From: aero.spike@mail.com 
  
 Roger Hayter  wrote: 
 > On 3 Sep 2025 at 22:31:58 BST, "Spike"  wrote: 
 > 
 >> Roger Hayter  wrote: 
 >>> On 3 Sep 2025 at 15:39:08 BST, "JNugent"  wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> On 02/09/2025 07:43 PM, RJH wrote: 
 >>>>> On 2 Sep 2025 at 14:45:40 BST, Spike wrote: 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>>>>>> 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 €€€It€€€s only a handful, 
 why does 
 >>>>>>>> it matter?€€€ 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 
 >>>>> their own family, and social and work networks. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> Which begs the question - why are they protesting outside hotels? 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>>> And waving a placard expressing their concerns doesn€€€t make them 
 Nazis or 
 >>>>>> racists, despite the best efforts of the bussed-in agitators. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>>>> 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 
 >>>>> terrorised people around. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> A lot of opinion-based assumptions masquerading as fact there. 
  
 >>> Any slightly honest commentator would have to accept that the fact that a 
 >>> resident of a migrant hostel has been charged with assaulting a girl does 
 not 
 >>> prove that the residents of such hostels are any more of a threat to 
 women 
 and 
 >>> girls than any other men living in Epping. 
  
 >> So you seem to be saying that you know how many underage schoolgirls were 
 >> touched up or were asked to have someone€€€s babies, in Epping, at around 
 the 
 >> time of the incident under discussion, by men who were not accommodated in 
 >> hostels. Do tell, we€€€d like to know. 
  
 > You seem to be retreating to a mediaeval knowledge system in which 
 > generalisations and statistics play no part. 
  
 I€€€m waiting for you to come up with statistics to back up your claim about 
 the relative threat level to women and girls in Epping, quoted above. We 
 can then take the discussion forward. Until then, it€€€s just an unfounded 
 assertion. 
  
 -- 
 Spike 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)