Dr. Heinz Kiosk is alive and well

Some sections of the media have gleefully portrayed this as a failure of liberal notions that social harmony in Britain is best served by celebrating every culture. The assaults grow out of Pakistani culture, it is suggested. Some of the coverage has been an exercise in covert racism or religious prejudice. “The rapists are all probably in one sense ‘good’ Muslims, praying and fasting in the daytime, then prowling and preying at night,” one rebarbative commentator wrote.

The reality of child abuse in modern Britain is that it is widespread and far from confined to any specific community. Despite the high-profile coverage of Pakistani abusers in Rochdale in 2013, 95% of the men on the area’s sex offender register are white. Offences defy easy stereotyping; the lead perpetrator in Rochdale was later also sentenced for assaulting a young Asian female. And if all cases are about the abuse of power they have different dynamics: Rochdale revealed opportunism by taxi drivers and takeaway workers using girls for quick sex; Oxford was about gang-related trafficking motivated by money.

We Are All Guilty!

Here’s an idea. How about we do what we’ve done in these lands for centuries. Find the people who committed the offences, try them, fairly, then if they’re found guilty in a court of law we jail them?

Without regard to race, religion, cultural background or anything else. You know, all are equal before the majesty of the law?

And yes, that does include any council peeps or police who committed offences.

34 comments on “Dr. Heinz Kiosk is alive and well

  1. As I just said over at the Raccoon Arms, I daresay these thousands of victims is another spreadsheets full of allegations job. I expect it’ll be many years before anyone can get a perspective on what really happened, and how much of this was a rape conspiracy and how much was just swapping a blow job for 20 Bensons and some alcopops.

    It’s Teh Muzzies though so, I know, devils in turbans and all that.

  2. White non- Muslim paedophiles don’t go around with their fellow paedophile mates looking for prey, nor hawk their victims around the community, nor do gang rape; it’s my impression that nonMuslim sex offenders are solitary and secretive, afraid of being beaten up should their community find out.

  3. I think we’re back with a subject which has inspired much lively debate, as to whether what we’re looking at is “paedophilia” or “having sex with underage teenagers”, and the particular circumstances thereof.

    Flare-ups about particular ethnic groups sexually corrupting native girls seem to be quite common; a hundred years ago, particularly in America, it was the Chinese (it powered the prohibition of Opium Dens), fifty years ago it was West Indians. And so on.

    So, I dunno. I’m a natural sceptic on everything. Something seems to have gone on, but it’s got another moral panic written all over it. For people who don’t like immigration and/or muslims, of course it’s quite the gift.

  4. Treating children like sh*t is just one of the many forms of “cultural enrichment” that Muzzies have bestowed on us. I look forward to being “enriched” by their showing us how to abduct school girls and sell them into slavery, and how to commit genocide ISIS style.

    I bet you if Muzzies started herding Jews into gas chambers, The Guardian would be cheering them on, or at least making excuses for them.

  5. This rather leaps out, doesn’t it?

    Offences defy easy stereotyping; the lead perpetrator in Rochdale was later also sentenced for assaulting a young Asian female.

    Unless you’re a racist, how is the part after the colon eveidence for the part before?

  6. Squander:

    I think because the Right are interpreting this as “muzzies vs natives” whereas the Left want it as “men vs women”, basically. Everyone wants a class struggle these days, you know.

  7. Ian B,

    > I daresay these thousands of victims is another spreadsheets full of allegations job.

    Oh, do you? Gosh. So, what, you were present at the interviews and you have some criticisms of the methodology used by the interviewers? You know a lot of the victims and which ones tend to lie? Or you just dare say?

    > I expect it’ll be many years before anyone can get a perspective on what really happened

    It already has been many years; that is what is now happening. The first two reports were ignored and suppressed, by people who told themselves they were just spreadsheets full of allegations (even though it is the job of those people to investigate allegations).

    Presumably, when the first allegations surfaced around 1997, you’d have said it was moral panic and that it’d be many years before we could really know what had happened. Then, had you seen the first report in 2002, you’d have said it was moral panic and it’d be many years before we’d know what had really happened. Then there was the report in 2006, which you could have put down to moral panic and said it’d be many years before we’d know what had really happened. And now it’s 2014, seventeen years after the first allegations, and you say it’s moral panic and it’ll be many years until we can know what happened. Would you care to tell us what this “many” figure you’re referring to actually is? How many years need to pass before you admit that many years have passed?

    > how much of this was a rape conspiracy and how much was just swapping a blow job for 20 Bensons and some alcopops.

    Jesus wept. Have you read the report? It refers to victims being doused in petrol and threatened with being lit. And you’ve not presented any evidence that any of it is incorrect other than your usual “I think everyone else is a liar.”

    > I think we’re back with a subject which has inspired much lively debate, as to whether what we’re looking at is “paedophilia” or “having sex with underage teenagers”, and the particular circumstances thereof.

    Not really, as the report is the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. Not paedophilia; child sexual exploitation. So to attempt to dismiss the report on the grounds that some of what it describes isn’t really paedophilia is simply a straw man.

    As I had to keep pointing out to Roman Polanski’s apologists (many of whom claimed to be feminists, for fuck’s sake), the age of consent only matters when consent is given. Raping a young girl is still rape even if her breasts have started growing. No, really.

    > I’m a natural sceptic on everything.

    No, believing that everyone else is always lying is not the same as being a sceptic.

    Again, this is the third report over twelve years. Every time anyone investigates this matter, they find the same thing. Victims’ testimony is remaining consistent over more than a decade. Dismissing it isn’t sceptical; it’s just calling victims liars because their experiences don’t fit your political preferences.

    > Something seems to have gone on

    Gosh, you think?

    > but it’s got another moral panic written all over it. For people who don’t like immigration and/or muslims, of course it’s quite the gift.

    Actually, no. That is precisely the attitude that enabled the abuse itself, not the third report into it.

    Here’s a question. Is there such a thing as a rape victim that Ian B would believe?

  8. Well, there you go, it’s pretty much impossible to have a calm discussion about these things. I just mentioned that in another thread. But I’ll give an example of the kind of problem we run into. THere are 1400 or so separate victims apaprently. Squander Two says-

    Jesus wept. Have you read the report? It refers to victims being doused in petrol and threatened with being lit.

    Note the plurals. This is one particular allegation, by one person, of one incident. It is clearly all kinds of criminal and wrong. But is it representative? Picking the most extreme is specifically intended to distort perceptions of the class of incidents (or whatever) being discussed.

    I’m also a little baffled by this-

    Not really, as the report is the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham. Not paedophilia; child sexual exploitation. So to attempt to dismiss the report on the grounds that some of what it describes isn’t really paedophilia is simply a straw man.

    What’s the distinction you’re trying to draw here? Especially bearing in mind that LJH had used the term “muslim paedophiles” in the previous comment to mine?

    So, what words are being used has a big effect on perceptions. I don’t know the details of any of this; but we do know that this kind of trawl is going to characterise every incident as rape regardless of its character, and it’ll be interesting if we ever get a less ideological picture, what really happened.

  9. > What’s the distinction you’re trying to draw here?

    Me? I’m not. It is you who brought up the difference between raping pre-pubescent children and having consensual sex with underage teenagers. But the difference between paedophilia and hebephilia is a difference between the motives of the perpetrators and is immaterial to what this report addresses, which is the crimes actually committed. And obviously the report has nothing to do with consensual sex. So what was your point in making that distinction?

    > what words are being used has a big effect on perceptions.

    Agreed. So, just to be clear, are you saying that the report is largely bollocks or that it’s true but uses the wrong words? If it’s the former, then talking about the use of emotive words is just a distraction, isn’t it?

    > Note the plurals. This is one particular allegation, by one person blah blah blah

    Professor Jay said: “children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone”.

    Looks plural to me. But I can’t trawl through the report itself right now, so let’s say she had multiple slips of the tongue and you’re right. So let’s reword.

    The report refers to one of the victims being doused in petrol and threatened with being lit. It also refers to a victim being threatened with a gun. It refers to a victim being forced to watch a brutally violent rape (presumably of yet another victim) and being threatened with the same.

    Ian B:

    > how much was just swapping a blow job for 20 Bensons and some alcopops.

    OK, so now I’ve used singulars instead of plurals, that becomes a fair characterisation of the sorts of crimes being described, does it? ’cause it looks a bit more like the sort of gross slandering of the victim of a horrific crime that Margaret Hodge was rightly forced to apologise for.

    > Well, there you go, it’s pretty much impossible to have a calm discussion about these things. I just mentioned that in another thread.

    Did you? Gosh.

    Alternatively, you could answer the questions. Is there a rape victim that you would believe? Because the fact is that, when a rape makes the news — especially if it’s of a child — you appear to be first in the queue to claim it never happened. And your much-vaunted “scepticism” appears to be immune to evidence, no matter how much of it accumulates. Again, you’ve mentioned no actual criticism of the methodology of the study or anything substantive like that; you just boast about how you refuse to believe it.

    And, since it was you who introduced the idea that we won’t know what happened until “many” years have passed, and since seventeen years have passed since this started and twelve since it was first reported on (and since you also apparently refuse to believe any of the findings about what Savile did in the Seventies), it is entirely reasonable to ask you how many years need to pass before you would be willing to accept that someone has now found out what happened. How many?

  10. re the singular or plural immolation, the executive summary may appear to use the plural and the report uses the singular.

    Executive summary: “There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone.”

    5.8: “We read cases where a child was doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, children who were threatened with guns, children who witnessed brutally violent rapes and were threatened that they would be the next victim if they told anyone. ”

    10.22 “[in the 2003 report] The Police … spoke of another young girl who was doused in petrol as a threat against reporting sexual offences. …”

  11. Why focus on:

    (1) muzzies vs natives
    (2) men vs women
    (3) left vs right

    rather than

    (4) systematic averting of official eyes from major crimes against vulnerable people.

    This is primarily a failure of the authorities, and anyone who participated in diverting enforcement away from this issue should go to prison for perverting the course of justice.

  12. On this matter I need more info.

    It has crossed my mind that the accusations against the RoP funboys might be inflated up in the manner of the Saville/ Old Men From T V caper. As IanB suggests.

    This time I have my doubts. Our dear RoP friends are clients of the scum of the left. A distinct grouping of the leftist axis–alongside the anti-racist (ie anti-white) gang, the strident homosexualists, the feminist commisars, the eco-freaks (“pre-industrial filth and poverty for thee but not for the socialist elite like me”) and now the RoP. Which is why feministas who shit their knickers with outrage if a white man looks sideways at a woman have, in general, very little to say about honour killings and clit cuttings.

    The femmis started and have constantly stirred the Saville pot. But not in the case of the RoP gangs. They seem to be off limits. Not because the femmis don’t hate all men (Erin Pizzey says that in the 60s the zealots decided there were to be no exceptions to the hate–not even for leftist males) but because they think the vile cause of socialism is better helped by undermining society on as many fronts as possible.

    I haven’t had time to look at this matter in any depth. I think I shall start here.

    http://lawandfreedomfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Easy-Meat-Multiculturalism-Islam-and-Child-Sex-Slavery-05-03-2014.pdf

  13. Alternatively, you could answer the questions. Is there a rape victim that you would believe?

    I presumed that that was a rhetorical question. Was it meant to be a serious question?

  14. Whenever the subject of a rape comes up, no matter how much evidence there may be that the rape has occurred (four different reports by different people over twelve years, with witness testimony remaining consistent for over a decade, for instance), you start going on about how you’re a “sceptic”, by which you invariably mean that you believe that the victim is lying. Is that supposed to be a serious attitude?

    And there was another question too.

  15. When this happened under the watch of members of the Catholic or CoE church, the Boy Scouts, private schools, etc., etc., those guilty of doing nothing or hiding the problem were sued within an inch of their lives, bankrupting sums of money were paid in damages and the the organisations they represented – even if the abusers were a rare incidence – were held in contempt.

    If, on the other hand, the organisation responsible is part of the state or managed by politicians, no price is paid, by anyone except the victims.

    Discuss?

  16. Squander Two: There is nothing wrong in calling out bogus rape claims when they are bogus or for that matter consist of convictions obtained by legal theatre entirely unsupported by old-fashioned stuff like objective evidence as in the Saville/Old Men on TV capers.

    As for the RoP gangs –at this point I can only say that I don’t know. I want to look at the reports/evidence. I am handicapped by dislike of this–faith– and the beliefs espoused by some? of its adherents. But all deserve a truly fair and objective hearing (which is exactly what Saville/Rolf etc have not had). At this point I don’t know what is said to have gone on.

  17. Mr Ecks: But all deserve a truly fair and objective hearing (which is exactly what Saville/Rolf etc have not had)

    Surely that’s not right. I grant you that Savile has had no kind of hearing, being dead, but Rolf etc. (and if by etc. we mean Max Clifford or DLT) have appeared in court in front of juries who have found according to the evidence and their understanding.

    Juries are not perfect and independent enquiries possibly less so but both are preferable to baseless scepticism rooted in a predisposition to sneer at others’ gullibility and supported by no research.

  18. If that’s the best you can do by way of reply, then forgive me if I choose not to follow a link rather than an argument.

  19. BiG:

    Why focus on:

    (1) muzzies vs natives

    Because the muzzies are responsible for this, while Martin Kimber is too shit-scared of them to act and he and the local police have been shagging their way through the middle school playgrounds of Rotherham for years. That’s why.

  20. But you all are so broad minded. See the ‘price’ of virginity in another part of this blog.
    You condone children being trained to be vulnerable by portraying, in your schools, that all sexual activity as ok .

  21. I agree all the perps should be prosecuted, but doubt they will be. But the bigger issue is that the entire Muslim community (about 25,000) must have known about an atrocity on this scale. And there are no English laws that enable us to deal with predatory communities.

  22. >Despite the high-profile coverage of Pakistani abusers in Rochdale in 2013, 95% of the men on the area’s sex offender register are white.

    Ever seen a red herring trailed? The SOR isn’t a comprehensive list of abusers – only of the ones the police have bothered to catch (the issue in both places being the the police weren’t interested abuse by Asian Muslims).
    Also, the SOR records all kinds of sexual offences, not just against young girls. It’s possible (if unlikely) for 100% of recorded attacks on young girls to have been by Asian men, but this to have only made up 5% of the perps on the register (the others being against adults or young boys, or even child porn offences).
    Typical lefty misuse of a statistic in other words.

  23. theProle,

    Yes, I noticed that one. “Contrary to the perception that all these crimes that were never even investigated were committed by Pakistanis, most convictions have been of white men.”

    Mr Ecks,

    > There is nothing wrong in calling out bogus rape claims when they are bogus or for that matter consist of convictions obtained by legal theatre entirely unsupported by old-fashioned stuff like objective evidence as in the Saville/Old Men on TV capers.

    You’re conflating two different things here: whether a crime has occurred and who done it. The latter has a far higher burden of proof, for obvious reasons. There is nothing inconsistent in the claim that a child has been raped but we can’t be sure who by; there is nothing inconsistent in the claim that a child has been raped and we know full well who by but can’t get enough evidence to convict the bastard and it would therefore be wrong to lock him up. Neither of those are what Ian B does: he simply reacts to claims of rape, especially of children, by insisting that the victim is lying — as if the fact that there have been some cases of hysteria around a particular type of crime proves that every allegation of that crime can forever be ascribed to hysteria.

    An effective technique used by the police to establish whether witnesses are telling the truth is to ask them the same questions again and again over a long period and see if they can keep their stories straight. The witnesses in this case have kept their stories straight for over a decade — seventeen years, in some cases. Four separate investigations, by different people each time, have reached exactly the same conclusion — and not because the authorities have pushed them to reach that conclusion, as the authorities in this case were in fact pushing for the opposite. It’s almost as if there’s a load of evidence or something.

    And Ian B hasn’t presented any evidence on the other side. I have no great love of social workers and am very much open to the idea that they could have ballsed up the investigation by, for instance, asking leading questions, as they have done before. Which is why I asked him if he could say what was wrong with the methodology of the study. But no, his only argument is “I bet it was all consensual because I am [drumroll] a sceptic.” Big wow.

    > But all deserve a truly fair and objective hearing

    Yes, all. That includes victims. So can you agree that the police’s refusal to even investigate means that victims did not get a truly fair and objective hearing?

  24. Squander Two: My second paragraph makes it clear I am not referring to Rotherham as I don’t yet have the kind of background knowledge I want to make whatever judgement I can. The first paragraph refers to the Saville/OMOTV situation.

    Accusations of rape are not proof of rape. It doesn’t matter how long someone claims they have been raped–proof is needed. In the Saville, etc situation such proof is lacking to say the least.

    ” Neither of those are what Ian B does: he simply reacts to claims of rape, especially of children, by insisting that the victim is lying — as if the fact that there have been some cases of hysteria around a particular type of crime proves that every allegation of that crime can forever be ascribed to hysteria.”

    I don’t believe that is the case–in so far as we are talking about Saville. In that context IanB is not alone in his scepticism. I share it and believe there to be huge doubt about supposed guilt –in the context of Saville etc. As to Rotherham– IanB offered the speculation that Rotherham is more of the same. I see nothing immoral or wrong in offering that speculation. I am unsure but at the moment I think he is incorrect. The Saville nonsense was deliberately injected into the media by radfems and kept going by trawling for accusations–which is a bad idea anyway and, in the case of well-off slebs, an open invite to attention-seeking nutters and money-hungry psychopaths. Rotherham was the exact opposite–the coppers didn’t want to know. That is a very different situation–altho’, ironically it had the same origin. Leftist radfem scum wanted a panic about old white men–and leftist allies of Islamism didn’t want a revelations about non-white men.

    “The witnesses in this case have kept their stories straight for over a decade — seventeen years, in some cases. Four separate investigations, by different people each time, have reached exactly the same conclusion — and not because the authorities have pushed them to reach that conclusion, as the authorities in this case were in fact pushing for the opposite. It’s almost as if there’s a load of evidence or something.”

    I am not clear but I think that this paragraph refers to Rotherham. As I said I don’t know yet what to make of it. But I would say that it seems to be much more substantial than the confection of shite that is Operation Yewtree.

    “Yes, all. That includes victims. So can you agree that the police’s refusal to even investigate means that victims did not get a truly fair and objective hearing?”

    Yes–I do agree. And I also point out that–as Plod’s track-record over Yewtree shows–whether the police investigate or not the truth remains possibly the most fragile victim of all.

  25. > It doesn’t matter how long someone claims they have been raped–proof is needed.

    Not really, no. When it comes to claims of who raped them, then proof is needed. For the simple claim of having been raped, which does not necessitate any criminal punishment for anyone, we can generally take victims’ word for it.

    That’s the standard we apply in other crimes, after all. If I call the police to report that I’ve been burgled, they’ll come round and see the smashed window and the trashed rooms — which I could easily have done myself — and will accept my unverifiable claim that stuff is missing, and will agree with me that yes, I have been burgled. It’s only when it comes to prosecuting the burglar that the burden of proof rightly becomes so much higher.

    My view of Yewtree is that Savile was guilty and the authorities’ understandable frustration with the fact that he got away with it has led to an appalling overreaction and miscarriages of justice. You think that the miscarriages of justice prove that no such thing happened in the Seventies, which is a lot like claiming that because the Birmingham Six were released, no Birmingham pubs were bombed.

  26. If someone contacts the police to say that they have been raped today or last week –fair enough. The point in reporting a rape is that some action is wanted against the attacker (which would include identifying the assailant if he is unknown) both as retaliation for the injured and protection for future victims. If they wait 40 years to do so–and only do so when a huge media-driven panic is under way that is something else.

    Also your point is simply not valid. Disturbed people might have all kinds of reasons to claim they have suffered rape when they have not. It was obvious that bombs had gone off in Birmingham and the issue was who. Unsupported 40 year old claims (and how can they be supported after 40 years) of rape are a very different matter. To you ANY claim of rape MUST be valid and the only question is who is going down for it?.

    As for Saville’s guilt the shear volume of increasingly demented allegations should give any reasonable person pause. 1500+ sex crimes–21 childrens homes in London alone “sending” him kids to prey on (or so the Mets bullshit dept claims), his alleged involvement with networks of homosexuals preying on teenaged boys, making him the most prolific omni-sexual sex criminal of all time –and the only one to be a public figure and have several careers on the go at the same time?. And be undiscovered throughout his entire long lifetime. A Professor Moriarty of sex crime was Jim. Not forgetting Satanism and Necrophilia and making rings out of the glass eyes of corpses –so jewelry-making as well. What a busy fellow.

  27. > Disturbed people might have all kinds of reasons to claim they have suffered rape when they have not.

    Obviously, yes. So what?

    > To you ANY claim of rape MUST be valid and the only question is who is going down for it?.

    Not at all. I’m just pointing out that you’ve been conflating two different things which have two completely different standards of evidence. It’s a total non-sequitur to use presumption of innocence as grounds to disbelieve victims’ claims when no perpetrator is identified — as Ian B proudly does.

    As you point out, some people are mentally disturbed serial liars. I don’t assume people are mentally disturbed serial liars without seeing a bit of evidence, though.

    > If someone contacts the police to say that they have been raped today or last week –fair enough. … If they wait 40 years to do so–and only do so when a huge media-driven panic is under way that is something else.

    Yes, as the other Yewtree prosecutions have clearly shown. However, although a lot of additional stuff has come out about Savile after Yewtree started, the reason it started in the first place was the stuff that was discovered before the media circus, when the BBC were still broadcasting their “Savile: Wonderfullest Man Ever” tributes.

    Also, people who prey on children exploit the facts that they can be made to stay silent pretty easily and that they tend to suppress bad memories. We know for a fact that genuine victims of child abuse simply do not go running to the police the day after the abuse happens. So your preferred system — where either you report the crime immediately or there can be no prosecution — is simply a carte blanche for child abusers. That’s not to say that the current system is perfect — one might suggest all sorts of improvements and safeguards to enable such long-term retrospective prosecutions while still protecting the rights of the accused. But I don’t see you doing so.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.