You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?
April 13 2024 8.46pm

Another one bites the dust?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 17 of 33 < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 21 Sep 23 3.59am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Sep 2023 4.49am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Flag 21 Sep 23 6.49am Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Just wow. I saw the letter being bandied about last night but was wary because I suspected it was a fake (would have been willing to stake money on it) but if it is true then this is through the looking-glass stuff.

And certainly adding weight to the notion that Brand is being attacked based on the content he is putting out rather than any genuine concerns for the alleged victims. Again, an idea I had been willing to dismiss.

But now?

 


"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Online Flag 21 Sep 23 7.32am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

Just wow. I saw the letter being bandied about last night but was wary because I suspected it was a fake (would have been willing to stake money on it) but if it is true then this is through the looking-glass stuff.

And certainly adding weight to the notion that Brand is being attacked based on the content he is putting out rather than any genuine concerns for the alleged victims. Again, an idea I had been willing to dismiss.

But now?

Does appear to be real.

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Online Flag 21 Sep 23 7.42am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I thought twice before making the comparisons for exactly this kind of response. Which can be read in these pages countless times. Everyone of them misrepresenting or misunderstanding my position. One poster here is particularly guilty of this.

For the avoidance of any doubt I am not offering any mitigation or playing down the evil men who groom and abuse children. They are criminals of the worst kind who deserve to be identified, prosecuted and punished.

My objections were always to the way that certain sections of the media, and the self opinionated attention seeking Yaxley-Lennon, tried to turn this into an anti-Islam anti-pakistan campaign. Neither Islam nor pakistan are responsible for the evil and the way this campaign was waged made things more difficult for the police, rather than help them bring criminals to justice.

The police were on the cases but with over stretched resources handled them in ways that were subsequently found to be inadequate. I continue to have sympathy for them as they were between a rock and a hard place. One in which whatever they did they would have been criticised. Especially as there is strong evidence they were following a strategy handed down from the centre. Criticism is cheap and easy when what you are criticising hasn’t been given the tools to do the job.

All you have down is repeat the playing down and mitigation of the scandal of pakistani-heritage paedophile gangs carrying out mass sexual abuse on children in several towns while the police were fully informed of what was going on. Your excuses for the police are pathetic.

Islamic 'culture' in their contempt for 'kafirs' and their appalling attitude to women and children in general certainly did, and does, contribute to the widespread presence of paedophile gangs throughout the country - the vast majority of which were, and are, composed of muslims with pakistani-heritage. Bit like terrorist gangs, although they tend to be represented by muslims from a great many islamic backgrounds, not just pakistani-heritage.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Matov's Profile Matov Flag 21 Sep 23 8.17am Send a Private Message to Matov Add Matov as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Does appear to be real.

[Link]

Absolutely.

Beyond comprehension.

A man is accused of crimes committed years, even decades ago. With two of those 'crimes' not even in British jurisdiction. Based on anonymous reports. Not arrested. In fact, an investigation not carried out by any formal law organisation.

And the British Government, in an official capacity, tries to influence organisations to effectively cancel that person's ability to be paid for creating their own content?

f***. This is a genuinely scary. Hand on heart, never saw this coming.

With the question still remaining why? Why is Brand worth all this effort? Or is it not so much Brand, as an individual, but merely being used as a way of allowing the Media-Government complex to flex its muslces by way of warning others? Showing just what they are capable of, if people do not toe the line?

 


"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 8.43am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

All you have down is repeat the playing down and mitigation of the scandal of pakistani-heritage paedophile gangs carrying out mass sexual abuse on children in several towns while the police were fully informed of what was going on. Your excuses for the police are pathetic.

Islamic 'culture' in their contempt for 'kafirs' and their appalling attitude to women and children in general certainly did, and does, contribute to the widespread presence of paedophile gangs throughout the country - the vast majority of which were, and are, composed of muslims with pakistani-heritage. Bit like terrorist gangs, although they tend to be represented by muslims from a great many islamic backgrounds, not just pakistani-heritage.

The reason I brought up the grooming gang issue was not to spark yet another discussion on it. It was to contrast the way that the right wing cohort here are condemning the media for exposing the allegations on Brand with that they displayed over the gangs, where they were in full support.

There are legitimate criticisms of the tabloid coverage of the grooming gangs, as there is of your comment above. The use of “pakistani-heritage” as a descriptor being one, when it is known that they comprised of a variety of ethnicities. I know full well what the enquiries into these matters have revealed and make no excuses for individual failures. Any defence I have made is the more general one that we cannot expect an under-resourced, under-funded police service to not make mistakes. We get the police service we deserve.

I want people to stop attaching unhelpful labels. Child groomers and terrorists are criminals. Their religion and any justification they claim as a motivation need to be binned as an irrelevant excuse and not encouraged by reference to it.

I was in Jerusalem for a few days 2 weeks ago, during which time I was exposed to the many cultures that exist side by side there. No-one treated me as a “kafir”, indeed the Arab section of the city was a more relaxed and pleasant environment than the Jewish one, but people generally get on ok. For sure there are different cultures but people, and especially the children, were happy.

Now perhaps we can return to the subject of this thread.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 9.12am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

Just wow. I saw the letter being bandied about last night but was wary because I suspected it was a fake (would have been willing to stake money on it) but if it is true then this is through the looking-glass stuff.

And certainly adding weight to the notion that Brand is being attacked based on the content he is putting out rather than any genuine concerns for the alleged victims. Again, an idea I had been willing to dismiss.

But now?

Parliamentary committees are not government. They don’t make policy. They look into issues so that our representatives are better informed.

Asking a social media provider to clarify their position on a matter of current concern is not to attempt to sanction or direct them. It’s to understand where they stand.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Online Flag 21 Sep 23 9.16am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The reason I brought up the grooming gang issue was not to spark yet another discussion on it. It was to contrast the way that the right wing cohort here are condemning the media for exposing the allegations on Brand with that they displayed over the gangs, where they were in full support.

There are legitimate criticisms of the tabloid coverage of the grooming gangs, as there is of your comment above. The use of “pakistani-heritage” as a descriptor being one, when it is known that they comprised of a variety of ethnicities. I know full well what the enquiries into these matters have revealed and make no excuses for individual failures. Any defence I have made is the more general one that we cannot expect an under-resourced, under-funded police service to not make mistakes. We get the police service we deserve.

I want people to stop attaching unhelpful labels. Child groomers and terrorists are criminals. Their religion and any justification they claim as a motivation need to be binned as an irrelevant excuse and not encouraged by reference to it.

I was in Jerusalem for a few days 2 weeks ago, during which time I was exposed to the many cultures that exist side by side there. No-one treated me as a “kafir”, indeed the Arab section of the city was a more relaxed and pleasant environment than the Jewish one, but people generally get on ok. For sure there are different cultures but people, and especially the children, were happy.

Now perhaps we can return to the subject of this thread.

The vast majority of the paedophile rape gangs were muslims and of pakistani-heritage. The police were informed of the activities of the gangs and turned a blind eye, it has nothing to do with alleged under-resourcing whatsoever.

You want us to stop “attaching unhelpful labels” – unhelpful to whom – the pakistani-heritage paedophile rape gangs? The activities of the grooming gangs and terrorist gangs have an intrinsic connection to what passes as their ‘culture’ and is very relevant.

You assertion that the different races and cultures in Israel “generally get on ok” is laughable but classic Wisbechian dissembling.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 21 Sep 23 9.36am Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Parliamentary committees are not government. They don’t make policy. They look into issues so that our representatives are better informed.

Asking a social media provider to clarify their position on a matter of current concern is not to attempt to sanction or direct them. It’s to understand where they stand.

I think there might be an available spot for you on the stand up circuit.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag Portishead 21 Sep 23 9.48am Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by Matov

Absolutely.

Beyond comprehension.

A man is accused of crimes committed years, even decades ago. With two of those 'crimes' not even in British jurisdiction. Based on anonymous reports. Not arrested. In fact, an investigation not carried out by any formal law organisation.

And the British Government, in an official capacity, tries to influence organisations to effectively cancel that person's ability to be paid for creating their own content?

f***. This is a genuinely scary. Hand on heart, never saw this coming.

With the question still remaining why? Why is Brand worth all this effort? Or is it not so much Brand, as an individual, but merely being used as a way of allowing the Media-Government complex to flex its muslces by way of warning others? Showing just what they are capable of, if people do not toe the line?

Politically Matov we are poles apart, but on this we have complete agreement.

Back on topic, I listened to a woman who was invited on to the Today Program to discuss her "experience". She explained that she was "only" 16 and Brand was 30. She claimed not have had the life experience to inform her ability to make a choice as to the giving of consent in a heart-tugging, bleating voice. There was no suggestion that he had invited her to his house to e.g. give her a leg up (so to speak) on her proposed media career. Indeed, there was no coercion alleged at all. Even my feminist wife was shouting at the radio on that interview. She willingly got in a car in order to go to a well known lothario's house of her own free will with the inevitable consequences.

30 year old men have been happily having it away with even happier 16 year old girls since time immemorial, so why was this case singled out?

Also, Parliament argued to the death the age of consent and arrived at the conclusion that changes in mental development meant that by that age girls had shifted from fancying their teachers and friends' dads. It was a "safe" age and remains so.

Questions not asked of the interviewee but ones directly relevant to issues of proper and valid consent.

1. Were you a virgin?
2. How many sexual partners had you before then?
3. What were their ages?
4. What did you think was the consequence of getting in the car?
5. Was the consequence more or less what you had thought it would be?
6. Did you enjoy yourself?
7. Was he emotionally or physically abusive/controlling?
8. Did he force himself in any way (other than the obvious)?

None asked. This was legal consensual intercourse. So why was the BBC steaming in suggesting some impropriety? Why had they given this revisionist, opportunist young woman the time of day?

Now I am a fierce defender of the BBC, as you know, but not in this case. The car and driver sent to pick this 16 year old girl up and take her to a house to have it off with a celeb was paid for by the license payer? Now, that is a story!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View EverybodyDannsNow's Profile EverybodyDannsNow Flag SE19 21 Sep 23 11.00am Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow Add EverybodyDannsNow as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

Politically Matov we are poles apart, but on this we have complete agreement.

Back on topic, I listened to a woman who was invited on to the Today Program to discuss her "experience". She explained that she was "only" 16 and Brand was 30. She claimed not have had the life experience to inform her ability to make a choice as to the giving of consent in a heart-tugging, bleating voice. There was no suggestion that he had invited her to his house to e.g. give her a leg up (so to speak) on her proposed media career. Indeed, there was no coercion alleged at all. Even my feminist wife was shouting at the radio on that interview. She willingly got in a car in order to go to a well known lothario's house of her own free will with the inevitable consequences.

30 year old men have been happily having it away with even happier 16 year old girls since time immemorial, so why was this case singled out?

Also, Parliament argued to the death the age of consent and arrived at the conclusion that changes in mental development meant that by that age girls had shifted from fancying their teachers and friends' dads. It was a "safe" age and remains so.

Questions not asked of the interviewee but ones directly relevant to issues of proper and valid consent.

1. Were you a virgin?
2. How many sexual partners had you before then?
3. What were their ages?
4. What did you think was the consequence of getting in the car?
5. Was the consequence more or less what you had thought it would be?
6. Did you enjoy yourself?
7. Was he emotionally or physically abusive/controlling?
8. Did he force himself in any way (other than the obvious)?

None asked. This was legal consensual intercourse. So why was the BBC steaming in suggesting some impropriety? Why had they given this revisionist, opportunist young woman the time of day?

Now I am a fierce defender of the BBC, as you know, but not in this case. The car and driver sent to pick this 16 year old girl up and take her to a house to have it off with a celeb was paid for by the license payer? Now, that is a story!

And you think that's an appropriate line of questioning on a national radio show for a person who is alleging she was a victim of sexual abuse?

You also seem far more comfortable with 30 year old men sleeping with children than I am - it may be legal but it's complete scumbag behaviour.

As far as I'm aware, the woman who was 16 at the time is not alleging rape, so I'm not sure why you've spent so long rebutting that.

Any thoughts on the women who are alleging rape?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Online Flag Truro Cornwall 21 Sep 23 11.05am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

The vast majority of the paedophile rape gangs were muslims and of pakistani-heritage. The police were informed of the activities of the gangs and turned a blind eye, it has nothing to do with alleged under-resourcing whatsoever.

You want us to stop “attaching unhelpful labels” – unhelpful to whom – the pakistani-heritage paedophile rape gangs? The activities of the grooming gangs and terrorist gangs have an intrinsic connection to what passes as their ‘culture’ and is very relevant.

You assertion that the different races and cultures in Israel “generally get on ok” is laughable but classic Wisbechian dissembling.

So far as I am aware no data has actually been collected on the ethnicity of the gang members so all you are doing is parroting the assumptions made in the tabloid headlines.

Likewise with the “blind-eye” assertion. That there were individual failures has been established but to suggest the police institutionally turned a blind eye has not. They seem to have been following a nationally devised softly softly approach. Which has since received criticism. Who should be held accountable, the police who had to deliver the policy or those who devised it?

The labels don’t help anyone, including the victims or those trying to bring criminals to justice. They are completely irrelevant to the crimes.

You can dismiss my personal observations if you wish. They were in another country but show that markedly different cultures can exist side by side and for friendly relations to develop on an individual level. The human spirit can always triumph over prejudice when allowed to.

 


For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 17 of 33 < 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Another one bites the dust?