coaches engaging in legal ***ual activity

[WanChaiMiller]

The reason I mention it is because its relevant to the debate. Its happening now and on an industrial scale.

Many millions of young Thai girls are being groomed into prostitution to feed a demand from the toursts industry; and, as reported, the majority are white European middle age males.

Some figures Ive heard quoted. Over 4m men travel to Thai each year for prostitution. Another figure quotes there are 200,000 child prostitutes. 2m Thai women in prositution in their own country. 200,000 plus trafficked each year. Its a $6bn industry.

My feeling is that child *** abuse and ***ual exploitation is a society wide failure.*

The comment 'turn a blind eye' is not be the correct term and a bit unfair. Its unfair to expect everyone to know what goes on in the Far East or be campaigners. Yet, youre doing it now - turning a blind eye - scurrying for cover using the get out that you dont know anyone.

Of course I move in different circles. I spend a big part of my working life working in HK, South East Asia and the Middle East, working with white Europeans based out there. I mention it because its spoken about and I know about it. I see young girls in bars, hotels and restuarants that have been trafficked to places like HK, KL and Dubai. Like Kerr said they are groomed so they dont see themselves as victims.

Im certainly not a campaigner. Mentioning it on MM doesnt clear me (in the same way me mentioning my disgust of what Pakistsni men did here doesnt change anything). In fact, given I have seen it first, Im more calpable than anyone (although please do not mistake for thinking I participate - I never have), particularly on this message board. So apologies if it came across as an accusation of complicity. Its not meant that way (we're allowed some leeway of here apparently these days, eh Howdy).

What I mean is that it does to resolve the problem by focusing on racial groups or predending its not society wide.* We deplore the Pakistani guys (and quite rightly so) yet ignore the bloke who jets over to Thai for a bit of 'fun'.

Just my thought btw.

[WanChaiMiller]

The last paragraph should read

"What I mean is that it does not resolve the problem by focusing on racial groups or predending its not society wide.* We all deplore the Pakistani guys (and quite rightly so) yet ignore the bloke who jets over to Thai for a bit of 'fun'.

[KerrAvon]

A 'huge reason' is not the same as complicity.

A child might accidentally start a fire that burns down a house through some level of inexperience or awareness. The word complicit infers a level of "unlawful or moral" wrongness according to the dictionary definition. The child has not necessarily done anything unlawful or immoral, they may have just been inexperienced and naive. But if you see the child messing around with matches again, you might hastily remind them of what happened the last time! Obviously this example falls apart as the fire was an arson, and the child was instead accusing the person whose house was getting burned down of being the arsonist while turning a blind eye to the arsonist.

I repeatedly made the point that the issue I was raising was one the subject of victim blaming.

Every single quote you just shared is in reference to victim blaming, on which you have said:
"I have never suggested that it didn’t and doesn’t take place. I’m sure that it did and does."

Let's look at the key extracts:
"judged these girls back then as being consenting participants, not as victims"

"the prevailing view at the time wasn't to view the children as victims but as participants"

"these were not seen as victims"

"if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit"

When you said I was accusing the town of "complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children" I now see where you may have picked up the word complicit. But it was actually being used to refer to how the girl was being perceived (complicit in choosing to engage in these activities)

For the benefit of the doubt for exactly what I was referring to, I added this line to that very same post!:

"I'll reiterate my point. At the time people barely raised an eyebrow because these girls were not seen as victims by practically anyone."

And the key line from the final quote:

"These children were not even seen as victims back then"



These clearly all refer to victim blaming, do you at least accept this is the point I have been consistently making?



I think to suggest I've been saying repeated asserting that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity [as opposed to victim blaming] in the industrial scale abuse of children is an assertion which is unfair, manifestly wrong and, frankly, absurd.

I find myself reminded of another reason why I was happy to let this go. When posters start using dictionary definitions, you almost invariably know they are in trouble. That being said, whilst you have got it out, out might want to look up ‘coercion’.

You can try all you like to twist and turn and word count this away, but you insisted on this, John, so you can have it.

Your position can be summarised in this way:

1. Everyone knew or should have known what was going on because of the 2001 article and that you had heard the expression "p*ki sh*gger" at Clifton School (but may not have told anyone – you don’t seem to know);
2. Knowing what was going on the ‘townsfolk’ were ‘collectively guilty’ of not seeing the children concerned as victims; and
3. Maybe if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit the other authorities would have treated it differently too.

I have no idea where you are going with your analogy of a child setting a fire. It is not even remotely relevant to any issue in this thread. You are alleging that the ‘townsfolk’ of Rotherham were aware of what was going on and were ‘collectively guilty’ of not seeing the children concerned as victims. You are further alleging that had ‘the town’ had a different attitude, the authorities might have treated it differently too.

If we are truly going to resort to dictionary definitions, it beggars belief that you are unable to see how you can escape from the notion that you are alleging ‘moral wrongness’ on the part of the ‘townsfolk’.

I don’t doubt that your primary concern was victim blaming. I have not sought to argue otherwise and, as I have said, can agree with you to a significant degree on that issue alone. My issue is with your attempt to engage in 'community blaming' implying a high level of knowledge and moral wrongness on the part of 'the townsfolk' without a shred of evidence to demonstrate that it is justified. By doing that you risk letting those who are actually at fault off the hook.

[KerrAvon]

The reason I mention it is because its relevant to the debate. Its happening now and on an industrial scale.

Many millions of young Thai girls are being groomed into prostitution to feed a demand from the toursts industry; and, as reported, the majority are white European middle age males.

Some figures Ive heard quoted. Over 4m men travel to Thai each year for prostitution. Another figure quotes there are 200,000 child prostitutes. 2m Thai women in prositution in their own country. 200,000 plus trafficked each year. Its a $6bn industry.

My feeling is that child *** abuse and ***ual exploitation is a society wide failure.*

The comment 'turn a blind eye' is not be the correct term and a bit unfair. Its unfair to expect everyone to know what goes on in the Far East or be campaigners. Yet, youre doing it now - turning a blind eye - scurrying for cover using the get out that you dont know anyone.

Of course I move in different circles. I spend a big part of my working life working in HK, South East Asia and the Middle East, working with white Europeans based out there. I mention it because its spoken about and I know about it. I see young girls in bars, hotels and restuarants that have been trafficked to places like HK, KL and Dubai. Like Kerr said they are groomed so they dont see themselves as victims.

Im certainly not a campaigner. Mentioning it on MM doesnt clear me (in the same way me mentioning my disgust of what Pakistsni men did here doesnt change anything). In fact, given I have seen it first, Im more calpable than anyone (although please do not mistake for thinking I participate - I never have), particularly on this message board. So apologies if it came across as an accusation of complicity. Its not meant that way (we're allowed some leeway of here apparently these days, eh Howdy).

What I mean is that it does to resolve the problem by focusing on racial groups or predending its not society wide.* We deplore the Pakistani guys (and quite rightly so) yet ignore the bloke who jets over to Thai for a bit of 'fun'.

Just my thought btw.

So, in other words, your post was just a variant of the 'Catholic Church' type posts so favoured by those of a certain political persuasion when faced with allegations of child abuse by men of mainly Pakistani heritage in Rotherham? It is no particular group who is at fault as we are all at fault?

The abuse of children is wrong whoever does it.

Not being able to talk about it does not help.

It did not help that police and council officials in Rotherham would not talk about the ethnicity of the offenders when there was widespread abuse in Rotherham at the hands of men of a mainly Pakistani heritage for fear of wandering into minefields laid by people of of a certain political persuasion. It would not help if we were not permitted to talk abut the origin of people who travel to the Far east to engage in child *** offences.

[KerrAvon]

The last paragraph should read

"What I mean is that it does not resolve the problem by focusing on racial groups or predending its not society wide.* We all deplore the Pakistani guys (and quite rightly so) yet ignore the bloke who jets over to Thai for a bit of 'fun'.

You might ignore blokes who jet over to Thai for a bit of 'fun', but I don't, so you can leave me out of your 'we'.

[wendun]

You might ignore blokes who jet over to Thai for a bit of 'fun', but I don't, so you can leave me out of your 'we'.

I was about to post to the same effect. I would not countenance such action by anyone of my acquaintance.

[howdydoo]

ditto

[Stovicmiller]

ofcourse it's fine to agree or disagree with others

unless of course you have a view which does not coincide with Stovic in which case **** off back to Barnsley
You really need to look back on your posts Stovic just to see the amount of times your posts are filled with bile[/QUOTE]

[Stovicmiller]

unless of course you have a view which does not coincide with stovic in which case **** off back to barnsley
you really need to look back on your posts stovic just to see the amount of times your posts are filled with bile

[/ it's just you I don't like you prick. Now **** off back to Barnsley.

[millersrus]

A 'huge reason' is not the same as complicity.

A child might accidentally start a fire that burns down a house through some level of inexperience or awareness. The word complicit infers a level of "unlawful or moral" wrongness according to the dictionary definition. The child has not necessarily done anything unlawful or immoral, they may have just been inexperienced and naive. But if you see the child messing around with matches again, you might hastily remind them of what happened the last time! Obviously this example falls apart as the fire was an arson, and the child was instead accusing the person whose house was getting burned down of being the arsonist while turning a blind eye to the arsonist.

I repeatedly made the point that the issue I was raising was one the subject of victim blaming.

Every single quote you just shared is in reference to victim blaming, on which you have said:
"I have never suggested that it didn’t and doesn’t take place. I’m sure that it did and does."

Let's look at the key extracts:
"judged these girls back then as being consenting participants, not as victims"

"the prevailing view at the time wasn't to view the children as victims but as participants"

"these were not seen as victims"

"if the girl had been treated by the town as a victim rather than complicit"

When you said I was accusing the town of "complicity in the industrial scale abuse of children" I now see where you may have picked up the word complicit. But it was actually being used to refer to how the girl was being perceived (complicit in choosing to engage in these activities)

For the benefit of the doubt for exactly what I was referring to, I added this line to that very same post!:

"I'll reiterate my point. At the time people barely raised an eyebrow because these girls were not seen as victims by practically anyone."

And the key line from the final quote:

"These children were not even seen as victims back then"



These clearly all refer to victim blaming, do you at least accept this is the point I have been consistently making?



I think to suggest I've been saying repeated asserting that the ‘whole town’ was ‘collectively guilty’ of complicity [as opposed to victim blaming] in the industrial scale abuse of children is an assertion which is unfair, manifestly wrong and, frankly, absurd.

Many years ago, whilst waiting for a taxi behind Rotherham bus station after a night out . a fight started. Two groups of blokes, but just 2 were fighting for whatever reason. The groups did not get involved.
One bloke was getting a proper beating. The bloke winning had had enough of hitting the other guy. The bloke getting the beating however would not stop, kept coming, got hit, fell down, got up and came again. The guy with the sore knuckles was showing remarkable restraint and dishing out the minimum to defend himself. He was asking the battered blokes mates to get hold of him and take home and save him from further punishment. The battered blokes mates did eventually step in and save him from himself.