remains.
You pretend not to understand the difference, defending the indefensible.
 
morqthana said:
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?




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"?
Click to expand...
As I understand it none of the survivor group have been called liars. They claim they have been called liars.
There's the subtle difference.

Like many on here claim lots of untrue things are true. It doesn't make it so.
 
morqthana said:
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.
Click to expand...
As Jim Gamble said, there's some political meddling going on which has turned the creation of the Enquiry and its composition toxic.
He added: "Regrettably, the reaction to the appointment process has been defined more by the vested interests of some, as well as political opportunism and point-scoring, rather than by the cross-party consensus required to address such a serious national issue.

"Victims and survivors, who have been let down so often in the past, deserve better than to be used as leverage for short-term gain by anyone."
Click to expand...
news.sky.com

All survivors who quit grooming gang inquiry will return if Jess Phillips resigns

In a letter to the home secretary, the survivors said the minister's conduct shows she is "unfit" to oversee a process that requires them to trust the government.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

I believe one of the conditions that the four resignations railed against was the restriction on discussing the enquiry with their friends and families. This was/is apparently important to them, to be able to discuss the enquiry openly.
As I said earlier, imagine the days enquiry processes being discussed on Facebook. :rolleyes:

It's very easy for political pressure to be put on the survivors to submit to the will of others, and to persuade them to pursue the direction that such "influencers" prefer.

Those resignations now place political conditions on their return. For once Starmer is standing firm.
I'd say if they want to flounce out because the enquiry isn't following their personal desires, let them go. There's 16 others who are content to continue.

The four seemed to have created a little cabal for themselves, probably with outside assistance and influence.
The four women who have resigned this week have written....
Click to expand...
news.sky.com

All survivors who quit grooming gang inquiry will return if Jess Phillips resigns

In a letter to the home secretary, the survivors said the minister's conduct shows she is "unfit" to oversee a process that requires them to trust the government.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
fillyboy said:
Are you saying the 'victims' of the grooming gangs 'got it wrong because they didn't know things' or 'misinterpreted something'?

**** me.
Click to expand...
If you're a victim of a grooming gang, which you later regret, you obviously did get it wrong because you didn't know things or misinterpreted something.
The alternative is that you submitted to abuse, knowing the dangers, and ignored them.

That is not victim blaming. That is responsible adults taking advantage of innocent, but gullible people. Which is different to similar abuse occurring in institutions where the abuse is meted out as punishment in organisations that are designed to protect such victims. But the victims, in that case have no recourse to genuine help, because their abusers are their mentors and supervisors.
The victims in the grooming gangs incidents did have recourse to outside assistance designed to help them, but they did not receive the sort of help they needed and deserved.

I'm sure many of us have acted impulsively in the past, later regretted it, and thought if only I knew then what I know now.
I'm not referring specifically to sexual issues, before anyone misinterprets my comment.

A parallel could be made with victims of scams. Where they were duped, due to their innocence, gullibility, or greed. And possibly they didn't receive the level of support they needed or deserved.
 
johnny2007 said:
In an old thread Himmy brushed off Italians as fascists to attack me.
He's a racist bigot in drags.
Click to expand...
Any evidence of this?
And why drag it up in this thread?
How is it remotely connected to sexual abuse by grooming gangs?
Are you just pursuing an old vendetta against a non-existent poster?

If you have an issue with a non-existent poster, why not start your own thread on the issue instead of polluting another thread?
 
morqthana said:
Oh well - one more thing you believe which is not supported by any evidence.




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:



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.




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.
Click to expand...
I don't think Johnny has the ability to do joined-up thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

fillyboy
The Great British National Strike
2 3 4
Replies
55
Views
3K
JohnD
JohnD
Back
Top