Who agrees with Boris?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

84% of British grooming gangs are Asian (Pakistani and Afghani in the main). Pakistanis make up 3% of the British population, half that will be women, perhaps half again not of the right age to commit such crimes.

We are looking at around 1% of the British population constituting 84% of grooming gangs.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 01941.html

That is simply because white British men do their grooming on-line, and not in gangs.

From the same article

British white men they tend to work individually. They tend to work online where they groom and they are the majority of perpetrators.

No mention of women there?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

It's not as if the Christians are innocent:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us- ... ical-abuse

I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but I think the argument goes like this: Christian abusers do it despite their faith and/or culture. Muslim abusers do it because of their faith and/or culture.

The result is the same.
That said I'm of the opinion Christians who abuse children in their charge actually go into the priesthood for that reason,along with scoutmasers,football coaches,etc,etc,etc.

Don't forget charities.

[reohn2]

Hi,
Mmm rose coloured spectacles!

Multicultural is banded around like cycle HI ways, its fashionable to say but is skin deep and flawed I.M.O.

Anyway I will lift the shades and say Farage is back......................

Multiculturalism only works when all cultures involved are prepared to accept each other's culture within the framework of law of the land.
The problems begin when people of any particular group(usually the dominent group) begin to point accusing fingers at any particular group in total for the actions of a few of that group,or the ruling/dominent group have one rule for themselves and not for another.

[reohn2]

Hi,

84% of British grooming gangs are Asian (Pakistani and Afghani in the main). Pakistanis make up 3% of the British population, half that will be women, perhaps half again not of the right age to commit such crimes.

We are looking at around 1% of the British population constituting 84% of grooming gangs.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 01941.html

That is simply because white British men do their grooming on-line, and not in gangs.

From the same article

British white men they tend to work individually. They tend to work online where they groom and they are the majority of perpetrators.

No mention of women there?

Could you explain what you mean by that statement?

[reohn2]

Hi,

I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth, but I think the argument goes like this: Christian abusers do it despite their faith and/or culture. Muslim abusers do it because of their faith and/or culture.

The result is the same.
That said I'm of the opinion Christians who abuse children in their charge actually go into the priesthood for that reason,along with scoutmasers,football coaches,etc,etc,etc.

Don't forget charities.

They were included in the etc,etc,etc

[reohn2]

Could this be termed as "not integrating" or just merely an excuse not to award citizenship:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45232147

[pete75]

How many practising Muslims do you think there are there in this country? How do you think they are going to take us over?

Don't be ridiculous.

What is not ridiculous is that there is a lack of assimilation by largely British-Pakistani Muslims. This has been identified by the phrase 'Half a mile or half a world' where it is recognised that some Muslims never really stray from the area they live in UK and are more comfortable going back to Pakistan to be married to a local woman there. This means that the usual and gradual assimilation into UK society never happens - the women especially never learn English (or at least good English) and the families do not move out of a constant cycle of association with Pakistan, or probably more accurately, their local customs and behaviours there.

Recently a report (can't find it but it caused a stir at the time) found that of a substantial number of British-Pakistani Labour councillors on just one council all but one had married brides back in Pakistan. It obviously isn't wrong - though a disturbing number marry first cousins - but it shows just how far away real integration is.

The British were in India for over 200 years. They made no attempt to assimilate into the culture, continued , few learnt a local language and almost all the men married brides from the UK. Just what is your point?

[pete75]

It's odd that many mention Islam and terrorism and Islam and child sex abuse so frequently without mentioning any other religion. Why don't they attack the Roman Catholic religion in the same way. One or two examples of the many examples of Catholic abuse here - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 84406.html , https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/us/c ... vania.html . Then there's terrorism - during my life time Roman Catholic terrorists have carried out the vast majority of attacks in Britain. To vehemently criticise one of these religions for this without similarly criticising the other is rank hypocrisy.

[Freddie]

The British were in India for over 200 years. They made no attempt to assimilate into the culture, continued , few learnt a local language and almost all the men married brides from the UK. Just what is your point?

But why should they assimilate though, they were bringing much needed diversity and multiculturalism to India. The same argument applies when the migration is in the other direction.

The British were just bringing diversity to India (along with roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, sewage systems, electricity, rule of law and so on). I thought diversity was a good thing?

They did marry a number of Indian women also, their descendants today are called Anglo-Indians.

[pete75]

The British were in India for over 200 years. They made no attempt to assimilate into the culture, continued , few learnt a local language and almost all the men married brides from the UK. Just what is your point?

But why should they assimilate though, they were bringing much needed diversity and multiculturalism to India. The same argument applies when the migration is in the other direction.

Weren't the British just bringing diversity to India (along with roads, railways, bridges, tunnels, sewage systems, electricity, rule of law and so on), I thought diversity was a good thing?

They did marry a number of Indian women also, their descendants today are called Anglo-Indians.

If you think diversity is a good thing why are a large proportion of your posts on this forum critical of the UK's muslim population?

[Freddie]

I am just calling attention to what I think may be a double standard, pete. Why are the British in India not considered a manifestation of diversity in the same way modern immigration to Britain is?

[reohn2]

I am just calling attention to what I think may be a double standard, pete. Why are the British in India not considered a manifestation of diversity in the same way modern immigration to Britain is?

As part of their empire plan to conquer dominate and subdue the population for the riches it brought that empire.Any good that came out of it was a spin off of that,not for the Indian people's.
I would have thought that blindingly obvious.

[Freddie]

If they only wanted to pillage India of its resource, they why leave all the infrastructure that they had built on the handing back of India. Was it only for a lack of ability to do so that the British didn't destroy all the railways, bridges, tunnels in India upon leaving. They could have TNT'd the lot, but didn't, why not?

[Vorpal]

No mention of women there?

Less than 1% of perpetrators are women.

[reohn2]

If they only wanted to pillage India of its resource, they why leave all the infrastructure that they had built on the handing back of India. Was it only for a lack of ability to do so that the British didn't destroy all the railways, bridges, tunnels in India upon leaving. They could have TNT'd the lot, but didn't, why not?

The empire was in total collapse after WW2 they wanted to appear at least to look to the rest of the world as well as India,that they were a little humane,especially the number of Indian soldiers who died in that conflict not three yeas previous,plus they knew they would also need to trade with India after the withdrawal.
And even destroying stuff costs money to a country that was broke.
I would've thought this also to be blindingly obvious too.