They did get there in the end

A series of trials that were almost derailed by the English Defence League founder, Tommy Robinson, have ended with 20 members of an Asian grooming gang being convicted of a catalogue of rape and abuse against girls as young as 11.

The gang members, who were mainly of Pakistani heritage and came from the Huddersfield area, were convicted after a court heard how they passed victims around like “commodities” and used them for their own “sexual gratification”.

Ringleader Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 35, was jailed for life earlier this year and told he must serve a minimum of 18 years in prison by a judge who described his treatment of the girls as “inhuman”.

The abuse took place between 2004 and 2011 and involved victims aged between 11 and 17.

Details of the case and the three trials can only now be disclosed after a judge agreed to lift reporting restrictions following a challenge from the media.

But the second trial almost collapsed in May when far right campaigner, Robinson, was arrested for allegedly breaching reporting restrictions by filming outside the court.

As has been pointed out in the comments here before. Simply too many defendants to all be in the court at the same time, thus a chain of trials. The risk wasn’t particularly that Tommy would damage the one he was at, but the next one.

OK, now on to he interesting question. It’s said that Nick Griffin warned of this. Possibly even on his QT appearance. Now, is it possible for us to get chapter and verse on this? See a transcript of what he actually said?

For if it was more than just “dirty foreigners messing with birds” to the point of being a useful guide to what we’ve now proven happened. Well, if it was, then we’ve an excellent empirical argument against no platforming, don’t we? Sure, we’ve already a barrel full of logical and moral ones, but how about something practical?

82 comments on “They did get there in the end

  1. It is an affront to justice that these men are still breathing. It genuinely saddens me at how far the western world has fallen that neither local people nor the justice system regards death as a just penalty for crimes like this.

  2. wow… finally the work ‘Pakistani’ has been used rather than lumping them in with the whole Asian population.

  3. I’m wondering if the legal system shouldn’t give up on this case reporting proscription & just live with it.
    TR’s mistake was recording on his phone. (Or maybe, being seen recording on his phone was part of his reason for doing it?)
    I’ve had a little device for a while. Recording video camera about half the size of a packet of fags. Came with a selection of fake buttons, so you can attach it to your clothes without it being obvious. I could have stood beside TR. Recorded exactly what he did. Even recorded his arrest. Added a simultaneous audio commentary, thanks to the audio capture facility. Or just streamed the whole thing out onto the web, live, using its built in wifi capability. For that matter, I could have gone sat in the public seats in court & captured the entire trial without anyone noticing a thing.
    Trials are supposed to be public events. As far as I’m aware, there’s never been a proscription on attending a trial & then telling others what’s occurred on a personal one-to-one basis.
    The State has never liked tech, has it? Particularly its judicial arm. It didn’t like the printing press. Although it’s reserved the right for itself to intercept our phone calls & string the country with CCTV to record our every move. But it doesn’t like being watched. Trouble is the tech’s moved away from its ability to police. There’s hardly a phone in people’s pockets doesn’t have a camera on it. Is it time to just give up? Accept that people now have the ability to augment their personal memories. (The police don’t balk at sequestering our phone recordings as evidence, when it suits them) Trials have always supposed to have been in public. The courts themselves have never had any reluctance to keep a record of what occurs during them. It’s just the public aren’t trusted with the information. But the cat’s now very much out of the bag & not likely to be stuffed back in it in a hurry.

  4. TR “nearly wrecked” nothing.

    The names, charges etc had appeared in the papers one year before. Nor–for the 50th time of saying–were any such oh-so-delicate-we might-prejudice-the-trial concerns given the slightest consideration when the old white slebs were being rousted by the Treason May-instigated Operation Yewtree. If they had and a few tabloid hacks had gotten cooled by the same treatment as Tommy Robinson, the Yewtree caper might have fallen apart as it deserved. Even leaving aside the circ that the old whites did not have a large and organised pedo-supporting crew inside to put even more menace on the journos.

    But none of those matters have the slightest affect on the snob-power axis. Even amongst those who are otherwise sound and should have enough sense to understand. To understand that allowing the state to operate the way they have with TR–ie quite open and brazen persecution–is creating a precedent and even a template that anyone not a fool should want to see squashed double-quick . Regardless of their personal feelings about the individual in the frame.

  5. Some of those guys were found guilty at the second trial and sentenced a little after the TR thing. I do not like the idea that people (albeit evil offenders) can be jailed in secret, no names and no prison terms announced. Future trial or no. Especially when it will be known in the community who wasd banged up and for how long. If some of the public may know, why not all of the public? What a mass of silly logical inconsistencies the establishment has had to build just to get Tommy.

  6. Martin–your lack of comprehension is –once again–not my problem.

    My style is idiosyncratic. However given a full set of brain cells and time on the blog to have picked up my few figures of speech and colourful renaming habits understanding should not be a problem.

    You certainly have time enough on the blog.

  7. Tim – had a quick Google.

    In 2004 he said that there was a “rape wave” going on in Keighley involving Muslims drugging little white girls and the police ignoring it.
    https://youtu.be/d613MThaGgM

    12 years later: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/keighley-grooming-case-arrogant-asian-gang-of-12-jailed-for-130-years-1-7722032

    Also in 2004, he said in a BBC interview that there was an “element” of Muslims in Derby preying on Sikh girls for “sex and religious reasons” (interestingly, Gavin Esler was horrified by this. No, not by the rape allegations, but that Griffin blamed the 1 billion strong religion of Islam)

    https://youtu.be/6uyU3dfd3pE

    6 years later:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-11799797

  8. I hadn’t realised till now how poorly Nick Griffin does at interviews (where he seems mildly terrified) or even public speaking to a friendly audience (where he stumbles over his own words like a nervous Best Man).

    Not so much Oswald Moseley 2.0 as just some bloke.

  9. “For if it was more than just “dirty foreigners messing with birds” to the point of being a useful guide to what we’ve now proven happened.”

    “See?! I told you there was a wolf!”

    (The missing last line to Aesop’s fable “The boy who cried ‘Wolf!'”)

  10. NiV, the point of the parable of the boy who cried wolf is that most of his claims were false.

    That’s the interesting question about Griffin’s accusations. Were many of them false, so that it was reasonable to ignore him even though some of them later turned out to be true?

    Or was he actually correct all along, so that he’s not the boy who cried wolf, but Cassandra, cursed to give prophesies that were true but not believed?

  11. Richard – Yarp. See above. 20 seconds of Googlizing reveals he was correct in the specific locations he named. He was correct about the crime scene, the MO, the police and government ignoring it, and the Moon culties having form for this sort of thing (BTW do we believe the Rohingya got chased out of Burma for no reason at all?)

    Pardon for Griffin when?

  12. Since Sihk news reported from the same courtroom on the same case with someone other than the turbaned reporter holding the camera and actually describing the accused as guilty, I hardly think TR was the greatest threat to the trial.
    Perhaps the authorities were too scared to arrest a man with a turban, especially on camera.
    And I love the revision from “Asian” to “immigrant community”. Presumably this is to make us dislike Poles and Frenchman as well as Chinese and Hindu despite none of these people having done anything remotely like.

  13. “NiV, the point of the parable of the boy who cried wolf is that most of his claims were false.”

    Yes. The problem wasn’t that Griffin et al. couldn’t get the word out. The problem was that nobody believed them because they assumed it was just another cases of racists making up exaggerated scare stories about foreigners to alarm the public and foment conflict between communities. It sounds exactly like the usual “blood libel” stuff that racists spread about any hated community.

    If anyone really did discover a gang of Jews making matzos out of the blood of babies, and tried to tell everyone about it, nobody would believe them either. And while they’d probably get ‘no-platformed’ too, it wouldn’t make any difference if they didn’t. Even if they were allowed to spread their message on national TV (on Question Time, perhaps?), people would just say “Oh no, it’s another maniac anti-semite spreading blood libel stories” and not even bother to investigate.

    The question is, how did we get to the point where nobody believes a bunch of racists when they tell us that the darky immigrants are raping all our white girls? What could possibly have led to such a situation?!

    It’s kinda ironic that Griffin described his QT appearance as a ‘lynching’.

  14. It’s amusing that one can reverse the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” story, with the authorities as the Boy. Because every time they were informed of wolves hanging round the flock, they said “We see no wolf!”Until the wolf came along & raped the flock, in full view of everybody And no one ever believed them again…

  15. I hardly think TR was the greatest threat to the trial

    It’s never been convincingly explained exactly how Tommy Robinson talking on his phone outside a courtroom was supposed to endanger the trial.

    Are we supposed to believe that if a gang of white men were up in the dock for, say, a racial hate crime, the authorities would drop the prosecutions if a black fella stood outside with a smartphone?

    Are we meant to believe it’s that easy to get a mistrial?

    Sounds like bullshit.

  16. “It’s amusing that one can reverse the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” story, with the authorities as the Boy.”

    You’d have to reverse not only the roles, but the story itself. (You’d have to call it “The boy who cried ‘No wolf!'”)

    But there’s no need. In Aesop’s version, the wolf did indeed turn up, and it did indeed eat the sheep. In the end, the boy was right. The villagers don’t come out of it very well, either.

  17. BBC News reporting on the second trial of Russell Bishop doesn’t seem to affect his (second) trial? Given that the bastard has been convicted of another murder, and he’s white, quelle surprise.

    I’m in piss-boiling mood that such a person wasn’t strung up then. In my view, the abolitionists should be surcharged for the costs of his second trial, and for the costs of keeping him in prison.

  18. “Simply too many defendants to all be in the court at the same time, thus a chain of trials. The risk wasn’t particularly that Tommy would damage the one he was at, but the next one.”

    I’ve considered this over time and have concluded that, unless there is some constitutional requirement that trials must take place in specific buildings, it’s bollocks.

    This is really a case that our normal freedoms (fair and open trials, etc) are thrown aside by lazy judiciary who don’t want to operate outside the comforts of their usual workplace. If the normal court isn’t big enough for handling gang crime, hire a conference venue or something.

    This is like not sending people to prison because the prisons are full. They do that, too.

  19. Niv–It was known for years what was going on–coppers, the slime of ZaNu , for that matter some Tories–they all knew .So don’t come it with the “racists won’t be believed” cockrot. TPTBS(HITE)_knew all the time what was going on. Because they were just exactly your sort of SJW stooges they covered it up. For a decade and a half.

  20. ““See?! I told you there was a wolf!””

    That would fit if NG had a history of saying ‘Those Nigerians are raping our women!’ followed by ‘Those Jamaicans are raping our women!’ etc etc. For it to be a case of crying wolf would indicate he’d made the same allegations about other racial groups, which were demonstrably false, thus when he made similar ones about the RoPers everyone would just say ‘Oh its NG and his stories about white women being raped by brown people.’ and ignore him.

    But as far as I’m aware he and the BNP had never made such allegations about any other racial minorities, so you can’t say he cried wolf about it.

    A more fitting comparison would be if a radical feminist who has spent her entire life writing anti-male books and speeches suddenly accused a specific man of raping her. It would be a brave person who would say ‘Well you’re just crying wolf, you don’t like men at all, you’re just making it up!’.

  21. @NiV
    “The problem was that nobody believed them because they assumed it was just another cases of racists making up exaggerated scare stories about foreigners to alarm the public and foment conflict between communities. ”
    Why? You’re starting from the premise that Nick Griffin & the BNP are racist & everybody assumed they were racist. But Griffin is on record as stating many times that he & the BNP were not racist & the BNP welcomed people from any race. There were large numbers of peole were quite happy accepting that assessment & many more content to keep an open mind on the subject. Just because the BBC, other parts of the media & the usual suspects trumpet something doesn’t mean it’s believed.The BNP had a lot of members.& supporters. Enough to put up a reasonable showing in elections. This doesn’t happen in a vacuum. BNP supporters will have had family & friends who knew them well & were aware of their political sympathies. Are you saying they were all condemned as racists?
    Much as you’d like to pretend it, most people aren’t NPCs

  22. “Why? You’re starting from the premise that Nick Griffin & the BNP are racist & everybody assumed they were racist.”

    That’s what everyone assumes. And that’s why everyone ignores them.

    Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. The reason they got ignored wasn’t that they got “no-platformed” and couldn’t get the message out, but that everyone believes they’re a bunch of skinhead nazi thugs making up random blood libels about darkies. Nobody believes them. Nobody wants to be associated with them, or be seen to be taking their claims seriously. A large part of the public put racists in the same ‘scum-who-deserve-no-mercy’ category as paedophiles, and most of the public believe the BNP and EDF and similar are full of thick-as-shit racists.

    And everyone *knows* that’s the reason why.

    That’s how ‘smear by association’ works. The reputation of the tiny fraction of Asians committing rape is smeared across the entire Asian community by those with agendas. The reputation of the tiny(?) fraction of BNP/EDF committing racism is likewise smeared across the entire BNP/EDF community by those with agendas. You can’t really complain when other people use the same logic!

    It’s not a question of whether it’s true. It’s a question of what can be done about it.

  23. Bis,

    Yeah but, that’s like the DUP “welcoming” Catholic members. They do even have a few, probably joined for a late.

  24. The reason they got ignored

    As Mr Ecks has already pointed out to you, police and social services also ignored the victims, and their families, as a matter of unofficial policy over many, many years.

    “Yeah but Nick Griffin is a racialist and a badman and therefore…!” isn’t an argument.

    Are you sure those hormone pills are good for your brain?

    the tiny fraction of Asians

    Citation needed.

    Actually, I don’t think the vast majority of Asians condone this at all. Which is why dishonest people, such as yourself, continually try to pretend that this is an “Asian” thing rather than a pattern of behaviour seen time and time again when Moslems enrich other cultures.

    Gang rape is now part n parcel, innit, from Stockholm to St Paul. The common denominator isn’t “Asians”.

  25. @Niv “The question is, how did we get to the point where nobody believes a bunch of racists when they tell us that the darky immigrants are raping all our white girls? What could possibly have led to such a situation?!”

    I suppose you’re trying to imply it’s all the fault of the “bunch of racists”. That if it hadn’t been for the EDL none of this would have happened? WTF.

    A better question might be how did we get to the point where multiple police forces and local authorities ignored young, vulnerable white girls accusing Asian gangs of drugging and raping them.

    Or are you saying the girls were all known members of the EDL?

  26. @Niv “everyone believes they’re a bunch of skinhead nazi thugs making up random blood libels about darkies.”

    So what if they were.

    Doesn’t explain why no-one believed the girls. Or took any action until practically forced to by The Times. Or why The Times stories were originally denounced as racist nonsense by plenty on the Left.

    You really are evil in trying to shift the blame here or in any way water it down.

  27. NiV “That’s what everyone assumes. And that’s why everyone ignores them.”

    Who’s your everyone? Certinly not the people who voted for them in various elections.

    Sorry, but this sounds like your usual CTRL+L tactic. “Everyone” is alongside your argument, so there’s nothing to discuss. You’ve repeatedly tried the same thing with your geezers-in-frocks, although you seem to be in a minoity of one on that, in these parts.
    The “everyone” certaily doesn’t include a great many people live in areas have aquired large Pakistani communities in recent times. Nick Griffin didn’t make this up. He wasn’t even reporting from first hand knowledge. He was talking about things were widely known.
    Except, of course, the media who preferred not to enquire, the police who didn’t want to hear about it & a political class, it didn’t fit the narrative they are still trying to promote.
    And you, you POS, are still singing from the same songbook, aren’t you? It’s all the fault of the waycists!

  28. “Except, of course, the media who preferred not to enquire, the police who didn’t want to hear about it & a political class, it didn’t fit the narrative they are still trying to promote.”

    And not one of them is in the dock either……………….in my book those who brushed it under the carpet are as bad as those who perpetrated the deeds – they enabled the latter ones to act, which they probably wouldn’t have if the first cases had been dealt with properly. But they’re all (mainly) nice middle class white folk with jobs in the council etc, so they won’t get fingered for these cases, just the underclass ethnics actually doing the nasty.

    Its actually all very racist – bang up several hundred brown skinned people, not one middle class whitey gets handcuffed, despite plenty of them being in the frame for aiding and abetting crimes.

  29. “Actually, I don’t think the vast majority of Asians condone this at all.”

    Neither do the vast majority of Muslims. It’s specifically forbidden by Sharia law – the penalty in a Muslim country would be a public flogging. We’re actually a lot more lenient about this sort of thing than they are.

    “I suppose you’re trying to imply it’s all the fault of the “bunch of racists”. That if it hadn’t been for the EDL none of this would have happened? WTF.”

    Racists generally, not just EDL.

    It’s long been a trope of racism that the darkies are “coming for your daughters”. In the US, rumours of rape by a black guy on a white girl was sufficient to get many black men lynched.

    Basically, any group with the EDL’s reputation for racism (whether deserved or not) spreading lurid stories like rape gangs targeting white girls is simply not going to be believed without overwhelming independent evidence.

    “A better question might be how did we get to the point where multiple police forces and local authorities ignored young, vulnerable white girls accusing Asian gangs of drugging and raping them.”

    The girls usually didn’t report it.

    There was a university research project, charity workers, and social workers who knew about it from ‘off-the-record’ discussions with the girls, but it’s a lot harder to gather enough evidence to make it stick in court. After a lot of persuasion, one girl did come into the police station to make a complaint, but when she was there she got a text saying: “We’ve got your sister. Your move.” and she withdrew the complaint.

    Also, it would be quite difficult in a lot of cases to sort out what was consensual – a number of the girls refused to testify even after it all came out. Many of the girls were in foster care, often the result of abusive, criminal, or drug-addicted parents, desperate for love and attention. A ‘rich boyfriend’ picks them up, showers them with gifts and compliments and attention. Several of the girls were very insistent that their ‘boyfriend’ still loved them, that while they slept around, as men do, that their own relationship was ‘special’.

    These sorts of situations are usually a lot more messy and complicated in reality. The evidence is often ambiguous and unclear, and there are people who make false accusations of atrocities out of spite, as well as monsters committing atrocities. It’s one person’s word against another’s. Hindsight is 20:20. And the ‘racism’ angle is only a part of the reason the response got delayed for so long.

    Nevertheless, yes. Local authorities and policemen ignored rumours of Asian/Muslim rape gangs because they assumed the stories were just racists stirring up hate. Blood libels are a common tactic. And racists are not known for their cautious and diligent care with regard to ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’ and ‘statistics’, are they?

  30. @Niv “The girls usually didn’t report it.”

    That’s true. Maybe only one in ten girls reported one in ten of the incidents.

    That still meant dozens and dozens of incidents that WERE reported by the girls and by their parents. This all actually came out in the trials. And The Times reports. If no-one was reporting it, why are police and authorities now apologising?

    So more bollocks from you.

    And the shit about how Sharia law forbids it. So that means they weren’t really Pakistani Muslims then? Ok, that’s fine. gangs of (non-Muslim) Pakistani men were drugging and raping girls as young as 11 over a couple of decades.

    Phew, those parentheses will bring much comfort to the girls.

    I’m amazed, given how difficult you claim it is to sort out what was consensual, that anyone has been convicted. You saying they should have been found innocent? That it was all a racist plot and that gangbanging a 14 year girl who is out of it on drugs and alcohol is actually a sign of a ‘special boyfriend’ relationship?

    “Blood libels” that your latest SJW buzz phrase?

    You talk shit. Evil shit.

  31. @NiV

    I guess next you’ll be trotting out a variant of your line on Islamic terrorism?

    That statistically only a tiny number of girls got raped so really these gangs aren’t very good at it so, like, what’s all the fuss about?

  32. “Neither do the vast majority of Muslims. ”
    Amazing how an anti-racist like NiV is so quick to come out with the racism. You haven’t a clue what the vast majority of mslims think, have you? Nor has anyone else. I know it’s anti-racist to say so, so you’ll have to accept my apology, but muslims are actually individuals. And I don’t suppose anyone’s gone arround with a survey asking them individually what their attitude to muslim men raping white teenage girls is. What you have is some soundbites parroted by a few “community leaders”. Funny how these ethnic minorities have community leaders but the ethnic majority doesn’t. (Perhaps because if some bloke came up to me & announced he was my community leader he’d be on his knees searching for his teeth before he’d got the entire sentence out of his mouth) Or is it our self appointed “community leaders” who say we’re all so universally delighted with multiculturalism & the mass immigration of third world goat fvkcers..
    AndrewC’s right. You’re an evil POS.

  33. “And the shit about how Sharia law forbids it.”

    It’s not hard to look up the references. If you knew anything about Islam, you’d already know this.

    “If no-one was reporting it, why are police and authorities now apologising?”

    I didn’t say no one was reporting it.

    The police and politicians apologise for lots of things. That doesn’t always mean they did it. I’d hate for a forced apology to be henceforth considered an automatic admission of guilt.

    “So that means they weren’t really Pakistani Muslims then?”

    Don’t know. It seems unlikely that anybody would sin if they genuinely believed in eternal hellfire, but there are a lot of sinners who claim to be religious. Maybe they’re just bad Muslims?

    All I can say is that it’s definitely outlawed in Islam, and it would be considered apostasy to say that it wasn’t.

    “Phew, those parentheses will bring much comfort to the girls.”

    It makes no difference to abused girls what race, nationality, or religion their abusers are. It makes a difference to you, though, doesn’t it? You only care about it when it’s a muslim or immigrant doing it. British white people can rape and sexually abuse children and you’re totally fine with that, aren’t you? Not a word of protest. Not a word of criticism. The subject never comes up, does it?

    While Asians are disproportionately represented among group abusers, the vast majority of abuse is by individuals, and the vast majority of those are white/British. But you don’t care. You’re not interested, because it doesn’t give you any excuse to bash one of your hate groups.

    And by far the biggest group sexual abuse scandal to come along recently is the Catholic Church. It’s a perfect example. The abusers are tied together by their religion/culture. Tens of thousands were abused for decades. The authorities covered it up. Members of the community have downplayed and defended the Church for doing so. How often do you guys mention it, in comparison to Muslims? Should we not also be trying to deport all the Roman Catholics back to Rome, where their allegiances clearly lie?

    Now, rape and sodomy are no more permitted by Christianity than they are by Islam. And I’d not agree with smearing the entire Christian religion – not even just the Catholic bit of it – with the sins of an unrepresentative few. But this is your logic.

    If you don’t immediately take the same attitude to Catholics/Christians, then you are admitting that you don’t care about the victims, and you are simply using them in your political campaign. (Which is a revolting thing to do.)

    If you do decide now to devote as much time and space to castigating the Catholics as you have the Muslims, then I might reconsider my opinion of you and your morals. But I’m not holding my breath.

    On previous occasions when I’ve brought the Catholic Church up, I’ve seen people here actually defending it! Can you believe it?!

    “I’m amazed, given how difficult you claim it is to sort out what was consensual, that anyone has been convicted.”

    There were instances that were clearly not consensual by the end. There are many others where it’s unclear. Abusive relationships are common – the guy thumps her, but she still sticks with him and defends him for a long time. Why would any woman stay in a relationship and not immediately leave, if she didn’t ‘consent’ to being hit? Love can have strange consequences.

    “You saying they should have been found innocent? That it was all a racist plot and that gangbanging a 14 year girl who is out of it on drugs and alcohol is actually a sign of a ‘special boyfriend’ relationship?”

    Strawman.

    ““Blood libels” that your latest SJW buzz phrase? You talk shit. Evil shit.”

    The blood libel is an ancient evil. Everyone ought to be taught to recognise it. I find it worrying that you don’t.

    And I’m not an SJW. You’re an idiot if you think I am.

  34. “You haven’t a clue what the vast majority of mslims think, have you? […] What you have is some soundbites parroted by a few “community leaders”.”

    Really? Where did you get that idea?

    Can you prove it?

  35. Rhoda knapp,

    “Some of those guys were found guilty at the second trial and sentenced a little after the TR thing. I do not like the idea that people (albeit evil offenders) can be jailed in secret, no names and no prison terms announced. Future trial or no. Especially when it will be known in the community who wasd banged up and for how long. If some of the public may know, why not all of the public? What a mass of silly logical inconsistencies the establishment has had to build just to get Tommy.”

    AIUI the point of it not being widely published in the MSM is that the jury may see it snd that would prejudice the trial. The fact that local communities Es of the guilty might know shouldn’t get to the jury who are under strict instructions no t to go looking for evidence or info.

    It’s debatable whether TR posting it was the Sam as the MSM publishing but he was always leaving himself open.

  36. @Steve, October 20, 2018 at 12:11 pm

    The appeal judgment expressly stated nothing TR did could have resulted in the case collapsing.

  37. @NiV

    And so the SJW tactics continue. First it isn’t the systamatic gang rapes by Asian gangs that are the problem, it’s white people saying that there are Asian gangs thatare engaging in systamatic gang rapes.

    Now it’s smearing with claims that I only care because it’s Asian men doing it. FYI two of my neices were sexually assaulted by a supposed family friend and I cared about that.

    So fuck you for that smear.

    And this IS worse. My family case involved one man hiding in the shadows. Knowing that the wrath of his community would fall on him if he were found out. This is gangs. Dozens of men. Patterns of dozens of men. Not hiding. Brazenly joining in. No wrath from his friends. Just back-slapping and taking their turn next.

    And fucks like you trying anything you can to deflect from this being something cultural that is endemic in these communities.

    What a piece of shit you really are.

  38. “First it isn’t the systamatic gang rapes by Asian gangs that are the problem”

    Huh?! Did you really mean to write that?!

    “FYI two of my neices were sexually assaulted by a supposed family friend and I cared about that.”

    My sympathy to your nieces, and you definitely ought to know better, then.

    “And fucks like you trying anything you can to deflect from this being something cultural that is endemic in these communities.”

    It’s endemic in *every* community. 11% of women (and 3% of men) in the UK report having been sexually abused as a child.

    What kind of person would ignore all that in favour of the tiny proportion of *group* abuse cases? Oh, yes. The kind of person who knew that it would allow them to deflect attention away from their own community and on to Muslims.

  39. Funny isn’t it that when it comes to allegations about old white men and MeToo that the suggest funny look or any suggestion of sexual interest is enough or that even consent doesn’t matter as it was an abuse of power and yet NIV is happy to claim a lot of it may have been consensual and Hilary is still blaming Monica, she was an adult she knew what she was doing after all
    But hey in this case apparently they were so desperate for love and affection they would take drugs and let themselves be gangbanged and it’s all consensual so nothing to see here, just love along

  40. First it isn’t the systamatic gang rapes by Asian gangs that are the problem

    Huh?! Did you really mean to write that?!

    Read the first two paragraphs again. Imagine there is a colon after “continue”? The rest of us got it.

  41. ENLB,

    Ah, thanks! So it was supposed to be a strawman argument!

    “First it isn’t the systamatic gang rapes by Asian gangs that are the problem,” it’s rapes, full stop. Why make a distinction?

  42. “Why make a distinction?”
    Think AndrewC made the case pretty well above. But to make it plainer. In the community most of us come from, rape’s regarded as a very serious & despicable action. Shouldn’t think any of us would hesitate in turning in any of our number who’d done what these scum have done. Yet these animals were doing this over a lengthy period. And this is only the 20 that have been brought to trial. One gathers there were others haven’t.
    It’s absolutely impossible that this wasn’t widely known about in the community they come from. There must have been men that were offered the opportunity to take part & didn’t. Others who would have welcomed the opportunity but weren’t offered it. People talk. Even muslims. Yet not a single one of them reported what was happening to the appropriate authorities. This isn’t just a score of vermin that’ve been found guilty. It’s an entire community.

  43. “But to make it plainer. In the community most of us come from, rape’s regarded as a very serious & despicable action. Shouldn’t think any of us would hesitate in turning in any of our number who’d done what these scum have done.”

    Really? I take it you’re not a Catholic, then?

    Nuns and lay staff who worked at the orphanage allegedly humiliated children for bedwetting, did not feed them, repeatedly beat them, and verbally and sexually abused them, according to those who lived there.

    “The order is deeply troubled by each of these failings. As Daughters of Charity our values are totally against any form of abuse and thus we offer our most sincere and heartfelt apology to anyone who suffered under any form of abuse in our care,” Gregor Rolfe, a lawyer for the Daughters of Charity told Lady Smith, a high court judge and chair of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry, last year, reported The Guardian.

    A mass grave filled with the bodies of at least 400 children was discovered close to the orphanage in 2003. …

    https://www.newsweek.com/nuns-arrested-after-years-alleged-physical-and-sexual-abuse-orphanage-1088564

    I mean, What. The. Fuck?!! “Mass graves”…?!

    That’s just one random sample. You’ve only got to Google for Catholic abuse cases to find hundreds!

    The timeline on known Catholic abuse cases goes back to the 1940s, and it’s hard to imagine that it started then. The short summary here 6,721 priests (5.8% of the total) have been formally accused of abusing 18,565 victims, (estimates of the total number range up to 320,000!). Over three billion dollars have been paid in compensation. 19 bishops have been accused, and roughly two thirds of sitting bishops accused of moving abusers to new assignments.

    You don’t think any of you would hesitate in turning in any of your number who’d done what these scum have done? Catholics would! And have!

    Like I said, 11% of UK women report having been sexually abused as children. And it’s not as if non-Asians aren’t being turned in, either. The vast majority of cases are of individual abusers, and with a broadly representative racial distribution.

    The only ones with the racial correlation are the group-abuser cases. And those are the only one’s you’re interested in. As far as you’re concerned: Fuck the tens of thousands of Catholic kids abused by priests. Fuck the tens of thousands of white girls assaulted by white abusers. You’re only interested in talking about the ones done by Muslims.

    And you think *I’m* a ‘POS’ for arguing!

    “Yes, they flog the victims, too.”

    Yep. I didn’t say they were nice.

  44. “Yep. I didn’t say they were nice.”

    But you do say that we should let them in so that they can become nice.
    And when they’ve been here for generations and are still rapey, ripper ropers, you want to divert the subject onto –

    – catholics.

  45. “But you do say that we should let them in so that they can become nice.”

    As nice as the Catholics and all the rest of us…

    So, do you think we should let Catholics in?

    “And when they’ve been here for generations and are still rapey, ripper ropers, you want to divert the subject onto – catholics.”

    I don’t agree that it’s a different subject.

    (And how many generations have the Catholics been here?)

  46. Call it a straw man argument, but you are the one that brought up the consensual argument and that’s sinking to new depths

  47. “Call it a straw man argument, but you are the one that brought up the consensual argument and that’s sinking to new depths”

    I’m not the one drawing the implications from it that you seem to be.

    I was trying the explain why people on the front line often have a lot of difficulty dealing with these cases, and why it wouldn’t necessarily be easy for the police or social workers to prosecute them. It’s not unusual for victims to regard their abusers as ‘boyfriends’. Abusive boyfriends and abusive husbands are, after all, not all that uncommon. That doesn’t make it right. But it does make it difficult and complicated to intervene.

    There are other factors, too. The victims are often blackmailed, or threatened with violence, or made dependent (drugs or money), or are persuaded that they’ll never be accepted again into normal society (usually through destruction of their reputation) and this life is their only alternative. They’re quite often involved in crime themselves (drugs and prostitution, usually, but sometime recruiting more victims for the gang) and they feel both guilty and scared of police involvement. It’s not a simple matter for them to report it to the police – and if they won’t report it formally, there’s little that the police can do.

    I’m not excusing it – that’s only in your fervid imagination. I’m just saying it’s often complicated.

  48. NiV
    I’m not a Catholic. Shouldn’t think many of the people post here are Catholic. Let alone practising Catholic. The UK isn’t a Catholic country.
    WTF have Catholics got to do with anything?

    That said, I have personal reasons to detest Catholicism & the Catholic church. A lot of the people I now deal with come from a continent that was plundered raped & enslaved with the acquiesance, support & in many cases on behalf of the Catholic church. They’re poor people & have been kept poor by the fatalism the Catholic church inculcates & has been for half a millenium. They come to Europe to sell their one asset to send back money to feed their families. And the Catholic priests, who will condemn the lives they lead, are quite content to demand a portion of those proceeds for the use of their church. I find little to choose between Catholicism & Islam.
    You really did pick the wrong argument there.

  49. @NiV:

    and why it wouldn’t necessarily be easy for the police or social workers to prosecute them. It’s not unusual for victims to regard their abusers as ‘boyfriends’. Abusive boyfriends and abusive husbands are, after all, not all that uncommon. That doesn’t make it right. But it does make it difficult and complicated to intervene.

    It would appear that a goodish percentage of the girls involved were under the legal age of consent. Therefore, as a matter of legal fact, they were not able to consent, there’s no need for any interpretation of the law. Under normal circumstances, being pragmatic, the law turns (or used to…) a blind eye to a 15 year-old girl and her 16 year-old boyfriend. However, in these cases of mass sexual activity involving drunk or drugged girls firstly those over the age of consent are now considered by the SJWs of this world to be incapable of giving informed consent, and those below the AoC are legally incapable of consenting.

    You are sounding like the idiot policeman from Telford who, astonishingly, declared that many of these 12 to 14 year-old were having consensual sex with middle-aged men, and even more astonishingly wasn’t fired on the spot (under Ecksian terms!).

  50. “I find little to choose between Catholicism & Islam.”

    “WTF have Catholics got to do with anything?”

    So WTF have Muslims/Asians got to do with anything?

    There is, you agree, little to choose between Catholicism and Islam, both have recent examples of sexual abuse scandals, but only one of them receives any attention from the commentariat here. Only one of them is the basis of loud demands for government action. Why?

    “You really did pick the wrong argument there.”

    Either response works. I figured either you would try to defend Catholicism while condemning Islam, justifying the one-sided treatment here, or you would have to admit that there’s no real difference between the two. With the first option you’d be defending child abuse. With the second option you’re left with no reason for making the distinction, and singling out Muslims/Asians for special attention.

    Personally, I don’t think there’s any reason for making a distinction, so I agree with you on that. But I also don’t think that Catholicism generally (or any other group) ought to be tarred in their entirety with the crimes of a few of them. We should rightly condemn those who committed the crimes, but to condemn thousands of other entirely innocent people who just happen to share a characteristic with them is unjust.

  51. “You are sounding like the idiot policeman from Telford who, astonishingly, declared that many of these 12 to 14 year-old were having consensual sex with middle-aged men”

    Sigh. The problem isn’t that the police are saying it’s consensual, it’s that the girl is saying it’s consensual and so won’t make a complaint to the police!

    There’s no physical evidence available – the only way anyone outside the events can know what went on is if somebody there makes a formal witness statement, and sticks to it up to and through the court case. The girl refuses to do so. So what, as a policeman, are you supposed to do?


    There’s a report here you might find interesting that gives some case histories of a number of abused girls at the end (p105-124). There are a variety of reasons given for not going to the police, one of them being that the girl “still believed he loved her and she wanted to do anything to hold on to him.”

    Real life is not like a kid’s movie. It’s morally messy.

  52. @NiV…

    Sigh. The problem isn’t that the police are saying it’s consensual

    Sigh. In the case I cite it was the police, saying exactly that.

    So what, as a policeman, are you supposed to do?

    Have some knowledge of the law? The Telford clown sought to justify their lack of action by suggesting that the girls were giving consent. This is incorrect, and he should bloody-well have known it! The SOA2003 states very clearly that sexual activity with a child of 13 or under is a crime of strict liability – ie any proof of the action concerned is sufficient, there is no need for mens rea. It matters not that the girls in question didn’t wish to make complaints to the police – their parents certainly did. Thus, any information received by the police concerning these activities should have initiated investigations – but didn’t.

    As for the other under age girls, there’s a defence that can be lead that the accused thought the girl in question to be (a) consenting and (b) was over 16. I refer you to my earlier comment about the presumption of inability to consent when drunk or drugged and also that the exemption is only considered if there is a relatively small age gap between the parties. The list of names and ages in the posting above this one shows that the men were aged between 27 and 54, I very strongly doubt that even a 27 year-old would have any success trying to claim that he believed that a 14 year-old was over 16, so, even if the girl thought that she was consenting, the law thought otherwise.

    Real life is not like a kid’s movie. It’s morally messy

    …so is sophistry.

  53. “It matters not that the girls in question didn’t wish to make complaints to the police – their parents certainly did.”

    How is that evidence?

  54. Oh, yes, and:

    “Have some knowledge of the law? The Telford clown sought to justify their lack of action by suggesting that the girls were giving consent. This is incorrect, and he should bloody-well have known it!”

    It depends on precisely what they said. I can’t find the memo itself, so I don’t know, but the issue in law is informed consent. Children can consent, in the everyday sense, but it isn’t considered “informed”.

    If the cops were simply explaining the circumstances of the crimes or some of the difficulties with obtaining evidence, then “consent” may indeed be accurate. If they were claiming that it was “informed consent” and therefore legal, then yes, that’s wrong.

    All I can find on it are the usual hysterical tabloid articles that show no sign of understanding the distinction, and could very easily be quoting out of context without understanding what was being said. The police may well “[have] bloody well known it” and it’s only the newspapers that don’t.

    Do you have a link to the memo itself, so we can see the context?

  55. “The problem isn’t that the police are saying it’s consensual, it’s that the girl is saying it’s consensual and so won’t make a complaint to the police”

    Thats why Ched Evans and his pal were arrested and prosecuted for rape despite the woman in question never making any allegation of rape whatsoever I suppose…………..there’s any number of men currently in jail for having consensual sex with under age girls, the fact they were up for it is irrelevant, unless the male is also underage too, in which case the law tends to turn a blind eye to what teenagers get up to. However 20,30, 40 something yo men will get done in the blink of an eye (and rightly so) unless they happen to be called Abdul, then its OK according to you.

    I remember a case that made the headlines a good few years ago, Chelsea football coach Graham Rix was jailed for 12 months for sleeping with a girl under 16 (just by a few weeks no less) with absolutely no allegations it was not totally consensual:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/304412.stm

  56. Tommy Robinson Re, re, re Trial 23 October

    Charge: Contempt – civil case

    Court: Old Bailey Criminal Court

    Defence – TR Lawyer/Barrister

    Prosecution – Judge Hilliard who has added two further charges

    Judge – Judge Hilliard

    Jury – No

    A fair trial?

    Diplock Courts in NI were for good reason; no excuse for this hugely worse than Diplock kangaroo court

  57. NiV and Britain’s Liberal Elite Still in Denial About Muslim Rape Gangs

    Another gang of mostly Muslim Pakistani thugs in the north of England (Huddersfield, this time) has been jailed for raping hundreds of mostly underage white girls. But that’s only half the story.

    What’s almost worse is the fact that even after all the widespread evidence that similar groups have been perpetrating these barbaric practices all over Britain for decades, the left-liberal establishment is still determinedly trying to hide the truth of what is happening.

    Let me show you some examples.

    But Javid is being culpably dishonest too. He is using the cant word “Asian” because he dare not use the more politically contentious terms “Muslim” or “Pakistani”. This euphemism doesn’t let him off the hook: it is a grave insult to all those Asian communities – from Chinese to Sikhs – who are perfectly well integrated in Britain and don’t go around gang-raping little girls. Really, we should expect better from a senior member of a supposedly Conservative government

    BBC’s Casciani must surely know – it is his job, after all – “the ringleader of this massive abuse ring” did NOT come “from a Sikh background.”

    Amere Singh Dhaliwal – whose behaviour was described by the judge as “inhuman” – was born a Muslim and has a Muslim wife (and children). As the Mail reports he converted to Sikhism five years ago – largely, it is rumoured, as a ruse to make himself appear more trustworthy to the girls on whom he preyed.

    To say that the gang’s vile, predatory ring-leader comes “from a Sikh background”, then, is a horrible insult to true Sikhs – many of whom have had their daughters too preyed upon by these Muslim gangs.

    Delers spot on with fact based article again.

    Note: I did not comment on Amere Singh Dhaliwal as I had no knowledge, unlike some who read name and made, it would seem, invalid assumptions.

  58. “This euphemism doesn’t let him off the hook: it is a grave insult to all those Asian communities – from Chinese to Sikhs – who are perfectly well integrated in Britain and don’t go around gang-raping little girls.”

    Same goes for 99.9%+ of Muslims and Pakistanis. But it’s OK when you do it, right?

    I mean, don’t you think it’s really funny when you castigate the “Liberal Elite” for smearing a broad category of people with the crimes of a tiny, tiny fraction of them, and in the process of doing so smear a slightly different broad category of people with the crimes of a tiny, tiny fraction of them?! That’s a total hoot! Irony on steroids! It’s so ironic you could pick it up with a magnet!

    Sheesh!

    “Really, we should expect better from a senior member of a supposedly Conservative government”

    Why? When he’s doing exactly what you just did? Or are you saying that you’re operating at a level that even Conservative politicians shouldn’t sink to?

  59. “I mean, don’t you think it’s really funny when you castigate the “Liberal Elite” for smearing a broad category of people with the crimes of a tiny, tiny fraction of them, and in the process of doing so smear a slightly different broad category of people with the crimes of a tiny, tiny fraction of them?!”

    It can’t be the same tiny tiny proportion or otherwise there wouldn’t be any ‘Asian’ grooming gangs at all would there? Thats the whole point – we are of course talking about very small fractions of society when looking at the numbers of men who commit these crimes, however the point is if there are zero chinese grooming gangs, and zero hindu ones and zero christian ones, but lots of Muslim ones, then there is a problem that is specific to Muslims, and it needs addressing, not sweeping under the carpet, like you’re trying to do.

    And the idea that its a tiny tiny % of these communities is wrong as well – with this number of crimes being committed by the number of assailants there is no way that the broader community around these people did not know what was going on, and they have turned a blind eye. These people were not turned in by their own communities, they’ve had to be winkled out by the authorities (eventually). Rather like the whole terrorism thing, many Muslims will turn a blind eye to wrongdoing if the perp is another Muslim. Thats the trouble – the commitment to their religion trumps the commitment to the wider non-Muslim society. And their religion specifically tells them to do this.

  60. “It can’t be the same tiny tiny proportion or otherwise there wouldn’t be any ‘Asian’ grooming gangs at all would there?”

    *Every* tiny, tiny fraction is different, but the *point* is that in each case it’s still a tiny, tiny fraction. 99.9%+ of them didn’t do it, but you want to smear the entire group as if they all did.

    You are dodging the point. Javid was criticised for smearing “Asians” by using the word to describe the gangs (he wasn’t, of course), but to use the words “Muslim” or “Pakistani” is doing exactly the same thing!

    If the news report describes the perpetrator of a terrible crime as “wearing a blue jacket” that doesn’t mean they’re “smearing” all men in blue jackets. 99.9%+ of men in blue jackets are innocent of the crime.

    If the news report describes the perpetrator of a terrible crime as “a stockbroker from Doncaster” that doesn’t mean they’re “smearing” all men in stockbrokers in Doncaster. 99.9%+ of men in stockbrokers in Doncaster are innocent of the crime.

    Any perpetrator can be described using an endless series of adjectives, but you would have to be mentally defective to think that everyone who fitted such an adjective should be put under suspicion, or that anyone using such an adjective intended to “smear” the entire group!

    What was meant, of course, is that you wanted to use the crimes to “smear” Muslims and Pakistanis in exactly the way you criticise, but by using a different adjective (presumably because it’s the one used in official statistics collected about race, so it’s the only evidence-based one you can use), Javid spoiled your fun. If you try to interpret it as a smear, you wind up smearing a different group to the one you intended. The logic’s just the same.

    You’d have to be an idiot to think you was fooling anyone. And I don’t think you’re that stupid.

    “Thats the whole point – we are of course talking about very small fractions of society when looking at the numbers of men who commit these crimes, however the point is if there are zero chinese grooming gangs, and zero hindu ones and zero christian ones”

    Rubbish! I’ve just spent a considerable amount of time detailing the abusive practices of the Catholic Church! Did you somehow miss that?!

    Even if you didn’t read my comments about it above, it’s been in the news for quite a while. Everyone knows what they’ve been up to. You can’t have missed it.

    What you mean, of course, is that you haven’t seen anyone smearing chinese, hindus, and Christians in your usual information sources. You’re assuming they’re honest, and that they’d report them if there were any. Of course, even if you only consider gangs, rather than child rape/child sexual assault generally, it’s not true.

    From the source I gave above:

    The latest data we have on this is from the 2013 CEOP study. It reports 57 cases of Type 1 group abuse in 2012, and police provided ethnicity data on 52 of these.

    Half of those Type 1 cases involved all-Asian groups. 21 per cent were all-white groups, and 17 per cent were groups containing multiple ethnicities.

    75 per cent of recorded Type 1 group abusers, who target victims based on their vulnerability, were Asian. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.5 per cent of the UK’s population are Asian.

    17 per cent of Type 1 offenders were white, compared to 86 per cent of the UK population.

    There were six recorded cases of Type 2 group abuse.

    100 per cent of recorded Type 2 group offenders, who abuse children because of long-standing paedophilic interest, are white.

    And dropping the morally-irrelevant “group” restriction, (from a different source that I’ve given on a previous occasion):

    We contacted the CPS who provided us with the information they publish on defendants in child sex abuse cases. 98% of defendants were male in 2015/16, but no information about the ethnicity of the defendants was published. We then submitted a freedom of information request to the CPS asking for information on the ethnicity of defendants prosecuted in child sex abuse cases.

    It provided us with data on the number of defendants prosecuted for sex offences in cases flagged as relating to child abuse in 2015/16. It also included the ethnicity of those defendants.

    Of the 6,200 or so defendants in these prosecutions, 67% were white, 4% were Asian, 3% were black, 1% were mixed race and 1% were other. For 24% of defendant’s there was no information on their ethnicity. Of all these prosecutions, around three quarters resulted in a conviction.

    The information on defendant’s ethnicity came from information given by the defendants to police, the CPS told us that “It follows that there may be errors or omissions at local levels”.

    There are other figures published by the government on those found guilty of offences against children, but these aren’t as recent. Almost 85% of offenders found guilty of sexual activity with a minor in England and Wales in 2011 were white. 3% were black and 4% were Asian and the rest were either listed as ‘other’ or unknown.

    But these figures don’t tell us everything about sexual offences committed against children. For example, if someone is found guilty of raping a child under the age of 16, this will appear in the figures under ‘rape’ rather than ‘sexual activity with a minor’.

    Where offenders’ ethnicity was known, 81% of people convicted of sexual offences in 2014 were white, 7% were black and 9% were Asian in 2014. These proportions were similar over the previous four years. The government told us it doesn’t regularly publish information on the ethnicity of those found guilty of sexual offences so there is no more recent information.

    The problem is rape and sexual assault, full stop. I’m not going to let you pick out a small fraction of them that you can use for your own political puposes and watch you ignore the rest without pointing it out.

    It’s a problem in *every* community, including yours! Most child-rapists in Britain are white. And it’s well-known that the root source of the problem is an emotionally and socially immature male culture – the macho “lad’s culture” / “gang culture” that treats women as sex objects, that glorifies rebellion against authority, crime, violence, and casual sexual conquests.

    The most severe examples of it are usually a reaction to severe segregation and social restriction in societies that try to delay or prevent the normal development of inter-sexual relationships. Hence Islam and Catholics, of course, but even secular British society has a problem with it.

    So if you’re going to target any particular cultural group for remedial action over it, that group would have to be ‘men’. But of course, you lot don’t like the war on “boys being boys” either, do you? Because most boys – even of the “lad” variety – are not rapists, and don’t appreciate being treated as such.

    Any criteria you use has to identify a group that is more than 50% criminal to be “more right than wrong”. You need one with at least 90% criminal to meet Blackstone’s Formulation. An “almost entirely wrong” criterion getting only 0.1% simply doesn’t cut it.

    Call them “rape gangs” and then yes, by all means do something about it. Additional adjectives are unnecessary.

  61. “The problem is rape and sexual assault, full stop.”

    If you’re going to change the subject in order to “win” the argument, why full stop there? Why not include all manner of bad shit by bad people. The subject of the thread clearly revolves around “Asian grooming gangs”. Nobody except you is talking about wider issues – because they are not the subject under discussion.

    The Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts and Top of the Pops are not grooming gangs. They are organisations that exist for other purposes wherein bad actors abuse the established status of the organisations to access victims. The bad actors also abuse the natural tendency of established organisations to close ranks to protect their reputations. Those organisations subsequently fail abuse victims, but that doesn’t make them an abuse gang. It’s a different subject altogether.

    Jim raised a good point. Where are the Hindu grooming gangs? Where are the Sikh grooming gangs? Why are these “Asian” grooming gangs made up almost exclusively of Muslims? It seems to me that you cannot address this point, and so you resort to your usual tactic of changing the subject.

  62. “If you’re going to change the subject in order to “win” the argument, why full stop there? Why not include all manner of bad shit by bad people.”

    Exactly my point. Because you don’t care about any of the other bad shit by other bad people. The reason you want to stop there is that it wouldn’t be so easy to smear your chosen targets if we did.

    It’s the ‘Group A Group B trick’ again. You’ve got a target group (Muslims) that you want to attack, but your problem is that they’re 99.9% innocent, and everyone will think you’re just being a racist if you try. So you pick a Group B (evil child rapists) that everyone justly hates. Instead of simply targeting Group B, like any sane person would, you pick out and point only to those in the intersection. You kick and scream about the Group B evil to be found in Group A, and demand action against Group A in response. You’re trying to stir up hate against Group A, you’re not interested in and don’t care about what Group B are up to. It’s a political tool; a means to an end.

    The problem with it as a tool is that it’s not specific. It can be deployed against any Group A, including you, and as a policy guide it fails to target all those members of Group B that aren’t in Group A. But if you wave your hands fast enough and keep the conversation on track, you hope the punters won’t notice the cards you’re palming and you’ll fool them all.

    The problem is, I’m stood there in the crowd telling all the punters how the trick works. Annoying, huh?

    We can discuss the criminology of this particular crime if you want, but you’re not actually interested in Group B. All you want is to find new ways to attack Group A.

    “Jim raised a good point. Where are the Hindu grooming gangs? Where are the Sikh grooming gangs? Why are these “Asian” grooming gangs made up almost exclusively of Muslims? It seems to me that you cannot address this point, and so you resort to your usual tactic of changing the subject.”

    Well, I already offered one possibility for that – young men who are kept separated from women and under strict rules about interacting with them tend to develop a very immature “lad culture” attitude to them, and to sex. Because Islam is especially strict, when Muslim boys rebel and go off the rails, it’s rather worse than “Animal House”, “Porky’s” and “American Pie”.

    A simpler explanation is that it’s just chance. People on the edges of society form street gangs – initially for self protection, progressing to a way to run criminal enterprises on a territory. Like the Bloods and the Crips in the US. Their association with poverty has a long history; Dickens wrote about them in ‘Oliver Twist’, for example. When girls join gangs, sex and rape are common. It’s used as an ‘initiation’, as a way of ‘paying the rent’, and very much as a punishment. Modern gangs use rape as a tactic to punish other gangs – either female rival gang members or the female friends and relatives of gang members. They pass around “sket lists” of girls who are being targeted. It’s where the terms “gang rape” and “gang bang” came from. Dickens cleaned it up for publication – the reality of street gang life has always been brutal.

    Gangs form in all marginalised communities, and with strong ethnic divides between communities, gangs tend not to mix. White kids don’t join an Asian gang, and vice versa. And different gangs have their own specialisations. Some specialise in particular drugs, some in bootleg alcohol, some in vice, some in illegal workers, some in violence. One gang will use craft knives, another uses kitchen knives, another uses glass blades. Some use guns, some don’t. Some use corrosive chemicals and some don’t. Some steal cars, some use arson, some do organised shoplifting, some pick pockets or muggings, some run protection rackets, some do domestic burglaries, some do burglaries on businesses. They pass useful techniques on to their followers and allies. They tend to copy what they’ve seen other gang-members do. There are fashions in crime that come and go.

    It appears that a lot of the Asian gangs have taken up this technique of finding vulnerable girls to pick up, for their entertainment. It may be coincidence that it happened to be an Asian gang that had the idea first, and so it spread first among that community. It may be the Asian gangs are more willing to share their victims around while other gangs are tighter-knit. It may be that it was only with the massive publicity campaign targeted by the EDL and BNP at the Asians that the police and authorities were motivated to act. It may be they all do it, but only the Asian gangs have been caught so far.

    We can speculate endlessly, but without data we’re only guessing. The point of all this digression is to say that we don’t know, and it may have nothing at all to do with Asian culture, Pakistani culture specifically, or Islam. Deducing causation from correlation is tricky at the best of times – more so when it’s a correlation you hunted out for other reasons, where you’re blind to any other stronger correlations that might be around.

    We don’t know whether there are any Sikh or Hindu gangs – the police don’t generally record the religion of perpetrators, and there is in any case no objective test – you have to rely on self-identification. There are also no EDL campaigners applying pressure on the authorities to find them. The media attention to it is a highly selective filter – driven by the racist campaign groups. As I noted above: 21% of Type 1 gangs prosecuted in 2012 were all-white – can you recall seeing news coverage of any of them? Enough to know what religion they were? All the Type 2 gangs prosecuted were all white – can you remember seeing coverage of any of them either?

    If you deduce the ethnic makeup of grooming gangs from your memories of the media coverage of them (especially in the sort of media you like to read), you’re going to get a very distorted view of the world.

  63. Have you confused me with someone else again, NiV? These accusations of smearing, targeting and hatred-stiring are quite false and baseless.

  64. “Have you confused me with someone else again, NiV?”

    No, although given that the entire thread is devoted to baseless smears, I don’t see why you should be complaining.

    “These accusations of smearing, targeting and hatred-stiring are quite false and baseless.”

    No they’re not.

    If you’re actually talking about the rape of children, then you’ve got no reason to complain about me bringing up other instances. If you’re going to insist on sticking it on the Muslims, then you’re using the ‘Group A Group B trick’ and engaged in a smear.

    One or the other.

  65. Pcar,

    Interesting.

    The men sent the children home to their parents covered in bruises and with smashed phones. They refused to tell their parents what was going on or speak to the police – sometimes because they were terrified and sometimes because they believed they were in loving relationships.

    Then…

    He said West Yorkshire Police told him the victims would not co-operate and ‘surveillance was very expensive’.

    Then…

    A young woman accompanied by her mother went to a police station and said she had been the victim of sexual abuse. West Yorkshire Police launched Operation Tendersea to investigate the allegations.

    So basically, this is saying that as soon as they had an actual official witness statement/complaint from a victim they could work with, the police launched an operation to investigate.

    Right?

  66. @NiV

    The points I was emphasing :

    1. In 2004 police et al knew these child rape gangs were operating and ignored it for over a decade

    2. “The men hadn’t been trying to hide it“.

    Their fellow “respectable” RoPs knew what these men were doing and accepted it as OK.

    3. Selling living and dead white girls.

    See also:

    Are you satisfied that justice has been done with the Pakistani-Punjabi ethnic Muslim paedophile rape gangs of Huddersfield, Rotherham, and cities across the UK? I’m not, and here’s why you shouldn’t be either.

    That’s because only the pimp gangs organising these mass rapes have been convicted. The many tens of thousands of their customers (almost all from the same ethnic/religious background) have simply not been pursued. In Rotherham, there were over 1400 victims. Their pleas for assistance to police and social services were unheeded. Local Labour politicians steered well clear of the issue, for fear of alienating the community that delivers votes for them at elections.

  67. Yes, and as the police in the article pointed out, none of them were willing to report it to the police. Once someone reported it formally, they started an investigation.

    Although 160 women were interviewed, only 16 were willing to act as witnesses.

    I don’t know whether the newspaper article is accurate, but if it is, it explains very clearly what the problem was. As we’ve found out with all the #MeToo stuff, it’s very easy to throw accusations around, and in domestic conflicts it’s not unusual. So the police (rightly) can’t prosecute on the basis of unsupported hearsay, they require solid evidence. This is of course a big problem where you have victim intimidation and victims emotionally involved with their abusers, and where it’s only one person’s word against another’s. It’s the same with domestic violence and rape/sexual assault generally. It’s why a lot of women don’t report it.

    The front line police are generally not shy about arresting and prosecuting minorities – the latter complain vociferously about the way the police target them for stop-and-searches and drugs arrests. I doubt very much if, presented with solid evidence of a crime of this sort, they’d hesitate to prosecute.

    But whatever. I doubt anything I say could break through your narrative. I don’t think there’s any more to be said.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.