Muslim Paedophile Ring in Northern England - News Black-Out

I've just received a phone call from a dear friend in Northern England, she told me of this:

http://casualsunited.wordpress.com/...rown-court-muslim-grooming-gang-trial-update/

and http://englishdefenceleague.org/demonstration-6th-february-2012-liverpool-crown-court/
and http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/319160
The news blackout is such that those were the only links I could find on the front page of google.

Youtube, however has this:

... and a few others, if you do the search "Liverpool child rooming crown court"
I do cringe that it is militant nationalist groups who are fighting to carry the voice of concern. I do not align myself with them. But it seems they are the only ones who are ignoring the news blackout.

I want to accept that there can be a meaningful comparison between direct damage from the actions, and indirect damage due to the fallout caused by wider response. I note that in practical terms it leads to: "Let's not mention something, in order to limit the trouble that mentioning might cause". I am concerned because that attitude invokes the risk of removing some of the limits which might otherwise operate on the 'thing itself' in the form of public awareness leading to public caution and forewarning to protect future children from identifiable risk. Whilst I understand the concept of triage in the case of medical emergency with limited medics and resources on-site, I find it hard to support an algorithm of acceptable loss when notions of damage limitation deny people the information they need to make their own decisions about possible sources of crime or risk.

Moving away from this blacked-out News item, I am reminded of the danger to paedophiles of having their addresses made available: there are people who sincerely and successfully struggle away from such hungers. I also weigh this against parental right to information which may be crucial for protection of their child. Information can be an essential form of support. My head explodes as I try to even contemplate the question "Under what conditions, if any, should people shut up and stay quiet about stuff"

Moving toward a current discussion on this forum, I note, with agony, that paedophilia's criminal status is historically and culturally relative, that different nations place children's sexual rights differently from my tiny England, and that my instinct to judge and intervene, or even to inform or complain, could be a symptom of my overdeveloped sense of entitlement. Labelling them assholes says more about my unexamined prejudices, It vilifies and peripheralizes those who might be mainly fine people. They have no intent to upset those around them ... they just naturally fuck kiddies. Let's not get oversensitive.

In @Davynn's thread, the behaviour under discussion is less 'life and limb' ish, yet has generated extremely vigorous debate around tolerance, mitigating circumstances, cultural relativity, entitlement etc. Powerful arguments from many perspectives have formed, and boats are being rocked.

I wonder, how do these points stand up in this content-arena - how do they modify, evolve and refine? They are having an energetic run among the comparatively gentle foothills of etiquette, what happens as they climb the rockier slopes of more intimately life-impacting issues surrounding what Liverpool Crown Court is dealing with and who, if anyone, should get to say who may say what about it, and with whom?

 

I don't have any real comments to make on the issues laid out other than to say that scousers will protest anything and everything. It's laughable that the Crown Court is concerned about cohesion.

 

i think the world at large frowns upon sexualizing the sexually immature, and if not them, then definitely the inmates that they'll be sharing a cell with. who was it that was convicted of touching little kids and we woke up dead in jail a few weeks after his conviction?

 

This news story is being blacked out! Here are an article about it from a right-wing extremist group and another from a user-generated-content "news" site championing an EDL and BNP protest from someone who has previously posted supporting the EDL and complaining about reverse racism.

 

Yes This weekend, I am going to do more google searching, and check with my friend in the North of england.

 

I do not understand why there should be a blackout regarding a paedophile ring.

However, I do find the completely unnecessary addition of "Muslim" to the paedophile ring as very idiotic. And as a result of knowing a little bit about general UK ignorance/arrogance, I can see why the police opted for a blackout.

A paedophile is a paedophile. The paedophile's status of deserving the compulsory genitals-removal and heavy beating doesn't change based on whether he/she is Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, Atheist, etc.

 

I'm not as concerned about the fact that the 47 men might be Muslims as I am about the supposed news blackout or the police comment about not wanting to upset a particularly community (if that comment is accurate). However, in defense of the police position, if the men were all Anglicans, would that be newsworthy? If they were all native Britains would that be newsworthy? What happens is that people see a connection that really isn't there. Being Muslim, being Pakistani, does not promote paedophilia in any way, and most Muslims and most Pakistanis would be just as disgusted as Christians, Jews, Britains, or Americans.

This is about paedophilia, not religion, despite what the articles would have you believe. The media should be reporting the facts about the crime, and very little about the accused beyond their names.

It is true that political correctness has put society in the position of protecting some segments/groups to the detriment of society in general. Freedom of religion and assembly does not, and must not, mean freedom from insult and embarrassment. If I want to dislike you, your religion, your race, your culture, your clothes, or your hair, I should be allowed to. It may be stupid, but stupidity should not be a crime. Promoting dislike of you, your religion, your race, your clothes, or your hair SHOULD be discouraged, but my personal dislike should not be illegal, nor should I not be allowed to state my dislike.

 

I should also mention that as soon as I saw this thread title, I sang out loud, "I know that this is true because I read it in the Daily Mail."

 

Iknowiknowiknow the premise of this thread is a monument of shame and embarassment with my signature on it.

To other posters, thank you for salvaging my OP into a discussible shape - I'll join in exploring with you soon enough. I need to get some rest but I've got to face now: I'd had misgivings before posting it - even expressed them, and STILL went ahead. Let's hope I've learnt.

 

tell it to Father Geoghan and the rest of the catholics

 

This looks like a modern day lynch mob.

 

Greywolf - it is indeed worrying that the police turn a blind eye to or protect certain sections of the community. Once you had to be a freemason to get treated like that, in my county inspectors were told to leave the Pikeys alone, now muslim paedophiles - guess they are a minority group too. Trouble with this protecting of those who do wrong because they are from a small community or because their prophet fucked a kid or they have the right to travel (so why stop and build) - is that it takes equality away from the rest of us. When you get to the reception at the doctors, and are told you will have to wait a week as he is busy - how would you feel hearing the pikey behind you being given an immediate appointment - because - I believe it was Blair - decided that for them to be equal, they must have more than the others who are probably worse off than them anyway.

 

Your point about the doctor's appointment is well-taken. It is political correctness gone wrong; a far too common event.

The bit about the Muslim paedophile ring is wrong. It would appropriate to use Muslim *IF* the ring of disgusting perverts had a requirement that you be a practising Muslim to be a member. Otherwise, it's just a group of sick assholes who happen to be Muslim. They probably were also all men. There's a chance they were all poorly educated and voted conservative. If that were the case, would they refer to them as an under-educated, Conservative-party-backing paedophile ring? The request not to publicise the story was simply wrong. The idea is to bring up only the germane issues, and that is undoubtedly behind the police's improper request.

 

'There's a chance they were all poorly educated and voted conservative. If that were the case, would they refer to them as an under-educated, Conservative-party-backing paedophile ring?'​

Do you mean prefects from poor public schools?//www.thetfp.com/threads/muslim-paedophile-ring-in-northern-england-news-black-out.3178/#ixzz1mHUjG07t​

 

To continue the tradition of my incompetent reporting ...

I rang my friend my friend for feedback because, being distrustful of second-hand news, she was traveling to Liverpool to view some of the trial from the public gallery. On arrival, during the body search, she was found to have, around her neck, a lanyard with St George Crosses printed on it. The police therefore asked her if she was a member of the British National Party, to which she replied "No", and they replied "Alright then", and let her on her way. However, Liverpool Crown Court is quite a big place, so she got lost and witnessed two unrelated trials.

Interviewing a police officer afterward, she was informed that there is, indeed, a news blackout, and that it will be lifted "Later"
She also asked the officer if he could recommend a good nearby Chinese restaurant. The restaurant he sent her to had bad food which made her ill. We wonder whether this counts as police brutality.

Thanks for that. You've helped to do what I'd call clarify my thinking, or at least made a beginning.

I go to this:

And contemplate 'a group of sick assholes who happen to be' ... Catholic Priests. There is a history of defensive and closed ranks when it comes to bringing those individuals to justice, and 'the church' is able to bring pressure to bear on processes. My mother's priest of more than 35 years' tenure got done for paedophilia. He has been imprisoned in a secure cell with another catholic priest 'for mutual safety' and also because, as men of the cloth, they are more fitted to help each other in their penitence.

Hmm ... I realise I am adding to the examples rather than to the logic of the discussion itself, and beg pardon. I believe that here, as in Borla 's Sandusky thread, whatever brain I think I have is paralysed by my feelings, and I reaffirm my appreciation of those who are tackling the issues.

 

i guess i think it's funny that catholics are the go-to butt of pedo jokes but it's actually all over the place

 

Yes, the incidence of pedophilia among Catholic priests is statistically no higher than any other group. The reason that those priests have gotten so much attention is the cover-ups that allowed them to continue to abuse and the refusal by higher-ups to deal with the problem.