Quizzes & Puzzles32 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.
I agree aog
That is racist and i think that these men will have had little respect for their victims.
They probably considered them to be 'slappers', 'chavs', 'cheap tarts' - you name it.
Particularly as their behaviour will have contrasted sharply with that of young girls in their own community.
That to my mind is the 'racial overtone' that has been mentioned.
Of course the attitudes to sex,behaviour and vulnerability of the white girls suited their disgraceful purposes very well. They would never get away with that inside their own community.
However, i still argue there is a distinction between a crime like Stephen Lawrence where the crime is 'racially motivated' above any other factor and here where the crime is sexually motivated and the racial distinction is not the prime motivator.
i.e. the men (as far as we can tell) did not say
'what can we do to hurt white people? I know let's go find some young white girls to abuse.'
More likely they said 'i fancy sh@gging some young girls, where can we find some who will be impressed by our flash cars, drop their knockers and not have anyone to tell if we abuse them.'
Disgusting all the same.
.
That is racist and i think that these men will have had little respect for their victims.
They probably considered them to be 'slappers', 'chavs', 'cheap tarts' - you name it.
Particularly as their behaviour will have contrasted sharply with that of young girls in their own community.
That to my mind is the 'racial overtone' that has been mentioned.
Of course the attitudes to sex,behaviour and vulnerability of the white girls suited their disgraceful purposes very well. They would never get away with that inside their own community.
However, i still argue there is a distinction between a crime like Stephen Lawrence where the crime is 'racially motivated' above any other factor and here where the crime is sexually motivated and the racial distinction is not the prime motivator.
i.e. the men (as far as we can tell) did not say
'what can we do to hurt white people? I know let's go find some young white girls to abuse.'
More likely they said 'i fancy sh@gging some young girls, where can we find some who will be impressed by our flash cars, drop their knockers and not have anyone to tell if we abuse them.'
Disgusting all the same.
.
AOG
You and I (and many others on here) know exactly where you're coming from and we aren't fooled.
You will always criticise ethnic minorities who commit crime and do not use race as a basis for criticism when whites commit the same crimes.
Ergo - you're a hypocrite.
Not necessarily a liar - just hypocritical to the nth degree.
If I were the only poster to accuse you of this, then perhaps I would reconsider my position.
But I ain't. Not by a long chalk.
You and I (and many others on here) know exactly where you're coming from and we aren't fooled.
You will always criticise ethnic minorities who commit crime and do not use race as a basis for criticism when whites commit the same crimes.
Ergo - you're a hypocrite.
Not necessarily a liar - just hypocritical to the nth degree.
If I were the only poster to accuse you of this, then perhaps I would reconsider my position.
But I ain't. Not by a long chalk.
"Regarding the vicar, there are dozens of this type of case, I cannot personally address each and every one"
But weirdly, you seem to manage posting on every London shooting involving black teenagers.
Odd that (and hypocritical).
No-one is fooled AOG.
You link proves everything we ever needed to know. Post your criticisms and open debates - but please don't assume that we don't 'get it'.
You are to race what RebelSouls is to the BBC.
But weirdly, you seem to manage posting on every London shooting involving black teenagers.
Odd that (and hypocritical).
No-one is fooled AOG.
You link proves everything we ever needed to know. Post your criticisms and open debates - but please don't assume that we don't 'get it'.
You are to race what RebelSouls is to the BBC.
"Ergo - you're a hypocrite.
Not necessarily a liar - just hypocritical to the nth degree"
Absolutely.
Not only that, but you consistently evade relevant and intelligent questions that people post regarding their observations about your aparent 'ethos'.
You launched an unprovoked personal attack on me earlier suggesting that I might engage in the criminal activity of signing on and accepting cash in hand. I addressed this and yet again - it was ignored.
Not necessarily a liar - just hypocritical to the nth degree"
Absolutely.
Not only that, but you consistently evade relevant and intelligent questions that people post regarding their observations about your aparent 'ethos'.
You launched an unprovoked personal attack on me earlier suggesting that I might engage in the criminal activity of signing on and accepting cash in hand. I addressed this and yet again - it was ignored.
"Regarding the vicar, there are dozens of this type of case"
It's still quite rare, fortunately - particularly among vicars. None the less, you could condemn it if you wanted. You have no trouble locating and highlighting any case involving a person of a different colour from yourself. The white ones just seem to slip under your radar completely.
The vicar, incidentally, did not abuse children himself (as far as I know). But he paid others to do so. Do you really think that makes him morally better than rapists? I don't.
It's still quite rare, fortunately - particularly among vicars. None the less, you could condemn it if you wanted. You have no trouble locating and highlighting any case involving a person of a different colour from yourself. The white ones just seem to slip under your radar completely.
The vicar, incidentally, did not abuse children himself (as far as I know). But he paid others to do so. Do you really think that makes him morally better than rapists? I don't.
zeuhl....how is a 12y old a slapper, chav, cheap tart unless a filthy minded bloke made her one ? Even young asian girls are so used & abused in their homeland.
http://news.sky.com/s...on&lpos=searchresults
http://news.sky.com/s...on&lpos=searchresults
Answerprance
/// You launched an unprovoked personal attack on me earlier suggesting that I might engage in the criminal activity of signing on and accepting cash in hand. I addressed this and yet again - it was ignored.///
You seem oblivious to the fact that you attack me on a regular basis, so my attacks on you are not unprovoked as you untruthfully say, so why be so surprised when I do retaliate?
I only answer in anyway that I feel justifies those uncalled for sarcastic jibes, every belittling comment, or any other hateful remark you regularly make against me, I don't think, oh I do hope I haven't offended him, why should I?.
My statement said,
/// These long term 'work shy' are at the moment, sitting around doing nothing... ///
You again true to form, sarcastically questioned this by saying,
/// How do you know this, are you a social worker or a professional statistician ? ///
///Or is this just presumption reinforced by 'facts' you've read in the Daily Mail ? ///
I therefore thought I may have got it wrong, if they are not 'sitting around doing nothing', then perhaps they are out working while still on benefits, and since it was you that questioned me, perhaps you also came under this criteria.
Obviously you were hurt by this, but if you don't wish to burn yourself, don't play with fire.
/// You launched an unprovoked personal attack on me earlier suggesting that I might engage in the criminal activity of signing on and accepting cash in hand. I addressed this and yet again - it was ignored.///
You seem oblivious to the fact that you attack me on a regular basis, so my attacks on you are not unprovoked as you untruthfully say, so why be so surprised when I do retaliate?
I only answer in anyway that I feel justifies those uncalled for sarcastic jibes, every belittling comment, or any other hateful remark you regularly make against me, I don't think, oh I do hope I haven't offended him, why should I?.
My statement said,
/// These long term 'work shy' are at the moment, sitting around doing nothing... ///
You again true to form, sarcastically questioned this by saying,
/// How do you know this, are you a social worker or a professional statistician ? ///
///Or is this just presumption reinforced by 'facts' you've read in the Daily Mail ? ///
I therefore thought I may have got it wrong, if they are not 'sitting around doing nothing', then perhaps they are out working while still on benefits, and since it was you that questioned me, perhaps you also came under this criteria.
Obviously you were hurt by this, but if you don't wish to burn yourself, don't play with fire.
I started it and I will finish it.
This episode has once again proven to me, a long borne realisation that no matter what heinous crimes certain groups commit, they are not to be highlighted, criticised or in any other way openly discussed.
Certain persons would rather 'shoot the messenger' than condemn the perpetrators of theses savage vicious crimes, excuses will be banded about, and certain other cases will be brought out to somehow dilute the seriousness of the crimes in question.
I therefore make no excuses for addressing this crime, some obviously have not had the nerve to speak out, but that must lie on their own consciences, why else did no one else consider this to be such a major crime, it was not even broadcast by the media.
The reason as always I presume, "It is a very sensitive issue, that could create tension between the races, and thus likely to disturb the very good race relations enjoyed by all in the UK.".
This episode has once again proven to me, a long borne realisation that no matter what heinous crimes certain groups commit, they are not to be highlighted, criticised or in any other way openly discussed.
Certain persons would rather 'shoot the messenger' than condemn the perpetrators of theses savage vicious crimes, excuses will be banded about, and certain other cases will be brought out to somehow dilute the seriousness of the crimes in question.
I therefore make no excuses for addressing this crime, some obviously have not had the nerve to speak out, but that must lie on their own consciences, why else did no one else consider this to be such a major crime, it was not even broadcast by the media.
The reason as always I presume, "It is a very sensitive issue, that could create tension between the races, and thus likely to disturb the very good race relations enjoyed by all in the UK.".
