This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 22 Oct 21 6.35pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Even if no one else is willing or able to do it? But they are. That's why it's against the law.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Oct 21 6.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyboy1978
Ok forget Yaxley lennon for now. Were you aware that Muslims find it ok in their faith to have sex with 10- 11 12 year olds? I personally think its upsetting their are potentially 100's of thousand of Muslims who think its OK because their faith says so. Where do you get those figures from? No survey I have ever seen supports such an assertion, so I strongly doubt that to be true. I think it is just more evidence of prejudice, and that most modern British Muslims would be as appalled at any kind of paedophilia as the rest of us. That there are paedos out there is obviously true, but we need to concentrate on their crimes and not tarnish the whole community they might be part of. We need to encourage the law-abiding to turn them in. You don't do that when you ostracise them through guilt by association.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 georgenorman 22 Oct 21 6.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Where do you get those figures from? No survey I have ever seen supports such an assertion, so I strongly doubt that to be true. I think it is just more evidence of prejudice, and that most modern British Muslims would be as appalled at any kind of paedophilia as the rest of us. That there are paedos out there is obviously true, but we need to concentrate on their crimes and not tarnish the whole community they might be part of. We need to encourage the law-abiding to turn them in. You don't do that when you ostracise them through guilt by association. The minimum age in Shari'ah is the onset of puberty, so in most cases well below a civilised age of consent.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Oct 21 7.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
The minimum age in Shari'ah is the onset of puberty, so in most cases well below a civilised age of consent. Complete red herring. We don't live under Sharia law. British law applies to everyone in the UK, whatever their faith.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 22 Oct 21 7.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Complete red herring. We don't live under Sharia law. British law applies to everyone in the UK, whatever their faith. But it's OK in other countries to shag a 10 year old.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 22 Oct 21 7.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Complete red herring. We don't live under Sharia law. British law applies to everyone in the UK, whatever their faith. Not a red herring at all. The law should apply to everyone, but religious people often put their religion's teachings before the law and/or accepted societal practice. Quakers refused to be conscripted in World War II, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, Sikhs can carry knives and don't have to wear crash helmets, etc. Some muslims have bombed children at pop music concerts in the name of their religion, paedophilia would seem moderate to those killers. Edited by georgenorman (22 Oct 2021 8.11pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Oct 21 8.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
But it's OK in other countries to shag a 10 year old. In some yes, but whilst we can disapprove in whatever way we can, we have no authority there. Where we do, it is against the law. For everyone. Laxley-Lennon adds to the problem. He doesn't solve it in any way at all. His rhetoric, delivered in his smarmy style, accompanied by the occasional punch and time in jail, tends to increase, and not heal, the gaps that exist between communities. Many of whom are doing some great work together, often unpublicised. Breaking down the traditional family loyalties is a work in progress. Work being hindered by Y-L. We need to succeed, which is why so many are so angry with Y-L, who must know he is harming people but just doesn't care. He has his own agenda. Follow the money!
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 22 Oct 21 8.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
In some yes, but whilst we can disapprove in whatever way we can, we have no authority there. Where we do, it is against the law. For everyone. Laxley-Lennon adds to the problem. He doesn't solve it in any way at all. His rhetoric, delivered in his smarmy style, accompanied by the occasional punch and time in jail, tends to increase, and not heal, the gaps that exist between communities. Many of whom are doing some great work together, often unpublicised. Breaking down the traditional family loyalties is a work in progress. Work being hindered by Y-L. We need to succeed, which is why so many are so angry with Y-L, who must know he is harming people but just doesn't care. He has his own agenda. Follow the money! Your first three words are disgusting. You sanctiin sex with 10 year olds. I've read some upsetting things on here but I think you have won that prize.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Oct 21 8.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Not a red herring at all. The law should apply to everyone, but religious people often put their religion's teachings before the law and/or accepted societal practice. Quakers refused to be conscripted in World War II, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, Sikhs can carry knives and don't have to wear crash helmets, etc. Some muslims have bombed children at pop music concerts in the name of their religion, paedophilia would seem moderate to those killers. Edited by georgenorman (22 Oct 2021 8.11pm) The law DOES apply to everyone. In our tolerant society, religious sensitivities are respected wherever possible. Conscientious objection and refusing blood transfusions are not against the law. Sikhs were given dispensations. These are totally different to killing people or committing paedophilia. Both are heinous crimes which could not, and will not, ever be tolerated, whatever a person's motivation.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Oct 21 9.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Your first three words are disgusting. You sanctiin sex with 10 year olds. I've read some upsetting things on here but I think you have won that prize. You deliberately misunderstand me. I am not "sanctioning" anything. That it's lawful in some countries doesn't mean I approve. As you know very well. If you don't, you do now! The point I made is that we have no jurisdiction there, whilst we do here. Here, it is very clearly against the law. As you have no more influence over what happens in other countries than I do, does this mean that YOU sanction acts there that are unlawful here?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 22 Oct 21 9.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The law DOES apply to everyone. In our tolerant society, religious sensitivities are respected wherever possible. Conscientious objection and refusing blood transfusions are not against the law. Sikhs were given dispensations. These are totally different to killing people or committing paedophilia. Both are heinous crimes which could not, and will not, ever be tolerated, whatever a person's motivation. Clearly the law does NOT apply to everyone as there is one law for Sikhs and another for everyone else.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  22 Oct 21 9.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
But they are. That's why it's against the law. But they didn’t. Which is why he did.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.