Brexit - The End of the United Kingdom?

[peadar1987]

But Peadar aren't things kind of a mess right now in different regards? Don't they blame EU migration law for things like this:
https://heatst.com/world/violent-london-scooter-gangs-terrorize-area-near-prince-georges-school/

Depends who you mean by "they".

I live in a part of Glasgow with a very high immigrant population (mainly Chinese and Iraqi, from the people I've had a chance to talk to). It's a very nice, very safe area, with some amazing restaurants as part of the bargain.

A few streets over is a predominantly white British area with some of the worst crime and drug abuse in the UK.

It's not immigration causing crime and antisocial behaviour, it's social inequality. The fact that the UK (and many other countries) have failed the migrant populations they relied on for cheap labour, so they are disproportionately the victims of social inequality, is not in itself an indictment of migrants.

[KrisLetang]

Have you followed this story at all? Is it accurate? They can't report on the Muslims committing crimes anymore? Gavin McInnis has been discussing it a lot. I like Gavin. He is one of the few people who will really talk about a major major issue with the migrant populations few will discuss even though it's true. Anyway,

https://www.therebel.media/save_tommy

[Charlie Darwin]

Haha of course it's not accurate for god's sake.

[KrisLetang]

Well it's being reported about Charlie. I don't care one way or the other but just BC you are Left Wing it's like nothing outside of that bubble exists to you or DannyI.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tommy+robinson&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS724US724&oq=tommy+ro&aqs=chrome.0.0l2j69i57j0l3.2775j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=tommy+robinson&tbm=nws

[Charlie Darwin]

Haha ok

Yes, you're right, I'm clearly misinformed about Tommy Robinson and he's probably not a white supremacist turd who got arrested for harassing people.

[KrisLetang]

But the crime was real right?

[DannyInvincible]

Have you followed this story at all? Is it accurate? They can't report on the Muslims committing crimes anymore? Gavin McInnis has been discussing it a lot. I like Gavin. He is one of the few people who will really talk about a major major issue with the migrant populations few will discuss even though it's true. Anyway,

https://www.therebel.media/save_tommy

Who can't report on "the Muslims" committing crimes anymore?

The case and alleged crime you refer to isn't being ignored at all; it has been reported upon here by the local press in Kent: http://www.kentlive.news/ex-girlfriend-of-man-accused-of-rape-in-ramsgate-discovered-he-had-been-unfaithful/story-30319987-detail/story.html

Here is a Daily Mail (circulation: 1.5 million) story on it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4470892/Lost-16-year-old-girl-gang-raped-kebab-shop-owner.html

And something from the Daily Mirror (circulation: 700,000): http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lost-16-year-old-girl-10351831

Another local outlet covering it here: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/teenage-girl-gang-raped-after-asking-125034/

Even Cosmopolitan magazine has given it coverage: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a9603302/teenage-girl-gang-raped-pizza-shop-workers/

It even made it's way across the Irish Sea and into the Irish Sun too: https://www.thesun.ie/news/948087/girl-16-raped-by-four-laughing-strangers-after-she-asked-for-directions-in-kebab-shop-after-night-out-with-pals/

And it seems that the highly-partisan Rebel's version of events may not be entirely accurate, no. It portrays its UK contributor "Tommy Robinson", who is actually named Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, to have been a victim of police persecution who has had his right to freedom of speech arbitrarily infringed.

However, according to numerous other media reports, "Robinson" was actually arrested for contempt of court after receiving a police warning (http://www.kentlive.news/tommy-robinson-was-arrested-for-8216-attempted-journalism-8217-after-canterbury-crown-court-warning/story-30323826-detail/story.html). It has been reported that he attempted to film (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/former-edl-leader-tommy-robinson-arrested-after-trying-to-film-muslims-outside-court-a3535566.html) (or interview (http://www.kentlive.news/tommy-robinson-was-arrested-for-8216-attempted-journalism-8217-after-canterbury-crown-court-warning/story-30323826-detail/story.html)) some of the accused in the aforementioned case from the court steps. His attempt to do so was in breach of the UK's contempt laws (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/contempt_of_court/) which prohibit filming of court precincts (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/former-edl-leader-tommy-robinson-arrested-after-trying-to-film-muslims-outside-court-a3535566.html).

Any person would have been arrested for committing the same offence as "Robinson" committed. I suspect the offence exists to uphold the integrity and dignity of the judicial system and to protect the privacy of victims, witnesses and defendants.


Well it's being reported about Charlie. I don't care one way or the other but just BC you are Left Wing it's like nothing outside of that bubble exists to you or DannyI.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tommy+robinson&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS724US724&oq=tommy+ro&aqs=chrome.0.0l2j69i57j0l3.2775j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=tommy+robinson&tbm=nws

What doesn't exist, according to me?


But the crime was real right?

I've not been following proceedings, but from what I can make out, the trial is ongoing and the court has yet to reach a verdict. The accused parties may well be found guilty. Or they may be found not guilty. It would be imprudent and ill-advised to presume or declare the guilt of the accused until a verdict confirming such has been passed down.

Anyway, what's the subtext here? What point are you trying to make exactly? Let's get to the nub of it. Are you trying to imply that rape and sexual abuse are Muslim issues? That's the impression I'm getting.

If that's what you're attempting to suggest, you must have missed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland

That was the Irish Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal. It was pretty big news here.

Now, let's look at some other stats and facts...

From Rape Crisis Network Ireland (http://www.rcni.ie/wp-content/uploads/RCNI-RCC-StatsAR-2015.pdf):


In 2015, 1,384 people attended 11 Rape Crisis Centres throughout Ireland for counselling and support. This is a decrease of 3% from 2014 figures. This decrease is likely to reflect decreased resources rather than decreased demand as waiting lists remain active for centres. There were 15,192 appointments for counselling and support in these 11 centres in 2015.

• Almost nine in ten service users were survivors of sexual violence (85%).
• 15% were supporting someone who had been subjected to sexual violence.
• Less than 1% were attending RCCs because they were indirectly affected by the sexual violence (neither a survivor nor supporting someone who was a victim of sexual violence).

From Rape Crisis Midwest (Ireland) (https://www.rapecrisis.ie/statistics.html):


In 2014, 14 RCNI member Rape Crisis Centres (RCCs):

Provided counselling and support to 1,913 people
Provided 340 accompaniments to a range of different services including; Sexual Assault Treatment Units (SATU), Gardaí, court and refugee hearings, and other medical and forensic facilities
Responded to 18,296 contacts made to their helplines throughout Ireland

This amounted to:

17,288 appointments for counselling and support
1,596 hours of accompaniment
1,250 hours spent on Helpline calls

...

FACT 2: Rapists are men of all ages and from all walks of life.

A US study of 646 convicted rapists found that they were no more psychologically disturbed than those who had committed robberies or assaults (Amir, M. (1971) Patterns of Forcible Rape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

From Rape Crisis England & Wales (https://rapecrisis.org.uk/statistics.php):


• Rape Crisis member Centres across England and Wales responded to 171,000 helpline calls in the 12 months to 31st March 2016, an average over 3,000 a week
• 58,000 individuals received an on-going Rape Crisis service(s), an increase of 16% since 2014-15
• Rape Crisis members provided in excess of 350,000 sessions of specialist support, including advocacy, emotional support and counselling, an increase of 17% since 2014-15

...

• Approximately 85,000 women and 12,000 men are raped in England and Wales alone every year; that's roughly 11 rapes (of adults alone) every hour. These figures include assaults by penetration and attempts.
• Nearly half a million adults are sexually assaulted in England and Wales each year
• 1 in 5 women aged 16 - 59 has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16

...

• 31% of young women aged 18-24 report having experienced sexual abuse in childhood (NSPCC, 2011)


Do you think Muslims are to blame for such figures?... The reality is that rape and sexual abuse are much wider societal problems. They have always been a feature of Western/Christian-Judeo/white society (or whatever you wish to call it), and since long before there was ever a political incentive to stir up a crude moral panic about "Islamic immigration" by demonising a poor, brown-skinned ethnic minority desperately fleeing war and lazily rendering them the scapegoats for society's ills.

[SkStu]

Haha ok

Yes, you're right, I'm clearly misinformed about Tommy Robinson and he's probably not a white supremacist turd who got arrested for harassing people.

Robinson is not a white supremacist. At the weekend, I watched all of his speech to the Oxford Union and he tells his story and how and why he became the person he did. One of the things he gets across well is the fact that he is not a white supremacist and is actually despised by nazi and white power groups due to his condemnation of them and his (ultimately unsuccessful - that's why he left) efforts to keep them out of the EDL.

However, he is a convicted criminal and an Islamophobe. His issue is not with individual Muslims but it is with extremist Islam and widespread tolerance of it and he is very clear about this. Some of what he says is still questionable but some of it makes sense. He's a product of his environment and experiences. He cites Lutons own Anjem Choudary and the impact of growing up in that rabid and extreme environment. He describes the hate speech and treatment that he and his family and neighbours were subject to and was allowed to occur (he feels that a different standard is applied to free speech in preference of Islamic extremism v his criticisms of Islamic preaching and incompetent authorities). He also describes the absolute atrocities set out in the Rotherham report ie the systematic rape and abuse of 1400 girls by Muslim gangs. The Rochdale and other similar reports where Muslim gangs were targeting white girls for rape and abuse. He talks about the frustration of seeing cover ups and inaction by the authorities and how all of this perceived or real injustice sowed the seeds for the EDL across the U.K. Ultimately, he says he wants debate and discourse about these issues and for Muslims to fix these problems. He condemned many of the actions of the EDL under his watch and the impacts of what he was saying and realised that he failed to contain the fervour. His speech was well received by many of those in attendance. And he comes across well despite being a terrible speaker.

He is many things - and I don't think his rhetoric is ultimately helpful - but to label him as a white supremacist is inaccurate and lazy.

[gastric]

He may not be a white supremacist, but more importantly is he a humanist?

[Charlie Darwin]

haha the old "nazis hate me" chestnut.

Right, so being a member of the BNP and then forming his own gang of skinheads were entirely accidental.

Whatever about the validity or invalidity of his views on muslims, the idea he is somehow above racism or has ever opposed it is ridiculous. He's just modified his language from overt racism to 'woe is me, white working class men are the lowest class of citizen' ****e American racists have had so much joy with in the past.

[SkStu]

Watch the video.

[DannyInvincible]

Watch the video.

Is this the video you're referring to?:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQ94jFg_4A

[DannyInvincible]

I see a related "Q & A" video here too:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-UAQAvCCC4

[SkStu]

Yep. Watched both. Q&A wasn't great.

[Charlie Darwin]

Watch the video.
I watched the one Danny linked before and other videos where he talks about how the neo-nazis hate him, how he tried to drive them out of the EDL, how he left because he needed to distance himself from them, etc. I can see why it's superficially convincing alright.

[DannyInvincible]

He also describes the absolute atrocities set out in the Rotherham report ie the systematic rape and abuse of 1400 girls by Muslim gangs. The Rochdale and other similar reports where Muslim gangs were targeting white girls for rape and abuse. He talks about the frustration of seeing cover ups and inaction by the authorities and how all of this perceived or real injustice sowed the seeds for the EDL across the U.K. Ultimately, he says he wants debate and discourse about these issues and for Muslims to fix these problems.

Just on these matters, the following study - 'Child Grooming and Sexual Exploitation: Are South Asian Men the UK Media’s New Folk Devils?' - in the International Journal of Crime, Justice and Social Democracy (https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/) is of relevance: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/214/185

It concludes:


The current moral panic about South Asian sex offenders, driven by British newspaper reporting, significantly affects public perception of the problem and of what policy responses are appropriate. Construing South Asian men as dangerous sex offenders harnesses the protective role of the British State as a reformed patriarchy seeking to rescue white women from deviant and abusive minority ethnic men.

All of the newspaper articles explored in this study underscored that the victims in the recent high‐profile cases of street grooming were white, while the majority of the perpetrators were of South Asian origin or descent. South Asian street grooming gangs received disproportionate coverage at the expense of other, similar cases involving mostly white perpetrators and/or ethnic minority victims. Skewed media reporting fuelled a moral panic linking ethnicity and child sexual exploitation. Over‐reporting cases of South Asian men as perpetrators of grooming and sexual exploitation of white girls overlooks broader statistics and socioeconomic factors such as poverty and neglect, which often lie at the root of sexual exploitation. Research by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (2011) about children who were groomed and sexually exploited by an offender they first met in a public place identified 1,217 offenders: 30 per cent were white, while 28 per cent were Asian (11 were Bangladeshi, 45 were Pakistani and 290 were described as ‘Asian Other’). Of their 2083 victims, 61 per cent were white, while just 3 per cent were Asian and 33 per cent were referred to as ‘other’. The report stressed that national conclusions about ethnicity cannot be drawn from the data, because much of the data came from a limited number of geographic areas (Cockbain and Brayley 2012). When the Office of the Children’s Commissioner published Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitationin Gangs and Groups the following year, it found that the vast majority of perpetrators were men, though a wide age‐range was uncovered: some offenders were as young as fourteen, while others were elderly. Critically, perpetrators and their victims were ethnically diverse. While some women’s groups in the UK have suggested that concern over South Asian sex offenders constitutes a ‘good’ moral panic, raising awareness to protect girls from abuse, many also recognise that it distorts public perception of the prevalence of the problemacross British society. More needs to be done to combat the full scope of child sexual exploitation and grooming cases, accounting for all potential perpetrators and victims. Raising moral outrage over this issue is a matter of priority, but should be achieved without recourse to racial stereotyping, helpful to no one lest future victims.

[DannyInvincible]

Yep. Watched both. Q&A wasn't great.

Haven't seen them yet but I'll try get a watch when I have a chance.

[SkStu]

I'm glad you've watched it but I'm surprised it didn't have more impact. It could be convincing because it's true, of course. Not sure what he has to gain from lying.

[SkStu]

Just on these matters, the following study - 'Child Grooming and Sexual Exploitation: Are South Asian Men the UK Media’s New Folk Devils?' - in the International Journal of Crime, Justice and Social Democracy (https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/) is of relevance: https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/214/185

It concludes:

You quote a lot of sources but very rarely claim a position on a lot of these things. These publications can make all the claims and speculation they want but it doesn't change what occurred in Rotherham etc and Muslim gangs, rape and human trafficking.

[Charlie Darwin]

I'm glad you've watched it but I'm surprised it didn't have more impact. It could be convincing because it's true, of course. Not sure what he has to gain from lying.
I'm sorry, just repeat that to yourself. "Not sure what he has to gain from lying." How about, everything?

[SkStu]

What part of what he said in the videos did you not find convincing or truthful? He's pretty straightforward in everything he says. It's kind of his thing. He's already hated by many, it's not like he stands to win friends now by being deceitful.

[DannyInvincible]

You quote a lot of sources but very rarely claim a position on a lot of these things. These publications can make all the claims and speculation they want but it doesn't change what occurred in Rotherham etc and Muslim gangs, rape and human trafficking.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with being an agnostic in a nuanced world. The truth is often more complex than we can or will comprehend, appreciate or envisage. :)

More often than not, I probably broadly concur with the various bits and pieces I'm quoting though, or at least, I feel the information is worthy of inclusion in whatever discussion is in progress and can add some value or insight.

And evidence-based academic research is surely a world away from speculation.

[Charlie Darwin]

What part of what he said in the videos did you not find convincing or truthful? He's pretty straightforward in everything he says. It's kind of his thing. He's already hated by many, it's not like he stands to win friends now by being deceitful.
I'm sure the stuff about his background, how he got to where he is truthful. Distancing himself from the racists he's run with from his entire adult life I find hilarious. I'll watch it again over the weekend as it's been a while but the whole 'mea culpa, I was a bad un' schtick is a classic. Can't remember if he mentioned it there but the idea he left the EDL after failing to run out the neo-nazis is very funny.

[peadar1987]

You quote a lot of sources but very rarely claim a position on a lot of these things. These publications can make all the claims and speculation they want but it doesn't change what occurred in Rotherham etc and Muslim gangs, rape and human trafficking.

Interesting you should mention Rotherham, as I found this the other day, revealing that 68% of the offenders were actually white: https://exposingbf.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/rotherhams-white-grooming-gangs/

This quote from the Crown Prosecution service's lead on child sex abuse stood out:



“So I know that the vast majority of offenders are British white male,” he says, setting the number at somewhere between 80 and 90%. “We have come across cases all over the country and the ethnicity of the perpetrators varies depending on where you are … It is not the abusers’ race that defines them. It is their attitude to women that defines them.”


The normal resident population of the UK is 86% white. For every sex crime by a black or middle-eastern person that gets the gutter press whipped up into a frenzy, there are a raft of similar crimes committed by white people which are swept under the carpet. Nationwide, Muslims do not appear to be significantly more likely to commit sex crimes than any other ethnic group.

[SkStu]

from the same blog post (which by the way didn't link to the Rotherham report itself, instead a strategic plan to move Rotherham forward):


To be fair, we genuinely don’t know how accurate or representative even these figures are. It seems that as more information comes to light the picture of what happened in Rotherham keeps on changing. Perhaps we’ll never know for sure.

The report itself and almost every article and analysis provided (and even Jack Straw) at the time was unanimous in claiming that this was a problem predominantly perpetrated by Muslim gangs. Even this problem itself is acknowledged by Muslim thought leaders.


Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, said British Pakistanis needed to acknowledge the problem of grooming gangs operating in their communities.

He said: 'Until British Pakistanis accept that this is a problem for our community we will not be able to eradicate this evil. Burying our head in the sand as the usual response is not good enough.'

Bear in mind that this scandal was initiated as a result a conviction of 5 members of a Muslim gang in the area in 2010, then Rochdale (all Muslim) and then the Inquiry was called and completed with the first groups of people imprisoned as a result of the report back in 2016 were a Muslim group (and two white women). I don't deny that it likely is not exclusively a Muslim problem but they do seem to be hugely represented in the events that predated the report, the report itself and the follow on convictions. Of the 20 convictions arising from Operation Clover, 18 are Muslim men aged between 30 and 42. The other 2 are white women. Another 3 Muslim men are awaiting trial.

BBC News (27 August 2014): "At least 1,400 children in the South Yorkshire town were sexually exploited by criminal gangs of men who were predominantly of Pakistani origin between 1997 and 2013."

from Wikipedia related to the Casey report:


Published in January 2015, the Casey report concluded that Rotherham Council was "not fit for purpose".[173] Casey identified a culture of "bullying, sexism ... and misplaced 'political correctness'", along with a history of covering up information and silencing whistleblowers. The child-sexual-exploitation team was poorly directed, suffered from excessive case loads, and did not share information.[174] The council had a history of failing to deal with issues around race: "Staff perceived that there was only a small step between mentioning the ethnicity of perpetrators and being labelled a racist."[175] The Pakistani-heritage councillors were left to deal with all issues pertaining to that community, which left them able to exert disproportionate influence, while white councillors ignored their responsibilities

[KrisLetang]

Nationwide, Muslims do not appear to be significantly more likely to commit sex crimes than any other ethnic group.

Looks like the number is ticking up.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/13/29-people-in-court-over-170-charges-of-sexual-exploitation-of-18-children-6571793/

[BonnieShels]

I have an idea to solve the border issue if it's seemingly so insurmountable...



Davis said: “How on earth do you resolve the issue of the border with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland unless you know what our general borders policy is, what the customs agreement is, what the free trade agreement is, whether you need to charge tariffs at the border or not? You can’t decide one without the other.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/may/14/general-election-2017-may-promises-homes-for-generation-rent-politics-live?page=with:block-59183c0ae4b0a8ea08b6e015#block-59183c0ae4b0a8ea08b6e015

[geysir]

Interesting you should mention Rotherham, as I found this the other day, revealing that 68% of the offenders were actually white: https://exposingbf.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/rotherhams-white-grooming-gangs/

This quote from the Crown Prosecution service's lead on child sex abuse stood out:
“So I know that the vast majority of offenders are British white male,” he says, setting the number at somewhere between 80 and 90%. “We have come across cases all over the country and the ethnicity of the perpetrators varies depending on where you are … It is not the abusers’ race that defines them. It is their attitude to women that defines them.”


The normal resident population of the UK is 86% white. For every sex crime by a black or middle-eastern person that gets the gutter press whipped up into a frenzy, there are a raft of similar crimes committed by white people which are swept under the carpet. Nationwide, Muslims do not appear to be significantly more likely to commit sex crimes than any other ethnic group.

That's a very good post on the issue. Both you and the Crown prosecutor have it spot on and from what I can gather most rational sex exploitation researchers/ activists/'legalists' would agree with that quote from the prosecutor.
However, here a discussion about brexit has come down to discussing the merits of the socially divisive propaganda of racist groups, Britain First or British Pride or whatever they're called in these days of re-branding racism into something trendy and credible.

Wendy Shepherd, child sexual exploitation project manager for Barnardo's wrote,
"The danger with saying that the problem is with one ethnicity is that then people will only be on the lookout for that group – and will risk missing other threats."
I think Wendy's statement doesn't go far enough, because focusing the problem on one ethnicity to the exclusion of others is (to state the obvious) a poison and patently a part of an agenda driven racist propaganda.
Fortunately in order to understand what that's about, we can get assistance from those who have studied propaganda and in particular Nazis. One of the most respected in this field is Sebastian Haffner (http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/collections/personalsites/Israel-Germany/World-War-2/Pages/Sebastian-Haffner.aspx)
In "Jekyll and Hyde" Seb wrote “Outside of Germany people often wonder at the palpable fraudulence of Nazi propaganda, the stupid incredible exaggerations, the ludicrous reticences concerning what is generally known. Who can be convinced by it? They ask. The answer is that it is not meant to convince but to impress. It addresses emotion and fantasy. Nazi propaganda seeks to create in our minds tenacious ideas and fantasies."
In Germany there were plenty of intelligentsia who rejected the facts of the propaganda, eg. that "snub nosed, dwarfish, half ape" Czechs/Poles were threats to Germany, but the impression of the propaganda lingered.
In the aftermath of such propaganda today (Moslems rape our white girls) we get discussions based on those lingering impressions, which in turn deepen the effect of the propaganda, as explanations are offered that such belligerent people are victims of bad information, instead of what they are, basically people having questionable levels of rationality, bigots who focus on selective incidents to support their prejudices.
We offer in response, information that "Muslims" have low crime rates, good in business, academia, solid family support network etc etc , but in a nutshell this information is having the effect of separation, of accentuating differences in other ethnic groups. They are, they have, they is ok.
I'm not saying that racist/ethnic/social propaganda issues should not be challenged, but to keep in mind a perspective on the idea that "racist propaganda is not meant to convince but to impress".
It's not just about the facts.

[peadar1987]

from the same blog post (which by the way didn't link to the Rotherham report itself, instead a strategic plan to move Rotherham forward):

The report itself and almost every article and analysis provided (and even Jack Straw) at the time was unanimous in claiming that this was a problem predominantly perpetrated by Muslim gangs. Even this problem itself is acknowledged by Muslim thought leaders.

Bear in mind that this scandal was initiated as a result a conviction of 5 members of a Muslim gang in the area in 2010, then Rochdale (all Muslim) and then the Inquiry was called and completed with the first groups of people imprisoned as a result of the report back in 2016 were a Muslim group (and two white women). I don't deny that it likely is not exclusively a Muslim problem but they do seem to be hugely represented in the events that predated the report, the report itself and the follow on convictions. Of the 20 convictions arising from Operation Clover, 18 are Muslim men aged between 30 and 42. The other 2 are white women. Another 3 Muslim men are awaiting trial.

BBC News (27 August 2014): "At least 1,400 children in the South Yorkshire town were sexually exploited by criminal gangs of men who were predominantly of Pakistani origin between 1997 and 2013."

from Wikipedia related to the Casey report:

The plural of anecdote isn't data. If you narrow your focus on anything you can pretend that it's the problem. Take these guys for example: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/11/seven-members-paedophile-gang-jailed . Not a Muslim involved. It doesn't matter how things seem, because that's a product of the media and our own internal biases. So let's take a look at what the statistics say:

Here's a British government report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480250/bulletin.pdf) on crime and ethnicity, which is probably as close as we're going to get to a breakdown based on religion. Page 36 has a breakdown by race and type of offence. Asians commit about 7% of sexual crimes in the UK, while comprising 6.9% of the population. Also interesting to note is that Asians are significantly less likely than the general population to commit violent offences, robbery, burglary or drug offences. Statistically speaking, perhaps we should be whipping up a moral panic about these Muslim immigrants coming over here committing fraud and forgery (for which the defendant is Asian ~10-11% of the time), although that's less of an emotive topic for the press to latch onto than strange-looking foreigners abusing innocent British girls.



Looks like the number is ticking up.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/13/29-peo...ldren-6571793/ (http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/13/29-people-in-court-over-170-charges-of-sexual-exploitation-of-18-children-6571793/)


See above. The plural of anecdote isn't data. In the same time period I guarantee there was a proportional number of sex crimes committed by folk of other ethnicities and religions. If there wasn't the statistics would look different.

[KrisLetang]

We never had female genital mutilation in Michigan or Minnesota until these Muslim Communities were gathered there. Muslim doctors were shocked they got arrested for it. They didn't see the harm. To me that's bad immigration. We don't need that. And I'm not just choosing just that when talking about immigration problems. MS-13 is murdering people on Long Island like crazy. They come from El Salvador--illegally. Wait until MS-13 get to Chicago. You think that city is going up in flames now...I mean they are there already, just not like they are on L.I. yet.

[peadar1987]

We never had female genital mutilation in Michigan or Minnesota until these Muslim Communities were gathered there. Muslim doctors were shocked they got arrested for it. They didn't see the harm. To me that's bad immigration. We don't need that.

I'm not quite sure what that's got to do with the EU, but banning Muslims from entering the country isn't going to stop FGM. In fact, it's less likely to happen in the US or the UK where there are actually laws against it. Not to mention the fact that FGM is also extremely widespread among the christian communities in west, central and east african countries, whereas it is almost completely non-existent in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran, Saudia Arabia...



And I'm not just choosing just that when talking about immigration problems. MS-13 is murdering people on Long Island like crazy. They come from El Salvador--illegally. Wait until MS-13 get to Chicago. You think that city is going up in flames now...I mean they are there already, just not like they are on L.I. yet.

Well this doesn't exactly have much to do with freedom of movement for EU nationals within the EU. But anyway, there are almost no immigrants in the Aryan Nation and Combat 18. And the Crips are almost exclusively African-Americans whose ancestors were slaves. And none of this changes the fact that immigration does not have any statistical correlation with an increase in crime rate. You can point to MS-13, but I could point to the proportional number of crimes committed by non-immigrants:

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/criminalization-immigration-united-states
http://econofact.org/are-immigrants-more-likely-to-commit-crimes
http://thehill.com/latino/324607-reports-find-that-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-us-born-citizens

[KrisLetang]

Right but we don't need to add any illegal immigrants who are in gangs.

[peadar1987]

Right but we don't need to add any illegal immigrants who are in gangs.

The keyword there is illegal. The UK can already stop illegal migration, because it's, y'know, illegal. Leaving the EU isn't going to change that one iota. And if the immigration is legal, then you can filter out gang members and terrorists at the visa application stage. EU immigrants have contributed far more to the UK economy in taxes and economic activity than they have taken out, which makes more money available for things that benefit everyone in the UK. And that's without mentioning the fact that things like the NHS would simply collapse without migrant workers to prop it up.

[KrisLetang]

Do people who are rich or upper class use NHS generally?

[peadar1987]

Do people who are rich or upper class use NHS generally?

About 8% of the population use private health care. I would assume they would be from the richer parts of society, yes.

[DannyInvincible]

Do people who are rich or upper class use NHS generally?

Although they are perfectly entitled to do so, persons from the upper classes probably wouldn't tend to avail of it. They may consult for minor matters (https://patient.info/doctor/health-and-social-class) but I suspect they would generally go private for more serious issues or where there may be long waiting lists on the NHS as they can afford it.

Working class persons would generally be limited to NHS treatment due to financial restraint. This Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570763/Middle-class-get-better-NHS-care-says-expert.html) (which references a report by a think-tank) claims that middle class people "dominate" the NHS, however:


[A Civitas] report, titled Quite Like Heaven?, warns that the health service cannot be allowed to continue as it is because far from receiving equal treatment under the NHS, much depends on where you live, how much you earn, how old you are and who you know.

Nick Seddon, the study's author, said: "Higher socio-economic groups are more likely to have family or friends who work in the health services, and even if these contacts are not directly used to gain access to services they act as an important source of advice on how to work the system.

"The Government is faced with the dispiriting fact that not only have health inequalities not improved, but they have got worse.

This piece (https://bmdoyleblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/what-was-middle-class-healthcare-like-before-the-nhs/) discusses the impact the introduction of universal healthcare free at the point of service had upon the middle class:


...

Thus, it would seem that the arrival of the NHS did much to improve the health options of the middle class, especially the less wealthy crippled by large doctors fees for poor service and denied access to the most up to date and efficient hospital treatment. As with education, the new system made a substantial difference to the family budgets of clerks, lower professionals and even middle managers freeing up income for improved housing, more discretionary spending and even the ultimate status symbol of the 1950s, a motor car – and in the process possibly sowing the seeds of an increasingly sedentary, over-indulgent and unhealthy lifestyle!

[KrisLetang]

So what % of a working persons taxes that they pay in the U.K. go toward NHS? Do sales taxes and property taxes also go towards NHS or is it only payroll taxes?

[peadar1987]

So what % of a working persons taxes that they pay in the U.K. go toward NHS? Do sales taxes and property taxes also go towards NHS or is it only payroll taxes?

Sales tax, income tax and National Insurance all go in the one pot. Property tax is paid locally and goes towards fixing potholes, social housing, state schools etc.

The NHS comes out of the big pot, and accounts for 18.8% of that. Currently Income Tax is 0% on all earnings £11,000 and below, 20% on all earnings £11,000 to £43,000, and 40% on all earnings above that. National Insurance varies from 0% to 11% of income depending on a number of factors. On average a UK worker will pay 31% tax on their earnings, which means just under 6% of their income will go on the NHS. This is significantly less than in the US, which is generally attributed to a number of factors. One of the most important of these being that people in the UK will go to the doctor on a cautionary or preventative basis, so many problems are nipped in the bud before they can develop into something more dangerous (and expensive). There is also the fact that the NHS does not try to turn a profit, and the fact that it has a much greater negotiating power than individual US customers, and so can get a better deal from suppliers of drugs and medical equipment.

[DannyInvincible]

So what % of a working persons taxes that they pay in the U.K. go toward NHS? Do sales taxes and property taxes also go towards NHS or is it only payroll taxes?

Whilst there has been talk in recent years of sending itemised letters to taxpayers detailing exactly how their tax contribution is spent by the British government, exact figures aren't presently published or made known to taxpayers. However, according to this (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-16744819) BBC piece from 2012, a worker earning the then-average UK full-time salary of £25,500 per annum would have paid a total tax amount of £5,979 and, from that total, would have contributed £1,094 to the NHS.

This (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dear-taxpayer-heres-where-your-hard-earned-money-really-goes-7578146.html) article (also from 2012) claims that "a taxpayer earning £50,000 a year [was] paying £14,183 (or 28.37 per cent) of their income to the Government" and that "by far the largest proportion of this money [went] to fund the welfare state (£4,727.67), followed by health (£2,469.73) and education (£1,848.73)". It more or less confirms what the BBC article was asserting and suggests that someone earning £25,000 would contribute £993 to health-care.

This (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11204213/Voters-to-get-letters-showing-how-much-of-their-money-is-spent-on-benefits.html) article from the Telegraph states that someone earning £60,000 per year will contribute £3,442 to the NHS.

For what it's worth, the average UK wage in 2015 was £27,600 (http://magazine.startus.cc/average-wage-uk-salary-earning-age/) and it tends to rise by a percentage or two every year, so the average tax contribution will also have increased proportionately.

The NHS is funded almost exclusively through income (payroll) tax (https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/current-rates-and-allowances) and national insurance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance) contributions. Some further info on NHS funding here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service#Funding):


The systems are 98.8% funded from general taxation and National Insurance contributions, plus small amounts from patient charges for some services.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service#cite_note-24) About 10% of GDP is spent on health and most is spent in the public sector.[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service#cite_note-25) The money to pay for the NHS comes directly from taxation. The 2008/9 budget roughly equates to a contribution of £1,980 for every man, woman and child in the UK.[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service#cite_note-26)

When the NHS was launched in 1948 it had a budget of £437million (roughly £9 billion at today’s prices).[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service#cite_note-27) In 2008/9 it received over 10 times that amount (more than £100billion). In 1955/6 health spending was 11.2% of the public services budget. In 2015/6 it was 29.7%.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service#cite_note-28) This equates to an average rise in spending over the full 60-year period of about 4% a year once inflation has been taken into account. Under the Blair government investment levels increased to around 6% a year on average. Since 2010 spending growth has been constrained to just over 1% a year.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service#cite_note-28)

Some 60% of the NHS budget is used to pay staff. A further 20% pays for drugs and other supplies, with the remaining 20% split between buildings, equipment, training costs, medical equipment, catering and cleaning. Nearly 80% of the total budget is distributed by local trusts in line with the particular health priorities in their areas.[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service#cite_note-29)

Some further info here (https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-nhs-funded) too:


https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/media/nutshell-funding-web.jpg

...

Some funding is generated by user charges. Charges for prescriptions, dental treatment and spectacles were first introduced in the early 1950s. These charges account for only a small proportion of NHS income – for example, income from patient fees and charges for prescriptions and dental care was £1.3 billion in 2015/16, which was 1.1 per cent of the Department of Health budget. The NHS also generates some income, for example, through parking charges and land sales.

The level of NHS funding in a given year is set by central government through the Spending Review process. This process estimates how much income the NHS will receive from sources such as user charges, National Insurance and general taxation. If National Insurance or patient charges raise less funding for the NHS than originally estimated, funds from general taxation are used to ensure the NHS receives the level of funding it was originally allocated.

[DannyInvincible]

Just following on from the talk on immigration above... This is a powerful and thought-provoking long-read by a former asylum seeker (who left Iran aged eight and who is now a teacher of American literature in London, as well as holding both US and EU citizenship) on the nativist disdain for the "ungrateful refugee" and the suspicious notion that refugees should shed their old identities and owe eternal and unconditional thanks to their native hosts: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/dina-nayeri-ungrateful-refugee

[backstothewall]

This is my example of the NHS.

Mrs BTTW is currently pregnant. When she gives birth it will be in an NHS hospital. If things go as the have previously we will have a night spent in an NHS hospital. We will have the care of a midwife and a few nurses. My son or daughter will be delivered in a safe environment (most likely a waterbirth in a suite built to to accomodate that).

If anything goes wrong a team of consultant surgeons, anesthetists, nurses etc will be on hand to save her life and my childs life.

All of this will be provided free of charge at the point of delivery (quite literally in this case). I have been paying or it in advance since i was 18 and got a job.

I am able to pay for it, and type this, because when it went wrong as I was being born, and i needed the help of crash team to save my life, there was one there free of charge, paid for in advance by my father and mother.

Bringing this back to the original subject, when the day comes for a referendum in ROI, I can think of no better reason for Irish unity than the fact that we bring with us the infrastructure of an all-Ireland health service, provided for free at the point on delivery. We can work out the money later!

[osarusan]

This is my example of the NHS.

Mrs BTTW is currently pregnant. When she gives birth it will be in an NHS hospital. If things go as the have previously we will have a night spent in an NHS hospital. We will have the care of a midwife and a few nurses. My son or daughter will be delivered in a safe environment (most likely a waterbirth in a suite built to to accomodate that).

If anything goes wrong a team of consultant surgeons, anesthetists, nurses etc will be on hand to save her life and my childs life.

All of this will be provided free of charge at the point of delivery (quite literally in this case). I have been paying or it in advance since i was 18 and got a job.

I am able to pay for it, and type this, because when it went wrong as I was being born, and i needed the help of crash team to save my life, there was one there free of charge, paid for in advance by my father and mother.

Bringing this back to the original subject, when the day comes for a referendum in ROI, I can think of no better reason for Irish unity than the fact that we bring with us the infrastructure of an all-Ireland health service, provided for free at the point on delivery. We can work out the money later!
Giving birth in Ireland is much the same. On public health care, it doesn't cost a cent.

[KrisLetang]

Well of course it costs money. You're just paying in a different way instead of a bill when you leave.

[CraftyToePoke]

This is my example of the NHS.

Here's mine

Recently my knee popped in a 50/50 indoor soccer match. I felt it pop, not in agony but a pops a pop and I did some knee bends in the dressing room and told the guys to take me off the text list for games for the foreseeable & went home, I knew it was not good.

A&E the next day, described it to the nurse, was referred to a higher up nurse who examined me. Twisted and turned it and nearly brought tears from me, she said it was not ruptured, I repeated I felt it pop and had had a look online and felt my MCR was gone. She said no. Said to give it 4 weeks minimum and not to expect it to be pain free, after that go to a GP if I wasn't coming from it but clearly, she was sure I wouldn't need to.

I pressed her, and got nowhere. She was borderline dismissive.

GP 5 weeks or so later, I get referred for an MRI, wait two more weeks for MRI appt, which when it comes back shows, a ruptured MCR ligament.

Again I wait, two weeks for an appt letter in a hospital in a different town even though the consultant does weekly surgeries in the town I'm in it turns out when I finally see him, another week or more after the letter. They guy decides on a brace and crutches, with a follow up every two weeks for eight weeks followed by physio.

The brace he sent the nurse for isn't in stock so another one is brought, totally different and she warned me it wasn't exactly an award winner. And its worse than useless, I mean no matter how tight I fasten it, within two steps it has fallen not only down, but completely below the knee. Worthless pile of nonsense, so I rang the manufacturers as I assumed I was misusing it, but no, and they were blissfully unaware of it ever being anything other than perfect.

Rang the hospital, and they had me back in within two days to be fair, but the woman on the phone was a world apart from the nurses I met upon going back, they basically said that's how it is, keep hiking it up, keep calm and carry on. So I pushed for the brace i was originally supposed to get, and it still wasn't in stock but they would order it in. I pushed because being immobile isn't an option as I work for myself and the original brace would have been fine for that.

They said it would be here by Wednesday of this week and would phone me, bring me in and fit it. No call and its now Saturday, so Ill start chasing them again on Monday. They assured me they would call me soon as it came in and that would be Wednesday, so lets see when I call if its there. I know where my tenner is on that one.

I realise it's not life and death, it's not childbirth, and I injured myself chasing a ball around but the point holds, I run my own business, and if any part of that malfunctioned as badly and repeatedly as almost every part of this NHS chain I am in, I would be eaten alive by my competitors in probably about as much time as passed since I hurt my knee.

This is not to say I want it auctioned off, privatised, nor is it me uncloaking as a godless Tory :) I just found it to be a string of bad getting worse this time.

[DannyInvincible]

I realise it's not life and death, it's not childbirth, and I injured myself chasing a ball around but the point holds, I run my own business, and if any part of that malfunctioned as badly and repeatedly as almost every part of this NHS chain I am in, I would be eaten alive by my competitors in probably about as much time as passed since I hurt my knee.

This is not to say I want it auctioned off, privatised, nor is it me uncloaking as a godless Tory :) I just found it to be a string of bad getting worse this time.

The Tories' long-term plan is working a treat then, unfortunately.

Here's something a junior doctor friend of mine wrote on Tory treatment of the NHS: https://geosociopolitico.com/2016/03/22/the-nhs-on-the-brink/


Absolute spending increases make for excellent soundbite politics. In reality, the Government is enforcing real terms per-capita spending cuts, which does not make for a financially sustainable NHS. We currently spend less per patient on older, more complex patients. We continue to spend a smaller proportion of our GDP on healthcare than most of our counterparts including per-capita spending, well below the OECD median.

As a country we are living longer, have more complex healthcare needs and, as such, become more expensive to care for. In response to skyrocketing patient care and hospital overhead costs, we have allowed a systematic reduction in funding per patient.

The financial collapse of the NHS has one of two remedies, further privatisation or adequate funding through re-nationalisation.

It’s time for us, the public, the patients, to have an honest and frank debate about what the NHS is really worth and whether we are willing to put our money where our mouth is.

Defund, make sure things don't work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital... As Noam Chomsky once said: "That's the standard technique of privatisation."

[DannyInvincible]

Some further reasons as to why the Tories can't be trusted with the NHS: https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/caroline-molloy/eight-reasons-you-really-can%27t-trust-tories-with-nhs

[peadar1987]

Well of course it costs money. You're just paying in a different way instead of a bill when you leave.

But because it's free at the point of use, it ends up costing less overall, because everyone can afford it, and people aren't put off getting preventative medicine by the cost.

In the US, there are still outbreaks of disease because people don't go to the doctor and get it treated before they infect others. There are drug-resistant strains of diseases that have emerged because it's too expensive for people to complete courses of treatment. And that's not to mention the fact that private healthcare providers are also trying to maximise their profits. All of this adds to the overall healthcare burden and the amount people pay overall compared to a single-payer system.

[KrisLetang]

They actually had single payer in Vermont. It collapsed.

Could work in California though. http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/05/22/shocker-joan-walsh-shares-single-payer-reality-that-might-floor-lefties/

[peadar1987]

They actually had single payer in Vermont. It collapsed.

Could work in California though. http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/05/22/shocker-joan-walsh-shares-single-payer-reality-that-might-floor-lefties/

Yes, single-payer health care requires an increase in taxes. We all know that. But pretty much every other country in the developed world has it. And it works. The US healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world (http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/) for quality by the WHO, 31st for life expectancy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy) and 48th for infant mortality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate). And this is in spite of spending the highest amount per capita in the entire world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_ capita), by quite some margin.

Single-payer healthcare is objectively better. It produces better outcomes at a lower cost. Yes, taxes will have to go up, but when that means that the average person ends up healthier and with more money in their pocket, that's a good thing.

[KrisLetang]

The same WHO that spent 200 Million on Travel last year? :) And I read that on Al Jazeera of all places.

I'm sure you Health Ins is fine. Mine is fine too and not that expensive. Raising Taxes by that much in CAL would be crazy. Taxes are crazy in left wing states like that as it is.I'm glad that works for you. I notice that rich people from around the world often come to the US for treatment. Max Factor in LA, CLE Clinic, Mayo in Minny. NYU Langone down the street from me. They all have their VIP centers. Why would anyone need that? I thought everyone is treated the exact same under socialized medicine? Weird.