Google analytics

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Who’s correct?

I was watching the BBC six o’clock news to night and listened to the presenter who covered the story of the grooming and rape of young girls. It was like squeezing blood out of a stone before she would admit that they were of asian origin.

Seems bloody obvious to me.

grooming 8

Nor did the reporter dare say that they would most probably be adherents of the Religion of Peace hate.

After all they don’t appear to follow chinese, buddhist, or sikh, religions by the look of them. (And their names don’t imply it either).

It struck me about the whole piece, that the Beeb’s scared shitless about criticising that particular religious mind-set.

I suspect that these scum who may, or may not be a minority of muslims in the country, probably  adhere to this.

Throughout the Muslim world, women are treated as second-class citizens who are inferior to men in terms of intelligence, morals, and faith. This arrangement derives from the Qur'an itself, which states unambiguously: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other” (Qur'an 4:34).
The Qur'an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you [to cultivate], so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223). Such a view is consistent with the teachings of the prophet Muhammad, who emphasized that women were little more than possessions of, and objects of sexual pleasure for, their husbands: “The husband is only obliged to support his wife when she gives herself to him or offers to, meaning she allows him full enjoyment of her person and does not refuse him sex at any time of the night or day.”

Now, to get back to the Beeb’s article they were at great pains to play down that this religious sect was in anyway more prodigious in these crimes than any other group.

What had me pricking my ears up was when the journo stated that only 25% of these crimes were committed by “asians” (I’m not ruling out chinese, indians, etc, completely), but it appears to me every time one of these cases comes up, they are always of the same sub group.

So this group which makes up 5% of the population, in my mind carries out a disproportionate number of attacks on women.

When I look elsewhere I find this.

Of 68 recent convictions for on-street grooming, 59 were of British Pakistani men.

Doesn’t look like 25%, does it?

Make up your own mind. Who’s telling the truth? And why are we kowtowing to a religion that hates us.

14 comments:

  1. The Beeb's main website page is equally vague, reiterating the statement:-

    " .......police insist the grooming was not "racially motivated"."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17989463

    But on a subsidiary page, the truth comes out, despite the police & Keith Vaz being in denial:-

    "But police said grooming was "not a racial issue" and MP Keith Vaz also said "no particular race or religion" tended to be involved.

    The comments followed the convictions of eight Pakistanis and one Afghan man of child sex offences in Rochdale, Greater Manchester.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17996245

    ReplyDelete
  2. They just want to bury their heads in the sand and hope that the problem doesn't exist. I'd hang Keith Vaz tomorrow, if I had my way.

    Now I've said that I expect my front door will be kicked in, in the early hours tomorrow.

    IT WAS A JOKE, YOUR HONOUR!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am sure there is something in the Koran (I am not an avid reader of the book), that once an army was conquered by the big "M" (A Jewish army I believe)he told his soldiers to kill any men, and take their wives...is this "grooming" not a parody of what Mo did?...Rochdale is conquered, the men, defeated, (no work for whitey there, but plenty of taxi and takeaway work for the muzzbots)therefore, they "take" the defeated army's women...it is written, so it shall be done, after all, the words of Mo are the words of god.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ancient + tattered airman8 May 2012 22:46

    Fair makes yer proud to be British, dunnit?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Someone please explain the BBC logic in stating that because there are white paedophiles committing similar crimes that instantly negates this case, with Asian men and young white girls, from being racially motivated.

    If that’s how it works then the murder of Stephen Lawrence wouldn't have been racist, because there are black youths that commit similar knife crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This site goes a long way to explaining how the religion of peace came to treat women.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/025-Muhammads-sex-life.htm

    Here's a sample of the page for those who don't have time to read it all.

    Question:

    Was Islam's "perfect man" sexually restrained?

    Summary Answer:

    Muhammad had sex with just about anyone he pleased, thanks to Allah's extraordinary interest in his personal sex life, as immortalized in the Qur'an.

    Although the Qur'an didn't appear to have enough space for topics like universal love and brotherhood (which Muslims sometimes insist are there, but aren't), the list of sexual partners that Muhammad was entitled to is detailed more than once, sometimes in categories and sometimes in reference to specific persons (ie. Zaynab and Mary).

    Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all in one night. He married a 9-year-old girl and even his adopted son's wife. On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army.

    So, by any realistic measure, the creator of the world's most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the most sexually indulgent characters in history.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not many bloggers have so far had the courage to comment on this case.Thank you. The BBC coverage was shameful. No one is trying to sweep 'white' grooming or rape of girls under the carpet, but the scale of this trafficking is beyond anything I have ever heard about in this country. We know that women have been brought here and forced to live as prostitutes by East European gangs but it is the targetting of white girls that makes it so shocking. There is no mention of who the customers of this prostitution ring were.

    This is about a group of men of Pakistani/Afghan muslim origin. How can this not have a racial dimension? Racism seems to work in only one direction.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for all the comments on this emotive subject. I have long since lost trust in the BBC's reporting of many problems with society. Therefore I always look around for more balanced reporting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I saw the same news TFE - boy were the BBC reluctant and even when the presenter eventually did mention it (I forget her name now) it was along the lines: "some say it's racially motivated" she then forcefully added "but everyone else says it's not, so there!"

    Not quite verbatim but as well have been.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Update: it was Sophie Raworth

    ReplyDelete
  11. If this isn't proof that a certain religion is completely incompatible with Western society then I don't know what is. Yes we have our own problems / scumbags but two wrongs don't make a right ! We are importing uneducated feudal communities from the sub continent into our environment and expecting them to conform. They simply carry on in the manner they know how - corruption, cheating, criminal activity, medieval attitudes and customs ... I don't blame them, I blame our successive leaders for allowing it to happen. It'll all end in tears

    ReplyDelete
  12. "once an army was conquered by the big "M" (A Jewish army I believe)he told his soldiers to kill any men, and take their wives"

    The Banu Qurayza. Who lived in what is now Medina.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Regarding the BBC and their 'clever' use of statistics:

    1 - As police forces were ignoring certain crimes for many years, previous statistics are going to be a bit lop-sided (against white people, which suits the Beeb agenda).

    This does also make past Home Office statistics pretty unreliable - blame the politicised police - but the official doc I use as source is still very useful to see the oddly-limited way the ethnic data was collected.


    2 - The BBC may also 'cleverly' have been asking police forces directly for ethnic/religious information on crimes, and the various forces are not all consistent with this info* (doc listed below - Chapter 2) so some forces may have provided crime stats with no associated ethnic component.

    Purely as an example, this could allow some unethical person to portray these imaginary stats for a specific crime:
    25% - white
    25% - 'Asian'
    50% - ethnicity unrecorded
    as, instead:
    '25% of white people commit this crime',
    which we can all see would be heavily misleading, and [sarc on] I'm sure the Beeb would never do this [sarc off].

    It may be particularly helpful to the Beeb that police forces' records of ethnicity may also be 'usefully' lop-sided because of these extracts (doc linked below - Chapter 2) [my emphasis in bold]:

    a - Initially monitoring was based upon the police officer’s visual perception of the ethnic appearance of the suspect/victim, using four categories
    (White, Black, Asian and ‘Other’).
    From 1 April 2003, in addition to the visual assessment using the 4-point classification, it has been
    mandatory for all police forces to record ethnicity by self-assessment by the suspect using the 16-point
    classification used in the 2001 Census.


    b - From 1 January 2009, police officers are only required to record the self-identified ethnicity (and not the ethnic appearance) of the individual asked to stop and account.

    So it's either the all-encompassing label 'Asian', or the 16-point classification and the same criminal can be described as Asian, British Asian, Pakistani or whatever he chooses. We know the Beeb have previously just been reporting on the one label - 'Asian' - so that's probably how they're working their stats.


    3 - The current statistics for the particular crime we're discussing are probably from Crown Court - *"All Crown Court centres were asked to include information on ethnic origin on all new cases received from October 2001 based upon information included in case papers".
    Not that this has done a lot of good where favoured criminal groups were not prosecuted, or not pursued by the police.


    Also, the document listed below is quite hard to find now. I couldn't find it on any of the Ministry of Justice webpages, where it has been superceded by shorter documents which seem not to be completely clear on the poor recording of data, which is covered in Chapter 2 'Developments in ethnic monitoring', and is only a short read.

    However, I did find this large (over 200 page) document, which I think is worth downloading, at:
    http://www.stamp-it-out.co.uk/docs/stats_race_criminal_justice_system_0708.pdf


    * Extracts and information taken from:
    "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2007/08

    A Ministry of Justice publication under Section 95
    of the Criminal Justice Act 1991"

    Extracts taken from - Chapter 2 Developments in ethnic monitoring

    Information taken from - Appendix B, Table 'Classifications of ethnicity'

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh, and here's a link to an archive showing that the document was on the Ministry of Justice website - top of the list...but maybe it was just too informative.


    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.justice.gov.uk/publications/raceandcjs-archive.htm

    ReplyDelete

Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.