This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
 cryrst  The garden of England 01 Feb 22 10.19pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Goodness me! I didn't say that, and that anyone could think I did, just confirms why I hesitated in contributing to the debate. Nothing at all, other than an evil, criminal mindset, causes anyone to rape kids. My remark was solely about what causes so many girls to be vulnerable. If you don't think that is worth considering, that's OK, but please don't misrepresent what I write. There is already one poster who routinely does that. The last thing needed is another. You wernt specific. You asked if austerity started a societal breakdown. Very vague but without being more specific you are on the TR grooming thread after all. How about how child rape and grooming is not isolated and investigated in detail. Including the girls and the gangs doing it to them. Is it not true that a certain demographic commit the crimes and a certain demographic of victim exist. Edited by cryrst (01 Feb 2022 10.23pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 01 Feb 22 10.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
You wernt specific. You asked if austerity started a societal breakdown. Very vague but without being more specific you are on the TR grooming thread after all. How about how child rape and grooming is not isolated and investigated in detail. Including the girls and the gangs doing it to them. Is it not true that a certain demographic commit the crimes and a certain demographic of victim exist. Edited by cryrst (01 Feb 2022 10.23pm) I was very specific, in a sub thread dealing with a new report. What I said was "What has created the vulnerability in the first place? Are we seeing the tip of an iceberg of societal breakdown triggered by austerity?" That's about what has created the vulnerability of the victims, and not the evil nature of the criminals. The point being that if there weren't so many vulnerable girls to prey on, then there wouldn't be so many victims. Not to comment on ANY other considerations and certainly not to diminish, in any way, the importance of detecting, prosecuting and punishing each and every man involved in this despicable activity. The two go hand in hand, to my mind. If you don't agree, that's fine.
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 |
|
Teddy Eagle  01 Feb 22 10.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Feb 22 11.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Probably, and worth investigating. I don't have all the answers. Only questions. My only direct information on the 1930s comes via my late brother, who grew up then. My parents and him, certainly lived in austere conditions, but I don't think they thought they did. They just lived. There just wasn't the same level of information, let alone the public scrutiny, we now have. Children were disciplined and expected to behave. Fewer fatherless families. Fewer working mothers. A totally different kind of society.
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 |
|
| Teddy Eagle 01 Feb 22 11.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Probably, and worth investigating. I don't have all the answers. Only questions. My only direct information on the 1930s comes via my late brother, who grew up then. My parents and him, certainly lived in austere conditions, but I don't think they thought they did. They just lived. There just wasn't the same level of information, let alone the public scrutiny, we now have. Children were disciplined and expected to behave. Fewer fatherless families. Fewer working mothers. A totally different kind of society. Fair enough. I was a child in the 60s in crappy housing with a toilet shared with other families but I’m pretty sure that even in the 30’s people who grew up in poverty, in poor housing, in constant debt, hungry and improperly clothed knew they were living in shocking conditions.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 02 Feb 22 12.27am |
 |
|---|---|
|
People in the thirties weren't living in social liberalism. Concepts like duty and group loyalty existed and that fed through the cultural norms. While technology has improved lives considerably culturally society is a disaster zone.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Feb 22 9.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Fair enough. I was a child in the 60s in crappy housing with a toilet shared with other families but I’m pretty sure that even in the 30’s people who grew up in poverty, in poor housing, in constant debt, hungry and improperly clothed knew they were living in shocking conditions. My folk didn't live like that. They were in a one-bed flat above a shop, where they were until the end of WW2. My mother and my brother spent a lot of the war sleeping in an Anderson shelter in the garden, while Dad was serving in the Royal Navy. Then they were "given" a council house, where I spent my childhood, and were very proud of it. How typical they were is hard for me to know.
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 02 Feb 22 9.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
My folk didn't live like that. They were in a one-bed flat above a shop, where they were until the end of WW2. My mother and my brother spent a lot of the war sleeping in an Anderson shelter in the garden, while Dad was serving in the Royal Navy. Then they were "given" a council house, where I spent my childhood, and were very proud of it. How typical they were is hard for me to know. Well ask racist dave as it will be a different subject
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Feb 22 9.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
People in the thirties weren't living in social liberalism. Concepts like duty and group loyalty existed and that fed through the cultural norms. While technology has improved lives considerably culturally society is a disaster zone. It seems "social liberalism" means different things to different people:- However, from the generally accepted political meaning, as its impact is on reducing poverty, improving health care and education via government intervention, there is no logical reason why doing any of these should diminish the concepts of duty and group loyalty. Indeed, there is every reason to suppose they would be strengthened. So whilst it cannot be denied that those concepts have been weakened there must be other causes than just the growth of "social liberalism". Other countries, like Germany, are politically wedded to its principals and are both more economically and socially successful than us. So I think there are deeper, more complex, reasons for our malaise.
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 |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 02 Feb 22 10.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
People in the thirties weren't living in social liberalism. Concepts like duty and group loyalty existed and that fed through the cultural norms. While technology has improved lives considerably culturally society is a disaster zone. I grew up on an old fashion council estate in the sixties. The accommodation was poor but it was working class "proud". There was no trouble on the estate as everybody knew each other and neighbours looked after one and other. Adults were comfortable in telling other people's kids off and we kids knew that our parents would have supported their neighbours right to do so which modified our behaviour. Men went out to work women were housewives. If your dad was out of work it was a matter of shame so you didn't tell the neighbours and dad did his best to get back into work asap. Nobody bragged about being on benefits. I think all this changed in the eighties with the huge rise in unemployment due to the death of the heavy industries. Thatcher has to take the blame not in closing down the mines etc. but by not doing enough for those communities and the rate of change. Large scale unemployment with no prospects, all of a sudden it was okay to claim benefits and then the scum seized their chance. People started to move away to get jobs and then we had large scale immigration and suddenly that old fashion working class community had gone and you didn't know your neighbours. Today too many people are proud to be on benefits instead of working hard. The old days weren't always the good old days but at least the working man had pride and respect. Edited by Badger11 (02 Feb 2022 10.07am)
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 02 Feb 22 10.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
I grew up on an old fashion council estate in the sixties. The accommodation was poor but it was working class "proud". There was no trouble on the estate as everybody knew each other and neighbours looked after one and other. Adults were comfortable in telling other people's kids off and we kids knew that our parents would have supported their neighbours right to do so which modified our behaviour. Men went out to work women were housewives. If your dad was out of work it was a matter of shame so you didn't tell the neighbours and dad did his best to get back into work asap. Nobody bragged about being on benefits. I think all this changed in the eighties with the huge rise in unemployment due to the death of the heavy industries. Thatcher has to take the blame not in closing down the mines etc. but by not doing enough for those communities and the rate of change. Large scale unemployment with no prospects, all of a sudden it was okay to claim benefits and then the scum seized their chance. People started to move away to get jobs and then we had large scale immigration and suddenly that old fashion working class community had gone and you didn't know your neighbours. Today too many people are proud to be on benefits instead of working hard. The old days weren't always the good old days but at least the working man had pride and respect. Edited by Badger11 (02 Feb 2022 10.07am) That mirrors my own experience and contains a lot of common sense. It's the benefit culture which causes many of these problems.
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 |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 02 Feb 22 11.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
The old days weren't always the good old days but at least the working man had pride and respect. Edited by Badger11 (02 Feb 2022 10.07am) correct. Today the minimum-wage man is mocked and scorned by legions of long-term unemployed druggy baby-factories.
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| 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.