|
Post by felonious on Jan 16, 2020 7:08:00 GMT
Youth unemployment alone in the Southern based countries must be impacting on the EU.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 8:46:38 GMT
There's no evidence that that guy gets that amount of money: www.snopes.com/fact-check/muslim-migrant-benefits/In fact at the bottom of the article, it is stated he would not be allowed to recognise four wives so could not claim for all the wives and the children of all his wives. Coffee smell wake and up sunshine, the truth is about to come out finally charity begins at home, time is ticking on these freeloaders at last we have been a soft touch for far to long, time to grow a pair and take back control of our own country So just to get this right - when someone posts a story that is incorrect (by accident on this occasion, I believe), I should wake up and smell the coffee and accept it is true (even though it isn't)?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 9:02:35 GMT
There's no evidence that that guy gets that amount of money: www.snopes.com/fact-check/muslim-migrant-benefits/In fact at the bottom of the article, it is stated he would not be allowed to recognise four wives so could not claim for all the wives and the children of all his wives. Page 11 of this briefing seems to suggest that the UK does recognise polygamy and pays benefits as we try to come to terms with the cultural clash.....I'm sure that you agree that polygamy has no part in the British culture...don't you?.....perhaps not . Gov.uk. BRIEFING PAPER Number 05051, 20 November 2018 Polygamy ( you'd have to Google it , it's a pdf and I can't do the link) "3. Polygamy: social security benefits The basic position is that some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse. Rules enabling the payment of some benefits in respect of some polygamous marriages have been in force for some time; for example, in relation to Income Support, the current rules have applied since 1987." I don't know how much the guy is receiving - I just know there's no evidence to suggest it's the number in the story you posted. I agree there's no place for polygamy in UK. How much of a problem it actually is depends on how much these types of marriages cost the state. I can't find any figures for that.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 9:13:13 GMT
Page 11 of this briefing seems to suggest that the UK does recognise polygamy and pays benefits as we try to come to terms with the cultural clash.....I'm sure that you agree that polygamy has no part in the British culture...don't you?.....perhaps not . Gov.uk. BRIEFING PAPER Number 05051, 20 November 2018 Polygamy ( you'd have to Google it , it's a pdf and I can't do the link) "3. Polygamy: social security benefits The basic position is that some benefits can be paid, in certain cases, in respect of more than one spouse. Rules enabling the payment of some benefits in respect of some polygamous marriages have been in force for some time; for example, in relation to Income Support, the current rules have applied since 1987." I don't know how much the guy is receiving - I just know there's no evidence to suggest it's the number in the story you posted. I agree there's no place for polygamy in UK. How much of a problem it actually is depends on how much these types of marriages cost the state. I can't find any figures for that. It says in the link that YOU posted that in Germany indeed he can claim for only one of his 4 wives....the other 3 would have to claim separately as would the claim for his 23 ( that's 23) children.....I think that if the figure is not revealed ( there's actually no evidence to say that the estimate is inaccurate...I don't suppose he"d reveal it)..it is an extremely large amount of money....meaning that the man does not have to work...are you defending the system ?
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Jan 16, 2020 9:40:24 GMT
Isnt this a world population issue? Along with war,famine and climate?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 16:40:03 GMT
I don't know how much the guy is receiving - I just know there's no evidence to suggest it's the number in the story you posted. I agree there's no place for polygamy in UK. How much of a problem it actually is depends on how much these types of marriages cost the state. I can't find any figures for that. It says in the link that YOU posted that in Germany indeed he can claim for only one of his 4 wives....the other 3 would have to claim separately as would the claim for his 23 ( that's 23) children.....I think that if the figure is not revealed ( there's actually no evidence to say that the estimate is inaccurate...I don't suppose he"d reveal it)..it is an extremely large amount of money....meaning that the man does not have to work...are you defending the system ? The system in Germany seems about right - a man has one wife, and that is it. The system in the UK seems different, that in some cases you can have more than one wife. That doesn't seem right to me, and I would prefer the German way. There is evidence to suggest the quoted figure is incorrect - if he can only claim for one of his wives in Germany then it is impossible that the figure quoted in your article can be true. The figure might be large or small - we simply don't know. Which is the point I'm making. What point can be taken from this example, if we have no idea what (and how much) he actually claims?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 16:47:55 GMT
It says in the link that YOU posted that in Germany indeed he can claim for only one of his 4 wives....the other 3 would have to claim separately as would the claim for his 23 ( that's 23) children.....I think that if the figure is not revealed ( there's actually no evidence to say that the estimate is inaccurate...I don't suppose he"d reveal it)..it is an extremely large amount of money....meaning that the man does not have to work...are you defending the system ? The system in Germany seems about right - a man has one wife, and that is it. The system in the UK seems different, that in some cases you can have more than one wife. That doesn't seem right to me, and I would prefer the German way. There is evidence to suggest the quoted figure is incorrect - if he can only claim for one of his wives in Germany then it is impossible that the figure quoted in your article can be true. The figure might be large or small - we simply don't know. Which is the point I'm making. What point can be taken from this example, if we have no idea what (and how much) he actually claims? RIP as I understand it , in the uk it is possible to have more than one wife recognised if the marriage took place in one of 50 named countries in which polygamy is recognised BEFORE the family comes to Britain. Obviously to marry more than one person on this country is an offence, bigamy. In Germany polygamy isn't recognised....the calcilations were made AS THOUGH the man had more than one wife....in fact he receives more if he claims for the others as 3 individuals.....either way to claim for 5 people and 23 kids and not to work is alot of money....whether estimated or in actuality.....unsustainable if everyone was to do it.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 16:55:04 GMT
The system in Germany seems about right - a man has one wife, and that is it. The system in the UK seems different, that in some cases you can have more than one wife. That doesn't seem right to me, and I would prefer the German way. There is evidence to suggest the quoted figure is incorrect - if he can only claim for one of his wives in Germany then it is impossible that the figure quoted in your article can be true. The figure might be large or small - we simply don't know. Which is the point I'm making. What point can be taken from this example, if we have no idea what (and how much) he actually claims? RIP as I understand it , in the uk it is possible to have more than one wife recognised if the marriage took place in one of 50 named countries in which polygamy is recognised BEFORE the family comes to Britain. Obviously to marry more than one person on this country is an offence, bigamy. In Germany polygamy isn't recognised....the calcilations were made AS THOUGH the man had more than one wife....in fact he receives more if he claims for the others as 3 individuals.....either way to claim for 5 people and 23 kids and not to work is alot of money....whether estimated or in actuality.....unsustainable if everyone was to do it. The unsustainable situation is not a reality though. It's legally impossible in this case, so the story is not true. If there is a case that actually exists where someone claims for five kids and 23 children, then I think we would be in agreement - and I'm not ruling out the possibility that it is happening in the UK. But this case is not it.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 17:06:37 GMT
RIP as I understand it , in the uk it is possible to have more than one wife recognised if the marriage took place in one of 50 named countries in which polygamy is recognised BEFORE the family comes to Britain. Obviously to marry more than one person on this country is an offence, bigamy. In Germany polygamy isn't recognised....the calcilations were made AS THOUGH the man had more than one wife....in fact he receives more if he claims for the others as 3 individuals.....either way to claim for 5 people and 23 kids and not to work is alot of money....whether estimated or in actuality.....unsustainable if everyone was to do it. The unsustainable situation is not a reality though. It's legally impossible in this case, so the story is not true. If there is a case that actually exists where someone claims for five kids and 23 children, then I think we would be in agreement - and I'm not ruling out the possibility that it is happening in the UK. But this case is not it. Personally I've no doubt that the case is true in Germany. That does not seem to be challenged. He and his 27 dependants are obviously getting a lot of money and not contributing much. Perhaps you could agree with that? It may be that you could argue that we owe it to him having interfered in the Middle East. It does illustrate a culture clash the repercussions of which we are going to have to face
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 17:49:29 GMT
The unsustainable situation is not a reality though. It's legally impossible in this case, so the story is not true. If there is a case that actually exists where someone claims for five kids and 23 children, then I think we would be in agreement - and I'm not ruling out the possibility that it is happening in the UK. But this case is not it. Personally I've no doubt that the case is true in Germany. That does not seem to be challenged. He and his 27 dependants are obviously getting a lot of money and not contributing much. Perhaps you could agree with that? It may be that you could argue that we owe it to him having interfered in the Middle East. It does illustrate a culture clash the repercussions of which we are going to have to face So despite the story having been fact checked and found to be "mostly false", and The Sun themselves saying no officials figures were given as to how much the man actually claims, and it being pointed out that's it's legally impossible to do what is reported in The Sun - you've no doubt that the case is true. I'm sure he, his selected wife, and the children of his one wife are getting money (whether it's a lot, I don't know), and the guy in question (and I presume his wife, if they are from a strict Muslim background) are not contributing much. And if his dependents are under working age then they will also not be contributing anything. That's about the most you can say about the case really, given most other things have shown to be either legally impossible or unknown. I guess the headline of 'Asylum seeker claims some benefits' wouldn't have attracted quite the same type of reaction though.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 17:58:49 GMT
Personally I've no doubt that the case is true in Germany. That does not seem to be challenged. He and his 27 dependants are obviously getting a lot of money and not contributing much. Perhaps you could agree with that? It may be that you could argue that we owe it to him having interfered in the Middle East. It does illustrate a culture clash the repercussions of which we are going to have to face So despite the story having been fact checked and found to be "mostly false", and The Sun themselves saying no officials figures were given as to how much the man actually claims, and it being pointed out that's it's legally impossible to do what is reported in The Sun - you've no doubt that the case is true. I'm sure he, his selected wife, and the children of his one wife are getting money (whether it's a lot, I don't know), and the guy in question (and I presume his wife, if they are from a strict Muslim background) are not contributing much. And if his dependents are under working age then they will also not be contributing anything. That's about the most you can say about the case really, given most other things have shown to be either legally impossible or unknown. I guess the headline of 'Asylum seeker claims some benefits' wouldn't have attracted quite the same type of reaction though. The fact check isn't disputing the existence of the man nor the fact that he has dependents, one of whom is his wife and 26 other dependents nor the fact that they are claiming benefits ....they are just questioning the amount....perhaps the fact check and you protesteth too much.... From YOUR link.... What's True A refugee from Syria with nearly two dozen children and four wives resettled in Germany. What's False We found no confirmation supporting the claim that he receives the equivalent of $390,000 annually in benefits. Do you believe that Pakistani rape gangs have been operating and targeting young white girls across the UK?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 18:08:04 GMT
So despite the story having been fact checked and found to be "mostly false", and The Sun themselves saying no officials figures were given as to how much the man actually claims, and it being pointed out that's it's legally impossible to do what is reported in The Sun - you've no doubt that the case is true. I'm sure he, his selected wife, and the children of his one wife are getting money (whether it's a lot, I don't know), and the guy in question (and I presume his wife, if they are from a strict Muslim background) are not contributing much. And if his dependents are under working age then they will also not be contributing anything. That's about the most you can say about the case really, given most other things have shown to be either legally impossible or unknown. I guess the headline of 'Asylum seeker claims some benefits' wouldn't have attracted quite the same type of reaction though. The fact check isn't disputing the existence of the man nor the fact that he has dependents, one of whom is his wife....they are just questioning the amount....perhaps the fact check and you protesteth too much.... From YOUR link.... What's True A refugee from Syria with nearly two dozen children and four wives resettled in Germany. What's False We found no confirmation supporting the claim that he receives the equivalent of $390,000 annually in benefits. Do you believe that Pakistani rape gangs have been operating and targeting young white girls across the UK? So your problem is not how much is being spent, it's the very existence of the man and the others in Germany? If you could answer this question, it may help me understand your point a bit better. I believe rape gangs of men made up of mainly Pakistani or British-Pakistani heritage have been targeting young, vulnerable girls in many places in the UK. I've yet to see evidence that it was just white girls they were targeting, but that could be the case. I think an inquiry is needed (and should've been started by now) to find out if that is the case (amongst other things i.e. how it was allowed to happen).
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 18:16:43 GMT
The fact check isn't disputing the existence of the man nor the fact that he has dependents, one of whom is his wife....they are just questioning the amount....perhaps the fact check and you protesteth too much.... From YOUR link.... What's True A refugee from Syria with nearly two dozen children and four wives resettled in Germany. What's False We found no confirmation supporting the claim that he receives the equivalent of $390,000 annually in benefits. Do you believe that Pakistani rape gangs have been operating and targeting young white girls across the UK? So your problem is not how much is being spent, it's the very existence of the man and the others in Germany? If you could answer this question, it may help me understand your point a bit better. I believe rape gangs of men made up of mainly Pakistani or British-Pakistani heritage have been targeting young, vulnerable girls in many places in the UK. I've yet to see evidence that it was just white girls they were targeting, but that could be the case. I think an inquiry is needed (and should've been started by now) to find out if that is the case (amongst other things i.e. how it was allowed to happen). I haven't got a problem ( well to do with this!). I am simply pointing out that this Syrian fella has 4 wives and 23 dependent kids, is not working and claims alot of money...in the region of € 300000 per year. It's you who seems not to be able to accept it. I think that you might be correct that Pakistani young girls might also be abused....but irrespective of that what the current major news item seems to be is....all across the UK largely in working class communities gangs consisting largely of Pakistani men have targeted and raped young vulnerable white girls on an industrial scale. And the authorities chose to turn a blind eye. That seems to clearly be racist and abhorrent sexual exploitation/ rape , doesn't it....or do you want to deny or twist the evidence?
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jan 16, 2020 18:23:47 GMT
Put a limit on how many kids?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 18:26:04 GMT
Whatever you're discussing is easily solved. Put a maximum on how many kids you are allowed to have. Suggestion 3. I think that there should be a maximum on the amount of kids for which you could claim eg 2....any more and I think that you are implying that you have the means to provide for them yourself. In this case.....4 wives and 23 kids is incompatible with Western culture and unsustainable financiallly, and unjust for the hard working tax payer
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 18:26:37 GMT
So your problem is not how much is being spent, it's the very existence of the man and the others in Germany? If you could answer this question, it may help me understand your point a bit better. I believe rape gangs of men made up of mainly Pakistani or British-Pakistani heritage have been targeting young, vulnerable girls in many places in the UK. I've yet to see evidence that it was just white girls they were targeting, but that could be the case. I think an inquiry is needed (and should've been started by now) to find out if that is the case (amongst other things i.e. how it was allowed to happen). I haven't got a problem ( well to do with this!). I am simply pointing out that this Syrian fella has 4 wives and 23 dependent kids, is not working and claims alot of money...in the region of € 300000 per year. It's you who seems not to be able to accept it. I think that you might be correct that Pakistani young girls might also be abused....but irrespective of that what the current major news item seems to be is....all across the UK largely in working class communities gangs consisting largely of Pakistani men have targeted and raped young vulnerable white girls on an industrial scale. And the authorities chose to turn a blind eye. That seems to clearly be racist and abhorrent sexual exploitation/ rape , doesn't it....or do you want to deny or twist the evidence? If you haven't got a problem with it, why did you raise the issue? And lets leave the money out of it, seeing as you just said the amount of money does not matter. So you are pointing that a Syrian fella has 4 wives (three of which are not legally his wives in the place where he lives) and 23 dependent kids, and said Syrian fella is not working. I believe that to be true, so we can agree on that. The rape gangs exist, they seemed to be mainly of Pakistani or British-Pakistani heritage, and they targeted young vulnerable girls (of which some were obviously white). None of that I am denying. So exactly what evidence am I denying or twisting?
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jan 16, 2020 18:39:32 GMT
Whatever you're discussing is easily solved. Put a maximum on how many kids you are allowed to have. Suggestion 3. I think that there should be a maximum on the amount of kids for which you could claim eg 2....any more and I think that you are implying that you have the means to provide for them yourself. In this case.....4 wives and 23 kids is incompatible with Western culture and unsustainable financiallly, and unjust for the hard working tax payer My opinion: people should be able to provide for their own kids from child 1. And of course, to 100% make it possible for them to do so.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jan 16, 2020 18:44:08 GMT
Yes, it could finish the EU, and it probably will.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 18:45:37 GMT
I haven't got a problem ( well to do with this!). I am simply pointing out that this Syrian fella has 4 wives and 23 dependent kids, is not working and claims alot of money...in the region of € 300000 per year. It's you who seems not to be able to accept it. I think that you might be correct that Pakistani young girls might also be abused....but irrespective of that what the current major news item seems to be is....all across the UK largely in working class communities gangs consisting largely of Pakistani men have targeted and raped young vulnerable white girls on an industrial scale. And the authorities chose to turn a blind eye. That seems to clearly be racist and abhorrent sexual exploitation/ rape , doesn't it....or do you want to deny or twist the evidence? If you haven't got a problem with it, why did you raise the issue? And lets leave the money out of it, seeing as you just said the amount of money does not matter. So you are pointing that a Syrian fella has 4 wives (three of which are not legally his wives in the place where he lives) and 23 dependent kids, and said Syrian fella is not working. I believe that to be true, so we can agree on that. The rape gangs exist, they seemed to be mainly of Pakistani or British-Pakistani heritage, and they targeted young vulnerable girls (of which some were obviously white). None of that I am denying. So exactly what evidence am I denying or twisting? We seem to agree on a couple of things then...... This man does exist has 27 dependents and is claiming a lot of money for them. The exact amount is not known , but it's a lot. I haven't got a problem with it, I'm just highlighting it as something we should know about and I think it represents an issue of cultural clash/ difficulties for the ' social services' system...Do you have a problem with highlighting it ( it was in the largest circulation hard copy newspaper in any case). We also seem to agree then that there is a racial element in the particular Pakastani gangs that are currently a major subject in the mainstream news...or in fact don't you agree that white vulnerable working class girls were/ are specifically targeted.....irrespective of whether girls from other cultures were also abused
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 18:54:30 GMT
If you haven't got a problem with it, why did you raise the issue? And lets leave the money out of it, seeing as you just said the amount of money does not matter. So you are pointing that a Syrian fella has 4 wives (three of which are not legally his wives in the place where he lives) and 23 dependent kids, and said Syrian fella is not working. I believe that to be true, so we can agree on that. The rape gangs exist, they seemed to be mainly of Pakistani or British-Pakistani heritage, and they targeted young vulnerable girls (of which some were obviously white). None of that I am denying. So exactly what evidence am I denying or twisting? We seem to agree on a couple of things then...... This man does exist has 27 dependents and is claiming a lot of money for them. The exact amount is not known , but it's a lot. I haven't got a problem with it, I'm just highlighting it as something we should know about and I think it represents an issue of cultural clash/ difficulties for the ' social services' system...Do you have a problem with highlighting it ( it was in the largest circulation hard copy newspaper in any case). We also seem to agree then that there is a racial element in the particular Pakastani gangs that are currently a major subject in the mainstream news...or in fact don't you agree that white vulnerable working class girls were/ are specifically targeted.....irrespective of whether girls from other cultures were also abused I guess where we disagree is the "a lot" bit, but that is subjective I guess. If they claimed 100,000 between 29 people, I would say it's not a lot. Even 200,000 works out at about 5,000 a year (very quick calculation). The amount of people involved means the total number is going to be big - but that's the idea of the headline (which is the absolute maximum that this case would cost the state). Yes, white vulnerable girls were among the rape gang's victims. Your original comment said that these rape gangs were "operating and targeting young white girls" - maybe the confusion comes in that, to me, it sounds as if you were saying that the rape gangs were ONLY targeting young white girls. Quite possibly that isn't what you meant?
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Jan 16, 2020 18:57:56 GMT
Yes, it could finish the EU, and it probably will. It probably should, the UK needs to lead the way limiting immigration into our country post Brexit, if we manage to do so many others will want to follow and the EU will collapse, Merkel instigated the mass influx into Germany it will be her and the EU's downfall.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 19:01:19 GMT
We seem to agree on a couple of things then...... This man does exist has 27 dependents and is claiming a lot of money for them. The exact amount is not known , but it's a lot. I haven't got a problem with it, I'm just highlighting it as something we should know about and I think it represents an issue of cultural clash/ difficulties for the ' social services' system...Do you have a problem with highlighting it ( it was in the largest circulation hard copy newspaper in any case). We also seem to agree then that there is a racial element in the particular Pakastani gangs that are currently a major subject in the mainstream news...or in fact don't you agree that white vulnerable working class girls were/ are specifically targeted.....irrespective of whether girls from other cultures were also abused I guess where we disagree is the "a lot" bit, but that is subjective I guess. If they claimed 100,000 between 29 people, I would say it's not a lot. Even 200,000 works out at about 5,000 a year (very quick calculation). The amount of people involved means the total number is going to be big - but that's the idea of the headline (which is the absolute maximum that this case would cost the state). Yes, white vulnerable girls were among the rape gang's victims. Your original comment said that these rape gangs were "operating and targeting young white girls" - maybe the confusion comes in that, to me, it sounds as if you were saying that the rape gangs were ONLY targeting young white girls. Quite possibly that isn't what you meant? I do think that they definitively targeted young white girls ,don't you? They may have also abused others. I think that expecting the system to support 28 people in one family is alot, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 19:10:13 GMT
I guess where we disagree is the "a lot" bit, but that is subjective I guess. If they claimed 100,000 between 29 people, I would say it's not a lot. Even 200,000 works out at about 5,000 a year (very quick calculation). The amount of people involved means the total number is going to be big - but that's the idea of the headline (which is the absolute maximum that this case would cost the state). Yes, white vulnerable girls were among the rape gang's victims. Your original comment said that these rape gangs were "operating and targeting young white girls" - maybe the confusion comes in that, to me, it sounds as if you were saying that the rape gangs were ONLY targeting young white girls. Quite possibly that isn't what you meant? I do think that they definitively targeted young white girls ,don't you? They may have also abused others. I think that expecting the system to support 28 people in one family is alot, don't you? Did you mean ONLY white girls, or that they targeted young vulnerable girls of which some were white? It's pretty clear the latter is true. The former is unknown. In terms of benefits, the 28 people were not actually in the same family. The man, his chosen wife, and the kids he had with that wife would've been accepted as a family - the rest of the wives would've had to apply separately, and their case would've been judged on it's merits. Knowing nothing about the town they live, I have no idea if their local council could support 28 immigrants or not. So the updated headline would actually read: "Man, wife and kids receive benefits: other people also receive benefits".
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 19:17:59 GMT
I do think that they definitively targeted young white girls ,don't you? They may have also abused others. I think that expecting the system to support 28 people in one family is alot, don't you? Did you mean ONLY white girls, or that they targeted young vulnerable girls of which some were white? It's pretty clear the latter is true. The former is unknown. In terms of benefits, the 28 people were not actually in the same family. The man, his chosen wife, and the kids he had with that wife would've been accepted as a family - the rest of the wives would've had to apply separately, and their case would've been judged on it's merits. Knowing nothing about the town they live, I have no idea if their local council could support 28 immigrants or not. So the updated headline would actually read: "Man, wife and kids receive benefits: other people also receive benefits". The 28 are in the same family....He is the father of the kids by the 4 wives....I think that he and others would consider them a family...they live as described and claim a lot of money in benefits.( housing as well?)..obviously you don't think so. The addition of ' only is totally irrelevant....these identified Pakistanis acted as a gang and deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls...a racist and ' rapist' act....you seem to have trouble agreeing with that. The fact that there well may be other victims which you brought into the debate is a serious but irrelevant deflection in this case....you may be correct though to draw attention to the treatment of young Pakistani girls that you imply....I don't know a lot about that...perhaps it needs investigating ?
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 22:39:44 GMT
Did you mean ONLY white girls, or that they targeted young vulnerable girls of which some were white? It's pretty clear the latter is true. The former is unknown. In terms of benefits, the 28 people were not actually in the same family. The man, his chosen wife, and the kids he had with that wife would've been accepted as a family - the rest of the wives would've had to apply separately, and their case would've been judged on it's merits. Knowing nothing about the town they live, I have no idea if their local council could support 28 immigrants or not. So the updated headline would actually read: "Man, wife and kids receive benefits: other people also receive benefits". The 28 are in the same family....He is the father of the kids by the 4 wives....I think that he and others would consider them a family...they live as described and claim a lot of money in benefits.( housing as well?)..obviously you don't think so. The addition of ' only is totally irrelevant....these identified Pakistanis acted as a gang and deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls...a racist and ' rapist' act....you seem to have trouble agreeing with that. The fact that there well may be other victims which you brought into the debate is a serious but irrelevant deflection in this case....you may be correct though to draw attention to the treatment of young Pakistani girls that you imply....I don't know a lot about that...perhaps it needs investigating ? Well there's no doubt it's a rapist act, that's why I've said they were a rape gang. Whether it's racist I don't know - if they were only targeting white girls then I would say it was. But we don't know that. If you're only bothered about white victims of rape gangs, then fair enough. You seem rather blase that they may have been raping girls of other ehtnicities. At least we can agree that it should be investigated. To be clear, I think they should investigate it whether the victims were white or not.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 22:50:40 GMT
The 28 are in the same family....He is the father of the kids by the 4 wives....I think that he and others would consider them a family...they live as described and claim a lot of money in benefits.( housing as well?)..obviously you don't think so. The addition of ' only is totally irrelevant....these identified Pakistanis acted as a gang and deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls...a racist and ' rapist' act....you seem to have trouble agreeing with that. The fact that there well may be other victims which you brought into the debate is a serious but irrelevant deflection in this case....you may be correct though to draw attention to the treatment of young Pakistani girls that you imply....I don't know a lot about that...perhaps it needs investigating ? Well there's no doubt it's a rapist act, that's why I've said they were a rape gang. Whether it's racist I don't know - if they were only targeting white girls then I would say it was. But we don't know that. If you're only bothered about white victims of rape gangs, then fair enough. You seem rather blase that they may have been raping girls of other ehtnicities. At least we can agree that it should be investigated. To be clear, I think they should investigate it whether the victims were white or not. The particular cases in the news now do involve Pakistani gangs specifically targeting white working class girls. The evidence is absolutely clear. If you find it very difficult to say that is racist that is up to you. I've never said anything to indicate that I'm blase about anyone being raped irrespective of ethnicity, far from it.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 16, 2020 22:54:18 GMT
Well there's no doubt it's a rapist act, that's why I've said they were a rape gang. Whether it's racist I don't know - if they were only targeting white girls then I would say it was. But we don't know that. If you're only bothered about white victims of rape gangs, then fair enough. You seem rather blase that they may have been raping girls of other ehtnicities. At least we can agree that it should be investigated. To be clear, I think they should investigate it whether the victims were white or not. The particular cases in the news now do involve Pakistani gangs specifically targeting white working class girls. The evidence is absolutely clear. If you find it very difficult to say that is racist that is up to you. I've never said anything to indicate that I'm blase about anyone being raped irrespective of ethnicity, far from it. Which particular cases do you refer to?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jan 16, 2020 22:58:38 GMT
The particular cases in the news now do involve Pakistani gangs specifically targeting white working class girls. The evidence is absolutely clear. If you find it very difficult to say that is racist that is up to you. I've never said anything to indicate that I'm blase about anyone being raped irrespective of ethnicity, far from it. Which particular cases do you refer to? Currently, those subject to the enquiry into the GMP, particularly Rochdale...but any of those in this tweet.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Jan 17, 2020 8:35:29 GMT
Which particular cases do you refer to? Currently, those subject to the enquiry into the GMP, particularly Rochdale...but any of those in this tweet. That is a list of all those found guilty of raping young vulnerable girls. It doesn't say anything about the ethnicity of the victims, and why they were targeted - which is what you were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 17, 2020 9:39:28 GMT
Currently, those subject to the enquiry into the GMP, particularly Rochdale...but any of those in this tweet. That is a list of all those found guilty of raping young vulnerable girls. It doesn't say anything about the ethnicity of the victims, and why they were targeted - which is what you were talking about. Aren't all rape victims' and minors' identities kept secret?
|
|