MPH Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August (edited) 48 minutes ago, kingcarr21 said: At least we now know why the Titanic sank because of all the shouty lefties? Edited 7 August by MPH 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 1 minute ago, Vacamion said: There have been false rumours about a demo in my part of the world, causing some businesses in the City Centre to close offices around the rumoured troublespot. Police up here have then issued a denial of any such demo saying it is just rumour. I've just seen on the local Reddit some made-up rubbish using suspiciously Russian grammatical style about an alleged racist attack, which got the name and geography of the City wrong. The internet is an utter cesspool. Let's turn it off and go back to sending each other letters. This itself seems always seems suspicious to me. Like if I were a Russian troll farm I'd hire people with perfect English language skills. Maybe it's GCHQ pretending to be Russian. Maybe it's a Russian pretending to be GCHQ pretending to be Russian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgtuk Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 1 minute ago, Foxdiamond said: Don't think too many over 65 were rioting. You don't miss an opportunity to have a go at pensioners and paint a picture that we are one mass that think and vote the same and from the same economic background. Nobody asked me in a poll by the way #notallpensioners 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPH Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 5 minutes ago, Vacamion said: The internet is an utter cesspool. Let's turn it off and go back to sending each other letters. but who’s going to turn my lights off for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hejammy Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 1 minute ago, MPH said: but who’s going to turn my lights off for me? I suggest you hire someone called Alexa but them someone might start shouting about "these foreigners taking out jobs" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 52 minutes ago, Basildon Fox said: https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2022/07/12/depraved-brothers-led-telford-paedophile-ring-that-groomed-and-prostituted-young-girls/ 1000 girls in just one case. I could go on but need to get some work done. I can only write what has been written with regards to ethnicity and religion of the girls targeted. The last sentence just completely baffles me. It is exactly the equivalent. Both disgraceful and should be condemned. Do not be foolish to think that one is worse than the other. It said "claims" that up to 1000 could have been affected. Which, later in the article, is completely rebuffed by the police. "I have no idea how they have come to that figure.” 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 25 minutes ago, Basildon Fox said: Ok, from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal A report from a three-year inquiry into the scandal was released in July 2022. It revealed that more than 1,000 girls had been abused over a 40 year period, and that agencies blamed them for the abuse they suffered, not the perpetrators, and some cases were not investigated because of "nervousness about race". The report made 47 recommendations for improvement by agencies involved. West Mercia Police apologized "unequivocally" for past events as well as Telford and Wrekin Council. Victims were often blamed with excuses that they were "willingly prostituting themselves" and perpetrators were emboldened by the lack of police action.[9][10] I'm afraid they simply don't know, all the reports etc use "could", "may", "upto". It's simply an estimate based on the numbers they DO know, and the population, and the amount of time. Could be more, could be a lot less... it's still disgusting and obviously one is enough. But lets say it was 1000... over a 40 year period that's 25 people a year. How many do you think we abused by the white population in that time? I'd wager it's a damn site more than 25 a year. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramboacdc Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August (edited) 9 minutes ago, Babylon said: It said "claims" that up to 1000 could have been affected. Which, later in the article, is completely rebuffed by the police. "I have no idea how they have come to that figure.” Never let the truth get in the way of getting someone to click onto the page and show them 4000 adverts to collect the revenue. My adblocker made the site look like the the page was written by a 5 year old. Edited 7 August by ramboacdc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 1 minute ago, Babylon said: I'm afraid they simply don't know, all the reports etc use "could", "may", "upto". It's simply an estimate based on the numbers they DO know, and the population, and the amount of time. Could be more, could be a lot less... it's still disgusting and obviously one is enough. But lets say it was 1000... over a 40 year period that's 25 people a year. How many do you think we abused by the white population in that time? I'd wager it's a damn site more than 25 a year. I think the most damaging thing about the 'Muslim grooming gangs' stuff is not just the crime itself but the notion that it was ignored or covered up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgtuk Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 6 minutes ago, bovril said: I think the most damaging thing about the 'Muslim grooming gangs' stuff is not just the crime itself but the notion that it was ignored or covered up. Also depressing that the word “Muslim” seems to be the driving force behind the accusations, as though all Muslims are guilty of something so all Muslims should be be responsible, be punished, call it out and apologise ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basildon Fox Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 13 minutes ago, Babylon said: I'm afraid they simply don't know, all the reports etc use "could", "may", "upto". It's simply an estimate based on the numbers they DO know, and the population, and the amount of time. Could be more, could be a lot less... it's still disgusting and obviously one is enough. But lets say it was 1000... over a 40 year period that's 25 people a year. How many do you think we abused by the white population in that time? I'd wager it's a damn site more than 25 a year. Ok, another from the bbc this time - 1400 targeted in Rotherham so yes, thousands and thousands of children. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61868863 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basildon Fox Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August Just now, jgtuk said: Also depressing that the word “Muslim” seems to be the driving force behind the accusations, as though all Muslims are guilty of something so all Muslims should be be responsible, be punished, call it out and apologise ffs. Erm, probably because they are grooming gangs and they were infact ALL muslim - Hence the name 'muslim grooming gang' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgtuk Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August Just now, Basildon Fox said: Erm, probably because they are grooming gangs and they were infact ALL muslim - Hence the name 'muslim grooming gang' You just don’t get it do you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 2 minutes ago, jgtuk said: Also depressing that the word “Muslim” seems to be the driving force behind the accusations, as though all Muslims are guilty of something so all Muslims should be be responsible, be punished, call it out and apologise ffs. True, it was mostly British-Pakistanis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basildon Fox Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August (edited) 4 minutes ago, jgtuk said: You just don’t get it do you. What do I not get? What is it you are trying to say? Am I not allowed to say what it is for what it is? 4 minutes ago, bovril said: True, it was mostly British-Pakistanis. Is ok to put what Bovril has said? After all both statements are true. Edited 7 August by Basildon Fox 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 7 August Author Share Posted 7 August Q: Why aren't the lamestream media calling out the riots for being riots? (Not my question, it's been used here in a form) A: The Riot Compensation Act 2016 The media is restricted to reporting fact, whether you think it's fact or not. Consequently, to use a term that is not being used by the blue light services (because it's not being used by the government) means they can't use 'riot' as a descriptor. Why isn't the government calling them riots? Because The Riot Compensation Act 2016 means they'd have to pick up the tab for everything that has been broken, set fire to or destroyed. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trav Le Bleu Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 47 minutes ago, Vacamion said: There have been false rumours about a demo in my part of the world, causing some businesses in the City Centre to close offices around the rumoured troublespot. Police up here have then issued a denial of any such demo saying it is just rumour. I've just seen on the local Reddit some made-up rubbish using suspiciously Russian grammatical style about an alleged racist attack, which got the name and geography of the City wrong. The internet is an utter cesspool. Let's turn it off and go back to sending each other letters. Not too many letters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post StanSP Posted 7 August Popular Post Share Posted 7 August 7 minutes ago, Basildon Fox said: What do I not get? What is it you are trying to say? Am I not allowed to say what it is for what it is? Is ok to put what Bovril has said? After all both statements are true. He meant that you're tarring all Muslims, not that he is denying it was a Muslim 'gang' doing the abusing. You can't tar ALL Muslims because of two absolute wrong-uns and their dirty mates. 2 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgtuk Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August Just now, bovril said: True, it was mostly British-Pakistanis. Paedophiles, groomers, sex offenders etc. are very good descriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basildon Fox Posted 7 August Share Posted 7 August 1 minute ago, StanSP said: He meant that you're tarring all Muslims, not that he is denying it was a Muslim 'gang' doing the abusing. You can't tar ALL Muslims because of two absolute wrong-uns and their dirty mates. But is that what is happening? Where has been suggested that all muslims are peadophiles? Seriously, this is happening all over the country and that is the most important thing to come from that? Really? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts