This.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
This.
@MalcolmTucker, when the feck did I call you racist? I asked if you've heard of the Catholic Church. You know, that 2000 year old, historically predominantly white males, well known for child abuse?
Your post is bellend
Your post is bellend
Criticise the post, not the poster.
Have you heard of whataboutism? What does paedophilia in the Catholic Church have to do with Muslim rape gangs? Both can be evil and exist at the same time.
If someone brought up the child abuse in the Catholic Church you certainly wouldn't bring up Muslim grooming gangs as some weird deflection, would you?
Telford is 91% White yet the Telford inquiry reported that “it all appears to revolve around young Muslim men as they are the main perpetrators working in gangs/groups".
The town is 4.7% Asian yet the report shows that the perpetrators are Muslims (who represent a smaller number than 4.7% as I'm sure there are Hindus, Sikhs and East Asians in Telford too, who are unfortunately lumped in under the category of 'Asian'). This argument falls flat on its face in so many ways I find it astounding that anyone can agree with it.
I bought up the Catholic Church, because if you're gonna talk about grooming gangs, you should talk about the biggest one, which is not Muslim.
Have you actually read the report rather than just parroting misleading headlines?
When you actually look into the report, all the studies show that White people (approximately 88% of the population) are hugely underrepresented and Asians (7% of the population) and Black people (3% of the population) are hugely overrepresented. Even if you look at study b, which claims Whites are the largest category, when we look into the report we see:
35% were White with only 11% being British (underrepresented)
28% were of Asian & Middle Eastern descent (4x over base representation)
16% were Black (5.3x overrepresentation)
The media telling us it's most commonly White is like saying a Labrador is more dangerous than an adder because more people die from dog bites in Britain every year. Unfortunately people like you fall for it.
And these statistics are just the abusers who have been arrested. As I alluded to in my original post, if you look into the Rotherham and Telford reports, it explicitly states that this has been covered up and suppressed because of the racial element.
At 10m19s of this BBC Panorama documentary, a Home Office researcher was told to never refer to grooming gang perpetrators as Asian men and was sent on a diversity course. She was told to change her findings and had her data stolen. Also in the documentary it shows how a 13 year old girl took a bloody coat she was gang-raped in to the police and they 'lost' the DNA evidence. In the documentary, it shows how many of the abusers are inexplicably still free and how the police turned a blind eye, in some cases arresting the girls. One abuser told a victim that if he got in trouble, he'd play the race card.
The recent Telford Report details how the rapists would take girls out to remote locations at night and threaten to abandon them if they did not engage in sexual behaviour; or would simply rape them. Girls would get taken to rooms in nightclubs, restaurants and takeaways to be exploited by multiple men - there was even a known 'rape house'. Disclosures were made that there were minibuses full of children being trafficked out of Telford for the purposes of gang rape. Witnesses have said the 1,000 abused children figure being touted is 'conservative' or 'tame' and this is only in the town of Telford. When the girls attempted to end the abuse, the men would remind them of what happened to Lucy Lowe, a grooming gang victim who was burned alive by her abuser, along with her family in a deliberate house fire - Lucy had a child with her abuser when she was only 14 who managed to survive and there's a documentary about her story. The report confirms that the majority of the CSE suspects in Telford were ‘of southern Asian heritage’. However, these men were protected by the police, the council, teachers and agencies because of fears of racism
This is overwhelmingly a Pakistani Muslim problem and the biggest child protection scandal in UK history. Since the 80s, hundreds of thousands of underage White and Sikh girls have gang-raped, beaten and tortured by Muslim grooming gangs. Teenage girls were targeted because they were White and called worthless and trash - it is the most egregious example of racism in modern Britain, yet the people who have responded to this thread have glibly called me racist for pointing out this tragedy and cover up. I will suspend my ire and assume most of you do this because you are simply ignorant and will read this information I've provided and revise your opinion on the subject. I urge people to read the Telford report and watch the Panorama documentary and an interview with a grooming gang survivor to get understanding of how horrific the crimes are and who has been committing them.
If you could stop all White gang rapes, or all ‘Muslim’ gang rapes, simply by snapping your fingers, which do you stop?
You’re getting caught up in % of population statistics, which is often the case with racists online (I am categorically not saying you are racist).
If you believe that a tenfold increase in the ‘Muslim’ population would lead to a tenfold increase in those numbers, then that’s fair to believe. Personally, I don’t.
This is a completely irrelevant point to make. Adds nothing to the discussion.
I actually thought @MalcolmTucker was going to emphasize a different point.
And the point (or question) is: were law enforcement reluctant or hesitant to look into specific cases for fear of being deemed racist? What do the researchers of those investigations or reports say about that?
Wasn't that one of the talking points for the Rotherham cases?
And the point (or question) is: were law enforcement reluctant or hesitant to look into specific cases for fear of being deemed racist? What do the researchers of those investigations or reports say about that?
Wasn't that one of the talking points for the Rotherham cases?
Only because you know the answer is ‘White’.
The rest of my post speaks to that.
If this country was full of adults and not racist uneducated scumbags, there would be a conversation to have regarding the over representation of certain crimes by certain skin tones, religions, etc.
Financial Fraud is never spoken about as a ‘white problem’, despite the fact that even when allowing for population make up, white people commit a staggeringly high number compared to ‘others’.
We don’t have that conversation as the right wing can’t weaponise it against brown people.
The table in the post I replied to had an awful number of crimes committed by white people, and a lower number of crimes committed by brown people. But the hysteria is around the smaller value. It’s Fcuking awful. It basically ignores people raped by white peoples as there’s no political currency there.
Grooming gangs all follow the same principles. It’s one problem. It’s not a bunch of problems in different colours.
So I’m sorry if you thought my point added nothing to the discussion. You’re wrong.
Your premise was essentially: if you could stop all crimes from a majority population group or a minority population group, which do you stop?
It's an irrelevant hypothetical.
Last edited:
How do they determine what falls under networked grooming and what falls under lone perpetrator? Does their definition of group CSE also include people who act alone but share with others online? Because the stuff in Rotherham and Telford is obviously very different to that.
Grooming gangs are the most important entities to tackle because as was seen with Rotherham, a gang of 20 or so people can have thousands of victims. Whereas an individual might have just one victim, or at most a few.
Grooming gangs are the most important entities to tackle because as was seen with Rotherham, a gang of 20 or so people can have thousands of victims. Whereas an individual might have just one victim, or at most a few.
The important question here seems to be whether or not there’s any truth in the accusations of light touch policing because of fear of being accused of racism. The relative numbers of brown vs white predators becomes a bit of a side issue if we have evidence that one set is categorically less likely to be investigated/prosecuted than the other.
Pompey fanatic John Westwood slams 'cancel culture' for three match ban after mooning and making lewd gesture towards Coventry fans
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/p...fk9_O_KK082Ce0lLmHk3fSRgZDchTPxusl7QplIFrnTZY
Any relation to Tim?
You mean like the thousands upon thousands of Catholic Priests who have been convicted?
If they’ve been convicted that’s a bad example of the police turning a blind eye, surely?
But yeah, if priests are less likely than their non-priest peers to be investigated/prosecuted for CSA then that’s also a problem but not really relevant to what’s being discussed here.
It's more that the few that have been convicted is a good example of the police turning a blind eye.
Every church conviction has been seen as individual, whereas the Rotherham gang have been seen as a gang. None of the higher ups in the church have been convicted of facilitating child grooming and child abuse.
If you include the hiding of details, moving priests to different parishes, and the police turning a blind eye to priest child abuse, you could say the Catholic Church is is magnitudes larger as a child grooming gang.
The BBC is facing more complaints, with Tim Westwood, that they've turned a bling eye to child abuse on, after Saville et al. They aren't being told that they facilitated child grooming.
Away from that, I used to work as a bouncer and I've been pressured by management to not ID girls if the club isn't full. How these guys aren't being prosecuted for child grooming, I don't know, they are fully aware that under 18s, under 16s go into their clubs, are plied with drink, and then taken advantage of.
Its more likely that child abuse, like rape in general, is just not prosecuted enough. Especially when it involves vulnerable people, like those in care for example.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-62552706
Crown Paints: Hannah & Dave ad prompts dozens of complaints
The advertising watchdog has received dozens of complaints about a paint advert which a comedian called "massively offensive".
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) said it was considering investigating Crown Paints' "Hannah & Dave" advert.
Comic Jenny Eclair said it must be taken off air over its implication that a woman "conned a man into fatherhood".
Crown Paints: Hannah & Dave ad prompts dozens of complaints
The advertising watchdog has received dozens of complaints about a paint advert which a comedian called "massively offensive".
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) said it was considering investigating Crown Paints' "Hannah & Dave" advert.
Comic Jenny Eclair said it must be taken off air over its implication that a woman "conned a man into fatherhood".
This is a good example of it going to far for me. It's a fecking joke, relax.
Yeah I don’t get that. Nor do I get how it’s apparently misogynistic, if anything it’s making more of a mug out of the bloke.
2 gems this morning
The first one is a classic of the genre.Can someone explain the second one to me? Is this because it’s hard to get plus sized clothes second hand, so fat folk have no choice but to buy new clothes (which is worse for the environment)? Which seems reasonable, I guess? Although no reason for people who aren’t fat to not do better.
And isn’t ethical fashion also about getting more use out of the clothes you already own?
Regarding clothes for the portly, I’d imagine it’s hard to get anything at the extreme end of the scale - like someone with size 16 feet is going to struggle getting shoes. They probably have to order them in. But that’s just the way it goes, same as if you’re 6 foot 7, 5 foot 1 or just massively over weight.
You’d think at the point where you can’t reliably find clothes that fit, you’d have a look at yourself rather than the companies making the clothes.
You’d think at the point where you can’t reliably find clothes that fit, you’d have a look at yourself rather than the companies making the clothes.
Would certainly be a more efficient use of her time to just list the authors she deems acceptable instead.
congrats on being fatphobic and generalizing about fat people.
Meh. I’ll live.
Considering the average size of an American or Britton, it's only smart business to carry larger sizes than XL or even XXL. Businesses are there to serve a market, though obviously not everyone is going for the same segment, not all clothing businesses need to make sizes for all people.
why even be fatphobic?
Original tweet now deleted. So this discussion is not going to make much sense…
Any famous author should be ashamed to not make that list. How boring and sanitised would you and your works have to be in that case.
Is what I said even fatphobic? I didn’t say anything hateful. I mean, clothes usually go up to what, XXXL? And then you’re looking at special orders? If you still can’t fit into those then surely it’s not on the manufacturer to accommodate you. Be whatever size you like, just don’t moan if they don’t make Levi’s in a 72 waist.
yeah, this is fatphobic. the issue isn't just that they don't make clothes in different sizes. but they also charge a shitload when they do have large-size clothing available.
I guess I’m fatphobic then. I don’t think what I posted is an unreasonable opinion to have.
Edit: as for the bit you added, why wouldn’t they? It’s a specialist item, and there’s more of it. If you go into a chippy and order large chips, it costs more than if you ordered small.
Last edited:
No just common sense.
Clothes manufacturers will only make their clothes in sizes that shops want to buy. Shops only buy what sells enough to turn a profit.
I'm sure depending on materials making some clothes in sizes XXXXL+ will cost far more to make than the regular size ranges. So why would these not be harder to find and cost more?
it's just the nature of the clothing industry and fast fashion. they heavily cater to slim body sizes and make it ridiculously hard to find clothing for fat people. if they had it their way they wouldn't even manufacture clothing for fat people.
Did you read the tweet that started this discussion? It implied that being fat makes it harder to shop ethically (I think? Was hard to interpret). Surely the most ethical way of dressing at all is to skip fast fashion altogether?