i wish someone didnt dismantle the education department of the federal goverment....
> Freedom of speech allows to hear different views and apply this critical thinking.
thats all well and good except it has never existed in the US, with countless examples of people being jailed for wrongthink it just happened that those people were all leftist. The second accountability crossed the aisle the uproar began. No one gave a shit when people were sent to jail for protesting Vietnam, or when the black panthers where jailed on terrorism charges but the second someone asked if Rupert murdoch should be held accountable for spreading lies for 30 years then it became a chest thumping issue.
> The problem is that you seem to know better and want to choose what's allowed and not allowed to say, given your political bias and contempt for your fellow citizens.
56% of americans cannot read past a 6th grade level. its not contempt, its pity
> democracy is not about empowering
Demos - people. Kratia - power. Gezz someone should tell the greeks they dont even know their language.
> but about managing the various interest to end up with something that is acceptable
that is not democracy, that is politics. Democracy is a form of politics, which has certain principles, like empowering the people (in liberal western democracy this is usually views that spawn from the french revolution, aka humanistic principles, education and voting and creating political groups to represent interests.
> If a subgroup is being bullied, it is normal that it expresses its resentment.
being bullied and FEELING they are bullied are different things, and certain personality disorders, education levels and religious views have a much larger overlap with those feelings. I personally do not care that a bunch of rich christians feel they are the butt of the joke, they have both monetary and political capital their feelings are literally not supported by reality. And arguing about their feelings is a pointless exercise in trying to explain to a entitled child why they are wrong.
> For instance, when white british people are being mass raped
not happening. Source: white british person.
> with no or little enforcement by the Police due to fear of being seen as "racists".
This is also not true. It is a literal talking point of Tommy Robinson, famous neo nazi, over the grooming gang that affected a small town in britain a few years ago.
i know YOU dont care, because you are just here to racist dogwhistle but I will explain the context for the people who might stumble upon your comment.
A small town in england had a serious problem, a group of men where grooming and hurting little girls. The police and local council were aware, however the town being small were scared that such a big scandal would tarnish their reputation. The police force, lacking funding and training fucked up the case beyond recognition and asked for support, the local council told them to keep it under wraps. A reporter a DECADE later brought the case up, as little girls were still being harmed. Due to how the justice works in the UK there is a media blackout (no one is allowed to report while a case is active) in this media blackout Tommy Robinson made up the unfounded lie that the police did not chase them due to fear of being called racist. Once the case was settled, a local council man (who was aware of the problem before it came to light) repeated Tommy Robinsons views as it exculpated him of letting little girls get hurt with his knowledge.
Other mass grooming cases with white perpetrators like the catholic schools in scotland case, reported by the same reporter and also decades long was somehow not national news in the same newspapers that reported the Tommy Robinson "fear of being racist" lines.
A neo nazi made up a lie, based on nothing and a council man who allowed the pain of minors in his council repeated it to not be accountable for his failings as a man. And now youre here a decade later, repeating it because you either know its false but want to spread hate, or dont know its fake and are contradicting your own claims that people are critical and can distinguish true and false.
> As a side note, all of the examples that you give are about reducing freedom of speech
by goverments bragging about their freedom of speech. You said countries who hate freedom of speech are the auth ones, I gave you examples of the country who uses the word freedom more than they use the word "the".
> which did not prevent the access of the NSDAP to power.
The big difference there is that Germany was an incredibly poor and unstable country. Syria is not haviing a civil war due to their freedom of speech laws, and neither did Germany. How free the press is in Sudan is not the reason they are being investigated by the UN for genocide.
Then how about empowering them to - speak? Not just say what you believe is allowed to say (this is authoritarian).
I'm talking about the practice of democracy, by the way.
And regarding mass rapes, being British yourself is clearly not a reference for truth. The wikipedia article I linked mentioned a mass grooming case in this town. You can't close your eyes on the evidence each time it doesn't follow your totalitarian narrative and expect that people will just shut up. Or you have to pass laws to do it, which ends up with the toxic situation of the UK, that has nothing to envy to the USSR.
Which is kind of funny given that you have laws to punish people who said something "creating anxiety", which is ... a feeling and totally subjective?
And there is no difference with Germany. Freedom a speech isn't something only for the affluent, first world. And the war in Syria started due to political repression against free speech being expressed against the regime. It didn't end so well for said regime.
The strain of anti intellectualism has been a constant thread... nurtured by the false notion that democracy means my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge - Isaac Asimov
Being able to speak is not the same as having something to say. Knowing when to shut up is an important part of being a rational adult.
> I'm talking about the practice of democracy, by the way.
North Korea practices your democracy, they get to vote. Is that enough?
> he wikipedia article I linked
and I gave you a 3 paragraph explanation on the case. The police never said that, a neo nazi and a failing politician did. You are actively repeating lies while saying people are smart enough to never fall for them, are you just not aware you are being duped?
> You can't close your eyes on the evidence each time it doesn't follow your totalitarian narrative and expect that people will just shut up. Or you have to pass laws to do it, which ends up with the toxic situation of the UK, that has nothing to envy to the USSR.
yeah yeah if we dont allow racists to repeat lies then we end up like Venezuela. I get the vibe, but howabout we jail neo nazis, and hold youtubers to the same standards as news so we dont allow misinformation to spread so wide that people are repeating their narratives years later?
> Which is kind of funny given that you have laws to punish people who said something "creating anxiety", which is ... a feeling and totally subjective?
Those laws were passed by the "anti woke" party to have vague sentencing to punish people like Just Stop Oil and the black rights marches. It is not the kind of "cancel culture gone mad" you think it is, it is the exact kind of entitled, feelings > reality nonsense I am arguing against. You just dont like when the "woke" judges use the rules you wanted passed to hurt others
> Given that you seem to like etymology, I'm sure you'll enjoy to know that the modern acception of "intellectuals" was coined by Maurice Barrès. Here is a translation:
"Nothing is worse than these gangs of half-intellectuals. A half-culture destroys instinct without replacing it with consciousness. All these aristocrats of thought are keen to show that they do not think like the vile crowd. We see it all too well. They no longer feel spontaneously in agreement with their natural group and they do not rise to the level of clarity that would restore them to a considered agreement with the mass."
Which is quite in line with your thought that the masses are not to be trusted they must shut up!) and should be shepherded very closely by gifted individuals (like you) to avoid any wrongthink.
> Regarding democracy "empowering" certain people creates as well power imbalances. Thus, you need institutions and boundaries such as a constitution. And freedom of speech allows to express yourself when those imbalances become too strong. Poor white people speaking out in the UK is often bellitled by elites as racism. In reality, it's the result of decades of discrimination against them, starting at school. https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/203/education-com...
> Regarding the grooming gangs, if you had read the wikipedia link, you would have known that Tommy Robinson has nothing to do here and that the case was brought by a feminist activist. Maybe feminists should shut up, too?
> I get that you want to jail many people for thinking and saying things you don't like. Sounds like a totalitarian regime to me. Don't whine because Trump jails pro-palestinian protesters, then?
> I don't care who passed those ridiculous gagging laws in Britain. It doesn't matter. As with Weimar, the same laws were passed by well-meaning centrists, and then used by nazis. History rimes.
> Which is quite in line with your thought that the masses are not to be trusted they must shut up
Did you just quote a Nazi about how intellectuals are a problem and we should get rid of them? Like how ar eyou so intune with fascism that you somehow quote one of the fathers of ethnic nationalism, a guy who came up with incredible heinous stuff about the jews and had some weird hard on about spain being some kinf of African enclave in europe.
You know he believed the same anti intellectualist nonsense that gave birth to "lets shoot people with glasses" in east asia right?
> and should be shepherded very closely by gifted individuals (like you) to avoid any wrongthink.
god no, its so much better to let a dude tell you that the jews want to replace you with black people and should be all murdered. That is certainly a better political theory after all the mass is right and we write for a newspaper that does not influence public opinion. Do you see the grift being repeated nowadays or are you still not noticing?
> And freedom of speech allows to express yourself when those imbalances become too strong
somehow its always predominantly powerful groups who both feel they have been hurt by the imbalance. spending 400 million a year on a think tank about how your 300 million a year tax bill is too high is certainly a strategy that only the Koch brother could understand. Then again Robert Murdoch spent almost no money in making a jewish person the next evil mastermind with Soros and that worked with almost no effort, he actually made billions of fox and daily mail so I guess some hatred does pay off.
> Poor white people speaking out in the UK is often bellitled by elites as racism.
what the fuck are you talking about? Priti Patel,on rishi sunaks goverment, was on TV telling poor whites they were gonna send brown people like her mom to a prision on Rwanda.
Like a billioanire president, with a multi millionaire immigrant minister telling white people they were gonna deport themselves happend. And I dont know what more elite than that you can get.
> if you had read the wikipedia link
You should read the 5 reports on the case. might get you a bit farther than the wikipedia page.
> you would have known that Tommy Robinson has nothing to do here
Why would tommy rbinson show up there? The media was silent so a neo nazi spent 5 years doing youtube videos and tweeting is not something that belongs in wikipedia. Its something that you should look up and think about the repercussions yourself.
The media could not talk about the case, so he tainted the well by creating the narrative. By the time the police inquiry was released it was too late because he had already fucked up all the headlines. In the 2001 Weir inquiery political correctness and race never show up. In the 2020 report the police say it was a key issue. You can trace the before and after of Tommy Robinsons involvement, in the 2 reports before it does not show up weir and haile. In the jay one 2013 it shows up as a potential issue, but not found to be significant in the conclusiosn and by 2020 the internal police report they claim it was a big deal.
The narrative was shaped and the police found a scapegoat. Jayne Seniors who reported the case endlessly from 2002 to 2007 and got an MBE after, said she was met with indifference and no one mentioned the race of the perpetrators.
> the case was brought by a feminist activist. Maybe feminists should shut up, too?
the case was brought up by a thousand people, it went on from the 70s. The police ignored all calls from working class girls, they ignored video evidence, they ignored the findings of Anne Halls in 2004, the report of Weir and haile in 2001 and 2004, they ignored the letter a girl wrote to a judge describing the process and actions taking place. The only person they didnt ignore was the journalist who made the story national news.
> I get that you want to jail many people for thinking and saying things you don't like.
I dont, the law was brought up by conservatives who had their feelings hurt.
> Don't whine because Trump jails pro-palestinian protesters, then?
wait but you said america had free speech and uk is a total ussr hell hole? So now you agree that IT IS happening and free speech does not exist in america and you dont care. So you were pretending all along?
> I don't care who passed those ridiculous gagging laws in Britain
you should, because you spent the entire time talking about the woke brigade, and how america has freedom of speech. and its untrue in both counts
> the same laws were passed by well-meaning centrists,
the laws were passed by authoritarian right wingers who needed vague laws to jail disruptive protests. and as per usual libertarians only showed up when bigots where affected. Only liberty you care is about offending and bieng racist then you dont care about freedom of speech, you care about freedom of consequences
> then used by nazis.
like your friend Barres? The national socialist of france who hated democracy and you decided to use as an example somehow. No to liberal democracy, yes to antisemitism to unite france. What a brilliant thinker you have in your quiver. Is Goebells gonna be your next text? Or do you prefer to use obscure writers so people dont notice, maybe Corradini? Or has stormfront not given you access to the italian writers yet?
> Maurice Barrès wasn't a Nazi, and was a famous novelist of the XIXth century. He was part of the Académie Française, which is the most respected cultural body of the country. In this quote, he isn't against intellectualism, but against intellectuals thinking that they form a second society above the plebs, and who think better than them. Your ad hominem arguments are ignorant here, sorry.
> You seem to lack media litteracy. Pritti Patel did nothing and the UK witnessed its largest immigration flow during the last conservative rule. Saying things is worthless if not followed by actions.
> I talked about Robinson because you brought it up, and now it's my fault? lmao
> I agree that free speech is decreasing in America. However, it's still much better in the US than in UK.
> "I dont, the law was brought up by conservatives who had their feelings hurt." -> You just said that you wanted to jail neo-nazis in the previous post.
> "authoritarian right wingers" - very good example of the overton window theory. UK conservatives are centrists at best.
> Barrès is not my "friend", I'm citing him for the historical perspective on what an "intellectual" is, in the concept of "anti-intellectuallism". Sorry for you if you have a hard time thinking with abstract objects that don't involve qualifiying anyone you don't agree with of being a "nazi".
As a side note, quite revealing that of this flurry of comments, lacks the one regarding the working-class whites being the category that benefits the less from the school system. Maybe UK could have invested more in schools, and less in gender-affirming transitions?
being involved in the national socialist movement in france would make one a nazi.
> In this quote, he isn't against intellectualism
he was though, so are most fascists. Better to find an external threat, use populism and claim anyone who can see through the lies is a pompous university know-it-all, you know like every single fascist movement has ever done.
> against intellectuals thinking that they form a second society above the plebs
of course, pretending to represent "the people" gives a ton of credance to your argument, sadly his platform reached nowhere and only the absolute losers of vichy france, which made a goverment that last about 15 minutes ever paid any attention. Also just to be clarify, they got into power through violence not by any will of the "people", you know the masses they pretended to represent
> Your ad hominem arguments are ignorant here
Ad hominem are attacks to a person not to content, but I attacked his political career not his person. You used a quote of a nazi to defend anti intellectualism it just not worth examining the myriad of ways it fails, populism never works
> You seem to lack media litteracy
works better when you proofread
> Pritti Patel did nothing
She proposed the nationality and borders act of 2022, which would have barred her own parents from entering the UK when they arrived.
> witnessed its largest immigration flow during the last conservative rule.
rich people love cheap labour, but also the UK is desperate for certain jobs and the locals think they are both too good to do them and too arrogant to learn. Also the highest increase was by and large university students, a group with 0 expense on education, low expense of healthcare, and a massive bill (20-35k per year at uni + living expenses). It is literally the best group for immigration
> Saying things is worthless if not followed by actions.
a number of the bills passed, including the interim agreement with Rwanda, for which the UK paid 200 million to allow them to send asylum seekers to a prision in the middle of nowhere. Because validating the feelings of bigots was worth more in political capital than actually just hiring a few more clerks to process the asylum requests faster so they can either be accepted or denied
> now it's my fault?
its not your fault, but his inclusion was relevant, regardless of his appearance on the wikipedia article
> I agree that free speech is decreasing in America. However, it's still much better in the US than in UK.
no, its just as bad. They just bump their chest louder, but the UK never had anything half as bad as Mcarthysm to give an obvious example
> You just said that you wanted to jail neo-nazis in the previous post.
treason is not speech, and neonazi believes/actions and politics are treasonous to the UK. You cant blitz london and ask for a megaphone
> very good example of the overton window theory.
the overton window is not how far right or far left a country is, its the ideas that are so assumed they dont even get discussed. If you want an example of the Overton window you can use the Atlantic pact, the US being Allied with Europe. That was so basic that everyone in europe and america took it for granted until Trump 3 months ago decided to shit on 50 years of precedent. The Tories in the Uk being extremely right wing has nothing to do with the overton window.
> UK conservatives are centrists at best.
centrism makes little sense as a political theory. Right wing ideologies believe in hierarchies (god over men, rich over poor, men over women) and left wing ideologies believe in reducing or removing hierarchies. Being a centrist at best would be wanting to allow some hierarchies but not others, which is possible but its not a very coherent political stance.
Uk conservatives are monarchists, most approve of the church of england, they are aggresive capitalists and most are in some regard anti any societal structure beyond binary men and women. They are in almost every regard Right wing. Their economic plans are regressive not progressive, so entrenching economic hierarchies over uprooting them.
Calling them centrist is not possible, unless you define being right wing as being far right in which case they are furhter to the left.
> Barrès is not my "friend"
I forgot people who quote nazis tend to ignore metaphor im sorry. I will only use 2 syllable words too just in case.
> I'm citing him for the historical perspective on what an "intellectual" is, in the concept of "anti-intellectuallism".
you cited him, as a defender of anti intellectualism, as if knowledge was somehow incapable of being in tune with "the masses", a populist idea very similar to the ones of early fascist italian writers, later copied by many of the great purges in east asia.
YOu have to be extremely insecure to be scared of smart people. Every country thrives on its capital, on its resources, on its connections and on its human capital. Removing them out of fear will leave your country supremely disadvantaged.
> anyone you don't agree with of being a "nazi".
The dude wrote extensively about his anti semitism, his ethnic nationalism, his will to create a national identity around the concept of removing the jews from france. HE WAS A LITERAL MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY.
> lacks the one regarding the working-class whites being the category that benefits the less from the school system
they are also the voting group that puts education the lowest, the have the highest dropout rate outside of vulnerable groups and they are one of the lowest participants in extra school activities (like helping with homework) with their kids.
Immigrant parents who prioritise education smoke them in results.
i didnt mention that point because its been done to death, culturally poor white families have not culturally prioritised education. In america they have the same problem, most math olympiad kids are either immigrants or sons of immigrants.
> and less in gender-affirming transitions?
the UK education budget is 115 billion per year, the nhs has spent around 50 million a year on gender care.
Maybe you can ask an immigrant kid to help you with the math
> A small town in england had a serious problem, a group of men where grooming and hurting little girls.
The exact same thing happened in dozens of English towns. It wasn't just Rotherham. This is trivially provable by simply going to the Wikipedia page. It's also still ongoing.
> the unfounded lie that the police did not chase them due to fear of being called racist
This was in fact not an unfounded lie made up by right-wing extremists, but what was actually found in the council report.
> The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."
I think it's very concerning that you could be so dangerously misinformed on this and still post about it. I do think this is one of those stories that is so horrifying it's better not to think about it. But just dismissing it as insane racist nonsense is even worse.
> The exact same thing happened in dozens of English towns.
and most cases, as the scottish one the perpetrators were white, so the case did nt become a part of the "mass grooming brown people" narrative.
The issue is not minor and the reasons why it happened were apparent, from lack of care, to institutional pride to just abject neglect. Girls in underfunded council homes, at risk of homelessness, in orphanages being taken advantage with video evidence sent to the council, a channel 4 documentary from 2004 and still took a decade and a journalist uncovering it AGAIN for it to finally be tackled.
That is not the result of "staff being nervous bout identifying the origings of the perpetrators" because that came after the thing was uncovered. There was a video, sent to the council that was ignored.
> This was in fact not an unfounded lie made up by right-wing extremists
It was constantly, uncessantily repeated by Tommy Robinson and his ilk. Some lovely "reporters" from some online media also tweeted about it, they now have jobs in places like GB News.
> what was actually found in the council report.
the report that came after the trial? The report that could use that excuse to ignore their decade of abject neglect to the suffering of those girls?
Yeah I am sure there are plenty of other excuses in the report, you know where there was 0 mention of the "fear of being racist", in the channel 4 documentary from 2004 that dealt with it while it was happening.
> what was actually found in the council report.
Here just if we are quoting the report let me just jump to the conclusions
"The Jay report found no evidence of children's child social care staff being influenced by concerns about the ethnic origins of suspected perpetrators".
Individual reports of people feeling nervous do not somehow make the racist narrative true, the systemic review of 1400 cases showed that it was not the cause of the mishandling. A judge IGNORED a letter from an abused girl, like being scared of being called racist never was the reason
> You can also find stories featuring the very words of police chiefs
The police were found REPEATEDLY fucking up the case beyond recognition, the initial inquiery in 2001, the weir report, literally stopped reporting to the police finding their intervention from "poor professionalism practice from early stages" to end up not even sharing information due to "police response being so often inappropiate".
The Jay report in 2013 found that the police dismissed victims deeming them "undesirebles" and staff who reported the issue where met with indifference and scorn.
The police that ignored 1400 kids being hurt in their town want you to believe they were too scared to stop it?
Btw the report was so damming that the chief of police was "asked to step down". so yeah def it was the woke people not letting him prosecute that was the issue.
> I think it's very concerning that you could be so dangerously misinformed on this
I am not. The narrative has been taken 20 years to build, the reports bring up "fear of racial tension" in increasing order, from not appearing in weird report in 2001 to being the subject of most of the complaints the iopc found in 2021. That gradual build up of "oh we wouldve stopped it but we didnt wanna upset the pakistanis" is not but the increasing deflection of responsabilities by members of councils and police who had the means and simply did not care. They let girsl in vulnerable posiitons be hurt, knowing full well it was happening and then they scrambled for a scapegoat, and the scapegoat was "we would be called racist".
Again there are plenty of grooming cases in the UK, the glasgow case, the well cathedral case etc. all long loong case, all with the police knowing, all ignored. But those cases dont make the Daily Mirror and Sun front page somehow. Most of the perpetrators of CSA are white men, which is unsurprising as they are the mayority in the country. Most of the victims of CSA are kids in vulnerable positions, drugs, lack of parents, behavioural issues, homeless and those are the groups least likely to be helped by police. Put 2 and 2 together and you see why they get hurt and why the police fail. Then when it all goes public, they scramble and in this case Tommy Robinson came up with the Asian grooming gangs moniker and the tabloids repeated it and now a decade later suddenly every cop wants to say it was the fear of being called racist why they did not answer to the people in danger.
You can check the weir report and see that it's not there. and then in 2014 AFTER the media blackout and the tommy robinson campaign it appears for the first time. and suddenly in 2020 it is mentioned multiple times.
> But just dismissing it as insane racist nonsense is even worse.
Its not dismissing it. It just about the ACTUAL changes needed to affect change. The inquiry found that social care staff was underfunded, that the police routinely ignored evidence, that they ignored video evidence, that their behaviour was unprofessional and inadequate. The Sarah Evrand report found the same failings, a completely inadequate police force full of racist, mysoginistic behaviour that leads to poor performance.
You could kick out every asian person of the UK and you will still have 16 year long grooming cases if the police do not implement needed changes. Because the glassgow case was also almost a decade long and just as bad as Rotherham in the most harrowing cases. And despite being white as snow they were monsters and the police failed to protect those kids too
Most of the dozens of towns in the scandals have the same perpetrators. 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.
This is clearly not the same sort of thing as the “usual” case of individuals abusing their power and trust over children in their care.
It takes very little work to find more and more examples. Why are you pretending they don’t exist?
The list goes on and on and reading through the cases, most of the convictions/arrests got only the tip of the iceberg, as they themselves say.
Edit: I just looked up this Glasgow case and it’s not even close to the same scale, Rotherham was literally three orders of magnitude worse in terms of victims. Of course a criminal ring that victimizes 1000x the number of children will get more attention.
Edit2: of course, you can google almost any UK city and find a grooming gang story - here’s one where asylum seekers ran a massive grooming gang in Glasgow, much bigger than the case you mentioned: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5215881/police-scotlan...
> those cases dont make the Daily Mirror and Sun front page somehow. Most of the perpetrators of CSA are white men
I’m not sure why you mention this given you immediately dismiss it. The per capita rate is not even comparable. 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. Of course taken over the whole country we would expect the main perpetrators of any general crime category to be the native people - but that’s an absolutely bonkers per capita discrepancy and for some reason people are afraid to point out there’s an obvious cultural problem relating to one specific group of people. Instead you just want to say “well English people do it too” (almost never in these organized gangs vs single abusers) and “well if the cops were better” instead of “our policies introducing these people here in combination with our attitudes about policing and race caused this.”
You certainly don't have to convince me British police are among the worst in the world, it's obvious the British institutions hate lower class British people and there's plenty of videos of police going hard after people for not paying their TV license, criticizing the school board, or livestreaming unapproved opinions while ignoring murders, rapes etc. It certainly isn't just these cases, they apparently also let e.g., the Russian mob murder people, but god forbid you press send on a bad tweet.
> 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.
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.
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.
> The UK on a per capita GDP PPP basis is as poor, or poorer, than the poorest US state, Mississippi.
Lets go through some basics, 40% of missippi's budget comes from federal money. California aint paying the tab of the UK, so yeah numbers look worse.
the UK budget for a person includes healthcare, and rent is cheaper (except london). On average UK residents have more disposable income and higher quality of life (longer life, fewer jail time, less child and mother deaths).
No one in the UK would trade their life for the same money, way more driving, worse food, no healthcare and a opioid epidemic all over the place.
> Immigration, trade policy, privatization, and financialization have cut the working class population off at the knees
the highest spending of the working class is housing which was cut by a conservative goverment to entrench purchasing power on the boomer generation. Cutting council house builds in the 70s was the biggest mistake in the recent history of the country
the idea of those kind of trade offs, similar to the US becoming a world currency is that the population would up skill. Replace mines with modern industries and services, which have higher quality of life and lower risk.
> 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.
cool theory, but london is not continuing through inertia, it got ahead of wall street as a financial hub. We are literally the worlds largest financial centre. The fact that its not shared properly is an issue, but no country gets to be numebr 1 in such an incredibly competitive industry "through inertia"
> I think the view that a country's good is defined by GDP is entirely wrong.
why bring up missisippis then?
> 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.
yeah an there is a need for immigrants. Between the lack of births, the lack of university spaces etc we need way more nurses than the UK can graduate per year for example. You also have the historical context of the UK being an empire and still having relationships with the countries it owned. There are plenty of people in Australia, Canda, Nigeria, India whose grandparents were born in UK, then moved to a different country and now their grandkids might wanna come back. Or grew up in an ex colony and think of the UK like many UK students think of europe, as somewhere to go an study or visit or dream of moving to some day.
You can make immigration harder or easier as public policy but it is also something that just happens. Outside of like north korea pretty much every country has people who come in and go out, for a myriad of reasons
I don't think you understand how GDP PPP works, but you understand this makes the UK look even worse, right? At any rate the point is the fact this comparison can even be made is grim: the UK as a whole's best argument for "we're better off than Mississippi" is "well, we uh, have the NHS." Yeah, basically every country has universal health care - it's not impressive...especially when wages and benefits are so poor in the UK that you have to import people to man it rather than drawing in the people you already have. Even the average Mississippian probably gets equivalent care through the byzantine US "universal" system (a quick Google shows 25% of the population is on Medicaid plus another 15% on Medicare, many hospital systems are owned by the government, etc.)
> and rent is cheaper (except london).
The average rent excluding London is 1341 pounds[1], or about $1800. The average rent in Mississippi is $1150. [2]
> No one in the UK would trade their life for the same money, way more driving, worse food, no healthcare and a opioid epidemic all over the place.
The article I linked was from someone who emigrated from the UK to Mississippi. I've also never, ever heard anyone compare UK good favorably to US Southern food. Or any food, really.
Perhaps most importantly, the government of Mississippi and the police don’t have hatred and resentment for the lower classes. Lower class ethnic British people are clearly reviled by their government and the upper classes, regardless of what party is in charge. Even excluding the racial angle, you yourself mention that with how the police spoke of and treated the girls in those scandals.
> the highest spending of the working class is housing which was cut by a conservative goverment to entrench purchasing power on the boomer generation. Cutting council house builds in the 70s was the biggest mistake in the recent history of the country
I don't care whether the "conservatives" or the "liberals" or the "greens" or anyone else did it (do you think I like Thatcher?), the fact is the UK has been horrifically mismanaged and went from one of the wealthiest countries in the world to one for whom the average person is more badly off than the average person in most advanced countries.
> it got ahead of wall street as a financial hub.
Being a financial hub is not great for anyone except the 1%, but nevertheless NYC is a larger financial hub than London, despite, once again, the enormous advantage London should have had. [3]
However, I would agree: if the US doesn't do something soon, it will end up like the UK: the elite and the rich do great, while financialization, free trade, and migration destroy the middle and lower classes. That's what we're already seeing. If we don't wake up, the dystopia seen in the UK is our future.
> yeah an there is a need for immigrants.
Yes, capitalists love cheap labor. We always have labor "shortages" that magically can only be solved by dumping supply on the labor market. The birthrate argument is particularly silly, since immigration depresses native births. [4] It's also a worldwide problem except in some developing countries, so the "we have to be nice" argument is ultimately hollowing out the countries the migrants come from.
> but it is also something that just happens. Outside of like north korea pretty much every country has people who come in and go out, for a myriad of reasons
Migrants come because the can get money. They can get money because of government policies that specifically enable them to get jobs and benefits. In other words, they are incentivized to come and policies are developed to support and assist them. Without these carrots, migration plummets. UK political leadership made a deliberate choice to pump the UK full of migrants, one that would have been opposed by the population had it been a referendum. Indeed in the UK case, it's been particularly obvious that voting for politicians that claim to oppose migration just gets you even more immigration.
i wish someone didnt dismantle the education department of the federal goverment....
> Freedom of speech allows to hear different views and apply this critical thinking.
thats all well and good except it has never existed in the US, with countless examples of people being jailed for wrongthink it just happened that those people were all leftist. The second accountability crossed the aisle the uproar began. No one gave a shit when people were sent to jail for protesting Vietnam, or when the black panthers where jailed on terrorism charges but the second someone asked if Rupert murdoch should be held accountable for spreading lies for 30 years then it became a chest thumping issue.
> The problem is that you seem to know better and want to choose what's allowed and not allowed to say, given your political bias and contempt for your fellow citizens.
56% of americans cannot read past a 6th grade level. its not contempt, its pity
> democracy is not about empowering
Demos - people. Kratia - power. Gezz someone should tell the greeks they dont even know their language.
> but about managing the various interest to end up with something that is acceptable
that is not democracy, that is politics. Democracy is a form of politics, which has certain principles, like empowering the people (in liberal western democracy this is usually views that spawn from the french revolution, aka humanistic principles, education and voting and creating political groups to represent interests.
> If a subgroup is being bullied, it is normal that it expresses its resentment.
being bullied and FEELING they are bullied are different things, and certain personality disorders, education levels and religious views have a much larger overlap with those feelings. I personally do not care that a bunch of rich christians feel they are the butt of the joke, they have both monetary and political capital their feelings are literally not supported by reality. And arguing about their feelings is a pointless exercise in trying to explain to a entitled child why they are wrong.
> For instance, when white british people are being mass raped
not happening. Source: white british person.
> with no or little enforcement by the Police due to fear of being seen as "racists".
This is also not true. It is a literal talking point of Tommy Robinson, famous neo nazi, over the grooming gang that affected a small town in britain a few years ago.
i know YOU dont care, because you are just here to racist dogwhistle but I will explain the context for the people who might stumble upon your comment.
A small town in england had a serious problem, a group of men where grooming and hurting little girls. The police and local council were aware, however the town being small were scared that such a big scandal would tarnish their reputation. The police force, lacking funding and training fucked up the case beyond recognition and asked for support, the local council told them to keep it under wraps. A reporter a DECADE later brought the case up, as little girls were still being harmed. Due to how the justice works in the UK there is a media blackout (no one is allowed to report while a case is active) in this media blackout Tommy Robinson made up the unfounded lie that the police did not chase them due to fear of being called racist. Once the case was settled, a local council man (who was aware of the problem before it came to light) repeated Tommy Robinsons views as it exculpated him of letting little girls get hurt with his knowledge.
Other mass grooming cases with white perpetrators like the catholic schools in scotland case, reported by the same reporter and also decades long was somehow not national news in the same newspapers that reported the Tommy Robinson "fear of being racist" lines.
A neo nazi made up a lie, based on nothing and a council man who allowed the pain of minors in his council repeated it to not be accountable for his failings as a man. And now youre here a decade later, repeating it because you either know its false but want to spread hate, or dont know its fake and are contradicting your own claims that people are critical and can distinguish true and false.
> As a side note, all of the examples that you give are about reducing freedom of speech
by goverments bragging about their freedom of speech. You said countries who hate freedom of speech are the auth ones, I gave you examples of the country who uses the word freedom more than they use the word "the".
> which did not prevent the access of the NSDAP to power.
The big difference there is that Germany was an incredibly poor and unstable country. Syria is not haviing a civil war due to their freedom of speech laws, and neither did Germany. How free the press is in Sudan is not the reason they are being investigated by the UN for genocide.