| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 41:07:38 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,721 |
RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:their own family, and social and work networks. Which begs the question -
Women and girls face a far greater risk in their own homes and the
spaces they share with their own family, and social and work networks.
Do you seriously believe the Epping protesters don't know that?
This sounds very much like the disgraceful rCLItrCOs only a handful, why does it matter?rCY mantra.
It can sound however you want it to sound. Do you happen to know the
answer to the question?
Do you? All you have done is made an irrelevant assertion about VAWG by trying to deflect the concerns expressed by the women and girls of Epping regarding unwanted sexual advances in public places, by referring to
violence expressed elsewhere.
Of course I know - as I suspect the hotel Epping lot know. Women and
girls face a far greater risk in their own homes and the spaces they share with
And waving a placard expressing their concerns doesnrCOt make them Nazis or racists, despite the best efforts of the bussed-in agitators.terrorised people around.
Women and girls should be safe on our streets, rather than touched up and asked to make babies as had been mentioned in court in a recent case.
Two things. One, generalising from the particular. Do you do that often?
Second, 'mentioned in court'. Do you take all 'mentions' as fact?
Why are you trying to minimise the seedy aspects of the issue?
I'm not. I'm trying to explain that if people want to protest about
violence against women there are far better ways than terrorising some of the most
Crikey. You almost seem to be condoning migrants behaviour when theythat the said girls might be worse off at home. DonrCOt you realise just how bad that sounds?
grope underage schoolgirls and suggest making babies with them, on the grounds
[The rejection email appears to have mangled the attributions. Although
what appears below is written in the form of a single exchange, it was
easier to represent it in that manner rather than tediously correct the contents of the email. I do not believe that doing this, for the sake of clarity, has changed any of the meanings. No words have been altered]
Crikey. You almost seem to be condoning migrants behaviour when they
grope underage schoolgirls and suggest making babies with them, on the grounds that the said girls might be worse off at home. DonrCOt you
realise just how bad that sounds?
On 2025-09-03, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[The rejection email appears to have mangled the attributions. Although
what appears below is written in the form of a single exchange, it was
easier to represent it in that manner rather than tediously correct the
contents of the email. I do not believe that doing this, for the sake of
clarity, has changed any of the meanings. No words have been altered]
The rejection email did not mangle the attributions, although it seems
that you have done so, and very misleadingly. Your subject line for this
post is also a lie, the actual rejection reason was "abusive or hurtful".
[large snip]
Crikey. You almost seem to be condoning migrants behaviour when they
grope underage schoolgirls and suggest making babies with them, on the
grounds that the said girls might be worse off at home. DonrCOt you
realise just how bad that sounds?
The above text is the only bit that was original to the rejected post.
You accuse the other poster of condoning sexual assault on children.
This is obviously abusive - not to mention it is an utter lie; something
you have completely made up.
On 03/09/2025 07:55 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-03, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[The rejection email appears to have mangled the attributions. Although
what appears below is written in the form of a single exchange, it was
easier to represent it in that manner rather than tediously correct the
contents of the email. I do not believe that doing this, for the sake of >>> clarity, has changed any of the meanings. No words have been altered]
The rejection email did not mangle the attributions, although it seems
that you have done so, and very misleadingly. Your subject line for this
post is also a lie, the actual rejection reason was "abusive or hurtful".
[large snip]
Crikey. You almost seem to be condoning migrants behaviour when they
grope underage schoolgirls and suggest making babies with them, on the
grounds that the said girls might be worse off at home. DonrCOt you
realise just how bad that sounds?
The above text is the only bit that was original to the rejected post.
You accuse the other poster of condoning sexual assault on children.
This is obviously abusive - not to mention it is an utter lie; something
you have completely made up.
What the other poster said was that children are in more danger of
sexual assault in their own homes than in the vicinity (or hinterland)
of an illegal migrant hotel.
As a statement, that's hard to condone.
On 3 Sep 2025 at 21:07:47 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
What the other poster said was that children are in more danger of
sexual assault in their own homes than in the vicinity (or hinterland)
of an illegal migrant hotel.
As a statement, that's hard to condone.
But as a generalisation for children in this country, rather than any specific >poster's child, it is absolutely and indisputably true!
On 3 Sep 2025 at 21:07:47 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/09/2025 07:55 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-03, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[The rejection email appears to have mangled the attributions. Although >>>> what appears below is written in the form of a single exchange, it was >>>> easier to represent it in that manner rather than tediously correct the >>>> contents of the email. I do not believe that doing this, for the sake of >>>> clarity, has changed any of the meanings. No words have been altered]
The rejection email did not mangle the attributions, although it seems
that you have done so, and very misleadingly. Your subject line for this >>> post is also a lie, the actual rejection reason was "abusive or hurtful". >>>
[large snip]
Crikey. You almost seem to be condoning migrants behaviour when they
grope underage schoolgirls and suggest making babies with them, on the >>>> grounds that the said girls might be worse off at home. DonrCOt you
realise just how bad that sounds?
The above text is the only bit that was original to the rejected post.
You accuse the other poster of condoning sexual assault on children.
This is obviously abusive - not to mention it is an utter lie; something >>> you have completely made up.
What the other poster said was that children are in more danger of
sexual assault in their own homes than in the vicinity (or hinterland)
of an illegal migrant hotel.
As a statement, that's hard to condone.
But as a generalisation for children in this country, rather than any specific
poster's child, it is absolutely and indisputably true!
On 03/09/2025 11:07 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/09/2025 07:55 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-03, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[The rejection email appears to have mangled the attributions. Although >>>>> what appears below is written in the form of a single exchange, it was >>>>> easier to represent it in that manner rather than tediously correct the >>>>> contents of the email. I do not believe that doing this, for the sake of >>>>> clarity, has changed any of the meanings. No words have been altered]
The rejection email did not mangle the attributions, although it seems >>>> that you have done so, and very misleadingly. Your subject line for this >>>> post is also a lie, the actual rejection reason was "abusive or hurtful".
[large snip]
Crikey. You almost seem to be condoning migrants behaviour when they >>>>> grope underage schoolgirls and suggest making babies with them, on the >>>>> grounds that the said girls might be worse off at home. DonrCOt you
realise just how bad that sounds?
The above text is the only bit that was original to the rejected post.
You accuse the other poster of condoning sexual assault on children.
This is obviously abusive - not to mention it is an utter lie; something >>>> you have completely made up.
What the other poster said was that children are in more danger of
sexual assault in their own homes than in the vicinity (or hinterland)
of an illegal migrant hotel.
As a statement, that's hard to condone.
But as a generalisation for children in this country, rather than any specific
poster's child, it is absolutely and indisputably true!
Given the specifics of the situation, that is hard to accept as a truth.
And in case, it is not relevant. What people quite reasonably want is
the absolute minimisation, if not the obliteration, of all such risk to their children.
On 3 Sep 2025 at 21:07:47 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/09/2025 07:55 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-03, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[The rejection email appears to have mangled the attributions. Although >>>> what appears below is written in the form of a single exchange, it was >>>> easier to represent it in that manner rather than tediously correct the >>>> contents of the email. I do not believe that doing this, for the sake of >>>> clarity, has changed any of the meanings. No words have been altered]
The rejection email did not mangle the attributions, although it seems
that you have done so, and very misleadingly. Your subject line for this >>> post is also a lie, the actual rejection reason was "abusive or hurtful". >>>
[large snip]
Crikey. You almost seem to be condoning migrants behaviour when they
grope underage schoolgirls and suggest making babies with them, on the >>>> grounds that the said girls might be worse off at home. DonrCOt you
realise just how bad that sounds?
The above text is the only bit that was original to the rejected post.
You accuse the other poster of condoning sexual assault on children.
This is obviously abusive - not to mention it is an utter lie; something >>> you have completely made up.
What the other poster said was that children are in more danger of
sexual assault in their own homes than in the vicinity (or hinterland)
of an illegal migrant hotel.
As a statement, that's hard to condone.
But as a generalisation for children in this country, rather than any specific
poster's child, it is absolutely and indisputably true!
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/09/2025 11:07 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/09/2025 07:55 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-03, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[The rejection email appears to have mangled the attributions. Although >>>>>> what appears below is written in the form of a single exchange, it was >>>>>> easier to represent it in that manner rather than tediously correct the >>>>>> contents of the email. I do not believe that doing this, for the sake of >>>>>> clarity, has changed any of the meanings. No words have been altered]
The rejection email did not mangle the attributions, although it seems >>>>> that you have done so, and very misleadingly. Your subject line for this >>>>> post is also a lie, the actual rejection reason was "abusive or hurtful".
[large snip]
Crikey. You almost seem to be condoning migrants behaviour when they >>>>>> grope underage schoolgirls and suggest making babies with them, on the >>>>>> grounds that the said girls might be worse off at home. DonrCOt you >>>>>> realise just how bad that sounds?
The above text is the only bit that was original to the rejected post.
You accuse the other poster of condoning sexual assault on children. >>>>> This is obviously abusive - not to mention it is an utter lie; something >>>>> you have completely made up.
What the other poster said was that children are in more danger of
sexual assault in their own homes than in the vicinity (or hinterland) >>>> of an illegal migrant hotel.
As a statement, that's hard to condone.
But as a generalisation for children in this country, rather than any specific
poster's child, it is absolutely and indisputably true!
Given the specifics of the situation, that is hard to accept as a truth.
And in case, it is not relevant. What people quite reasonably want is
the absolute minimisation, if not the obliteration, of all such risk to
their children.
I think itrCOs worth posting here part of a relevant post by Pamela in ulm on the Bell Hotel thread:
rCLHansard reports an MP telling the Commons this in July 2025:
"Now we have press reporting on the huge scale of the crime committed by illegal immigrants housed in the Governments own asylum hotels.
The Sun found 339 charges in the last six months based on only half the hotels currently operated.
The Mail on Sunday found 708 charges based on only a third of those hotels. Those crimes included multiple cases of rape, sexual assault, violence,
theft and arsonrCY.
On 04/09/2025 14:45, Spike wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/09/2025 11:07 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 03/09/2025 07:55 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-09-03, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[The rejection email appears to have mangled the attributions. Although >>>>>>> what appears below is written in the form of a single exchange, it was >>>>>>> easier to represent it in that manner rather than tediously correct the >>>>>>> contents of the email. I do not believe that doing this, for the sake ofThe rejection email did not mangle the attributions, although it seems >>>>>> that you have done so, and very misleadingly. Your subject line for this >>>>>> post is also a lie, the actual rejection reason was "abusive or hurtful".
clarity, has changed any of the meanings. No words have been altered] >>
[large snip]
Crikey. You almost seem to be condoning migrants behaviour when they >>>>>>> grope underage schoolgirls and suggest making babies with them, on the >>>>>>> grounds that the said girls might be worse off at home. DonrCOt you >>>>>>> realise just how bad that sounds?
The above text is the only bit that was original to the rejected post. >>
You accuse the other poster of condoning sexual assault on children. >>>>>> This is obviously abusive - not to mention it is an utter lie; something >>>>>> you have completely made up.
What the other poster said was that children are in more danger of
sexual assault in their own homes than in the vicinity (or hinterland) >>>>> of an illegal migrant hotel.
As a statement, that's hard to condone.
But as a generalisation for children in this country, rather than any specific
poster's child, it is absolutely and indisputably true!
Given the specifics of the situation, that is hard to accept as a truth.
And in case, it is not relevant. What people quite reasonably want is
the absolute minimisation, if not the obliteration, of all such risk to
their children.
I think itrCOs worth posting here part of a relevant post by Pamela in ulm on
the Bell Hotel thread:
rCLHansard reports an MP telling the Commons this in July 2025:
"Now we have press reporting on the huge scale of the crime committed by
illegal immigrants housed in the Governments own asylum hotels.
The Sun found 339 charges in the last six months based on only half the
hotels currently operated.
The Mail on Sunday found 708 charges based on only a third of those hotels. >> Those crimes included multiple cases of rape, sexual assault, violence,
theft and arsonrCY.
But who are the perpetrators??
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/sep/03/women-fleeing-face-coercion-and-control-by-home-office-contractors
Survey says refugee women are subjected to voyeurism and sexual
harassment by male staff at hotels
Women who have fled rape, forced marriage and sexual exploitation are
being subjected to coercion and control by Home Office contractors in hotels, according to new research.
The charity Women for Refugee Women has carried out the first research specifically focusing on the experiences of women in Home Office asylum seeker hotels. The researchers include seven women who have previously
lived in such accommodation.
The research found that almost half of the women surveyed said that
living in a Home Office hotel made them feel suicidal, with complaints
of voyeurism from male hotel staff entering their rooms without
permission when they were naked or partly dressed, sexual harassment
from male staff and oppressive daily roll calls and evening curfews,
which were described as rCLschool dormitory rulesrCY that rCLinfantilisedrCY the
women.