Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Despite the high-profile coverage of Pakistani abusers in Rochdale in 2013, 95% of the men on the area’s sex offender register are white."
However, I will not castigate the white race as a whole, for that is the hallmark of ignorance.
Yeah, I picked up on this too.
Also noticed that the religion of the white men was not disclosed. Why is this? Assuming they were at some point in time, Christians, does this mean that all Christians abuse children?
The population in this town is 3% Muslim and most residents live in rural areas. It's tough to imagine that this had been going on for 13 years. THE WSJ's report makes mention that the girl's families share some responsibility, too.
It really shouldn't be, for there appears to be no doubt that these 'gangs' of Pakistani immigrants have been terrorizing this area for some 16 years (the period in which the rapes/abuse/prostitution by these gangs occurred).
Yet, it appears that there is a problem throughout the community, with men of all races being guilty. Here is a recent article about a policeman from the town of Rotherham:
To address an earlier comment before the Mexico-derailment, the reason that 95% of the men on the sex register list were white was because only 4 or 5 of these men were actually convicted for the rapes. None of the rest were. You can't get on the sex register list if you're not arrested and convicted.
So it seems the police had no problem investigating complaints of sexual abuse by white men, but shied away from addressing complaints about the Pakistani Muslims.
Also I'll point out that almost all of these 1400 girls (some but not many were boys) were what we would call foster children so they didn't have the family network to turn to. There were reports that they told their social workers--some were believed, most not. And the social workers that reported this to the police either weren't believed, or it just wasn't important enough to pursue.
So you had a perfect storm of young girls that nobody really cared about, Muslim men that thought the girls had no value anyway so what did it matter what they did to them, and the police that didn't want to be seen as racist by accusing a Muslim of a crime. What could go wrong?
While all this was going on and the complaints from the girls and the social workers were sitting untouched, the same police force threw all its investigative ability behind a complaint that a white British singer might or might not have inappropriately touched a child in 1985, 30 years earlier. That they investigated.
So tell me. Why are people called "racists" when they voice their opinion about illegals coming from Mexico if Mexican isn't a race. Why are they considered brown people when the Left wants to defend them, but are called white when they do something bad?
From a legal and social perspective, racism is not limited to race. It is also applied to ethnic and cultural differences. For example, history books include substantial references to racism as the basis for the Holocaust.
The last paragraph: "It was reported yesterday that while most British sex offenders are lone white men, details of court cases in 13 towns show that out of 56 men convicted of multiple offences of grooming girls for sex, 50 were Muslim, mostly of Pakistani heritage.
End of thread/
To address an earlier comment before the Mexico-derailment, the reason that 95% of the men on the sex register list were white was because only 4 or 5 of these men were actually convicted for the rapes. None of the rest were. You can't get on the sex register list if you're not arrested and convicted.
So it seems the police had no problem investigating complaints of sexual abuse by white men, but shied away from addressing complaints about the Pakistani Muslims.
Also I'll point out that almost all of these 1400 girls (some but not many were boys) were what we would call foster children so they didn't have the family network to turn to. There were reports that they told their social workers--some were believed, most not. And the social workers that reported this to the police either weren't believed, or it just wasn't important enough to pursue.
So you had a perfect storm of young girls that nobody really cared about, Muslim men that thought the girls had no value anyway so what did it matter what they did to them, and the police that didn't want to be seen as racist by accusing a Muslim of a crime. What could go wrong?
While all this was going on and the complaints from the girls and the social workers were sitting untouched, the same police force threw all its investigative ability behind a complaint that a white British singer might or might not have inappropriately touched a child in 1985, 30 years earlier. That they investigated.
Oh look, someone that actually read the OP and link and understood what it actually meant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
