egafd.com

Hi David,

I suppose the differnce is that it's not one racial group doing this to another racial group just because they are of that racial group.

Hello Max,

Hope you enjoyed your work/holiday.

"I suppose the difference is that it's not one racial group doing this to another racial group just because they are of that racial group."

I assume you are talking about the fact that the paedophiles were Asians and the girls were white. Well you are correct in one sense that that is a difference between the Rochdale case and that of the Brian Witty case.

Why I chose the Witty case, is that the Jim Slip argument goes something like this "This is all PC crap that is all New Labour's fault. They made the police and CPS stop trying Asians because of fear of being called racist."

I think this is a wrong interpretation in the sense that the prisons are ful of Asian and black people so there is obviously no reticence in arresting non-white people for a whole host of serious crimes, abhorent to the relevant communities. Secondly the Witty case is a prime example of how evidence was provided by police in this case, as far back in 1995, not only once but three times to the CPS and they turned down the application to put on trial each time.

So refusal or reticence to bring to court is something that seems to happen across the board in abuse cases, irrespective of the offenders' religion.

To go back to your "one racial group doing this to another racial group just because they are of that racial group" I do mention in the post you refer to, that there are many white people from EUrope including the UK who abuse and rape children in South East Asia i.e. "another racial group". I suspect their reasons are the same as the Asian paedophiles in ROchdale. The groups see the white girls/Thai-Cambodian girls as extremely vulnerable, with no-one to help them and therefore the chance of getting away with their evil crimes is much higher.

I note that no-one has described the English people convicted for paedophilia in Asia, endlessly in terms of their different race and religion. Rightly they see them as paedophiles, which is how the Rochdale criminals should be seen.

The main task now is to learn the lessons and to act quickly with any other cases that might appear, irrespective of race and religion.

Have I missed something? Were all his victims black?

"Have I missed something?"

Yes.

"There seems to be an epidemic of white rapists in England, given huge numbers of them are also on holidays buggering underage girls and boys in Thailand and Cambodia"

An example of one race exploiting and raping others without endless debating about the religious and race element as in the Rochdale case.

The Witty case - an example in which evidence was provided to the CPS, not just once (as in the Rochdale case) but three times and each time, the CPS refused to prosecute.

I can't remember an endless debate about whether the CPS refused to prosecute because they were reluctant to bring to trial a handsome, white, ex-military, investment banker.

************************************
David Johnson
Date: 05-13-12 12:46

I wonder how many more of these sick bastards the police are going to find? There seems to be an epidemic of white rapists in England, given huge numbers of them are also on holidays buggering underage girls and boys in Thailand and Cambodia. Those poor women!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ailed.html

90% plus of the people on the sex offence register in Manchester are white.

I was talking to a Swiss friend of mind yesterday... he was in the UK when the sentence was handed out to the last white rapist.... what he couldn't understand was how the British Police were tip toeing around the racist side of the case... sadly I told him that the UK has one of the weakest PC police services in the world... they would never dare to mention race in any crimes... apart from when its a black or Asian rapist doing it the other way and then they bang on endlessly about the Asian, race blah blah element and whether there was a race/religion element! Let's face it, no-one banged on about Witty's whiteness and whether religion could have played a part.
[snip]
************************************

In my view rational debate does not depend on irony, especially if it descends into crude sarcasm.

In any event, saying there seems a problem with the ratio of Muslims, to the overall population, who are involved in paedophilia, is not to say;

# That all Muslims are paedophiles;
# That all paedophiles are Muslims;
# That there are no respectable. law abiding Muslims;
# That there are no white paedophiles;
# That the plight of the victims must be put aside in favour of demographic limitation.

The overriding concern here must be to try and limit the evil that is paedophilia, and all paedophiles should be hunted down and brought to book for their crimes. People and authorities who bury their heads in the sand, and refuse to acknowledge the motives of paedophiles are impeding the struggle for justice for the victims, and impeding the struggle to limit paedophiles' activities.

"In my view rational debate does not depend on irony, especially if it descends into crude sarcasm."

Just about every word in the text that you are responding to, was taken from other people's posts. Every word. All I have done is replace the "Asian, Muslim" references with what is to me, equally plausible references to "white" people.

Besides I seem to recall one of your responses to me was "I can't be ărsed to be honest. Your impressions of my posts are a matter of supreme indifference."

Hardly the height of "rational debate" to use your phrase, Toliverwist?


"In any event, saying there seems a problem with the ratio of Muslims, to the overall population, who are involved in paedophilia, is not to say;
# That all Muslims are paedophiles;
# That all paedophiles are Muslims;
# That there are no respectable. law abiding Muslims;
# That there are no white paedophiles;
# That the plight of the victims must be put aside in favour of demographic limitation."

Two things on your comment above:

1. It is largely a statement of the bleeding obvious.

2. Given that for example, apparently the proportion of white people on the Manchester sex offenders register is over 90%, have you or anyone else on this forum got evidence to back up the following statement:

"there seems a problem with the ratio of Muslims, to the overall population, who are involved in paedophilia?"

"The overriding concern here must be to try and limit the evil that is paedophilia, and all paedophiles should be hunted down and brought to book for their crimes. People and authorities who bury their heads in the sand, and refuse to acknowledge the motives of paedophiles are impeding the struggle for justice for the victims, and impeding the struggle to limit paedophiles' activities."

Agree entirely and I have stated as much, elsewhere in this thread.

In many sex offences there are no racial and/or religious undertones.

In others (see: the Rochdale case and similar Asian gangs specifically targeting white non-Muslim girls) there clearly are.

I don't see why you are trying to deny this David. Why are you uncomfortable in accepting that? In other words, what is the point of this thread?

And as for you banging on about white paedos in Asia, once again you're not comparing like with like. They do that not because the kids they target are Buddhists (or "non-Christian") or whatever. They do it simply because they seem to think that it's easier to get away with over there and they're less likely to get caught. If they thought they could get away with it here, most of them would probably stay at home and save themselves a plane fare.

That's not to say that sweaty white Western kiddie-fiddlers molesting youngsters in Asia is any more acceptable than Pakistani Muslims in Derby or Rochdale (or wherever) specifically targeting non-Muslim girls on religious grounds. Of course it's not. All are equally vile. But you're trying to claim that just because your average white paedo isn't motivated by race or religion, then we should ignore the racial/religious undertones of the Rochdale case.

When you can point to a case of white paedos hitting Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh City or wherever specifically because the girls there are "non-Christian" (and therefore "fair game" in the eyes of the offender), you might have an argument. But until such time, all that stuff you posted above is nothing more than irrelevant, politically-correct cods I'm afraid.

- Eric

"When you can point to a case of white paedos hitting Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh City or wherever specifically because the girls there are "non-Christian" (and therefore "fair game" in the eyes of the offender), you might have an argument. But until such time, all that stuff you posted above is nothing more than irrelevant, politically-correct cods I'm afraid."

You are making a huge supposition which I am not convinced is correct.

Your supposition is this:

Pakistani paedophiles in UK - they are religious. Their religion shows white underage girls to be fair game. Therefore, they only look for white girls and not girls of their own religion.

White paedophiles in UK - religion is not a factor. They do what they want and they will go wherever they can, overseas if necessary.

I understand your supposition. It is a supposition that is prevalent in most countries i.e. in Pakistan, I would be surprised if they did not blame the crimes of the Christian minority partly on their Christian faith etc etc.

Lets look at your supposition -

Re. Pakistani paedophiles. As far as I am aware, the following is true:

1. There was no indication of the extent of the religious adherence of the accused i.e. were they regarded as model Muslims - always went to prayer, adhered to all the main beliefs explained in the Koran e.g. no alcohol etc etc. or alternatively were always on the piss. Why would they be? Do police go into an indepth survey of evangelical Christians beliefs if they are arrested for attacking an underage black girl?

2. No Asian defendant, family member, supporter, Muslim group, Imam etc etc has ever said to my knowledge that it is acceptable according to the Koran to target underage white girls either before, during and after their trial.

The convicted criminals have been roundly condemned by the Muslim community. Therefore where is the connection between their religion and this crime, other than the colour of the girls targeted?

Next consider then why all the girls targeted were white - as far as the police know. Whether this will ultimately be the case when they complete their investigations we will find out.

What is common in paedophiles as with many criminals is the following:

1. A risk analysis to decide what is the best target for your crime.
2. A risk analysis to decide what are the factors representing your best chances of getting away with the crime.

From a Pakistani paedophile perspective my guess is you might come up with the following re. the target(s)

1. Not part of your community. Otherwise, the chances of gossip, rumours spreading etc and someone talking would be a risk. That leads towards white girls given the totally separate nature of a number of the communities.

2. Very vulnerable girls, not living at home and preferably totally alienated from their parents and in a phrase, lost and confused. This leads towards white girls given that just as Pakistani families tend to look after their parents and not see them put in homes so they tend to keep a tight rein on their daughters. I realise that this is a generalisation.

3. Girls who might be more sexually aware because this would be a turn on. And they are different from your sister, cousin etc etc. Again this leads to white girls given the above point 2.

4. Girls who are available and hang around late night takeaways and taxis to the early hours and may be pissed up and out of control - not knowing what they are doing. Again this leads to white girls.

In short I am not convinced of the link that people are making Pakistani - Muslim - religious maniac - white girl, non-Muslim target from a religious point of view.

Reality in my experience of everyday life is rarely that simplistic.

**********************************
David Johnson
Date: 05-14-12 12:25

2. Given that for example, apparently the proportion of white people on the Manchester sex offenders register is over 90%, have you or anyone else on this forum got evidence to back up the following statement:

"there seems a problem with the ratio of Muslims, to the overall population, who are involved in paedophilia?"
**********************************

The demographic make-up of the country is entirely significant to the phrase, 'to the overall population'. If white British are in the overwhelming majority, then it's not surprising that they comprise the majority in any sub-set of the overall population.

White British (85.7% of the population)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British

And if your phrase, "the bleeding obvious" means that you are acknowledging people are not trying to unduly demonise Muslims, then I welcome your conversion to impartiality.

This was the question

"have you or anyone else on this forum got evidence to back up the following statement:

"there seems a problem with the ratio of Muslims, to the overall population, who are involved in paedophilia?"

You have not answered the question. Your statement references Muslims paedophiles as a higher proportion of the overall population than statistically might be expected .

Your reply states "White British (85.7% of the population)

So what? That has no bearing whatsoever on your statement. What would have a bearing would be if you stated - this is the overall population, this is the % of the overall population that are Muslims, this is the % of the overall population that are Muslim and have been convicted of paedophilia.

If you can't answer the question to defend your statement, just say so. Don't blather.

"And if your phrase, "the bleeding obvious" means that you are acknowledging people are not trying to unduly demonise Muslims, then I welcome your conversion to impartiality."

No it means exactly what I say, you are stating the bleeding obvious ie. "saying there seems a problem with the ratio of Muslims, to the overall population, who are involved in paedophilia, is not to say;# That all Muslims are paedophiles" That is a statement of the bleeding obvious, linguistically.