MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
War on Terrorism (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 60, 61, 62 ... 65, 66, 67  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is doubtless a great deal in this that is true. However not all of these girls were feral. As demonstrated by the behavior and reactions of some of the fathers involved.

I suggest that what may have begun as quiet toleration of "exploitative" relationships between two groups of socially marginal people, expanded to include not-so marginal types, and did so largely because it was tolerated and thus tacitly encouraged. I suspect that this expansion was what prompted the inevitable crack-down.

And the sheer numbers involved are absolutely staggering!

And would these girls have succumbed to a similar fate ABSENT THE PRESENCE of these miserable immigrants?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It's best not to take too much on trust when the British are in one of their periodic bursts of moral outrage, Ishmael.

However not all of these girls were feral. As demonstrated by the behavior and reactions of some of the fathers involved.

Yes, but where were these fathers when their daughters were apparently preferring the company of seedy minicab drivers? Quite apart from the fact that the great preponderance were from care homes or broken homes ie. they had no fathers. When the Sunday papers and the social workers come round -- and the cheque books and the compensation money starts to be flashed around -- not many fathers would say, "I blame myself."

I suggest that what may have begun as quiet toleration of "exploitative" relationships between two groups of socially marginal people, expanded to include not-so marginal types, and did so largely because it was tolerated and thus tacitly encouraged. I suspect that this expansion was what prompted the inevitable crack-down.

Sorry, Ishmael, but you are wholly over-estimating the entrepreneurial skills involved. I accept that informal prostitution rings -- girls being passed around for money -- are entirely characteristic but I can assure you if it got to any serious level, the real professionals (the local prostitutes and their not-at-all marginal handlers) would have put a stop to it in five minutes. A phone call to the Vice Squad should do it. A pimp would not go near an underage (or even an amateur 16- or 17- year old) girl, the risks are off the scale. Procuring and/or having sex with underage girls will get you a two-stretch max.

And the sheer numbers involved are absolutely staggering!

Well, yes and no. Once you add up 'vulnerable' girls over a ten-year period, the numbers do add up to an alarming figure especially when everyone is TIC-ing like mad to cover their backs. But if you add up the number of teenage girls in care homes or broken homes in a medium-sized town for whom no provision has been made other than, "Have you got your key?" ... well, that's an alarming figure too.

And would these girls have succumbed to a similar fate ABSENT THE PRESENCE of these miserable immigrants?

The critical question to which I shall return later.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't want to be mistaken for a liberal so let me say straightaway that the central driver of everything is Muslim men's contempt for white teenage girls. Not just these girls, all girls. British girls with British attitudes to sex. This puts (white) British girls beyond the pale. The natural caring nexus between adult and child is broken. Of course this breaks down readily enough with white British males, who as individuals might behave abominably to individual vulnerable white teenagers, but it is inconceivable that a grooming culture, a passing-round culture, a sexually deviant culture of any kind could operate among non-Muslims (black or white) in a medium-sized English town.

We know this because when true deviancy is involved -- paedophiles for instance -- then it is either individuals or true criminal conspiracies, the ones we still don't really know about. Minicab drivers and kebab shop owners are not true criminal conspiracies. They are a bunch of Muslim jack-the-lads who think their Fridays have all come at once because these stupid little English tarts seem to want to give it away for a bag of chips. One is astonished by their moderation. They don't even think they're committing a crime. They are, and they should go away for a couple of years to reflect on our funny British ways, and they won't be doing it again because they know the next one will be straight round the cop shop or phoning the Thrushleydale Bugle as soon as the first cross word is exchanged. Before probably.

Whether the teenage girls from the care homes of the north are better off now this menace has been swept from our streets is not something I can easily answer.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I don't want to be mistaken for a liberal so let me say straightaway that the central driver of everything is Muslim men's contempt for white teenage girls. Not just these girls, all girls. British girls with British attitudes to sex. This puts (white) British girls beyond the pale. The natural caring nexus between adult and child is broken.

It seems to me that this behaviour is because for muslims all sex outside marriage is proscribed. Therefore any extra sexual needs have to be met outside the normal group of Muslims. By doing it this way the perps create an illusion in their own minds they are not offending against their own religion or people? Their culture remains intact?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This was my general point. Muslim men see white girls, at least white semi-wild teenage girls, as most definitely 'other'. Looked at from their point of view they are, in a manner of speaking, playing by their host country's rules. Besides, if the girls' parents and guardians don't care, why should they? Certainly they would be horrified if young Muslim girls in care homes (itself a curiously odd concept, though it must happen) behaved in this manner. There is, I agree, a 'no sex culture' factor operating as well, since unmarried Muslim men cannot go out casually with unmarried Muslim women.

But here's a thing. Asian men can make themselves attractive to white British women -- whether Sheikh of Araby or Imran Khan syndrome -- but the ones that appear in these grooming cases seem spectacularly unaware of this and present themselves in weirdly old fashioned ways: oily hair, lounge lizard moustaches, Pakistani dress and so forth.

Their culture remains intact?

It would be interesting to know their culture's view of it all. We only hear the routine tut-tutting of their professional spokespersons but I suspect that the rank and file are not particularly censorious except in so far as it encourages racism. For sure they do not have much sympathy for the victims.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is just what Labour didn't need, Trump announcing a US commando attack killing Baghdadi.

Quote please Mr Corbyn.

"Err cycle of violence, err, abhor violence on all sides. We need a dialogue, we need to bring together the remnants of Isis to the table for a political settlement"
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And where was he found? In the last enclave of the original anti-Assad rebels. These, you may or may not recall, were the American-backed forces that brought the US into Syria in the first place! Just as Osama bin Laden was found living quietly in Pakistan, the only American-backed country in South Asia when the US went into that part of the world. The FBI's Ten Most Wanted are probably living in houses somewhere near Quantico.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is probably the most frequently misquoted aphorism in human history. The original is 'keep your enemies close and your friends closer'. Doubtless Borry will claim he deliberately inverted it.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It's not me you need to complain to, it's Michael Corleone (if you can find him). Or Mario Puzo.

My father taught me many things here — he taught me in this room. He taught me — keep your friends close but your enemies closer.


Niccolò Machiavelli may well have said something similar - but different.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, they're all getting it wrong as well. The way they put it, it makes no sense, or at any rate is so obvious it's not worth saying. The original meaning is that you know who your enemies are, and you keep a close eye on them. But it is always your friends that shove the shiv in. So maybe not keep them that close.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

London Bridge -- What Went Wrong?

Absolutely nothing. The system worked perfectly as designed. Since you can't lock 'em up and throw away the key, you have to lock them up and let them out sometime. In this bloke's case eight years (for planning, not carrying out, a terrorist act). Since society does not have the power either to guarantee rehabilitation or keep released terrorists under airtight surveillance, a proportion of them will re-offend.

What you can do, if you have an efficient system, is to ensure these individuals act a) as individuals and b) never have access to anything really dangerous. So, when the expected happens, it will be a bloke with a knife stabbing a few people, or a bloke driving a van (not an HGV) into a crowd. For example, London Bridge. The only part of the system that doesn't work is that everybody runs around like headless chickens when the system works exactly as designed.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It seems to me we could easily GPS tag and monitor terrorists like we do Pizza deliveries, the big mistake is not to attach these tags and have alerts around city centres, airports, hospitals, he should never have been near London let alone London Bridge.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Usman was given special permission to attend a conference on rehabilitating offenders right by an iconic location previously favoured by terrorists, this gave Usman the chance to maximise the propaganda value of his attack.

Seems to Wiley this was a bad mistake.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

More sophisticated tagging is obviously the sort of thing they will do to 'reassure the public' but it's still futile. People forget that monitoring at this level of intensity is itself far too manpower-expensive to be practical. You are, I think, also wrong re targetting. The significance of London, or specifically London Bridge, is merely journalistic linkage. He would have had the same effect at, say, a Manchester rock concert. He killed two, injured a few more and scared the bejesus out of several hundred. This can be done anywhere, anytime, with anything.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 60, 61, 62 ... 65, 66, 67  Next

Jump to:  
Page 61 of 67

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group