Weasel Straw strikes again (Pakistani men in Britain see white girls as "easy meat")

[ericjarvis]

Let's recap - have a look at this page, where the figures are expressed in year by year figures for the period concerned that led to Rohde's claim.

If you can demonstrate that these figures are wrong, then I'll be happy to see that.

http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...eter/norge/1.6567955&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=ivns

There's the health service version of how many rapes are by strangers and involve violence.

The DIXI rape crisis centre in Oslo reports well over a thousand referrals from the city alone in 2004.

Tell me how that squares with a total of 41 violent rapes by strangers over three years in Oslo. It simply doesn't. So what is Rohde talking about? Simply endlessly repeating the same set of dubious numbers isn't an argument, it's bloody childish. Either show a link to something that describes the methodology and definitions that apply to the statistics, or shut the fuck up because it's just a single somewhat dodgy statement by a single police officer in a department that is accused by the medical services of categorising sexual offences with no congruence to the victim's statements, that has faced criticism for its use of racial profiling, and which has managed to stop a black youth 17 times in 3 weeks on suspicion of stealing his own bike.

 

[Lock&Light]

So are there imans in the UK telling muslims to go out and rape women and children? Where is this happening?

So, you're not being serious.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

So, you're not being serious.

How can anyone not be serious when we are in the midst of a sexual jihad. I want to know where these imans are. If they are preaching sexual jihad all over the country they shouldn't be too hard to find. I say we send out pk as a roving reporter.

 

[One_Stop_Shop]

and which has managed to stop a black youth 17 times in 3 weeks on suspicion of stealing his own bike.

Did he steal his own bike though?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Quoting stats for "sexual offences" is useless, it's an ambiguous term which could include everything from lewd behaviour to doing a Fritzl.

You're vocalising through your anus again.
All the (admittedly, compiled by professionals and/or academics, rather than by newspapers) stats for sex offending that I've ever studied all differentiated between type and severity of offence.

This is about systematically raping children, and as I see it - the indoctrination of young UK based muslim men into the idea that woman are generally inferior, and that infidel women are barely even human.

So, not much different to some variants of Mormonism and Protestantism, then?
Because let's be plain here: You can't pin "woman are generally inferior" and "...infidel women are barely even human" on Islam as a totality, nor on the Muslim population in general, only on the perverts who systematically rape children in the first place. There may be attitudes in Islam-at large" about the inferiority of women, but then, there were in the mostly-secular UK, up until we legislated sexual equality less that 40 years ago.

What needs to happen is happening, as I see it moderate muslims are standing up and saying "fuck you" to the jihadis.

They do.
Even in situations where saying "fuck you" to them earns them a bullet in the head, they still fuck the fanatics off. Even in Afghanistan, where you appear to believe that the entire country is awash with "the Taliban".

Also - we need to see Choudary and Hamsa and people like this disappearing and never being seen again.

Yes, because violating the due process of law is so very sensible, isn't it?

 

[Pickman's model]

He was saying PK had a drug problem first tbf, and I see your Islamophobia and raise you an Islamofascism

if you're right then you'll have no trouble providing either the post number or a link.

and if you aren't able to i've no doubt you'll say sorry.

 

[pk]

There's the health service version of how many rapes are by strangers and involve violence.

Oh good. A study from 1993 that has no relevance whatsoever to the figures quoted by Rohde, especially since the manner in which data collected has changed significantly in the 18 years since that paper was published. This neither proves nor disproves anything.

The DIXI rape crisis centre in Oslo reports well over a thousand referrals from the city alone in 2004.

Oh look, again you throw up an 18 page document, an annual report of a crisis centre. Do you even read your own links?
I can't see anything in there that disproves Rohde's figures. Citing the number of enquiries, mostly via telephone, is a ridiculous way to try to form a definitive figure of actual "assault rapes" committed.

This is not good enough. Show me where this annual report contradicts Rohde.

Tell me how that squares with a total of 41 violent rapes by strangers over three years in Oslo. It simply doesn't. So what is Rohde talking about? Simply endlessly repeating the same set of dubious numbers isn't an argument, it's bloody childish. Either show a link to something that describes the methodology and definitions that apply to the statistics, or shut the fuck up because it's just a single somewhat dodgy statement by a single police officer in a department that is accused by the medical services of categorising sexual offences with no congruence to the victim's statements, that has faced criticism for its use of racial profiling, and which has managed to stop a black youth 17 times in 3 weeks on suspicion of stealing his own bike.

I already provided links that explain quite clearly the criteria for a case to be defined as "assault rape" as opposed to the more common attacks that take place between spouses or date rape attacks.

Your habit of slinging up irrelevant documents and then claiming you've proven Rohde's figures are dodgy is as laughable as your attempts to prove that the Oslo police are racist because of a complaint about a push-bike.

Do this properly or not at all.

 

[DrRingDing]

*chortle*

 

[pk]

*chortle*

Chortle away - it's clear you're too chicken to explain what you meant on page 2 by saying you were the only one to have truly suffered at the hands of islam - and nothing you've posted since has been above remedial snipes and retarded grunting.

 

[Pickman's model]

Chortle away - it's clear you're too chicken to explain what you meant on page 2 by saying you were the only one to have truly suffered at the hands of islam - and nothing you've posted since has been above remedial snipes and retarded grunting.

yeh. fucking 83 pages on and still no explanation.

 

[Treacle Toes]

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/country-by-country/norway/nor-cbc-iv-2009-004-eng.pdf

Here is a 2008 report on Norway by the The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.

 

[Pickman's model]

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/country-by-country/norway/nor-cbc-iv-2009-004-eng.pdf

Here is a 2008 report on Norway by the The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.

so it is. there's 76 pages there. are there any individual pages you'd like to highlight as relevant?

 

[_angel_]

racism

 

[DrRingDing]

yeh. fucking 83 pages on and still no explanation.

51 by my count.

What's up? Can't you handle a few most posts on yer page?

 

[Pickman's model]

51 by my count.

What's up? Can't you handle a few most posts on yer page?

what's up? can't explain your fucking post after 51 (or 83) pages?

 

[Pickman's model]

Chortle away - it's clear you're too chicken to explain what you meant on page 2 by saying you were the only one to have truly suffered at the hands of islam - and nothing you've posted since has been above remedial snipes and retarded grunting.

speaking of chortling away, where's an apology given your complete inability to produce any evidence of my alcohol problem or my taking anti-depressants - or, indeed, the 'mental health issues' you refer to above?

 

[Treacle Toes]

so it is. there's 76 pages there. are there any individual pages you'd like to highlight as relevant?

Well, I think seeing as though I have done the research and produced the document I have pretty much done my bit.

I don't have time to read it all now, just thought i'd share it.

I am not particularly interested in Norway but seeing as though this thread is now focusing on whether or not the police there are racist the document I have produced should be of benefit to those arguing for or against this point.

No need to thank me.

 

[DrRingDing]

what's up? can't explain your fucking post after 51 (or 83) pages?

I can just not to the likes of yourself.

 

[DrRingDing]

The Rutita1's report...

Civil society actors agree that Islamophobia has been on the rise since ECRI’s
third report. Political, and more generally public debate has been characterised
by frequent associations made between Muslims on the one hand, and
terrorism and violence on the other, and by generalisations and stereotypes
concerning perceived cultural features of persons of Muslim background.
Although many have stressed that such a debate has had a negative impact on
the general public’s perception of Muslims, generally speaking it does not seem
that these perceptions have translated into acts of violence against this part of
Norway’s population, at least not to any visible extent. Instances of
discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived Muslim background have
however been reported. For instance, there are reports of women wearing the
Islamic headscarf having been refused employment or having been dismissed
from their jobs. Persons with names revealing a possible Muslim background
are also widely reported to experience difficulties in securing job interviews.
Furthermore, plans to build Mosques have sometimes been met with unjustified
resistance among the general population and local authorities.]

 

[Pickman's model]

I can just not to the likes of yourself.

or indeed anyone else on this site

 

[DrRingDing]

or indeed anyone else on this site

No, some others know. Some even on this thread. You won't though.

 

[Treacle Toes]

.

 

[Treacle Toes]

The Rutita1's report...

I didn't write that report.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, some others know. Some even on this thread.

so you say

You won't though.

and that's because you're talking bollocks in the post under discussion.

 

[DrRingDing]

I didn't write that report.

I know.

Although, I should of be more explicit for the numpties that need spoonfeeding on this thread.

 

[DrRingDing]

so you sayand that's because you're talking bollocks in the post under discussion.

You're gunna lose your Anarchist Detective stars if you're not careful.

Do try harder or maybe you need some garden leave?

 

[Pickman's model]

maybe you need some garden leave?

you what?

 

[ViolentPanda]

racism

You trying to get your missus banned, swarthy?

 

[ericjarvis]

so it is. there's 76 pages there. are there any individual pages you'd like to highlight as relevant?

I would suggest the following paragraph is particularly relevant, though all the section on racism and the law is interesting.

"Since its last report , ECRI has continued to recieve information indicating that racial profiling, notably in stop and search operations carried out by police and customs and immigration officials is still common in Norway. While the Norwegian authorities are aware of the problem - ECRI notes for instance that provisions to clarify the legal framework for the exercise of general immigration checks have been introduced in the new Immigration Act - it does not appear to ECRI that measures commensurate to the problem have yet been taken. In its third report, ECRI encouraged Norwegian authorities to proceed with plans to introduce a system for monitoring the frequency of police checks on individuals. It recommended that such a system be evaluated and that civil society actors participate in the evaluation of this system with a view to its possible extension. However, ECRI understands that although this system was piloted in 2003 in one geographical area, in February 2004 the Parliament decided it should be discontinued. Instead, a scheme using clearly visible identification numbers on police uniforms was introduced."

Which backs up the point I was making earlier in the thread about the Norwegian police being mired in political controversy about their use of racial profiling. Very important as the context in which some senior police officers are making press comments effectively trying to justify racial profiling.

The problem here is that pk is using short bits of journalism that contain little or no detail to back up his case. The only way to point out the errors in those pieces is to refer to more detailed information. That means reading longer documents in more detail because the sad fact is that nobody in the mass media would print a short and punchy piece showing that other journalists are pandering to racism by cherry picking from the statistics and highlighting anything that can appear both controversial and appeal to prejudices and bigotry. Meanwhile pk is effectively saying that the only way he will accept that his argument is countered is if somebody can produce a short article that disproves a single statement in a TV interview directly. Even if such a thing existed it wouldn't disprove anything. It would merely be a contradiction with no more substance than the statement it counters.

I realise that many people prefer political debate to be on the level of a playground argument between 10 year olds. However the only way to really understand what is going on is to dig into the detail. That means reading and trying to understand long articles. It means trying to put together a complete picture from a wide range of statistics covering a long period.

 

[Treacle Toes]

No need to thank me.