1400 children sexually exploited in UK town Rotherham: report

[JockPieandBeans]

Come back in 2 years time, when the figures starting with Rotherham get added to the figures. The Official figures are skewed due to the culture of Denial within the relevant services.

There are currently over 100 active investigations ongoing that are a direct result of Rotherham.

These cases are going back 15 - 20 years.

To answer your question, as I have already posted. I would fully expect the number of sexual assaults in the UK to be carried out by white males.

As I have said, come back in 2 years time,

[Commerce]

I checked google like you suggested, and quickly found this data for England and Wales:

In 2011, males accounted for the vast majority of prosecutions for sexual offences (98.2 per cent). More specifically, males aged 18 and over accounted for 89.7 per cent of proceedings for sexual offences, with similar proportions for rape (89.6 per cent) and sexual assault (89.2 per cent) proceedings (see Table 4.2). 9,042 defendants proceeded against for sexual offences in 2011 (91.2 per cent of total) were of a known ethnicity (see Table 4.4). Of these persons:  78.0 per cent were White;  9.9 per cent were Black;  9.7 per cent were Asian;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

It looks like the biggest risk factor in offending is maleness. Over 98% of offenders were male, more than twice their representation in the population. We should be doing everything we can to address this clear wave of sexual assault among the ugly male culture in Britain. Starting with White male culture, of course, because they were the largest offending group.*

* I realized that I should post a "satire alert" for those who aren't sensitive to such things.

Are you so nieve? Of course in any country in the world males are the major rape perpretrators...

How about about you get this around your little ears? .......... :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_sex_gang

Proof of the pudding - sorry, kebab in your case!

[nontabury]

From the document linked to above, fig 1.9 shows that 91.9% of the population of Rotherham is classified as White British; 3% classified as Pakistani origin.

So what is your point?

As for the vile men targeting just white girls, as has previously been shown; they didn't.

They targeted vulnerable girls. That the majority of them were white is due to many variables; as has been discussed at length earlier in the topic.

But certain posters ignored that as it does not suit their prejudices.

Sorry! 7by7 they did target non-Muslim girls, yes I know in one of the MANY reports, they mentioned that the majority of the CHILD Victims were none Muslims, the implication being that Muslim girls were also abused,why they used those words I don't know, certainly the people of Rotherham are unaware of any Muslim victims.

[Steely Dan]

The BBC have got out their 'Asian' word again, this time in my home city, which is as enriched as Bradford in some places.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-31778850

[KarenBravo]

I checked google like you suggested, and quickly found this data for England and Wales:

In 2011, males accounted for the vast majority of prosecutions for sexual offences (98.2 per cent). More specifically, males aged 18 and over accounted for 89.7 per cent of proceedings for sexual offences, with similar proportions for rape (89.6 per cent) and sexual assault (89.2 per cent) proceedings (see Table 4.2). 9,042 defendants proceeded against for sexual offences in 2011 (91.2 per cent of total) were of a known ethnicity (see Table 4.4). Of these persons:  78.0 per cent were White;  9.9 per cent were Black;  9.7 per cent were Asian;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

It looks like the biggest risk factor in offending is maleness. Over 98% of offenders were male, more than twice their representation in the population. We should be doing everything we can to address this clear wave of sexual assault among the ugly male culture in Britain. Starting with White male culture, of course, because they were the largest offending group.*

* I realized that I should post a "satire alert" for those who aren't sensitive to such things.

Your conclusions are false. You need to re-take basic mathematics.

You need to know what percentage each ethnic group as a percentage of the total population, otherwise it's an exercise in futility.

Whites make up 87% of the population of the UK, but, 78% of sex criminals.

Asians make up 6.9% of the population, but, are 9.7% of sex criminals.

Statistically, Asians are more likely to offend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

[KarenBravo]

Just to add to my previous post. With regard to your statistics (please post a link), it's important to know if they are counting sex criminals by number of perpetrators, or, by the number of victims.

A handful of men committing 1400 offences will be under-represented if the statistics are counting perpetrators.

Edited March 7, 2015 by KarenBravo

[7by7]

From the document linked to above, fig 1.9 shows that 91.9% of the population of Rotherham is classified as White British; 3% classified as Pakistani origin.

So what is your point?

As for the vile men targeting just white girls, as has previously been shown; they didn't.

They targeted vulnerable girls. That the majority of them were white is due to many variables; as has been discussed at length earlier in the topic.

But certain posters ignored that as it does not suit their prejudices.

Sorry! 7by7 they did target non-Muslim girls, yes I know in one of the MANY reports, they mentioned that the majority of the CHILD Victims were none Muslims, the implication being that Muslim girls were also abused,why they used those words I don't know, certainly the people of Rotherham are unaware of any Muslim victims.

The majority of the people of Rotherham seemed to have been unaware of ANY victims!

I know that you and others want to paint this as a crime committed by Muslim men deliberately targetti9ng white girls due to their religious beliefs; but the facts, and the overwhelming condemnation of these vile creatures by the Muslim population, simply do not give any credence to that assertion.

Even if certain websites who believe the population of Birmingham is 100% Muslim think differently!

[Bangkok Herps]

That's awesome Jock. You're just a savant - you don't need to have ever seen real data that supports the biases you already have, because that data will come one day!

Do you realize that if the data is enormously moved by a single event, then the data probably isn't correlated to some single variable that is widespread outside of that event? Scientists will often move one data pool from their study to see if the relation still holds, and declare the connection invalid if a single data pool take away the effect. If you need Rotherham data to prove your anti-Muslim point, even with millions of Muslims all over the country, then perhaps the issue is Rotherham, not Islam.

I checked google like you suggested, and quickly found this data for England and Wales:

In 2011, males accounted for the vast majority of prosecutions for sexual offences (98.2 per cent). More specifically, males aged 18 and over accounted for 89.7 per cent of proceedings for sexual offences, with similar proportions for rape (89.6 per cent) and sexual assault (89.2 per cent) proceedings (see Table 4.2). 9,042 defendants proceeded against for sexual offences in 2011 (91.2 per cent of total) were of a known ethnicity (see Table 4.4). Of these persons:  78.0 per cent were White;  9.9 per cent were Black;  9.7 per cent were Asian;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

It looks like the biggest risk factor in offending is maleness. Over 98% of offenders were male, more than twice their representation in the population. We should be doing everything we can to address this clear wave of sexual assault among the ugly male culture in Britain. Starting with White male culture, of course, because they were the largest offending group.*



* I realized that I should post a "satire alert" for those who aren't sensitive to such things.

Your conclusions are false. You need to re-take basic mathematics.

You need to know what percentage each ethnic group as a percentage of the total population, otherwise it's an exercise in futility.

Whites make up 87% of the population of the UK, but, 78% of sex criminals.

Asians make up 6.9% of the population, but, are 9.7% of sex criminals.

Statistically, Asians are more likely to offend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

My goodness, the irony, the irony.

First off, there are no mathematical errors in anything I said. But I labeled it "satire" for a reason. It was a laughably simplistic look at the problem that ignored all statistical analysis.

Just like everything you are saying.

If you understand how wrong my simplistic conclusions would be, then maybe you can begin to realize how someone who knows more about analyzing data would laugh at how simplistic your conclusions are.

Once again, you haven't factored in any possible correlating variables, haven't shown the slightest sense that there's a meaningful correlation to this variable and not just a shared correlation to another variable. Maybe the actual answer is that poor people commit sexual assaults more frequently, and there are just more Muslims who happen to be poor. Maybe the actual answer is that young men commit sexual assaults more frequently, and Muslims are more represented about younger men than older. Maybe the actual answer is, like you say, that Asians are more likely to commit sexual assault regardless of religion, and Muslims are more highly represented among Asians?

In fact, all three of those are likely to be true. And you can't tell in the least whether being Muslim (or even being Asian) is a meaningful additional variable until you've done the work to remove the other correlating factors like poverty and age. And even then, you might just have stronger proof for correlation but you wouldn't have done the real causation until you did some real experiments and much better longitudinal studies.

Follow all that? Does anyone here spouting off cherry-picked and simplistic numbers understand the evidence you actually need to have to make the claims that you're trying to make? Or do you come up with the biased claims first, and then look for the data later?



And "A handful of men committing 1400 offences will be under-represented if the statistics are counting perpetrators." Do you even realize what you're saying? You're comparing the # of offenders to the % of the population they represent, but then you're going to multiply them by the number of offenses they each committed? And somehow that data will show a correlation to...what exactly? What would you even compare that number to? Did you ethink that one through before you typed it?

[7by7]

The BBC have got out their 'Asian' word again, this time in my home city, which is as enriched as Bradford in some places.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-31778850

Asian is not a BBC word; it is, in the UK, a legitimate word to describe the ethnic group originating from South Asia, especially the Indian sub continent.

As the attacker has been described, presumably by the victim, as Asian, how else would you expect the police to describe him?

You are obviously attempting to infer that the BBC are somehow afraid to describe the attacker as Muslim. How do you know the religion of the attacker?

Even if he is Muslim, so are many people who are not Asian. Surely even you must agree that in order to catch him the police and media should issue a physical description of him rather than waste time speculating on his religious beliefs?

[nontabury]

From the document linked to above, fig 1.9 shows that 91.9% of the population of Rotherham is classified as White British; 3% classified as Pakistani origin.

So what is your point?

As for the vile men targeting just white girls, as has previously been shown; they didn't.

They targeted vulnerable girls. That the majority of them were white is due to many variables; as has been discussed at length earlier in the topic.

But certain posters ignored that as it does not suit their prejudices.

Sorry! 7by7 they did target non-Muslim girls, yes I know in one of the MANY reports, they mentioned that the majority of the CHILD Victims were none Muslims, the implication being that Muslim girls were also abused,why they used those words I don't know, certainly the people of Rotherham are unaware of any Muslim victims.

The majority of the people of Rotherham seemed to have been unaware of ANY victims!

I know that you and others want to paint this as a crime committed by Muslim men deliberately targetti9ng white girls due to their religious beliefs; but the facts, and the overwhelming condemnation of these vile creatures by the Muslim population, simply do not give any credence to that assertion.

Even if certain websites who believe the population of Birmingham is 100% Muslim think differently!

True, most of the people in Rotherham were unaware of the scale of this problem for many years, something to do with the local Labour authority and the police keeping a lid on the news, for fear of being accused of being racialist or to protect a group of their loyal voters.

As regards your assertion that the majority of the Muslim population have overwhelmingly condemned their fellow Muslims, how come they've not been heard by the rest of the population, I suppose you will now say that the BBC and the rest of the media are in a conspiracy to not publicise these condemnations.

Personally I have only heard a few Muslims speak out, including the leader of a young Muslim group who happens to come from Rotherham.

[7by7]

<snip>

Does anyone here spouting off cherry-picked and simplistic numbers understand the evidence you actually need to have to make the claims that you're trying to make? Or do you come up with the biased claims first, and then look for the data later?

Neither, I'm afraid.

The claims are enough for them.

They don't look for proper evidence because doing so would show the claims for what they are; the biggest pile of pony since the Augean stables.

[7by7]

<snip>

As regards your assertion that the majority of the Muslim population have overwhelmingly condemned their fellow Muslims, how come they've not been heard by the rest of the population, I suppose you will now say that the BBC and the rest of the media are in a conspiracy to not publicise these condemnations.

Personally I have only heard a few Muslims speak out, including the leader of a young Muslim group who happens to come from Rotherham.

No, I will not say "the BBC and the rest of the media are in a conspiracy to not publicise these condemnations" for the simple reason that it is not the case.

One example: in June 2013, Muslim clerics in around 500 mosques across the Uk preached sermons condemning child sexual abuse.

This was reported in most mainstream media. Some examples.

Muslim religious leaders condemn child sex grooming BBC

Muslims unite to condemn 'extreme depravity' of child grooming in first UK-wide single sermon The Independent

Muslim Leaders Deliver Anti-Grooming Sermon Sky News

Muslims unite to condemn ‘evil’ of child grooming and child abuse The Times

Mosques to deliver sermons to thousands of Muslims condemning sexual grooming of children Manchester Evening news.

Muslim religious leaders to condemn child sex grooming Rochdale Online

Bradford Muslims unite against grooming (Bradford) Telegraph and Argus

Many more articles on this event and others in both national and local press in the UK if you care to look; yet you seem to have missed all of them!

[KarenBravo]

That's awesome Jock. You're just a savant - you don't need to have ever seen real data that supports the biases you already have, because that data will come one day!

Do you realize that if the data is enormously moved by a single event, then the data probably isn't correlated to some single variable that is widespread outside of that event? Scientists will often move one data pool from their study to see if the relation still holds, and declare the connection invalid if a single data pool take away the effect. If you need Rotherham data to prove your anti-Muslim point, even with millions of Muslims all over the country, then perhaps the issue is Rotherham, not Islam.

I checked google like you suggested, and quickly found this data for England and Wales:

In 2011, males accounted for the vast majority of prosecutions for sexual offences (98.2 per cent). More specifically, males aged 18 and over accounted for 89.7 per cent of proceedings for sexual offences, with similar proportions for rape (89.6 per cent) and sexual assault (89.2 per cent) proceedings (see Table 4.2). 9,042 defendants proceeded against for sexual offences in 2011 (91.2 per cent of total) were of a known ethnicity (see Table 4.4). Of these persons:  78.0 per cent were White;  9.9 per cent were Black;  9.7 per cent were Asian;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

It looks like the biggest risk factor in offending is maleness. Over 98% of offenders were male, more than twice their representation in the population. We should be doing everything we can to address this clear wave of sexual assault among the ugly male culture in Britain. Starting with White male culture, of course, because they were the largest offending group.*

* I realized that I should post a "satire alert" for those who aren't sensitive to such things.

Your conclusions are false. You need to re-take basic mathematics.

You need to know what percentage each ethnic group as a percentage of the total population, otherwise it's an exercise in futility.

Whites make up 87% of the population of the UK, but, 78% of sex criminals.

Asians make up 6.9% of the population, but, are 9.7% of sex criminals.

Statistically, Asians are more likely to offend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

My goodness, the irony, the irony.

First off, there are no mathematical errors in anything I said. But I labeled it "satire" for a reason. It was a laughably simplistic look at the problem that ignored all statistical analysis.

Just like everything you are saying.

If you understand how wrong my simplistic conclusions would be, then maybe you can begin to realize how someone who knows more about analyzing data would laugh at how simplistic your conclusions are.

Once again, you haven't factored in any possible correlating variables, haven't shown the slightest sense that there's a meaningful correlation to this variable and not just a shared correlation to another variable. Maybe the actual answer is that poor people commit sexual assaults more frequently, and there are just more Muslims who happen to be poor. Maybe the actual answer is that young men commit sexual assaults more frequently, and Muslims are more represented about younger men than older. Maybe the actual answer is, like you say, that Asians are more likely to commit sexual assault regardless of religion, and Muslims are more highly represented among Asians?

In fact, all three of those are likely to be true. And you can't tell in the least whether being Muslim (or even being Asian) is a meaningful additional variable until you've done the work to remove the other correlating factors like poverty and age. And even then, you might just have stronger proof for correlation but you wouldn't have done the real causation until you did some real experiments and much better longitudinal studies.

Follow all that? Does anyone here spouting off cherry-picked and simplistic numbers understand the evidence you actually need to have to make the claims that you're trying to make? Or do you come up with the biased claims first, and then look for the data later?

And "A handful of men committing 1400 offences will be under-represented if the statistics are counting perpetrators." Do you even realize what you're saying? You're comparing the # of offenders to the % of the population they represent, but then you're going to multiply them by the number of offenses they each committed? And somehow that data will show a correlation to...what exactly? What would you even compare that number to? Did you ethink that one through before you typed it?

What I posted are mathematical facts. Where do I say that I will multiply anything by anything?

I have not stated my position on the OP, I just have a problem with you misrepresenting an argument by faulty maths.

Here, I'll make it simple for you to understand.

99 people of a single ethnicity, commit one crime each.

One person of another ethnicity commits 101 crimes.

If you count by perpetrator, the one man is 1% of the total.

If you count by crimes, that one man commits 50.5% of the crime.

See? It depends on how YOUR statistics are created, which I notice you still haven't provided a link for.

I'm sorry you don't understand simple, school-boy maths, but then, it's not my handicap to bear.

Edited March 7, 2015 by KarenBravo

[Bangkok Herps]

That's awesome Jock. You're just a savant - you don't need to have ever seen real data that supports the biases you already have, because that data will come one day!

Do you realize that if the data is enormously moved by a single event, then the data probably isn't correlated to some single variable that is widespread outside of that event? Scientists will often move one data pool from their study to see if the relation still holds, and declare the connection invalid if a single data pool take away the effect. If you need Rotherham data to prove your anti-Muslim point, even with millions of Muslims all over the country, then perhaps the issue is Rotherham, not Islam.

I checked google like you suggested, and quickly found this data for England and Wales:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

It looks like the biggest risk factor in offending is maleness. Over 98% of offenders were male, more than twice their representation in the population. We should be doing everything we can to address this clear wave of sexual assault among the ugly male culture in Britain. Starting with White male culture, of course, because they were the largest offending group.*

* I realized that I should post a "satire alert" for those who aren't sensitive to such things.

Your conclusions are false. You need to re-take basic mathematics.

You need to know what percentage each ethnic group as a percentage of the total population, otherwise it's an exercise in futility.

Whites make up 87% of the population of the UK, but, 78% of sex criminals.

Asians make up 6.9% of the population, but, are 9.7% of sex criminals.

Statistically, Asians are more likely to offend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

My goodness, the irony, the irony.

First off, there are no mathematical errors in anything I said. But I labeled it "satire" for a reason. It was a laughably simplistic look at the problem that ignored all statistical analysis.

Just like everything you are saying.

If you understand how wrong my simplistic conclusions would be, then maybe you can begin to realize how someone who knows more about analyzing data would laugh at how simplistic your conclusions are.

Once again, you haven't factored in any possible correlating variables, haven't shown the slightest sense that there's a meaningful correlation to this variable and not just a shared correlation to another variable. Maybe the actual answer is that poor people commit sexual assaults more frequently, and there are just more Muslims who happen to be poor. Maybe the actual answer is that young men commit sexual assaults more frequently, and Muslims are more represented about younger men than older. Maybe the actual answer is, like you say, that Asians are more likely to commit sexual assault regardless of religion, and Muslims are more highly represented among Asians?

In fact, all three of those are likely to be true. And you can't tell in the least whether being Muslim (or even being Asian) is a meaningful additional variable until you've done the work to remove the other correlating factors like poverty and age. And even then, you might just have stronger proof for correlation but you wouldn't have done the real causation until you did some real experiments and much better longitudinal studies.

Follow all that? Does anyone here spouting off cherry-picked and simplistic numbers understand the evidence you actually need to have to make the claims that you're trying to make? Or do you come up with the biased claims first, and then look for the data later?

And "A handful of men committing 1400 offences will be under-represented if the statistics are counting perpetrators." Do you even realize what you're saying? You're comparing the # of offenders to the % of the population they represent, but then you're going to multiply them by the number of offenses they each committed? And somehow that data will show a correlation to...what exactly? What would you even compare that number to? Did you ethink that one through before you typed it?

What I posted are mathematical facts. Where do I say that I will multiply anything by anything?

I have not stated my position on the OP, I just have a problem with you misrepresenting an argument by faulty maths.

Here, I'll make it simple for you to understand.

99 people of a single ethnicity, commit one crime each.

One person of another ethnicity commits 101 crimes.

If you count by perpetrator, the one man is 1% of the total.

If you count by crimes, that one man commits 50.5% of the crime.

See? It depends on how YOUR statistics are created, which I notice you still haven't provided a link for.

I'm sorry you don't understand simple, school-boy maths, but then, it's not my handicap to bear.

You're proven my point far better than anything else I could say on my own. (Though I do have a link, which you quote yourself in your own post, so very weird that you say I "haven't provided a link for". Of course, my analysis of the numbers in that link was a joke, which you also haven't seemed to figure out.)

Here's a good plan for you.

Find a friend who has actual knowledge of statistical analysis. They can be a scientist of any type, any researcher who took statistical analysis and has to produce results that will be published in peer-reviewed journals, absolutely anyone in any field who does real stat work that has to past muster.

Now, ask them to look at what's been said, and try to explain the parts to you that you don't understand.

Really nothing more to say than that.

[Mosha]

I posted figures before. Asians as a %age of the population, with regard to sex crimes are punching above their weight. The government data does not separate by race or religion.

David Cameron says that turning a blind eye to sexual abuse, should be a criminal offence.

[nontabury]

Can 7x7 or any of the other apologist for these Muslim scum provide us with a list of how the influx of these Muslims have benefited the UK.

I await your replies.

[JockPieandBeans]

I checked google like you suggested, and quickly found this data for England and Wales:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

It looks like the biggest risk factor in offending is maleness. Over 98% of offenders were male, more than twice their representation in the population. We should be doing everything we can to address this clear wave of sexual assault among the ugly male culture in Britain. Starting with White male culture, of course, because they were the largest offending group.*

* I realized that I should post a "satire alert" for those who aren't sensitive to such things.

The data that you found was for sexual offences committed in the UK.

As I said before, I would expect the highest number of perps in the UK to be white.

Try looking for stats on grooming gangs. Which is the essence of the thread.

Here is a report from 2012, before the vast majority of the cases highlighted in this thread were in the public domain.

Ethnicity data were available for just one-third. Of these, 49% were white and 46% Asian: the proportion of Pakistani Asians remains unknown. However, in a country where Asians constitute 7% of the general population, this is a striking figure

We believe that there are two main profiles of the on-street groomer. First, we have the white offenders, who typically offend alone. So far, nothing new: the lone white male is the norm for UK child sex offences. Second, however, there are Asian offenders, many of whom are of Pakistani origin

In our research, which focuses on large offending groups, we analysed police data from five major on-street grooming investigations. Of the 52 suspects charged, 83% were Asian Pakistani, 11% Asian other and 6% white British.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/08/asian-sex-gangs-on-street-grooming

[NeverSure]

-snip-

You are only interested when the perpetrators are Muslim. The reasons for that are as appalling as they are obvious.

What other topics are running where 1,400 kids were sexually molested and precious little has been done about it?

How am I supposed to understand why precious little has been done about it?

Talk about deflection or "only interested when the perps are muslim". Where are the threads where you are defending some non-muslims?

Would you be making excuses for Jews or Americans if that were the topic?

(Rhetorical question, of course.)

[JockPieandBeans]

The BBC have got out their 'Asian' word again, this time in my home city, which is as enriched as Bradford in some places.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-31778850

Sadly for this young woman, this has now been upgraded to attempted murder due to the severity of her injuries.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-31778850

I hope this piece of scum is found quickly and the appropriate punishment meted out.

[nontabury]

The BBC have got out their 'Asian' word again, this time in my home city, which is as enriched as Bradford in some places.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-31778850

How many TV members and the general UK population, upon reading this headline in the UK national newspapers, automatically assumed that the perpetrator was Pakistani Muslim? And if they did,Why?

[Mosha]

The BBC have got out their 'Asian' word again, this time in my home city, which is as enriched as Bradford in some places.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-31778850

How many TV members and the general UK population, upon reading this headline in the UK national newspapers, automatically assumed that the perpetrator was Pakistani Muslim? And if they did,Why?

Asian in W.Yorks might be a clue.Yes there are others, but not as many as S Asians of a certain religion.

[ravip]

With the development of a country does not the minds of its citizens develop at the same rate? Or does the minds detiorate?

Real life situations sort of proves the above, does it not?

[JockPieandBeans]

The BBC have got out their 'Asian' word again, this time in my home city, which is as enriched as Bradford in some places.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-31778850

How many TV members and the general UK population, upon reading this headline in the UK national newspapers, automatically assumed that the perpetrator was Pakistani Muslim? And if they did,Why?

Me.

In the PC, liberal, tree hugging monstrosity that the UK has become. The word '' Asian '' has become the norm for '' Pakistani Muslim ''

[JockPieandBeans]

With the development of a country does not the minds of its citizens develop at the same rate? Or does the minds detiorate?

Real life situations sort of proves the above, does it not?

Welcome to the thread ravip. Did you mean deteriorate ?

Yes, the real life situations highlighted in this thread, suggests that the development of the UK is definitely deteriorating. It seems to have started going downhill when levels of immigration went uphill.

Does that answer your question ?

[7by7]

Can 7x7 or any of the other apologist for these Muslim scum provide us with a list of how the influx of these Muslims have benefited the UK.

I await your replies.

Yet again you call me an apologist for child abusers.

So, yet again, I ask you to provide a link to one, just one, post or comment I have made which could in any way be considered an apology for child abusers.

When you have failed to find one, will you finally apologise for the false accusation?

Or are you someone who believes that repeating the lie often enough will make it the truth?

By 'these Muslims' do you mean the vast majority who are law abiding citizens, work in all sectors, public and private, pay their taxes and contribute to the UK in the same way as any other citizen?

Like the people on this list?

Note that list includes a section on Militants; but even you can see that those who have made a positive contribution to the UK are far, far more numerous.

[JockPieandBeans]

In response to the 2 above posts.

I made 2 posts yesterday spelling out exactly why it is construed that you are hypocritical apologist.

Surprise Surprise those 2 posts were instantly deleted. I wonder why that would have been ?

Except your kind know no shame.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by '' Your kind '' ?

People like Saville got away with abuse for years.

The scandal of abuse in Catholic children's homes went on for years.

The Dolphin Square ring went on for years.

I have not seen any of you condemning them!

If you could point us in the direction of these threads, I am sure that most of us will condemn them.

[7by7]

The BBC have got out their 'Asian' word again, this time in my home city, which is as enriched as Bradford in some places.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-31778850

How many TV members and the general UK population, upon reading this headline in the UK national newspapers, automatically assumed that the perpetrator was Pakistani Muslim? And if they did,Why?

Me.

In the PC, liberal, tree hugging monstrosity that the UK has become. The word '' Asian '' has become the norm for '' Pakistani Muslim ''

So, whenever you see or read about an Asian police officer, you assume they are a Pakistani Muslim?

Ditto for Asian members of the other emergency services, the armed forces, Asian doctors, nurses, entrepreneurs, sports people, etc., etc.?

If so, then you must admit that Pakistani Muslims make an enormous contribution to the UK!

The man has been described as Asian because he is Asian, at present his religion is unknown.

Tell me, how would speculating on his religion aide in his capture?

[7by7]

In response to the 2 above posts.

I made 2 posts yesterday spelling out exactly why it is construed that you are hypocritical apologist.

Surprise Surprise those 2 posts were instantly deleted. I wonder why that would have been ?

Except your kind know no shame.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by '' Your kind '' ?

People like Saville got away with abuse for years.

The scandal of abuse in Catholic children's homes went on for years.

The Dolphin Square ring went on for years.

I have not seen any of you condemning them!

If you could point us in the direction of these threads, I am sure that most of us will condemn them.

Look in the World News Forum, threads on these and similar cases have been around for some time; but you have obviously ignored them as they don't fit your politics.

"Your kind?" Obvious; ignorant bigots who use the suffering of children to advance their own political agenda that all Muslims are terrorists, or supporters of terrorism; all Muslim men are child rapists, all Muslims want to impose strict Sharia law upon us and all the other &lt;deleted&gt; you and your kind regularly post.

See? I can make ignorant accusations as well as being on the receiving end of them!

I have no idea why any post of yours has been deleted; I certainly have played no part in such deletions.

I never report any of your posts as they show you for what you are.

I suggest you follow the forum rules and PM the mod concerned or email admin if you want to discuss moderation.

Edited March 8, 2015 by 7by7

[H1w4yR1da]

Maybe the actual answer is that poor people commit sexual assaults more frequently, and there are just more Muslims who happen to be poor. Maybe the actual answer is that young men commit sexual assaults more frequently, and Muslims are more represented about younger men than older. Maybe the actual answer is, like you say, that Asians are more likely to commit sexual assault regardless of religion, and Muslims are more highly represented among Asians?

Maybe this, maybe that.

Just a futile exercise in deflection again.

'"Once again, you haven't factored in any possible correlating variables, haven't shown the slightest sense that there's a meaningful correlation to this variable and not just a shared correlation to another variable."

What on earth are you talking about?

'correlating variables' blah blah. Do you really talk like that?

As always, trying to take the onus off Islam, when everyone can see that's the main factor in these crimes.

[dragonfly94]

Can 7x7 or any of the other apologist for these Muslim scum provide us with a list of how the influx of these Muslims have benefited the UK.

I await your replies.

Yet again you call me an apologist for child abusers.

No he's not calling you that, i am calling you an apologist for the Islamic dogma that Muslims are brainwashed by that causes them to abuse women and children, hate gays and unbelievers and to commit murder in the name of their prophet, you know that murdering, child abusing slave owning thief. You constantly ignore cause and effect, the cause is the Koran and the prophet, the effects are child abuse, misery, ignorance, oppression and Jihad.