Asian gangs

Status
Not open for further replies.


If she was correct in what she said, she shouldn't be punished for it at all.
As the shadow secretary of state for women and equalities theres a bit of a paradoxical conundrum in there for her...the obvious need to protect young white females while trying to be equal and even handed about a particular community.

Clearly (from the information available) there is a disproportionate problem with Asian muslim men targeting white (and to a lesser extent Hindu 'indian') vulnerable female children and women. Disproportionate because Asian muslims make up 4% of the UK population....crimes of this nature are still overwhelming committed by white UK nationals but given the make up of the population that's always going to be the case.

Expressing concern about a particular demographic of our society targeting and committing crimes against another demographic of our society is always going to incendiary and in this case open to statistical and factual arguments in the name of political correctness. However there is something deeply disturbing about this and not just because it's a crime against children and women. Ignoring it now or writing it off as being racist to speak out about it just stores up trouble for further down the line.

Even under Sharia law these crimes would be considered vices and the punishment would either be 40 lashes or death by sword or stoning.
 
How can people not see what is going on before their eyes? Is it any wonder these gangs have got away with it for so long when people are absolutely petrified of telling it like it is. These men aren't, Asian, British, Pakistani they are muslim
 
How can people not see what is going on before their eyes? Is it any wonder these gangs have got away with it for so long when people are absolutely petrified of telling it like it is. These men aren't, Asian, British, Pakistani they are muslim

So you're saying that all muslims are some how involved or complicit in grooming gangs?
 
Never once said that.

That type of reply is exactly what I'm on about tbh.

Your phrasing of

"These men aren't, Asian, British, Pakistani they are muslim"

Puts "Muslim" as being the most identifiable factor. Whether they identify as that is another matter, but essentially what these people are, are predatory paedophiles first, and what other traits they have are down the scale.
 
So you're saying that all muslims are some how involved or complicit in grooming gangs?
Where is he saying that?

To be honest, it's a bit shit that there are any muslim or Asian gangs out there at all. If you come to the UK you should integrate with the cultures and values and adhere to the laws.

If as a society we cannot find a middle ground, be tolerant, respect each other and the law, treat people as equals and judge them by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin and their religious beliefs, then I'm afraid multi culturism isn't going to work and it's very clear that the indigenous population are not going to be the ones who end up on the wrong end of the argument.

Your phrasing of

"These men aren't, Asian, British, Pakistani they are muslim"

Puts "Muslim" as being the most identifiable factor. Whether they identify as that is another matter, but essentially what these people are, are predatory paedophiles first, and what other traits they have are down the scale.

No, they are predatory muslim paedophiles working together targeting vulnerable non-muslims. To say that other denominators are down the scale ignores a big part of the problem
 
As the shadow secretary of state for women and equalities theres a bit of a paradoxical conundrum in there for her...the obvious need to protect young white females while trying to be equal and even handed about a particular community.

Clearly (from the information available) there is a disproportionate problem with Asian muslim men targeting white (and to a lesser extent Hindu 'indian') vulnerable female children and women. Disproportionate because Asian muslims make up 4% of the UK population....crimes of this nature are still overwhelming committed by white UK nationals but given the make up of the population that's always going to be the case.

Expressing concern about a particular demographic of our society targeting and committing crimes against another demographic of our society is always going to incendiary and in this case open to statistical and factual arguments in the name of political correctness. However there is something deeply disturbing about this and not just because it's a crime against children and women. Ignoring it now or writing it off as being racist to speak out about it just stores up trouble for further down the line.

Even under Sharia law these crimes would be considered vices and the punishment would either be 40 lashes or death by sword or stoning.
Your last paragraph is absolutely correct.. Its pleasing to only have three constitutional Laws in this Country.. English Law that applies in England & Wales, Law in Northern Ireland applies only in Northern Ireland, and the Scots Law only applies in Scotland. While all three systems diverge in the more detailed rules of English Law. There is no provision under the Treaty of Union where Sharia Law is considered as a Law under the Constitution in Great Britain.....
 
Where is he saying that?

To be honest, it's a bit shit that there are any muslim or Asian gangs out there at all. If you come to the UK you should integrate with the cultures and values and adhere to the laws.

If as a society we cannot find a middle ground, be tolerant, respect each other and the law, treat people as equals and judge them by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin and their religious beliefs, then I'm afraid multi culturism isn't going to work and it's very clear that the indigenous population are not going to be the ones who end up on the wrong end of the argument.

It's a bit shit that there are "gangs" of any kind.
Anyone, be they first generation, second, or however many who go out of their way to cause problems in society don't deserve to be in it.

There's a difference between a multicultural society, and having a group within a societal group which are effectively harbouring paedophiles
 
How can people not see what is going on before their eyes? Is it any wonder these gangs have got away with it for so long when people are absolutely petrified of telling it like it is. These men aren't, Asian, British, Pakistani they are muslim
Political Correctness is rampant in this country by a vociferous minority.. The silent majority might know this but will choose stay silent until it is too late..
 
Your phrasing of

"These men aren't, Asian, British, Pakistani they are muslim"

Puts "Muslim" as being the most identifiable factor. Whether they identify as that is another matter, but essentially what these people are, are predatory paedophiles first, and what other traits they have are down the scale.
Good because that's what they are. This whole head in the sand routine has played into the muslim gangs hands for years and it's about time they were challenged.
 
It's a bit shit that there are "gangs" of any kind.
Anyone, be they first generation, second, or however many who go out of their way to cause problems in society don't deserve to be in it.

There's a difference between a multicultural society, and having a group within a societal group which are effectively harbouring paedophiles

You make an important point there about harbouring and having. The large majority of muslims would see these crimes as abhorrent and Sharia law would advocate capital punishment. But, it's hard to deny that islam and sharia law advocate that women are inferior and have less rights, and non muslims also are inferior and have less rights. Is there a connection here in muslim paedophiles targeting non-muslim females....I think so.
 
Good because that's what they are. This whole head in the sand routine has played into the muslim gangs hands for years and it's about time they were challenged.

It's long overdue that ANYONE involved in any kind of activity should be hounded out and rightfully prosecuted - regardless of race or religion. I would suspect that every forward thinking Muslim or Christian or whatever would want to out anyone if they found out about their activities, but these "people" (and that's being generous) aren't stupid. They're callous calculating monsters.
The root of the issue needs to be dealt with - why it happens in the first place, and how it can be stopped.

You make an important point there about harbouring and having. The large majority of muslims would see these crimes as abhorrent and Sharia law would advocate capital punishment. But, it's hard to deny that islam and sharia law advocate that women are inferior and have less rights, and non muslims also are inferior and have less rights. Is there a connection here in muslim paedophiles targeting non-muslim females....I think so.

It's more than likely the excuse some use to justify their abhorrent crimes, yes.

It's like the Westboro Church taking the bible literally to basically attack anyone they think is a sinner. Although as bad as they are, and they are, they haven't sexually abused girls of a different ethnicity.
Although I wouldn't put it past some of them
 
Last edited:
You make an important point there about harbouring and having. The large majority of muslims would see these crimes as abhorrent and Sharia law would advocate capital punishment. But, it's hard to deny that islam and sharia law advocate that women are inferior and have less rights, and non muslims also are inferior and have less rights. Is there a connection here in muslim paedophiles targeting non-muslim females....I think so.
No doubt a large proportion do see this as abhorrent, but we also see many relatives and friends who knew each other from a young age involved in these gangs, so theirs obviously a problem in the respect that many are like minded in their attitudes towards young white girls/ women.
I can't think of any other paedo gangs made up of people who knew each other this well as opposed to meeting afterwards and involving themselves with each other.
 
No doubt a large proportion do see this as abhorrent, but we also see many relatives and friends who knew each other from a young age involved in these gangs, so theirs obviously a problem in the respect that many are like minded in their attitudes towards young white girls/ women.
I can't think of any other paedo gangs made up of people who knew each other this well as opposed to meeting afterwards and involving themselves with each other.

I suspect many, of all backgrounds, meet while in prison. By then it's too late for some children
 
Political correctness gone mad.
Muzzies, Pakastanis, Asians , or whatever, it appears to be the same ethnic group that are guilty for these crimes.

Aye Muzzies, Pakistanis and Asians are all the same.

I bet if some southerner called you a Geordie, Mackem Jock you wouldn't be offended. After all, they're all white and pretty much the same region.
 
Enoch Powell said:
This is the full text of Enoch Powell's so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968.


The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.


So clearly owld Enoch's views were outdated and statistically questionable but I think he makes some good points about speaking out against multiculturalism where it is detrimental to our society...good points because they resonate with what the Shadow Secretary of State did here.

Is there a middle ground between the rantings of the EDL and the vicariously outraged PC brigade? There should be, and there voices should be heard without fear of backlash.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top