Hq - please explain why some topics cannot be discussed ?

[itsthefuture]

Just that hq.

I had posted about dispatches documentary aired 15/4/20

Clearly I cannot say what about.

I have drawn parallels to the cse scandal with certain elements of society grooming children.
That's a fact
And widely discussed now on the boards.
I work I law and have brought many of those perpetrators to justice.
I think had I listed about that issue 15 years ago I would have been told I was being racist an shit down , just as I an now in trying to talk about another minority group and their links to crime .

Why can this. It be discussed openly?
Why do my posts keep getting deleted despite the evidence?

It seems mn is very jumpy about allowing discussion around certain topics . Why? Why can we
Not discuss the facts around travellers sites and crime ?
Why can I not talk about a documentary aired last night around this very topic !? Please explain. This is not a thread about a thread . I'm just curious as to why some topics are taboo and taken down ? Hindsight has shown us that there are lessons to be learnt about certain elements of society regarding crime.
Why is it ok to talk about some things and not others ?
Thanks

I work in law and have brought many of those perpetrators to justice

i work on the NHS frontline - recent previous thread.

Which is it, OP? You must be very busy.

This is how I know you are not a lawyer OP:

1. Your English is very poor. I don't mean typos or other slips that someone with dyslexia might make or even someone whose first language is not English, I mean that you are not articulate and organised in what you say. You have not been educated to a high level.
2. If you were a lawyer you would understand exactly why MN sometimes deletes threads like this. MN are not a branch of the government or even the BBC. They are a business. They don't have to concern themselves with free speech or being even handed. They are a chat business. They can decide to delete whoever they want. If they decide that it's the kind of thread that in their experience tends to provoke unpleasant arguments which will get them bad publicity then they will pull it. They also have to be careful that people are not breaking the law when they discuss something. This might involve hate speech or discussing details of cases which should not be in the public arena. MN can use their own judgement about this. They are a business and not accountable to you.

If you were a layer you would understand these legal issues and understand the differences between chat businesses and public bodies.

Apparently you also claim to work for the NHS. I do wonder if you are an interpreter?

No reply from OP.
Maybe she’s on another thread claiming to be a civil servant?

Such a busy person

Nhs and law hmm

OP would you object to be treated by an Irish nurse or a Muslim doctor?
Just curious.

OP would you object to being treated by an Irish nurse or a Muslim doctor?
Just curious.

Also autocorrect doesn’t effect grammar. As in saying “I aren’t” as opposed to “I am not”. No one who works in Law would say “I aren’t going to”. The precise use and meaning of language is very important in Law.

To be fair, I dont think OP has said she (?) is a lawyer. I believe she would have just said that instead of "I work in law". She may just be in the legal dept of the nhs or something, doing some work that aids in bringing these perpetrators she talks about to justice.

To be fair, I dont think OP has said she (?) is a lawyer. I believe she would have just said that instead of "I work in law". She may just be in the legal dept of the nhs or something, doing some work that aids in bringing these perpetrators she talks about to justice.

OP claimed in a previous post to be frontline NHS.
Since when did we consider staff in a legal department to be "frontline"?

Oh I missed that frontline bit.

Hello @itsthefuture - no topics are off-limits, exactly but your thread was removed because several posts were making negative generalisions about the Travelling community. We don't think it's a case of not allowing discussion of facts - but rather that many posts were not doing much more than blaming members of an ethnic group for problems within that group.

Please take a look at our Talk Guidelines and report anything you think we ought to see.

Thanks.

It’s difficult. But discussion of Rotherham would also have been banned for this reason. Until it became acceptable to talk about it and now we can talk about it.

OP were you referencing a documentary on this subject ?

.

I think here, the OP writes in a belligerent manner. Therefore, crime within the traveller communities, as the documentary was referenced to, would be difficult for the OP to convey how her/his discussion was to proceed.

I understand why the thread was yanked. For such discussions, crime in the traveller communities, abuse of young women by Asian grooming gangs, the OP would need to be less belligerent and have the skill to lead such a debate. Although, I'm unsure as to the link between the two areas. It was natural the way the discussion was going to go, it would not have ended well.

I have never claimed to be a lawyer .

So since I have asked what I believe to be a legitimate question my intelligence has been questioned, it's implied I am belligerent and lack the skill or intelligence to raise a debate .

In my opinion the dispatches documentary was brave but correct - it is time to examine whether being politically correct is quashing the ability to speak the truth about some issues and even some minority groups within minority groups.

There will always be people who wade in who are judgemental or ill informed but that happens on every thread I read here .

To clarify - the nhs don't employ me . I work in law and my other thread was due to lack or testing and ppe around all emergency services. I have been working on the front line within a hospital setting so much like everyone else the covid 19 situation is a worry .

Why do I need to justify my question by revealing my exact profession, educational qualifications, ethnicity, etc etc?

Who ever asked if I'd allow myself to be treated by - what was it ? Some other ethnicities anyway - i find that such a ridiculous assumption that it's almost laughable .

I work with lots of different people from all cultures and backgrounds. I'm not some idiot sat at home watching tommy Robinson videos on you tube ! I am not racist and I don't judge any person I meet by their skin colour , ethnicity, or anything else! I take people as I find them.

If I need the advice or treatment from another professional I trust they are more qualified than me.

I know that had I tried to raise a similar discussion back in 2005 about the cse scandal the response would undoubtedly have been the same here . It's not healthy to simply close down a conversation because someone might be offended. That's how criminality goes unchecked .

Oh and then when it IS deemed acceptable to have that debate and it all comes out into the open there is lots of frothing and outrage.

The reason people questioned your statements was your poor use of language and conflicting statements.
You might be a social worker or a probation officer. That is not strictly speaking “working in law” or being “frontline NHS”.
You seem to exaggerate by inference.
You don’t come across as being trustworthy or accurate.
You don’t have to be that clever to work in prisons or in social work imo.
I know some people who do and I’m shocked as I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them.
Similarly in “counselling”.

If you work in Law and don’t understand the need for clarification or evidence then I really don’t need to hear your opinions on racial profiling.

I have kept what I do deliberately ambiguous and vague because of previous issues on here - I have colleagues who are on here and I do not want to be identified.

CSE? This thread seems to be about CSA. .

Oh - and I find typing difficult on a phone . I am however educated to degree level . The phone changes words like "on"to "in" .

I sort of expected this tbh . I think when difficult topics are discussed its easier to derail them by picking apart the poster and posts . Most people appear to be outraged on the behalf of the subject of the discussion - "how dare you say this ! "

I talk about parallels to cse because that exact same attitude was prevalent. The "you can't say that it's outrageous " sentiment only for the very same people years down the line to switch their outrage for the victims - rightly so.

I aren’t buying your explanation OP.

Unfortunately, I think your very apparent efforts to show your credibility, experience and intelligence have had the opposite effect, and instead made you look untruthful, uninformed and a bit dim.

Might be a name change opportunity perhaps.

I was on your thread. You were determined to make sweeping generalisations and present your 'anecdotes' both as facts and as though the programme supported them.
When presented with facts and statistics about incarceration rates; bullying and abuse of children and young people in the travelling community; MH rates and suicide rates, you refused to acknowledge them.
You showed a complete lack of understanding of the Equalities Act. You were unable to debate your position preferring instead to create a strawman about how anyone suggesting you were racist was somehow complicit in what had happened in Rotherham.

It's not impossible to have a debate. But it is impossible to pass off racist intolerance and intransigence as debate.