User Tag List

Results 1 to 8 of 8

  1. #1

    Default Reign of terror on school girls

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ja...leaders-jailed

    The link is to one of the most balanced and neutral reports of this story but there have been other reports, including TV broadcasts about ethnic and sectarian dimensions to this crime wave, the gang groomed 27 victims, the youngest 12 and the majority white, there have been politicians who have even suggested that this is a problem specific to certain quarters of Pakistani immigrant communities, the message has been repeated, although with a different complection perhaps, by religious and community leaders from within those communities.

    The issue being that the perpetrators believed that white children had no morals and in some reports specifically because they were out in public unaccompanied by either male parents or siblings, other beliefs attributed to the perpetrators include that female members of their own communities were "off limits", unless for marriage, while those from outside their community were "easy meat".

    Politicians and the police have emphasised the fact that the targetted girls where all without strong family networks, frequently from within the public child care system, or without any strong familial allegiances.

    Community leaders from within the immigrant communities have acknowledged there is a problem and have stated that they are going to do what they can to encourage that young men within their communities ascribe to or become more stead fast in their morality.

    The stories have thrown up a lot of questions for me, I know how ill equipped the authorities are to prevent contact between vulnerable children and adults of this kind, open residential units have no powers to physically confine children in this circumstances and while it is possible that applications could me made to have the child in question relocated to a closed residential unit these are over subscribed facilities, I'm also not a fan of the idea of rolling out permission to confine children because I think its something which could quickly become corrupting to all involved.

    There is a question about multiculturalism or ethnic mix here too, all parties reporting this in the UK have acknowledged that the targetting and victimisation in this crime wave was racist and racially motivated, with individuals doing to members of another community things that they wouldnt or couldnt do to members of their own.

    There's also intersects between ethnicity and culture here, the traditional, very possibly patriarchal, paternalistic, conservative and strongly familial versus the muddled, frequently single parent household, vulnerable and liberal/permissive. For predatory individuals it would be much more easy to victimise undetected individuals who where members of one community rather than the other.

    Despite this being objectively the case I would find the norms and values of the traditionalist culture suspiscious, perhaps as a result of my own westernised prejudices, but also because I'm unsure that being protected from predators would be sufficient to cancel out very possibly being subject to controlling, restrictive and gendered control.

    I'm also very aware that while the perpetrators where men, very good examples of individuals who fail to meet with a certain standards of self-control and conduct most men have no problem with, there is a focus on control of women underlying this whole story. There's also been comment, elsewhere, on the fact that they have been given indefinite sentences, realistically this could mean between eight and eleven years, its not really indefinite as that would be prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Anyone else have opinions on this news story? Perhaps I should find a couple of other articles for comparative purposes.

  2. #2
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Bummer, I thought this was going to be a tentacle monster thread.



  3. #3
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Depending on how you look at it, it actually is.

  4. #4
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Putrid.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    I find that Lark's threads are usually rather trite.

  6. #6
    Senior Member ubiquitous1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ja...leaders-jailed

    The link is to one of the most balanced and neutral reports of this story but there have been other reports, including TV broadcasts about ethnic and sectarian dimensions to this crime wave, the gang groomed 27 victims, the youngest 12 and the majority white, there have been politicians who have even suggested that this is a problem specific to certain quarters of Pakistani immigrant communities, the message has been repeated, although with a different complection perhaps, by religious and community leaders from within those communities.

    The issue being that the perpetrators believed that white children had no morals and in some reports specifically because they were out in public unaccompanied by either male parents or siblings, other beliefs attributed to the perpetrators include that female members of their own communities were "off limits", unless for marriage, while those from outside their community were "easy meat".

    Politicians and the police have emphasised the fact that the targetted girls where all without strong family networks, frequently from within the public child care system, or without any strong familial allegiances.

    Community leaders from within the immigrant communities have acknowledged there is a problem and have stated that they are going to do what they can to encourage that young men within their communities ascribe to or become more stead fast in their morality.

    The stories have thrown up a lot of questions for me, I know how ill equipped the authorities are to prevent contact between vulnerable children and adults of this kind, open residential units have no powers to physically confine children in this circumstances and while it is possible that applications could me made to have the child in question relocated to a closed residential unit these are over subscribed facilities, I'm also not a fan of the idea of rolling out permission to confine children because I think its something which could quickly become corrupting to all involved.

    There is a question about multiculturalism or ethnic mix here too, all parties reporting this in the UK have acknowledged that the targetting and victimisation in this crime wave was racist and racially motivated, with individuals doing to members of another community things that they wouldnt or couldnt do to members of their own.

    There's also intersects between ethnicity and culture here, the traditional, very possibly patriarchal, paternalistic, conservative and strongly familial versus the muddled, frequently single parent household, vulnerable and liberal/permissive. For predatory individuals it would be much more easy to victimise undetected individuals who where members of one community rather than the other.

    Despite this being objectively the case I would find the norms and values of the traditionalist culture suspiscious, perhaps as a result of my own westernised prejudices, but also because I'm unsure that being protected from predators would be sufficient to cancel out very possibly being subject to controlling, restrictive and gendered control.

    I'm also very aware that while the perpetrators where men, very good examples of individuals who fail to meet with a certain standards of self-control and conduct most men have no problem with, there is a focus on control of women underlying this whole story. There's also been comment, elsewhere, on the fact that they have been given indefinite sentences, realistically this could mean between eight and eleven years, its not really indefinite as that would be prohibited by the European Convention on Human.

    Anyone else have opinions on this news story? Perhaps I should find a couple of other articles for comparative purposes.
    The psychopathology is irrelevant, and is no worse than any other deviant thought process that lead people to exploit children. Whether the motive is related to culture or mental defect, the result is the same,and the prognosis for changing these motives are not good.

    PSA:ECPAT is an organization working to end the exploitation of children. http://www.ecpat.net/EI/index.asp

  7. #7
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The link is to one of the most balanced and neutral reports of this story but there have been other reports, including TV broadcasts about ethnic and sectarian dimensions to this crime wave, the gang groomed 27 victims, the youngest 12 and the majority white, there have been politicians who have even suggested that this is a problem specific to certain quarters of Pakistani immigrant communities, the message has been repeated, although with a different complection perhaps, by religious and community leaders from within those communities.

    The issue being that the perpetrators believed that white children had no morals and in some reports specifically because they were out in public unaccompanied by either male parents or siblings, other beliefs attributed to the perpetrators include that female members of their own communities were "off limits", unless for marriage, while those from outside their community were "easy meat".
    It's called rationalisation. All abusers, almost without exception except perhaps in the case of a few openly pathological ones, seek to justify their actions by coming up with a reason why in the particular circumstances, the moral codes and social norms that safeguard the vulnerable from their exploitation need not apply. The usual course is to blame the victim, or something about the abuser that they argue as being beyond their control. It's just a way to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and facing up to their wrongdoing; the point is to try to remove the abuser themselves as a moral actor from the drama and attribute the power for causing them to behave in the way they do to others.

    There's really no reason to take their claimed incomprehension of "white" morality any more seriously than other standard fallbacks of the abuser, when cornered, such as the assertion that the victim was really asking for it/enjoyed it, or that the abuser for some reason or another was unable to control themselves. How they choose to percieve the morality of children is irrelevant here; their own morality as adults, (who are by common consent and legal expectation considered to be fully capable of exercising that responsibility) has been found wanting both by the standards of their own community and that of broader society, and it was their choice to make no matter how much they try to feign innnocence and place the blame on others, deny it as they will.

    Their true kinship is not with others in their own community *the vast majority of whom evidently do not set out to ply vulnerable children with drink and use them for their own gratification and would presumably be as repulsed by their behaviour as the vast majority elsewhere* but with all abusers everywhere, who show a similar pattern of attempting to shift responsibility from themselves to excuse their transgessions.

    Politicians and the police have emphasised the fact that the targetted girls where all without strong family networks, frequently from within the public child care system, or without any strong familial allegiances.
    Yep, it's normal for abusers to target the most vulnerable people they can, especially those with no close support network, and for serial abusers to do so in a systematic and premeditated way. In this respect children in care are a known easy target. The care system itself (in the UK) used to be rife with it, with children very commonly suffering abuse from care home workers, though it seems that enough safeguards have now been introduced to at least improve the situation.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    It's called rationalisation. All abusers, almost without exception except perhaps in the case of a few openly pathological ones, seek to justify their actions by coming up with a reason why in the particular circumstances, the moral codes and social norms that safeguard the vulnerable from their exploitation need not apply. The usual course is to blame the victim, or something about the abuser that they argue as being beyond their control. It's just a way to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and facing up to their wrongdoing; the point is to try to remove the abuser themselves as a moral actor from the drama and attribute the power for causing them to behave in the way they do to others.

    There's really no reason to take their claimed incomprehension of "white" morality any more seriously than other standard fallbacks of the abuser, when cornered, such as the assertion that the victim was really asking for it/enjoyed it, or that the abuser for some reason or another was unable to control themselves. How they choose to percieve the morality of children is irrelevant here; their own morality as adults, (who are by common consent and legal expectation considered to be fully capable of exercising that responsibility) has been found wanting both by the standards of their own community and that of broader society, and it was their choice to make no matter how much they try to feign innnocence and place the blame on others, deny it as they will.

    Their true kinship is not with others in their own community *the vast majority of whom evidently do not set out to ply vulnerable children with drink and use them for their own gratification and would presumably be as repulsed by their behaviour as the vast majority elsewhere* but with all abusers everywhere, who show a similar pattern of attempting to shift responsibility from themselves to excuse their transgessions.


    Yep, it's normal for abusers to target the most vulnerable people they can, especially those with no close support network, and for serial abusers to do so in a systematic and premeditated way. In this respect children in care are a known easy target. The care system itself (in the UK) used to be rife with it, with children very commonly suffering abuse from care home workers, though it seems that enough safeguards have now been introduced to at least improve the situation.
    Good points, it certainly is a case of rationalisation, however it could have political and community implications beyond the mere fact of its use to the abuser, although I agree with what I think was part of your post that rather than it being a pakistani-white community division it's more likely to be a predators-non-predators "community" division.

Similar Threads

  1. Thresholds of Violence: How school shootings catch on
    By iwakar in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-15-2015, 05:10 PM
  2. [MBTItm] Series #2: The effect of parenting on you.
    By gretch in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-02-2009, 11:39 AM
  3. [INTJ] Disproportional representation of INTJs on this forum
    By Ezra in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 04:37 PM
  4. Moment of Truth on Fox
    By CzeCze in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 02:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO