Forum Topic

For those who wish to read the article Tony is referring to, as he still doesn't appear to want to share the any sources (information is power, or so "they" say), the URL is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9612716/South-Yorkshire-Police-admits-no-new-prosecutions-of-child-sex-abusers-in-Rotherham.htmlThat Telegraph article makes no reference to the police saying they intend to do nothing about large numbers of gangs of men grooming young girls for sex.The bit you've quoted is a subheadline, not a police statement, which refers to a police officer confirming they *have not* brought any new prosecutions, despite evidence of abuse. Not that the police *intend* to do nothing. The article says one thing. You said something very different.The article does say: "David Crompton, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, blamed a lack of resources for the failure of the police to properly investigate the scandal.". That could quite reasonably be interpreted a suggesting that actually the police would really like to do *something* about it, but I fail to see how it can mean that they intend to do nothing, given that it's referring to the past.The next sentence says "the number of officers devoted to investigating reports of abuse has been increased from three to eight", which suggests that not only do they intend to do something about it, but that eight police officers are actively and exclusively doing something about it.Which is actually the *opposite* of what you said, isn't it? Regardless of the efficacy of those police activities, I mean. I'm just comparing your interpretation of the article ("the police intend to do nothing") to what the article actually says: ("the number of officers devoted to investigating reports of abuse has been increased from three to eight"). Clearly their intention is to do something, even if it's limited to building up a load of overtime for their mates while blaming a resources for the lack of prosecutions.Not impressive? I quite agree. Personally, it would be much more impressive if you provided sources for statements of such significance, and perhaps made more of an effort to understand or at least double check the sources before posting from memory. It would avoid your misrepresenting them by changing their meaning to something else.OK, that's three replies I've made to you in one day. Lest I inadvertently become worthy of the general issue "stalker" tag, I'm off to bed.

M. Duley ● 4909d

@M.DuleyPoints well made.TP is just paranoid about stalkers. Every one and anyone is a stalker if they disagree with him. Anyone who refers to an old posting which he has made has committed the most heinous crime. He is right and the rest of the world is wrong. He struts around whacking bullied victims with his fly swat. Anyone who disagrees risks a roller coaster of abuse and a command on pain of death not to return any insubordination. Reminds me generally of a backstreet used car salesman who will not negotiate or budge even an inch. It’s all or nothing and there’s no grey between black and white.And many times, which he can search out for himself, have I asked for evidence. I don’t think he really knows what that means when he makes a point on contentious issues. When asked by you for the reference he arrogantly says today at 0103 “Telegraph I think”. He does too much thinking of the bigoted kind and produces far too little fact with proper references i.e. internet links, or other articles and their dates and their provenance. Immigration is one of the top three issues for the UK. If only this man could use all the proper tools of debate and post with consummate courtesy from now on, regardless of sniping from Southall, will he be able to think that he has made a useful contribution to further the thoughts of subscribers.I shall be astounded if he has the Damascus moment, because I don’t think he gives a fig about anyone else.It would also help if he could spell properly.

George Knox ● 4910d

RE  So if that doesn't demonstrate mass immigration, I don't know what does              xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  well it looks as though we who are against mass immigration and the effects thereof are in good company ( which we and the VAST majority of this country's population are likewise against ). Extracts from :-    When will our politicians realise that it's not racist to actually DO something about immigration?By Lord CareyPUBLISHED: 22:00, 6 October 2012 | UPDATED: 23:30, 6 October 2012On the eve of the Tory conference, the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury pleads with David Cameron to confront out 'most divisive issue'.Expressing concern: Lord Carey wants David Cameron to address immigrationBut there has been a resounding silence on the most divisive issue in our national political debate. The scale of mass immigration in recent years is a subject virtually ignored despite having contributed, according to the most recent census, to the population growing by 3.7 million in ten years. The public has repeatedly said immigration is second only to the economy among the problems facing our country.This concern was highlighted when a public petition on the Downing Street website reached the necessary 100,000 signatories to trigger a House of Commons debate within a week.For years, anyone who has dared to tread, however carefully, on this disputed territory risked accusations of racism and intolerance. The word ‘bigot’ has been used by some politicians to describe anyone who questions the metropolitan consensus.But the growing realisation that immigration is unsustainable at the current rate has led to a slow detoxification of the debate.A number of parliamentarians particularly those involved with the cross-party Balanced Migration Group, of which I am a member – have exploded many of the myths about immigration.We have argued that concern about rapid population growth is not an issue of race, and neither should it be exploited by racists.It is time for the leadership of the political parties to catch up with a growing consensus that mass immigration can and should be dealt with urgently and not shelved on the ‘to-do’ list.Why should a former Church of England leader like myself intervene? After all, the Christian faith emphasises the need to welcome the stranger. Jesus and his family were themselves refugees fleeing to Egypt to escape the wrath of King Herod.The Church has rightly and repeatedly given sanctuary to genuine asylum-seekers over the years. This compassionate Christian tradition has contributed to the British reputation for tolerance and a very proud history of welcoming successive waves of immigrants.But there comes a point when we have to reconsider policy and, without backing away from a commitment to those who need asylum, find ways to limit the scale of immigration, which is disturbing our way of life. The stark fact is that our proud heritage of welcoming strangers is threatened by the breakdown of our border control during the past 15 years. Net migration was allowed to increase from 50,000 a year in 1997 to a record level of 250,000 in 2010.The growth in population during the ten years to 2011 was the largest recorded since the first census in 1801.Many suspected a deliberate intention to change our society for ever by the last Labour Government. Others have claimed this rapid change is an inevitable consequence of globalisation.The strains are showing in the area in which I grew up, East London. Local families, once close-knit, have been scattered around Essex. There has been an alarming rise in support for far-Right policies.Communities are divided and sometimes segregated, threatening the cohesion of the ‘one nation’ our political leaders have been talking about. Our infrastructure is struggling to keep up with this unprecedented rise in population. Our maternity units are faring poorly. Likewise, our primary schools are under growing pressure. Looking ahead, if present levels of immigration are allowed to continue, our population will reach 70 million in 15 years’ time. Of the extra seven million, about five million will be due to new immigrants and their children.I can think of no one who really wants to see this happen, with its associated pressure on our creaking housing stock and the threat to the Green Belt.We need to build a house every seven minutes over the next 15 years to accommodate new arrivals. Where are those houses to be built? And who is going to pay for all of this when the Government is already borrowing so heavily?It is not hard to see why immigration is one of the most pressing concerns of the general public inccluding many successfully settled immigrant communities. They can see the problems on the ground. They are frustrated that our political masters and elite opinion-formers are brushing the issue under the carpet.People are rightly worried and confused by a situation they sense is running out of control. And this party conference season will have done little to reassure them. There was barely a mention of the problem at the Liberal Democrat conference. Labour did better, with Ed Miliband touching upon the subject and promising minor measures.My plea to David Cameron this week is to do better. Progress so far by the Government has been limited. Net migration in 2011 fell to 216,000 but this is woefully short of the Government’s target of getting the number below 100,000.In July, the Office for Budget Responsibility published a report stating that higher rates of immigration are good for the economy and good for debt reduction. Less noticed was the fact their scenario for more rapid debt reduction resulted in a UK population of 88 million in 2060 25 million more than today.Even this, they admitted, would only postpone the impact of an ageing population.Thankfully, the then Immigration Minister Damian Green argued that the OBR report failed to take account of the wider costs of immigration, saying: ‘Uncontrolled migration places unacceptable pressure on the UK’s public services, infrastructure and job market.’Of course, no one is arguing that the UK should shut its doors to all immigrants. We are the richer for their contribution to our national life. Most of them are hard-working and good people.It is vital that Britain remain open for business and that higher education should continue to forge international links, but these considerations must be secondary to the vital need to manage population growth.This priority must be a cross-party issue if the public’s patience is not to wear even thinner. Failure will allow far-Right parties to capture the agenda.To restore the trust that has been lost, there must be firm steps taken during this week’s Conservative Party Conference. They should be in no doubt that ensuring the cohesion of our society is one of the greatest challenges we now face.The main political parties must ensure that this becomes an important cross-party concern. Trust in our entire political system is at stake.Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2213866/Lord-Carey-When-politicians-realise-racist-actually-DO-immigration.html#ixzz28bJmhLpJ

Tony Price ● 4913d

Ron you have made a point but are also using the point in a negative way.Look how difficult it is to find paedophiles in our society and either prevent them acting or deal with them. Even when we as a society deplore this crime it is still difficult to deal with.But it is dealt with and people do co-operate.Notable too is that these sensational crimes are almost always in certain demographic groups in mainly white communities.However what is going on is some asian and african groups in this country is far deeper and far more widespread per thousand and because these groups have been allowed to so closed, almost completely impeneterable by investigators be they Police, Social services and so on. People know but say nothing.It is the same as the issue of corruption. What we consider corrupt in the tradition and culture of this country, is not always considered wrong in cultures and traditions on other countries. Does that make it OK to allow it to be carried on here? Is child slavery, child sacrifice, killing baby girls, adult slavery, oppression and abuse of fellow citizens who are from a lower caste acceptable here?The cold hard fact is it is going on and has been right under our noses for decades. Communities know what goes on but as far as they are concerned it is none of anyone else's business and the race card is used to warn people off.It is all very well crying Racist or Nazi or fascist or whatever at people whose views may be extreme but I do wonder why it is that these name callers are so quiet when it comes to such matters.Do you really find this kind of stuff going on in this country acceptable?One incident is one too many.I'm amazed that politicians of all parties are too spineless to tackle what is a rapidly growing problem and rather turn a blind eye to it all.

Michael Brandt ● 4915d

George can answer for himself. For my part, I have been viewing this forum for years and would say that it has been littered with your disgusting racist postings. As an example, check this one out...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Topic: Re:Re:The End For Me      Forum Home  Posted by: Tony Price  Date/Time: 04/12/08 20:16:00  Re  but when you are asked a straight question for example the alleged terrorist in gentle, genial Ealing, it was completely ignored,          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    yes indeed, despite the many requests from more than one source, no worthwhile effective answers were forthcoming. In fact, one response was there is no mass immigration into this country. How can anyone say that and expect others to believe it. This afternoon I went again to Plumstead  / Woolwich and got a 472 bus from North Greenwich station, at which bus-stop there were in excess of 50 persons waiting , of whom only 6 were of pale skin pigmentation, myself being one. So if that doesn't demonstrate mass immigration, I don't know what does. On the return journey, the school children were swamping the buses, so much so we could not get on the first one, and the situation in those parts of London re the school attendees is the same as here in Ealing, or of even more high ethnic  content. Could well be over 90% from what I saw. But there seems to be some indigs that welcome it, or are prepared to foist it on others. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Racist filth from start to finish - making an issue out of the pigmentation in the colour of people's skins - and these are school children for heaven's sake! Why do the moderators allow it?

Ron Carter ● 4917d

</