It's only a minority of Muslims right ?

[jimmyd41]

Whatever about the US, Europe has turned into a complete basket case.The guilty verdicts have come in on the Rotherham sex abuse case. What is more interesting is to look into the attitudes of some of the key players. These are some quotes from an article about prof Alexis jay and the chief prosecutor for the region in question.

When she wrote the report, the chapter that gave her the most sleepless nights was about the ethnicity of the perpetrators. Almost all of them were from Rotherham's Pakistani-heritage community, which makes up just 3.1% of the local population. She cringes slightly when I ask her to explain the overrepresentation. "It's a very complex issue and I am not an expert," she begins. I say that she is surely more of an expert than almost anyone else. There's a long pause. "I understood that the community in Rotherham were described as coming from possibly three villages in Kashmir, and that this identification was very important to them. Their traditions and relationships, these were not sophisticated, they were very traditional. I was told by many people that previous generations had a different view about women's place in their culture and their society that certainly wouldn't accord with any sense that we have."

Nazir Afzal, chief crown prosecutor for the north-west and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lead on child sexual exploitation,.  explained the overrepresentation of Pakistani men in on-street grooming crimes by pointing to the fact they are more likely to work in the night-time economy in Rotherham. "I'm sceptical about that, not for a principled reason because I haven't done the research, but from my gut," says Jay. "I think it presents an opportunity but it doesn't present a motive. There are many people involved in the night-time economy who don't abuse."

Much of the reporting around the Jay report said she had accused Rotherham council and police of failing to tackle sexual exploitation because of a misplaced political correctness. Yet Jay, quite deliberately, never used that term. "I have an aversion to phrases like that," she says. Instead, she believes the Labour-dominated council turned a blind eye to the problem because of "their desire to accommodate a community that would be expected to vote Labour, to not rock the boat, to keep a lid on it, to hope it would go away.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/13/alexis-jay-politicians-rotherham-report-child-sex-abuse-social-worker-claims-westminster-bbc-nhs

So the woman who wrote the report , who has confronted all the facts of this heinous case has "the most sleepless nights" about the fact that the majority of perpetrators are Pakistani....wtf  . You can almost see the pained expression on her face and her hand wringing as she delivers some quasi-apology about "different views on women"...and she won't use the term "political correctness"...

Then you have the chief prosecutor for the region....(the chief f**king prosecutor !!)....... basically offering excuses for the preponderance of Pakistani suspects.

1400 victims in a town of ~80000.....This insanity must stop. Liberals and the left need to hold their hands up and admit they have greviously failed. This is why white America is flocking to trump and Labour have lost the white working class to Ukip and the tories ......and they are never coming back.

[Eamonnca1]

Congratulations, Jimmy. You've found an incident in which the majority of the perps are Pakistani.

You remind me of people who complain about "black-on-black" crime in America. Sure, in cities where there's a large proportion of black people, a large proportion of the criminals are going to be black. I'd imagine that in a city that's mostly white, the majority of the people who commit crimes there are going to be white. The demographics of local crime figures are generally going to reflect the demographics of the local population. This is the way of things.

Meanwhile, people like you are so busy getting outraged by the actions of a few Pakistanis that you don't notice the far bigger numbers of them going about their law-abiding business peacefully. This is what racists do.

This attitude of tarring an entire ethnic group with the same brush as the criminals from said group is the same racist bullshit that led to the wrongful imprisonment of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four.  For an Irishman to lower himself to the same nonsense is an embarrassing disgrace.

"Being Irish means they're guilty, so they're guilty one and all" as the song says. Have you ever sang that song yourself, Jimmy? Have you ever listened to it and had your blood boil by it? Because if so then you're a hypocrite of the highest order. If internment in the north was a recruiting drive for the Provos, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why radicalization is taking place in countries like the UK now. Anybody who tars all muslims with the same brush as muslim criminals and terrorists is no different from the "no blacks, no dogs, no Irish" crowd in England, and I hold people like you personally responsible for said radicalization.

[J70]

J70, your military comparison is ludicrous. The fact that you equate legitimate benefits accruing from national service to discrimination based on skin colour shows me how far people like you are prepared to go to defend a rotten system.

wrt to your mention of Al Sharpton,As  I mentioned earlier that I did not interview any white workers during my time in the bay area. The other group conspicuous by their absence were African-americans. You can be sure that this was not for want of trying by HR. This is a problem that needs to be tackled way further back in the educational system. However, the key take away is that the whole goal of affirmative action has been completely usurped by corporate globalists and liberal zealots.  Practically all the candidates I interviewed and all the ones that were hired were either Indians or Chinese who had arrived in the US anywhere from 3-5 years previously. There is no way in the wide earthly world that this policy can be seen to address historical discrimination in the US. 

There are two main drivers here. Insane liberals who continue, with no end in sight,  to insist that white kids pay for the sins of past generations. The other driving force is Zuckerberg et al who have sold you a pup. It used to be that companies would move abroad to take advantage of cheaper labour. Why bother when you can just import that labour under the guise of "diversity".

Veterans are an example of a group who were falling behind in society, similar to blacks, and the affirmative action policies on their behalf were brought in under US "support the military" fervour and a recognition that earlier generations of veterans were pretty much abandoned. The only difference between them and African Americans was the direct causes of their troubles and the popularity of their cause. The effects were the same. If foxcommander wants to say that one is an example of "prioritization" and the other is "discrimination", that's fine, but its dishonest. They're both the same, except one is more broadly socially acceptable. The supposed terrible effects of the policy on those who are passed over for someone perhaps slightly less qualified are the same.

And that was my point. Its unacceptable for one group, but fine for another, despite the policy being the same. I personally don't really have a problem with either.

And I of course recognize that this is a difficult issue with arguments for and against, especially after 50 years. Its not a black and white issue (no pun intended) as some would have it. As you say, more work is needed in other parts of the system, especially education (but then we get into funding and Head Start and all that stuff).

None of you boys have yet answered whether it was acceptable in the north when the PSNI set quotas for recruitment of catholics after the good Friday agreement. How about it?

[jimmyd41]

J70, your military comparison is ludicrous. The fact that you equate legitimate benefits accruing from national service to discrimination based on skin colour shows me how far people like you are prepared to go to defend a rotten system.

wrt to your mention of Al Sharpton,As  I mentioned earlier that I did not interview any white workers during my time in the bay area. The other group conspicuous by their absence were African-americans. You can be sure that this was not for want of trying by HR. This is a problem that needs to be tackled way further back in the educational system. However, the key take away is that the whole goal of affirmative action has been completely usurped by corporate globalists and liberal zealots.  Practically all the candidates I interviewed and all the ones that were hired were either Indians or Chinese who had arrived in the US anywhere from 3-5 years previously. There is no way in the wide earthly world that this policy can be seen to address historical discrimination in the US. 

There are two main drivers here. Insane liberals who continue, with no end in sight,  to insist that white kids pay for the sins of past generations. The other driving force is Zuckerberg et al who have sold you a pup. It used to be that companies would move abroad to take advantage of cheaper labour. Why bother when you can just import that labour under the guise of "diversity".

Veterans are an example of a group who were falling behind in society, similar to blacks, and the affirmative action policies on their behalf were brought in under US "support the military" fervour and a recognition that earlier generations of veterans were pretty much abandoned. The only difference between them and African Americans was the direct causes of their troubles and the popularity of their cause. The effects were the same. If foxcommander wants to say that one is an example of "prioritization" and the other is "discrimination", that's fine, but its dishonest. They're both the same, except one is more broadly socially acceptable. The supposed terrible effects of the policy on those who are passed over for someone perhaps slightly less qualified are the same.

And that was my point. Its unacceptable for one group, but fine for another, despite the policy being the same. I personally don't really have a problem with either.

And I of course recognize that this is a difficult issue with arguments for and against, especially after 50 years. Its not a black and white issue (no pun intended) as some would have it. As you say, more work is needed in other parts of the system, especially education (but then we get into funding and Head Start and all that stuff).

None of you boys have yet answered whether it was acceptable in the north when the PSNI set quotas for recruitment of catholics after the good Friday agreement. How about it?

Stop being obtuse and contorting yourself to excuse your obvious mistake. Benefits for veterans in no way shape or form can be equated to affirmative action based on skin color. If that were true then any "bonus" for "performance/good behaviour/national service" can be equated to affirmative action based on skin color. Complete bollocks and you know it. As long as the benefits accruing to veterans is skin blind then they are not the same thing. End of.

It is this sophistry that means liberals are not trusted by white america anymore. You are snake oil salesmen

[jimmyd41]

Congratulations, Jimmy. You've found an incident in which the majority of the perps are Pakistani.

You remind me of people who complain about "black-on-black" crime in America. Sure, in cities where there's a large proportion of black people, a large proportion of the criminals are going to be black. I'd imagine that in a city that's mostly white, the majority of the people who commit crimes there are going to be white. The demographics of local crime figures are generally going to reflect the demographics of the local population. This is the way of things.

Meanwhile, people like you are so busy getting outraged by the actions of a few Pakistanis that you don't notice the far bigger numbers of them going about their law-abiding business peacefully. This is what racists do.

This attitude of tarring an entire ethnic group with the same brush as the criminals from said group is the same racist bullshit that led to the wrongful imprisonment of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four.  For an Irishman to lower himself to the same nonsense is an embarrassing disgrace.

"Being Irish means they're guilty, so they're guilty one and all" as the song says. Have you ever sang that song yourself, Jimmy? Have you ever listened to it and had your blood boil by it? Because if so then you're a hypocrite of the highest order. If internment in the north was a recruiting drive for the Provos, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why radicalization is taking place in countries like the UK now. Anybody who tars all muslims with the same brush as muslim criminals and terrorists is no different from the "no blacks, no dogs, no Irish" crowd in England, and I hold people like you personally responsible for said radicalization.

blah, blah, blah racist blah, blah blah, racist

That guff might pass muster with your fabulous friends out there in San Francisco but not here you hysterical queen.

It was 1400 kids over 16 years and my beef is not with the Pakistani community. I said no such thing anywhere in my posts. My problem is with liberal idiots like you that allowed it to happen. Kids getting raped and you sweeping it under the carpet muttering "its only a few...its only a few"

[jimmyd41]

btw, you are involved in the NACB at the officer level right ? Can you elaborate on what steps you have taken to address a sporting organization that is so out of whack with the racial diversity of the country it operates in.

[J70]

J70, your military comparison is ludicrous. The fact that you equate legitimate benefits accruing from national service to discrimination based on skin colour shows me how far people like you are prepared to go to defend a rotten system.

wrt to your mention of Al Sharpton,As  I mentioned earlier that I did not interview any white workers during my time in the bay area. The other group conspicuous by their absence were African-americans. You can be sure that this was not for want of trying by HR. This is a problem that needs to be tackled way further back in the educational system. However, the key take away is that the whole goal of affirmative action has been completely usurped by corporate globalists and liberal zealots.  Practically all the candidates I interviewed and all the ones that were hired were either Indians or Chinese who had arrived in the US anywhere from 3-5 years previously. There is no way in the wide earthly world that this policy can be seen to address historical discrimination in the US. 

There are two main drivers here. Insane liberals who continue, with no end in sight,  to insist that white kids pay for the sins of past generations. The other driving force is Zuckerberg et al who have sold you a pup. It used to be that companies would move abroad to take advantage of cheaper labour. Why bother when you can just import that labour under the guise of "diversity".

Veterans are an example of a group who were falling behind in society, similar to blacks, and the affirmative action policies on their behalf were brought in under US "support the military" fervour and a recognition that earlier generations of veterans were pretty much abandoned. The only difference between them and African Americans was the direct causes of their troubles and the popularity of their cause. The effects were the same. If foxcommander wants to say that one is an example of "prioritization" and the other is "discrimination", that's fine, but its dishonest. They're both the same, except one is more broadly socially acceptable. The supposed terrible effects of the policy on those who are passed over for someone perhaps slightly less qualified are the same.

And that was my point. Its unacceptable for one group, but fine for another, despite the policy being the same. I personally don't really have a problem with either.

And I of course recognize that this is a difficult issue with arguments for and against, especially after 50 years. Its not a black and white issue (no pun intended) as some would have it. As you say, more work is needed in other parts of the system, especially education (but then we get into funding and Head Start and all that stuff).

None of you boys have yet answered whether it was acceptable in the north when the PSNI set quotas for recruitment of catholics after the good Friday agreement. How about it?

Stop being obtuse and contorting yourself to excuse your obvious mistake. Benefits for veterans in no way shape or form can be equated to affirmative action based on skin color. If that were true then any "bonus" for "performance/good behaviour/national service" can be equated to affirmative action based on skin color. Complete bollocks and you know it. As long as the benefits accruing to veterans is skin blind then they are not the same thing. End of.

It is this sophistry that means liberals are not trusted by white america anymore. You are snake oil salesmen

Bollocks. The policy is the same, based on a perceived debt society owes to each group. Now you can disagree with the legitimacy of the debt or whether this is the correct remedy, but the end point is that membership of the group entitles one to an advantage over another person who may otherwise be more qualified. You just think positive discrimination is ok in one case and not in the other. The person who loses out gets the same deal.

Which was the whole reason I raised it: i.e. Is it the policy and its effects that is objectionable, or the choice of who gets to benefit, when it comes to my losing this proverbial job that will send my life and family into a tailspin.

And still no comment on the PSNI and Catholics. Is that one tricky?

[jimmyd41]

Listen , stop making stupid comparisons. Affirmative action

"is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.[1][2][3][4] Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as oppression or slavery.[5] Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, promoting diversity, and redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances"

The US military are not a "disadvantaged" group except in the sense that they take prime years out of the lives , which could be used to educate themselves. This is not the same as favouring them based on skin colour.To say so is ludicrous. The benefits they accrue can be seen as nothing more than a reward for national service.

As for the PSNI hiring Catholics...clearly I have rattled your cage by exposing the racist attitudes of your countymen  . There is nothing wrong with the PSNI favouring Catholics. Now if those positions were being filled almost exclusively by recent emigrant "Catholics" then you can see how that might be perceived as a problem right ?

[jimmyd41]

Also, there has to be a feedback mechanism. Affirmative action cannot go on forever. If the goals are not being reached then questions must be asked. People need to be fired. "Whitey" can't blamed everytime, everyplace when things are not progressing within certain communities. Such accountability will never happen though. Paternalistic white liberals like you will never allow that. You like to see yourself as Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird" but you are closer to the Atticus Finch in "Go set a watchman"

[J70]

Listen , stop making stupid comparisons. Affirmative action

"is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.[1][2][3][4] Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as oppression or slavery.[5] Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, promoting diversity, and redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances"

The US military are not a "disadvantaged" group. To say so is ludicrous. The benefits they accrue can be seen as nothing more than a reward for national service.

As for the PSNI hiring Catholics...clearly I have rattled your cage by exposing the racist attitudes of your countymen  . There is nothing wrong with the PSNI favouring Catholics. Now if those positions were being filled almost exclusively by recent emigrant "Catholics" then you can see how that might be perceived as a problem right ?

Veterans are not disadvantaged? Seriously? With the physical and mental disabilities, the suicide rate, the drug abuse, the domestic violence, the trouble readapting, etc.?

And how is the PSNI favouring Catholics different to the US trying to address underrepresentation of minorities, in particular blacks, in jobs and colleges? Both are trying to address legacies of bigotry and discrimination.

The abuse you highlight is a separate issue. Lots of laws and policies are subject to abuse and corruption. Doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.

[J70]

Also, there has to be a feedback mechanism. Affirmative action cannot go on forever. If the goals are not being reached then questions must be asked. People need to be fired. "Whitey" can't blamed everytime, everyplace when things are not progressing within certain communities. Such accountability will never happen though. Paternalistic white liberals like you will never allow that. You like to see yourself as Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird" but you are closer to the Atticus Finch in "Go set a watchman"

Obviously there should be review and evaluation. That goes for anything.

As for the last bit, preach to me again about arrogance and presumption and sneering like you were a few days back.

[jimmyd41]

Listen , stop making stupid comparisons. Affirmative action

"is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.[1][2][3][4] Often, these people are disadvantaged for historical reasons, such as oppression or slavery.[5] Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, promoting diversity, and redressing apparent past wrongs, harms, or hindrances"

The US military are not a "disadvantaged" group. To say so is ludicrous. The benefits they accrue can be seen as nothing more than a reward for national service.

As for the PSNI hiring Catholics...clearly I have rattled your cage by exposing the racist attitudes of your countymen  . There is nothing wrong with the PSNI favouring Catholics. Now if those positions were being filled almost exclusively by recent emigrant "Catholics" then you can see how that might be perceived as a problem right ?

Veterans are not disadvantaged? Seriously? With the physical and mental disabilities, the suicide rate, the drug abuse, the domestic violence, the trouble readapting, etc.?

And how is the PSNI favouring Catholics different to the US trying to address underrepresentation of minorities, in particular blacks, in jobs and colleges? Both are trying to address legacies of bigotry and discrimination.

The abuse you highlight is a separate issue. Lots of laws and policies are subject to abuse and corruption. Doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water.

They are disadvantaged in the sense that they have to take x number of years out of their lives to serve when they could be educating themselves so compensating them for this should be seen as exactly that, recompense.... and ffs OF COURSE if someone is injured in the line of duty they deserve treatment. Stop mixing up different things.

Lets step back and remember that you asked how I could be ok with favouring US military but not minorities when they receive favourable treatment. I have made it clear , it is because the SERVE the country so, yeah, I have no problem with them moving to the front of the line.

Affirmative action has been on the go now for over 50 years and has been abused in my working life and area (i.e 20 years, hi-tech) and probably for longer than that yet all you can talk about is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. How about we throw out the bathwather and figure out why the baby is not progressing

[jimmyd41]

Also, there has to be a feedback mechanism. Affirmative action cannot go on forever. If the goals are not being reached then questions must be asked. People need to be fired. "Whitey" can't blamed everytime, everyplace when things are not progressing within certain communities. Such accountability will never happen though. Paternalistic white liberals like you will never allow that. You like to see yourself as Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird" but you are closer to the Atticus Finch in "Go set a watchman"

Obviously there should be review and evaluation. That goes for anything.

As for the last bit, preach to me again about arrogance and presumption and sneering like you were a few days back.

No coincidence that you say there should be review and evaluation but no mention of action..typical liberal.

I make no apologies for being in your face. Liberals are insane, arrogant and relentless and cry racist at every turn to shut down debate. You deliberately ignore all evidence and continue to push your crazy agendas. You must be confronted head on and it is happening in the US and all across Europe. Get used to it.

[screenexile]

Also, there has to be a feedback mechanism. Affirmative action cannot go on forever. If the goals are not being reached then questions must be asked. People need to be fired. "Whitey" can't blamed everytime, everyplace when things are not progressing within certain communities. Such accountability will never happen though. Paternalistic white liberals like you will never allow that. You like to see yourself as Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird" but you are closer to the Atticus Finch in "Go set a watchman"

Obviously there should be review and evaluation. That goes for anything.

As for the last bit, preach to me again about arrogance and presumption and sneering like you were a few days back.

No coincidence that you say there should be review and evaluation but no mention of action..typical liberal.

I make no apologies for being in your face. Liberals are insane, arrogant and relentless and cry racist at every turn to shut down debate. You deliberately ignore all evidence and continue to push your crazy agendas. You must be confronted head on and it is happening in the US and all across Europe. Get used to it.

Yes it's the liberals who are insane. . . have you been watching the GOP Primaries unfold??!!!

[jimmyd41]

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result so, no, its not insane.

it is brilliant entertainment though . Watching the liberals squirm is great. Of course they'll say that trump wont win the general election but White americans don't care. Neither the GOP and, especially, democrats represent them anymore so they can't win either way.

I think Liberals are coming to the horrible realization though that its either trump v Sanders in which case trump wins or, more likely,  trump v Clinton where Clinton wins a brusing contest. Then we settle in for 4 to 8 more years of a Clinton dynasty. The country will explode.