Suella Braverman thread 2

[AdamRyan]

As we filled up thread one eith our battling over whether it's feminist or racist to support Suella Braverman's weekend statements, I thought another would be good.

Here's some of what she said:

"What's clear is what we've seen is a practice whereby vulnerable white English girls, sometimes who are in care, sometimes in challenging circumstances, being pursued and raped and drugged and harmed by gangs of British Pakistani men who've worked in child abuse rings or networks. We've seen institutions and state agencies, whether it's social workers, teachers, the police turn a blind eye to these signs of abuse out of political correctness, out of fear of being called racist, out of fear of being called bigoted. And as a result, thousands, we are not talking small numbers, we are talking large numbers, thousands of children have had their childhoods robbed and devastated. And there are many of these perpetrators still running wild, behaving in this way. And it's now down to the authorities to track these perpetrators down, without fear or favour, relentlessly and bring them to justice"

Sunak has since rowed back on this and the Home Offices own research suggests there is not enough quality research to say any particular ethnicity is disproportionately involved in "grooming gangs"

Correct.

Incorrect!

Males exploit females the world over - due to inherent differences between the sexes. Culture further shapes those differences in different ways according to the norms, values and expectations of those cultures.

Do all men do that?

Read my posts. They are very simple to understand. You seem intent on main things far more complicated than they are.

I have already intimated that inherent differences between the sexes are the reasons for inequalities between men and women throughout the world. Different cultures shape these differences according to their cultural preferences, practices and traditions ( known as 'gender' roles and stereotypes)

Of course not all men are rapists, anymore than all women are over emotional - for the reason as human beings we are all individuals - and as such shaped not only by our culture and our period in history, but also by our family of birth, our own up-bringing and by our own individual characte, temperament and inclination.

But beneath that lies the fact of our animal nature and the instinctive drives and patterns which are biological in origin and which tend to differentiate males and females the world over.

The best we can achieve is to manage these differences in the most equitable way we can. These general differences are not going to disappear through funding improvements, or by insisting that men and women are the same except for a few dangly bits.

So the differences will remain forever and there is nothing that can be done about it?

I guess that is why it is important that Boris knows what a woman is, so that as a man he can no who to oppress.

If you want to change the subject to the nature of the advert, apparently:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/07/labour-advert-rishi-sunak-twitter-lucy-powell/

"A Labour attack on Rishi Sunak’s record of jailing child sex abusers has appeared to backfire as it emerged that Sir Keir Starmer helped decide sentencing guidelines for the crime.

Sir Keir, now the Labour leader, sat on the Sentencing Council in 2012 when it was agreed the crime should not get an automatic prison sentence, although a maximum of 14 years behind bars was set.

His involvement in setting the guidelines undermines the party’s attack on the Tories for being too soft on criminals convicted of child sexual abuse.

Sir Keir was the director of public prosecutions from 2008 to 2013 and became an MP in 2015. The sentencing guidelines adopted in 2012 remain to this day."

I guess that supports my point, that Labour arguably only pretend to care, just as Conservatives arguably only pretend to care.

There was me thinking that at any point before or after 2012 the government could have introduced legislation that changed the sentencing guidelines. That the government chose not to presumably means they were happy with them?

Or is the government just responsible for pot plants?

Once again, the Tories have been in power for 13 years, plenty of time to undo these sentencing guidelines, if they felt they were not strict enough.

But they have not, i know Tories don't like to accept responsibility for anything at all but really? this?

Talk about trying to shift the blame.

If the Tories weren't worried about the advert then there wouldn't have been an article in the Torygraph today about it.
A party confident of campaigning on its record in government wouldn't need this.

More like setting the story straight I would imagine.

The figures are indisputable, there maybe concern over whether Sunak is personally responsible, esp as he wasn't in Govt for some of the 13 years of Tory rule, then again, that doesn't stop him claiming "wins" before his time.

If he doesn't agree with non custodial sentences for CSA, he can change the law, simple as, would take just a few months, as he is doing on no strikes.

Priorities once again.

Yeah but Labour are still massive hypocrites. It's still the case that they are only pretending to care about it.

Yeah but Labour are still massive hypocrites. It's still the case that they are only pretending to care about it.

Yep.

Both the Labour Party and Conservative Party are rubbish on crime.

It's a silly advert however if Starmer helped decide the guidelines and didn't bother to mention this detail.

Same can and should be said about all parties, none of these issues, will ever affect them.

But somehow when a Tory says he/she will sort out X or Y its believed as gospel by many but if Labour criticise or offer an alternative, they are hypocrites and "pretending"

But what is inescapable and its why the polls still give Labour a decent lead, people are starting to question what have the Tories been doing for the last 13 years?

Health Education Immigration Transport Roads & Taxation all a mess.

One single person didn't draw up the guidelines, vast majority on the council are judges.

So Starmer sat on a sentencing council. Meaning he was one of a larger group. He was not the chair, so not in charge of the decision. He was a contributor.

And the council made some recommendations that the Conservative government accepted.

And this shows exactly what about starmer? Do you know if he was arguing for or against the decision by the sentencing Council behind closed doors.

What a strange non argument.

As long as we are in a body on the earth, yes. This is nature and in that we are no different to any other creature on the earth.

Dystopian scenarios that try to rise above such differences might involve incubating babies in large laboratories of brain dead 'whoe body gestational donors'; and neutralising all sex hormones at conception - perhaps by genetic manipulation.....

Differences don't have to be seen as an inherent problem; they just have to managed as equitably as possible.

And in another example that Braverman is not bothered if her policy isn't supported by facts....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/08/home-office-admits-no-evidence-to-support-key-claim-on-small-boat-crossings

If he was against it, then presumably Labour would point this out. (Let's see if they try to make that argument.)

Or you could point to his objections at the time. Or he objected, but didn't think it serious enough to put anything on the record?

It's only a "non argument" if you assume that Starmer was kicking and screaming against it.

Even if we don't know 100%, there is fair suspicion that he shares responsibility.

As we all know it is much more important to support the victims of strikes our rich mates than anything else.

Are lions and hyenas creatures on earth?

Back to the cryptic questions.......

The end point of western liberal feminism is sex denial and disembodiment.

Meanwhile the liberal feminists certainly seem to think there is a problem with VAWG - and it is something to do with 'the patriarchy'. Which, apparently, better funding under a Labour government will erase.

How is it the least bit cryptic?

A previous posters suggested that for all creatures on Earth females are dominated by males.

I couldn't help wondering if lions and hyenas are creatures on Earth.

Yes, they are, and the female of the species gives birth and nurtures her young. But you know that, already.

A lion's pride will typically include three males and up to a dozen females and their young. Females mate when in season. Males roam around, fighting for dominance and access to females.