₦airaland Forum

This issue - particularly in it's wider sense - is why Islam fails for me at the point of its supposed inception.

The Bible is clear "in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, let every word be established". There are no witnesses as to whom or what Islam claims occurred in the cave of Hira.

The being did not self-identify. The entity supposedly went on to man-handle Muhammed after instructing him to do something that it must have known he was incapable of? Identification was finally by a 3rd party - Khadija's cousin Waraqa, who was old and blind - not actually present, and according to the narrative based on "his knowledge of the Christian scriptures".

Narrated 'Aisha (the mother of the faithful believers): The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright daylight, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food likewise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet (ﷺ) replied, "I do not know how to read." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists), created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." (96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." Khadija replied, "Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones." Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while.
(Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim)

Fortunately we still have the bible with us and the very first chapter of Luke recounts appearances of the Angel Gabriel, culminating in self-identification in verse 19, when sent to the Father of John the Baptist, and reassurance in verse 26 when sent to Mary the mother of Jesus (who is the Christ). Totally apposite to the Islamic narration.

Here Luke 1:19 from the NKJV - And the angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings.
Here Luke 1:30 from the NKJV - Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus.

All attempts to witness this narrative are self-referencing or circular (the revelation validates the person who received the revelation, who validates the revelation he received). Not meeting the basic evidential criteria. Then, unfounded assertions and claims are made in support, which I find is pretty much the whole of the narrative construct around Islam. Very little is historical, factual or even accurate.

Claiming it was the Angel Gabriel as he appears in the bible is presupposing that Jibreel is Gabriel, the God of the Bible is the same as the god of the Koran and that Christianity affirms Islam, which is "no actually" in all cases.

Muslims please, come to Christ - He is The Way, The Truth and The Life.


TV

Jamesclooney:
Great post!
I don’t think the question of if she will be deposed as leader before the next GE but probably when? My bets are after the local elections in May. Tory backbenchers should have enough to nail her by then. Last round of the leadership contest was almost a 3-way split, so she had about 2/3rds of them vote against her from the get go. Add that to her “false-starts”, Tories tanking in the polls and her inability to land a punch at PMQs….Game Over!

Thanks.
Fair call. And not one I'd gainsay. I don't follow closely enough to picture what's happening at the grassroots. Unless she performs really poorly, drops an absolute howler or, something dark comes out, they may stick with her for a while yet. Other aspirants will face a number of the same hurdles and pitfalls.

Giving a strong performance with an opposition brief, making the right noises on policy and then looking to strike about 2 years in from the next election (after which a further leadership change would be somewhat dicey), would make sense. We'll see. It may all be obviated by Reform continuing to make ground. I think Labour will be in a worse state then than the Tories were after their last stint.

Goodenoch:
Fair enough. I don’t agree with your definition fully, but it’s six vs half a dozen anyway.

It wasn't my definition, it's as defined. Qualifying with the term "isn't technically", was to give leave to nuance and the perception of her particular situation. Hope that's clear.


TV

Goodenoch:
How isn’t she an immigrant?

KB has birthright ciiizenship in the UK.


TV

Mixed feelings about our Kem.

Starting from the desirability of her actually leading the conservatives and potentially the country. She wasn’t an anchor-baby and isn’t technically an immigrant, but that sense of her being here as a result of gaming the system won’t go away.

I think anyone with a homeland of their own would question this. But, she is married to a native, and if Sonia Ghandi could do it why not? Many also seem to think her point of origin makes her taking a hard stance on immigration somewhat hypocritical – although I don’t agree. Her positions should be for the best interests of GB, regardless

Strategically, I think she ran for leader too early in her career and at a bad time given her party’s recent history. She has 14 years of non-delivery to explain – for a government she served in. I suspect she’ll serve to bolster the Tories DEI credentials, take a few hit’s for the team, provide cover on some big issues (repatriations etc.), and then be forced out for someone Jenrick or Jenrick–like to take over. Where's Bojo these days .

Four year is a long time in opposition from her starting position as leader. Her task is to rise above a few false-starts, deal with internal questions about her leadership style, put forward some cogent, hard-hitting policies and grow into a more statesman-like figure (the whole Nigerian brouhaha, for example should have been avoided). All this whilst trying to sound more Reform-like than Reform, who are making a charge from lane 8 like Sha ‘Carri. A huge ask.

In another sense, I don’t see her as any different from the vast crop of politicians we have now. Very little political nous or real character. Mostly shallow with a jobsworth style of governance.


TV

bukatyne:
Happy new Decade, TV TV!

How are you and family?

We are well at our end.

Has it really been that long? Ah!
We are all well thanks - I trust likewise.

Scripture is whole and biblical marriage sure. Men are enjoined to “love their wives like their own flesh” – where then is forced s3x? It says each spouse has unfettered access to the body of the other (possession) – where then is refusal?

In practice, due consideration will have to be given to how we satisfy (please) each other. Asymmetrical drives, differing desires, physical health or capability amongst a possible host of other issues will all come into play. Anyone that always has sex exactly when they please and how they want, is likely not in an opposite sex, spousal relationship or, should hurry up and release that bestseller already!

Each couple will agree and grow in understanding as they mature and their situation changes. But the basis however remains the same – a mutual desire to please and satisfy. In a lifelong committed relationship, is forcible intimacy really a long-term strategy? Likewise, is claiming bodily autonomy as a right to deny your spouse intimacy sans any other legitimate reason or cause??

A worldview that presents men and women as antagonists, falls short conceptually, let alone practically, proffering solutions where there are no problems.


TV

Krismas:
1. None of your points were remotely reasonable. They were just lopsided views of a Zionist lickspittle

As opposed to the mewling of a Jihadi orc with the usual baseless assertions

Krismas:
2. Numbers dictate the truth in international law.

No sir, might is right - as we can all clearly see

Krismas:
In the ICJ, only three nations hold votes for Israel. Israel itself, America and one East African country.
To u, these are the only countries NOT CAPTURED?
In the UNSC, many times, it takes American Veto, to overcome overwhelming votes against Israel.
Question is, who captured every other nation apart from America, Britain and France?
International relations is built on international law.
And bodies like UN and ICJ make decisions guided by international law.
To even remotely suggest you can abide by ur own rules, as Israel is doing, is nonsensical.
And an invitation to chaos. The world is closer to a world war today now, cos of this western exceptionalism

Story - enforce these pronouncement

Krismas:
3. Trump's solution is by no means NEW. For 15months Israel chased Palestinians from one corner of Gaza to another. They even drove all of them at some point to Rafah, while Biden was pleading with Sisi everyday, to open the Rafah gate. Every single thing Israel did in 15months, including general's plan, to push Palestinians away from Gaza, FAILED.
And as a rule, what you cannot achieve on the battlefield, cannot be achieved on the negotiation table.
So, Trump's plan is hopeless, as it is vague. Just a trick to keep up the dampened spirit of Israeli settlers, who had planned on occupying Gaza after d war but to no avail.

Sequel to your story above. Let's see how things unfold.

Krismas:
4. Israel never presented a problem at ANY time. Its America Britain and France. That have provided the backing enabling Israel to flout international laws, without consequences. But during the last war, these western powers saw how they couldn't stop Houthi blockade on Israel, prevent Iran's rockets from Israel, Hezbollah's drones and rockets on Israel. And worst of all, how they could not destroy Hamas, nor find hostages in Gaza, inspite of everything they did.
So the handwriting is on the wall, they CAN'T protect Israel much longer.

And why can't your august international bodies make and enforce pronouncements against the US, UK and France? Real players are doing war-war, your resort to the jaw-jaw of online activism and virtual protest.

Krismas:
5. There are rules to war. Which is why Netanyahu is today wanted for war Crimes at the ICC.
Justification for a war, has nothing to do with who started the war first.
And land cannot be won by war under international law.

No, the right of conquest still holds - ask any good muslim

Krismas:
6. I challenge you to provide a single CREDIBLE link, that say Palestinians are genetically Arabs
PALESTINIANS ARE NOT ARABS. They were merely colonized by Arabs.
Thats mere cultural and linguistic Arabization.

DYOR - do your own research.
And Arabization must be resisted and repelled. Forced back to the 7 states of the Arabian peninsula where it rightfully belongs

Krismas:
Then 4get about all those fake Zionist propaganda of Jews existing in Palestine during biblical times.
They are all lies. Jews are Europeans, who first came to Palestine in 1800s.

Nope, na Koran talk am. There are historical records showing Jews on the land going back 3 millennia. There is no record of a Palestinian state or kingdom ever existing. Even now the mjority of the Jews in Israel are mizrahi Jews - forcibly moved from other surrounding nations. But happy for you to weave whatever narrative affords you comfort. Cos it certainly affords you no power !

Krismas:
7. My activism is hardly futile. Israel is on the brink of ruin. Thats d truth hidden from fake devotees of Zionism like u.

Ruin by mouth . The same Israel your nation is going cap-in-hand to ask "stay" for it's people. Poste-haste, please deploy the same mouth to restore your homeland.

What did you say about brevity?


TV

Kobojunkie:
There is no need to go around and around with this. The Law is clear on the fact that the individual retains his/her fundamental human right even in a marriage situation — that right is retained until even death. Your personal religious delusions cannot strike this out or nullify it in any way.

Also, the law makes clear provisions in the case that a person feels that his right is being denied him. In the marital case, you can file for restitution of conjugal rights through the courts or better yet divorce. There is no reason why anyone should think it makes sense to force their will on another human being, no matter the familial/marriage bond that may exist between them.

Perhaps read and digest the snips and extracts you have posted thus far - "conjugal rights conferred by marriage" pretty much sums it up.


Cheers
TV

Lawag3:
Let me deal with your fourth piont.


Palestinians are not Arabs?


What!!!!!! 🤯 🤯 🤯 🤯

Even Palestinians will behead you for saying that they are not Arabs.

Okay what of maps before the 6th century? What of historical records before the 6th century?

Danke!


TV

Krismas:
Atleast u tried dis time, to contain ur vanity, by writing briefly. Rather than the long boring essay-like monologue.

I understand your inability to articulate or digest reasoned points. The artfully contrived narrative you have memorised is probably best for you

Krismas:
1. Its more than just my opinion. Overwhelming majority of countries and people share my opinion.
Israel has lost in votes to Palestinians with a wide margin in UNGA, and ICJ in recent times.

Numbers do not dictate truth. The UN and it's arm the ICJA are clearly captured. But like I said, let us see the muscle behind their pronouncements.

Krismas:
2. Am open to a N2million bet, with anyone who is stupid enough to think Trump can force Palestinians out of Gaza

Force was not my suggestion. What President Trump does and how successful it will be is down to him. Again we shall see. But I am pretty sure outcomes won't be forced by the UN, ICJ or the "overwhelming majority of countries and people" who share your opinion .

Krismas:
3. Palestinian lands are all lands in the West Bank and Gaza, along the 1967 demarcation.
This is agreed to by d 5permanent members of the UNSC
The EU, AU and Arab league. Israel is just wasting her time resisting the inevitable.
With an added risk of forfeiting many Palestinian lands she has obtained via previous wars.

We await enforcement of these resolutions by the EU, AU, Arab League, UN, ICJ and even the NL faithful. Afterall, it's a measly 7 million odd Jews in tiny Israel, shouldn't present a problem.

Pronouncements are sweet. Go-ahead. Tell me who wins land in a justified war - that they didn't start - and gives it back. Like the ideology underpinning the railing against Israel even cares about international laws or global institutions. Laughable

Krismas:
4. Palestinians are NOT ARABS. Their DNAs are miles apart. Levant has always been Palestine.
Every world map have the place as Palestine from 6th century. The anomaly occurred in 1948; wen cartographers replaced
Palestine with israel on the map for the first time

Feel free to build your own narrative. I speak to on-ground reality. A simple google search of "Palestinian ethnicity" will return reams of results showing Palestinians are majorly of Arab ethnicity - much like the 2 million that are living the life in Israel itself . We have historical records and artefacts showing the kingdoms of Judah and Israel occupying that land going back millennia.

Enjoy your futile activism and protest.


TV

Kobojunkie:
Look up your Legal code to see that it does no such thing the reason being a fundamental human right is what that is. Even in marriage, both remain individuals in the eyes of the Law.

Again, not true. Legally and religiously (biblically in my worldview), married couples are not simply treated as "2 individuals" - as though not married. In some instances, maybe, criminal offense, voting etc, but in many, and the most meaningful, inheritance, kinship rights, child custody, they are not. And by now you should have grasped that the very act of marriage means you agree that your spouse has conjugal rights, which includes the right to physical intimacy. That is not something that is discussed after the fact of marriage, it is inherent in entering into the estate of marriage. If you don't get that, you don't get marriage, or, are speaking of a different form of marriage.

Kobojunkie:
2. That isn't true since divorce from marriage is also legally recognized.

Legal divorce is the end of a marriage and with divorce the mutual rights and privileges are voided.

Kobojunkie:
3. If you state that one partner CAN NOT unilaterally refuse, then you are insinuating that both partners are forced into this conjugal rights agreement due to being married, are you not?

No, they are not forced. There is an á priori agreement by entering into a marriage union, which confers mutual privileges, rights and responsibilities on the spouses. Agreeing to marry means you accept the conjugal rights of your spouse. Not the possibility of intimacy after the marriage.

Kobojunkie:
4. Well, non-incarcerated people know to seek divorce if not happy with the state of the marriage, not force themselves on the other partner. Incarcerated individuals on the other hand are typically limited in what they are capable of hence the reason why the term is typically used in connection with the incarcerated.

You appear unable to distinguish between mutually agreed sexual intimacy and rape. Conjugal rights permitted during incarceration are not forcing couples to have intimacy, or forcing one against their wishes. It is allowing the mutual agreement to persist despite the situation.

Kobojunkie:
5. Marriage exists as an agreement between the two parties involved. This means your mutual sexual rights are dependent on the agreement between both individuals in the marriage. You can only claim that right if and only if both parties agree.

Marriage is the agreement - and confers mutual rights, privileges and responsibilities, including sexual intimacy. To infer one can "marry" and then decide never to have physical intimacy, lacks an understanding of marriage, legal or biblical - as in both instances it is not completed\can be voided if not consummated.

Kobojunkie:
6. Yes! A man or woman's body, regardless of marital status, is his/hers to give to whomever or not.

Yours sounds more like an ideological position. You are free to it, but it doesn't change the particulars of marriage. Certainly not biblically and not legally as it currently stands.

Kobojunkie:
7. That is why you have your legal code, the compendium of laws that everyone including those in government is to abide by.

There are limits to government intervention and quite frequently we have bad governments and bad laws. They are not infallible and their reach should not become overreach. That's all.


TV

Dtruthspeaker:
This is where you are supposed to remember you said "to a degree" and the statement "consent not being unreasonably withheld"

My posts made that clear I believe.

TV01:
The term "conjugal rights" exist for a reason. It isn't actually marriage without them. There should never be a need for violence or coercion. Rather discussion, agreement and mutual understanding.

Sounds like consent to me? Do let me know if I'm missing something.


TV

Krismas:
Shallow submission.

That is your opinion, which you are free to have share. But you know what they say about opinions and arzeholes don't you.

Krismas:
Dream on sha. Palestinians will never leave Gaza or West bank

That remains to be seen

Krismas:
Rather, Israel has been told by ICJ to vacate all Palestinian lands within 12months.

Again, we shall see if they have the bite to go with their bark. I will look into this as I'm interested to see what they refer to as "Palestinian lands" and where they expect the Israelis to go.

Krismas:
How it is okay, for an illegal occupier to remain, while the real owners, are relocated
to neighboring countries, must be the modern definition of witchcraft.

The last time I checked the Arabian Peninsula - which is where the Palestinian Arabs belong - was some way from the Levant. Any historical records, documents or artefacts demonstrating an aboriginal claim by Arabs to the levant or an Arab kingdom being established?


TV

Kobojunkie:
1. Yes! Marriage is not the selling or abdicating of one's right to bodily autonomy.

Then you fail to understand what marriage is - it has to mean "abdication of bodily autonomy" to a degree, as a marriage has to be consummated to be in effect. Taking vows is but the first step. If not consummated, a marriage can be deemed void

Kobojunkie:
2. Yes, it does!

No it does not, as entering into a marriage confers "conjugal rights" on both parties - more in the next response.

Kobojunkie:
3. The term conjugal rights in typically used in reference to incarceration.

You clearly did not read or understand what you posted - it's by definition!

Conjugal rights refer to the mutual rights and privileges between two individuals arising from the state of being married . These rights include mutual rights of companionship, support, comfort, sexual relations, affection, joint property rights and the like.

Marriage confers the mutual right to sexual intimacy. One partner can't simply unilaterally refuse access to the other without being in breach. Not to say force should come into play either. Hence my point about discussion, understanding and mutual agreement.

Conjugal rights are considered such that even when one partner is incarcerated, the right should be accommodated. Why should one party suffer due to the offence of the other? And the state acknowledges that allowing this will help maintain the union, which is beneficial to society - conjugal rights being used in conjunction with incarceration doesn't mean they are derived from it - back-to-front thinking.

Kobojunkie:
4. Every human being—whether in marriage or outside of marriage—has a right to withhold/protect his/her body from acts that are perceived by the individual as violation/abuse. Rape is violence, and violence exists in and outside of marriage.

The very act of getting married means the spouses understand that sexual intimacy becomes a mutual right and it is a violation to wilfully withhold it without cause and\or agreement. Sexual intimacy is not violence and violence should not be used to access it - I make no reference to peoples kinks.

Kobojunkie:
5. It does not matter your religious disposition in this. The right to bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right which even religion cannot override.

Yes, it is. But you agree to mutually vary\share that right with another when you get married.

You didn't respond to this -

Further, does "bodily autonomy" mean a wife can give her body to anyone she chooses?

Kobojunkie:
Your government is responsible for ensuring that all crimes, including those committed inside of your marriages are punished. It's concern is not your sex lives or your pooping schedules but the violence and violations that may take place between the humans involved.

The government is to serve the people and are themselves fallible. There should be checks to ensure that they don't conjure up rights and crimes that violate relationships and institutions - especially those that existed before any government.


TV

Kobojunkie:
Marital rape is real. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. Your bodily autonomy rights remain even in marriage.

Can a woman refuse a man physical intimacy from the very inception (vow taking) of marriage? Does "bodily autonomy", mean that a husbands access to his wife's body is only if and when she says so? Further, does "bodily autonomy" mean a wife can give her body to anyone she chooses?

The term "conjugal rights" exist for a reason. It isn't actually marriage without them. There should never be a need for violence or coercion. Rather discussion, agreement and mutual understanding.

I don't agree with the term marital rape as it serves to essentially hollow out marriage. And withholding sex is equally contrary, will "marital rape" be twinned with "withholding sex"? If for some reason it descends into real harm or violence, then perhaps assault could be considered. But that should never be in view in a Christian marriage.

....very well said. Pretty much articulates the Christian position. Hope all's well.

bukatyne:
In a Christian marriage, there is nothing like marital rape; rape here defined as sex without consent because the marriage vows give both parties everlasting consent. 1 cor 7 captures it well; the husband's body belongs to the wife and the wife's body belongs to the husband.

This is different from the cultural position that a husband owns his wife's body because he paid bride price or he is the head.

The ownership is mutual and equal.

That said, there is sexual abuse which includes:
> Withholding sex without reason
> Deliberately not satisfying your spouse
> Carrying out sexual acts intended to demean or dishonour your spouse
> Using sex as a bargaining chip
> Mocking your spouse for their legitimate desire of your body
> Deliberately not taking care of yourself or ignoring their legitimate request to tend to your body etc.

Which can be perpetuated by the husband or wife.

Like I said above, Christian marriages.

TV

I often wondered about the Gaza situation. And as objective as I could be, I have always concluded that it would be best all round if the Palestinians were relocated. I’m a little miffed that President Trump appears to have purloined my idea and sold it as his own .

Why?
With a population of around 2 million, the surrounding Arab\Muslim states should easily be able to absorb them. With a combined population of 460+ million this could be easily done. With the top 8 (of 22 states) having populations ranging from 10 to a 100 million.

The top 3 alone, Egypt, Iran & Iraq at approx. 100m, 80m and 40m, could almost do it single-handedly, if working at the rates of Western nations like Germany, UK etc. Not that I'm suggesting that, but by way of comparison.

They should be readily absorbed into nations that are ethnically, linguistically and in a sectarian sense pretty much identical – making allowances for the Sunni\Shia split.

It hard to understand the mindset that is comfortable with the “generational refugee” status of the Palestinians, with attendant NGO’s and funding to perpetuate it. Is there really a cogent argument for this situation to be maintained? Hardly any of the effort and funding goes into nation-building - just a futile, never-ending conflict with Israel!

Why not?
At its heart, this is a religious war, no amount of dissembling can prove otherwise. There is an unrelenting hatred of the Jews by Islam and a desire to see the utter elimination of Jewry and any Jewish state. Not to mention, that as it has been conquered previously (a lá Spain, aka Andalusia), it is forever considered Islamic land.

Israel knows this fully well and is ready to meet this relentlessness with its own implacability. If they go down, it will be fighting. How many times have the surrounding muslim states attempted to take out Israel? The current recourse by these same states is over time, to strategically use the Palestinian issue to turn the world against Israel – and perhaps gee themselves up for another go!

A two state solution is dead in the water. It has always been rejected previously by the Palestinians - from “the river to the sea” is the stated aim. And it would leave Israel too vulnerable. I’m actually surprised they allow 2 million Arabs within Israel itself. Anyone singing "2-state", is naïve or lying in my view.

The surrounding "brotherly\ummah" states don't want them. Check the record. They have caused strife and troubles wherever they have been received. Kuwait, Syria and Jordan (the actual Palestinian state) amongst others.

In size it’s a miniscule strip of land – and over-populated. If we go by Israel as it is now, the Jewish state would see it flourishing in next to no time. That would cut the muslim nations to the core even more. A democratic, liberal, innovative and prosperous Israel, with human rights stands as testimony against them and their beliefs. They simply cannot allow it.

I said objectively, as although I try to be as objective as possible, being a devout Christian, I am sure many would question my leanings.
In faith terms, I never see Israel succumbing to any attempts by the surrounding nations to eliminate it. But, they are a small nation, who on the whole love life more than death, unlike the claim of their enemies.

Long drawn out conflicts and wars of attrition could make Israel weary. And, if a broader based global alliance against them does arise, what then? Well then, Armaggedon. “The Lord He is God”, will prove sure, unless some other god is able to show otherwise. Any takers !


TV

aswani:
So the Met wanting to be representative is your definition of the cultural sensitivity hampering the police from solving the knife crime?

Why did you selectively quote it? You can't prevail against facts with this kind of disingenuity.

Why does policing have to be led by race or culturally specific action plans. How does that even work? Are all black people or communities the same. If laws are not raised based on race or culture why would they be enforced on that basis. What of other races, cultures? Do they all get their own plans?

How have these race and culture action plans (culturally sensitive approach...duh!) improved the knife crime stats in the "black community"?
The mayor doesn't care - it's not his social demographic and the vote is mostly captured. And he\they can hide behind race and cultural action plans whilst they do bugger all. And you know what, those who despise you are happy, at the pathologies within the community doing what they can't in their wildest dreams. And you are happy, as long as no one say's anything that might hurt your feelings - after all, white people also commit knife-crime right.

The murder of the Eliane Andam was all over the news yesterday. Horrifically murdered by a black teen. Tragic. No sign of the BLM, far-right spotters, or white supremacist hunters. Market aware, hustle savvy dem.

Through this London Race Action Plan and a
critical part of our accompanying Culture Plan, we
are underlining that commitment to tackle racism in
all its forms. This plan is specifcally and deliberately
focused on our Black communities, acknowledging the
history and the trust defcit, but there will be a beneft
for all in the service they receive from the Met.

aswani:
So they don't solve black crimes because there are now more black officers and they don't want to upset the "nig-nogs" in their ranks incase they are arresting their friends or relatives, àbi?

Keep straw-manning. No one made that argument.

aswani:
I genuinely feel bad for you, you make all these statements and can't defend them. When you try to, with the utmost respect, you look even worse.

Tell us why the issue with black-on-black crime and more specifically the levels of death from knife crime persist amongst the black community.

aswani:
I won't even bite on your D, E and I bait, aside to say thank God Boris Johnson isn't black.

Toothless arguments can't bite!

RodgersAkpafu:

Now this is funny

Not as hilarious as your "look what I pulled out of my fundament" posts .


TV

aswani:
Very funny indeed.

Hey buddy, have you gotten the information on cultural factors hampering Police from arresting black people yet?

At least take it back if you can't defend it.

Pray tell what efforts the Met under the leadership of Mayor Khan are taking to solve the knife-crime issue in London which predominantly affects minority ethnic males (who are also the main perpetrators). Please show us where this is being called out by the authorities as a specific issue within the "black community". I won't make you overly exercise yourself given your limited abilities. I am not only optimistic, I am kind and will do your homework for you. Don't mention it

Have you heard of the Metropolitan Police London Race Action Plan? Here is the opening excerpt. Please remind yourself of the term I used to describe what I see for the failure to properly address this issue. I could go on to school you about how equality legislation and the DEI framework deployed by many statutory bodies and other organisations does no good to social cohesion, but the response will be slurs and trope ad nauseum. I'm optimistic and kind, but not a possessor of endless patience.

In New Met for London (NMfL) we set out our
commitment to renew a culture of policing by
consent, become anti-racist and build a Met that is
inclusive, diverse and representative of the city we
serve. Through this London Race Action Plan and a
critical part of our accompanying Culture Plan, we
are underlining that commitment to tackle racism in
all its forms. This plan is specifcally and deliberately
focused on our Black communities, acknowledging the
history and the trust defcit, but there will be a beneft
for all in the service they receive from the Met.

aswani:
The nexus between the black boy causing riot in Croydon and Old Kent, and the White louts running riots in Newcaatle, Blackpool and Middlesbrough IS ECONOMIC DEPRIVATION

Show us how economic deprivation leads to knife crime - Please show the relative rates of knife crime between London and any other area.

RodgersAkpafu:
I have mentioned to TV01 that there was mass condemnation of the MP that proposed the blasphemy law

Please show me the mass condemnation by his constituents, or muslims more widely, who are in a sense also his constituency. Show me 5 muslim organisations or NGO's that publicly condemned it. It was certainly widely condemned yes, but by those you would term right-wing or white supremacist.


I almost missed this

RodgersAkpafu:
The Muslim MPs you have snuck into the argument is a separate discussion on its own, and if you want an opinion on it, yes radical Islam is just as problematic as the far right threat to this country and BOTH must be dealt with squarely, having in mind that not every white person is racist, and not every (Pakistani) Muslim are extremists/ radicalists

You are simply wrong here. This is either plain ignorance or blatant deceit. Here is an excerpt from an update from the Head of MI5 - https://www.mi5.gov.uk/director-general-ken-mccallum-gives-latest-threat-update

The headline split of our counter terrorist work remains roughly 75% Islamist extremist, 25% extreme right-wing terrorism. But under that headline, much has shifted. Straightforward labels like “Islamist terrorism” or “extreme right wing” don’t fully reflect the dizzying range of beliefs and ideologies we see.

So, 75% of the terror threat according to an official update is from around 6-10% of the population. I asked you earlier to list the casualties of right-wing terror. Crickets.

All you have presented is anecdotes. Lacking real merit and easily debunked. Show me facts, evidence, clear outworking of far-right or white supremacist action.


TV

RodgersAkpafu:
"Multiculturalism has not been a success in totality"
That's the truth
There has been issues that have come with it, but all I ask is that we tell the damn truth and not paint people black like the right wing eco system does

Multiculturalism can only be a success if carefully considered and well managed. No issue with multiethnicity. Prejudiced views of minorities don't get legislative traction - if anything it's the opposite, as in the very subject of this thread. Authorities were hesitant or complicit due to the background of the perpetrators.

RodgersAkpafu:
Calling them "les sauvages " and other discriminatory slurs from childhood
This is the aspect they won't tell you...

I hear its worse in Belgium 🇧🇪 😕
These kids grow up hugging their originating culture, then u turn around and say they don't "integrate"
Even back home in the 🇬🇧
it's the same thing albeit to a lesser degree
I interact with Pakistani Brits here....
Do same and hear from them

Again..... danger of a single story

The situation in the UK is unique, and uniquely for the better. No need to project foreign examples. We don ja from EU . There is no institutional impediment to minorities integrating. Issues stem from regressive social practices that lead to criminality or impair social cohesion

RodgersAkpafu:
My point is simple
If Reform UK MPs ( I have identified two out of the five) are feeding racist soundbites to excite their base, then yes, they are guilty by association

And to answer the other question
Yes, many many many Reform UK VOTERS ARE RACIST.
no mincing words here
Not all are, but that is the new home for the racist segments of the society in this country

Racist or racist soundbites - because the effect of some policies are not to the liking of those of a different ethnicity or may disproportionately affect minorities or immigrants, they are racist? Please answer my question regards rights

RodgersAkpafu:
The Muslim MPs you have snuck into the argument is a separate discussion on its own, and if you want an opinion on it, yes radical Islam is just as problematic as the far right threat to this country and BOTH must be dealt with squarely, having in mind that not every white person is racist, and not every (Pakistani) Muslim are extremists/ radicalists

It is quite clearly relevant. And the thrust of your argument has been the threat of the far-right and white supremacy. Which is agitated by what is alien sectarianism to a degree. Outline 1 racist or sectarian policy spouted or implemented by the far-right

RodgersAkpafu:
When that MP (idiot) pushed the blasphemy motion in Westminister, there was wide condemnation from the Pakistani ppl as well as other sensible ppl
So that's not a gotcha u thought it was

And to add, many sectarian candidates lost their bid

This can't be true. A sectarian MP was elected to serve his constituents. He would never raise a motion against something they were not in favour of. Come on! Kindly discuss honestly and with due consideration. I forget the the figure but a significant percentage of muslims are in favour of blasphemy laws. There are blasphemy laws in his native Pakistan and across much of the muslim world. That is not a gotcha, it's a fact.

Or perhaps the muslim mp sectarian support for cousin marriage passed you by. Regressive behaviours and practices from foreign cultures are not welcome here. And if that's far right, colour me bad. I'll take the seat next to you at white supremacist camp on the Lagos-Ibadan expressway

I don't see that you are answering questions directly or with evidence. Smearing does not an argument make. Anecdotes and off-discussion points don't advance your cause.

And you have admitted my points about calling out and drilling down in to specific community issues

RodgersAkpafu:
It's one thing to say we need to tackle the socio economic and environmental issues that are making these black boys act as they are

It's another to stupidly say :

Oh look at these inferior species of humans. we told you they are genetically inferior people staining our country, look at them stabbing each other
Get the distinction

The distinction holds, but is irrelevant when it comes to policy making., which can be made on the basis of the former part but not the later. A supremacist or extremist can think the latter, but this country will not allow legislation on that basis. Supposition and smearing has descending into hyperbole and whining about slurs, which you are tossing around like confetti yourself.

There is nothing substantive here. If there is anything specific that meaningfully gives pause for though, I am all ears. And an answer to my question about rights, freedoms and liberties compromised or impaired would be most appreciated.


Gracias
TV

RodgersAkpafu:
3. The knife crime is disproportionate to black people, but the reasons behind it is NOT because they are black people
Economic deprivation, single mother households, lack of role models, and limited economic mobility are all tangible reasons

The right wing narrative of saying blcks are a nuisance to this country and are inherently useless based on this is just lies, and narrative shifting

Good, now we are getting somewhere. There are issues within what one may call the black community, but not because they are black?
No one has pinned anything to race, skin-colour or ethnicity. It's culture.

Are single-mother households and the lack of role models within the black community a result of discrimination, far-right prejudice or white supremacists?. And you rightly know both of those factors tie into the burgeoning gang-life and KNIFE CRIME. Is calling that out racist?

RodgersAkpafu:
4. The Soutb Asian majority dumps are very very bad. Trust me
I'm not one to be racist
But those areas are a mess
I see mattress placed outside in the road, litter , clutter, my oh my, very terrible

You have just called out an ethnic demographic. I shall be posting you your far-right, white supremacist honorary membership - 1st class


From my end I am boiling this down now. Just the 2 bolded questions from my last 2 posts.


TV

RodgersAkpafu:
Q2 : The power they wield is not absolute yet, but we are seeing a surge in the Reform UK camp, and don't you deny, you and I know that that is the new home of the far right in this country.
They got millions of votes in this last election cycle...
Causing major casualties to tory MPs
And the general sentiment in that camp is on the ascendancy.
They have also put 5 MPs in Westminister.
Go look at the kind of tweets they tweet to pander to, and energise that base (referring to those two idiots, Lee Anderson and fellow idiot Luwe ori so, forgotten how to spell his yeye surname)w I have been wasting my time all this while and just leave the convo

Yes, Reform appear to be on the upswing - are you claiming they are white supremacists? Or, because the "far-right" may congregate there, Reform and it's policies are therefore far-right\supremacist?

And on to smearing by association all who voted for reform. Are you claiming the millions of Reform voters are racists\white supremacists? There are 5 sectarian muslims in parliament. What's your point?

Please point to one human right, civil liberty or personal freedom you are denied in this country as a result of the far right\white supremacism. Just one.


TV

I' feel like some posts are changing and you guys are busy back-slapping so it's hard to keep up. I'll respond to clearly made point where I can

RodgersAkpafu:
Q1: The hallmark of the far right are;
Anti minority racism,
Belief that minorities can never be citizens of this country;
Belief in mass deportations and forced remigrations;
The belief in white people being the superior race and every problem of this country being the fault of minorities

Anti minority racism - is there no racism against the majority? Is there no racism from minorities towards other minority groups? Is it only far-right when it comes from the majority?
Belief that minorities can never be citizens of this country; Is there anything legally or constitutionally that can revoke citizenship from non-indigenous citizens? Which political party has it in their manifesto to do such a thing? Does the reality on the ground suggest citizenship is eing granted less or we are taking in more people by way of migration - visa issuance, refugees and asylum seekers?
Belief in mass deportations and forced remigrations; Immigration is a legitimate political discussion point. You yourself noted the case of Sweden and Denmark. Immigration nto this country has probably been too high and certainly not regulated well enough for a while now.
The belief in white people being the superior race and every problem of this country being the fault of minorities. Far-right is now white-supremicism Could you please demonstrate where these beliefs are being espoused by anyone with any power in public, or any legislation that has been muted or put into effect. And social outworking of clearly identifiable cultural practices should not be called out? Are honour killings and acid attacks native to this country?


TV

RodgersAkpafu:
Alright
So to answer the second part of your posts
Up north, there are minority dominated areas that are actually upscale and can be considered affluent
Well to do Indians, Pakistanis and even Nigerians get to live and congregate in certain postcodes
I live in one, so I know

I am happy to consider what is anecdotal assertions at best for the sake of "discussion flow", but it's difficult to accept this wholesale. We know from this discussion that Pakistanis are approx. 3% of the population, and all ethnic minorities comprise 18%. So this is hard for me to picture. Even with the knowledge that some - not all - minorities like to form enclaves/ A few streets here and there perhaps, but whole areas of affluent minorities? Where you do see this, it tends to be in less-affluent areas.

RodgersAkpafu:
And there are NO crimes or stabbings of any sort here. The kids are well behaved just like the white counterparts and everything is going fine (which is a sharp contraditoon to the racist belief that by virtue of being a minority, you are trouble)

Good to hear. Are there no affluent white Brits in this area, or, do they live elsewhere?

To state that there is a knife-crime problem which disproportionately affects black people in London, does not mean one is racist or hates minorities. Facts are not racist, bigoted or prejudiced. They are just evidence based views of the situation. There is no reason to view situations or events via a "race-based" lens in the first-instance, unless the evidence demonstrates race is a factor.

RodgersAkpafu:
Now in some areas of brum and Bradford, lower class south Asians litter the whole place and the place looks like a dump
But it is characteristic of their low education, lack of exposure and anyhowness

Ah! This sounds raycyst ! But seriously, what do you mean by "anyhowness" Poverty, lack of exposure and even illiteracy are not prime reasons or excuses for criminal behaviour. But if this anyhowness is culturally driven and leads to criminal action, it should be noted.

RodgersAkpafu:
That is not the image of every minority and it is shameful and insidious that the media wanna paint is as such

Sorry! The mainstream media is committed to presenting multiculturism as a runaway success. There may be minority media views that pander to that view, but it is not routinely rolled out by the BBC, ITV or papers like the Gaurdian, Times etc. We should be able to demonstrte this quite easily.

RodgersAkpafu:
Holbeck is an area that has a lot of white ppl, and that place IS A DUMP
So that proves my belied that it is more of the socio economic background of people, rather than race, that determines these positive or negative outcomes

Being a dump (poor or impoverished), does not make it crime-ridden, or necessarily mean that the cultural issues and types of crime will be the same. Is Holbeck awash with honour killings or acid attacks?

RodgersAkpafu:
These rich Pakistanis in Nice areas of Bradford, their kids are not out there constituting a nuisance?
In fact they lives that most white ppl in this country can only dream of experiencing in their lives

That maybe so to a degree, but what percentage of the demographic do these "rich Pakistanis" constitute. How do you prove they are of a different cultural mindset to the poorer members of their demgraphic.


TV

aswani:
With respect, this is absolute bunkum amongst the sea of rubbish you typed and you typed a lot of it.

You just type these things without even attempting to prove or defend them, that is my issue with your views.

I will indulge you, what cultural sensitivity exactly is preventing issues of London stabbings being addressed? I know the kind of places you read that nonsense from but humour me anyway.

I can award you a few marks for effort, but sadly, none for astute or revealing insights. Not to mention that your posts clearly reveal you as prejudiced and an apologist for Islam, so even the effort is misguided.

Having said that, redemption is a prevailing theme in Christianity and I am the eternal optimist. Try harder, be better. Perhaps read along for a bit, do some research of your own and then make meaningful contributions - even if it's just the odd searching question.

I am by no means being prescriptive.


TV


...have a read - written by a British-Pakistani - https://unherd.com/2023/02/pakistani-child-sex-abuse-is-an-open-secret/?=refinnar

RodgersAkpafu:

lmaoooooo

Anyways @TVO1 over to you

It's TV01, thank you.

RodgersAkpafu:
BTW I will give a rebut to those questions you asked me hopefully by close of business today

I eagerly await your response. No tropes, no clichés. Evidence and facts please. By way of reminder,
1. what are the hallmarks of the far-right? Beliefs, political & social positions, demographics etc.
2. what meaningful power the far-right have in this country? The political face or organisations that represent this "far-right" phenom
3. please detail a list of atrocities committed by this mystical far-right in the last decade. Violence, harms, fatalities, organisations involved

RodgersAkpafu:
I am stylishly waiting for Gerrard59 response to my post, then I'll give a response to yours as well.

Is tis a stylish way of backtracking or preparing a possible exit strategy ?

RodgersAkpafu:
I'll just chime in and say that the common denominator to stabbings in the UK is poverty which leads to gang affiliations which also leads to street violence
Any other argument, especially a racial.based argument is bunkum and a lie

Kindly clarify what you mean by common denominator. And if you mean "main factor", could you evidence that please. Are you aware of what the biggest indicator for poverty actually is?

RodgersAkpafu:
Affluent areas of minority ppl do not commit gang/knife crime
And most knife crimes in the UK are freaking committed by white people (refer to Blackpool and Glasgow )

Given the demographics of this country, we don't (and I stand to be corrected as I'm a lifelong Londoner) have affluent areas of mostly minority ppl. What we have is minorities that live in affluent areas. A meaningful difference. Further, most areas or communities which are mostly minority populated are more likely to be less affluent.

Do you have anything to corroborate your initial claim? And that second claim about knife crimes vis-a-viz Blackpool & Glasgow. In a relative (proportionate, not absolute). I am clear that aswani lends no insight or carefully considered positions to this discussion, we'll soon see if you are cut from the same cloth.


Danke
TV

Explore2xmore:
However you define and understand is your entitlement.

Likewise for everyone

Explore2xmore:
Temporal or arranged marriages is part of human existence from history to date despite what is commanded against it. It is one of many points of mankind's arrogance at temporal gain or pleasure.

Is illicit sex sin? Are temporary marriages (adultery by any other name) illicit and mere covers for illicit sin? Can sin be sanctified?

Explore2xmore:
Sahih Muslim 1406 h
Rabi' b. Sabra reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle pbuh prohibited the contracting of temporary marriage.

That some will twist and misinterprete the directives is not in any way strange, alas! At the end everyone will know and be rewarded

There was no abrogation in the koran. Hadiths are problematic in all sorts of ways (not least due to being prohibited in the koran. They are mostly fabricated, due to political reasons. Not agreed on, and in many cases contradictory to the koran.

That being said, my thrust is the outworking mutah and misyar (and derivatives) are widely practised in the Islamic world. Apart from being sinful, it's regressive. Why can Islam not self-correct?


TV

RodgersAkpafu:
I'm glad you are well informed about the subject matter
it's refreshing
You of all people having witnessed that should be wary of a resurgence of such in this country
Don't be naive to think that things can't quickly degenerate into that
Looking at the disgusting racism being fanned across social media and the "radicalisation" of these young men specifically , it may only be a matter of time before shyte hits the fan....... again

Scare-mongering. Yes, there are still racism and challenges, but which country is free of prejudice and division? It's easy to slur this country, whilst turning a blind eye to the sectarianism and tribalism in the homelands. Even here, you have colourism and inter-ethnic divisions. You can only paint this country bad on an absolute scale of perfection not applied relative to other countries.

I also note you stylishly dribbled past my 3 questions on the far-right . Although I agree a lot of tensions are stirred up by the ruling elite. Using the West' so called destabilisation of middle-eastern countries as an excuse is just sad. Don't these people and countries have agency. Why are they willing to sell out their people, heritage and countries for small change, to people that don't have their best interest at heart?

Sweden and Denmark have seen the outcomes and responded accordingly, We can only turn a blind-eye here in the UK for so long. At some point there will be a reckoning. The question is what will that reckoning look like?

TV

RodgersAkpafu:
as for paragraph 3, from your response, that is a pointer that that category may aptly describe where u stand

Typo. That should read as follows;
You are in no positions to tell Christians anything. The UK is a post-Christian country. And if certain subgroups are indeed - and unfairly - seen unfavourably, should good behaviour and integrity should be abandoned in favour and racial politics and sectarian bias?

RodgersAkpafu:
And as for paragraph 4
That's a very funny joke.
I have dated a few Pakistani women and they are AWESOME
who knows ?
I may just marry one 8 )

Good luck with that - you will take your shahada first sha!

RodgersAkpafu:
This TV01 man is a very funny man

I'm not sure I even have energy to type again
But all I'll say is
To all ye minorities stroking the far right....
When e set, una eye go clear

So, your whole reason for viewing this from a biased lop-sided view is to prevent the ascendancy of the far right? Please tell us
1. what are the hallmarks of the far-right?
2. what meaningful power do the far-right have in this country?
3. please detail a list of atrocities committed by this mystical far-right in the last decade?

RodgersAkpafu:
UK has been at this bus stop before in the 70s and 80s
Ask people who were kids here as minorities what they faced.
Anyways no wahala make we dey look

Yes, and I witnessed it first-hand. the term "Paki" was a common slur. Many will not be familiar with the terms "sambo" and "wog" used for black people. The UK is light-years away from that era - and the vast majority won't even have been there. It's no reason or excuse for your prejudice or more generally swinging the pendulum the other way to turn a blind-eye to racism against the majority indigenous population. That is asking for a far-right response.

RodgersAkpafu:
Lemme see how this will play out

Yes, let's.


TV

Gerrard59:
Thank you very much for providing a clear and thorough view of the entire incident. I appreciate the time and efforts.

Apparently, the politicians, especially the white ones, are to be blamed for allowing electoral support to come in between ensuring rule and order is enforced. This is how societies are left to ruin.

Thanks, and agreed. Pandering to certain subgroups out of fear or favour will seriously undermine social cohesion. The West has made a huge mistake allowing mass migration of cultures that are not only unaligned with, but will never assimilate with and hate the native values. And one logical consequence of that is the growth of the far-right.

aswani:
By the way, some of them were Bangladeshi and I believe one or two Afghans in the grooming rings unearthed. The point being, jumping up and down and taking about British-Pakistani is a falsehood so your "Facts" laden posts need tweaking.

You are just making the point. It was muslim-Pakistani, as they are the majority which was clearly stated. It was mostly Pakistanis where they are in the majority, but it was near universally muslim - what religion were the Bangladeshis and Afghanis? Where Christian Pakistanis implicated? Please try and keep up and connect the dots.

TV

aswani:
Excellent excellent response RodgersAkpafu, I am not sure we'll get through sha.

Our friend has been convinced it is them and us and he is part of "Us", a shame.

The "us" are those that actually love the country and have it's best long-term interests at heart. The "them" are those who come to a "lovely country" and immediately start pursuing self-interest. And who will "japa" for small change or if things take a turn for the worse.

RodgersAkpafu:
the worst part is that IF he thinks this way
He doesn't realise that he is in the "them" bracket

Even if your postulation is true, that doesn't stop me behaving objectively and basing my positions on truth or the facts of a matter.

RodgersAkpafu:
That's what I tell all these damn Christians
Because you profess the same "supposed" religion with these guys does not mean they see you as equals
We are all seen the same by this subgroup of people in the society and there is no good behaviour that will scrub that from you

You are in no positions to tell Christians anything. The UK is a post-Christian country. And if certain subgroups are indeed - and unfairly - seen unfavourably, good behaviour and integrity should be abandoned in favour and racial politics and sectarian bias.

RodgersAkpafu:
Shebi now in right wing circles, they are saying Auslander Raus and resignation for all non Caucasians
IF this comes to fruition, everybody is getting the boot.
Anyways that is a separate discussion

Ey yah! Worried you may have to find another "lovely country". Better check if Shabs is available so you can do "anchor marriage" aka marriage-for-papers .


TV

I was unable to respond in a more timely manner as I was banned. Wonder why??

RodgersAkpafu:
Call it what you like
But we see this thing for EXACTLY what it is
An instrument for Race Rage baiting
That was how these liars claimed that the Southport killer was a Pakistani and the ripple effect set the entire country on fire through the protests of last year.
Ugliness unleashed on the street in a way I have never seen since I moved to this (lovely) country

"Race rage baiting" - interesting term. can this happen in a vacuum?

The claims made about the Southport killer were that he was a muslim and a migrant. The press reported he was a Welsh choirboy from a Christian family. I don't condone violence, but protests are a legitimate activity in liberal democracies.

RodgersAkpafu:
You are only being biased
and even you know it
Nobody is downplaying what happened, and :
Calling put "dog whistling" is not being an apologist!
Calling out hypocrisy is NOT apologist

You cant force your position by reciting baseless tropes and clichés. I'm making mine based on the facts, not self-interest, ideological persuasion or identitarian politics as you clearly are. The fact remains that in CSE of this nature, Pakistani men making up 3% of the population are perpetrators of 85% of the crimes.

Yes, overall caucasians are responsible for 83%, but they make up 85% (those %'ages may be reversed) of the population. This particular cohort is compounded by the omerta within the community and official complicity in covering up - https://unherd.com/2023/02/pakistani-child-sex-abuse-is-an-open-secret/?=refinnar

RodgersAkpafu:
Like @aswani referenced earlier, white men are OVER REPRESENTED in the molestation and grooming of kids in South East Asia, why are they not branded. White/Anglo Saxon Abuse Gangs
They also over represented in school shootings, why are their kids not branded White School Shooter network?
But Nigerians can be branded scammers, and Pakis rapists right ?
Due to the actions of a minority
It's good ole dogwhistlimg and racism, and even you find it hard to rebut the argument that's why you skirt over it

And of course, the hiding place of the apologist "whataboutery". If your assertion about white men is true, then the representative authorities are free to term and deal with it it as they see fit. School shootings? In the UK? Hyper-whataboutery. Riddle me this please, are any of the crimes you mentioned covered up by the communities or aided and abetted by official complicity?

It's positions like yours that prevent issues like the London stabbings being addressed. Hesitancy due to racial sensitivity prevents the police from targeting the crimes appropriately. Your bias in defence of the crimes of one ethnicity, is allowing your own to be seriously harmed. Tragic.

RodgersAkpafu:
The only area we agree on is that an HONEST enquiry devoid of political bias be done, and recommendations made and implemented
Simple and short

Your ideological biases and racial prejudices are still in view, regardless of the politics involved. I have made my position regards politics and politicians clear,

RodgersAkpafu:
The ethnicities of the perpetrators AND victims is (relatively)immaterial here.
Commit the crime
Do the time/face the consequences
End of story

Of course all crimes should be thoroughly investigated, charges brought accordingly and the right preventative measures put in place. But this cannot happen whilst material aspects of crimes are conveniently ignored or used as a reason not to pursue justice.


TV

RodgersAkpafu:
The list of names are really long

There is Jimmy Saville
Torchlight thr Church of England and there are a good number hiding there
One of thr leadership had to recently resign
There is this MP too that was disgraced as well (forgotten his name)

The list is long and endless
It's just so ridiculous that they wanna give this shameful behaviour JUST a Pakistani face...
Outside right wing echo Chambers, the thing isn't working though
I live in one of the biggest cities in the North (and thos country) and judging by the general sentiment, no gimmick played by these guys will give them a single seat here
They should jkeep playing

Within the whole spectrum of child sexual abuse, there is a particular strain perpetrated by muslim men which the authorities have failed to deal with, and have also worked to cover-up. Whatever anyone's political bias, ideological leaning or racial prejudice, this tragedy should be thoroughly investigated. Spanning decades and with with estimates from 10 to 100 of thousands of victims any attempt to downplay this is apologist.


TV