Predatory paedophile rings...with charitable status



WHD said:
My claims are :

There are two types of abuse classified by CEOP, type 1 and type 2.

The majority of type 1 offenders are of Asian Muslim background.

I don't know why you would think I was lying about reading them as they were linked on here - mistaken about the contents maybe but lying? The fact check I listed quotes from the report and backs up what I am saying. I believe it used to link to the report in question but the link no longer works. When I get home and have access to a computer I will find the report and link it on here. Iirc, you could be right about the inclusive data regarding ethnicity but since the date of the report there has been many more grooming gangs uncovered.

The main point I raised about CEOP was the type 1 and 2 classification when people say priests, football coaches etc. are committing exactly the same type of abuse as the grooming gangs. They aren't.
Click to expand...

It's because none of your claims about the CEOP are accurate. What you're regurgitating is a misrepresentation of the data that you've read elsewhere or are simply making up.

Another example being the CEOP determined 3 classifications of offending type.
 
r@mside said:
I've been pointing them out as we go along, you've replied to the latest one.
Click to expand...
You haven't pointed anything out. I stated my two claims and you haven't detailed which ones are incorrect.

Oh , and if CEOP do classify a type 3 abuse it just strengthens my point that there are different types of abuse. He's me thinking you were in the "it's all abuse, we shouldn't differentiate" camp.
 
WHD said:
You haven't pointed anything out. I stated my two claims and you haven't detailed which ones are incorrect.

Oh , and if CEOP do classify a type 3 abuse it just strengthens my point that there are different types of abuse. He's me thinking you were in the "it's all abuse, we shouldn't differentiate" camp.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I fully support the investigations into street grooming. It's been shown to be a bigger and more complex issue than originally reported and we need the perpetrators off the streets. I'd also like to see equal resources go into other, more prevalent, exploitation and abuse of children because it's such a massive problem and a stain on our British culture that prides itself on fairness and equality.

I do object though to inflating facts, embellishing them with assumptions and attributing uncorroborated reports to authoritative departments like the CEOP in order to demonise a religious community. Not just because it's racist but also because it serves as a distraction that protects highly influential people in our society.

A key point in the OP was the potential involvement of Michael Gove. There was an inquiry launched into child abuse within government and other institutions in 2014 and it's getting nowhere as the people in power close ranks. Keeping the focus on foreigners only helps them stay out of the spotlight where they should belong.

As to your opening point. You claim "I'm only quoting CEOP."

Here are the verbatim claims you've made on behalf of the CEOP:
"The 27 court cases that we found led to the convictions of 92 men. Some 79 (87 per cent) were reported as being of South Asian Muslim origin"
"type 1 abuse, where the abuser meets the victim at street level, is predominantly carried out by asian muslim gangs. This is confirmed by CEOP"
"There are two types of abuse classified by CEOP, type 1 and type 2. The majority of type 1 offenders are of Asian Muslim background."

These are all inaccurate, the first was never been mentioned by the CEOP. The second is not the correct definition and the third is also not true. And, like I've said often enough, there is no reference to Muslims in its reports.

BTW, if you'd read the report in which the three offender classifications are mentioned it explains the problems with getting data and that the Office of the Childrens Commissioner was able to acquire more information from its calls for evidence and site visits. In the interim report from that Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Gangs and Groups it revealed that out of 1514 perpetrators, 545 were White, 415 Asian, 244 Black and the remainder were either undisclosed or other.
 
r@mside said:
Here are the verbatim claims you've made on behalf of the CEOP:
"The 27 court cases that we found led to the convictions of 92 men. Some 79 (87 per cent) were reported as being of South Asian Muslim origin"
"type 1 abuse, where the abuser meets the victim at street level, is predominantly carried out by asian muslim gangs. This is confirmed by CEOP"
"There are two types of abuse classified by CEOP, type 1 and type 2. The majority of type 1 offenders are of Asian Muslim background."

These are all inaccurate, the first was never been mentioned by the CEOP. The second is not the correct definition and the third is also not true. And, like I've said often enough, there is no reference to Muslims in its reports.
Click to expand...
1st point - apologies if I cited CEOP as the sorce, it looks like that is Factcheck's own data.

2nd point - it's near enough the definition from memory. Is it that far from the definition to prove the point wrong?

3rd point - okay, CEOP may not mention muslim specifically, only Asian. We don't need CEOP to confirm what the religious background is of the vast majority of those convicted.

I originally only quoted CEOP as evidence of different types of abuse when certain posters were getting their knickers in a twist trying to claim the abuse in the OP is "exactly" the same offence as those carried out by grooming gangs.
 
WHD said:
I originally only quoted CEOP as evidence of different types of abuse when certain posters were getting their knickers in a twist trying to claim the abuse in the OP is "exactly" the same offence as those carried out by grooming gangs.
Click to expand...
Yes. A point on which everybody is agreed. The problem comes when people start attaching special significance to that fact to the exclusion of every other kind of abuse. When people just want to talk about 'the 75%' and only them. We know that some Pakistani muslim men groom kids in this way and they constitute the majority of abusers in this selective category.

But beyond that the distinction is absolutely meaningless.

WHD said:
Ah well, maybe you should take that up with CEOP
Click to expand...
They seem to agree with me.
​
'"I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours," he said."
Peter Davies director of the CEOP.
 
WHD said:
1st point - apologies if I cited CEOP as the sorce, it looks like that is Factcheck's own data.

2nd point - it's near enough the definition from memory. Is it that far from the definition to prove the point wrong?

3rd point - okay, CEOP may not mention muslim specifically, only Asian. We don't need CEOP to confirm what the religious background is of the vast majority of those convicted.

I originally only quoted CEOP as evidence of different types of abuse when certain posters were getting their knickers in a twist trying to claim the abuse in the OP is "exactly" the same offence as those carried out by grooming gangs.
Click to expand...

They don't and up to this point you claimed to have read their report and passed off your own embellishments as theirs.
 
r@mside said:
They don't and up to this point you claimed to have read their report and passed off your own embellishments as theirs.
Click to expand...
I have read the report(s). Admittedly it was months ago and the main points were highlighted in the fact check link I posted.

As I have stated already, the abuse in the OP and grooming gangs is different. This is without doubt classified by CEOP. The profile of the majority of type 1 offenders is classified by CEOP as majority asian in one of their reports and other sources give their profile as muslim.

JonMc said:
They seem to agree with me.
​
'"I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not
Click to expand...
I'm sure the post you quoted was referring to types of abuse and not the ethnicity of offenders .

So I'll repeat - if you don't like different types of abuse being classified, take it up with CEOP.
 
Last edited:
WHD said:
I'm sure the post you quoted was referring to types of abuse and not the ethnicity of offenders .
So I'll repeat - if you don't like different types of abuse being classified, take it up with CEOP.
Click to expand...

"But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders..."

The CEOP doesn't collate stats to demonize a section of the population.
 
JonMc said:
"But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders..."

The CEOP doesn't collate stats to demonize a section of the population.
Click to expand...
But it classifies types of abuse which was what you originally tried to pull me on. Why are you trying to change the subject ?
 
WHD said:
But it classifies types of abuse which was what you originally tried to pull me on. Why are you trying to change the subject ?
Click to expand...
I never denied the classification. Ever. I've always said that to constantly focus on one particular classification to the exclusion of everything else is meaningless.

From the last time....

MrJardine… So you don’t think there’s been a disproportionate number of Muslims compared to how many are in this country associated with child grooming?

JonMc… You tell me. In total how many men and women are in prison for child grooming? Specifically - in total mind. Not just focusing on the gang aspect. How many of those are from a muslim background. In total??

MrJardine… I am talking about the gang aspect.

That's the drain we constantly circle when it comes to this topic.
 
JonMc said:
I never denied the classification. Ever. I've always said that to constantly focus on one particular classification to the exclusion of everything else is meaningless.

From the last time....

MrJardine… So you don’t think there’s been a disproportionate number of Muslims compared to how many are in this country associated with child grooming?

JonMc… You tell me. In total how many men and women are in prison for child grooming? Specifically - in total mind. Not just focusing on the gang aspect. How many of those are from a muslim background. In total??

MrJardine… I am talking about the gang aspect.

That's the drain we constantly circle when it comes to this topic.
Click to expand...

I'm not Mr Jardine.

Tbf, on this subject we're pretty much agreed. You admit asian men are over represented in type one abuse and say this is because of the asian sub continent culture. The only difference is I believe it is more to do with muslim culture.
 
WHD said:
I'm not Mr Jardine.

Tbf, on this subject we're pretty much agreed. You admit asian men are over represented in type one abuse and say this is because of the asian sub continent culture. The only difference is I believe it is more to do with muslim culture.
Click to expand...
So how do you account for the Sikh convicted of the large majority of offenses in the Leeds case?

How do you account for the huge rise in gang rape cases in India since the BNP got into power over there? I've posted a page full of quotes where their leaders constantly legitimize the raping of women. Putting the fault squarely on the woman for being raped. They have even used Hindu scripture to legitimize rape.

Rape through honour culture cuts right across religious boundaries.
Pakistan has a military backed corrupt right wing nationalist government. Let's see what Imran Khan can do.
India, in the BNP have a corrupt right wing nationalist government. If Erdogan keeps on going in that direction we might be seeing the start of that culture too in Tukey in a few years time.

Nationalism means different things to different people. On the Indian subcontinent it means that women are less safe.
 
WHD said:
I'm not Mr Jardine.

Tbf, on this subject we're pretty much agreed. You admit asian men are over represented in type one abuse and say this is because of the asian sub continent culture. The only difference is I believe it is more to do with muslim culture.
Click to expand...
Then why does it seem to be men from some Asian countries and not others? There is not one Muslim culture but different ones which intersect with ethnic and national identities. Also do you not think that the over representation of Asian men in this type of abuse is in part because that is the easiest way for them to abuse vulnerable children.

Why is the difference in classifications important to you? To me it is more about having different strategies to tackle the different types of abuse and protect children rather than saying anything about the differences in harm done to the children.
 
WHD said:
I'm not Mr Jardine.

Tbf, on this subject we're pretty much agreed. You admit asian men are over represented in type one abuse and say this is because of the asian sub continent culture. The only difference is I believe it is more to do with muslim culture.
Click to expand...

Is this the reason you've been falsely attributing muslims to the CEOP findings?
 

Back
Top