If you consider yourself to be left wing

[MaryMaryVeryContrary]

Do you believe there should be limits on migration (as a net figure) and benefits (as total % of GDP/cap per household), or do you think there should be no limits at all?

I’m a centrist, but whenever these topics are discussed I notice people claiming to be left wing become a bit uncomfortable, and usually make aspersions on the person talking about it before trying to move the conversation on. It’s like they know deep down we can’t just allow them to spiral but equally they’re at loathe to actually say it out loud because of how it looks.

C.E. trusts, but leaning towards the left on some issues.

I don’t brlieve immigration should be capped. This country has evolved and grown on the backs of wave after wave of immigrants, since prehistoric times. It’s a wonderful melting pot and we need immigrants now as much as we ever have.

A cap on benefits, yes. No-one physically and mentally capable of working should be “earning” more than people who work.

Those with disabilities and chronic illness should be assessed as individuals, with the costs associated with their particular needs taken into account.

Centrists, not C.E. trusts!

"You have first assumed that British culture does not encourage sex offences, and then concluded from this that Pakistani culture does not."

No, I asked if we question the British culture when there are British sex offenders, or do we think about it as something that is down to individual amorality rather than a flaw in the particular ethnicity.

"Or, at least, that if we are comfortable that British culture does not encourage sex offences, we should not ask the question of other cultures."

No, as above. Its the same when we talk about knife crime in London being a black community issue, rather than one which is related to other issues. When it was discussed in Glasgow it was discussed in terms of socio economics, rather than race.

London also needs more HMO style housing built like student halls so individual rooms but shared kitchen/bathroom/living room etc.

My goodness I feel sorry for Londoners!

Why on earth should Londoners have substandard housing lacking in privacy and security of not sharing with strangers?

Londoners have same needs as rest of UK. Decent affordable housing. Self contained houses and flats, not HMOs.

@sleepyscientist I think family planning should be accessible to all. I don't think you could/should get someone to inject (depo) or take medication to stop conception....... That's personal choice.

I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

I think both are valid and important to ask.

I think we do question British culture. That was what the discussion of rape culture and MeToo was about.

I think individuals have agency, and also that individuals are deeply shaped by the culture and circumstances they are brought up in.

I also think culture correlates with nationality fairly strongly (i.e. it's coherent and sensible to talk about the culture of a country, though it's inevitably a huge simplification).

Then the question then becomes an empirical one. We can and do survey men's attitude to women around the world. We do that because it's not a safe assumption that it's going to be the same everywhere. Why would it be?

It is certainly unjust to only ask cultural questions of non-white people. I think we should be open-minded to a full range of explanations on all things, and work out which ones explain the situation best.

If knife crime in Glasgow is linked to a specific toxic culture, I think we should talk about that, regardless of race. If there were a big problem in, say, the white protestant or white catholic community in Glasgow, I think it would be silly to say: can't consider that, it must just be socioeconomics.

Same with at least considering implications for immigration, which, to repeat, I am very much in favour of (and, just to put it beyond doubt, very much including non-white immigration).

I just don't think it's a moral failing to consider potential downsides as well as upsides of immigration, including cultural questions.

It was a moral failing at one point to question the church, or question men, or question all sorts of issues that were marked as taboo. I think that was wrong.

"I think we do question British culture. That was what the discussion of rape culture and MeToo was about."

MeToo wasn't about British culture, it was about how men in positions of power/men in general, treat women.

I don't think we have questioned British culture at all, we have never put the fact that Saville got away with his crimes as down to him being British, despite him being heavily involved with the establishment, we have blamed individual corporate cultures and lack of safety processes, but not that this was British culture.

Knife crime in Glasgow was certainly a white community thing, but it was never discussed as such, we discussed the causes of it as socio economics.

I've always been convinced the race issue has been a major deflection in the Rotherham case.

The actual thing that meant that the police didn't do anything about it was that the Police viewed the girls in the same way that the perpetrators did, for the same reasons.

Regarding white British sexual offenders, yes. It's important to look honestly at trends in offending generally, and child rape in these cases specifically. Pretending it happens in a vacuum isn't helpful, least of all for the victims.

So in the case of Catholic priests taking advantage of their authority over the abused children, it's important to look at how their standing in the community made speaking out very difficult.

Or similarly, the cases of men travelling to much poorer countries (eg Gary Glitter) to use their money to pay for their victims who are starving and desperate..

It's always important to look at trends in offending, even if it's makes us uncomfortable or it's something we would rather look away from.

@Totallymessed

But we never put it down to the ethnicity of the person, or then try to make out like its a failing/issue of that ethnicity.

The fact that grooming gangs are over represented amongst certain communities is probably as much down to the basic things that cause crime, means and opportunity, as anything else.

The common connecting factor in the Rotherham case, wasn't race. It was the fact that the girls were dismissed by their abusers and police, because of their gender and socioeconomic status.

MeToo was broader than Britain, certainly.

It sounds like you think we should question British culture more. I've nothing to disagree with you on that.

It also sounds like you agree knife crime in Glasgow was a white community thing (I'm not an expert at all, but that was my impression), i.e. a particular culture in that place.

I think those things should be talked about: for Glasgow knife crime, for Rotherham, for Saville.

I also agree that Rotherham was a product of classism and misogyny (that's pretty well documented, I think, from reported comments of police and social workers).

My best guess is that it was a combination of both: imported misogyny and home-grown misogyny, plus classism, attitudes to children in care, and probably fear of being called racist, or shame at reporting assaults, too.

I just don't think one 'loses the moral high ground' when one asks all that as an open question, rather than just picking one explanation.

Someone might, after all, tell you you've lost the moral high ground for blaming men (hopefully not on this site, but stranger things have been seen!). If someone does, I think you should carry on asking those questions regardless.

"MeToo was broader than Britain, certainly."

It started in the States.

"It also sounds like you agree knife crime in Glasgow was a white community thing (I'm not an expert at all, but that was my impression), i.e. a particular culture in that place."

You are missing the point, it wasn't because they were white, just like knife crime in London isn't because the victims and perpetrators are black. Nor did we say that Saville committed his crimes because he was British. But we ALWAYS identify the ethnicity of a grooming gang when it fits into this category.

Once again @Aladdinzane you are getting ethnicity muddled up with culture. Just because we criticise a culture it doesn't mean we are critcising a race or think all those from that race share the same culture. I personally think Jimmy Saville was very much related to the permissive society inculcated in the UK since the 1960s. This encouraged men like him to prey on very young girls in the 70s and people of all races in the UK shared in those permissive views (and many didn't). The Pakistani culture related to the grooming gangs doesn't pertain to all "brown people" (as you said earlier) but there is definitely a very misogynist (and racist) culture there which doesn't change just because those men move here (why would it) and continues through generations - that is why those communities very rarely marry out of their community as other cultures do.

@Aladdinzane If you ignore the fact that the men involved regarded their non Muslim victims as disposable trash, then the situation can't be addressed 🤔. I agree that police and social services refused to act to an extent because they also viewed the victims as trash and criminals themselves. But it is also very clear that the potential for being accused of racism stopped many from doing anything (you can see how the brave people who did speak out were treated.)

I don't think it's good for society to refuse to look at situations because it's too difficult. The victims should matter more than the perpetrators.

@Totallymessed

If you ignore the fact that girls and women from their own communities said that they were treated in the same way, but were far less likely to report because of the social shame, then you could just make it about race.

Once you include that though, it becomes about misogyny, and the fact that the white police were also like that too.

" But it is also very clear that the potential for being accused of racism stopped many from doing anything"

Why do South Yorkshire arrest Asian men at a higher rate than whites (in proportion to the population) then? I think race only got included later when the police needed an excuse.

Yes, Jimmy Saville was very much backed by the 80s attitudes about "jail bait". I'm sure I'm not the only person who remembers the Sun doing its gross countdown to Sam Fox turning 16 so they could show her topless. Culture matters, and the predators take advantage when they can.

No mix up. Rotherham was mentioned precisely because of the ethnicity of the offenders, and we do use the ethnicity to describe these groups, what prefix always comes before grooming gangs? As said, it's the question that is raised about their ethnicity rather than anything else which is the issue.

"!I personally think Jimmy Saville was very much related to the permissive society inculcated in the UK since the 1960s."

Saville started in the 50s according to reports, a far more conservative time. He continued through the 80s and 90s which were less permissive.

Saville really got away with it, not because of permissive attitudes, but because of, again, misogyny. We did not protect young women and girls very well at all for a long time. My school gate on an afternoon had loads of young men ( late teens and 20s) waiting in cars for girls who were aged from year 9 upwards ( so possibly even only 13), this was in the late 80s and early 90s, no one said or did anything, in fact the generally attitude was " Silly little tart knows what she's doing" from teachers AND PARENTS!

Saville also got away with it because of his connections with the Police, Royal Family, Members of Parliament, and his general media image as a great charity man.

I'm left of centre. No I don't believe in caps because they are completely meaningless.
Immigration is necessary for the country. We should do as the capitalists would argue about anything else and let the market decide. If a business needs to employ someone from abroad because they can't recruit in the UK why shouldn't they? It benefits the UK and is good for GDP.
The NHS , social care and the hospitality trade can't function without immigration.
If you are talking about asylum seekers then those that arrive should be processed. Genuine refugees should be offered asylum, others sent back.
Re benefits again a cap is useless how would that work? If a cap was only 100 people should be allowed benefits what happens when the 101st disabled, elderly impoverished person with children needs help?
We should of course put in place programmes to help people help themselves but there will always be people who need support.

No @Aladdinzane we will have to agree to disagree about all that. Saville main crimes were 60s- 90s (and uk still very permissive in the 90s I would argue it still is although not so much to men who prey on young girls). Grooming gangs a particular Pakistani problem that is the truth and related to culture, not all cultures are the same or equal and that needs to be reflected in policy. One of the problems with having a multi cultural (not the same as multi racial) society which is very much an experiment and has usually ended badly in history as people are tribal.

@Aladdinzane You could try reading the Jay report (you won't). Or have a look at the treatment of Ann Cryer (you won't be interested).

Anyway, life is too short to try and have a discussion with someone who has decided that the culture of the offenders could not possibly have anything to do with their offending because it makes you think about things that you don't want to think about. I have to get back to work anyway.

@Notreat

I've got news for you. If you believe We should do as the capitalists would argue about anything else and let the market decide. then you're anything but left of centre.

Letting the market decide leads to people being treated as commodities, made redundant on the back of some spurious 'efficiency drive' which actually means 'more profit for the top' and given no more thought than items of stationery. This is the very opposite end of the spectrum to what being on the left means.

GDP per capita has gone down in the UK which suggests immigration at the rates we've experienced and the calibre of the people who have come over has been anything but beneficial.

"You could try reading the Jay report"

I have, it doesn't come to the conclusion that the police didn't investigate because of race.

I read the Jay inquiry where the information on Asian girls being abused was discussed.

"Anyway, life is too short to try and have a discussion with someone who has decided that the culture of the offenders could not possibly have anything to do with their offending because it makes you think about things that you don't want to think about."

Life is too short to discuss anything with someone who wants to ignore the fact that it was the "culture" of both the grooming gangs and the police that led to this issue being ignored.

Is it something then perhaps to do with Northern working class culture?

Race is related by correlation to our discussion but it's not really about race. As in, I don't think either of us claims race is what makes aspects of a particular culture toxic.

I'm saying: immigration brings people of different cultures. Sometimes, they will bring toxic cultures with them. (And of course, more often, they will bring benign and positive culture with them).

I don't think it's immoral to recognise both bits of that equation, and try to minimise the former while welcoming the latter.

The rest of the discussion seems to be to be a bit of a red herring. I haven't said, and don't think, the Rotherham offenders offended because of their race. I also don't think we should exempt white people when asking about toxic cultures. Race isn't really the main thing here I think.

If I were to guess, I would expect that more localised cultural beliefs and practices from parts of Pakistan, may well have played a role. They are clear to see in survey data, and while it's not a given that this would be mirrored in the migrating group, it's also not so bizarrely unlikely as to be immoral to consider.

As for differential reporting by race of the perpetrator, I haven't seen any data on that for the UK. I'd be interested though if you have. (US data I've seen seems to run the other way, but I'm not assuming the UK would be the same).

"I'm saying: immigration brings people of different cultures"

Funnily enough the white British policemen and the Asian gang members all had the same cultural attitudes towards these girls.

Is your claim that immigration doesn't bring people of different cultures?

It can't be that.

Or that all cultures are equally misogynistic, everywhere and always?

That's both very defeatist but also I think empirically provably incorrect.

Or that the white policemen had a misogynistic culture? I don't contest that. I don't think that means we should be indifferent to other sources of that same poison.

But really (though I do think there was probably a link to imported culture), the main point I'm arguing for is that it's not immoral to ask what the causes are.

Not immoral to ask if it's elements of police culture. Not immoral to ask if it's elements of Pakistani culture. Not immoral to ask if it's other things too. Not immoral to ask what we do about it if it is any of those things.

I'm not sure what possible other approach one would take if one were trying to address frankly any problem, let alone one as serious as this.