A video I came across on this: rtsp://v5.cache6.googlevideo.com/ChoLENy73wIaEQnROxtBon1SABMYDSANFEgDDA==/0/0/0/video.3gp
On 6 Sep 2014 10:02, John Sundman <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Apologies for top posting. I think that horse has left the barn, as we say > here in Amurka.] > > Insofar as "the system" apparently led to allowing the systematic torture and > rape of nearly one and a half thousand children over a period of decades, in > a supposedly civilized nation (UK), I hope that everybody reading this note > on this list will agree that "the system" was (and still is?) entirely and > criminally fucked up. > > So, we agree that the people who were charged with protecting these children > (who were and are both boys and girls, to my understanding) failed, and > failed miserably, and criminally. > > The number boggles the mind. 1,400 children (effectively) kidnapped and raped > in one (smallish) city. How can this possibly be true? And yet it apparently > is. > > So it's easy to assign blame to those who failed to protect the children: the > mothers, fathers, police, ministers, priests, teachers, and every other > goddamn adult in the city. I can believe that some of them had no idea what > was going on. But I cannot believe that *nobody* had any idea what was going > on. > > But let's put that on the stack for a moment and consider the other question, > who were and are the rapists? According to this story, they were prominently > Pakistanis or people of Pakistani heritage. Let's assume that's true for a > minute. One then must ask, Is all Pakistani culture fucked up, or is it > "merely" some swath of it? ( I take it as axiomatic that raping kidnapped > children is fucked up.) > > My question: how many Pakistani rapists raped the 1,400 children who were > raped? Was it 100 rapists who raped 14 children each? 14 rapists who raped > 100 children each? That sounds horrific. Maybe it was 200 rapists who raped 7 > children each. Is that better or worse? > > We don't yet know, if I understand the facts, how many of the rapists were > Pakistani, or what words might properly be used to describe the > ethnic/cultural/whatever affiliation of those rapists who were/are not of > Pakistanis "heritage". > > I shuddered when I read Shiv's comments about "disciplining" children and > "honor" murders. > > He asks, "why were all the girls white?". The most obvious answer is that > that's what the market wanted. > > Shiv says "In Britain the state attempts to protect vulnerable children from > physical and emotional abuse by parents," and then insinuates, if I > understand him correctly, that this impulse to protect children from abusive > parents is somehow correlated to the kidnapping and rape of children in > Rotherham. > > What the fuck? > > It's illegal to beat up your own child in your own home. It's also illegal to > kidnap somebody else's child and rape him or her repeatedly over a period of > years. > > Is it really not obvious that both of these things are bad or that the state > has an interest in curtailing them? > > I'm not even going to try to parse the discussion of "honor killings" or of > how "consensual sex" is somehow tied to child rape. > > I can't even write about this any more. > > This shit is fucked up. > > jrs > > > > > > The system seem to have things the wrong way round. Exactly what is > > going on? > > > > shiv > > > > > > > >
