Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Question removed.
115 Answers
Yesterday I posted a question regarding a Gang of Asian men who were jailed for abusing young white girls as young as 12.
http://tinyurl.com/27kl46p
For some reason I notice it has been removed, without any exclamation.
This was a legitimate news story, so why was it removed?
http://tinyurl.com/27kl46p
For some reason I notice it has been removed, without any exclamation.
This was a legitimate news story, so why was it removed?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
fredpuli47
No you get the wrong impression I am afraid, but at a first glance and not knowing past occasions, one could soon come to the conclusions that you have.But please give me this opportunity to explain,
I equally condemn crime of this nature independent on what the colour of their skin, the religion they follow etc, etc.
But the problem is that one cannot criticise anyone from certain minority groups, as you will notice from this thread, just because I dared to enter a valid news report, which happened to involve in this case Muslims, instead of equally condemning them, I myself have been classed far worse than these child abusers..
The word 'Savage' it seems is now a word one must not attach to certain groups. This word in the past has been used all the time to describe someone who commits such horrible crimes, a person that one would not describe as an animal, because this is belittling to animals.
When we operate a 'level playing field mentality' in this country I will continue to post on what some describe as controversial issues.
No you get the wrong impression I am afraid, but at a first glance and not knowing past occasions, one could soon come to the conclusions that you have.But please give me this opportunity to explain,
I equally condemn crime of this nature independent on what the colour of their skin, the religion they follow etc, etc.
But the problem is that one cannot criticise anyone from certain minority groups, as you will notice from this thread, just because I dared to enter a valid news report, which happened to involve in this case Muslims, instead of equally condemning them, I myself have been classed far worse than these child abusers..
The word 'Savage' it seems is now a word one must not attach to certain groups. This word in the past has been used all the time to describe someone who commits such horrible crimes, a person that one would not describe as an animal, because this is belittling to animals.
When we operate a 'level playing field mentality' in this country I will continue to post on what some describe as controversial issues.
According to yesterdays Times-a newsaper that is slightly less hysterical in its reporting-the crimes were not viewed as paedophilia. The perpetrators were seen as men wanting sex-and these girls were likely victims.
Only the courts know exactly what evidence was given,and only the courts can decide the nature of the crime...and a suitable punishment.
Only the courts know exactly what evidence was given,and only the courts can decide the nature of the crime...and a suitable punishment.
aog, paedophilia is a medical term, not a legal one. It is not the same as 'sex with a child', which is a crime. If the 13-year-old (or 13-year-olds, I'm unclear if there was more than one) was below the age of puberty, the men in question were paedophiles, but the reports don't say so and for the reasons I gave above, I doubt that this was the case.
Who exactly has classed you as worse than a child abuser?
Who exactly has classed you as worse than a child abuser?
@Authentic - "There are too many narrow minds on here with the power to censor!"
Only the editorial team have such a power. As stated in the Site Rules, reported posts 'will be brought to the attention of the AB Editor and be considered for removal.'
@anotheoldgit - Surely 4+ years as a member of this website is long enough to ascertain that another of the Site Rules states (the relatively recent arrival of 'matey' Editors notwithstanding)...
'all editorial decisions are final, and discussion relating to the removal or editing of posts will not be entered into by the AB Editor'
...so why would you expect any "exclamation" (explanation) for the removal of the thread?
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Info/Rules/
Only the editorial team have such a power. As stated in the Site Rules, reported posts 'will be brought to the attention of the AB Editor and be considered for removal.'
@anotheoldgit - Surely 4+ years as a member of this website is long enough to ascertain that another of the Site Rules states (the relatively recent arrival of 'matey' Editors notwithstanding)...
'all editorial decisions are final, and discussion relating to the removal or editing of posts will not be entered into by the AB Editor'
...so why would you expect any "exclamation" (explanation) for the removal of the thread?
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Info/Rules/
And if the Editor(s) think that what is brought to their attention does not warrant removal, it does not get removed.
Your implication was that those contributors who choose to report have power which they clearly have not. The power they do have is to report; a power enjoyed by all other users, including you.
The power to censor remains exclusively with the Editors so it must be they to whom you addressed your claim of "narrow minds".
Rule-breakers (or ignorers) never enjoy when they are brought to task, especially when reported.
I went to school with people like that!
Your implication was that those contributors who choose to report have power which they clearly have not. The power they do have is to report; a power enjoyed by all other users, including you.
The power to censor remains exclusively with the Editors so it must be they to whom you addressed your claim of "narrow minds".
Rule-breakers (or ignorers) never enjoy when they are brought to task, especially when reported.
I went to school with people like that!
Staffordshire vicar quits after being convicted of having child porn on his computer. That sounds like real paedophilia to me. But does aog start a thread to voice his outrage? Not at all. Does aog as an Englishman condemn him, the way he demands that Muslims should condemn all Muslim criminals? Not a bit of it.
I can't understand it... but perhaps the photo showing the colour of his skin gives a clue?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...taffordshire-11706195
I can't understand it... but perhaps the photo showing the colour of his skin gives a clue?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...taffordshire-11706195
AOG, the publication in your last link describes its aim thus:
The purpose of this site is to report on crimes committed by the enrichers of Our Country, both black and white, who would not have been here had it not been for the traitorous politicians seeking to destroy it.
You might have chosen a better source, if you are seriously claiming that you do not single out one religion or any specific racial groups, might you not? That site picks out cases involving those who are of foreign origin. You happened across it.We see what it chooses. Citing a source that has that as its sole purpose does not strengthen your case.
The purpose of this site is to report on crimes committed by the enrichers of Our Country, both black and white, who would not have been here had it not been for the traitorous politicians seeking to destroy it.
You might have chosen a better source, if you are seriously claiming that you do not single out one religion or any specific racial groups, might you not? That site picks out cases involving those who are of foreign origin. You happened across it.We see what it chooses. Citing a source that has that as its sole purpose does not strengthen your case.
jno
The child was 12 year old.
/// Who exactly has classed you as worse than a child abuser?///
That remark I made was tongue in cheek, since it would appear I got more criticism than those paedophiles.
Medical term or not (or are you getting mixed up with 'paediatrician') a person who has sex with a child is called a paedophile, and since one of these children was only 12 years old, they are right to be called paedophiles.
No matter how much you try to hide the fact, White, Black, Asians, Muslims, Jews, or Christians, etc. it matters not, people who commit these sort of crimes are paedophiles.
The child was 12 year old.
/// Who exactly has classed you as worse than a child abuser?///
That remark I made was tongue in cheek, since it would appear I got more criticism than those paedophiles.
Medical term or not (or are you getting mixed up with 'paediatrician') a person who has sex with a child is called a paedophile, and since one of these children was only 12 years old, they are right to be called paedophiles.
No matter how much you try to hide the fact, White, Black, Asians, Muslims, Jews, or Christians, etc. it matters not, people who commit these sort of crimes are paedophiles.
sp1814
"I equally condemn crime of this nature independent on what the colour of their skin, the religion they follow etc, etc"
/// Yeah...sure you do.///
sp1814, I am not in the habit of lying, and in the past I have condemned white people if they have done something that I consider needs of my condemnation.
Unlike you, who is one of the biggest closeted racists on this site, you will constantly criticise anyone with a white skin, you will periodically state that paedophilia is a crime generally attached to whites.
Since you agree with this post by jno, let me put you both right.
/// Staffordshire vicar quits after being convicted of having child porn on his computer. That sounds like real paedophilia to me. But does aog start a thread to voice his outrage? Not at all. Does aog as an Englishman condemn him, the way he demands that Muslims should condemn all Muslim criminals? Not a bit of it. ///
Regarding the vicar, there are dozens of this type of case, I cannot personally address each and everyone, just to try and balance the scales of fairness to all, simply because the scales are already over balanced against the whites.
Since you have pointed out this case regarding the Vicar (of which I was previously unaware of I add) I will take the opportunity of condemning the vicar for his crime, if that's what makes you happy.
But having said that, I consider the case of one vicar, who very wrongly had child porn on his computer, fades almost into insignificance, when compared with a bunch of savages who continuously abused young girls as young as !2.
So before you continue to side track this issue, with irreverent cases, perhaps you should first strongly condemn these vile acts, which in this case happened to have been committed by Muslims, instead of trying to brush the facts under the carpet.
You should be ashamed of you
"I equally condemn crime of this nature independent on what the colour of their skin, the religion they follow etc, etc"
/// Yeah...sure you do.///
sp1814, I am not in the habit of lying, and in the past I have condemned white people if they have done something that I consider needs of my condemnation.
Unlike you, who is one of the biggest closeted racists on this site, you will constantly criticise anyone with a white skin, you will periodically state that paedophilia is a crime generally attached to whites.
Since you agree with this post by jno, let me put you both right.
/// Staffordshire vicar quits after being convicted of having child porn on his computer. That sounds like real paedophilia to me. But does aog start a thread to voice his outrage? Not at all. Does aog as an Englishman condemn him, the way he demands that Muslims should condemn all Muslim criminals? Not a bit of it. ///
Regarding the vicar, there are dozens of this type of case, I cannot personally address each and everyone, just to try and balance the scales of fairness to all, simply because the scales are already over balanced against the whites.
Since you have pointed out this case regarding the Vicar (of which I was previously unaware of I add) I will take the opportunity of condemning the vicar for his crime, if that's what makes you happy.
But having said that, I consider the case of one vicar, who very wrongly had child porn on his computer, fades almost into insignificance, when compared with a bunch of savages who continuously abused young girls as young as !2.
So before you continue to side track this issue, with irreverent cases, perhaps you should first strongly condemn these vile acts, which in this case happened to have been committed by Muslims, instead of trying to brush the facts under the carpet.
You should be ashamed of you
-- answer removed --
