hypochondriac

Again it's not a consensus of opinion, it's the same handful of posters who largely agree with each other on most other things. Regarding pointless conversations, it's quite simple for you to not reply and waste your time in that manner. Strange that you wouldn't.

It matters when people post falsehoods about what I think so ill correct the record. What the usual handful of posters think individually means very little.

I'm sure you would. That's why it's difficult to have a sensible conversation.

Enough of the ones that matter are able to apply a bit of critical thinking and can accomplish it.

I know you don't. Unfortunately not really anything I can do about that as you would believe I'm a secret racist whatever I said. All I can do is repeat again that I'm not and explain my reasons. Some posters understand that, even some who disagree with me.

I'm not sure what that means. I've got no desire to 'present well' however that manifests, I'm simply just giving my opinion. I don't think it's anywhere near as black and white as some people who disagree with me politically think it is. There's nothing to see through, simply a failure by the usual handful of largely like minded postera who think I secretly believe something I've said repeatedly I don't believe.

Time and again the likes of you and egg allege that. You continually assume bad faith rather than asking for a clarification or accepting what I say. It's not my fault if you refuse to accept what I believe when I've told you explicitly. This conversation began because you claimed I wanted people to think that Pakistani Muslims were the only people who are hooligans and paedophiles- something I have never claimed or ever thought.

Do you have a statistic for how many men are arriving on small boats compared to family men with the rest of their family? Edit just checked. According to migration observatory 76% are adult men so detaining the adult male population who come over would solve a massive part of the problem

How many non Pakistani grooming gangs have either you or farmer posted about beyond the link Farmer just posted?

Statistically it's the men that are the issue though isn't it. Id we had a bunch of women coming over and committing serious crimes then maybe you'd have to look at it but that seems very unlikely.

I genuinely don't see a problem if you're a foreign man and you illegally enter the country on a small boat then the policy should be that you are detained somewhere like a barracks, provided with food and basic services but have your movements and interactions with the native population restricted until there is some certainty about who you are and the danger you pose to others. That to me is not the same thing as detaining every person in the country because they might pose a threat. If a migrant t thinks that's an unfair approach then maybe they should consider not entering the UK on a small boat.

But we know that the prevailing attitude of failing to call out the minorities involved in grooming gangs has been a leading factor in its proliferation and continuation for decades.

Ignore that it was sent in error.

In what way is that the same thing?

Edit: posted in error. You could argue they'd contributed but in reality their contribution would be relatively tiny.

Lets just be glad that the pressure is on for Labour to do a proper inquiry that gets some semblance of justice for the victims. Those who have turned a blind eye or who seek to deny or downplay the ethnic and religious makeup of a disproportionate number of the perpetrators are no longer in control of the narrative. There should no longer be a cover up of the motivations for the majority of these crimes. People Insinuating racism for pointing out the truth are frankly a big part of the problem and have contributed to the mass rape of working class children and young women in this country.

I can't be bothered to go and find the actual stats but these types of grooming gang cases in the UK have been predominantly perpetrated by Pakistani males. Even Labour have begrudgingly accepted that to be the case. Lets remember that Baroness Casey said in her report that the ethnicity of people involved in grooming gangs has been shied away from. You're doing what she was criticising by requesting that we look elsewhere. A grooming gang investigation will include all types of grooming gangs but will obviously heavily feature Pakistani grooming gangs because they are the highest in number for all the reasons that have been outlined elsewhere- cultural, religious, familial etc. Baroness Casey highlighted this: "disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds amongst suspects for group-based child sexual exploitation" In a later interview, Lady Casey said the data should be investigated as it was "only helping the bad people" not to give a full picture of the situation, adding: "You're doing a disservice to two sets of population, the Pakistani and Asian heritage community, and victims." The report concluded that ignorance and a fear of being seen as racist meant organisations tasked with protecting children turned a blind eye to abuse. "We found many examples of organisations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist, raising community tensions or causing community cohesion problems," the report said. The audit criticised the "failure" of the authorities to "understand" the nature and scale of the problem to date. Wanting a grooming gang inquiry in order to stop girls from being exploited doesn't mean that you'd ignore the smaller amount of grooming gang cases not involving Asian men, that would be bizarre.

I struggle with the idea of allowing unknown threats including potential rapists, paedophiles, terrorists etc to roam the streets of Britain. Neither option is great, the first option is infinitely preferable to the second.

You think that highlighting cases of Pakistani rape gangs and the fears of victims that expanding the original remit of the investigations will dilute the focus on these particular types of cases (which make up the majority of cases) and the fact that many of the girls were abused in large part because they were white and English with a religious component involved means that I think that paedos, nonces and criminals are ONLY Pakistani Muslims? That's the precise opposite of what I think. Besides, the link you posted is about a grooming gang that involves exploitation of children so that part of the investigation would already be covered in any investigation into grooming gangs- which is what has been asked for- with no need to expand the terms. Failing to investigate this specific offence of grooming gangs and the motivations behind it for fear of being perceived as racist is what has allowed this to go on for so long.

Agreed.

Good. Mad this wasn't done earlier tbh but credit for actually doing it now. Edit: although there's no security so they can come and go as they please which is another big problem.

Not sure tbh. I think it's too far away from an election to make a definitive choice. I certainly won't be voting labour or Conservative. Like the last few elections it will be the party I dislike the least.

Did he threaten to reduce it considerably? It looked like he was expressing a personal view. Personally I'd also find it difficult to support 24 weeks given that someone close to me was born at that point but I understand it's a very complex issue with no correct answer. Anyway from your link above it sounds fairly conclusive to me: "The party does not have a stance on abortion. We consider it an issue of conscience, and our members and representatives hold a diverse range of views. Reform UK has no intention of making changes to the current abortion laws."

Surely you agree that abortion limits should exist?

I'd be interested to hear the arguments for the people who support this sort of degeneracy.