Saturday, November 6, 2010

Euphemisms

It's both astonishing and disturbing to watch the MSM deliberately try to hide the nationality and religion of some sexual predators.

Mail. 
'Sexual predators': Gang of Asian men weep as they are jailed for total of 32 years for abusing white girls as young as 12 

Express.
Five men have been condemned as "sexual predators" by a judge as he handed down lengthy jail terms after they were found guilty of grooming teenage girls for sex.

Telegraph.
No mention at all.

BBC.
Five men have been jailed after being found guilty of sex offences against girls as young as 12.

All you may have gathered from the headlines is that the men are Asian and from Rotherham. The more astute amongst us would immediately wonder what kind of Asians, after all there are so many different nationalities in Asia, though a quick check of the names will soon narrow it down. Umar Razaq, 24, Razwan Razaq, 30, Zafran Ramzan, 21, Adil Hussain 20, and Mohsin Khan, 21 though only the Mail declares they are all British-born Pakistanis. You can probably guess the religion from the names, though there are some who would argue that their religion had nothing to do with their crime, though a quick study of their religion would certainly identify disturbing traits in the treatment of women, particularly non Muslim (kaffir) women and in particularly going by the example of the so called "perfect" man who founded their faith an attraction to very young women indeed.
I don't get the British born Pakistani bit either, they are British born or they are Pakistani's, if they had been born in Pakistan that would have been different. As it is they were born here, grew up here and would have known the consequences of what they were doing here, that makes the British, not Asian.
The sexual predator bit is very misleading too, they were found guilty of a string of sexually related offences against the girls, one aged 12, two aged 13 and one aged 16. That in my book makes them paedophiles (just following in the path of the prophet no doubt) as well as sexual predators. The sentences are a bit derisory as well Umar Razaq was jailed for four and a half years, while the judge gave Razwan Razaq 11 years. Ramzan was jailed for nine years, and Hussain and Khan both received four years. All five were placed on the sex offenders register. So jailed for 32 years? Don't make me laugh, these scum will be out on the streets again soon, one of them probably within 2 years, yet was found guilty of sex with a minor as well as grooming the girls.

My opinion for what it's worth is that their nationality had nothing to do with their crime, however their religion and their upbringing within their community had everything to do with it. They saw nothing wrong with abusing young white girls (yes I know about dirty old men and Thailand) in their own back yard, something they would never be able to do within their own community for fear of the consequences. Yes this reflects badly on the parents of the girls, however girls can be good at concealing things too. The law as it stands sees what these men were doing as a crime, they went ahead and did it anyway.
The greatest shame of all is the biased lack of reporting in the MSM who tried to conceal so much of who these guys were.

Here's a very rare Local ITV report on what's actually going on




Ignore the title, it's from a BNP upload, the report itself is interesting though.

2 annotations:

English Pensioner said...

You are slightly wrong about the Telegraph. It did publish this news, albeit in a small paragraph on page 14. It gave the names of those involved in full.
What was strange is that there is no mention of them being put on the Sex Offenders Register, whilst elsewhere a drunken teenage who pinched a WPC's bottom was, which seems a bit OTT!

tris said...

Fancy just pinching her bottom EP. Why didn't they take all of her? :)

I'm quite surprised to hear that the Mail didn't have a great big headline using the words: paedophile, Muslim and Asian.

It's hardly like them to be euphamistic about that kind of thing. After all their entire market is middle aged ladies of limited intellect who think it is respectable to buy the Mail because it's up market, but secretly wish they had bought the Sun.

The all have serious lines on their top lip where it has been wrinkled for 50 years in disapproval of everthing.

I'm guessing that there is a reason for them not doing it this time... but I can't gfor my life think what it is.

Had it been teh Guardian I'd have said political correctness.... but not the Mail or the Express...