[News] Daily Mail article

drew · Feb 21, 2020

Biscuit Barrel said:
Perhaps you could read it and then inform us if you agree or disagree with her? How can you pity anyone for agreeing with her on an article you have not read? Sounds a bit prejudged to me.

LIke I said, she's got form.

A bit like clicking on an article by Farage and being surprised that he's not espousing the virtues of EU membership!

clapham_gull · Feb 21, 2020

GT49er said:
Actually, if you just read that article without having whatever blinkers it is that you have on, you will see she is laying into the Asian grooming gangs who have preyed on vulnerable white girls (not "all Asians and black people" - what a ridiculous thing to say!) - and also laying into the (mostly white) police and social services who for a long time ignored the scandal for fear of being falsely labelled as racists by, well, some people - we all know who the are, but they'll never admit it - in fact they probably don't even realise it. Put it this way, they can usually be identified by one of their battle-cries: "I never read the Daily Mail" (neither do I, btw, but I don't make a mantra out of it!)

Racism is abhorrent, whether it is white on black or, as in the case of Asian grooming gangs, black on white. But black on white racism, although much less prevalent than white on black, is the elephant in the room; it must never be mentioned in polite liberal society. Which ultimately isn't doing anyone any favours.

I'm not sure how something "much less prevalent" is an "elephant in the room", however I digress.

This is just "shock jock" click-bait journalism. Generating as much traffic from people who agree and those who don't whilst the Daily Mail (mainly through it's website) laughs all the way to the bank.

The best analogy is the cynical American Cable TV Evangelist. I don't believe any of this shit but as long as the people keep sending their cash/criticising me I'll continue.

I've met, overheard or been friends with a number of people over the years who are directly (or indirectly) involved in producing this trash. It's just a job all the time they get paid and it pays the bills and the mortgage. Behind the scenes they are aren't discussing politics just bonuses, pay rises and readership/viewing figures.

They are rarely ideological, just realistic, knowing damn well their "customers" (and these days that just means clicking/linking to the site) are equally unrealistic and ideological.

Beach Seagull · Feb 22, 2020

All of you can't deal with an uncomfortable truth..........

Uh_huh_him · Feb 22, 2020

Beach Seagull said:
All of you can't deal with an uncomfortable truth..........

I haven't really paid much attention to thiswhole discussion, as I dismiss it as fairly obvioulsy prejudiced hate-mongering.

although it's supporters often use terms such as "elephant in the room", "uncomfortable truth" etc.
Which is supposed to be obvious, but in fact is often only obvious to like minded people.

What is the uncomfortable truth you are referring to?
I genuinely don't know.

Beach Seagull · Feb 22, 2020

Uh_huh_him said:
I haven't really paid much attention to thiswhole discussion, as I dismiss it as fairly obvioulsy prejudiced hate-mongering.

although it's supporters often use terms such as "elephant in the room", "uncomfortable truth" etc.
Which is supposed to be obvious, but in fact is often only obvious to like minded people.

What is the uncomfortable truth you are referring to?
I genuinely don't know.

Read the article.

Super Steve Earle · Feb 22, 2020

Thunder Bolt said:
I don't click on Daily Mail articles as it gives them revenue.

Neither do I. I bought the newspaper :smile:

Super Steve Earle · Feb 22, 2020

BBassic said:
My guess, as to why Dave isn't rapping about grooming gangs, is because he has no experience of them? Whereas he does have experience of being young and black

I doubt he has experience of being a Prime Minister either...

Uh_huh_him · Feb 22, 2020

Beach Seagull said:
Read the article.

So you aren't comfortable with saying it, then?

Fair enough.

Razzoo · Feb 22, 2020

She has got a point or two right, It isn't cool to condemn it happening. It seems it is still worse to be seen as racist than to stand up and call out the disgraceful way these girls have been abused and neglected by the authorities and the perpetrators. There is a horrendous thinly veiled justification that these girls don't matter and maybe even brought it on themselves. Look at Sarah Champion when she spoke up and look at the actions of Naz Shah. Both Labour MP' s.

Weststander · Feb 22, 2020

clapham_gull said:
I'm not sure how something "much less prevalent" is an "elephant in the room", however I digress.

This is just "shock jock" click-bait journalism. Generating as much traffic from people who agree and those who don't whilst the Daily Mail (mainly through it's website) laughs all the way to the bank.

The best analogy is the cynical American Cable TV Evangelist. I don't believe any of this shit but as long as the people keep sending their cash/criticising me I'll continue.

I've met, overheard or been friends with a number of people over the years who are directly (or indirectly) involved in producing this trash. It's just a job all the time they get paid and it pays the bills and the mortgage. Behind the scenes they are aren't discussing politics just bonuses, pay rises and readership/viewing figures.

They are rarely ideological, just realistic, knowing damn well their "customers" (and these days that just means clicking/linking to the site) are equally unrealistic and ideological.

Although harmless by comparison, that’s the sole raison d'être of TalkSport.

Presenters and pundits with banal wind-ups, shite stirring and fishing, to draw in listeners and mugs calling at premium rates. Safe to say the presenters don’t believe the crap they trot out, but financial needs must, three hours of insincere ‘sports journalism’ a small personal price to pay.

With the honourable exception of Hawksby & Jacobs who simply present in their natural jocular style, with Jacobs a heart on sleeve grumpy old git. Danny Kelly too.

Beach Seagull · Feb 22, 2020

Uh_huh_him said:
So you aren't comfortable with saying it, then?

Fair enough.

Not sure if 'comfortable' the correct word, but I can say this 'we do have a problem with asian men grooming young white girls.'

Neville's Breakfast · Feb 22, 2020

Billy the Fish said:
It's just crap whataboutery. I put that article in the same category as the terrorism thread started by Dave's namesake in Czech.

Why doesn't he rap about the pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre

He's a rapper, he's not the BBC world service

Exactly. My first thought is it is exactly the same genre as Dave’s thread. Go far enough loony unpleasant Left and you come face to face with the loony unpleasant Right (Daily Mail).

Uh_huh_him · Feb 22, 2020

Beach Seagull said:
Not sure if 'comfortable' the correct word, but I can say this 'we do have a problem with asian men grooming young white girls.'

Well I have a problem with anyone grooming anyone tbh.

So what's the uncomfortable truth you speak of?
Is it that you think in this case the perpetrators were racially motivated?

Beach Seagull · Feb 22, 2020

Uh_huh_him said:
Well I have a problem with anyone grooming anyone tbh.

So what's the uncomfortable truth you speak of?
Is it that you think in this case the perpetrators were racially motivated?

Yes.

Uh_huh_him · Feb 22, 2020

Beach Seagull said:
Yes.

ok.
Would it have been better if they were grooming Muslim girls?

I suspect the reason they didn't is that they believe White girls are an easier target.
Paedophiles have a tendency to target the vulnerable rather than the race.

Just my view. I don't know the facts in this case

Beach Seagull · Feb 22, 2020

Uh_huh_him said:
ok.
Would it have been better if they were grooming Muslim girls?

I suspect the reason they didn't is that they believe White girls are an easier target.
Paedophiles have a tendency to target the vulnerable rather than the race.

Just my view. I don't know the facts in this case

It would be 'better' if they didn't target anyone.

Uh_huh_him · Feb 22, 2020

Beach Seagull said:
It would be 'better' if they didn't target anyone.

Well surely it would be better if paedophiles in general didn't target anyone.

Is the uncomfortable truth you believe, that Muslims have a higher percentage of Paedophiles than non-muslims?

Beach Seagull · Feb 22, 2020

Uh_huh_him said:
Well surely it would be better if paedophiles in general didn't target anyone.

Is the uncomfortable truth you believe, that Muslims have a higher percentage of Paedophiles than non-muslims?

I didn't say that.

Uh_huh_him · Feb 22, 2020

Beach Seagull said:
I didn't say that.

I would hope you don't think it either, unless there is evidence supporting it of course.

So I assume the uncomfortable truth is that the police didn't pursue this because of the race angle?
Again I don't know the facts, but if it's the Tommy Rbinson cause celebre, I believe the perpretators were convicted eventually weren't they?
Or has this situation changed recently?

drew · Feb 22, 2020

Beach Seagull said:
I didn't say that.

You're not really saying anything!!

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Daily Mail article

Drew

Legacy Fan

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Drew

Share this page