Just for you Whitespittle...

so you think he means prehistoric times.

No. Once again I didn't say that. You did. He refers to the passage of time in general with no specific start or finish. He never mentioned Victiorian, he never mentioned prehistoric. His statement is logical and easily understandable. If you have grief with him why not just come out with it instead of trolling.
 
Going further and further back in time:
1950
1850
1750
1650
55BC
5000BC
Any or all of these?
 
I believe that this abuse is still rife among the wealthy.
Only the wealthy?

Surely not.

IMO it is simply a crime that was ignored for centuries because the victims were powerless and could be ignored.

It's not so long ago that if little Samantha told her mum that the priest had put his hand up her skirt, mum would have smacked her round the head for telling wicked lies.

And if an official complaint was made to the Catholic Church, it was their official policy to keep it secret from the police. The child and the family would be browbeaten into keeping quiet, and the pervert would be shipped off to another parish, or even another country, so he could start again with a fresh batch of unsuspecting victims.

Pope Benedict, who has now taken himself off the throne, used to be "the Pope's Enforcer" and was very strict. Perhaps he learned his approach to rules and discipline when he was in the Hitler Youth.

Churches and schools have a lot to apologise for.

Your talking about recent history. The Asian thing is more recent than that - the pervs are only now starting to be prosecuted. The law has cought up with paedo priests - but is only now grudgingly doing something about the Rotherham taxi drivers.
 
Last edited:
He said... "Being wealthy means being better positioned in terms of keeping things like child abuse hushed up".
"The further you go back (in time) the more relevant it becomes."


Surely the further you go back in time, the LESS hushing up was attempted or necessary.
WEALTH becomes more relevant! And yes, less hushing up was necessary.

Are you permanently pizzed LMB?
 
Jeez. I must really get to the op, because he's starting threads aimed directly at me. Either that, or he's a stalker. Obviously the juvenile names are a vain attempt to boost his non-argument.

When have I, or anyone else on this forum, ever said or hinted that pedos are exclusively Asian?

Just for the benefit of the bozo builder (bringing it down to your level for you), not for the benefit of most on here who have already grasped the real argument -

* The cases I referred to involve hundreds of perpetrators and victims, spanning different cities
* One religious group specialises in this type of wholesale abuse, not Sikhs, Buddhists or Jews
* The biggest and overriding difference is that the case linked by the op was rightly prosecuted and the offenders jailed. However, in the cases I highlighted, all of the authorities tried to sweep a massive pedo ring under the carpet - mainly because they don't want to admit that multiculturalism is a failed project, but also because the religion involved is always a special case.

Yet again, I've had to explain the differences to you nosey. I'm beginning to realise that my initial assessment of you as being as sharp as a marble is totally correct. It's boring to have to explain things over and over to the kid at the back of the class. This is the last time. Please come back with more juvenile names, I can't stop you trying to make up for both the inadequacies in yourself and your arguments - such as they are. Maybe someone else can help you grasp the situation and the differences in the cases.

But here's the problem. Brits of Pakistani origin do include many paedophile gangs, just as Italians in America include many Mafia gangs. But you then go on to imply that it is a characteristic of Muslims, as if most are not appalled. It does seem that part of the problem is that the police allowed the gangs to prosper. If you ignore a crime, it will increase.

No. I didn't imply that being involved in paedophile gangs is a characteristic of muslims. I blatantly stated that wholesale targeting, systematic grooming and sexual abuse of indigenous, caucasian girls by a certain religion seems to be a trait of muslim men. If you care to research this, you will find that this very specific activity is widespread.

As for being appalled, well, I'm sure the 'community' was when it's was caught. But then, even being caught didn't guarantee prosecution - another curious facet of this pattern of offending. But like some terrorist activities that are also quite specific, the appalled ones didn't save any of the victims from their fates. Did they?

So paedophilia is a trait of Muslim men. Care to provide proof of that sweeping statement? Many would consider that remark offensive.

Don't take my word for it. Even their own imams are saying the same thing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...mote-grooming-rings-Muslim-leader-claims.html

You need to calm yourself down and not get so easily offended.
 
That deserves more than just a link, I'll quote the whole article here directly in the hope some of our resident idiots might read it and learn something.

Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, said race and religion were inextricably linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls.


Earlier this week seven members of a child sex ring from Oxford were found guilty of forcing under age girls to commit acts of "extreme depravity".

Their victims, aged between 11 and 15, were groomed and plied with alcohol and drugs before being sexually assaulted and forced into prostitution. They targeted "out of control" teenagers.

Dr Hargey said that the case brought shame on the city and the community and is a set back for cross community harmony.

But worse still is the refusal to face up to its realities, he wrote in the
Daily Mail.

The activities of the Oxford sex ring are “bound up with religion and race” because all the men - though of different nationalities - were Muslim and they “deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as 'easy meat', to use one of their revealing, racist phrases”, Dr Hargey said.

That attitude has been promoted by religious leaders, he believes. “On one level, most imams in the UK are simply using their puritanical sermons to promote the wearing of the hijab and even the burka among their female adherents. But the dire result can be the brutish misogyny we see in the Oxford sex ring.”

People tiptoe around the issues and refuse to discuss the problems exposed by the scandals such as those “from Rochdale to Oxford, and Telford to Derby”, he wrote.

In all cases the perpetrators were Muslim men and the victims were under age white girls.

To pretend it is not a problem is the Islamic community is “ideological denial”, Dr Hargey said.

“But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes.

“Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.”

The men were allowed, he said, to come and go from care homes by the authorities, and if the situation had been reversed with gangs of white men preying on Muslim teenagers ”the state's agencies would have acted with greater alacrity.”

True Islam preaches respect for women but in mosques across the country a different doctrine is preached - “one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt,” the Imam said.

The men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority," he claims in the column.

“The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers.

“Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.”

Such cases can only be prevented in the future if Britain abandons the blinkers of political correctness, he concludes.
 
Thanks Sooey. It's what I and others on here know and have been trying to explain. But, there are none so blind as those who won't see. And one in particular is just getting sadder and more desperate with each post aimed at me. He knows who he is.
 
Thanks Sooey. It's what I and others on here know and have been trying to explain. But, there are none so blind as those who won't see. And one in particular is just getting sadder and more desperate with each post aimed at me. He knows who he is.
No need to explain. I have never denied the Asian thing nor have I condoned it. The relevance of this post was never about the Asian thing. You and your sidekick Spuey, forever bleating on about it, won't make any difference to the fact that you were wrong, so stop trying to deflect the topic.

All I have done is point out that you were wrong regards white men acting in gangs. Geddit yet? Jeepers, you are s-l-o-w.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top