Nine guilty over child exploitation ring

[davey]

There are a few things here i cant understand.Why do the media keep saying the rapists come from the Asian community when these gangs are always exclusively muslims?There are never any Sikh's or Hindu's amongst them.And why is this not classed as a racist crime when its quite clear there was a racial element to it?There are even muslim community groups on the news saying it was racial and it is an acknowledged problem within their own community,yet you still have the usual white, left wing ,politically correct,multicultural loving liberals denying it has anything to do with race.In the last week we have seen a muslim gang arrested for plotting to blow up a Territorial Army base and now a muslim child grooming gang convicted for sickening crimes.When are the powers that be who forced a multicultural society on the British people without asking them if its what they wanted ,going to admit that it just aint working

[spider]

Expect a non answer then.

[David Johnson]

"There are a few things here i cant understand."

Mmm.

"Why do the media keep saying the rapists come from the Asian community when these gangs are always exclusively muslims?"

Seems sensible enough to describe them as Asians. A muslim is usually described as a follower of Islam. I doubt if there was an indepth analysis of Fred West's religion as part of the building of the case against him to understand whether he was full blown Christian, lapsed Christian, evangelical Christian, bonkers Christian or atheist. Why should there be a similar analysis of these Asian blokes?

Re. "these gangs are always exclusively muslims". Really? What about the traffiking gangs from Eastern Europe who have been using rape as a method of controlling girls they have brought into the UK, sometimes underage. They all Muslim?

"And why is this not classed as a racist crime when its quite clear there was a racial element to it?There are even muslim community groups on the news saying it was racial and it is an acknowledged problem within their own community,yet you still have the usual white, left wing ,politically correct,multicultural loving liberals denying it has anything to do with race"

I guess it depends where you are coming from. Abusers come from all races and colours. A paedophile is a paedophile, irrespective of race. The judge sentencing as Lizard rightly pointed out, stated that there was a racial element. A wide number of politicians have highlighted this racial element.

While we are on the subject of race crimes, the trial was also delayed for a fortnight at the outset in February when two Asian defence barristers were attacked outside the courtroom by the far right. Security was stepped up after hundreds of English Defence League and BNP protesters picketed the court. Both barristers quit the case as they feared their photographs had been placed on racist websites.

Would you describe that as a race crime, Davey? Answer in your own time. No rush.

And finally, if you do have any contact with that pillock, Nick Griffin, can you please tell him to stick his tweeting device up his arse. He has given one of the convicted defendants a reason to appeal the conviction.

You wouldnt want any of them to get off, surely?

[David Johnson]

"In cases like this, (the organised, group grooming and abuse of underage girls) 67 out of 77 jailed for it have been Pakistani muslims. It may not be exclusive, but they're severely over-represented.

It isn't an asian problem, it's an islam problem."

That's what I said all along about Jack the Ripper. 84.2366745% of crimes are committed by whites.

It's a well known fact that 72.3456765432% of buggered choirboys are buggered by Catholic priests.

So in my mind the cesspit of sexual crime that we live in is mainly a Christian, white English, possibly Catholic, but with a few lapsed ones in their issue.

When I have got my views down to a suitably crass phrase like "it's an islam problem" I will get back to you.

PS Message for Jim Slip. I believe it is all New Labour's fault. Them Muslim rapists with one eye and a hook on their hand were roaming the land free to do whatever they wanted under that Tony Blair. And don't get me started on Gordon Brown. You just have to look at the guy.

[Sam Slater]

To be fair the judge did believe religion played it's part in all of this: "The judge added: "One of the factors leading to that was the fact that they were not part of your community or religion."



And, Mohammed gives Muslims permission in Sura 33:50 to have sex with slaves (it's impossible to rape a non-muslim or Muslim wife in Islam and rape isn't even mentioned).

[33:50] O prophet, we made lawful for you your wives to whom you have paid their due dowry, or what you already have, as granted to you by GOD. Also lawful for you in marriage are the daughters of your father's brothers, the daughters of your father's sisters, the daughters of your mother's brothers, the daughters of your mother's sisters, who have emigrated with you. Also, if a believing woman gave herself to the prophet - by forfeiting the dowry - the prophet may marry her without a dowry, if he so wishes. However, her forfeiting of the dowry applies only to the prophet, and not to the other believers. We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses or what they already have. This is to spare you any embarrassment. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.



Given only non-Muslim girls were targeted, a possible reason for this is they didn't want to break any Islamic code. With the number of girls and length of time it was going on I'd guess a lot of other Muslim's within the community knew it was happening. It would have been a bigger deal within the community if they'd targeted Muslim girls and mainly because it went against what Mohammed permitted.

Of course, these men may not have been very religious and their targets just happened to be non-Muslims by chance. If any Muslim man wants an excuse, though, it's right there in his holy book. Therefore I don't think it's overly crass to blame it, in part, on their religion.

[David Johnson]

"And, Mohammed gives Muslims permission in Sura 33:50 to have sex with slaves (it's impossible to rape a non-muslim or Muslim wife in Islam and rape isn't even mentioned).

Yeah, there is a load of slaves in Bradford. You can see them being led in chains from Poundland most days about 5.30pm.

"Given only non-Muslim girls were targeted, a possible reason for this is they didn't want to break any Islamic code."

One wonders then why they have come in for such criticism from various parts of the Muslim community in the UK given they "have not broken any Islamic code"?

"Of course, these men may not have been very religious"

Yes, I guess the fact that they fed alcohol and other drugs to underage girls and used violence to get their perverted sexual needs, would tend to suggest that they are not the holiest Muslim men in the village.

"If any Muslim man wants an excuse, though, it's right there in his holy book. Therefore I don't think it's overly crass to blame it, in part, on their religion".

Familiar with the Old Testament are you? The Old Testament like the Koran was obviously written many centuries ago. The problem with this is mainly twofold:

1. Bonkers religious adherents take every word literally despite those words being written in a completely different environment.

2. Critics of a religion like your good self, read these works and say "Look, no wonder these Jews, CHristians, Muslims etc etc cause problems.

These guys are violent, paedophile criminals. End of. And their crimes are clearly not based on any religious beliefs nor did they try to defend their crimes in court in terms of the Koran and/or religious beliefs.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Yeah, there is a load of slaves in Bradford. You can see them being led in chains from Poundland most days about 5.30pm.[/quote]

I wouldn't know about Bradford, David. I will counter your sarcasm with the fact that there were at least 47 sex-slaves around the Rochdale area over the last decade.

[quote]One wonders then why they have come in for such criticism from various parts of the Muslim community in the UK given they "have not broken any Islamic code"?[/quote]

Because most Muslims aren't rapists and find it abhorrent? The actions of this gang sully the name of other Muslim communities? My obvious point, which you've either missed or you're ignoring, is that it would have been harder to keep a lid on raping 47 Muslim girls, in a Muslim community, than 47 non-Muslim girls and this could be to do with what Mohammed did and didn't permit.

[quote]Yes, I guess the fact that they fed alcohol and other drugs to underage girls and used violence to get their perverted sexual needs, would tend to suggest that they are not the holiest Muslim men in the village.[/quote]

How did you come to this conclusion? Supposed 'holy' people fly planes into buildings, decapitate innocent people, stone adulterers, call for the murder of cartoonists and authors, slice off clitorises of young girls, bomb abortion clinics, refuse many medical treatments for serious illnesses to be administered to their dying children etc etc etc all the time. They considered themselves 'holy'. Administering drugs and alcohol to other non-Muslims isn't prohibited in Islam. If it was there'd be many Pakistani restaurants where wine and lager never got on the menu.

For the record, I agree in that I don't think these rapists were overly religious. I AM saying I think that they chose young girls not because of the religion they were, nor because of the religion of their victims, but because of the religion their victims weren't.

[quote]Familiar with the Old Testament are you? The Old Testament like the Koran was obviously written many centuries ago. The problem with this is mainly twofold:

1. Bonkers religious adherents take every word literally despite those words being written in a completely different environment.

2. Critics of a religion like your good self, read these works and say "Look, no wonder these Jews, CHristians, Muslims etc etc cause problems.

These guys are violent, paedophile criminals. End of. And their crimes are clearly not based on any religious beliefs nor did they try to defend their crimes in court in terms of the Koran and/or religious beliefs.[/quote]

They couldn't base their defence on religious beliefs because they knew the crimes were so serious their religious beliefs wouldn't have got them off. In a Sharia court, though, I'd bet they would have been a little bit of quoting of the Quran and Sura 33:50.

And the difference between the Bible and Quran is the Quran is supposed to be taken literally. It is taken as the unalterable, unquestionable, infallible, literal and FINAL word of God. You cannot sit down with an Imam and discuss which passages were really just metaphorical over a cup of tea and biscuits like your local C of E vicar. Despite this I'm not weighing up the pros and cons of one religion over another. I'm saying that if Muslim men want to groom under-age girls to become sex-slaves, not fall foul of Mohammed's teachings and not enrage their local communities to the point of putting themselves in danger, they'd be better off targeting non-Muslims. And a major part of this attitude is down to Sura 33:50. Thus, religion has a hand in this.

And, as I mentioned in my previous post, which I highlighted in bold and provided a link to (which, again you seem to have conveniently ignored) the judge concluded that one of the factors in all of this was that the girls were not part of their community or religion.

Given the judge has had much more access to the details of the case than we have I don't know why you've come to a different conclusion.

I think there may be three reasons for your stance, and I will order them from what I think is most unlikely to most likely:

1. You have seen/heard evidence the judge wasn't privy to.

2. You're just an apologist for religion.

3. You think Peter may be a secret racist and was using Islam as a stick to beat Asians with. You thought the best way to counter this sneaky racist attack was with sarcasm and calling his generalisation about Islam 'crass'. When I said he had a point and conveyed my own views in a little more detail your pride kicked in and you came out with a little more sarcasm and ended up trying to defend religion rather than just admit I was either right, or at least gave an account that had enough logic to counter your 'crass' accusation.

Again, just so we're clear. The judge came to a different conclusion than you.

[David Johnson]

There is so much duff thinking here and confusion, I could be here all night. I will pick out a few items that highlight your confusion.

By the way, when did you become an expert in interpretation of the Koran? You quote a reference in your post ?And, Mohammed gives Muslims permission in Sura 33:50 to have sex with slaves?. From this extract written about a 1000 years ago, you then choose the same word ?slave? in terms of the treatment of the girls in the Rochdale case and by a huge jump in interpretation you assume that this means that the Rochdale paedophiles were not breaking any Islamic code. This is ludicrous. You are assuming that a. the interpretation of the word ?slave in the 11th century was the same as your interpretation and b. that this has to be taken literally.

While we are on the subject of the literal interpretation of the Koran, you state ?And the difference between the Bible and Quran is the Quran is supposed to be taken literally. It is taken as the unalterable, unquestionable, infallible, literal and FINAL word of God?. This is nonsense. I don?t know if you have any friends that are practising Muslims. I suspect not, based on this guff. I have worked with a number of practising Muslims and they have stated that the Koran is full of symbols, metaphors and allegories, a bit like the Bible and needs interpretation. To just take it as it stands is daft.

Next we have a classic example of the Slater swerve. In the Slater swerve you make a daft statement in a post e.g. ?Given only non-Muslim girls were targeted, a possible reason for this is they didn't want to break any Islamic code?. Then when challenged as I did with ?One wonders then why they have come in for such criticism from various parts of the Muslim community in the UK given they "have not broken any Islamic code"?? in your next message you state ?Because most Muslims aren't rapists and find it abhorrent? The actions of this gang sully the name of other Muslim communities??

You are obviously totally confused because on the one hand you are saying that the Koran allows sex with slaves and linking it to this case and that the Koran is taken unlike the Bible as unalterable, unquestionable, infallible etc.etc etc.

Yet you do not recognise the idiocy in then saying ?most Muslims aren?t rapists and find it abhorrent?. Not much kop as Muslims then, according to Imam Slater. THey are not sticking to the literal interpretation as proscribed by Imam Slater.

And you come out with all of this guff, when you admit you have no idea whether they are religious in any meaningful sense or not.

In short what this is about is a bunch of paedophiles taking advantage of vulnerable girls, something that paedophiles do the world over. In Rochdale, the criminals tended to be late night takeaway workers/owners or taxi drivers. And hey surprise surprise, its Asian guys who do these jobs in Rochdale and took advantage of the vulnerable, disorientated and lost girls who were hanging around those places. In the case of paedophile rings that prey on nursery children and assault them it happens to be white paedophiles. In the case of internet grooming, the vast majority of the cases that have come to court have been white people who then pass them on within a paedophile ring etc.

The judge may have said that there was a religious element but to then take the step from there and saying that paedophile gangs in this case are an ?Islam problem? as Peter did is unbelievably crass. It would be just as crass for me to argue if I was a Muslim that Peter Sutcliffe committed his crimes because of the condemnation of prostitution in the Bible which he had followed verbatim and then I added a statement like you ?course I have no idea whether he was religious or not?.

Crass and dumb.

PS I am not interested in an endless debate over this. If you don't agree you are more than welcome. You can even take it as a "victory" of your superior logic if it makes you happy. Of course, I know different!

PS PS Are you still happy with the wonderful work in government that Nick Clegg is doing? Last time I asked a few months ago, you seemed pretty pleased. Oh and are you still delighted by the results of the war in Afghanistan? What a success that intervention has been!

[mrmcfister]

Sam,
I agree ..eloquent as ever.These girls were very vulnerable and these guys deserve their wasted years in the can.Nasty and sordid team.

[Sam Slater]

Ha! I know I've won when you bring Clegg up. How boringly predictable.

Also notice that once I give excellent, logical points you try to belittle them with words like 'guff, dumb and daft' etc. Again: predictable.

Firstly:

[quote]By the way, when did you become an expert in interpretation of the Koran? You quote a reference in your post ?And, Mohammed gives Muslims permission in Sura 33:50 to have sex with slaves?. From this extract written about a 1000 years ago, you then choose the same word ?slave? in terms of the treatment of the girls in the Rochdale case and by a huge jump in interpretation you assume that this means that the Rochdale paedophiles were not breaking any Islamic code. This is ludicrous. You are assuming that a. the interpretation of the word ?slave in the 11th century was the same as your interpretation and b. that this has to be taken literally.[/quote]

Let's look at the text again:

O prophet, we made lawful for you your wives to whom you have paid their due dowry, or what you already have, as granted to you by GOD.

In layman's terms. You can have sex with any women you have bought, or inherited. In modern language Mohammed's talking about slaves. And by 'wives' he's not talking about marriage. He deals with marriage in the next sentence:

Also lawful for you in marriage are the daughters of your father's brothers, the daughters of your father's sisters, the daughters of your mother's brothers, the daughters of your mother's sisters, who have emigrated with you.

As you see, the word 'marriage' now crops up. Basically, this is giving permission for a Muslim to marry nieces and nephews.

Then we have:

Also, if a believing woman gave herself to the prophet - by forfeiting the dowry - the prophet may marry her without a dowry, if he so wishes. However, her forfeiting of the dowry applies only to the prophet, and not to the other believers. We have already decreed their rights in regard to their spouses or what they already have. This is to spare you any embarrassment. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

This covers marrying a slave, which is permitted if that slave gives herself to the prophet (converts to Islam) you do not have to 'buy her' to marry. As you can see in the last sentence, this is to spare you [the reader] any embarrassment.

The girls in the Rochdale cases were clearly sex-slaves, 'bought' by drink and drugs. I dowry doesn't have to be paid in money.

[quote]While we are on the subject of the literal interpretation of the Koran, you state ?And the difference between the Bible and Quran is the Quran is supposed to be taken literally. It is taken as the unalterable, unquestionable, infallible, literal and FINAL word of God?. This is nonsense. I don?t know if you have any friends that are practising Muslims. I suspect not, based on this guff. I have worked with a number of practising Muslims and they have stated that the Koran is full of symbols, metaphors and allegories, a bit like the Bible and needs interpretation. To just take it as it stands is daft. [/quote]

I was brought up in a Muslim community from age 7 to 19. I moved back to that community from age 26 to 32 (I'm 36 now so half my life). My primary and middle schools were 60% Muslim as were most of my friends. I've attended Mosque, been to Eid parties and Muslim weddings as well as one funeral. I've read the Quran fully (not in Arabic, though). There are a few metaphorical words in the Quran, but no metaphorical stories I remember. It is all literal (haqiqi), especially when dictating law (marriage being under this) and it is taught that if one is unsure whether something is metaphorical or literal, one should take the literal meaning unless Allah explicitly states otherwise.

There are certain things about Sharia and many stories contained in the Hadith which can be open to interpretation, but the Quran is infallible. If it explicitly gives permission for something, that's it. It's perfect. That's not to say there aren't mainly left-wing modernisers in Islam that are trying to change the meaning of the text. Especially in Kurdistan which is one of the main reasons I supported the war in Iraq. Comrades are comrades and deserve our support and help, even militarily if necessary - but I'm digressing a little. It's the Quran being taken literally which has stopped the Islamic world having it's own enlightenment. And, to me, the Quran and it's teaching IS the religion.

[quote]Next we have a classic example of the Slater swerve. In the Slater swerve you make a daft statement in a post e.g. ?Given only non-Muslim girls were targeted, a possible reason for this is they didn't want to break any Islamic code?. Then when challenged as I did with ?One wonders then why they have come in for such criticism from various parts of the Muslim community in the UK given they "have not broken any Islamic code"?? in your next message you state ?Because most Muslims aren't rapists and find it abhorrent? The actions of this gang sully the name of other Muslim communities?? [/quote]

I don't see why this is contradictory or 'daft', as you put it. Not all Muslims think exactly the same, and there are many levels of criticism, outrage and abhorrence. At least I'm treating Muslims as individuals. You seem to be implying that Muslim communities cannot be outraged and apathetic depending on their own particular moral code or personal character. We all know that any of the main holy books can be used for both good and bad. The books themselves are the most contradictory pieces of literature known to mankind. One passage gives you the right to rape, the other passage tells you to not give in to lust......you can both love your neighbour and pluck out his eyes at the same time. If you want to credit religion for the good things people do then it has to take responsibility for the bad things they do too. And you can't argue that there's explicit permission for Muslim men to use non-believers as sex-slaves. Dress it up however you want. Squirm out of it with shite about allegories and metaphors all you like. It's there, in black and white. Some Muslims will use it to their advantage while others will be rightly outraged. I'm saying the outraged ones -however much I agree with their outrage- must know that to ignore the passages giving permission for stuff like this is outright cherry-picking or at least selective-amnesia because they've been brought up to understand you just don't question the passages.

[quote]You are obviously totally confused because on the one hand you are saying that the Koran allows sex with slaves and linking it to this case and that the Koran is taken unlike the Bible as unalterable, unquestionable, infallible etc.etc etc.

Yet you do not recognise the idiocy in then saying ?most Muslims aren?t rapists and find it abhorrent?. Not much kop as Muslims then, according to Imam Slater. THey are not sticking to the literal interpretation as proscribed by Imam Slater.[/quote]

Again, I don't think I am confused or being contradictory at all. Why do you equate permission with acceptance or support? The law gives me permission to talk an old OAP into buying a new vacuum cleaner I know she doesn't need and know she might struggle to afford, but I wouldn't think of doing that. You could pass a law giving me permission to set fire to cats, tomorrow but I'd still think it cruel and sick. Saying most Muslims would find certain permissions in the Quran abhorrent isn't in any way confused thinking. It's perfectly normal.

[quote]In short what this is about is a bunch of paedophiles taking advantage of vulnerable girls, something that paedophiles do the world over. In Rochdale, the criminals tended to be late night takeaway workers/owners or taxi drivers. And hey surprise surprise, its Asian guys who do these jobs in Rochdale and took advantage of the vulnerable, disorientated and lost girls who were hanging around those places. In the case of paedophile rings that prey on nursery children and assault them it happens to be white paedophiles. In the case of internet grooming, the vast majority of the cases that have come to court have been white people who then pass them on within a paedophile ring etc. [/quote]

I don't have issue with any of this, and find it irrelevant to our discussion on how much religion played it's part.

[quote]The judge may have said that there was a religious element but to then take the step from there and saying that paedophile gangs in this case are an ?Islam problem? as Peter did is unbelievably crass. It would be just as crass for me to argue if I was a Muslim that Peter Sutcliffe committed his crimes because of the condemnation of prostitution in the Bible which he had followed verbatim and then I added a statement like you ?course I have no idea whether he was religious or not?.[/quote]

I'm glad you have finally accepted the judge agrees re the religious element. What do you think he meant by that then? Are you accepting religion played it's part or not?

And as for Peter Sutcliffe and the Bible, I don't think there's any passage in either testament giving permission to kill prostitutes. Condemnation maybe? Yes. Forgiveness? Yes. Hitting over head with a hammer? No. And I'm no apologist of the Bible. You can go back through the archives on here for my views on that. So, yes, it would be crass because a) there's no specific passage giving you permission and b) Christians and Jews look at their holy book in a much less literal light. Again, it's cherry-picking based on their own inner morals and character.

[quote]PS I am not interested in an endless debate over this. If you don't agree you are more than welcome. You can even take it as a "victory" of your superior logic if it makes you happy. Of course, I know different![/quote]

Noted. Don't be too hard on yourself. I think it was you getting emotionally irritated at Peter's presumed underlying racism that got to you. You started off defending a 1000 year old death cult.......and that's a stance that's got to be hard to defend. You at least get my admiration for the effort and I know your heart was in the right place to start with.