Child sex trafficking ring found guilty

Craterloads said:
There's obviously no arguing with someone who is so bent up about race/religion
Click to expand...
Bent up? Hah, because I used a word essential to the topic more than once?
I'd call them happy tellytubbies if it makes you feel better. You can choose not to be deliberately offended by a word you know? They are just descriptions of a geographical location.
ignores the actual facts
Click to expand...
Sorry, I think that's just you.
You jumped all over a post because it said something you didn't like and you repeatedly ignore the fact it didn't originate with me. Your debating ability stretches no further than replying "LOL".

Would you like me to post this double spaced with reading notes and a glossary of all the big words for you? Or do you just want to ignore what I write and rant on about "facts" which I haven't personally made or which you don't want to debate anyway?
and who has a history of such.
Click to expand...
Really? Given your apparent reading skills I doubt your ability to correctly interpret any of my posts, their social nuances or obvious sarcasm (given your obvious bias towards anyone posting views other than your own).
FWIW I live in the countryside, there are no ethnic groups within 20 miles and I really don't care that much about what any of them do, it doesn't affect me in the slightest :cool:
But if you want to carry that chip around and accuse everyone but yourself of racial bias then feel free :)
 
Craterloads said:
I don't understand. Are you saying they only selected "white" girls based of the fact that all the victims happened to be white? You possibly had more of a case when including other rape gangs of Asian men than making assumptions of isolated incident in Oxford.
Click to expand...

I like that you neglect to comment on the posts where i've pointed out that you were wrong in what you were saying in regards to my comments.

To address your latest point, my assumption is not an assumption, you have acknowledged in your own post that it is a fact that all the victims were white. Through probability, 85% of the UK pop is white yet only 75% of those in care are, they should have had some non white victims. It was acknowledged in the court case that they SPECIFICALLY targetted WHITE girls. For some reason you seem determined to defend these sickos as not being racially motivated. I don't understand why.
 
robgmun said:
Following that logic, were any of the victims black or asian?
Click to expand...

Can you confirm that there are many black or Asian girls who are as vulnerable in that area? My logic is purely subjective based on possibilites, not facts.

Name said:
I cant see in anyway how you can blame the poor girls for being in care, that is unfair, yeah you can blame the parents but at the end of the day the problem lies with the carers. They failed in their duty to protect them when they watched these men pick the girls up and drive them away week after week.

Surely if you're qualified to be in a role of responsibility you would put two and two together in this instance.
Click to expand...

I have not blamed the poor girls at all. As you state, their upbringing is largely down to either their parents or carers.
 
Dis86 said:
I like that you neglect to comment on the posts where i've pointed out that you were wrong in what you were saying in regards to my comments.

To address your latest point, my assumption is not an assumption, you have acknowledged in your own post that it is a fact that all the victims were white. Through probability, 85% of the UK pop is white yet only 75% of those in care are, they should have had some non white victims. It was acknowledged in the court case that they SPECIFICALLY targetted WHITE girls. For some reason you seem determined to defend these sickos as not being racially motivated. I don't understand why.
Click to expand...

They should have had some non white victims based off what?
 
zenf said:
I've never seen any evidence that there are any real differences between the races, other than the obvious physical differences, but there's a wealth of evidence to suggest that we're all just products of our environment.

I don't think animals can really be a fair comparison here, the differences between cultures (or races, if you believe that) are far more complex than basic animal instincts.
Click to expand...


The two different groups of foxes (Tame vs savage) are physically identical, and yet are very different in temperament/behaviour

Of course we ARE products of our environment, some of it cultural, some genetic.

To take an extreme, according to this rather nicely done presentation African and non-African Human populations diverged some 80,000 years ago! It is inconceivable that there has been no significant divergent evolution between African and non African populations living in very different environments

How is this for a hypothesis?

The "Temperament" that you need to successfully live in cities is quite different to the one you might need to survive as a hunter gatherer! behavioural and temperamental traits that would benefit a Hunter gatherer would be regarded as criminal behaviour in a city environment. Over many successive generations of city builders the "Criminal" hunter gatherer behaviours would be gradually weeded out. Humans from parts of the world where there is no history of city building will still carry a large number of "Hunter Gatherer" behavioural genes so people who might move from those parts of the world to live in cities in other parts of the world might not do too well in them!
 
Craterloads said:
They should have had some non white victims based off what?
Click to expand...

Probability. The fact that the ethnicity of people in care in this country skews the likelihood of non whites in favour of being in care then probability dictates some of their victims should have been non whites. The fact that all of their victims were white indicates selective bias on behalf of the perpetrators i.e. they chose their victims because they were white.

Understand? Or would you like to argue with mathematics and logic now?
 
Dis86 said:
Probability. The fact that the ethnicity of people in care in this country skews the likelihood of non whites in favour of being in care then probability dictates some of their victims should have been non whites. The fact that all of their victims were white indicates selective bias on behalf of the perpetrators i.e. they chose their victims because they were white.

Understand? Or would you like to argue with mathematics and logic now?
Click to expand...

Probablility has nothing to do with it. You and I do not know the full facts. You simply state that as only 75% of children in care are white, a quarter of the girls they abused should have not been white, based on a percentage.

If they had abused hundreds of girls, then maybe you would have a point, but you cannot force probablities on such a small group of people and make a judgement.
 
Dis86 said:
Probability. The fact that the ethnicity of people in care in this country skews the likelihood of non whites in favour of being in care then probability dictates some of their victims should have been non whites. The fact that all of their victims were white indicates selective bias on behalf of the perpetrators i.e. they chose their victims because they were white.

Understand? Or would you like to argue with mathematics and logic now?
Click to expand...

Assumptions off the scale.

How can it dictate anything when you dont have a clue regarding the ethinicity make up of the girls in care in Oxford. Not to mention the possibility of many other factors.
 
Orionaut said:
To take an extreme, a. Over many successive generations of city builders the "Criminal" hunter gatherer behaviours would be gradually weeded out. Humans from parts of the world where there is no history of city building will still carry a large number of "Hunter Gatherer" behavioural genes so people who might move from those parts of the world to live in cities in other parts of the world might not do too well in them!
Click to expand...

So that black Africans, no matter where in the world they emigrate to or what communities they create, will always be an underclass in any city?
 
bitslice said:
Bent up? Hah, because I used a word essential to the topic more than once?
I'd call them happy tellytubbies if it makes you feel better. You can choose not to be deliberately offended by a word you know? They are just descriptions of a geographical location.
Click to expand...

I think that's where we disagree: D Pakistan is geographical location, Pakistani is not nor is Muslim and nor is White. These men were British. Do you find it necessary to mention the "essentials" (as you put it) in the many cases not involving Asian men?

Sorry, I think that's just you.
You jumped all over a post because it said something you didn't like and you repeatedly ignore the fact it didn't originate with me. Your debating ability stretches no further than replying "LOL".
Click to expand...

Your post was jumped on because it was and is dredged in bigotry; you provided no sources, so one would have to assume it originated from you. Furthermore it was representation of what you thought the documentary said, not what the documentary said added with your own bias. Thirdly you stated things as facts when they are simply not true hence me saying, you are ignoring the facts. Such as "they never use Pakistani girls for this" as i mentioned above regarding the Rochdale gang leader abusing a Pakistani girl for over 10 years. Then onto corkers like "but it is culterally OK to rape a white girl" which is in fact simply a lie. It's as good as me saying all the "white" pedo's including Jimmy Saville thought it was ok to rape because their English culture says it’s ok to rape girls/boys under 16. Not to mention some of the other stuff you've come out with including "No Pakastani guy would be allowed by his family to marry a white girl" which is just absurd.

Would you like me to post this double spaced with reading notes and a glossary of all the big words for you? Or do you just want to ignore what I write and rant on about "facts" which I haven't personally made or which you don't want to debate anyway?
Click to expand...

Sorry to inform you, you used no big words :D In fact appears to be the work of a knuckle dragging window licker.

Really? Given your apparent reading skills I doubt your ability to correctly interpret any of my posts, their social nuances or obvious sarcasm (given your obvious bias towards anyone posting views other than your own).
FWIW I live in the countryside, there are no ethnic groups within 20 miles and I really don't care that much about what any of them do, it doesn't affect me in the slightest :cool:
But if you want to carry that chip around and accuse everyone but yourself of racial bias then feel free :)
Click to expand...

If your posts somewhat resembled the English language we would avoid such issues. Your racial bias is obvious off the post i initially highlighted even if you tried to cover your bias behind the guise of "these are the views of the documentary" when in fact many are your own. Your initial post was so retarded it didn’t warrant a serious reply.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom