Since the revelation that many British towns and cities have been afflicted by Islamic Grooming Gangs for many years, if not decades, and that very little was until recently done about it, may prompt some people to ask the question: How did this happen?
My view is that it happened because there were those in Labour councils. and also Labour supporting council officers in the social services departments of non-Labour areas, who put their ideology above any consideration of justice and common-sense. The number of girls and young women who have been or still are victims of Islamic Grooming Gangs is heading into five figures and is one indication that members of the various flavours of Britain’s Left, including those in the Labour party, refused to deal with these rapists because it went against the ideology of multiculturalism that they were promoting.
Now I am not in favour of a one-size-fits-all society. Reasonable accommodations for practises that are divergent from the norm are acceptable. To my mind allowing Sikhs to be exempt from motorcycle crash helmets and Jews to have access to Kosher food or not work on a Saturday are just matters of basic politeness that do not impinge to any noticable extent on the general population. Also allowing Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people to live their lives without fear has been a great achievement for modern Britain and this freedom to be who you are provided that you don’t frighten the horses is one reason why I’m opposed to the ideology of Islam. I want Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, Gay and others who are a little bit different to live in peace and freedom and not to have to fear some violent and intolerant bearded savage with a sword.
The rot of ideology over justice and common sense goes deep within the Labour party especially and as this newspaper report in the Sunday Telegraph shows has been going on for a very long time. The Sunday Telegraph is carrying today a retelling of the story of the sexual abuse and subsequent cover-up, that went on in Labour run Islington council in North London and what it says is very relevant to our current problems with Islamic Grooming Gangs.
The Sunday Telegraph said:
“Islington had many connections to PIE. In the fatally naive Seventies to mid-Eighties, PIE openly campaigned for sex to be legalised with children from age four, and for incest and child pornography to be legalised. The National Council for Civil Liberties – now Liberty – allowed PIE to affiliate with it, and its then legal officer Harriet Harman wrote a paper effectively backing PIE demands. The assumption in those “progressive” days was that paedophiles simply loved children and wanted to “liberate” their sexuality.
Mrs Harman, whose role has been exposed in recent media stories, has described Margaret Hodge as her best friend in Parliament. Mrs Hodge’s late husband, Henry Hodge, also an Islington Labour councillor, earlier chaired the National Council for Civil Liberties. It is unknown if they ever discussed PIE.
In 1985, Mrs Hodge announced that Islington Council would positively discriminate in favour of gay staff. It exempted self-declared gay men from background checks, and paedophiles pretending to be decent gay men cynically exploited this. It emerged that Islington deputy superintendent Michael Taylor was in PIE after he received a four-year prison sentence in July 2000 for abusing two boys at Islington’s Gisburne House in the Seventies.”
Read the rest of this article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/10746412/Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-Islington-is-still-covering-up.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Although as the article says, the issue of paedophiles in the public sector has been a ‘cross party’ problem which all would like buried, it cannot be denied that Hodge’s Labour party policy of exempting gay men applying for childcare positions from background checks, was one which allowed paedophiles to masquarade as gay men. I’ve had loads of Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender friends and acquaintances over the years and I cannot recall any one (outside of a tiny minority of ultra-libertarian fraggles such as Feminists Against Censorship ) who would object to weeding out nonces from child-care positions.
If you are astonished about the huge number of Islamic Grooming Gangs and the help and assistance they got from either the political Left and their placemen in police and local government, then reading the Telegraph story will show you that the ‘nonce-rot’ in Islington was tolerated purely because to deal with it effectively would be seen as an attack on Islington’s ‘equalities’ programme. In a similar manner to what happened in Islington, many councils, often Labour ones, have tolerated Islamic Grooming Gangs and in some cases run cover for them, because to attack these gangs would have exposed the Lefts multiculturalism policies to the public gaze. In the name of ‘equality’ Labour let nonces run children’s homes in Islington, and allowed Islamic rapists to wreak havoc across the entire country and caused places like and Rotherham to become known as the ‘Islamic Rape Capital of Britain’.
That sort of thing is not an ‘equality’ worthy of the name. It is malfeasance of the highest order and should be remembered by every voter when they approach the hallowed ground of the Polling Station this May and at the next General Election. Do you really want a party that has a history of excusing nonces and turning a blind eye to Islamic Grooming Gangs or other sorts of nonces as your representative or running your government? I know that I do not.
Links
Law and Freedom Foundation report into Islamic Grooming Gangs
Original Telegraph story about the problems with Islington
They don’t even have the decency to acknowledge the error of their ways, apologise and try and repair some of the damage. I hold these left-wing scum responsible, and have even more contempt for them than I have for the islamononces.
Can I borrow your phrase ‘they don’t even have the decency to apologise’ for the title of a post? It’s given me an idea.
You are more than welcome.
Exempting Sikhs from wearing crash helemts and allowing Jews access to kosher food and being free from working on Saturday are very diffrent.
I think the crash helmet law is a bad law, but it’s the criminal law and there should be NO exceptions. ONE LAW for all.
By all means campaign to have the law repealed.
Kosher food and Sturday working: there is no entitlement to kosher food because that imposes an obligation on someone to provide it. Instead, there should be no legal prohibition on access to kosher food provided voluntarily. Saturday working: a matter for employer and employee, nothing to do with the law other than law of contract.
ONE LAW for all.
Up to a point I agree with you but there is a difference between having reasonable variations to custom and laws that only affect the individual. I certainly agree with you that working on the Sabbath should be a matter between employer and employee but people shouldn’t be penalised if they do say they cannot work on a Saturday. I’m thinking of DWP and their inflexibility here. I don’t think that orgs should be forced to provide any kosher or halal food or cater for any other desire (leave it to the market) but I was referring to the exemption to slaughter without pre-stunning. To ban this for Jews would be an injustice. You can have reasonable accomodations without disturbing the general one-ness of national law.
I`m all for a bit of tolerance but not kosher or halal slaughtered meat, its a horribly cruel way to kill the beast, the advocates for it say its utterly painless and fast but ask yourself this this.
If you had been sentenced to death and you had the choice of having your throat cut and be left to bleed out or a bullet through the back of the head, what would you choose?
Kosher slaughter, done properly (and that is the key thing) is probably better than a poorly used stun device. As regards execution, I’d choose hanging by British method on the grounds that this is the quickest and least messy way to die. I would be careful in comparing higher primates such as humans, chimps, gorillas etc with lower animals as things like brain structure and how long the creature retains residual consciousness after cutting off blood supply to the brain will differ a lot. I would advise you to read Dr Mary Temple Grandin’s work on animal handling and slaughter methods as she studied this in detail. The main similarity betweeen Kosher and halal slaughter is exsanguination, the pre-mortem animal handling and post mortem meat treatment is what really creates the difference between the two processes.
Very good article.Personally I think the government is ultimately to blame as they allow the scum into the country and allow them to behave just as they please.To the Tower with the lot of ’em!