British police surrenders to PC, victims of gang rape pay the price for PC

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If not?????
which one of several would you like?
300,000 people protesting against the police, courts and politicians for their inaction might just raise a blip on the radar.
For that matter you can easily pick any of a dozen countries off hand where similar problems have arisen...only its not Muslims or immigrants so its not good to go.

But Skybird only attacked the 'Police PC' point. You seem as obsessed with him as he does with Islam.

My point is that anyone can just not read the thread. This one didn't deserve the attacks it got.

But Skybird only attacked the 'Police PC' point

Did he really?
Yet the police say it wasn't PC and the courts say the credibility of the witnessess was what had prevented earlier prosecution.

supported by Muhammeddan lobby groups.

Hmmmm...yet ther article cites lots of other sources, if you look at the stories the article is based on you see its lots of muhameddan groups condemning the criminals.

In know from Berlin that the police most of the time refuses to take action against criminal family clans of many dozens and also sometimes several hundred members who came from Afghanistan and are engaged in organised crime in the city.

They also do the same with the Russian and Chinese gangs and the Danish gangs and the German gangs.
Which makes the Afghanis only different because of what?

Needless to say they get social wellfare payments, to bolster social disadvantage.

Oh no, criminals on the fiddle, stop the press hold the front page.
Is he complaining about Romanians fiddling the welfare? No. The spanish? No.

Police did not took much action when he described the attackers in both assaults as Oriental-looking juveniles

Ethnicity of the criminals is irrelevant, that result is par for the course with low level street crime anywhere.

Several poeple have said the law is the law and should be applied evenly, the problem is sadly that is the case as it is evenly applied not very well.
The police and courts screw up all the time and don't pursue criminals as they should, and that is across the board regardless of ethnicity or location or anything else.
So the ethnicity is almost entirely irrelevant to the story apart for those who have a serious problem with it like the OP does.

But hows about another question for you to consider?
According to the sources the article is using the British police have arrested and the courts have prosecuted 17 other such child rape gangs in the past couple of years.
If they are managing to prosecute and convict 17 other gangs how credible is the claim that they willl not prosecute because of fears it is not PC to do so?

This one didn't deserve the attacks it got.

And Zeewolf only posted a story about a maritime incident didn't he, there is nothing at all untoward with making a post about naval history is there?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Did he really?
Yet the police say it wasn't PC and the courts say the credibility of the witnessess was what had prevented earlier prosecution.

A valid arguing point. So why didn't you argue it in the first place instead of attacking the member who posted it?

Hmmmm...yet ther article cites lots of other sources, if you look at the stories the article is based on you see its lots of muhameddan groups condemning the criminals.

So the article says. Did Skybird say it. I accuse you of guilt by association.

They also do the same with the Russian and Chinese gangs and the Danish gangs and the German gangs.
Which makes the Afghanis only different because of what?

He quoted that particular article. You grabbed the ball and ran with it.

Oh no, criminals on the fiddle, stop the press hold the front page.
Is he complaining about Romanians fiddling the welfare? No. The spanish? No.

So? He posted a link that you didn't like. He himself didn't mention anything but the PC aspect. Again, you didn't discuss or argue, you, along with others, just attacked. Nobody makes you read things you don't like. So why not put him on your Ignore List? Because you like to screw with people, especially him.

Ethnicity of the criminals is irrelevant, that result is par for the course with low level street crime anywhere.

Several poeple have said the law is the law and should be applied evenly, the problem is sadly that is the case as it is evenly applied not very well.
The police and courts screw up all the time and don't pursue criminals as they should, and that is across the board regardless of ethnicity or location or anything else.
So the ethnicity is almost entirely irrelevant to the story apart for those who have a serious problem with it like the OP does.

So ignore him, or argue with him. You don't do either. You attack and insult. It seems to be your hobby.

But hows about another question for you to consider?
According to the sources the article is using the British police have arrested and the courts have prosecuted 17 other such child rape gangs in the past couple of years.
If they are managing to prosecute and convict 17 other gangs how credible is the claim that they willl not prosecute because of fears it is not PC to do so?

Again, a good arguing point. So why didn't you argue it in the first place?

And Zeewolf only posted a story about a maritime incident didn't he, there is nothing at all untoward with making a post about naval history is there?

Are you accusing Skybird of having the same tendencies as Zeewolf? If so, prove it. If not, quit trolling.

So why didn't you argue it in the first place instead of attacking the member who posted it?

All the information was there in the link, why should I point at stuff that is already in plain sight?

So the article says. Did Skybird say it.

The quote is skybird.

He quoted that particular article.

No that bit on welfare was by him.

So? He posted a link that you didn't like.

Think again. I like it when people use links like that.

He himself didn't mention anything but the PC aspect.

Read again.

Again, a good arguing point. So why didn't you argue it in the first place?

Because it is self evident that the other arguement didn't stand, so it shouldn't have to be pointed out.
It only gets raised when people are steadfastly refusing to look or think.

Are you accusing Skybird of having the same tendencies as Zeewolf?

No, as I have said, I think Skybird is more dangerous than Zeewolf.

If so, prove it. If not, quit trolling.

Would you like a list of flat out lies and crazy conspiracy theories he repeats on the same subject again and again due to his hatred of muslims?

[Skybird]

Eh, Steve, sorry for disturbing you, but when you are done here please switch off the light and lock the door when leaving, we others are in the pub already.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

All the information was there in the link, why should I point at stuff that is already in plain sight?

Because that would be discussing the subject. What you did was trolling.

The quote is skybird.

Not in his original post. He didn't mention Islam until after the attacks started.

No that bit on welfare was by him.

Again after the attacks started.

Think again. I like it when people use links like that.

Because it gives you an excuse to go on the attack again. You didn't like the link itself, just that he used it.

Read again.

In his original post, before the attacks began, he didn't mention Islam at all. You read again.

Because it is self evident that the other arguement didn't stand, so it shouldn't have to be pointed out.
It only gets raised when people are steadfastly refusing to look or think.

In a discussion nothing is ever self-evident. You only used it as an excuse to dump on somebody rather than argue with them. Again, trolling at its worst, which seems to be your forte most of the time. You get away with it because you're smart enough to be subtle about it.

No, as I have said, I think Skybird is more dangerous than Zeewolf.

Fair enough, but you need to actually talk about it rather than this constant sniping.

Would you like a list of flat out lies and crazy conspiracy theories he repeats on the same subject again and again due to his hatred of muslims?

No, and in some ways I agree with you. The difference is I tend to either argue with him or ignore him. Disagreeing and proving points is the proper way to go about it. Sniping, attacking and dismissing without actually contributing is not.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Eh, Steve, sorry for disturbing you, but when you are done here please switch off the light and lock the door when leaving, we others are in the pub already.

I'm not involved with or concerned with this discussion beyond pointing out proper behaviour on these forums. I wouldn't have posted at all if not for that.

Not in his original post. He didn't mention Islam until after the attacks started.

First line, first post.

Again after the attacks started.

Third line, first post.

In his original post.....

Done.

Because it gives you an excuse to go on the attack again. You didn't like the link itself, just that he used it.

I like the link because firstly it is a regular dodgy source, secondly it manages to convey just what it wants, thirdly it manages to link to the real information which shows it to be a dodgy source and pushing its own agenda while kindly supplying the information it is twisting.
It means it is easier to get to both the actual issue and to the issue as it is being portrayed.

In a discussion nothing is ever self-evident.

They are when the claims are self refuting.

Fair enough, but you need to actually talk about it rather than this constant sniping.

Let me clarify that further.
Neo nazis "ideas" and their Jewish conspiracies are mainly seen as a sad pathetic joke by just about everyone who isn't a neo nazi.
Rabid islamophobes with their combination of half truths distortions and outright fabrications are often able to sound quite credible until you actuallty examine them which is why their claims should be challenged more strongly than the rantings of some crazy white supremacists.
Their agenda I would probably put on par with the hate filled muslim fundamentalists and their crazy ideas.
But with the slight exception that the crazy muslims fundys (despite the silly eurabia conspiracy theory some rabid islamophobes spout) have no chance of gaining any actual influence in europe, while the rabid make it up as they go along islamophobes are actually having an influence on western society and western politics, which really makes them more dangerous to europe than the backwards wahibis.

No, and in some ways I agree with you.

And on some things I agree with him.
But two examples of subjects spring to mind
On Islam I don't agree as he constantly repeats the same rubbish long after it has been shown as untue.
On the EU I would agree with much of his gist but draw the line in that he simply makes up "facts" and insists they are true, and even worse he makes up "facts" when the truth is more than enough to thoroughly do the job.