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

by Muscular-mouse Wed 16 Aug - 17:14

First topic message reminder :

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."

by Scottrf Thu 17 Aug - 14:06

Muscular-mouse wrote:I don't know why we are even debating whether her words were poor or not she apologised for her 'extremely poor choice of words' so clearly her language was not clear cut.

Presumably statements like "These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage" rather than some of the other statements.

by Muscular-mouse Thu 17 Aug - 14:08

Scottrf wrote:1. British Pakistani men have raped and exploited white girls.

2. Raping and exploiting white girls is a problem.

3. Britain has a problem with British-Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.

3. Is a purely logical statement based on 1. and 2.

If you don't think 3. is correct then you must either believe that 1 or 2 isn't correct.

Inferring anything else from it (e.g. that all British-Pakistani men all r*** and exploit white girls) is not a logical step.

you are just arguing for arguments sake. She apologised herself for her poor choice of words after facing criticism that her comments labelled the entire Pakistani community as rapists so clearly the public do not agree with you

by Scottrf Thu 17 Aug - 14:09

Muscular-mouse wrote:you are just arguing for arguments sake. She apologised herself for her poor choice of words after facing criticism that her comments labelled the entire Pakistani community as rapists so clearly the public do not agree with you

Apologising for her poor choice of words doesn't mean that everything she wrote was wrong.

by Muscular-mouse Thu 17 Aug - 14:16

Scottrf wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:you are just arguing for arguments sake. She apologised herself for her poor choice of words after facing criticism that her comments labelled the entire Pakistani community as rapists so clearly the public do not agree with you
Apologising for her poor choice of words doesn't mean that everything she wrote was wrong.

we haven't debated that, we are debating that her choice of words was not clear.

by LionsV2 Thu 17 Aug - 14:25

Scottrf wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:I don't know why we are even debating whether her words were poor or not she apologised for her 'extremely poor choice of words' so clearly her language was not clear cut.
Presumably statements like "These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage" rather than some of the other statements.

Politicians are never forced into making statements are they because of party politics, someone releasing a statement doesn't mean a damn thing.

by **navyblueshorts** Thu 17 Aug - 14:44

Really, who gives a flying fig about our interpretation of her wording? The fact that we (and many others elsewhere) are arguing about it suggests that her wording was open to (mis?)interpretation. Q.E.D.

As for whether there actually is any substance to what she might have been trying to say, hopefully people are quietly trying to gather enough data to make an informed judgement and they won't pronounce through the fantasy comic that is The Sun.

by Muscular-mouse Thu 17 Aug - 19:58

Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

What is the evidence you are basing this off?

by Scottrf Fri 18 Aug - 8:52

Muscular-mouse wrote:
Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

What is the evidence you are basing this off?

https://www.606v2.com/t66210p50-sarah-champion-quits-labour-front-bench-over-r-article#3609841

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 18 Aug - 9:42

Scottrf wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:
Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

What is the evidence you are basing this off?
https://www.606v2.com/t66210p50-sarah-champion-quits-labour-front-bench-over-r-article#3609841

Very good.

by Muscular-mouse Fri 18 Aug - 10:22

Scottrf wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:
Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

What is the evidence you are basing this off?
https://www.606v2.com/t66210p50-sarah-champion-quits-labour-front-bench-over-r-article#3609841

I don't get it

by Scottrf Fri 18 Aug - 10:26

Muscular-mouse wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Muscular-mouse wrote:
Scottrf wrote:She's right though.

What is the evidence you are basing this off?
https://www.606v2.com/t66210p50-sarah-champion-quits-labour-front-bench-over-r-article#3609841

I don't get it

I'm aware. We're going round in circles though.

by the-goon Fri 18 Aug - 12:35

So to sum up this thread.

Some want to discuss the issue of Pakistani (not just Pakistani- Bangleseshi, Iraqi, Turkish etc.. and Somali- that was in Bristol) men grooming mainly white British girls.

Others want to turn the conversation from this topic to, she said ALL, it's not ALL, let's go home.

And to answer the question if it is a national problem, the fact that it has happened in the following towns that we know of suggest it is something that we should talk about:

Aylesbury ·
Banbury ·
Bristol ·
Derby ·
Halifax ·
Keighley ·
Newcastle ·
Oxford ·
Peterborough ·
Rochdale ·
Rotherham ·
Telford

by **Galted** Fri 18 Aug - 12:57

It shouldn't be talked about though because there might be a disagreement which would necessitate lots of name-calling and accusations.

by the-goon Fri 18 Aug - 13:02

Indeed, someone brings up a conversation you don't want to talk about, just call them racist and move on.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 18 Aug - 13:13

Yes, there should be a discussion, but language is important and its vagaries have too often been used to hide behind.

The thread title is about Champion quitting the Shadow front bench. Of course there'll be discussion about whether she should, or should not, have quit and that involves looking at what she said and why that led to her quitting.

by the-goon Fri 18 Aug - 14:10

Ok, let's have a discussion then.

Why are there Asian (not Hindu or Sikh mind you) grooming gangs in dozens of towns in England? What makes men from this community more likely do this? Could it be religion? As it seems to be a common denominator as well?

by Muscular-mouse Fri 18 Aug - 14:11

the-goon wrote:Ok, let's have a discussion then.

Why are there Asian (not Hindu or Sikh mind you) grooming gangs in dozens of towns in England? What makes men from this community more likely do this? Could it be religion? As it seems to be a common denominator as well?

do you have any stats to back up anything you are saying?

by **Galted** Fri 18 Aug - 14:18

Muscular-mouse wrote:
the-goon wrote:Ok, let's have a discussion then.

Why are there Asian (not Hindu or Sikh mind you) grooming gangs in dozens of towns in England? What makes men from this community more likely do this? Could it be religion? As it seems to be a common denominator as well?

do you have any stats to back up anything you are saying?

by Muscular-mouse Fri 18 Aug - 14:29

if you are going to say there is a problem with Pakistani brits and child grooming then surely you have evidence to back it up which means statistics or convictions etc

by LionsV2 Fri 18 Aug - 14:37

Aylesbury · http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11613475/Two-schoolgirls-abused-by-60-men-in-Aylesbury-child-sex-ring-court-hears.html
Bristol · http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30095960
Derby · http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11819732
Halifax · http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-36559092
Keighley · https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/10/keighley-girl-raped-by-14-men-court-told
Oxford · https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/14/oxford-gang-guilty-grooming-girls
Peterborough · https://www.channel4.com/news/peterborough-child-r***-gang-guilty-abuse
Rochdale · http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17993003
Rotherham · http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rotherham-grooming-gang-sentenced-to-combined-103-years-in-prison-for-r***-and-sex-abuse-of-girls-a6897731.html
Telford - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sex_abuse_ring

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 18 Aug - 15:16

Without a doubt there are problems with Pakistani grooming gangs...But we have to be careful with generalisation

We could point to the amount of BNP voters and generalise that white British are a bunch of racists

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 18 Aug - 15:57

the-goon wrote:Ok, let's have a discussion then.

Why are there Asian (not Hindu or Sikh mind you) grooming gangs in dozens of towns in England? What makes men from this community more likely do this? Could it be religion? As it seems to be a common denominator as well?

How about:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/14/child-grooming-sexual-abuse-race

Pay particular attention to the bits about occupations and nighttime economy.

Re. 'could it be religion', how do you know that even if there's statistically significant correlation with 'Asians' and grooming etc, that there's a strong correlation between those 'Asians' and them being religious?

As MM asked earlier in this thread, taking for granted (which we have no decent evidence to support) that 'Asians' are significantly more likely to behave this way, what about the same ethnic groups in other 'Western' nations? Same problems? Or no? In which case, what is it about Britain as it's clearly not ethnicity and highly unlikely to be religion then is it?

As things stand now, we don't have the data for this to be a sensible debate I'm afraid. It'll just be conjecture coloured by our political etc persuasions. In other words, I suggest we be very careful about what's posted on this conjecture.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 18 Aug - 16:02

One other thing. Nightmarish as these 'grooming gangs' are, the Daily Fail et al (surprise, surprise) tend to ensure that they're visualised as much more significant than they are.
These gangs probably account for a minuscule proportion of sexual abuse in Britain and I just wonder how much of the rest is accounted for by white, British men?

by LionsV2 Fri 18 Aug - 16:19

navyblueshorts wrote:One other thing. Nightmarish as these 'grooming gangs' are, the Daily Fail et al (surprise, surprise) tend to ensure that they're visualised as much more significant than they are.
These gangs probably account for a minuscule proportion of sexual abuse in Britain and I just wonder how much of the rest is accounted for by white, British men?

I made sure not to post any links to the Daily Mail, doesn't quite fit your viewpoint does it?

by the-goon Fri 18 Aug - 16:41

Have you read that guardian article?

A 2011 study by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre looked at the 2,379 potential offenders caught grooming girls since 2008. Of 940 suspects whose race could be identified, 26% were Asian, 38% were white and 32% were recorded as unknown. Asians are roughly 7% of the population.

2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black. The ethnicity of 21% of perpetrators was not recorded.

This means that black and asians WAAYY over respresented in these stats. To answer your question regarding white british men, yes they commit more total but as a % of population, they are under-represtented in the stats in terms of per capita.

Kinda funny that your evidence for your counter-point actually proves my point.

As for the "night economy", that could well be a factor but an over-representation of 400%? I doubt that.

What about the fact that in Islam you are allowed to own non-muslim sex slaves? Or the fact the prophet mohammed owned non-muslim sex slaves? And it is normal in Islamic cultures to marry girls from a very young age?

Are these the only reasons? I don't think so, there must be several contrabuting factors to be so far over representend in the stats.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 18 Aug - 16:50

LionsV2 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:One other thing. Nightmarish as these 'grooming gangs' are, the Daily Fail et al (surprise, surprise) tend to ensure that they're visualised as much more significant than they are.
These gangs probably account for a minuscule proportion of sexual abuse in Britain and I just wonder how much of the rest is accounted for by white, British men?

I made sure not to post any links to the Daily Mail, doesn't quite fit your viewpoint does it?

The Mail's a sensationalist, right-wing rag - of course it overdoes stories like this to fit its own agenda, even when theirs truth in something. Whatever. Instead of ignoring the main points I made, why not address them?

by the-goon Fri 18 Aug - 16:50

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Without a doubt there are problems with Pakistani grooming gangs...But we have to be careful with generalisation

We could point to the amount of BNP voters and generalise that white British are a bunch of racists

We aren't, we know it's not all pakistani men. You don't need to make this point, no one thinks it is. They just do it more often as % than the average Brit. That is the conversation.

So now we have that out of the way (after 3 pages) let's move on.

by LionsV2 Fri 18 Aug - 16:52

I did address them by posting links to ten non daily mail articles but you then go off on one about something entirely irrelevant, your inability to compartmentalise is making this an impossible debate.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 18 Aug - 17:03

the-goon wrote:Have you read that guardian article?

A 2011 study by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre looked at the 2,379 potential offenders caught grooming girls since 2008. Of 940 suspects whose race could be identified, 26% were Asian, 38% were white and 32% were recorded as unknown. Asians are roughly 7% of the population.

2012 found there were 1,514 perpetrators. Of these, 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black. The ethnicity of 21% of perpetrators was not recorded.

This means that black and asians WAAYY over respresented in these stats. To answer your question regarding white british men, yes they commit more total but as a % of population, they are under-represtented in the stats in terms of per capita.

Kinda funny that your evidence for your counter-point actually proves my point.

As for the "night economy", that could well be a factor but an over-representation of 400%? I doubt that.¹

What about the fact that in Islam you are allowed to own non-muslim sex slaves? Or the fact the prophet mohammed owned non-muslim sex slaves? And it is normal in Islamic cultures to marry girls from a very young age? ²

Are these the only reasons? I don't think so³, there must be several contrabuting factors to be so far over representend in the stats.

Jesus wept! Did you read my post?? Remember the bit about pointing you to the comments about occupations and nighttime economy? The FACT is that experts (far more expert than you or I) suggest you don't fixate on religious beliefs or ethnicity, but you go ahead and ignore that if you want. I wonder why?

¹ But you don't know. In fact, you have no actual idea, so best not to comment.
²Ah yes, your true colours and agenda start to show themselves. An expert on the Qur'an are you? Assuming true about Muhammed, no white, Christian men from ~600 A.D. ever had slaves or had sex with them then? White Christians didn't have slaves that they used for sex as recently as the 1800s? Or more recently? What's marrying women in other cultures at a younger age than 16 got to with sexual abuse? What do you mean by 'very young age' and what is your evidence of that/those ages? Little point in discussing when you've already decided what's going on.
³Again, you don't know and have no actual evidence to support your suggestion.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri 18 Aug - 17:07

LionsV2 wrote:I did address them by posting links to ten non daily mail articles but you then go off on one about something entirely irrelevant, your inability to compartmentalise is making this an impossible debate.

No, you addressed nothing at all. You posted links of who knows what, but you didn't either address or answer any of the substantive points I raised because they contradict (or might do) your preconceived conclusions. You don't want debate, unless discussion agrees with your position.

by Muscular-mouse Fri 18 Aug - 17:12

the-goon wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Without a doubt there are problems with Pakistani grooming gangs...But we have to be careful with generalisation

We could point to the amount of BNP voters and generalise that white British are a bunch of racists

We aren't, we know it's not all pakistani men. You don't need to make this point, no one thinks it is. They just do it more often as % than the average Brit. That is the conversation.

So now we have that out of the way (after 3 pages) let's move on.

in 2012 out of nearly 1500 arrests for child grooming only 45 were from Pakistan, I will try to find the source it was on the bbc website from a few years ago.

in 2007 Asians made up 5% of prison populations locked up for sexual crimes. (research by Sheffield halem university)

in 2012 the MOJ provided data on conviction rates for sex crimes and 8% were Asian.

Based on the above evidence there doesn't appear to be a problem within one community eg Asian or Pakistani because their conviction rates are roughly the same as their population rates.

https://fullfact.org/news/are-asians-disproportionately-represented-prosecutions-sex-offences/

by TRUSSMAN66 Fri 18 Aug - 17:16

the-goon wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Without a doubt there are problems with Pakistani grooming gangs...But we have to be careful with generalisation

We could point to the amount of BNP voters and generalise that white British are a bunch of racists

We aren't, we know it's not all pakistani men. You don't need to make this point, no one thinks it is. They just do it more often as % than the average Brit. That is the conversation.

So now we have that out of the way (after 3 pages) let's move on.

I know you're not making that point...I'm pointing out her generalising wasn't helpful as her resignation and subsequent apology bears out.

by Muscular-mouse Fri 18 Aug - 17:23

in 2012 there were 1514 convictions for child grooming and only 35 were Pakistani heritage.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/14/child-grooming-sexual-abuse-race

by the-goon Fri 18 Aug - 17:32

1. 400%, you think opportunsim accounts for 400%?

2. I don't need to be an expert, I just have read it. And I have. No white men that owned sex slaves is reverred as the perfect man like Mohammed is, non-sequitur. White men use sex slaves today, but they are vilified by the rest of society. Mohammed is considered one down from God, even today he is the moral standard. Big difference.
The fact these cultures are willing to marry their own daughters at a young age shows that they don't have the same distinction between and girl and woman. Sex with a 14 yr old isn't considered horrific, it's normal. It used to be normal back in the day in Europe, now it isn't.
3. When it comes to complex situations like this, there are multiple reasons. And the motivations of the perps will vary. The fact that whites in the UK commit the most in terms of numbers means that religion isn't the only factor. If my "agenda" is cos they wuz mooslim, it would fall apart pretty quickly.

My question is why are you so quick to take religion off the table? If millions of Chrstians are told that everything Jesus did was great, and he was the best man ever, AND he owned non-christian sex slaves AND married a 6 yr old, would you not think some would think it to be ok do the things he did and not think they are morally wrong?

by Muscular-mouse Fri 18 Aug - 17:36

are we seriously turning this into a debate about muslims?

the-goon wrote:1.
The fact these cultures are willing to marry their own daughters at a young age shows that they don't have the same distinction between and girl and woman. Sex with a 14 yr old isn't considered horrific, it's normal. It used to be normal back in the day in Europe, now it isn't.

And for your information many countries in Europe have low ages of consent such as spain where it was 12 years old until 2011/12 and there are about 25 countries in Europe where the age of consent is 15/14 including countries such as Portugal, france Iceland Greece etc etc etc

The average age of consent in the European union is 14...

by the-goon Fri 18 Aug - 17:43

Muscular-mouse wrote:
the-goon wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Without a doubt there are problems with Pakistani grooming gangs...But we have to be careful with generalisation

We could point to the amount of BNP voters and generalise that white British are a bunch of racists

We aren't, we know it's not all pakistani men. You don't need to make this point, no one thinks it is. They just do it more often as % than the average Brit. That is the conversation.

So now we have that out of the way (after 3 pages) let's move on.

in 2012 out of nearly 1500 arrests for child grooming only 45 were from Pakistan, I will try to find the source it was on the bbc website from a few years ago.

in 2007 Asians made up 5% of prison populations locked up for sexual crimes. (research by Sheffield halem university)

in 2012 the MOJ provided data on conviction rates for sex crimes and 8% were Asian.

Based on the above evidence there doesn't appear to be a problem within one community eg Asian or Pakistani because their conviction rates are roughly the same as their population rates.

https://fullfact.org/news/are-asians-disproportionately-represented-prosecutions-sex-offences/

These stats are in the Guardian article as well. We know 26% were asian, but we don't know which. 45 are Pakistan for sure but don't know that the remaining catagorically aren't.
I also see that this link is conflating general sex offenses with grooming, we are talking about grooming, and the status in your link match what is published in the guardian, namely asians massively over-repesented. Although the graphs aren't that easy to read.

by LionsV2 Fri 18 Aug - 17:50

How the hell has Muscle-mouse managed to read an article so spectacularly wrongly, all he's doing is twisting the figures in an attempt to reinforce his own opinion.

We're not talking about 2007 we're talking about the here and now, a recent case in India is quite an eye opener too. A girl of ten who was raped and subsequently fell pregnant was denied an abortion. We can't ignore that different cultures view certain things differently, an avoidance of discussing it achieves nothing.

by LionsV2 Fri 18 Aug - 17:52

navyblueshorts wrote:
LionsV2 wrote:I did address them by posting links to ten non daily mail articles but you then go off on one about something entirely irrelevant, your inability to compartmentalise is making this an impossible debate.
No, you addressed nothing at all. You posted links of who knows what, but you didn't either address or answer any of the substantive points I raised because they contradict (or might do) your preconceived conclusions. You don't want debate, unless discussion agrees with your position.

Your debate consists of wanting everyone to know that you don't want to offend anyone, that is it.

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 19 Aug - 12:17

LionsV2 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
LionsV2 wrote:I did address them by posting links to ten non daily mail articles but you then go off on one about something entirely irrelevant, your inability to compartmentalise is making this an impossible debate.
No, you addressed nothing at all. You posted links of who knows what, but you didn't either address or answer any of the substantive points I raised because they contradict (or might do) your preconceived conclusions. You don't want debate, unless discussion agrees with your position.

Your debate consists of wanting everyone to know that you don't want to offend anyone, that is it.

Still you haven't addressed or answered any of the points raised....

by LionsV2 Sat 19 Aug - 13:54

I quite clearly have, you just won't take any notice so what's the point of extending this lack of debate any further.

by **navyblueshorts** Sat 19 Aug - 18:43

Still not addressed them. You're not worth it...

Are you Hammersmith Harrier by another name? Inquiring minds want to know....

by the-goon Mon 21 Aug - 9:43

LionsV2 wrote:I quite clearly have, you just won't take any notice so what's the point of extending this lack of debate any further.

Yeah, like trying to play chess against a pigeon.

by Sponsored content