Still waiting for your evidence.
Hope you and family are OK.
Woof
Im ok but the family arent.As soon as i get back to work it`ll be posted
deconstructing 'paedophile gangs'
- Thread starter Ibn Khaldoun
- Start date
Im ok but the family arent.As soon as i get back to work it`ll be posted
I've explained that figure to you already.
Why not just produce your evidence or admit you were bullshitting?
Woof
I didnt see you explain that figure.I know i certainly didnt say thousands so where did it come from ? (sorry, i know how you like your sources ! )
I've explained that figure to you already.
Why not just produce your evidence or admit you were bullshitting?
Woof
Im sure you can read so when i say i`ll get it when im at work, what is it you think i actually mean ? !
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
And don't you think that the enforcement of workers rights and everything that goes with that ( safe conditions of employment, statutory defence against abusive clients, enforcement of health and safety regulations etc) would go a long way to ensuring that sex workers can work in conditions free from such violence?
I make the analogy with the labour movements fight for workers rights after the industrial revolution. We are all familiar with the abusive practices so common in Dickens' England. Children up the chimneys and down the mines (child sex workers? ) Astronomical accident rates in factories (safe working conditions?) Employer abuses of female workers ( sexual violence and pimping?) Exploitative and bonded labour practices ( indentured sex work?) These abuses were so common in the earliest days of the industrial revolution that they are burned into our collective memories.
But, in the developed world at least, these practices have to a large extent been eradicated. They have been eradicated not because of the Victorian ideal of cap in hand workers, happy with their lot being saved by philanthropic employers saving the salt of the earth worker. No, they have been eradicated by a long and often bloody fight for workers rights. A fight led by workers themselves. This is analogous to the sex industry today. This is why it is sex workers themselves who are leading the fight for rights . In particular their demands are.
The fight for recognition of sex work as legitimate labour. Work,
This is diametrically opposed to a view that denies, implicitly or explicitly, the legitimate nature of sex work as does the anti trafficking discourse.
The fight for the recognition of sex work as a legitimate choice.
This is diametrically opposed to a perspective that seeks to deny such choice or that quibbles about the legitimacy of such choices or that searches out examples of trickery or coercian as a way of denying or downplaying such choices.
The fight for empowerment through rights.
This is diametrically opposed by an agenda that stuibbornly insists on seeing sex workers as victims to be saved.
Above all what I am advocating is the eradication of a discourse that centres on sex work as something to be eradicated and sex workers as people to be saved and the implimentation of a new discourse that recognises that sex work is legitimate labour and sex workers as legitimate workers . I think the following image used by the Network of Asian Pacific Sex Workers sums my position up perfectly.
I have limited knowledge on this subject, however from reading this thread you are the poster hwho makes more sense than a few of the other loons posting on here.
Sex Workers need their basic human rights acknowledged, attempts to stop them being ostracised by society and the right to organise.
Organised & institutionalised sexual abuse goes far beyond the sex trade!
I didnt see you explain that figure.I know i certainly didnt say thousands so where did it come from ? (sorry, i know how you like your sources ! )
I've explained it, read my posts, it's simple maths.
OK, then, I'll set it out for you again.....
Don't forget that you were writing about the situation in the the UK, so the data you refer to should have been derived from a combination of the data from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, which largely comprise the UK.
If, however, your data was based only on England and Wales, that's fair enough, these nations are often lumped together and easy to find.
bridgy45 said:
You might well think that.
And they certainly will be a pressing problem for those "kids" .......
(.......whatever that means; as I've pointed out, Barnardo's includes 18 and 19 year old adults in the data they present and provides no meaningful breakdown of the ages of the just @ 600 "young people" that they have "some" contact with across the whole of the United Kingdom - nor any other meaningful data for that matter........)
.......who happen to fall into "paedophile gangs'" deep, dark clutches through the internet or other "gateways" - such as state-run childrens' homes and other facilities - and are sucked into an horrific, dark, evil, underworld of constant abuse, where they experience pain and horror and are forced to have sex against their will through violence or threats of violence and, if they refuse to comply, are discarded onto the streets and left destitute.
But how many "kids" (whatever that means,) actually go through this dreadful, nightmare, experience (outside of the family home, I mean, and where the perpetrator is not a relative or a friend of mum, of course - remember, were talking about "internet roaming, paedophile gangs" here, this is serious stuff)?
How many?
What are the numbers?
Where's the evidence?
Who are the sources of this evidence?
What is the veracity of this evidence?
Show me the data.
Given the "hundreds" of paedophile gangs "getting away with it", for every gang "arrested" (let alone actually prosecuted, let alone actually convicted), there must, surely, be at least a few thousand kids in the clutches of these hundreds of gangs, right now, today, being dreadfully abused?
But where's the evidence?
And what age are they?
Show me the data.
Perhaps not, but even those few that do, do not comprise any kind of meaningful evidence.
And many that do appear in the news media, upon further investigation, seem to derive from some bollocks quotes made by some, ill-informed, do-gooder, charidee workers' (or member of parliament,) who are supposedly "quoting" some bollocks "report" produced by some or other bollock-biased source - out to raise funds by scaremongering - and reported by some bollocks reporter from some or other bollock-awful tabloid media outlet.
And so to the maths....
In actuality, how many paedophile gangs have been arrested?
Over what period?
(And how many were charged? And how many convicted?)
One paedophile gang arrested?
Two arrested?
Three?
Five?
Ten?
Twenty Five?
Fifty?
Seventy five point two five?
A hundred?
Two hundred and fifty?
Three hundred and seventy four point seven five?
Five hundred?
Show me the data.
You obviously seem very sure of your data and very sure of the veracity of the sources of your data and very sure of the quality of the studies that produced your data.
So why not just present this data here (with the sources - no media please - real sources,) so that we can all see it and evaluate it?
Anyway......
Lets assume, as an example, that you come back here with England and Wales data (preferably combined with Scotland and Northern Ireland, but we've covered that ommission,) from police records for the last few years (or a decade or two decades or whatever; pick your own timeframe to suit your own agenda).
And let's assume that they show that there have been as few as twenty arrests of paedophile gangs over your chosen timeframe (let's face it there are "hundreds" of gangs out there to arrest, for every one so far arrested).
That would mean that there are "hundreds" of these paedophile gangs "getting away with it", for each of the twenty arrested (let's take the minimum impossible interpretation of "hundreds" to mean "two hundred").
So, 20 gangs arrested, and a minimum of two hundred still sexually abusing "kids" and "getting away with it" for each of those arrested?
Twenty times two hundred equals four thousand paedophile gangs.
That's "thousands" innit?
And if there were more than twenty arrests in the timeframe you pick, the number of gangs "getting away with it" increases commensurately.
With me so far?
But if there were fewer than ten arrests - during your timeframe then, "you got me"!
By the minimum criteria were working on here, ten times two hundred is the minimum requirement to qualify as "thousands", innit?
In which case, I'm wrong that your "assertions" represented thousands of gangs - you were only referring to "hundreds" in total, or at least less than 2,000.
Either way, why not just produce your data and reference and link to the original sources, then we can all do the maths?
Show us your data.
And even if there were only five point zero zero one arrests during your timeframe, you are still asserting that there are over a thousand "paedophile gangs" in the UK, "getting away with it".
So where is your evidence for this assertion? Where does your data come from? What are the sources?
I'm sorry to have to point this out to you, but it still seems that you are spouting utterly unsupported, grossly exaggerated, unmitigated bollocks.
And if not, where's the evidence to support your numbers?
Show me your data.
Do the maths, then.....
And then show me your data (from the original source, please, tabloid bollocks and fundraising bollocks is not data).
Oh christ and Allah!
Please present any kind of credible evidence here, if you can, regarding just exactly how "very often" the police leave these (how many hundreds/thousands of? - or even any reliable, referenced number you can find of) "kids" in the hands of these "paedophile gangs" that they are investigating, so that these "gangs" can continue to sexually abuse them.
And for how long?
Just exactly how many "kids" do the police allow to be, ongoingly sexually abused, by just exactly how many "paedophile gangs" because they "have to", "so as to catch the 'top dogs'"?
And precisely how do they determine how long each of these "kids" must sustain the terror of this sexual abuse, before the cops decide that they should maybe intervene?
Show me the data.
And the original source(s).
Where's the evidence?
Oh. And: "A cop told me, off the record, in a pub, after work", is not evidence.
Holy fucking fuckety fuck fuck fuck!
I'm sorry, but this sentence is nothing more than the kind of (typical, wholly transparent and totally irrelevant,) heart-string-tugging, 'Oh God! Please! Think of the children' type of complete bollocky-bollocks that the Poppy Project and Barnardo's put out.
For fuck sake!
It really seems to me that you're are spouting the most entirely unmitigated, grossly exaggerated, madey-uppy, havershite-ing bollocks.
But then, it's not entirely untypical of those that disseminate this kind of anti-trafficking discourse to do precisely that, is it?
It's their main tactic, FFS.
Woof
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
fer fucks sake. what an absurd post to cover up for your daft point avoiding statement. so 'hundreds' was a slightly hyperbolic use of word. that's the pathetic little point you are trying to argue about. and as for you demanding 'evidence', funny how you didn't do that re satanic abuse, where you were more than happy to base everything on your own (completely wrong) assumption.
and for you to bemoan 'heart-tugging'!! oh the irony...
and for you to bemoan 'heart-tugging'!! oh the irony...
I'm sorry.
My bad.
When, last week, you wrote that you'd be back to "work" on Tuesday, I somehow erroneously assumed that you meant Tuesday this week, rather than Tuesday next week.
How foolish of me.
Anyway, I've had enough of this bollocks......
.....and if froggy wonders why she has trouble getting any kind of sensible message into the brains of those comprising the govt. of Moldova, then she need look no further than this thread.
It's precisely the ubiquity and volume of this kind of obvious bollocks that gives them the perfect excuse to turn a blind eye to the "abusers" while clamping down on the workers - let's face it, it's easily demonstrated to be bollocks and thus easy for govts. to dismiss any actually decent research in this area (if there is any,) as bollocks. It's just like the "just say No to drugs, 'kids', they'll kill you", bollocks that has kids going wild on any kind of unknown and unregulated substances.......
You are talking bollocks, bridgy.
Show us your data.
Or keep on spreading mythological bollocks and compounding the problems.
Nite peeps.
Blessings one and all.
Woof
Word.
But don't even try to wrestle the conversation away from the "anti-trafficker" discourse, or you'll be accused of supporting all kinds of sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse and paedophilic abuse.
There is too much "hot money" flowing into this discourse at the moment.
Woof
*sigh*
Hyperbola is a major element of the problem, belboid.
And if you simply don't understand "numbers" (which is blatently apparent,) it's bloody obvious that it's unlikely that anything posted on this thread will help.
Blessings to you and yours, belboid.
Nite.
Woof
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Word.
But don't even try to wrestle the conversation away from the "anti-trafficker" discourse, or you'll be accused of supporting all kinds of sexual abuse, including child sexual abuse and paedophilic abuse.
There is too much "hot money" flowing into this discourse at the moment.
Woof
Is this why certain agencies are supporting this legislation?
Will there be financial 'incentives' for supporting social policy along these lines?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Nothing as naked as "incentives", but there's a trend over the last 30 years or so whereby agencies that have "solutions" to social problems that accord with the discourse (sorry, belboid!) favoured by the government are far more likely to be able to secure funding than other less "on message" agencies.
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Interesting article on how such legislation could be used in a sinister way by the secret state!
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/39256
"Clearly questions need be asked as to why an organisation established under the auspices of tackling global criminal conspiracies, organised drug, sex and people trafficking appears so intent upon destroying the reputation and livelihood of a south Armagh farmer who has been accused of relatively minor offences.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) was established in April 2006 following legislation enacted in the British parliament the previous year. SOCA emerged out of a number of draconian measures enacted in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The act also included restrictions on the right to protest as well as changes to rules governing powers of arrest and use of search warrants.
SOCA is funded by the British Home Office but is described as independent. Its founding head was former MI5 chief Stephen Lander, recently replaced by a top Ministry of Defence civil servant, Ian Andrews. SOCA has been described as an “intelligence agency” which has a role of “reducing harm”, not specifically the arrest and conviction of offenders."
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/39256
"Clearly questions need be asked as to why an organisation established under the auspices of tackling global criminal conspiracies, organised drug, sex and people trafficking appears so intent upon destroying the reputation and livelihood of a south Armagh farmer who has been accused of relatively minor offences.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) was established in April 2006 following legislation enacted in the British parliament the previous year. SOCA emerged out of a number of draconian measures enacted in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The act also included restrictions on the right to protest as well as changes to rules governing powers of arrest and use of search warrants.
SOCA is funded by the British Home Office but is described as independent. Its founding head was former MI5 chief Stephen Lander, recently replaced by a top Ministry of Defence civil servant, Ian Andrews. SOCA has been described as an “intelligence agency” which has a role of “reducing harm”, not specifically the arrest and conviction of offenders."
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I think the term discourse is important again here. (sorry Belboid) because I think it is the culmination of a number of ideological threads rather than one
One is the rightist, Christian moral agenda so favoured by bush. The adoption by the US government of the Traffickiing In Persons (TIP) index which mandates sanctions against developing countries seen as not doing enough to fight "trafficking" is a direct result of the lobbying by right wing evangelist groups. In Cambodia (the country I know most about) most of the Western NGO;s that celebrate the 2006 "anti trafficking law are Christian groups such as World Vision.
In addition feminist ideologies have converged with this thinking, in particular the arguments put forward by Jackie Smith and new labour in general that claim all prostitution is inherantly coercive. This is the source of Smiths awful attempt to prohibit prostitution by prosecuting clients. As well as the exaggerations and downright lies by the Poppy project.
So we see the convergence of several different narratives into a political ideology that enjoys a hegemonic place in the western thiinking and legislative actions in both the UK and the United States.
Unholy Alliance. Some Feminists In Bed With The Religious Right
http://www.walnet.org/csis/news/usa_2003/alternet-030521.html
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
I caught the end of a debate at the Anarchist Bookfair discussing(if thats the right word for it) subject quite close to this.
Many feminists seem to be stuck in the same arguments of second wave feminism in sevenites maybe early eighties. Think recognised someone from Communist League and maybe English Collection Of Prostitutes(joke) putting across quite reactionary arguments about sex workers!
Looks like many of these 'feminists' repeating the mistakes of the past!
Many feminists seem to be stuck in the same arguments of second wave feminism in sevenites maybe early eighties. Think recognised someone from Communist League and maybe English Collection Of Prostitutes(joke) putting across quite reactionary arguments about sex workers!
Looks like many of these 'feminists' repeating the mistakes of the past!
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Thanx for the website!
SOCO is a private, for-profit, corporation, staffed by publicly paid Senior Police Officers from across the UK who, depending upon the company's "performance", are paid fat bonuses from the public purse. And it has massive injections of cash - many, many tens of millions from the public purse.
It operates almost entirely free from any kind of public scrutiny.
Very dark.
Woof
Jonti
what the dormouse said
I don't want to argue and debate with you; I want to expose you
I find the terms of abuse you chose interesting. A man who argues in favour of equal-rights for sex-workers is liable to be denounced by you as a punter, quite without any evidence. Perhaps as a pimp. Maybe even a rapist (because you think prostitution is violence against women, don't you y'daft git
). But it's not just that you deliberately and repeatedly lie about your opponents, and mindlessly repeat the lies and distortions of the prohibitionists. The fact you chose the insults you do, and apply them the way you do speaks volumes more about your underlying attitudes.
To you, prostitution is shameful; men who give money to their sex partners are shameful; folks who work as a prostitutes' agent are shameful. These things disgust you belboid, causing you to use terms like "punter", "rapist" and "pimp" almost interchangeably. And causing you to spew hateful lies rather than think about things seriously.
You are a puritan belboid; a dishonest manipulative man who wants to reduce the options open to poor people, while proclaiming himself as their saviour.
Filth, in other words.
Similar threads
