Sarah Champion quits Labour front bench over r*** article

First topic message reminder :

Labour shadow minister Sarah Champion has quit the party's front bench after criticism over a newspaper article she wrote about grooming gangs.
The Rotherham MP wrote in The Sun that "Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls".
She has now apologised for her "extremely poor choice of words" and quit as shadow equalities minister

In interviews following the convictions, the Labour MP said such crimes involved "predominately Pakistani men" and said a fear of being called racist was hampering the authorities' investigations.
She then penned the Sun article, which also included the line: "These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage."

Hero wrote:The problem with her initial statement is that people as seen above will read into it as they seem fit. She could have said all, some, a few, a minority or a majority. But by saying British Pakistani men have a problem it then opens the can of worms to which people then become transfixed upon rather than addressing the actual issue.

exactly, as an mp AND a member of the opposition she should have known better.

She said "Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls."

To break it further down 'Britain has a problem...' is a quantifiable amount, it's the entirety. To then take the leap to the second part of the sentence '...with British Pakistani men raping & exploiting white girls' without quantifying that part it can easily be portrayed as all as well.

Britain has a problem with tax avoidance and benefit cheats.

*therefore I mean everyone.

The medium in which her statement was then delivered was also ill thought, yes there is an issue with a small number of men from Pakistani heritage embroiled in a culture of grooming girls within this country, debate it in Parliament then, not write a column in what's regarded as one of the most inflammatory right wing papers that have previously posted headlines that they've had to issue apologies about afterwards.

88Chris05 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Don't be ridiculous. You know that the literal meaning of what she said means all British Pakistanis. Stop being an apologist for idiocy and racism. Can't say I'm surprised.

What you're doing is cowardly - you can't even be bother to say, and then defend, what you really mean.

I'm done with this and the cowards who try to use linguistic nuance to hide behind their sewer thoughts and stupidity.

Same old cobblers whenever an issue like this arises. People don't set out to debate the issue, they set out to try and prove to everyone as quickly as possible that they have the moral high ground. Anything outside of that is unimportant to them.

Only a pedant looking to be offended would take what Champion said to automatically mean 'all' British-Pakistani men. I'm absolutely amazed that anyone could genuinely be arguing that point. God knows how we're supposed to debate anything with someone who demands absolute literal accuracy and qualification on every single word used.

Someone simply arguing (reasonably) that she almost certainly didn't mean 'all', and that taking it to mean 'all' would be a very small minority stance (it would) gets you branded a 'coward' who conceals 'sewer thoughts.' Ironically, all of this decided without the likes of Lion, Scott etc. clearly saying stupid or sewer-like things...Which is apparently the whole crux of Navy's argument to begin with. Only seems to go one way.

For what it's worth, there's a debate to be had about the issue at hand, Champion's statement etc. But this guff? Absolutely embarrassing.

If you aren't here to debate the issue, I suggest you don't say anything.

What is this North Korea where you want to see censorship of anything you don't agree with, if you can't take on board a difference of opinion I'd suggest not getting involved in the first place.

Scottrf wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Do we have a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls?

Yes we do.

Now, do we know if the problem is because they are Pakistani (and the cultural differences associated etc) or because of other factors that happen to mean they are in situations to be able to take advantage? Probably not. But we wont know if we can't talk about it sensibly and without being crucified for pointing it out.

Do we have a problem with white, British men raping white girls? Do you have statistical evidence that the % per capita of British Pakistanis convicted of r*** is higher than that of any other 'group' and that it is statistically significant?

As an interesting take (URL given changed by swear filter so you'll have to manually correct it in browser!):

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/newcastle-sex-abuse-scandal-grooming-racism-young-girls-r***-liberal-offence-a7886821.html

...and a pertinent quote from therein:

Julie Bindel wrote:Men commit acts of r*** and sexual abuse because they are rapists and abusers, not because they are Asian, white, working class, unemployed, or any other variable that has been often used to either excuse or blame perpetrators.

LionsV2 wrote:What is this North Korea where you want to see censorship of anything you don't agree with, if you can't take on board a difference of opinion I'd suggest not getting involved in the first place.

I have no problem with a difference of opinion. None whatsoever. Where have I censored anything? I completely disagree with you and don't think you understand the difference between this issue and one of Scottrf's inappropriate analogies.

LionsV2 wrote:Britain has a problem with tax avoidance and benefit cheats.

*therefore I mean everyone.

Britain has a problem with British Pakastani men avoiding tax and cheating the benefit system.

The addition of British Pakastani men as a subgroup changes the context of the statement and does imply (wether you like it or not) that all Pakastani meb are involved.

I don't think you understand but I'm not here trying to belittle your point of view and telling people not to say anything at all because they have very eloquently shown the ridiculousness of misconstruing a very simple sentence. There is no difference at all.

I must agree with what Chris said in his post - the part about fat northern women being the best shags as they smell of chips instead of fanny. Makes you feel like you're on top of the world because she's the size of a planet.

Why though the Sun in which to put forward this opinion?
Will this reach out to Pakistani families and communities? Does the Sun have a particularly large Pakistani readership?
Would not a better solution to engage with these communities and enable them to tackle the problem head on or instead write an inflammatory column in a right wing paper?

Ent wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:Britain has a problem with tax avoidance and benefit cheats.

*therefore I mean everyone.

Britain has a problem with British Pakastani men avoiding tax and cheating the benefit system.

The addition of British Pakastani men as a subgroup changes the context of the statement and does imply (wether you like it or not) that all Pakastani meb are involved.

I think you hit the nail on the head there

Hero wrote:Why though the Sun in which to put forward this opinion?
Will this reach out to Pakistani families and communities? Does the Sun have a particularly large Pakistani readership?
Would not a better solution to engage with these communities and enable them to tackle the problem head on or instead write an inflammatory column in a right wing paper?

Just not very helpful at all.

another quote from her:

"These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage."

She also got to see the article in format before print and her only concern was her picture...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40952224

When will we get some politicians with brains and ability.

Didn't she use the word predominantly, that doesn't mean ALL it just means a lot (still not the greatest thing to say mind you)

[/b]

Ent wrote:

Hero wrote:Why though the Sun in which to put forward this opinion?
Will this reach out to Pakistani families and communities? Does the Sun have a particularly large Pakistani readership?
Would not a better solution to engage with these communities and enable them to tackle the problem head on or instead write an inflammatory column in a right wing paper?

Just not very helpful at all.

another quote from her:

"These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage."

She also got to see the article in format before print and her only concern was her picture...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40952224

When will we get some politicians with brains and ability.

I can't see how anyone can defend her after those saying those views.

LionsV2 wrote:I don't think you understand but I'm not here trying to belittle your point of view and telling people not to say anything at all because they have very eloquently shown the ridiculousness of misconstruing a very simple sentence. There is no difference at all.

I don't recall telling you not to say anything. I just disagree with the assertion that what Champion said couldn't be interpreted as meaning all British Pakistanis, that it's incumbent on the reader to try to second guess what she actually meant, or that one should happily be as laissez-fair with language when dealing with sensitive race issues as one might be when describing the pay of footballers.
She got it wrong and she quit. I guess those that don't agree with that decision and her reasons for doing so will simply have to suck it up.

Hero's correct as well. Frankly, I don't want someone as naive as Champion near power, at all, if she's daft enough to a) discuss this in depth with a media rag and b) that she did so with The Sun. FFS!

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is this North Korea where you want to see censorship of anything you don't agree with, if you can't take on board a difference of opinion I'd suggest not getting involved in the first place.

I have no problem with a difference of opinion. None whatsoever. Where have I censored anything? I completely disagree with you and don't think you understand the difference between this issue and one of Scottrf's inappropriate analogies.

Inappropriate because they prove you don't understand language? Analogies aren't in the same context, that's the whole point of them.

Nobody here believes she meant all.

Derbymanc wrote:Didn't she use the word predominantly, that doesn't mean ALL it just means a lot (still not the greatest thing to say mind you)

Did she? Even if she did:

Dictionary wrote:predominantly |prɪˈdɒmɪnəntli|
adverb
mainly; for the most part: [sentence adverb] : it is predominantly a coastal bird | predominantly Russian areas.

I'm not sure that claiming that the majority of British Pakistanis are abusers is a great deal better. A touch, but not a great deal.

Derbymanc wrote:Didn't she use the word predominantly, that doesn't mean ALL it just means a lot (still not the greatest thing to say mind you)

I think her use of the word predominantly was with regards to who commits the crime eg white/black/Pakistani etc she said such crimes involved "predominately Pakistani men".

navyblueshorts wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Didn't she use the word predominantly, that doesn't mean ALL it just means a lot (still not the greatest thing to say mind you)

Did she? Even if she did:

Dictionary wrote:predominantly |prɪˈdɒmɪnəntli|
adverb
mainly; for the most part: [sentence adverb] : it is predominantly a coastal bird | predominantly Russian areas.

I'm not sure that claiming that the majority of British Pakistanis are abusers is a great deal better. A touch, but not a great deal.

Again, you are proving that you can't read.

Saying that these crimes are predominantly British men of Pakistani origin is not the same as saying that the majority of British men of Pakistani origin are committing these crimes.

If you don't understand that of course you will take quotes the wrong way.

Not hard to spot the Brexit voters on this thread.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not hard to spot the Brexit voters on this thread.

Well I voted remain so you're inaccurate as well as childish.

These are some of her comments

'British Pakistani men are raping and exploiting white girls.. and it's time we faced up to it'

"Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls".

such crimes involved "predominately Pakistani men

"These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage."

Muscular-mouse wrote:These are some of her comments

'British Pakistani men are raping and exploiting white girls.. and it's time we faced up to it'

"Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls".

such crimes involved "predominately Pakistani men

"These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage."

Yeah, not the best language at all. So lets debate what she said rather than try to apply a different meaning to her comments.

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not hard to spot the Brexit voters on this thread.

Well I voted remain so you're inaccurate as well as childish.

I never said "All" the Brexit voters.

Practice what you preach.

Yes she did Navy, as i said it wasn't the greatest thing to say. Is there the stats to back up her claim that it's predominantely British Pakistani's that commit the majority of grooming?

The words she used could have been better but once again people have become overly sensitive to it (imo) and a chance to discuss something that is very important will be lost with people fearing speaking out (again) for fear of being labelled racist.

It's worth remembering as well that she is MP for Rotherham where they had a huge case which was probably on her mind (once again, she should have thought better)

Oh and the equality and rights commision also think she shouldn't have been sacked due to 'over-sensitivity about language'

Britain has a problem with British-Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.
"There. I said it. Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?
"For too long we have ignored the race of these abusers and, worse, tried to cover it up.
"No more. These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage."

How you can try to argue that it is crystal clear she is not talking about the Pakistani community as a whole based on her quotes is laughable.

She is saying Pakistanis are raping white girls, these people (Pakistanis?) are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage.

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:What is this North Korea where you want to see censorship of anything you don't agree with, if you can't take on board a difference of opinion I'd suggest not getting involved in the first place.

I have no problem with a difference of opinion. None whatsoever. Where have I censored anything? I completely disagree with you and don't think you understand the difference between this issue and one of Scottrf's inappropriate analogies.

Inappropriate because they prove you don't understand language? Analogies aren't in the same context, that's the whole point of them.

Nobody here believes she meant all.

You may actually be correct there although, I can't say I know what she was actually thinking. Maybe you do. Clearly, many people can, and did, take it to be that she implied that all British Pakistani men are abusers. It's irrelevant really that she didn't mean that. The point is one doesn't make stupid and offensive statements, that could be (mis)construed as about an entire ethnic group. One should consider that, as a holder of a public office, one should realise that some people can and will be offended by making stupid and probably unfounded statements where race/ethnicity is concerned. The point is one has, and demonstrates, consideration for others. She had no option but to quit. Like it or not, racial issues ARE a sensitive issue in the 21st century; they are not really equatable with the salaries of footballers.

navyblueshorts wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Don't be ridiculous. You know that the literal meaning of what she said means all British Pakistanis. Stop being an apologist for idiocy and racism. Can't say I'm surprised.

What you're doing is cowardly - you can't even be bother to say, and then defend, what you really mean.

I'm done with this and the cowards who try to use linguistic nuance to hide behind their sewer thoughts and stupidity.

Same old cobblers whenever an issue like this arises. People don't set out to debate the issue, they set out to try and prove to everyone as quickly as possible that they have the moral high ground. Anything outside of that is unimportant to them.

Only a pedant looking to be offended would take what Champion said to automatically mean 'all' British-Pakistani men. I'm absolutely amazed that anyone could genuinely be arguing that point. God knows how we're supposed to debate anything with someone who demands absolute literal accuracy and qualification on every single word used.

Someone simply arguing (reasonably) that she almost certainly didn't mean 'all', and that taking it to mean 'all' would be a very small minority stance (it would) gets you branded a 'coward' who conceals 'sewer thoughts.' Ironically, all of this decided without the likes of Lion, Scott etc. clearly saying stupid or sewer-like things...Which is apparently the whole crux of Navy's argument to begin with. Only seems to go one way.

For what it's worth, there's a debate to be had about the issue at hand, Champion's statement etc. But this guff? Absolutely embarrassing.

If you aren't here to debate the issue, I suggest you don't say anything.

Well yes, I suppose I have to plead guilty to that charge of hypocrisy, bemoaning people not actually debating the issue at hand and then doing the same thing myself. Please accept my apologies for that, as well as my tone, which was a little too unnecessarily acerbic.

I do think the point still stands, though. Why the casual allegations of bigotry, cowardice etc. purely, it seems, because someone holds a different opinion?

With regards to Champion's statement itself, my main issue is through the medium through which she aired it. I can accept that by going to The Sun she could be accused of pandering to the right (albeit I think the wider issue is one which transcends any left-right ideological divide) and to those who want a scapegoat for everything.

But, while I have no time for The Sun, to totally write off any opinion linked to it whatsoever would be playing the man rather than the ball, so to speak. Something I think everyone should try to avoid.

I think we can and should all be sensible enough to be able to acknowledge a link between Asian-born / British-Asian men and worrying trends of grooming, abuse etc. without having to face the charge that doing so means you think ALL men from such backgrounds are culpable, and that you think it's specifically their ethnicity which causes this.

Such an attitude just stops us having value debate. Anyway, sorry again for the tone of my first post.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:These are some of her comments

'British Pakistani men are raping and exploiting white girls.. and it's time we faced up to it'

"Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls".

such crimes involved "predominately Pakistani men

"These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage."

Yeah, not the best language at all. So lets debate what she said rather than try to apply a different meaning to her comments.

Not the best language at all and I was just debating it is easy to look at her comments and view it as her speaking about british Pakistani men in general.

so let us debate the issue, do you believe that the british Pakistani community may have a higher number of rapists than other communities? what evidence is there such as conviction data etc

Muscular-mouse wrote:Britain has a problem with British-Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.
"There. I said it. Does that make me a racist? Or am I just prepared to call out this horrifying problem for what it is?
"For too long we have ignored the race of these abusers and, worse, tried to cover it up.
"No more. These people are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage."

How you can try to argue that it is crystal clear she is not talking about the Pakistani community as a whole based on her quotes is laughable.

She is saying Pakistanis are raping white girls, these people (Pakistanis?) are predators and the common denominator is their ethnic heritage.

It's badly worded, but I've tried breaking down the subtleties of some of the more straight forward statements and had no luck, so wouldn't be possible to do so here.

I think she had some correct sentiments that the police have echoed in the past. Definitely it's too inflammatory and needs to be worded with more care though.

Muscular-mouse wrote:Not the best language at all and I was just debating it is easy to look at her comments and view it as her speaking about british Pakistani men in general.

so let us debate the issue, do you believe that the british Pakistani community may have a higher number of rapists than other communities? what evidence is there such as conviction data etc

I don't know but why are we on page 2 before someone has even asked that? Certainly it's been a factor in 2 of the recent high profile cases.

Someone earlier stated that Asian men are responsible for 30% of sexual crimes. That would certainly be disproportionate. They were under 7% on the last census. Of Pakistani heritage, under 2%.

Scottrf wrote:

Muscular-mouse wrote:Not the best language at all and I was just debating it is easy to look at her comments and view it as her speaking about british Pakistani men in general.

so let us debate the issue, do you believe that the british Pakistani community may have a higher number of rapists than other communities? what evidence is there such as conviction data etc

I don't know but why are we on page 2 before someone has even asked that? Certainly it's been a factor in 2 of the recent high profile cases.

Someone earlier stated that Asian men are responsible for 30% of sexual crimes. That would certainly be disproportionate. They were under 7% on the last census. Of Pakistani heritage, under 2%.

It has taken so long because we have been debating whether her comments were appropriate/ worded correctly for someone in her position.

At the moment it does seem that grooming gangs tend to involve Asian men more than others but that could be down to reporting of the issue and the remarks from various sides that these issue's were hard to investigate due to the fear of being branded Racism.

As for stats, not sure about them at all although i suppose it would be interesting to have stats backing up certain claims.

I'd also like to see that stats fro certain area's around the country and see if this is a bigger issue in parts of the country than elsewhere and also why that may be

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Didn't she use the word predominantly, that doesn't mean ALL it just means a lot (still not the greatest thing to say mind you)

Did she? Even if she did:

Dictionary wrote:predominantly |prɪˈdɒmɪnəntli|
adverb
mainly; for the most part: [sentence adverb] : it is predominantly a coastal bird | predominantly Russian areas.

I'm not sure that claiming that the majority of British Pakistanis are abusers is a great deal better. A touch, but not a great deal.

Again, you are proving that you can't read.

Saying that these crimes are predominantly British men of Pakistani origin is not the same as saying that the majority of British men of Pakistani origin are committing these crimes.

If you don't understand that of course you will take quotes the wrong way.

Please stop claiming I can't read. This is about interpretation and perceived meaning. Given the nuance of language, it isn't explicit enough and you know it. People can, will and have misinterpreted it.
I'm not saying you're doing it, but this tactic of using linguistic gymnastics to hide sewer thinking has been and is widely used to pretend someone didn't really mean to be racist/sexist/anti-Semitic etc. She should have been explicit, wasn't and has quit.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Didn't she use the word predominantly, that doesn't mean ALL it just means a lot (still not the greatest thing to say mind you)

Did she? Even if she did:

Dictionary wrote:predominantly |prɪˈdɒmɪnəntli|
adverb
mainly; for the most part: [sentence adverb] : it is predominantly a coastal bird | predominantly Russian areas.

I'm not sure that claiming that the majority of British Pakistanis are abusers is a great deal better. A touch, but not a great deal.

Again, you are proving that you can't read.

Saying that these crimes are predominantly British men of Pakistani origin is not the same as saying that the majority of British men of Pakistani origin are committing these crimes.

If you don't understand that of course you will take quotes the wrong way.

Please stop claiming I can't read. This is about interpretation and perceived meaning. Given the nuance of language, it isn't explicit enough and you know it. People can, will and have misinterpreted it.
I'm not saying you're doing it, but this tactic of using linguistic gymnastics to hide sewer thinking has been and is widely used to pretend someone didn't really mean to be racist/sexist/anti-Semitic etc. She should have been explicit, wasn't and has quit.

Nope. It's the equivalent of someone saying all cats are animals and you claiming that they said all animals are cats.

Certainly a problem in Rotherham..

Just need more sensitive rhetoric when addressing it..

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Didn't she use the word predominantly, that doesn't mean ALL it just means a lot (still not the greatest thing to say mind you)

Did she? Even if she did:

Dictionary wrote:predominantly |prɪˈdɒmɪnəntli|
adverb
mainly; for the most part: [sentence adverb] : it is predominantly a coastal bird | predominantly Russian areas.

I'm not sure that claiming that the majority of British Pakistanis are abusers is a great deal better. A touch, but not a great deal.

Again, you are proving that you can't read.

Saying that these crimes are predominantly British men of Pakistani origin is not the same as saying that the majority of British men of Pakistani origin are committing these crimes.

If you don't understand that of course you will take quotes the wrong way.

Please stop claiming I can't read. This is about interpretation and perceived meaning. Given the nuance of language, it isn't explicit enough and you know it. People can, will and have misinterpreted it.
I'm not saying you're doing it, but this tactic of using linguistic gymnastics to hide sewer thinking has been and is widely used to pretend someone didn't really mean to be racist/sexist/anti-Semitic etc. She should have been explicit, wasn't and has quit.

Nope. It's the equivalent of someone saying all cats are animals and you claiming that they said all animals are cats.

No it isn't.

Ent wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Didn't she use the word predominantly, that doesn't mean ALL it just means a lot (still not the greatest thing to say mind you)

Did she? Even if she did:

Dictionary wrote:predominantly |prɪˈdɒmɪnəntli|
adverb
mainly; for the most part: [sentence adverb] : it is predominantly a coastal bird | predominantly Russian areas.

I'm not sure that claiming that the majority of British Pakistanis are abusers is a great deal better. A touch, but not a great deal.

Again, you are proving that you can't read.

Saying that these crimes are predominantly British men of Pakistani origin is not the same as saying that the majority of British men of Pakistani origin are committing these crimes.

If you don't understand that of course you will take quotes the wrong way.

Please stop claiming I can't read. This is about interpretation and perceived meaning. Given the nuance of language, it isn't explicit enough and you know it. People can, will and have misinterpreted it.
I'm not saying you're doing it, but this tactic of using linguistic gymnastics to hide sewer thinking has been and is widely used to pretend someone didn't really mean to be racist/sexist/anti-Semitic etc. She should have been explicit, wasn't and has quit.

Nope. It's the equivalent of someone saying all cats are animals and you claiming that they said all animals are cats.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. If there are 1,000,000 British Pakistani men, 1,000 are involved in sexual crimes, of a total 1,200 sexual crimes, then the crimes are predominantly British men of Pakistani origin but you can't say that the majority of British men of Pakistani origin are committing these crimes.

It's quite an easy nuance that nobody seems able to grasp.

Derbymanc wrote:At the moment it does seem that grooming gangs tend to involve Asian men more than others but that could be down to reporting of the issue and the remarks from various sides that these issue's were hard to investigate due to the fear of being branded Racism.

As for stats, not sure about them at all although i suppose it would be interesting to have stats backing up certain claims.

I'd also like to see that stats fro certain area's around the country and see if this is a bigger issue in parts of the country than elsewhere and also why that may be

Of interest:

https://fullfact.org/news/are-asians-disproportionately-represented-prosecutions-sex-offences/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/14/child-grooming-sexual-abuse-race

Doesn't seem to be huge amounts of solid statistical data to answer this and what there is certainly isn't clear cut.

If british Pakistani men are over represented when it comes to child grooming in the UK the question is why? is it a cultural issue? or religious issue? do American Pakistani or Canadian Pakistani or Australian Pakistani men or French Pakistani men etc also over represent on child grooming convictions? or is it just British? If it is just British Pakistani men then it has nothing to do with them being Pakistani or muslim and something to do with Britain.

Definitely not clear cut but interesting all the same, thanks for that Navy.

You've got a really good point there MM, but if we keep shutting down these discussions we'll never get to that point (although i'd hope the councils/governments are looking into this as we talk)

TV presenters seem to be over represented too when it comes to grooming.

We kind of know why that happened though as people were keeping quiet for fear of being branded by speaking out against them

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Didn't she use the word predominantly, that doesn't mean ALL it just means a lot (still not the greatest thing to say mind you)

Did she? Even if she did:

Dictionary wrote:predominantly |prɪˈdɒmɪnəntli|
adverb
mainly; for the most part: [sentence adverb] : it is predominantly a coastal bird | predominantly Russian areas.

I'm not sure that claiming that the majority of British Pakistanis are abusers is a great deal better. A touch, but not a great deal.

Again, you are proving that you can't read.

Saying that these crimes are predominantly British men of Pakistani origin is not the same as saying that the majority of British men of Pakistani origin are committing these crimes.

If you don't understand that of course you will take quotes the wrong way.

Please stop claiming I can't read. This is about interpretation and perceived meaning. Given the nuance of language, it isn't explicit enough and you know it. People can, will and have misinterpreted it.
I'm not saying you're doing it, but this tactic of using linguistic gymnastics to hide sewer thinking has been and is widely used to pretend someone didn't really mean to be racist/sexist/anti-Semitic etc. She should have been explicit, wasn't and has quit.

Nope. It's the equivalent of someone saying all cats are animals and you claiming that they said all animals are cats.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. If there are 1,000,000 British Pakistani men, 1,000 are involved in sexual crimes, of a total 1,200 sexual crimes, then the crimes are predominantly British men of Pakistani origin but you can't say that the majority of British men of Pakistani origin are committing these crimes.

It's quite an easy nuance that nobody seems able to grasp.

Except she didn't use the word predominantly in her original article in last Fridays Sun. Try reading it.

Ent wrote:Except she didn't use the word predominantly in her original article in last Fridays Sun. Try reading it.

Non-sequitur. That was the quote we were debating.

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Didn't she use the word predominantly, that doesn't mean ALL it just means a lot (still not the greatest thing to say mind you)

Did she? Even if she did:

Dictionary wrote:predominantly |prɪˈdɒmɪnəntli|
adverb
mainly; for the most part: [sentence adverb] : it is predominantly a coastal bird | predominantly Russian areas.

I'm not sure that claiming that the majority of British Pakistanis are abusers is a great deal better. A touch, but not a great deal.

Again, you are proving that you can't read.

Saying that these crimes are predominantly British men of Pakistani origin is not the same as saying that the majority of British men of Pakistani origin are committing these crimes.

If you don't understand that of course you will take quotes the wrong way.

Please stop claiming I can't read. This is about interpretation and perceived meaning. Given the nuance of language, it isn't explicit enough and you know it. People can, will and have misinterpreted it.
I'm not saying you're doing it, but this tactic of using linguistic gymnastics to hide sewer thinking has been and is widely used to pretend someone didn't really mean to be racist/sexist/anti-Semitic etc. She should have been explicit, wasn't and has quit.

Nope. It's the equivalent of someone saying all cats are animals and you claiming that they said all animals are cats.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. If there are 1,000,000 British Pakistani men, 1,000 are involved in sexual crimes, of a total 1,200 sexual crimes, then the crimes are predominantly British men of Pakistani origin but you can't say that the majority of British men of Pakistani origin are committing these crimes.

It's quite an easy nuance that nobody seems able to grasp.

Your cat example isn't accurate. That's not what's going on here.

Britain has a problem with British-Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.

The above is not remotely clear-cut. Read it. Everyone, except for the linguistic gymnasts, could take that as saying that all British Pakistanis behave that way. It could mean exactly that they're all like that. It could mean that she was referring to the subset of British Pakistanis convicted of grooming/r@pe etc but she never gave any qualifiers. It's not explicit enough to make that judgement, which is precisely the problem and why she quit.

1. British Pakistani men have raped and exploited white girls.

2. Raping and exploiting white girls is a problem.

3. Britain has a problem with British-Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls.

3. Is a purely logical statement based on 1. and 2.

If you don't think 3. is correct then you must either believe that 1 or 2 isn't correct.

Inferring anything else from it (e.g. that all British-Pakistani men all r*** and exploit white girls) is not a logical step.

I don't know why we are even debating whether her words were poor or not she apologised for her 'extremely poor choice of words' so clearly her language was not clear cut.