David Lammy Criticizes Sajid Javid for Remarks on Ethnicity of Grooming Gangs

[mokwit]

16 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The account literally tweeted that all Pakistanis see white women as inferior, and that no Muslim could be trusted near children. If you cannot see the blatant racism there then I cannot help you. 

I really don't think I need any help from someone like you.

 

Different values. When I temped at the CPS there was a case where a child was sent to the uncle for a haircut and after uncle cut his hair he bent him over the stool and sexually assaulted him - this came to light when teacher asked the kids what they had done over the weekend.

 

I remember the calamity at court, the relatives in attendance couldn't understan why he was in the dock for this and were asking the Imam how this could be. So, if I had a small child I would not trust for him/her to be around any Indian subcontinent/Afghani Muslim I didn't know well, even though it might only be a small minority with the values on display at court.

 

Do you know how popular "dancing boys" are in Pakistan/afghanistan. US troops were told not to intervene despite the screams.

[Rimmer]

Some personal attacks and replies have been removed

[Neeranam]

11 hours ago, mr_lob said:

Are we not allowed to call a spade a spade anymore Mr Lammy?

Doubt we can even say that these days! 

[Neeranam]

2 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

This entire article is about the rape and torture gang in Huddersfield, who were all Muslim men of Pakistani heritage; what is your agenda that you are trying to hijack the thread away from the focus of the article, as if to deflect any blame or responsibility away from Muslim men of Pakistani heritage ?

There is nothing in the article about them being Muslim, this is your prejudice coming to light , yet again.   

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, Neeranam said:

There is nothing in the article about them being Muslim, this is your prejudice coming to light , yet again.   

Actually that's you with your head in the sand. This is about Pakistani rape gangs with thousands  of white female child victims and its still ongoing.

[SunnyinBangrak]

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Actually that's you with your head in the sand. This is about Pakistani rape gangs with thousands  of white female child victims and its still ongoing.

Of course its ongoing, their crimes were/are covered up and are essentially allowed for the sake of diversity and politicians are terrified to lose votes from the Pakistani community.

 

This is the reason for the smears and misinfo about Tommy and why he is being silenced, or soylenced as he says it 

[RuamRudy]

3 hours ago, mokwit said:

. So, if I had a small child I would not trust for him/her to be around any Indian subcontinent/Afghani Muslim I didn't know well, even though it might only be a small minority with the values on display at court

 

Now you are qualifying your position. The twitter account that, thus far, you have been defending made no such  distinction. It declared that each and every one Pakistani or Muslim was not to be trusted because of their ethnicity. 

 

For the record, I wouldn't trust my child around anyone I didn't know well regardless of their heritage. 

[mokwit]

18 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Now you are qualifying your position. The twitter account that, thus far, you have been defending made no such  distinction. It declared that each and every one Pakistani or Muslim was not to be trusted because of their ethnicity. 

 

For the record, I wouldn't trust my child around anyone I didn't know well regardless of their heritage. 

Sorry I don't understand the point you think you are making. it's all word play and semantics with your kind of leftie. Tactics to shut down an argument without arguing a case.

 

I was being generous. There is no f*cking way I would trust a kid with a Pakistani Muslim I didn't know well and I don't know any well.  Maybe she doesn't know any well so she says ALL. That would be sensible.

 

I absolutely defend the right of a woman to be cautious of ALL Pakistani Muslim men not known to her, and if she doesn't know any, then that means ALL. Too many of them are predatory. there is one anti Paedophile  sting operation that catches them by pretending to be an underage girl. It seems many have only been in the country a few weeks before they are at it, not all are resident.

 

Where are the "community leaders" condemning rape gangs in their communities? Why are they not being informed on by their communities? Why do you think this is?

 

Get you head out of your @rse and stop peddling this false narrative. 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

15 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

The Twitter account did not say 'some' Pakistani men.

 

And it did not say ‘all’ or even ‘any’ Pakistani men; but you are of course being pedantic, which is a typical extreme left tactic of deflection. You are doing everything you possible can to deflect from the fact that these rape and torture gangs were made up of vile, depraved, Pakistani Muslim men.

 

You obviously have an agenda here; difficult to know or understand why you are doing everything you can to deflect attention away from these vile Muslim monsters, but you become a huge part of the problem when you just shout racist when anyone criticises them ….. absolute shame on you.

 

 

[mokwit]

2 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

And it did not say ‘all’ or even ‘any’ Pakistani men; but you are of course being pedantic, which is a typical extreme left tactic of deflection. You are doing everything you possible can to deflect from the fact that these rape and torture gangs were made up of vile, depraved, Pakistani Muslim men.

 

You obviously have an agenda here; difficult to know or understand why you are doing everything you can to deflect attention away from these vile Muslim monsters, but you become a huge part of the problem when you just shout racist when anyone criticises them ….. absolute shame on you.

 

 

The tactic of screaming racism when asked to defend  position can be a deliberate tactic t shut down debate, or more often than not it is used by useful idiots who don't have the intellect to argue a case.

 

He demanded proof of something I posted:

 

I am still waiting for his critique of the conclusions drawn about the so called "report" rather than an "analysis" based on comments he deems racist.

 

He states that as it is not "peer reviewed" it doesn't count. Rather than critiques the methodology himself he switches the debate to racism. This is a tactic to control the debate. Racism is whatever the Left says it is, so if you engage you are now dealing on their terms. I engaged to clear this block and now am coming back to the original point.

 

He states: "So your accusations are baseless and unfounded." 

 

When I present the analysis I get:

 

'Sorry but some unknown twitter account with a very disturbing timeline filled with dog whistle racism is hardly a peer reviewed critique of the report.'

 

This is his "get out" from countering the points raised by the critique of the reports methodology.  Again a tactic to shut down debate, or he doesn't understand what peer reviewed actually is (really what it is not) and what research it is applied to. If it is not peer reviewed then presumably it is noty credible is what he is saying, but does not point out how it is apparently not credible.

 

The key point with Lefties, is that they are not trying to fairly win a debate with better arguments, they are trying to shut down or control the debate or move it to their terms with low tactics.

 

To quote an Italian Communist of the '60's whose name I can't be bothered to look up:

 

"It is not necessary to have better arguments, one merely has to control the media"

 

I really hope someone like this is not teaching kids here (note: solely based on inability to argue and critically evaluate, no inappropriate behavior insinuation is being made)

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, mokwit said:

The tactic of screaming racism when asked to defend  position can be a deliberate tactic t shut down debate, or more often than not it is used by useful idiots who don't have the intellect to argue a case.

 

He demanded proof of something I posted:

 

I am still waiting for his critique of the conclusions drawn about the so called "report" rather than an "analysis" based on comments he deems racist.

 

He states that as it is not "peer reviewed" it doesn't count. Rather than critiques the methodology himself he switches the debate to racism. This is a tactic to control the debate. Racism is whatever the Left says it is, so if you engage you are now dealing on their terms. I engaged to clear this block and now am coming back to the original point.

 

He states: "So your accusations are baseless and unfounded." 

 

When I present the analysis I get:

 

'Sorry but some unknown twitter account with a very disturbing timeline filled with dog whistle racism is hardly a peer reviewed critique of the report.'

 

This is his "get out" from countering the points raised by the critique of the reports methodology.  Again a tactic to shut down debate, or he doesn't understand what peer reviewed actually is (really what it is not) and what research it is applied to. If it is not peer reviewed then presumably it is noty credible is what he is saying, but does not point out how it is apparently not credible.

 

The key point with Lefties, is that they are not trying to fairly win a debate with better arguments, they are trying to shut down or control the debate or move it to their terms with low tactics.

 

To quote an Italian Communist of the '60's whose name I can't be bothered to look up:

 

"It is not necessary to have better arguments, one merely has to control the media"

 

I really hope someone like this is not teaching kids here (note: solely based on inability to argue and critically evaluate, no inappropriate behavior insinuation is being made)

 

 

 

Agreed, no matter what links were provided they would never have been up to his standards which were:

 

" hardly a peer reviewed critique of the report. "

 

Obviously a dishonest expectation and ludicrous demand. 

[mokwit]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Agreed, no matter what links were provided they would never have been up to his standards which were:

 

" hardly a peer reviewed critique of the report. "

 

Obviously a dishonest expectation and ludicrous demand. 

Exactly as I stated, it's all tactics to control and shut down, rather than fairly argue. I think we should be calling out these tactics every time, to the point where it becomes impossible to use them, but note, they are entitled to air their political views in accordance with free speech.

 

This is a DISCUSSION board, not a propaganda forum.

[Evil Penevil]

x

On 1/9/2025 at 9:03 PM, mrfill said:

I can't think why the Telegraph didn't mention that last year 85% of group based abusers were white males according to the Vulnerability Knowledge and Practice Programme (VKPP) - covering all related crimes recorded in 2022 - and its sister organisation, the Hydrant Programme - which reported specifically on "group-based" child sexual abuse that happened in 2023.

 

On 1/9/2025 at 9:15 PM, RuamRudy said:

I would be interested to see a link to that report if you have it.

 

On 1/10/2025 at 1:46 AM, Bkk Brian said:

Got a link to those reports because even the Jay report disagrees with those figures.

 

Here's the link to the full report:  Group-Based Offending Publication November 2024

 

I would agree it comes across as a whitewash that uses manipulation of statistics to downplay the role organized gangs of men of Pakistani origin have played in the exploitation and abuse of several thousand British girls.  A excerpt from the report's Introduction sets the tone (my bold text):

 

"Group based offending takes many forms and takes place in many different settings. Media coverage has tended to focus on specific communities and so-called grooming gangs. Whilst it is important that police and their partners respond robustly to offending of this type that shouldn’t distract us from the wider threat that occurs in many settings."

 

That's the only time in the 28-page report the word "grooming" or phrase "grooming gangs" appears.  The words "Muslim" and "Pakistani" are never used.  It's clear those responsible for the report don't want the public to focus on Pakistani grooming gangs. Instead, they want the public to believe whites, the dominant group in the U.K., are responsible for most of the sexual abuse of children, which is true.  For the sake of social harmony, academics and some government offficials are trying to claim Pakistanis are no worse than white British males when it comes to the exploitation and abuse of British girls.

 

The sleight-of-hand with statistics  comes on two fronts.  First, the 83% figure doesn't refer to the TOTAL number of grooming gang perpetrators, but the number where the ethnicity of the perpetrators is known.  The graphic in the report reveals that out of 4,790 total perpretrators,  ethnicity  is known for 2,266 perps, of which 1,884 , or 83%,  are white.   But what of the 2,524 perps whose ethnicity isn't known?  If any of them are Pakistani, then the percentage of Pakistani perps will rise.  For example, if half the unknown perps turn out to be Pakistani, that would mean 1,644 perps, or 34%, were Pakistani.  

 

Considering people born in Pakistan or in the U.K. of Pakistani ancestry amount to only 2.7% of the total U.K. population, Pakistanis are over-represented by any metric in grooming gang crimes.

 

 

The second significant deception occurs because all of the 4,790 perps aren't suspected of committing grooming-related crimes.  The report covers group-based child sexual exploitation, which includes several categories of crime.  The report defines a group as two or more perps.  It also notes:. "The victim may have been sexually exploited even if the sexual activity appears consensual. Child sexual exploitation does not always involve physical contact; it can also occur through the use of technology.” (Department for Education, 2017)."  Same link as above.

 

This definition means that if two 12-year-old white boys persuade a 12-year-old girl to give them handjobs or to send them nude photos via the Internet, those boys are counted in the same 4,790 total as members of  Pakistani grooming gangs.  By "diluting" the figures on grooming gangs by including less serious white offenders, the proportion of white offenders is increased.

 

To be accurate, the comparison should be between the number of Pakistani groomers versus white Brits who commit the same sort of crime.