The people using it for political purposes are the problemYou’re part of the problem
The people using it for political purposes are the problemYou’re part of the problem

Not me old purkin, they should all be punished to the full extent of the law. I've said that often.The problems sex offenders, you clearly favour one side.
That we can agree on.Not me old purkin, they should all be punished to the full extent of the law. I've said that often.
As I stated it’s only defendants, there’s been numerous outcries over certain communities getting away with it. You know like, documentaries on tv etc, etc
Can we agree on the chart only being relevant to defendants and not the actual amount of sex crimes committed?
The above is the last line of your chart, sort of makes a mockery of it! Well not sort of, it does.Excludes defendants whose ethnicity was not recorded. 'Other' includes Arab.

Not at all, they can't record info they don't have.The above is the last line of your chart, sort of makes a mockery of it!
They don’t struggle identifying white males.Not at all, they can't record info they don't have.

Only because you don't like its conclusions. I'll keep posting it, thanks all the same.Your chart is worthless,
No, because as per the last line of your chart information is missing. We’ll never know how much…Only because you don't like its conclusions. I'll keep posting it, thanks all the same.

Take it up with the government, I like it and will use it again.your chart is wrong and irrelevant.
Use it all you like, it’s wrong and incomplete.Take it up with the government, I like it and will use it again.

It's correct with the information available, it states how it is compiled which is fair and reasonable.Use it all you like, it’s wrong and incomplete.

Nope, this is what I said:Motorbiking said 94% of the offences had no record of ethnicity.
from the same report you keep pasting:
It is important to highlight that some data fields used in the analysis were not consistently recorded – for example, barely a third (35%) of child sexual abuse offences had a record of the victim–perpetrator relationship, and ethnicity data on suspects was also largely missing. That's without even getting into the argument that "child sexual abuse offences" is a massively wide set of offences, most of which have noting to do with organised gangs raping kids.
Why the need for a disclaimer?It's correct with the information available, it states how it is compiled which is fair and reasonable.
Nope, this is what I said:
Only 3.7% of CSE / CSA offences relate to organised gangs raping kids.
The vast majority of the offences are:
- Under age sex (perp and victim aged 13-15)
- Kiddie porn distribution and possession (literally thousands)
- child abuse in the family.
It's a nice distraction for the forum trolls to pretend it's relevant. Nosenout is so angry he keeps posting the same boll@x and Denso is just trolling because he hopes nobody knows what CSE / CSA offences are.

its beyond dishonest to present CSA / CSE offences and argue it proves White men are over represented in Organised gangs raping kids.Tue
Why the need for a disclaimer?