Rochdale grooming trial: Nine men jailed

[Spymaster]

But of course you Uberdog, and those who agree with your post, aren't interested in exposing the reactionery nature of Catholicism, or the sexual perversion so widespread in its priesthood - but instead are only too keen to pick up on misbehaviour by a small number of criminals within an already demonised ethnic minority, in order to smear the ENTIRE COMMUNTY, and of course follow in the trail of the BNP et al. You see yourselves as standing up against "Liberal moral relativism" . I see you as being strangely SELECTIVE in denouncing particular communities for their undesirable cultural practices and the misbehaviour of just a few. And what underlies that selectivity ? A "falling into line" with the identical selectivity and Islamophobic prejudice of the popular press and the Far Right that's what.

What a load of shit.

After Tories and racists, the Roman Catholic clergy is probably the most frequently vilified group on these boards.

 

[ymu]

What a load of shit.

After Tories and racists, the Roman Catholic clergy is probably the most frequently vilified group on these boards.

He made no comment about "these boards", he commented on what a particular poster chooses to get exercised about and what he chooses to ignore. I don't know if the accusation is correct in this case, but it's often a handy guide to the motives of all these vocally passionate campaigners who suddenly crawl out of the woodwork when a case like this comes along.

 

[butchersapron]

No he didn't. Do have another look.

 

[Spymaster]

He made no comment about "these boards", he commented on what a particular poster chooses to get exercised about and what he chooses to ignore.

No, he said "you and those who agree with your posts", which implies specific individuals on these boards, all of whom I've know to frequently and vigorously condemn the Roman Catholic clergy.

 

[danny la rouge]

But of course you Uberdog, and those who agree with your post, aren't interested in exposing the reactionery nature of Catholicism, or the sexual perversion so widespread in its priesthood - but instead are only too keen to pick up on misbehaviour by a small number of criminals within an already demonised ethnic minority, in order to smear the ENTIRE COMMUNTY, and of course follow in the trail of the BNP et al. You see yourselves as standing up against "Liberal moral relativism" . I see you as being strangely SELECTIVE in denouncing particular communities for their undesirable cultural practices and the misbehaviour of just a few. And what underlies that selectivity ? A "falling into line" with the identical selectivity and Islamophobic prejudice of the popular press and the Far Right that's what.

Nonsense. Read the thread.

 

[ymu]

No, he said "you and those who agree with your posts", which implies specific individuals on these boards, all of whom I've know to frequently and vigorously condemn the Roman Catholic clergy.

Fair enough, that is an accusation too far. My main point still stands though. Someone who is not ordinarily interested in threads about rape and misogyny, or threads about the negative cultural impacts of religion, cannot really expect their posts to be taken at face value here.

Do you judge people by what they say they believe, or by what they do to back up those beliefs?

(and just to be on the safe side, I am not saying that the original accusation aimed at DU was correct - the point is a general one)

 

[ayatollah]

Strangely enough though I've seen NO attempts to smear the ENTIRE Roman Catholic community in Britain with the rampant sexual misbehaviour of so many Roman Catholic priests and their colluding Church hierarchy. Nor have I picked up on any demands that the Roman Catholic working class should give up their religious/cultural beliefs in order to be considered a "real" part of the working class - which is implicit insome of the Islamophobic posts on the Rochdale "grooming" issue. Those who are highlighting misbehaviour by a few Muslims, and then generalising this out to an impicit attack on the entire Muslim culture - when child abuse in particular is all too common in ALL communities in Britain, are playing right into the hands of the white bigots and the Far Right

 

[Joe Reilly]

IF we accept that there may well be a "disproportionate" involvement in the grooming of young girls (who come from the white community indeed, but are mostly an especially vulnerable sub-set of girls from problem White families , often already abused by their fathers, and are in "care") by members of the Muslim community. What is the political conclusion we are being invited to draw from this by Joe, Uberdog, and others ?

When I was working in North Wales in the mid 90's the entire residential childcare system was in crisis because of trials underway of a HUGE number of abusive cases , by white men, stretching back 50 years or more. Did this tell us something toxic about the ENTIRE North Wales population ? I don't think so really.

No it dosen't necesarily tell us somethinh toxic about the entire North Wales population. It does tell an awful lot about the people who knew about the level of abuse in North Wales and kept quiet about it. It also tells us an awful lot about the people who for political reasons would like to brush it and the victims under the carpet. Or as you yourself did on another thread, dismiss the involvement of Muslmin men in grooming as 'a tabloid story'.

The political conclusion we should draw from this is to be honest. To do other is a gift to the far-right.

 

[Pickman's model]

Fair enough, that is an accusation too far. My main point still stands though. Someone who is not ordinarily interested in threads about rape and misogyny, or threads about the negative cultural impacts of religion, cannot really expect their posts to be taken at face value here.

quite. people who talk about eg football can't be expected to be taken seriously when they post about rape etc

 

[butchersapron]

Strangely enough though I've seen NO attempts to smear the ENTIRE Roman Catholic community in Britain with the rampant sexual misbehaviour of so many Roman Catholic priests and their colluding Church hierarchy. Nor have I picked up on any demands that the Roman Catholic working class should give up their religious/cultural beliefs in order to be considered a "real" part of the working class - which is implicit insome of the Islamophobic posts on the Rochdale "grooming" issue. Those who are highlighting misbehaviour by a few Muslims, and then generalising this out to an impicit attack on the entire Muslim culture - when child abuse in particular is all too common in ALL communities in Britain, are playing right into the hands of the white bigots and the Far Right

Fatuous analogy. As you should know. Or are you going to now point out the common factors?

 

[Pickman's model]

Fair enough, that is an accusation too far. My main point still stands though. Someone who is not ordinarily interested in threads about rape and misogyny, or threads about the negative cultural impacts of religion, cannot really expect their posts to be taken at face value here.

Do you judge people by what they say they believe, or by what they do to back up those beliefs?

(and just to be on the safe side, I am not saying that the original accusation aimed at DU was correct - the point is a general one)

any chance of a reply to my question from 428? or have you bottled it?

 

[butchersapron]

I'm mystified at how and why people like Ayatollah must bring race into this.

 

[articul8]

So, let me get this right, you agree with Joe but want to force a closure on him and everyone else - only you can say such things. Everyone else is doing it wrong.

I'm not trying to close down the debate - he seems to want to say that to point to common aspects to male group sexual predatory behaviour across different cultural/ethnic contexts as "liberal dissembling". I've granted that these arguments *could* be used for such a purpose - and where they are I'd condemn it too. But focusing only on what is specific to instances within Pakistani communities can lead to a one-dimensional picture of the causes.

Liberal dissembling does play into the BNPs hands - but so could the insistence that there is something uniquely evil in the way power works in these communities.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not trying to close down the debate - he seems to want to say that to point to common aspects to male group sexual predatory behaviour across different cultural/ethnic contexts as "liberal dissembling". I've granted that these arguments *could* be used for such a purpose - and where they are I'd condemn it too. But focusing only on what is specific to instances within Pakistani communities can lead to a one-dimensional picture of the causes.

Liberal dissembling does play into the BNPs hands - but so could the insistence that there is something uniquely evil in the way power works in these communities.

I didn't mention closing down the debate - the closure i mentioned was about how you imagine other people think and talk about things. One sidedly, the full perspective only open to and coming from you. You are open - others are closed, one-sided.

Ans stop the strawmanning - that last line is a disgrace.

 

[Spymaster]

They're exactly the same methods as used by virtually every UK abattoir, precisely because they are considered the most humane. Ignorant racists prattle on about the cruelty of letting an animal bleed to death, but they're ignorant racists ... The animals die almost instantly. Meat that had not been left to drain of blood would be inedible.

There is some controversy in Islam about whether stunning before cutting the animal's throat is acceptable, but plenty of Islamic scholars who argue that it is (the theological issue is that the animal must be known to be alive when it's killed - it's one of those old-time public health rules on food which pepper the Torah and the Koran). I'm not sure if it's legal to use non-stunning methods in this country - pretty sure most halal meat produced here has been stunned.

If you care about someone muttering a prayer to a sky pixie with the wrong name when they do the killing, then there is an issue. Not otherwise.

No, you've got this the wrong way round. Halal meat is generally not stunned in the UK, although there has been discussion amongst Islamic clerics as to whether the act of stunning renders the meat haram, with most agreeing that it doesn't so long as the animal is alive whilst slaughtered.

And enough of this "ignorant racist" shit. My wife will not eat halal or kosher meat, not because she is an ignorant racist but because she is Sikh, and ritual slaughter is forbidden, as is any method of slaughter which violates the principle of "Jhatka" or "one blow" which dictates that the animal must die with the first touch and not be caused fear or pain. This used to be beheading but now is mainly captive bolt shooting or breaking of the neck.

Bleeding to death is considered cruel by many people, not just "ignorant racists". You do yourself no favours with this idiocy.

 

[treelover]

'But of course you Uberdog, and those who agree with your post, aren't interested in exposing the reactionery nature of Catholicism, or the sexual perversion so widespread in its priesthood - but instead are only too keen to pick up on misbehaviour by a small number of criminals within an already demonised ethnic minority, in order to smear the ENTIRE COMMUNTY, and of course follow in the trail of the BNP et al. You see yourselves as standing up against "Liberal moral relativism" . I see you as being strangely SELECTIVE in denouncing particular communities for their undesirable cultural practices and the misbehaviour of just a few. And what underlies that selectivity ? A "falling into line" with the identical selectivity and Islamophobic prejudice of the popular press and the Far Right that's what.'

Well if he has he has changed, DA was/is a member of the SWP who in their many guises have been apoligists for all sorts of behaviour for people simply because they are 'oppressed' or a different colour...

 

[articul8]

I didn't mention closing down the debate - the closure i mentioned was about how you imagine other people think and talk about things. One sidedly, the full perspective only open to and coming from you. You are open - others are closed, one-sided.

My criticism is not directed at everyone in general but at Joe and the people who tend to fall in with his interpretation(s). It is deduced from what I've read on this thread.

Disgraceful straw man? Well some people seem to be sailing perilously close to arguing just that.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'm not trying to close down the debate - he seems to want to say that to point to common aspects to male group sexual predatory behaviour across different cultural/ethnic contexts as "liberal dissembling". I've granted that these arguments *could* be used for such a purpose - and where they are I'd condemn it too. But focusing only on what is specific to instances within Pakistani communities can lead to a one-dimensional picture of the causes.

Liberal dissembling does play into the BNPs hands - but so could the insistence that there is something uniquely evil in the way power works in these communities.

The outcome isn't uniquely evil. The circumstances, actions and inactions which lead to the rapes are particular to the comunity in which the men operated. Not talking about these particularities would be as foolish as not discussing what it is about the circumstances, actions and inactions of the Catholic church and priesthood, which has seen a similarly evil outcome.

Louis MacNeice

 

[butchersapron]

My criticism is not directed at everyone in general but at Joe and the people who tend to fall in with his interpretation(s). It is deduced from what I've read on this thread.

Disgraceful straw man? Well some people seem to be sailing perilously close to arguing just that.

I know who it's aimed at and i pointed out what it says, what it means. And in response you tell me who it's aimed at?

No they don't - and if they did you'd be able to point out exactly where wouldn't you? And as you've identified Joe "and people" you'd be able to show them doing it- right?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It means a point well made without waffly pretension and whataboutery

So, let me get this right, you agree with Joe but want to force a closure on him and everyone else - only you can say such things. Everyone else is doing it wrong.

Do you not see the irony here?

You spend half your time on here telling others what is wrong with the way they post. You are a pompous arse sometimes.

 

[butchersapron]

Help!

 

[butchersapron]

Do you not see the irony here?

You spend half your time on here telling others what is wrong with the way they post. You are a pompous arse sometimes.

Do you not see the irony here?
Do you not see the irony here?
Do you not see the irony here?
Do you not see the irony here?

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm mystified at how and why people like Ayatollah must bring race into this.

Indeed. I'd like to see a justification for why race is relevant.

 

[articul8]

The circumstances, actions and inactions which lead to the rapes are particular to the comunity in which the men operated.

But it was also "men" that operated, men of a certain ethnic/cultural background, certainly, but also men of a certain age and generation. I'm not saying that we should be squeamish about discussing and criticising the specific structures of communities and their outlook here - organisations like UAF need to have a long hard look at themselves about their attitude. But in a context where you see sexually predatory behaviour and cover ups between groups of men across different ethnic/cultural divides, isn't' it also reasonable to look for factors in common as well as single out communities in isolation, be that muslims or catholics or whoever else?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

But it was also "men" that operated, men of a certain ethnic/cultural background, certainly, but also men of a certain age and generation. I'm not saying that we should be squeamish about discussing and criticising the specific structures of communities and their outlook here - organisations like UAF need to have a long hard look at themselves about their attitude. But in a context where you see sexually predatory behaviour and cover ups between groups of men across different ethnic/cultural divides, isn't' it also reasonable to look for factors in common as well as single out communities in isolation, be that muslims or catholics or whoever else?

Which is why several days ago I posted this:

On the Today programme this morning a statistic was given that suggested 'grooming gangs' were significantly disproportionately composed of men from an Asian background when compared to the make up of the general population. If this is the case then in relation to 'grooming gangs' it would not seem unreasonable to look into potential culturally specific beliefs and/or practices which could provide an explanation for/response to this finding.​

​

What it doesn't impact on is an overall understanding of/response grooming activities which occur outside the context of a 'gang' and across ethnic groups; it doesn't even set these activities in proportion to those of 'grooming gangs'. Neither does it address the elephant in the room question of the shared cultural beliefs and/or practices which may explain the hugely disproportionate number of men (in comparison to women), from a variety of ethnic and class backgrounds, who engage in child sex abuse.​

​

In short, while there may be an ethnic dimension to the 'grooming gangs', it needs to be kept in perspective.​

​

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[ymu]

quite. people who talk about eg football can't be expected to be taken seriously when they post about rape etc

You need to work on that reading comprehension.

People who have never shown any kind of interest in rape or misogyny who suddenly become passionate about protecting women from sexual predators when the predators are brown cannot expect to be taken seriously just because they claim their motives are honourable.

any chance of a reply to my question from 428? or have you bottled it?

I can't see anything in there that needs responding to. You seem to be showing off your arcane knowledge again, rather than making an actual point. If you have one, please rephrase and I might have something to respond to.

No, you've got this the wrong way round. Halal meat is generally not stunned in the UK, although there has been discussion amongst Islamic clerics as to whether the act of stunning renders the meat haram, with most agreeing that it doesn't so long as the animal is alive whilst slaughtered.

And enough of this "ignorant racist" shit. My wife will not eat halal or kosher meat, not because she is an ignorant racist but because she is Sikh, and ritual slaughter is forbidden, as is any method of slaughter which violates the principle of "Jhatka" or "one blow" which dictates that the animal must die with the first touch and not be caused fear or pain. This used to be beheading but now is mainly captive bolt shooting or breaking of the neck.

Bleeding to death is considered cruel by many people, not just "ignorant racists".

They do die instantly, you ignorant moron. Incompetent slaughterers sometimes fail to cut the throat properly, but that is common in any badly run abattoir.

No idea why you think Sikhs can't hold racist attitudes towards Muslims either. No ethnic conflict there at all, eh?

 

[danny la rouge]

No idea why you think Sikhs can't hold racist attitudes towards Muslims either.

He didn't say they couldn't. He said his wife's reasons for not eating Halal or kosher aren't racist.

Similarly, I don't eat halal or kosher meat. But not for racist reasons.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can't see anything in there that needs responding to. You seem to be showing off your arcane knowledge again, rather than making an actual point. If you have one, please rephrase and I might have something to respond to.

i was referring to the question i asked, as i wondered why you felt the need to insinuate i was a racist.

 

[Pickman's model]

You need to work on that reading comprehension.

People who have never shown any kind of interest in rape or misogyny who suddenly become passionate about protecting women from sexual predators when the predators are brown cannot expect to be taken seriously just because they claim their motives are honourable.

this is the first time i've ever been taken to task for agreeing with someone.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

People who have never shown any kind of interest in rape or misogyny who suddenly become passionate about protecting women from sexual predators when the predators are brown cannot expect to be taken seriously just because they claim their motives are honourable.

You can judge from their lack of messages on an internet bulletin board, that they are not worth taking seriously? I'd have thought considering the content of their posts was a better way to go.

Louis (probably a bit light on the rape and misogyny posts) MacNeice