Oxford gang found guilty of grooming and sexually exploiting girls

You can't just say 'regardless of whether you would say they can be called Muslims themselves' like it's not even important. That's the biggest problem with the coverage of these stories. Why don't you go away and think about what constitutes Christianness, or Hinduness, or Sikhness, then come back and tell me why it is utterly ridiculous to identify these men as 'Muslim'.

And why can't you see that online grooming, online child porn rings and incest paedophilia are vastly over-represented amongst white English people? Yes, they form the majority. Fine. But why should being a majority automatically absolve you from criticism? (for the record, I'm against all of this 'overrepresented, underrepresented' bull****, I'm just trying to play your game) If you look at the statistics for lots of criminal activity, it's very easy to make arbitrary arguments for or against all kinds of racial/ethnic/cultural/religious profiling. And it doesn't work. Because bad people are bad people, it doesn't matter what boxes they tick on an equal opportunities monitoring form.

They come from a Muslim background. They could be practising Muslims, they could have been totally detached from the subject since the earlier years of their childhood, but since you have no ****ing idea which of them it is any more than anyone else, and they still have the Muslim background in common, it is something we should consider looking into on our search for explanations. That is not to say that we should scour the Qu'ran for wisdom. The idea that we would find anything in the bare bones of the religion that we don't already know is preposterous. That you seem to think that this is what anyone is suggesting we do is equally preposterous.

You don't seem to be able to grasp what disproportionate means. First you suggest that white English people are disproportionate in their representation amongst online groomers and child porn rings, then you say it is because they are the majority. These two things do not work together. If they are in fact significantly over-represented, and you want to actually provide evidence that that is the case, and discuss the reasoning behind why that may be, that's fine. White people have no problem discussing why well-off, older white men might be the prime culprits in, for example, sex tourism in Thailand. I don't think well-off, older white men would have any more of a problem with discussing it or having people examine it any more than the rest of the white population, either. 'White people commit sex crimes too' is the most dreadful defence of your continued attacks of people in this thread. So ****ing what? We investigate those. We'll investigate these particular groups as well if you stop trying to obstruct with your attempts to play the race/religion card.

So why do you suddenly have such an issue with the idea of these men and their motivations being examined? You seem to be physically incapable of separating the Daily Mail comments section demographic from the rest of the population. They are going to make snide comments about Muslims and Pakistanis (if they even read enough to see the Pakistani connection) no matter what happens. It is simply an excuse for them to air their xenophobia and racism. Actually investigating this apparent Pakistani Muslim connection is not going to influence that either way (and even if it ever were to make them noisier temporarily, surely you can put aside your sensibilities for a second so that we can figure out how to protect young women and girls from this happening again?).

No mate, you've got the wrong end of the stick. Catholic priests are Catholic priests. If it was a Catholic man carrying out the paedophilia, the media wouldn't mention his religion. If it was Muslim Imams carrying out paedophilia, I would have NO problem with Muslim Imams being described as such, in fact it would be imperative that they were described that way.

Pakistani grooming gangs, whilst they have a Muslim BACKGROUND, no person with an ounce of objectivity could describe them as 'Muslims'. There is no evidence to suggest they are 'Muslim', or even if they believe in God, for that matter. I thought I had dissected this point sufficiently in my earlier post? The media wants to have it both ways: they want to use 'Muslim' as an ethnic designation (ie don't at all acknowledge whether said Muslims are practicing or not) but use the argument that being nasty to Muslims isn't racist, because Islam is a religion, not an ethnic group. Re-read my earlier post.

Dude, I read Mailonline religiously. The disparity between how crime is reported if a 'Muslim' commits and how it's reported if it's a Christian/atheist is stark. Religion doesn't even come into it if it's a white guy. I could almost write a thesis on this.

You're a whiny little cu** arn't you?

You're a whiny little [...] arn't you?

This article is about right.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10060570/Oxford-grooming-gang-We-will-regret-ignoring-Asian-thugs-who-target-white-girls.html

They come from a Muslim background. They could be practising Muslims, they could have been totally detached from the subject since the earlier years of their childhood, but since you have no ****ing idea which of them it is any more than anyone else, and they still have the Muslim background in common, it is something we should consider looking into on our search for explanations.

That's probably the most sensible, reasoned argument you've made so far. We have no ****ing idea of how Muslim they are or not. So they shouldn't be described as Muslim. Saying they have a Muslim background is slightly more acceptable than blanket describing them as Muslim. But like I said, no sex outside marriage is permitted by Islam, dealing in drugs, alcohol etc are forbidden by Islam. So if we want to look at patterns of behaviour you'll see that everything these people are doing is contrary to Islam. So trying to bring Islam into this is completely spurious.

Earlier you said in a reply to me that it's right to point out that some [abusers] happen to be Catholic priests when they are Catholic priests...

Why the cognitive dissonance suddenly, that's very un-Catholic and very unpriestly behaviour, I would have thought.

I'd love to see you justify to us all right here in this thread why is its relevant to point out occupation (incidentally the UK media almost ALWAYS reveals the profession of the perpetrator of a crime, whether he be white, black or some other) and or religion in that case, but not the religion in the case of the ones where the demographic comes a bit to close to yours for your liking.

Unless you are trying to say that DOWN TO THE FACT that there are a disproportionate number of Catholic priests involved in child sexual abuse, the fact that they are Catholic priests is somehow relevant because Catholic priests somehow have a penchant for the arses of young boys, BUT IN SPITE OF THE FACT that there are a disproportionate number of a certain other demographic involved, this demographic doesn't have a penchant for sexually abusing underage white vulnerable girls so you can't mention that ???

As far as I know there is nothing in Catholicism that would indicate this...

So by that logic to bring either Catholicism or Priests into this is completely spurious, but actually it isn't, because you have no problem with linking them to child abuse cases when it happens...

I've already addressed this point. Catholic priest is their job. Like I said, if it was Imams doing this, it would only be right to describe them as Imams. Also, I'm not linking child abuse to Catholicism at all. It is merely a description of their profession.

The media almost never describes the religion of the perpetrator unless they are Muslim. There was a spate of high profile rapes and gang rapes in India recently. I couldn't find a single article where the religion of the rapists was discussed. Not a single one.

Compare that to the molestation of the CNN presenter in Egypt in Tahrir Square, and immediately, Islam gets blamed. It's scapegoating pure and simple.

There is no evidence that any of the men in the grooming cases are Muslims. Muslim-background, yes, but religious background is never mentioned when any other gang of criminals is convicted. That is my problem. If it was a 'Muslim' problem, why haven't any gangs of Somali's convicted? I live in Liverpool and there are Somalis coming out of the rafters. Why aren't any Egyptian gangs being convicted? There are plenty of Egyptians in London. That is why I think linking this to religion is another media effort to demonise Muslims.

I see, so what you are saying is despite abusing children having nothing to do with any religion or indeed occupation (that's ignoring whatever perverse interpretations might be out there - every reasonable person agrees that it isn't), you can still label Catholic priest offenders Catholic priests, but with Muslim offenders, even if the offender considers themselves a Muslim, you can't call him a Muslim? Describing them as a Muslim is accurate if it is the religion they profess to follow, is it not?

While I am always glad to have young people participating in debates with me, its with the proviso that they keep the debate at an adult level.

Perhaps you have been a little bit too ambitious taking part in a discussion between adults as you appear to be more then a little out of your depth when it comes to sensible argument.

It is to your credit that you have actually made the attempt to participate, but I think that its more then likely that your parents would prefer you to concentrate on your schoolwork for the time being, and maybe enter the forum of ideas in a few years time.

So you respond with foul abuse to a well reasoned argument. That says it all.

Haha, enter the forum of ideas.... hahaha.. That's rich coming from a guy that has a polarized attitude and confirmation bias.

There were some strong views against your comments, however it seemed that you weren't having none of it. You were too fixated with your own agenda and you would see it through regardless if you was wrong.

Don't ask me to point it out, because I know people like you would like that. I don't want to curtail your speech so carry on as you were.

The Oxford grooming ring was promoted by imams who encourage followers to think white women deserve to be “punished”, an Islamic leader has claimed.

Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, said race and religion were inextricably linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls.

Earlier this week seven members of a child sex ring from Oxford were found guilty of forcing under age girls to commit acts of "extreme depravity".

Their victims, aged between 11 and 15, were groomed and plied with alcohol and drugs before being sexually assaulted and forced into prostitution. They targeted "out of control" teenagers.

Dr Hargey said that the case brought shame on the city and the community and is a set back for cross community harmony.

But worse still is the refusal to face up to its realities, he wrote in the Daily Mail.

The activities of the Oxford sex ring are “bound up with religion and race” because all the men - though of different nationalities - were Muslim and they “deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as 'easy meat', to use one of their revealing, racist phrases”, Dr Hargey said.

That attitude has been promoted by religious leaders, he believes. “On one level, most imams in the UK are simply using their puritanical sermons to promote the wearing of the hijab and even the burka among their female adherents. But the dire result can be the brutish misogyny we see in the Oxford sex ring.”

People tiptoe around the issues and refuse to discuss the problems exposed by the scandals such as those “from Rochdale to Oxford, and Telford to Derby”, he wrote.

In all cases the perpetrators were Muslim men and the victims were under age white girls.
To pretend it is not a problem is the Islamic community is “ideological denial”, Dr Hargey said.

“But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes.

“Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.”

The men were allowed, he said, to come and go from care homes by the authorities, and if the situation had been reversed with gangs of white men preying on Muslim teenagers ”the state's agencies would have acted with greater alacrity.”

True Islam preaches respect for women but in mosques across the country a different doctrine is preached - “one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt,” the Imam said.

The men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority," he claims in the column.

“The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers.
“Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.”
Such cases can only be prevented in the future if Britain abandons the blinkers of political correctness, he concludes.