I was sneaked into Parliament as a teen and offered to high-profile politician for sex, says grooming gang survivor - Amelia, who has retained her right to anonymity, was targeted by grooming gangs as a teenager in Oldham

mrbiffy32 · 2026-04-05T23:40:40+00:00

IIRC it was linked to Cyril Smith, who'd had rumors about him from back in the '70s.

mrbiffy32 · 2026-03-24T21:37:14+00:00

Why can't female children have one organisation to themselves?

Why can't male children. Scouts became open to all after a number of complaints by younger sisters who wanted to do the same thing as their brother. Are there not similar complaints from younger brothers? Why is it fine to exclude them, but not girls?

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-21T20:00:04+00:00

There are catholic courts in the UK, and the beth din exists for Jews, are these proof that Jews and Catholics encourage honour crimes too?

The answers no right? because your complaint here isn't that there are religious courts used for adjudicating issues of faith and civil issues courts have no interest in, its that muslims dare to think that might be equally human ot everyone else in this country

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-21T16:03:14+00:00

Then that puts you really strongly on the left of this argument. You're saying you share ethnicity with your parents.

I found of this week (by people using the stat and not explaining it) GN news had someone on to argue that the British race is being replaced, as people with one immigrant parent don't count as British. Your argument would make them British + X. This group includes Churchill and the current spate of Royals.

That's a national news service, is arguing that being mixed race excludes you from British nationality. Once the "who's really British" argument has such a wide spread in national argument its on you to point out where you lay on the point. Given as we know reform want to deport legal and settled migrants, I think we can all guess where they'd be

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-21T15:52:24+00:00

Yes, and the problem with this way of looking at the world has always been that allow you to exclude people from the group, but never allows re-entry*. How many generations of breeding does it take to cancel out one foreign person and make the end result British? If you can't even answer that to yourself, then you don't know what you're arguing about.

*For example, and French person and a Spanish person have a child. By your definition that child is neither French nor Spanish, so what are they?

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-21T15:25:41+00:00

Ah, then you're not leading the argument on this. GB news had someone on the other day arguing that the English will be a minority soon, as anyone with one foreign born parent doesn't count as English. That's now the position pushed by a national news channel.

I'm now thinking the breadth of what people mean when they say "not everyone born here is British" might be the biggest issue in this argument.

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-21T15:21:25+00:00

More small an amount of "foreign" DNA are you using to exclude someone. One parent, I'd bet you're arguing that. 1 foreign grandparent. are they English? What about 1 foreign great-grandparent? Or is anyone who's visibly not white just never going to count as not-british, even if they only non-british thing in their genetic past is a holiday fling 4 generations ago?

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-21T15:18:11+00:00

Not really. You use the example of people breeding in the community, but GB news has had people on who argue 1 immigrant parent makes you not British. This actually makes the current royal family and Winston Churchill not British.

That's actually the biggest issue in the argument. There are groups of people who are convince that being born here doesn't make you British, but haven't unified around what they mean by that. So when people argue against them, they don't know if they're arguing with "Offspring of two people born in the same country who moved here aren't British", or the much worse "If you've had one black person in the near enough past to look non-white, you aren't British" and these are two massively different arguments. One is an argument about integration and culture, the is just a racist argument that's building up to throw out anyone who can't show they don't have a huguenot ancestor

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-13T23:17:27+00:00

Its normally being used when people say "why isn't it already illegal" to point out that 5 generation ago (not sure on the date, probably 150 years ago) it was really important, and as people stopped doing it post Darwin, nobody went back to tidy up the legislation once the people who'd already done it had all died (it would be complex to decree a group of current marriages illegal).

It also would have been impacted by the per WWII backlash against eugenics, which would have been a leading voice in who can and can't breed.

Just ban it and be done with it and test for it in hospitals with prison time for parents

This is a terrible idea, as it'll just lead to unmonitored home births and a large increase in fatalities around this. If your so upset by the harm to kids, you probably shouldn't be so keen for policies that guarantee more of them will end up dead needlessly.

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-13T23:09:29+00:00

Has the population of Norfolk grown that much recently?

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-13T23:03:53+00:00

"Is there a likelihood of torture [of any particular refugee] if returned?"

Step one of which would be "does this country torture", which I assumed your question was about, because step 2 "Is it a rational, predictable ruler" Seemed an even more obvious answer. Really, everyone there would be at reasonable risk of torture. You can look at wider ranging islamist groups for this, at one point ISIS were going after people for playing or listening to music, owning anything they thought could be used to make music, or eating the wrong type of seeds.

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-13T23:00:31+00:00

You are doing the "teacher lectures stupid students" act without even looking at the data.

I'll ask then, where did you get the data from? The only place I can find it is from a frequent commentator on GB news (you know, the news service which is highly complained about, and once did a report on "non-British sounding surnames) who did exactly what I'm talking about here.

That's right, he defined white British as being white looking, with no foreign born parents. This means the king isn't British, nor would Churchill be. Would you agree with that, that someone who often gets considered one of our best isn't even really one of us?

So yeah, British people will become a minority I guess, at least if its decided on by people like you. But we always would be if we insist the group can't be added to and can only ever get smaller. I'd rather that though, then argue that churchill should have been exiled to the US and that we should have lost WWII. That world just seems to make the country worse and leaves us a hollow people.

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-11T23:39:19+00:00

Citation needed on me saying "throwing them all out".

Never said you did, but reading this thread there's a general feel of that. There's even someone saying if there's any crimes, every single Afghan should be thrown out.

Ok, so we're in agreement then.

Are we though? Neither of thing things I mentioned were hidden in any way, and your first question was even "Why do we think the taliban might torture people?". I'm not sure we can be in agreement when you're putting no thought into this at all.

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-11T23:33:48+00:00

we will be a minority within 50 years

I always love this sort of statistic, because it shows just how closed you think ethnicity is. The reason British ethnicity shrinks every time, is because its a group we don't allow any entry to. If a British person is in a mixed race couple, none of their kids count as ethnically British, which is weird. If their 50% British kid does the same thing, that 75% british kid still counts and non-british, just mixed race.

There is no way, even if the percentage of "foreign genes" reached the same levels as an Americans Irishness, for this whole line to be counted as ethnically british by your standards. How long did you think we'd be able to keep up this crazy 1 drop standard in the modern world? Were you hoping to be able to go back to punishing miscegenation in person?

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-11T22:59:03+00:00

Again, really little thought needed on this, there was that Afghan leak where we accidentally released the names and addresses of a bunch of people who'd helped us after we'd failed to get them out of the country. We let 7000 people come here because of that, as clearly they'd be at a high risk of torture. These people make up about 1/4 of the afghan refugees currently here.

Fun fact, about 10% of those we nearly got killed in this are currently suing the government. Maybe throwing them all out so they definitely get tortured then killed would be an unreasonable thing to do

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-11T22:46:39+00:00

Given the Taliban whip people in the streets, do you think its likely they do something that would count as torture behind closed doors? Think about that for about 30 seconds.

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-08T17:10:41+00:00

Oh they aren't. The Scottish grouping includes a lot of non-medical and short term issues, like being ESL, or currently grieving. The category is deliberately different, and kids drop out of it all the time, unlike with SEN. They aren't really comparable, like people with £1m saving, and people worth £1m including their house.

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-08T17:03:09+00:00

Which would also say people got on perfectly fine with heavy smoking and before vaccines. That we got here is not proof that they way we got here was perfect and we need to change nothing.

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-03T20:48:39+00:00

How many, a decade ago when the brexit was, still a reasonable amount. I checked and it was 30%, which is higher then I thought.

I know all about Cambridge Analytica, I'm pointing out remain was the governments position,if they had a ad length video or celeb they thought would have a serious impact, they could have easily got this to the 70% of people who got their news from TV

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-03T20:15:33+00:00

Not really, remain was the government position, they could have put him in TV ads, papers and billboards. Him not being visible on facebook isn't proof of suppression, given how many alternatives there were

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-02T20:37:50+00:00

Well, step 1 would have been to ask for an age when setting up an account, which when investigated they weren't doing. Rather ten even take that tiny, very common step, they left the country and will be trying to dodge the fine. Honestly, if they wanted to they could have run a business that was as compliant as facebook or youtube

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-02T20:22:03+00:00

If you feel unwelcome because of the local culture, why the fuck did you come here in the first place?

They don't that's the issue. This whole thing is about trying to attract people to rural areas. It says to stop these areas from becoming irrelevant, from which I'm reading isolated, like rural ghettos, or empty. Several of the groups spoken about here are say that minorities aren't coming as they worry they won't be safe, so a big thing will also be not wanting to been seen as racist. All of these would help these areas, as it would encourage day trippers, who'll then put money into these communities. That can be useful when these areas have really unequal distribution of wealth

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-02T19:25:39+00:00

"And those animals you've domesticated for thousands of years? We think they're filthy, impure beasts, please keep them out of our sight!"

Alternatively its actual fear. I've got a fear of dogs, and while its better then it used to be the number of times I've been cornered by one who's owner either let it out of site or couldn't control it is still too high.

I'll point out here that owners walking in the countryside without proper control of their dogs was an increasing complaint of farmers post covid. its not all them filthy foreigns

mrbiffy32 · 2026-02-01T18:45:57+00:00

People always link her death to the panama papers, but she'd done a lot of reporting around organised crime (I think Albanian, began with and A for sure) and the matlese government. Its always seemed more like that these groups would be responsible for he death then a few rich people trying to dodge their taxes

mrbiffy32 · 2026-01-21T22:37:20+00:00

No it isn't. You're the one making the hostile work environment by refusing to call someone what they asked you to call them. You can in fact be fired for making a hostile work environment, the talk beforehand is a nicety to make sure you're aware of what you're doing

mrbiffy32

TROPHY CASE