Sarah Champion quits Labour front bench over r*** article

Labour shadow minister Sarah Champion has quit the party's front bench after criticism over a newspaper article she wrote about grooming gangs.
The Rotherham MP wrote in The Sun that "Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls".
She has now apologised for her "extremely poor choice of words" and quit as shadow equalities minister

In interviews following the convictions, the Labour MP said such crimes involved "predominately Pakistani men" and said a fear of being called racist was hampering the authorities' investigations.
She then penned the Sun article, which also included the line: "These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage."

In fairness Rotherham had a terrible problem in this regard and it may be an emotive subject....

But you can't generalise and she has done the right thing....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:In fairness Rotherham had a terrible problem in this regard and it may be an emotive subject....

But you can't generalise and she has done the right thing....

Agreed. One certainly can't generalise like that these days, and definitely not in a public office like she held.

She's right though.

Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

Except....she's not. Even factually. Let alone in extrapolating to entire populations.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

Except....she's not. Even factually. Let alone in extrapolating to entire populations.

Why would you extrapolate to entire populations? That's a literacy problem.

The police have also said in the past that a failure to speak about the racial aspect of these crimes has hampered their investigations.

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

Except....she's not. Even factually. Let alone in extrapolating to entire populations.

Why would you extrapolate to entire populations? That's a literacy problem.

The police have also said in the past that a failure to speak about the racial aspect of these crimes has hampered their investigations.

I agree with you, why when talking about a specific aspect of something would extrapolate to an entire population, I don't remember seeing her say the word only.

There was research which highlighted that Asian men do commit a lot of the sexual crimes that are happening in society now (30%) BUT it stated that this was not to do with their race but because they often work in jobs where they have contact with vulnerable women such as fast food restaurants and mini cab services and working in off licences and shops. The young girls come in and they befriend them by offering them free food, free cigarettes and free alcohol and drugs. This grooming continues until they get the young girls trust and invite them to parties etc where they are then the sexual objects of the men.

So based on the research it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with working in a job where you have access to young vulnerable girls.

Muscular-mouse wrote:There was research which highlighted that Asian men do commit a lot of the sexual crimes that are happening in society now (30%) BUT it stated that this was not to do with their race but because they often work in jobs where they have contact with vulnerable women such as fast food restaurants and mini cab services and working in off licences and shops. The young girls come in and they befriend them by offering them free food, free cigarettes and free alcohol and drugs. This grooming continues until they get the young girls trust and invite them to parties etc where they are then the sexual objects of the men.

So based on the research it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with working in a job where you have access to young vulnerable girls.

How did they account for selection bias? A lot of people come into contact with vulnerable women.

She did say the Sun edited her original text to make it less nuanced. However, I agree that for someone in her position having this published under your name made that position untenable.

There is a reasonable debate to be had regarding the behaviour of some young men of British Pakistani origin with regard to white girls (I heard a story even back in the late 1980s - not quite the same as these, but relating to young white girls acting as prostitutes for predominantly anglo-asian clientele), and as to whether authorities (police, social services) have tended to avoid investigating some incidents for fear of being branded racist (or because they couldn't get sufficient information from the community).

Obviously it is a complete nonsense to suggest this applies to the entire population (in the same way as suggesting all British Muslims support AQ or ISIS), but there do seem to be occasional clusters / gangs who do act terribly - it is likely that these groups are somewhat self-reinforcing in normalising these behaviours and in 'dehumanising' the girls involved.

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

Except....she's not. Even factually. Let alone in extrapolating to entire populations.

Why would you extrapolate to entire populations? That's a literacy problem.

The police have also said in the past that a failure to speak about the racial aspect of these crimes has hampered their investigations.

Huh? I didn't. She did. That's the issue and why she's quit.

There are over 1m people in this Country that have their origins in Pakistan..

It really was Amateur night...Just what is needed in these racially sensitive times..

She is a Rotherham mp so perhaps we can cut her a little slack..

Unhelpful though.

LionsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

Except....she's not. Even factually. Let alone in extrapolating to entire populations.

Why would you extrapolate to entire populations? That's a literacy problem.

The police have also said in the past that a failure to speak about the racial aspect of these crimes has hampered their investigations.

I agree with you, why when talking about a specific aspect of something would extrapolate to an entire population, I don't remember seeing her say the word only.

No?

Sarah Champion wrote:"Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls."*

* - Sources: Huffington Post, Independent (sure many more would confirm).

What is it about this that people don't get? You cannot generalise like this anymore and doing so in public office is pretty much the end of you. There may well be nuance here and statistically significant correlations between this sort of behaviour and ethic groups, but you cannot make statements that all of those from an ethnic/National group behave in a single fashion.

She didn't say anything about 'all'.

If I were to say that Britain had a problem with media personalities exploiting there position ala Jimmy Savile or Rolf Harris, that would be true, at no point did I say that all of them do it.

LionsV2 wrote:She didn't say anything about 'all'.

Don't be ridiculous. You know that the literal meaning of what she said means all British Pakistanis. Stop being an apologist for idiocy and racism. Can't say I'm surprised.

She was also stupid as the offenders came from Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish communities.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

Except....she's not. Even factually. Let alone in extrapolating to entire populations.

Why would you extrapolate to entire populations? That's a literacy problem.

The police have also said in the past that a failure to speak about the racial aspect of these crimes has hampered their investigations.

Huh? I didn't. She did. That's the issue and why she's quit.

No she didn't.

"Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls." =/= All British Pakistani men r*** and exploit white girls.

Reading is hard.

LionsV2 wrote:If I were to say that Britain had a problem with media personalities exploiting there position ala Jimmy Savile or Rolf Harris, that would be true, at no point did I say that all of them do it.

Stop splitting hairs. If you don't mean all, then you have to qualify your comments otherwise it's normal and reasonable to assume you mean all. What you're doing is cowardly - you can't even be bother to say, and then defend, what you really mean.

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

Except....she's not. Even factually. Let alone in extrapolating to entire populations.

Why would you extrapolate to entire populations? That's a literacy problem.

The police have also said in the past that a failure to speak about the racial aspect of these crimes has hampered their investigations.

Huh? I didn't. She did. That's the issue and why she's quit.

No she didn't.

"Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls." =/= All British Pakistani men r*** and exploit white girls.

Reading is hard.

So is comprehension, which is clearly your issue. I'm done with this and the cowards who try to use linguistic nuance to hide behind their sewer thoughts and stupidity.

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:If I were to say that Britain had a problem with media personalities exploiting there position ala Jimmy Savile or Rolf Harris, that would be true, at no point did I say that all of them do it.

Stop splitting hairs. If you don't mean all, then you have to qualify your comments otherwise it's normal and reasonable to assume you mean all. What you're doing is cowardly - you can't even be bother to say, and then defend, what you really mean.

It's not normal at all. The Catholic church had/s a problem with priests abusing their position. That doesn't mean all priests do.

navyblueshorts wrote:So is comprehension, which is clearly your issue. I'm done with this and the cowards who try to use linguistic nuance to hide behind their sewer thoughts and stupidity.

No you snowflakes just ignore nuance and try to twist meaning in a bid to be outraged.

When people say footballers get paid too much, do you take that to mean all footballers, including those playing Sunday league?

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:If I were to say that Britain had a problem with media personalities exploiting there position ala Jimmy Savile or Rolf Harris, that would be true, at no point did I say that all of them do it.

Stop splitting hairs. If you don't mean all, then you have to qualify your comments otherwise it's normal and reasonable to assume you mean all. What you're doing is cowardly - you can't even be bother to say, and then defend, what you really mean.

It's not normal at all. The Catholic church had/s a problem with priests abusing their position. That doesn't mean all priests do.

No, but then you haven't written a statement, or given me a quote from whomever, in the same style open to challenge as you've done on the Newcastle abuse issue. Whatever. You still don't get it. Enjoy the rest of your chat with whomever.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:If I were to say that Britain had a problem with media personalities exploiting there position ala Jimmy Savile or Rolf Harris, that would be true, at no point did I say that all of them do it.

Stop splitting hairs. If you don't mean all, then you have to qualify your comments otherwise it's normal and reasonable to assume you mean all. What you're doing is cowardly - you can't even be bother to say, and then defend, what you really mean.

It's not normal at all. The Catholic church had/s a problem with priests abusing their position. That doesn't mean all priests do.

No, but then you haven't written a statement, or given me a quote from whomever, in the same style open to challenge as you've done on the Newcastle abuse issue. Whatever. You still don't get it. Enjoy the rest of your chat with whomever.

So you twist a statement, get offended, then storm off in a huff when someone disagrees? Pathetic.

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:So is comprehension, which is clearly your issue. I'm done with this and the cowards who try to use linguistic nuance to hide behind their sewer thoughts and stupidity.

No you snowflakes just ignore nuance and try to twist meaning in a bid to be outraged.

No, but you don't, and never will, get it. Last from me on this.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:So is comprehension, which is clearly your issue. I'm done with this and the cowards who try to use linguistic nuance to hide behind their sewer thoughts and stupidity.

No you snowflakes just ignore nuance and try to twist meaning in a bid to be outraged.

No, but you don't, and never will, get it. Last from me on this.

The idea that I don't understand because I don't extrapolate a statement to an entire population is laughable.

'Has Britain solved its teen pregnancy problem'

http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2561

= every teen in Britain is pregant.

What the flip are you going on about, if you don't use the word all then you don't mean all, the fact that you are jumping to conclusions based on something that hasn't been said is your problem.

LionsV2 wrote:She didn't say anything about 'all'.

Pakistani men...Is a generalisation.

More fool her if she didn't clarify her position hence leaving it open to interpretation...If she did clarify it further. More fool her for giving her article in good faith to a right wing toilet of a paper that lied about Hillsborough.

Amateur night.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Pakistani men...Is a generalisation.

But she didn't say that to the exclusion of other groups. We have a problem with young men suffering mental problems without speaking out, that doesn't mean they are the only ones.

Also she used the qualifying word predominantly.

This sort of reaction is why these issues can't be discussed sensibly and we have to pretend that everyone is the same.

You are reading too much into it..

People want the debate they just don't want divisive rhetoric.

Debate it just don't mention it.

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

Except....she's not. Even factually. Let alone in extrapolating to entire populations.

Why would you extrapolate to entire populations? That's a literacy problem.

The police have also said in the past that a failure to speak about the racial aspect of these crimes has hampered their investigations.

Huh? I didn't. She did. That's the issue and why she's quit.

No she didn't.

"Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls." =/= All British Pakistani men r*** and exploit white girls.

Reading is hard.

The problem is her quote is not very clear and its adding fuel to the fire for racism. her quote saying Britain has a problem with british Pakistani men raping white girls is a massive generalisation, and it easily can be interpreted as saying that all Pakistani men have a r*** problem. Now you can say that it is just left wing people interpreting it that way but I saw many comments on social media by right wing people who quoted her in their arguments that Asian men are criminals and scum etc etc Right wing people were using her quote as justification for their racism. That is why she had to stand down because her quote was fueling racism and she never should have generalised.

Muscular-mouse wrote:The problem is her quote is not very clear and its adding fuel to the fire for racism.  her quote saying Britain has a problem with british Pakistani men raping white girls is a massive generalisation, and it easily can be interpreted as saying that all Pakistani men have a r*** problem. Now you can say that it is just left wing people interpreting it that way but I saw many comments on social media by right wing people who quoted her in their arguments that Asian men are criminals and scum etc etc Right wing people were using her quote as justification for their racism. That is why she had to stand down because her quote was fueling racism and she never should have generalised.

It's clear to me. I never take a statement to mean all unless somebody says all. We have an obesity problem in Britain. I don't think the whole country is obese.

Someone losing their job because a lot of people can't read properly is a bit much.

LionsV2 wrote:Debate it just don't mention it.

Don't generalise is the answer...Not for the reader to examine what she doesn't say...But what she does say.

She's apologised..You have neglected to mention that.

Do we have a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls? I know there's been an issue in some areas (in which she sould have highlighted the areas) but is this an issue across the UK.

We do have a massive problem with being able to talk about these things in a sensible manner though

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:The problem is her quote is not very clear and its adding fuel to the fire for racism.  her quote saying Britain has a problem with british Pakistani men raping white girls is a massive generalisation, and it easily can be interpreted as saying that all Pakistani men have a r*** problem. Now you can say that it is just left wing people interpreting it that way but I saw many comments on social media by right wing people who quoted her in their arguments that Asian men are criminals and scum etc etc Right wing people were using her quote as justification for their racism. That is why she had to stand down because her quote was fueling racism and she never should have generalised.

It's clear to me. I never take a statement to mean all unless somebody says all. We have an obesity problem in Britain. I don't think the whole country is obese.

Someone losing their job because a lot of people can't read properly is a bit much.

I don't think you quite understand the point being made by navy and myself, maybe she was only referring to a small percentage of Pakistani men, maybe she was referring to them all we will never know based on that quote which is why it was being used by right wing to justify their racism.


race is not the same as obesity you have to be very cautious because of the violence and hatred that can happen due to racism. To make an ambiguous quote such as 'Britain has a problem with Pakistani men' is very unprofessional for an mp and if she only meant some she should have said some (even though I don't think she needed to even mention race).

Derbymanc wrote:Do we have a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls?

Yes we do.

Now, do we know if the problem is because they are Pakistani (and the cultural differences associated etc) or because of other factors that happen to mean they are in situations to be able to take advantage? Probably not. But we wont know if we can't talk about it sensibly and without being crucified for pointing it out.

Muscular-mouse wrote:I don't think you quite understand the point being made by navy and myself, maybe she was only referring to a small percentage of Pakistani men, maybe she was referring to them all we will never know based on that quote which is why it was being used by right wing to justify their racism.


race is not the same as obesity you have to be very cautious because of the violence and hatred that can happen due to racism. To make an ambiguous quote such as 'Britain has a problem with Pakistani men' is very unprofessional for an mp and if she only meant some she should have said some (even though I don't think she needed to even mention race).

I understand perfectly well what you're saying. But I also understand that you're not reading the words in a logical context. Taking it to mean all is just ridiculous. As I asked earlier, if someone was to say footballers are overpaid, would you think that they also meant Sunday league footballers? Of course not, it's not a logical step. If they said the Catholic church had a problem with priests abusing their position would you presume they meant every priest? No you wouldn't.

Think some posters are conflating a problem with her terminology with a reluctance to debate the subject.

Think it's a bit of both to be honest Truss, if there's a problem then i don't see how her statement is wrong and instead of letting the right shout it loud that it's saying All we should be explaining why it's not. Otherwise we're back to square one where you can't talk about one section of society for fear of it being taken out of context

Muscular-mouse wrote:

I don't think you quite understand the point being made by navy and myself, maybe she was only referring to a small percentage of Pakistani men, maybe she was referring to them all we will never know based on that quote which is why it was being used by right wing to justify their racism.


race is not the same as obesity you have to be very cautious because of the violence and hatred that can happen due to racism. To make an ambiguous quote such as 'Britain has a problem with Pakistani men' is very unprofessional for an mp and if she only meant some she should have said some (even though I don't think she needed to even mention race).

It has nothing to do with the right wing using it to justify their racism, trends tend to show that UKIP voters jumped to Labour not the Conservatives at the last general election. There's also the small matter of Ken Livingstone, he's fairly left wing.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:I don't think you quite understand the point being made by navy and myself, maybe she was only referring to a small percentage of Pakistani men, maybe she was referring to them all we will never know based on that quote which is why it was being used by right wing to justify their racism.


race is not the same as obesity you have to be very cautious because of the violence and hatred that can happen due to racism. To make an ambiguous quote such as 'Britain has a problem with Pakistani men' is very unprofessional for an mp and if she only meant some she should have said some (even though I don't think she needed to even mention race).

I understand perfectly well what you're saying. But I also understand that you're not reading the words in a logical context. Taking it to mean all is just ridiculous. As I asked earlier, if someone was to say footballers are overpaid, would you think that they also meant Sunday league footballers? Of course not, it's not a logical step. If they said the Catholic church had a problem with priests abusing their position would you presume they meant every priest? No you wouldn't.

Taking it to NOT mean all is ridiculous in my opinion. You see what I did there? You interpreted the words 'british Pakistani men have a problem' to mean some and I interpreted it to mean all, and judging by the left wing response of criticising her and the right wing response to use her statement to fuel their racism I believe the majority of the public agree with me. That is why she lost her job.

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Taking it to NOT mean all is ridiculous in my opinion. You see what I did there? You interpreted the words 'british Pakistani men have a problem' to mean some and I interpreted it to mean all, and judging by the left wing response of criticising her and the right wing response to use her statement to fuel their racism I believe the majority of the public agree with me. That is why she lost her job.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, you've jumped to a conclusion based on nothing but assumption, your stupidity in interpreting it wrong is your fault not that of Sarah Champion.

LionsV2 wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:

Taking it to NOT mean all is ridiculous in my opinion. You see what I did there? You interpreted the words 'british Pakistani men have a problem' to mean some and I interpreted it to mean all, and judging by the left wing response of criticising her and the right wing response to use her statement to fuel their racism I believe the majority of the public agree with me. That is why she lost her job.

That makes absolutely no sense at all, you've jumped to a conclusion based on nothing but assumption, your stupidity in interpreting it wrong is your fault not that of Sarah Champion.

how can assuming an ambiguous sentence such as british Pakistani men have a problem means she could have been talking about them all?

To be honest debating you is rather boring as you make lots of statements without backing them up and just keep repeating yourself and so far in all of your posts your goal has been to defend racism so I am putting you on my blocked list so I don't have to see any of your nonsense anymore

Muscular-mouse wrote:Taking it to NOT mean all is ridiculous in my opinion. You see what I did there? You interpreted the words 'british Pakistani men have a problem' to mean some and I interpreted it to mean all, and judging by the left wing response of criticising her and the right wing response to use her statement to fuel their racism I believe the majority of the public agree with me. That is why she lost her job.

Please don't use quote marks if you're not quoting, it's disingenuous.

Go ahead it just proves to me the fragility of your stance that you're not actually able to debate it, not entirely sure where I've defended racism but you seem to think everything has definitive right and wrong which is not the case. If you're reading things that haven't been said then that says more about you than it does me.

To be honest I don't have a clue what your first sentence is meant to say.

The problem with her initial statement is that people as seen above will read into it as they seem fit. She could have said all, some, a few, a minority or a majority. But by saying British Pakistani men have a problem it then opens the can of worms to which people then become transfixed upon rather than addressing the actual issue.

Hero wrote:The problem with her initial statement is that people as seen above will read into it as they seem fit. She could have said all, some, a few, a minority or a majority. But by saying British Pakistani men have a problem it then opens the can of worms to which people then become transfixed upon rather than addressing the actual issue.

She didn't. Muscular-mouse said that.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Don't be ridiculous. You know that the literal meaning of what she said means all British Pakistanis. Stop being an apologist for idiocy and racism. Can't say I'm surprised.

What you're doing is cowardly - you can't even be bother to say, and then defend, what you really mean.

I'm done with this and the cowards who try to use linguistic nuance to hide behind their sewer thoughts and stupidity.

Same old cobblers whenever an issue like this arises. People don't set out to debate the issue, they set out to try and prove to everyone as quickly as possible that they have the moral high ground. Anything outside of that is unimportant to them.

Only a pedant looking to be offended would take what Champion said to automatically mean 'all' British-Pakistani men. I'm absolutely amazed that anyone could genuinely be arguing that point. God knows how we're supposed to debate anything with someone who demands absolute literal accuracy and qualification on every single word used.

Someone simply arguing (reasonably) that she almost certainly didn't mean 'all', and that taking it to mean 'all' would be a very small minority stance (it would) gets you branded a 'coward' who conceals 'sewer thoughts.' Ironically, all of this decided without the likes of Lion, Scott etc. clearly saying stupid or sewer-like things...Which is apparently the whole crux of Navy's argument to begin with. Only seems to go one way.

For what it's worth, there's a debate to be had about the issue at hand, Champion's statement etc. But this guff? Absolutely embarrassing.