Rochdale grooming trial: Nine men jailed

[danny la rouge]

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

It would also be useful to have a list of these people who have never before shown any interest in rape or misogyny.

 

[ymu]

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.

Except that he quoted the reason as the animals being allowed to bleed to death rather than being killed instantly by a single blow. This is a racist myth - most UK abattoirs use exactly the same method of killing (slitting the throat) precisely because it is instantaneous and considered the most humane.

That is why I consider it racist. It's based on racist propaganda, not on what actually happens.

 

[Pickman's model]

Except that he quoted the reason as the animals being allowed to bleed to death rather than being killed instantly by a single blow. This is a racist myth - most UK abattoirs use exactly the same method of killing (slitting the throat) precisely because it is instantaneous and considered the most humane.

That is why I consider it racist. It's based on racist propaganda, not on what actually happens.

you mean it's not based on what usually happens as you've accepted ("most uk abbatoirs", not all uk abbatoirs) that it does happen. i agree it's racist, i disagree that it's entirely a lie.

 

[danny la rouge]

Except that he quoted the reason as the animals being allowed to bleed to death rather than being killed instantly by a single blow. This is a racist myth - most UK abattoirs use exactly the same method of killing (slitting the throat) precisely because it is instantaneous and considered the most humane.

That is why I consider it racist. It's based on racist propaganda, not on what actually happens.

Read his post again.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They do die instantly

A single cut to the throat does not kill instantly. Even defenders of halal/kosher don't claim otherwise. It takes up to 2 minutes to die.

 

[Spymaster]

They do die instantly, you ignorant moron.

No they don't you lying fuckwit.

They are usually hoisted by their hind legs and held upside down, struggling like fuck whilst the slaughterer locates the carotid artery and opens it. Often the animal will die instantly from shock but unconciousness from blood loss takes between 10 and 20 seconds, death longer.

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

And Jews? This is about how animals are killed, not religion. You can stuff your false accusations of racism up your arse, you ignorant dishonest piece of shit.

 

[ymu]

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

But that's the thing. If they did care so much about sexual crimes, I would expect them to be seen on other threads which discuss it, not just the one where it was brown people wot done it.

You (and I don't mean you personally, I have no issue with the posts of yours I have seen) can say what you believe until you're blue in the face, but if you only ever seem to act on those professed beliefs when there is a racial angle, you can't really expect to be taken seriously. How many unlikely figures turned out to be passionate anti-racists when Diane Abbott made a disparaging remark about white people on Twitter? How many of them have ever spoken about racism directed at people who are not white?

There have been several long-running threads on rape and misogyny recently. It's interesting to note which posters are interested in more than one of them, that's all.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Except that he quoted the reason as the animals being allowed to bleed to death rather than being killed instantly by a single blow. This is a racist myth - most UK abattoirs use exactly the same method of killing (slitting the throat) precisely because it is instantaneous and considered the most humane.

That is why I consider it racist. It's based on racist propaganda, not on what actually happens.

Massood Khawaja, president of the Halal Food Authority, insisted that its animals were stunned, unlike those regulated by another group, the Halal Monitoring Committee. "The Koran says use your brain, ponder about things and that's what we are doing," he said. "It's a question of animal welfare."

Ymu it must be wonderful to be so certain; I suspect that the Koranic approach of using your brain might have more going for it.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Pickman's model]

But that's the thing. If they did care so much about sexual crimes, I would expect them to be seen on other threads which discuss it, not just the one where it was brown people wot done it.

You (and I don't mean you personally, I have no issue with the posts of yours I have seen) can say what you believe until you're blue in the face, but if you only ever seem to act on those professed beliefs when there is a racial angle, you can't really expect to be taken seriously. How many unlikely figures turned out to be passionate anti-racists when Diane Abbott made a disparaging remark about white people on Twitter? How many of them have ever spoken about racism directed at people who are not white?

There have been several long-running threads on rape and misogyny recently. It's interesting to note which posters are interested in more than one of them, that's all.

now, about your reasons for insinuating i was racist, if you could turn to that...

 

[articul8]

​

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

​

Well, indeed, but I'm afraid that the good sense of this point is not always being heeded on this thread.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well, indeed, but I'm afraid that the good sense of this point is not always being heeded on this thread.

yes, but it's urban what do you expect, good sense?

 

[danny la rouge]

when there is a racial angle

What is the "racial angle" here?

 

[Spymaster]

But that's the thing. If they did care so much about sexual crimes, I would expect them to be seen on other threads which discuss it, not just the one where it was brown people wot done it.

You (and I don't mean you personally, I have no issue with the posts of yours I have seen) can say what you believe until you're blue in the face, but if you only ever seem to act on those professed beliefs when there is a racial angle, you can't really expect to be taken seriously. How many unlikely figures turned out to be passionate anti-racists when Diane Abbott made a disparaging remark about white people on Twitter? How many of them have ever spoken about racism directed at people who are not white?

There have been several long-running threads on rape and misogyny recently. It's interesting to note which posters are interested in more than one of them, that's all.

Your input on this thread has been worse than useless. Why don't you fuck off and leave it, eh?

 

[ymu]

Read his post again.

You read it again.

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.

Kill It, Cook It, Eat it had an in-studio abattoir, using standard slaughter methods and guess what - the animals were strung upside down and their throats cut, and then the carcasses were left to drain of blood. Because it is an absolutely standard abattoir method and considered the most humane (as long as the animal is stunned first).

 

[Spymaster]

Except that he quoted the reason as the animals being allowed to bleed to death rather than being killed instantly by a single blow. This is a racist myth - most UK abattoirs use exactly the same method of killing (slitting the throat) precisely because it is instantaneous and considered the most humane.

That is why I consider it racist. It's based on racist propaganda, not on what actually happens.

You're a lying, fucking moron.

 

[Spymaster]

Kill It, Cook It, Eat it had an in-studio abattoir, using standard slaughter methods and guess what - the animals were strung upside down and their throats cut, and then the carcasses were left to drain of blood. Because it is an absolutely standard abattoir method and considered the most humane (as long as the animal is stunned first).

And how does that relate to Jhatka, which I explained to you?

 

[Pickman's model]

It's a bit much to expect the police to be any better than the rest of society, but we still can give those Pakistani's hell for not being any better than the rest of us.

I'm not saying that you are arguing this, but it is my point about this whole racist diversionary tactic. Unless it can be shown that men from conservative Muslim communities are disproportionately responsible for sexual crime, then trying to address it by examining their culture in isolation does nothing but promote racist attitudes whilst letting misogyny in society as a whole off the hook completely.

could you justify the first paragraph here, which doesn't refer to anything in the post it was a reply to? seems to me that the 'i'm not saying that you are arguing this' bit is a fig leaf to get you off the hook, when you're clearly insinuating i hold a racist position as nothing in your post refers to anything argued in mine.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You read it again.



Kill It, Cook It, Eat it had an in-studio abattoir, using standard slaughter methods and guess what - the animals were strung upside down and their throats cut, and then the carcasses were left to drain of blood. Because it is an absolutely standard abattoir method and considered the most humane (as long as the animal is stunned first).

This is the bit that is in dispute. From a brief google, it would appear that some halal butchers refuse to stun the animal first.

 

[Ranbay]

90-95% is said to be pre stunned in the UK before slaughter.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is the bit that is in dispute. From a brief google, it would appear that some halal butchers refuse to stun the animal first.

yes, so as i pointed out above, ymu has already admitted that not all abbatoirs kill animals 'humanely'. which undermines her position completely.

 

[danny la rouge]

You read it again.

Your shibboleths are in conflict.

Spymaster said: "she is Sikh, and ritual slaughter is forbidden, as is any method of slaughter which violates the principle of "Jhatka" ". So, as a Sikh, Mrs Spy can't eat ritually slaughtered meat. It is racist to condemn her for that? Or is her Sikh principle of Jhatka, as you have already insinuated, itself racist? Which is the anti racist way forward here?

I'm not being flippant, this is at the heart of the knots you have tied yourself into on this thread.

And what about me? I'm not a Sikh, but I too refuse to eat Halal or Kosher meat.

 

[Das Uberdog]

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.

i would just point out here that earlier on this thread i was being taken to task for arguing that the Catholic church should have pressure on it to take responsibility for what happened. to clarify this i don't mean that every single Roman Catholic must feel in some way responsible, but that the organisational structure of the Church, its leadership and main players should be actively involved in rectifying the situation. this is, tangentially, actually what has happened as well.

but the broader point about cultural relativism is that the post-60s left often sees itself as waging some proxy battle against worldwide imperialism by attacking 'dominant', 'heteronormative' 'Western' culture at home. this has, in many respects, been used as an excuse both to alienate itself from 'mainstream' cultural practices but also drop what were once integral ideas of secularism, rationality and indeed materialism in favour of embracing the rainbow of multicultural diversity. right up until the 90s the left's influence over the culture of anti-imperialist movements such as the IRA, the FLN in Algeria, the PLO in Palestine, or a host of African liberation movements were all secular (despite all having very powerful religious issues mixed up in their politics). now, if anything, the tendency has been reversed.

do i think that its integral for someone's political credibility that they ditch their religion and culture in favour of some rational, secular one? no, but i think it's often a sign of a good thing if people are doing that. it means that what we're saying is convincing, at least.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not all religous /cultural practices will ever conform, however, Now I'm not in favour of either Kosher or Halal ritual killing methods.. but as a community we've tolerated it for hundreds of years done by Jews, and I'm afraid we'll just have to tolerate it by Muslims too. To campaign against it simply lines one up with racists. You line up against it as a practice if you want - but you'll have some VERY dodgy allies.

You do realise that those slaughter methods you're not in favour of are used for a lot of the livestock slaughtered for food in the UK, aren't you? Bolts are usually only used on cattle, and even then not always if the abattoir uses a chain-line system. Even as far as stunning goes, the only abattoirs that don't stun are those that are wholly-owned and used for ritual slaughter purposes, which is less than a dozen abattoirs in the UK according to the DofE.

Your "solution" or objective , As I derive it from your claim that on joining the Communist Party in the 1930's "most Jewish converts" rejected their Jewish identity, may well be based on fact , but does this imply that a practicing Jew cannot be a communist ? You seem to HOPE so. Well I'm not too keen on many aspects of another major world religion, Roman Catholicism, as a profoundly reactionery religion organisationally and as a belief system , and we now all know it's priesthood is the biggest organised paedophile ring in world history. Should we expect Catholics to abandon their faith on becoming socialists ? I hope NOT, despite my own hostility to many features of organised Catholicism. Because it cuts socialists off from whole swathes of the working class, and expects them to abandon deeply held belief systems , which is simply NOT NECESSARY as a precondition of participating in the class struggle.

Since (IIRC) The ReichsKonkordat in the 1930s, Roman Catholics can't be Communists under pain of excommunication, just like they can't be Freemasons etc. It's not stopped Italy and other overtly-Catholic countries from having a strong socialist and communist left. It's also not stopped Catholics becoming Freemasons. People often take from their Church what they need, and set aside the rest.

 

[Spymaster]

now, about your reasons for insinuating i was racist, if you could turn to that...

And after that I'll be asking her to direct her attention to why my wife is. In fact she seemed to insinuate that Sikh's are racist towards Muslim's, so this should be interesting.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Even as far as stunning goes, the only abattoirs that don't stun are those that are wholly-owned and used for ritual slaughter purposes, which is less than a dozen abattoirs in the UK according to the DofE..

But the meat isn't marked, is it? When I see signs saying halal meat, I don't recall seeing anything adding 'but stunned first'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

For most of the livestock, it's more efficient as well as faster to sever the arteries in the neck.

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.

One of the explanation for non-stunning is that the original proscription meant that the slaughterer saw the animal in such a state as to be able to determine it's health more easily, so you could tell whether it was possibly carring some sort of sickness that would cause illness in humans if they consumed the flesh.

 

[SpineyNorman]

i would just point out here that earlier on this thread i was being taken to task for arguing that the Catholic church should have pressure on it to take responsibility for what happened. to clarify this i don't mean that every single Roman Catholic must feel in some way responsible, but that the organisational structure of the Church, its leadership and main players should be actively involved in rectifying the situation. this is, tangentially, actually what has happened as well.

but the broader point about cultural relativism is that the post-60s left often sees itself as waging some proxy battle against worldwide imperialism by attacking 'dominant', 'heteronormative' 'Western' culture at home. this has, in many respects, been used as an excuse both to alienate itself from 'mainstream' cultural practices but also drop what were once integral ideas of secularism, rationality and indeed materialism in favour of embracing the rainbow of multicultural diversity. right up until the 90s the left's influence over the culture of anti-imperialist movements such as the IRA, the FLN in Algeria, the PLO in Palestine, or a host of African liberation movements were all secular (despite all having very powerful religious issues mixed up in their politics). now, if anything, the tendency has been reversed.

do i think that its integral for someone's political credibility that they ditch their religion and culture in favour of some rational, secular one? no, but i think it's often a sign of a good thing if people are doing that. it means that what we're saying is convincing, at least.

This is a little bit off topic, and nosey too, but I'm intrigued - you used to be SWP didn't you? Clearly you've changed your views quite a bit (which is a good thing by the way, not criticising you for it). What changed your mind and what are your politics now?

 

[ymu]

And how does that relate to Jhatka, which I explained to you?

It has nothing to do with Jhatka and everything to do with your claim that the animals bleed to death. I don't object to your wife having religious reasons for not eating halal meat. I do mind you spreading racist myths.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But the meat isn't marked, is it? When I see signs saying halal meat, I don't recall seeing anything adding 'but stunned first'.

If you're buying, as a retailer, from a Halal wholesaler, you're going to take it on trust that things have been done properly, and act accordingly. You don't need a stamp on the meat saying "slaughtered un-stunned".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you're buying, as a retailer, from a Halal wholesaler, you're going to take it on trust that things have been done properly, and act accordingly. You don't need a stamp on the meat saying "slaughtered un-stunned".

You do if you want to know - as a customer.