Comment by Arkhaine_kupo
20 hours ago
> Most of the dozens of towns in the scandals have the same perpetrators
The police disagree. The reports on the issue find that the most common race reported is white man.
> It is a qualitatively different issue: we’re talking about organized gangs of foreign-origin perpetrators raping thousands of girls in each of these towns.
just to be clear most of those cases the perpetraros were british, they were just of asian origin. Foreign born is the kind of dog whistle that makes the discussion complicated cause its hard to believe in good faith when the alarm bells of bad faith show up so early.
> Why are you pretending they don’t exist?
no one is pretending they dont exist. The issue is not whether they exist, the issue is whether race is WHY they happen, and both reports show it's not. Its police, and council negligence and none of the towns have had systemic overhauls on either of those institutions.
Grooming is not less bad if the person apprehended is white somehow. And most of them are, and the only difference is not in scale, its in reporting. Reporting largely following national interest based on,no small part, the narrative set during the rotherdam case by Tommy Robinson.
> most of the convictions/arrests got only the tip of the iceberg, as they themselves say.
yes and you will also find in those reports that they think one of the highest affected groups are asian women, who simply do not go to the police due to being routinely ignored. If they are systematically ignoring white girls imagine how little of a shit they would give if an indian looking girl came saying a white guy did it. (As per the sarah everand report they would give negative fucks, they might even hurt her more and get away with it)
> The per capita rate is not even comparable.
It is comparable, and the only two inquiries on it disagree, the internal police report says there is a disproportionate number of asian men, the goverment inquiry says there isn't. What they both agree on is that most cases do not have a listed ethnicity for the perpetrator and that some police departments wrote the same one for all the accused, regardless of their actual race so groups of half pakistani ethnicity half white, all got asian as their ethnicity which was corrected after the Jay report. This was systemic to some of the police departments surveryed.
> To take Rotherham, Wikipedia reports it’s only 5% Pakistani and the population is about 100k. And the “conservative estimate” is that the gang there abused more than a thousand girls.
the borough has 250,000 people and the cases date back to the 1970s. It was not 5 guys doing 1400 girls out of 100k people in successsion. It was a systemic failiong of council,judges and police to take seriously the findings of the weir, hail report and the repeated and conclusive pleas of Jayne Senior.
The police not once said they were scared of being racist when Jayne Senior brought up the abuse she was seeing, they dismissed her and met her with indifference and scorn, she brought it up countless times between 2002 and 2007, she was awarded an MBE for not giving up on those girls. None of the police officers were individually named in the Jay report about how shit they treated her and how little they cared about the girls.
There is more on the report about their dismissal to aid working class girls (regardless of crime being reported) than there is about the ethnicity of any perpetrator.
> Of course taken over the whole country we would expect the main perpetrators of any general crime category to be the native people
the mayority opinion of reform voters is that this is not the case. Something you just say "of course" to, is not the widely accepted belief of a large voting block of the country despite the facts agreeing. And part of the reason they believe that is because of a narrative built around the Rotherdam case.
> for some reason people are afraid to point out there’s an obvious cultural problem relating to one specific group of people.
9.3% of the UK is asian. if it was an obvious cultural problem there would be much much bigger consequences. The asian community is incredibly well integrated in british life, we have every kind of person from hard working, working class people owning off license stores to billionaire banker wankers like Rishi Sunak. You can go any thursday afternoon to Bank station and half the guys in vests and shirts are of Asian descent. You can go to any pub when england is playing at cricket or football and find countless asian people.
Saying there is an "obvious cultural problem" seems like another dogwhistle to generalise racial tension rather than address the findings of the reports which all highlight cultural indiference at every mayor british institution, clasicism, racism and mysoginy in the police and over reporting of the racial aspect by the media.
> Instead you just want to say “well English people do it too” (they don’t)
THE GUYS AT ROTHERDAM WERE BRITISH. having a pakistani grandma does not make someone not british...
Also you said "of course the mayority are native people" (btw white != native) and now youre saying they dont do it? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> “well if the cops were better
im not shrugging and saying if the police were better. I am actively repeating the findings of all the large scale inquiries on the police. weir, Jay, Casey and Sarah everand reports all found the police to be inadequate, unprofessional, and in many cases actively malicious. Not only not helping but making things much much worse.
How many more millions spent, how many more 300 page reports, how many more embarrased chief of police resignings do you need to witness to figure out what everyone else already knows, that the police are not fit for purpose.
> instead of “our policies introducing these people here in combination with our attitudes about policing and race caused this.”
6 reports on the case and none came to that conclusion. Also "introducing these people here"? Do you not know WHY and HOW asian people are in the UK?
Like you invade a country, make them part of the common wealth, force your language on them, make their country poor and endlessly brag about how britain is the gem of the empire and youre surprised some might wanna come over?
I know racist people tend to be thick as pig shit but you might not pass a citizenship test if you really know so little about england. You could be deported if you had to actually show you understand the country you think you belong to before getting your passport.
They are there because the British government made a deliberate policy decision to bring them there. It is perfectly reasonable to ask if this policy decision was in the best interests of the populace at large. Immigration (and emigration) are not sacred cows above political debate. Nor did the existence of the British Empire necessitate it; that's simply a post-hoc rationalization of the policies that British politicians implemented.
I realize that in England you are not allowed to think in these terms - it's all unmitigated good and beyond the pale to even consider it as anything but the just deserts of...whoever, but that doesn't actually make it so.
I also don't think it's productive to pretend British is not an ethnicity as well as a nationality. Being born in England does not make you ethnically English and isn't racist to say so, anymore than being born in India made Kipling Indian. Even in terms of culture or nationality it seems pretty meaningless when you don't have strict assimilationist policies.
> to bring them there.
jesus so you do not actually know the history of your own country. Travel and emigration between Commonwealth states has a number of conditions, that while easier to navigate that complete immigration are still conditional on a huge number of factors.
> It is perfectly reasonable to ask if this policy decision was in the best interests of the populace at large.
considering every economic metric has increased since the 1950s and that since the 2008 recession economic growth is basically linear with immigration numbers, one would easily argue that yes. the primary interest of the population is the economy, the economy grows with immigration thus those two are convergent interests.
> Immigration (and emigration) are not sacred cows above political debate
sure, but not understanding why there are asian people in the UK, not understanding colonialism, not understanding migration patterns, or how immigration ACTUALLY works (they do not bring them over, they come themselves). Means that it is less of a debate and more of a class I would have to teach to get you up to speed first.
The reason you do not debate quantum physics with a 4 year old are not because they are beyond debate
> Nor did the existence of the British Empire necessitate it
it is debatable whether there is a moral requierement over conquered countries. Many empires would argue that citizenship is inarguable, as you are a colony, you are roman or macedonian. other empires would not allow full citizenship but allow travel and belonging to the empire, such as the spanish and british empires. Some more critical political actors would argue that once you conquer someone and subjogate them you have a responsability and a debt to that people.
however you cut it, the existance of the british rule over india and pakistan inexcusably link both countries, to the point where people moving between them is so expected it might as well be a necessity.
> that's simply a post-hoc rationalization of the policies that British politicians implemented.
no the discussions of the structure, and belonging of the countries and citizens of the commonwealth predate the political policies that increased migration by centuries
> I realize that in England you are not allowed to think in these terms
reform was ahead of the polls last year, the daily mirror and the sun are the most read newspapers. Why are you all so absurdly whinny about how you are not allowed to do what you actiively do and think and say every day.
> it's all unmitigated good and beyond the pale to even consider it
In what universe is this the case? Anti immigration platforms have had a strong support in the uk for decades. This country started the skin head movement as a far right, nativist, racist violent subculture. None of that makes any sense in a country where people cant even consider immigration as nothing but positive
> I also don't think it's productive to pretend British is not an ethnicity as well as a nationality.
and you can think that, but that does not make people not native or not english. you can say they are culturally not english, or have asian heritage. But that does not make someone foreign born, or not native.
Most british people now are way less "ethnically" british than 50 years ago. Cockney is gone, chinese and indian have replaced chippies and eel pies as working class takeaways, the conservative party has had 3 women and an indian guy in a row, the mayor of the city which brings all the money in has indian heritage.
And you can feel threatened by that, but Southport and Costwolds bring fuck all to the economy nowadays, regardless of how much you mystithise the posh brit with his hunting jacket and greyhound.
> Even in terms of culture or nationality it seems pretty meaningless when you don't have strict assimilationist policies.
yeah no, none of them have assimilated, there is no way you can find asian people in british pubs, running pubs, running councils, running the country, heading banks and hospitals. You will never find a british indian doctor, its crazy all they do is dance bollywood songs and make grooming gangs. If not for you and your brave opinions no one would have ever said anythign. How brave of you to just repeat racist lies, say that 10% of the people of the country cant assimilate and take no pride in the history of your own country or understanding of the history and significance of the commonwealth agreements
The UK on a per capita GDP PPP basis is as poor, or poorer, than the poorest US state, Mississippi. [1] Immigration, trade policy, privatization, and financialization have cut the working class population off at the knees. It's an economically miserable country temporarily sustained only by the continued extraction of wealth in London, activity that continues only through inertia. This should be shocking given the starting point.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/britain-mi...
Even side from that, I think the view that a country's good is defined by GDP is entirely wrong.
Re: your migration comments, immigration is a matter of public policy. It is not possible unless the state encourages and allows it. It isn’t something that just happens because other people want to come.
2 replies →