Also in the News - Part 2

[ClaphamFox]

55 minutes ago, Captain... said:

No I don't, if you read back what I've said, and I've said it quite clearly, death threats are worse than the original incident.

 

The issue people are raising is the deceitful headline you posted. This was not some accident it was a deliberate act of disrespect and to paint it all as an accident is just plain wrong. You seem to imply that the boys shouldn't be punished because they received death threats. 2 wrongs don't make either right. The headline is deliberately inflammatory and misleading to push an agenda. That is what is being called out.

 

If the police have not investigated the death threats then that should be the focus of the story not trying to paint the original act as a harmless misunderstanding.

 

Death threats are categorically not acceptable, that's so obvious it's not even worth saying. It is also not acceptable to stoke religious tensions by printing and sharing deliberately misleading headlines. 

 

The kids should be appropriately punished for their behaviour and the people sending death threats should also be appropriately punished for their behaviour and the whole thing should be used as a learning exercise for both sides.

What headline? The tweet that I posted read: "Is there any missing context here to explain what appears to be a policeman capitulating to the unreasonable demands of a religious fanatic?" What's deceitful about it? The video clearly shows a policeman capitulating to the unreasonable demands of a religious fanatic. 

 

I used the word 'accidentally' myself because all reports suggest that the book was damaged when the boy, who is autistic, accidentally dropped it. The fact that the book was brought in as a forfeit because the boy lost at COD does not change the fact that it was not deliberately damaged. In another post you used the word 'vandalism', which is a deliberate act of sabotage. Can you explain why you've chosen to use this word when there are no credible reports that the book was deliberately vandalised? I would argue that your language is deliberately misleading.

 

But anyway, the reason I posted the video was to highlight the pathetic response of the police to this incident. Rather than firmly say, "We will not tolerate death threats in any circumstances", the officer just sits there and nods along as the imam seeks to inflame tensions further. It's pure cowardice. You seem to think that the video I linked is misleading in some way. I'd love to to know why you think that.

 

"It is also not acceptable to stoke religious tensions," you say. Can you cite any headlines that have sought to do this? In any case, why should religion be regarded as a special category of belief that needs to be respected in the way that other beliefs aren't? And let's face it, it isn't even religion in general that seeks this - it's certain fanatical followers of one particular religion that always demand to be treated as a special case. I don't think they should be.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

What headline? The tweet that I posted read: "Is there any missing context here to explain what appears to be a policeman capitulating to the unreasonable demands of a religious fanatic?" What's deceitful about it? The video clearly shows a policeman capitulating to the unreasonable demands of a religious fanatic. 

 

I used the word 'accidentally' myself because all reports suggest that the book was damaged when the boy, who is autistic, accidentally dropped it. The fact that the book was brought in as a forfeit because the boy lost at COD does not change the fact that it was not deliberately damaged. In another post you used the word 'vandalism', which is a deliberate act of sabotage. Can you explain why you've chosen to use this word when there are no credible reports that the book was deliberately vandalised? I would argue that your language is deliberately misleading.

 

But anyway, the reason I posted the video was to highlight the pathetic response of the police to this incident. Rather than firmly say, "We will not tolerate death threats in any circumstances", the officer just sits there and nods along as the imam seeks to inflame tensions further. It's pure cowardice. You seem to think that the video I linked is misleading in some way. I'd love to to know why you think that.

 

"It is also not acceptable to stoke religious tensions," you say. Can you cite any headlines that have sought to do this? In any case, why should religion be regarded as a special category of belief that needs to be respected in the way that other beliefs aren't? And let's face it, it isn't even religion in general that seeks this - it's certain fanatical followers of one particular religion that always demand to be treated as a special case. I don't think they should be.

In the UK, that may be the case. However, the UK isn't the entire world, as my most recent post illustrates.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

I'm glad we are in agreement they should be punished. The severity of the punishment is for schools to determine, however the mum of the boy who brought in the Quaran has not complained about the punishment. Instead she has accepted it and apologised for his behaviour.

While looking terrified and fidgeting nerviously surrounded by angry religious fanatics 

[Dunge]

I generally end up just shaking my head sadly at these situations, because it was all so easily avoided by people not acting like ****s in the first place.

 

If he hadn’t brought the book in (disrespectfully), he wouldn’t have damaged it, then there wouldn’t be some **** getting angry about it, which in turn will result in a different brand of ****s using that to try to incite hatred.

 

I always think it boils down to this: You technically should have the right, in this country, to damage this book. But with that comes the responsibility not to. I’m tired of hearing about people acting like ****s with the justification that “it’s my right”.

[Captain...]

26 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

What headline? The tweet that I posted read: "Is there any missing context here to explain what appears to be a policeman capitulating to the unreasonable demands of a religious fanatic?" What's deceitful about it? The video clearly shows a policeman capitulating to the unreasonable demands of a religious fanatic. 

 

I used the word 'accidentally' myself because all reports suggest that the book was damaged when the boy, who is autistic, accidentally dropped it. The fact that the book was brought in as a forfeit because the boy lost at COD does not change the fact that it was not deliberately damaged. In another post you used the word 'vandalism', which is a deliberate act of sabotage. Can you explain why you've chosen to use this word when there are no credible reports that the book was deliberately vandalised? I would argue that your language is deliberately misleading.

 

But anyway, the reason I posted the video was to highlight the pathetic response of the police to this incident. Rather than firmly say, "We will not tolerate death threats in any circumstances", the officer just sits there and nods along as the imam seeks to inflame tensions further. It's pure cowardice. You seem to think that the video I linked is misleading in some way. I'd love to to know why you think that.

 

"It is also not acceptable to stoke religious tensions," you say. Can you cite any headlines that have sought to do this? In any case, why should religion be regarded as a special category of belief that needs to be respected in the way that other beliefs aren't? And let's face it, it isn't even religion in general that seeks this - it's certain fanatical followers of one particular religion that always demand to be treated as a special case. I don't think they should be.

Apologies, I thought it was part of the tweet, instead it was your text that was misleading.

 

The video shows a small part of the conference and didn't as I saw at any point say we are not going to investigate the death threats. Instead I saw someone trying to navigate a sensitive issue advocating education. 

 

I do have to ask why you are so convinced that religion is a special group that shouldn't be disrespected? No groups should be disrespected and one of the roles of schools is to educate kids to be respectful of others. This is not a religion thing or a Muslim thing it's a basic decency thing.

[Daggers]

8 minutes ago, Captain... said:

No groups should be disrespected and one of the roles of schools is to educate kids to be respectful of others. This is not a religion thing or a Muslim thing it's a basic decency thing.

Nope.

 

I don’t respect any religion or their followers. The whole thing is bogus. They are at liberty to believe whatever nonsense they like, they are not at liberty to dictate how I should think or act. We abolished blasphemy.

 

It was a book, nothing more, of no more value than a Nadine Dorries novel.

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

Instead she has accepted it and apologised for his behaviour.

No shit she did. If I was surrounded by angry Muslims who were threatening to kill a child, I sure as shit wouldn't say no different either. 

 

It's like people forget the people killed in France over this crap smh. 

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

No shit she did. If I was surrounded by angry Muslims who were threatening to kill a child, I sure as shit wouldn't say no different either. 

 

It's like people forget the people killed in France over this crap smh. 

I wasn't there I've just read her quotes, from what I have read she has not questioned the schools punishment.

[Captain...]

16 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Nope.

 

I don’t respect any religion or their followers. The whole thing is bogus. They are at liberty to believe whatever nonsense they like, they are not at liberty to dictate how I should think or act. We abolished blasphemy.

 

It was a book, nothing more, of no more value than a Nadine Dorries novel.

But I expect you to behave respectful towards them. I agree, to me it is of no more value than a Nadine Dorries book, but I still wouldn't go out of my way to carry a Nadine Dorries book around with me and use it disrespectfully in front of her. 

 

If you can't see that religious texts are important to followers of that religion and that disrespectful use of the book could cause offense then there is no hope. You can think what you like about religions but that doesn't give you permission to antagonise religious people and not expect consequences (and no I do not think death threats are reasonable consequences).

 

You wouldn't walk around the City Ground kicking about a Forest shirt without expecting to piss a few people off.

 

Dismissing religion as bollocks is fine, antagonising people because of their beliefs is not.

Edited 3 March 2023 by Captain...

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

No shit she did. If I was surrounded by angry Muslims who were threatening to kill a child, I sure as shit wouldn't say no different either. 

 

It's like people forget the people killed in France over this crap smh. 

Yup, and they shouldn't.

 

Sadly, the world right now appears full of motivated nutters of many different demographics and social media is letting them communicate with and embolden each other.

[Captain...]

13 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

No shit she did. If I was surrounded by angry Muslims who were threatening to kill a child, I sure as shit wouldn't say no different either. 

 

It's like people forget the people killed in France over this crap smh. 

Nobody has forgotten that, nobody is saying that the police should not be investigating death threats.

 

Some people are implying that the kids did nothing wrong, which is not true. 

 

Some people seem to think that the police are bending over backwards by listening to the concerns of the Muslim community and advocating education rather than stoking up more anger. I think that it is absolutely the right thing to do, work with the community, as long as it is not the only thing they are doing. Death threats still need to be investigated.

[Daggers]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

But I expect you to behave respectful towards them. I agree, to me it is of no more value than a Nadine Dorries book, but I still wouldn't go out of my way to carry a Nadine Dorries book around with me and use it disrespectfully in front of her. 

 

If you can't see that religious texts are important to followers of that religion and that disrespectful use of the book could cause offense then there is no hope. You can think what you like about religions but that doesn't give you permission to antagonise religious people and not expect consequences (and no I do not think death threats are reasonable consequences).

 

You wouldn't walk around the City Ground kicking about a Forest shirt without expecting to piss a few people off.

 

Dismissing religion as bollocks is fine, antagonising people because of their beliefs is not.

Again, nope.

 

What you are doing is victim blaming.

[ClaphamFox]

19 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I wasn't there I've just read her quotes, from what I have read she has not questioned the schools punishment.

Yes, because she's terrified. I wouldn't necessarily read that as an endorsement of the school's position.

 

I simply disagree with your view that 'no group should be disrespected'. I don't think 'respect' should automatically given to religion for the same reasons as I don't think respect should be automatically conferred on people who believe in fairies, astrology or extreme conspiracy theories. I don't respect QAnon, Brexit headbangers or climate change deniers. If somebody damaged a copy of one of Andrew Tate's books and his idiot disciples were issuing death threats against that person, would I be saying "well, there's fault on both sides" and urging people to respect the feelings of Tate's followers? No, I would not.

 

I don't see why belief in a mythical deity is worthy of respect, and I definitely do not believe that respect should be given to people who adopt extremely dogmatic and autocratic positions based upon their belief in a mythical deity.

 

Edited 3 March 2023 by ClaphamFox

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Yes, because she's terrified. I wouldn't necessarily read that as an endorsement of the school's position.

 

I simply disagree with your view that 'no group should be disrespected'. I don't think 'respect' should automatically given to religion for the same reasons as I don't think respect should be automatically conferred on people who believe in fairies, astrology or extreme conspiracy theories. I don't respect QAnon, Brexit headbangers or climate change deniers. If somebody damaged a copy of one of Andrew Tate's books and his idiot disciples were issuing death threats against that person, would I be saying "well, there's fault on both sides" and urging people to respect the feelings of Tate's followers? No, I would not.

 

I don't see why belief in a mythical deity is worthy of respect, and I definitely do not believe that respect should be given to people who adopt extremely dogmatic and autocratic positions based upon their belief in a mythical deity.

 

I'll kill you. 

 

See how ****ing ridiculous a reaction that is Captain?  

[Captain...]

38 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I'll kill you. 

 

See how ****ing ridiculous a reaction that is Captain?  

Yes and I've already said the reaction is over the top and wrong and should be punished and don't know how else to say it.

[Captain...]

54 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Yes, because she's terrified. I wouldn't necessarily read that as an endorsement of the school's position.

 

I simply disagree with your view that 'no group should be disrespected'. I don't think 'respect' should automatically given to religion for the same reasons as I don't think respect should be automatically conferred on people who believe in fairies, astrology or extreme conspiracy theories. I don't respect QAnon, Brexit headbangers or climate change deniers. If somebody damaged a copy of one of Andrew Tate's books and his idiot disciples were issuing death threats against that person, would I be saying "well, there's fault on both sides" and urging people to respect the feelings of Tate's followers? No, I would not.

 

I don't see why belief in a mythical deity is worthy of respect, and I definitely do not believe that respect should be given to people who adopt extremely dogmatic and autocratic positions based upon their belief in a mythical deity.

 

Because I believe in respecting people and their beliefs and not antagonising people. It's not difficult.

[LiberalFox]

4 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

It’s not that people are ‘missing the point’, as you so arrogantly insist. It’s that they ascribe far less importance to the first ‘wrong’ than to the second. If the book in question were the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita or the Guru Granth Sahib, this very likely wouldn’t even be a story. The reason it has become a story is because this one group of religious fanatics have reacted with violent threats.

 

For most people, the point is that in the UK you cannot threaten to kill children because they were messing about with a book, irrespective of what that book is. This is not a theocratic state and we do not have blasphemy laws here. We are not compelled to scrape and bow in front of religious lunatics. They must accept that they do not live in a country where you can be killed for scuffing a book. If they want to live in a country where that happens, they are welcome to move to one.

 

Reports into the Muslim rape gangs in northern towns have concluded that they were able to get away with it for so long because the police and social services were terrified of upsetting the Muslim community and being accused of racism. The police’s response to this incident has demonstrated similar level of cowardice. You seem to believe that we should go out of our way to avoid upsetting zealous maniacs from a particular religion. Others believe it is far more important to stand up to such fanaticism. They’re not ‘missing the point’. 

 

 

Do you have links to those reports?

[Captain...]

57 minutes ago, Daggers said:

Again, nope.

 

What you are doing is victim blaming.

Just because they are victims in one respect doesn't make them completely innocent in all others. 

 

You can be both a victim of one crime and a perpetrator of another (not that this was a crime). The school need to deal with their actions and the police need to deal with the actions of anyone sending death threats and threatening violence.

[ClaphamFox]

7 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Do you have links to those reports?

Here's one: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gangs-iicsa-racist-fears-b2007649.html

[ClaphamFox]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Here's one: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gangs-iicsa-racist-fears-b2007649.html

And in January 2020, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) upheld a complaint that a senior police officer in Rotherham admitted that his force ignored the sexual abuse of girls by Pakistani grooming gangs for decades because it was afraid of increasing “racial tensions".

 

Sorry, this one is behind a paywall: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-chief-we-ignored-sex-abuse-of-children-hgrhc358v

[LiberalFox]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Here's one: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gangs-iicsa-racist-fears-b2007649.html

Hmm, it just seems to be speculation. Apparently it's never been standard practice to record the ethnicity of the perpetrators of this kind of crime. The police are duty bound to take all reports of crime seriously and conduct a proper investigation, something they failed to do a lot of the time. But I think lack of resources and from what I've read a prejudice against the victims was a bigger factor. 

 

'IICSA’s latest report, published on Tuesday, said there remained a “widespread failure to record the ethnicity of perpetrators and victims of child sexual exploitation”.

“It is unclear whether a misplaced sense of political correctness or the sheer complexity of the problem have inhibited good-quality data collection generally and on ethnicity more specifically,” it added.

“The failure to collect data on the ethnicity of the perpetrators and victims of child sexual exploitation, and the failure to make a public statement of the reasons why it is important to collect such data, have also led to a one-sided and often uninformed public debate where links have been made between ethnicity and a number of high-profile cases involving South Asian men.'

 

Some people seem to hold the belief that you can solve everything by data collection without giving police any more resources to tackle crime which I think is false. 

 

It's always smacked of a convenient excuse for police to blame their incompetence on 'political correctness'. I'm yet to see any solid evidence of a policy based on political correctness actually interfering with a police investigation.  

[ClaphamFox]

6 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Hmm, it just seems to be speculation. Apparently it's never been standard practice to record the ethnicity of the perpetrators of this kind of crime. The police are duty bound to take all reports of crime seriously and conduct a proper investigation, something they failed to do a lot of the time. But I think lack of resources and from what I've read a prejudice against the victims was a bigger factor. 

 

'IICSA’s latest report, published on Tuesday, said there remained a “widespread failure to record the ethnicity of perpetrators and victims of child sexual exploitation”.

“It is unclear whether a misplaced sense of political correctness or the sheer complexity of the problem have inhibited good-quality data collection generally and on ethnicity more specifically,” it added.

“The failure to collect data on the ethnicity of the perpetrators and victims of child sexual exploitation, and the failure to make a public statement of the reasons why it is important to collect such data, have also led to a one-sided and often uninformed public debate where links have been made between ethnicity and a number of high-profile cases involving South Asian men.'

 

Some people seem to hold the belief that you can solve everything by data collection without giving police any more resources to tackle crime which I think is false. 

 

It's always smacked of a convenient excuse for police to blame their incompetence on 'political correctness'. I'm yet to see any solid evidence of a policy based on political correctness actually interfering with a police investigation.  

I don't think it's a case of having  a specific policy based on political correctness, but rather a deep-seated fear of upsetting a particular group of people because of how they might react. I don't know if you were able to access my second link, but it shows that a senior police officer admitted this was the case. It says:

 

"A senior police officer admitted that his force ignored the sexual abuse of girls by Pakistani grooming gangs for decades because it was afraid of increasing “racial tensions”, a watchdog has ruled.

 

"After a five-year investigation, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) upheld a complaint that the Rotherham officer told a missing child’s distraught father that the town “would erupt” if it was known that Asian men were routinely having sex with under-age white girls.

 

"The chief inspector is said to have described the abuse as “P*** shagging” and to have said it had been “going on” for 30 years: “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out.”

 

[bovril]

I find comparing religious texts to Nadine Dorries' books pretty offensive but I know I'm in the minority in the UK and obviously I'm not going to threaten anyone because I'm not a violent psychopath. Tbh I prefer Dagger's approach of 'i think it's all bollocks and if you don't like that then suck it up' compared to the posters trying to convince themselves you can say some things but should not do other things. Comes across as slightly hypocritical. It's similar to the debates about offensive words last week - offence is totally in the eye of the offendee.

Edited 3 March 2023 by bovril

[LiberalFox]

5 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I don't think it's a case of having  a specific policy based on political correctness, but rather a deep-seated fear of upsetting a particular group of people because of how they might react. I don't know if you were able to access my second link, but it shows that a senior police officer admitted this was the case. It says:

 

"A senior police officer admitted that his force ignored the sexual abuse of girls by Pakistani grooming gangs for decades because it was afraid of increasing “racial tensions”, a watchdog has ruled.

 

"After a five-year investigation, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) upheld a complaint that the Rotherham officer told a missing child’s distraught father that the town “would erupt” if it was known that Asian men were routinely having sex with under-age white girls.

 

"The chief inspector is said to have described the abuse as “P*** shagging” and to have said it had been “going on” for 30 years: “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out.”

 

I saw that bit yeah. It's a pretty wild quote. 

[Daggers]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

... (not that this was a crime). 

Thank you for agreeing with me.