Thanks for the measured response.

I agree that many people, although not active believers, still regard themselves as Christian. I though think this is more to do with upbringing and culture than any real belief in a God. I myself treasure our Christian heritage and enjoy looking at churches and churchyards and will happily sing hymns at Christmas.

I think though you misunderstand me when you say that I insist that religion has no bearing on criminal activities. Although we must not make presumptions in any individual cases it does seem highly likely that in the cases of many of those involved in these "grooming gangs" that there is a shared religious and cultural heritage. Exactly what threads connect them is unknown to me. That particular teachers and leaders have planted ideas seems most likely, but that's an area for the experts to discover and deal with and not us.

My point is not, and never has been, that such threads don't exist. It is that to castigate a whole, and very diverse, religion by describing the perpetrators as "Islamic" or "Muslim" is both inaccurate and counter productive. It might be intuitive to do so but is it wise when we really need to try to separate these criminals from the very many good people within the communities from which they have sprung?

We need to destroy their hiding places and build bridges to the righteous rather than widen the divides. I think that is especially true of the women, particularly the ones educated here. All mothers would be horrified at these crimes and we need to give them the opportunity to be brave enough to express that horror effectively and help bring the criminals to justice.

I am no expert on Islam but from the little I do know there seem to be many different interpretations of the texts, just as there is with Christianity. What is certain is that everyone who lives in our country must abide by our laws and adhere to our standards, whatever their religious beliefs might say to them. So we can be tolerant about what people think, but not about what they do.

We mustn't therefore put any religion on trial. We put people who break the law on trial.

You are providing me with the perfect excuse to say that all Muslim immigration should be halted.

You think that these lifetime indoctrinated people can be educated? Over how long? And they keep coming wave after wave so this problem will be endless.
No. We have to put a halt to this now by limiting the number of Muslims in this country. That is the only answer that ultimately solves the problem. Those here already will grow old and they will eventually have fewer children.

You don't like that solution because secretly, you consider your rainbow world ideals more important than the welfare of a few thousand young British girls.

Own it Wisbech. Tell the truth for a change.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (05 Mar 2020 10.50am)

I will ignore your ridiculous assertions.

Your "solution" is completely impractical.

We don't restrict people's entry because of their religious belief, or lack of one. So far as I am aware we don't even ask them about this during the application process and even if we started to how would we know whether they told the truth, especially if the knew what the consequences would be for giving the "wrong" answer.

The only way would be to restrict immigration by specific countries but that would open up a huge box of worms. We would be in breach of international conventions which could result in us becoming a pariah state, cutting down our trading opportunities. Minorities within the targeted countries would suffer as would family members.

It wouldn't work and it won't be tried. It also isn't needed. The "indoctrinated" within the communities are obviously a problem but they are very much in the minority. We need to squeeze that minority to contain it's impact and gradually reduce it's number by educating the upcoming generations within our schools and institutions. Those who preach and teach hate need to be removed from society, without compromise.

It has zilch to do with idealism. It has only to do with seeking practical solutions that will actually, in time, work. Indeed your suggestions only exacerbate the problems by building resentment and encouraging the radicalisation of the impressionable.

You are so nieve. Religion has everything to do with all of this and your PC correctness is what has brought on this whole situation.

These gangs operate as Muslims and rape girls for not being muslim.

Now if this was a one of then fine but as it's happening to hundreds of girls by hundreds of Muslims up and down the country then I see that as national problem by one religion. Add terrorism on top of that then it doesn't paint a picture of a tiny minority does it.

Why don't you think off the poor girls and not be such a PC peodophile sympathiser waiting for them to " catch up"

Disgusting

[Link]

Maybe rather than rely on the predictable interpretation of one regular poster here.......

You do make me smile as this is the third time this week that I have highlighted a quote of yours that is ostensibly referring to someone else but equally refers to you

Thank you for the response.

I do agree with some of what you are saying and also I understand where you are coming from with your points.

I have highlighted in bold where I see some problems however.

Essentially, a lot of what I think you are expressing, whilst hypothetically valid in it's aspirations as an ideology, is folly.

The reliance on people to change their culture regarding an assortment on things ranging from treatment of others who are different, abiding by laws of a foreign land and most pertinently women will always be difficult and in this instance almost guaranteed as impossible.

For some context, I have a a few people of eastern/asian and islamic heritage, who sit in categories between colleagues and mates, in my life who I have quite openly discussed things of this sort with. I am no expert myself but would consider that somewhat close to the horses mouth. Almost all are children of immigrants if not immigrated young themselves.

I would certainly describe each of them as about as much of a Muslim as I am, hence why I have a relationship with them. I met one the other day who was eating a combined bacon and sausage baguette and had a roll up behind his ear as he was waiting for me. He's also a Reading FC season ticket holder despite being from East London (I can't remember why). They routinely mock their elders in their beliefs but more importantly attitudes towards the western world.

From my discussions with them, I would be quite sure in saying that true adherence to their religion, which is virtually a prerequisite of membership, does not provide any wiggle room to adapt to our society - hence why they do not do it almost to the point of abandoning it in all but name. I would add that they are all male as I have learned that any female who would attempt to do so would risk serious if not fatal consequences.

Therefore in essence, I would suggest it is perhaps even more offensive to take a stance of 'I will not persecute you because of your religion and respect what you believe but.... you will have to change some elements of it to fit in'. This is something I find quite ludicrous about current policy.

I respect your stance but I would argue it had no application whatsoever in a practical reality. I have opened up this conversation as I accept I will never have a 100% sure answer on this or any other problem so am open to any counter arguments but have never really found anything to change my mind.

There is a difference between deselecting people on religious grounds and selecting people who the government deems suitable for British citizenship.

Just how do you think the government are going to make that judgement?

No conventions need to be breached. Britain as a sovereign nation can deny entry to anyone it likes.

We could very easily fall foul of international conventions if we deselect because of religious belief. Should be do so then the "sovereign nation" trumpeting might well be playing some pretty off notes.

We need to lead by example rather than kowtow to other countries with equally stupid immigration policy.

Oh we won't be "kow towing" to Johnny Foreigner. No chance of that at the moment. Our proud ship would quietly sink out of sight with the Union flag fluttering rather than accept any lifeboats manned by "others". Don't you worry.

Again you are more interested in protecting your precious ideals as are too many politicians and assorted apologists.

I am not the slightest interested in protecting any ideals. I just seek actual solutions that can work.

I present a practical solution that is just that. Nothing to do with race or religion but simply about probability and facts.

It isn't. It's impractical. It's counter productive and unrealistic jingoism.

People like you will keep telling us it can't be done and meanwhile, these kinds of criminality and anti Western attitudes will multiply in Western countries.

That's simply because these type of suggestions have been made for generations but have never ever even been tried. Why is that? It's because in today's interconnected and interdependent world they are completely unrealistic. It won't happen. So we need to get real and find something that will.

I don't really understand the conclusion of your story. Are these "colleagues/mates" following their religion because they have no choice (in which case their behaviour seems a little odd) or have they effectively abandoned it?

I fully understand we have a mountain to climb but as I don't see any practical alternative then doing things which add to the problem, rather than not doing them in the hope they might begin to help solve them, doesn't seem wise. That's really all I have been arguing. Not that I have a magic wand. Just that some things make it worse.

Every journey starts with one step and may take millions to reach the final destination.