Pray while they Play

[DeepSpace]

Mar 12, 2015 22:12:35 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

Mar 12, 2015 21:59:25 GMT 1 DeepSpace said:

OK, fine I'm a clown. You're right & 30 years of experience has been wasted on me. If only I'd realised I'd have gone off & done something that paid me a decent wage instead.

I'm out, but just one last thing...if you ever study science you'll know that correlation does not prove connection. The reasons why white children are victimised more than Asian children are to a degree understood & other non-racial factors connecting perpetrators has also been evidenced. Google is your friend but you'll need to switch your brain on. You may not like what research by other clowns tells you though, so maybe you need to get a Research grant yourself & enlighten us all to what they keep missing.

Was it in Rotherham where the report said that the obsession the 'experts' had with political correctness lead to the abuse continuing for far far longer than was necessary? No doubt they were all paid a decent wage too.
You seem like a good example of that if you can't even accept that there HAD TO BE a racial prejudice by every one of the muslim paedophile gangs that have come to light.
Or maybe I should just switch my brain on and see it as the amazing coincidence it must have been?

Also taken from the report:

"One of the local Pakistani women's groups described how Pakistani-heritage girls were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside school gates at dinner times and after school. They also cited cases in Rotherham where Pakistani landlords had befriended Pakistani women and girls on their own for purposes of sex, then passed on their name to other men who had then contacted them for sex. The women and girls feared reporting such incidents to the Police because it would affect their future marriage prospects."

[thrice]

Accessibility does not adequately explain this particular phenomenon.

They didn't just stumble across these poor lasses.

Muchadoo about nothing with the lads praying & the reaction to it.
I'd love to see what happens if a goal is scored mind.

[Deleted]

Personally, I pray every time Town play, but clearly I haven't happened across the right god/s yet.

But seriously, is anybody really surprised that Asians, many of whom aren't muslims, by the way, don't turn up in their droves to football matches? The mere mention of the I word has produced a thread largely dominated by discussions of terrorism and organised peadophilia. Who in their right mind would want to spend their Saturday afternoon surrounded by people who, on the basis of a selective and conveniently truncated reading of modern history, seem to think that they're just another grunt standing to attention in some kind of fifth column?

If I had the time, I could post a list of daily events in the Ukraine, too. Then I'd smugly sit back and let the facts do the talking--white Christians and secularists are beastly creatures bent on destruction, and the whole lot of them, wherever they live, whatever they do, are responsible for the actions of their compatriots, and the fact that they don't spend every second of every day denouncing these acts and apologising is all the proof that's needed. I could do that for World War II, or the Congo, or Sudan, or the wars of European imperial conquest in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, but it wouldn't really help anybody who might need a place to pray whilst watching their favourite football team, would it? Not, for that matter, would it help anybody else.

[SaleTerrier]

Mar 12, 2015 22:37:17 GMT 1 @1860munching said:

Personally, I pray every time Town play, but clearly I haven't happened across the right god/s yet.

But seriously, is anybody really surprised that Asians, many of whom aren't muslims, by the way, don't turn up in their droves to football matches? The mere mention of the I word has produced a thread largely dominated by discussions of terrorism and organised peadophilia. Who in their right mind would want to spend their Saturday afternoon surrounded by people who, on the basis of a selective and conveniently truncated reading of modern history, seem to think that they're just another grunt standing to attention in some kind of fifth column?

If I had the time, I could post a list of daily events in the Ukraine, too. Then I'd smugly sit back and let the facts do the talking--white Christians and secularists are beastly creatures bent on destruction, and the whole lot of them, wherever they live, whatever they do, are responsible for the actions of their compatriots, and the fact that they don't spend every second of every day denouncing these acts and apologising is all the proof that's needed. I could do that for World War II, or the Congo, or Sudan, or the wars of European imperial conquest in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, but it wouldn't really help anybody who might need a place to pray whilst watching their favourite football team, would it? Not, for that matter, would it help anybody else.

For me, that post is spot on.

[Chips Longhorn]

Is "Fair Point" your new catchphrase Sale? I can see it catching on

[Deleted]

I am more bothered about people who grew up in and around Huddersfield having no interest in town. If you have no historical ties to the area you are more likely to follow Man U or Man City.

[SaleTerrier]

Growing fond of it, yeah!

Can see it being used on these discussions where I'm not really clued up on it all.

When we are back to discussing football I don't think my view will be as easily swayed...

[Captainslapper]

Mar 12, 2015 22:23:12 GMT 1 DeepSpace said:

Mar 12, 2015 22:12:35 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

Was it in Rotherham where the report said that the obsession the 'experts' had with political correctness lead to the abuse continuing for far far longer than was necessary? No doubt they were all paid a decent wage too.
You seem like a good example of that if you can't even accept that there HAD TO BE a racial prejudice by every one of the muslim paedophile gangs that have come to light.
Or maybe I should just switch my brain on and see it as the amazing coincidence it must have been?

I don't rate your chances of understanding the research if you can't understand a simple argument on a football message board.

To help you out...

The Rotherham report highlights that blind spots, and subsequent failures to aggressively target what was going on, were linked to "political correctness" (the actual phrase used in the report is "a politically inconvenient truth") meaning a failure to prosecute the perpetrators who in this case were Asian men. I completely agree with that point.

Please quote me the bit of the report that says the perpetrator motives were racial, which is the point I am challenging you on.

Ok let me ask you this. If a gang of 15 white paedophiles were up in court charged with abusing , lets say 100 children, and the children were all , or nearly all, black, then would you adamantly insist there wasn't some kind of racial prejudice in the choice of victims?

[buzz]

Mar 12, 2015 11:23:09 GMT 1 fnd said:

Mar 12, 2015 11:15:38 GMT 1 Spunker said:

Alright Marx calm down. 'Islamophobia' is somehow deemed as irrational, but a religion that has so many 'moderates' that simply do not speak out against 'extremists' within, gets a pretty easy ride. Don't be an ileterate idiot all your life!

9/11, no muslim outcry.
7/11, no muslim outcry.
Rotherham/Rochdale/Wolverhampton/Birmingham etc etc etc child sex rings, no Muslim outcry.
A cartoon depicting their prophet who married and raped a girl under 10 years old; absolute outcry by these 'moderates'. And we all know what consequences have followed. Including doctors, teachers, office workers etc heading to fight alongside ISIS.

So I would say you are well within your right to have a phobia over Islam. Unless you're brainwashed, naive or one of those leftist do gooders who thinks everyone (apart from the heterosexual white man) is lovely.

The praying at a football match is obscene, as well as nearly everywhere selling their halal meat, just to accommodate these people and bend over backwards.

It must be hard getting through life being this retarded. I guess it's just pure chance that you've managed to dodge traffic this long.

[buzz]

The comments on here are typical of the level of understanding and intelligence in football! Racism if rife in football! ......fact! Read back at previous comments! Chealsea fans!....I rest my case! Town are way behind in regards to tolerance of black fans, black players, and.......Mark my words! Powell will be gone soon too!....hope you are all happy when farage is Pm!

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2015 1:58:15 GMT 1 buzz said:

The comments on here are typical of the level of understanding and intelligence in football! Racism if rife in football! ......fact! Read back at previous comments! Chealsea fans!....I rest my case! Town are way behind in regards to tolerance of black fans, black players, and.......Mark my words! Powell will be gone soon too!....hope you are all happy when farage is Pm!

Since when was Islam a race? If anything it's bigotry against Muslims but racism, nope.

I don't think all Muslims are terrorist psychos but unfortunately the religion is being used by a significant number of people to promote terrorist activities and attacks on non Muslims. My only criticism is the lack of noise from the moderate Muslims. If they ostracized these extremists there may be less of them. I know other religions have done the same thing in the past but that does not excuse it.

It is sad that in 2015 people can not just leave people to live their own lives as they see fit.

[Deleted]

Mar 12, 2015 13:28:59 GMT 1 benmsmith4 said:

I think out of all the anti-Islam arguments the 'where is the Muslim outcry?!' one is the weakest of them all.
Did we instantly ask christians to condemn Anders Breivik? Or atheists to condemn Stalinism?
Absolutely absurd.

Good example.

I think the reality is there isn't 'huge public outcry' from British Muslims is because they see no connection between themselves and terrorists whether they claim to act through Islam is irrelevant as it is for Christians and brevik as you say. All moderate people condemn violence irrespective of religious proclivities.

Also, it isn't news worthy so wouldn't get much coverage.

[Deleted]

I've enjoyed this thread- some quality posters who have kept out of such debates before now (where have u all been all this time!? :-) & some cracking posts amongst the brainless dross. Off now to meet my mate Maz from plumbing world and the two Kurdish dudes who run the car wash behind Ricky's. We're doing a protest walk around birkby against some looneys in Syria who are killing people.

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2015 2:55:54 GMT 1 @q8402984 said:

Dear Lord/Allah/Buddha/Kindon/Santa.

If the new vicar chap at Town can help lift the Gypsy curse we seem to have when compared with other comparable Yorkshire rivals who have all had a crack at the Premiership.

I would be eternally in your debt, I do feed the birds throughout the winter and I did stop and carry a hedgehog to safety a while ago.

Thanks

Hey man I'm a gypsy. Don't be attributing town's shitness to my people buddy. They manage it all on their own.

[DeepSpace]

Mar 13, 2015 0:53:11 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

Mar 12, 2015 22:23:12 GMT 1 DeepSpace said:

I don't rate your chances of understanding the research if you can't understand a simple argument on a football message board.

To help you out...

The Rotherham report highlights that blind spots, and subsequent failures to aggressively target what was going on, were linked to "political correctness" (the actual phrase used in the report is "a politically inconvenient truth") meaning a failure to prosecute the perpetrators who in this case were Asian men. I completely agree with that point.

Please quote me the bit of the report that says the perpetrator motives were racial, which is the point I am challenging you on.

Ok let me ask you this. If a gang of 15 white paedophiles were up in court charged with abusing , lets say 100 children, and the children were all , or nearly all, black, then would you adamantly insist there wasn't some kind of racial prejudice in the choice of victims?

This is what I meant by my playing with the grown ups comment (which in hindsight I apologise for, it lowered the tone of the debate).

However, you answered my question to you (highlight anywhere in the Rotherham report where it says the motives were racial) with a question of your own based upon a fictional hypothesis & say if A happened then would you agree that B was the case. So yes, if that happened it might have a racial element. Does that help?

However, that is not what actually happened in Rotherham. Here's another section of the official enquiry report with a key point emphasised:

"The Deputy Children's Commissioner’s report reached a similar conclusion to the Muslim Women's Network research, stating 'one of these myths was that only white girls are victims of sexual exploitation by Asian or Muslim males, as if these men only abuse outside of their own community, driven by hatred and contempt for white females. This belief flies in the face of evidence that shows that those who violate children are most likely to target those who are closest to them and most easily accessible"

Incidentally some of the detail of what they did to young Asian girls from their own communities makes genuinely harrowing reading (some of it is referenced in the report in fact), & the strategies they used to keep them quiet mirrors strategies used by non-Muslim perpetrators.

On the assumption that you are reading this stuff, I think if you continue to perpetuate the notion that this was a racial campaign then I can only assume that you are willing to ignore evidence in pursuit of what you want to be true rather than what actually is.

[galpharm2400]

its not the actual targeting which is open to debate, its the thought that pervades all these groups of males that the females in question were of a lesser value because of who they were.. they have cited their 'version' or interpretation of their beliefs as part of their thinking ...

by the way, in religion a moderate is usually a moderate because of the circumstances he/she finds themselves living in..

the Balkans and other associated conflicts involving racial/religious should have been a real eye opener for most people..

we found that 'moderate' groups became very much less moderate once their numbers or firepower changed the balance..

just a thought..

[otium (EPBS)]

Mar 12, 2015 11:26:57 GMT 1 benmsmith4 said:

Mar 12, 2015 11:15:38 GMT 1 Spunker said:

Alright Marx calm down. 'Islamophobia' is somehow deemed as irrational, but a religion that has so many 'moderates' that simply do not speak out against 'extremists' within, gets a pretty easy ride.

9/11, no muslim outcry.
7/11, no muslim outcry.
Rotherham/Rochdale/Wolverhampton/Birmingham etc etc etc child sex rings, no Muslim outcry.
A cartoon depicting their prophet who married and raped a girl under 10 years old; absolute outcry by these 'moderates'. And we all know what consequences have followed. Including doctors, teachers, office workers etc heading to fight alongside ISIS.

So I would say you are well within your right to have a phobia over Islam. Unless you're brainwashed, naive or one of those leftist do gooders who thinks everyone (apart from the heterosexual white man) is lovely.

The praying at a football match is obscene, as well as nearly everywhere selling their halal meat, just to accommodate these people and bend over backwards.

I should have known it was a bad idea trying to oppose bigotry on DATM!

Try opposing religious stupidity then. If i was a genuine Pastafarian you would consider me an idiot but if i pray to Mecca and believe in martyrdom, Jihad and winged, flying horses i am clearly sane and don't need mocking! I really do not see a blind bit of difference. Religion is nonsense for the nonsensical.

[DeepSpace]

Mar 13, 2015 8:53:27 GMT 1 otium (EPBS) said:

Mar 12, 2015 11:26:57 GMT 1 benmsmith4 said:

I should have known it was a bad idea trying to oppose bigotry on DATM!

Try opposing religious stupidity then. If i was a genuine Pastafarian you would consider me an idiot but if i pray to Mecca and believe in martyrdom, Jihad and winged, flying horses i am clearly sane and don't need mocking! I really do not see a blind bit of difference. Religion is nonsense for the nonsensical.

I agree with you on that, although you have to realise that Atheism is as much an act of faith as any other theism. You can't prove there isn't a god any more than Theists can prove there is. I can't remember the exact quote but someone said that if there's 100 different religions in the world then by definition a minimum of 99 of them but possibly 100 are wrong.

For me though it's about making the case that people are basically people wherever you look. Once we start applying different rules to different demographic cohorts we have a problem. Target people that are bad because they are bad. Simples.

Incidentally Oti, is this your real identity?

[Captainslapper]

Mar 13, 2015 8:01:12 GMT 1 DeepSpace said:

Mar 13, 2015 0:53:11 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

Ok let me ask you this. If a gang of 15 white paedophiles were up in court charged with abusing , lets say 100 children, and the children were all , or nearly all, black, then would you adamantly insist there wasn't some kind of racial prejudice in the choice of victims?

This is what I meant by my playing with the grown ups comment (which in hindsight I apologise for, it lowered the tone of the debate).

However, you answered my question to you (highlight anywhere in the Rotherham report where it says the motives were racial) with a question of your own based upon a fictional hypothesis & say if A happened then would you agree that B was the case. So yes, if that happened it might have a racial element. Does that help?

However, that is not what actually happened in Rotherham. Here's another section of the official enquiry report with a key point emphasised:

"The Deputy Children's Commissioner’s report reached a similar conclusion to the Muslim Women's Network research, stating 'one of these myths was that only white girls are victims of sexual exploitation by Asian or Muslim males, as if these men only abuse outside of their own community, driven by hatred and contempt for white females. This belief flies in the face of evidence that shows that those who violate children are most likely to target those who are closest to them and most easily accessible"

Incidentally some of the detail of what they did to young Asian girls from their own communities makes genuinely harrowing reading (some of it is referenced in the report in fact), & the strategies they used to keep them quiet mirrors strategies used by non-Muslim perpetrators.

On the assumption that you are reading this stuff, I think if you continue to perpetuate the notion that this was a racial campaign then I can only assume that you are willing to ignore evidence in pursuit of what you want to be true rather than what actually is.

Thanks for apologising for the 'grown ups' comment. It didn't so much lower the tone, as made you look like a condescending clown.

I wasn't actually refering to the rotherham case specifically when mentioning a racial prejudice in the choice of victims. Rotherham cropped up later in reference to blinkered political correctness. If there were a number of asian victims in that case, of any amount, then i accept it knocks my argument back a bit.

However I'd have to ask other questions having not read the report on that case. I don't know if any asian victims were part of the gang abuse of the group, or more individual ' going it alone' cases, or what percentage of the number of victims they amounted to. In other words, the individuals concerned might have abused muslim children ( Id be surprised if they didn't) , but AS A GANG did they?

Wasn't it the case that the vast majority of victims were white? Similarly in any of the other cases of muslim paedophile gangs?

So how is it you accept if a gang of white paedophiles were targeting mainly black victims there is a racial motive, but not if a gang of asian paedophiles are targeting mainly white victims?

[Chips Longhorn]

Captain. Does the ethnicity of either perpetrator or victim matter one jot ? Does it matter if there is a ring or the child abuse is solo ? It's all totally vile and abhorrent and requires treating with the utmost seriousness.

[Captainslapper]

Mar 13, 2015 10:03:19 GMT 1 Chips Longhorn said:

Captain. Does the ethnicity of either perpetrator or victim matter one jot ? Does it matter if there is a ring or the child abuse is solo ? It's all totally vile and abhorrent and requires treating with the utmost seriousness.

Not in terms of the vileness of the crime, of course it doesn't.
If the discussion is about there being a racial prejudice in the choice of victims or not, then of course it does.

[Chips Longhorn]

Whoever does it captain on whoever. It's still a child who is being violated.... The most heinous crime in my opinion... I don't really rank them . They are all equally as vile .

[Captainslapper]

well obviously . but again, thats not the discussion were having.

[DeepSpace]

Mar 13, 2015 9:57:39 GMT 1 Captainslapper said:

Mar 13, 2015 8:01:12 GMT 1 DeepSpace said:

This is what I meant by my playing with the grown ups comment (which in hindsight I apologise for, it lowered the tone of the debate).

However, you answered my question to you (highlight anywhere in the Rotherham report where it says the motives were racial) with a question of your own based upon a fictional hypothesis & say if A happened then would you agree that B was the case. So yes, if that happened it might have a racial element. Does that help?

However, that is not what actually happened in Rotherham. Here's another section of the official enquiry report with a key point emphasised:

"The Deputy Children's Commissioner’s report reached a similar conclusion to the Muslim Women's Network research, stating 'one of these myths was that only white girls are victims of sexual exploitation by Asian or Muslim males, as if these men only abuse outside of their own community, driven by hatred and contempt for white females. This belief flies in the face of evidence that shows that those who violate children are most likely to target those who are closest to them and most easily accessible"

Incidentally some of the detail of what they did to young Asian girls from their own communities makes genuinely harrowing reading (some of it is referenced in the report in fact), & the strategies they used to keep them quiet mirrors strategies used by non-Muslim perpetrators.

On the assumption that you are reading this stuff, I think if you continue to perpetuate the notion that this was a racial campaign then I can only assume that you are willing to ignore evidence in pursuit of what you want to be true rather than what actually is.

Thanks for apologising for the 'grown ups' comment. It didn't so much lower the tone, as made you look like a condescending clown.

I wasn't actually refering to the rotherham case specifically when mentioning a racial prejudice in the choice of victims. Rotherham cropped up later in reference to blinkered political correctness. If there were a number of asian victims in that case, of any amount, then i accept it knocks my argument back a bit.

However I'd have to ask other questions having not read the report on that case. I don't know if any asian victims were part of the gang abuse of the group, or more individual ' going it alone' cases, or what percentage of the number of victims they amounted to. In other words, the individuals concerned might have abused muslim children ( Id be surprised if they didn't) , but AS A GANG did they?

Wasn't it the case that the vast majority of victims were white? Similarly in any of the other cases of muslim paedophile gangs?

So how is it you accept if a gang of white paedophiles were targeting mainly black victims there is a racial motive, but not if a gang of asian paedophiles are targeting mainly white victims?

A few things here. First of all in answer to your last question, you offered a hypothetical scenario, my response was therefore equally hypothetical. What I'm trying to get across though here is that the real world is nothing like that & there isn't an overtly racial element to the vast majority of child abuse (note I'm not saying never, just that it's atypical).

I think to really answer your other questions needs a lot of detail which here isn't the place for, but essentially the last place you want to get your facts on Rotherham from is main stream media or football message boards. There was no single gang; there were numerous clusters of men who took advantage of their jobs, status & access to victims who collaborated in grooming and abusing young girls. Much in the same way Savile did.

I alluded to the research earlier. What this tells us currently is that if you are looking for connecting threads around most group-based abuse, then occupation is a far better determinant than race, religion, economic status, etc. That's because of the age old & obvious point that people wishing to abuse children or young people (or indeed any vulnerable person) will gravitate towards work where they have access & opportunity. Savile is the obvious & easily evidenced example, but think about where abuse happened that is commonly known about in white communities. Think about some famous perpetrators other than Savile...Ian Huntley (school caretaker), John Allen (care home manager). Society has got wise to this though, hence we now have a raft of protective measures in place, but where Rotherham et al got it so wrong was not being willing to acknowledge what was going on under the radar in other communities.

I hope that makes sense anyway. A bit too much of a busman's holiday this thread!!

[Deleted]

Mar 12, 2015 13:28:59 GMT 1 benmsmith4 said:

I think out of all the anti-Islam arguments the 'where is the Muslim outcry?!' one is the weakest of them all.
Did we instantly ask christians to condemn Anders Breivik? Or atheists to condemn Stalinism?
Absolutely absurd.

What a stupid comparison. Breivik was one individual nutter, who targeted his victims for political reasons, religion had nothing to do with it. He was not thousands of religious nutters who want world dominiation and to wipe out all non believers.

I don't think you fully understand Jihad do you?

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2015 11:13:15 GMT 1 @marcusd said:

Mar 12, 2015 13:28:59 GMT 1 benmsmith4 said:

I think out of all the anti-Islam arguments the 'where is the Muslim outcry?!' one is the weakest of them all.
Did we instantly ask christians to condemn Anders Breivik? Or atheists to condemn Stalinism?
Absolutely absurd.

What a stupid comparison. Breivik was one individual nutter, who targeted his victims for political reasons, religion had nothing to do with it. He was not thousands of religious nutters who want world dominiation and to wipe out all non believers.

I don't think you fully understand Jihad do you?

On the day of the attacks, Breivik electronically distributed a compendium of texts entitled 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, describing his far-right militant ideology.[11][12][13][14] In them, he lays out a worldview encompassing Islamophobia, support for "far-right Zionism"[11] and opposition to feminism.[15][16] The texts call Islam and Cultural Marxism "the enemy", argue for the violent annihilation of "Eurabia" and multiculturalism and advocate deportation of all Muslims from Europe based on the model of the Beneš decrees.[17][18] Breivik wrote that his main motive for the atrocities was to market his manifesto.[19]

So he was politically and religiously motivated. Check your facts.

[benmsmith4]

Mar 13, 2015 11:13:15 GMT 1 @marcusd said:

Mar 12, 2015 13:28:59 GMT 1 benmsmith4 said:

I think out of all the anti-Islam arguments the 'where is the Muslim outcry?!' one is the weakest of them all.
Did we instantly ask christians to condemn Anders Breivik? Or atheists to condemn Stalinism?
Absolutely absurd.

What a stupid comparison. Breivik was one individual nutter, who targeted his victims for political reasons, religion had nothing to do with it. He was not thousands of religious nutters who want world dominiation and to wipe out all non believers.

I don't think you fully understand Jihad do you?

You're wrong. Breiviks appealed to the 'demise' of protestant Christianity in the face of 'Islamification', attacking the youth wing of a tolerant political group was a part of what he saw as protecting his religion from Islam.

I'm simply opposing those who conflate the views and actions of who you rightly call 'nutters' with the millions of non-violent muslims around the world.

And yes I fully understand Jihad. I oppose Islamo-fascism.

[Deleted]

Do any of the apologists for islam on here genuinely believe that when the number of muslims in this country are high enough to take control they won't force the rest of us to live under islamic law ?

[Chips Longhorn]

Mar 13, 2015 12:23:00 GMT 1 bickmuxton said:

Do any of the apologists for islam on here genuinely believe that when the number of muslims in this country are high enough to take control they won't force the rest of us to live under islamic law ?

What's an " apologist for Islam " ? And who on this site would you call one ?

[Deleted]

Those who think it is ok that the spread of islam in the uk is acceptable .

And yes Ted I see you as one of the main culprits . Which is a shame as you come across as a decent intelligent guy most of the time .