Basharat Khaliq, of Glaisdale Court, Allerton, Bradford, was found guilty of five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, police said. He was jailed for 20 years.
Saeed Akhtar, 55, of Back Girlington Road, Bradford, was found guilty of one charge of rape and two charges of causing or inciting child prostitution. He was jailed for 20 years.
Naveed Akhtar, 43, of Newport Place, Bradford, was found guilty of two counts of rape. He was jailed for 17 years.
Parvaze Ahmed, 36, of Farcliffe Road, Bradford, was found guilty of three charges of rape. He was jailed for 17 years.
Izar Hussain, 32, of St Leonard’s Road, Bradford, was found guilty of rape. He was jailed for 16 years.
Zeeshan Ali, 32, of Durham Terrace, Bradford, was found guilty of sexual assault. He was jailed for 18 months.
Kieran Harris, 28, of Fir Parade, Dewsbury, was found guilty of two counts of rape. He was jailed for 17 years.
Fahim Iqbal, 28, of Quarry Road, Dewsbury, was found guilty of aiding and abetting one of Harris’s rapes. He was jailed for seven years.
Mohammed Usman, 31, of Quaker Street, Bradford, was found guilty of two counts of rape. He was jailed for 17 years.
All good Yorkshiremen of course.
How much is that going to cost? Perhaps it’s time to impose a council tax surcharge on mosques to help defray the expense of incarcerating adherents whose cultural and religious proclivities land them in clink.
Totally unexpected, of course, and it wouldn’t be helpful for the natives to notice any patterns.
Can’t we strip them all of citizenship?
Ah, the blessings of diversity.
Can’t we strip them all of citizenship?
Can’t we strip them all of life? Then strip citizenship from the families who covered up for them.
“Can’t we strip them all of life? ”
Careful MC, the multiculti-mongers will have conniptions.
Yeah but Tommy’s a racist!
Given we will never get the death penalty back, and the eye watering costs of the (only temporary) incarceration of these culturally enriching individuals, a middle ground would be snipping off all dangly bits. My tree lopper would do the job effectively and cheaply with a bit of honing to the edges.
Remember, bigots, Muslim rape gangs, Muslim suicide bombers, Muslim ISIS brides, Muslim head-choppers and Muslim clit-snippers have nothing to do with Islam.
Ah, the good old “goolie” solution…
Where’s Ironman when you need him to shout that everyone’s a racist for noticing this going on?
If someone identifies as Muslim, proclaims the bestness of Islam and goes around acting like (what they think) a Muslim is, then that’s nothing to do with Islam and we’re all frightful bigots if we think it is and agree with their perception.
If someone identifies as the other gender, proclaims they are now the other gender (despite presence of original genders physical plumbing) and goes around behaving like they think the other gender behaves, then they are that gender, and we’re all frightful bigots if we think they aren’t disagree with their perception.
Why bother sharpen?
Using dull blades just makes the punishment that but more deterring
“Where’s Ironman when you need him to shout that everyone’s a racist for noticing this going on?”
There’s a new nutter in town to do that now, I can never remember what name he goes under, but there’s always one who shows up to declare that because the majority of people jailed for child molesting (in the UK as a whole) are white men, its all OK that a bunch of Muslims immigrants have behaved like the Red Army raping its way across Germany in 1945.
Bravefart, not bravery.
I must look out for this new quisling. I am interested in their point (not yours, merely delivered by you) that the majority of child sex offenders are people called Bob Smith and Pete Jones.
Insofar as that is statistically true, and allowing for the per capita aspect, it does help skew the figures against ‘Asian’ rapists if the parents of raped girls, or the girls themselves, are, when they complain to the police, told to fuck off and/or arrested for racism.
Perhaps in the future we will see the figures changing slightly, as plod finally seems to have half-remembered who is paying his wages. Though I would bet my house he is still ignoring as much as he can.
Further, while there are undoubtedly child molesting scum called Bob Smith and Pete Jones out there, they are rarely marauding round in gangs of ten or twenty, picking girls up at the school gates in broad daylight, passing them around over years, and torturing and murdering them as well as merely raping them.
They are a little more discreet, and it’s precisely the lack of discretion shown by the other mob which is the clearest indicator of what;s actually going on.
@Jim – you mean the undelightful N I V. He believes that giving them levis and mobile phones will solve this problem
Has the Left’s dream come true, and they have found the Magic White Man they can hold up and scream “SEE! We told you it was nothing to do with Islam/Pakistan/whatever!”.
Mr Harris looks… somewhat dusky himself.
I’m somewhat surprised this article ran in The Guardian.
The secret here is that if the news desk runs a piece giving the names of those found guilty that’s OK. If anyone wrote a piece saying “Here are the Pakistani Muslims convicted” then that would be racism.
Also, the news desk at the G isn’t as bad as the opinion section….
British-Pakistani researchers say 84% of grooming gang members are Asian: ‘It’s very important we talk about it”
So by Asian they don’t mean from the steppes of Kazakhstan do they? They actual mean Islamic types from Pakistan. I mean, if we’re going to have honesty in reporting, lets have it.
Yes, Ironman, I know… “I’m a wacist bigot”.
Unfortunately, white british parents are going to have to do what sikh and hindu parents did in the early 90s – keep their daughters under lock and key. No socialising with young brown men whatsoever. Though I admit a lot of the victims come from backgrounds where the parent/parents have no control over the family and perhaps couldn’t care less.
@Amrit – “Though I admit a lot of the victims come from backgrounds where the parent/parents have no control over the family and perhaps couldn’t care less.”
If you create a social underclass of care home refugees for whom the nearest thing to a parent is a social worker who cannot be paid to care, then don’t be surprised when this social underclass gets exploited by sexual predators (regardless of their origins).
But the resolution to this is would require a radical overhaul of the family courts and social services system to avoid taking children into care (and therefore destroying their life chances). While these matters are conducted in secret with little external oversight the dreadful costs, both financially and in lives blighted by poor decisions will continue to be made.
Far better to scrap the entire social services system altogether and just have draconian enforcement of the guilty and bugger political correctness.
But that would take an iron will that no longer exists within the local government, civil service and political bureaucracy of this country.
@John Galt. It’s quite simple. If a muslim does something bad (rape etc) it’s nothing to do with islam so he’s labelled Asian. If he does something good (scratches head) it’s all to do with Islam so he’s labelled muslim. This is the mantra the msm hugs to it’s bosom.
‘If you create a social underclass of care home refugees for whom the nearest thing to a parent is a social worker who cannot be paid to care, then don’t be surprised when this social underclass gets exploited by sexual predators (regardless of their origins).”
I admit I’m not up on the history of these things but I’d guess there have always been “care home refuges”. Were the grooming gangs all white back in the 50s, 60s and 70s? Or weren’t there grooming gangs before we became culturally vibrant? Because if there weren’t then your ‘regardless of their origins’ becomes redundant, does it not?
“If you create a social underclass of care home refugees for whom the nearest thing to a parent is a social worker who cannot be paid to care,”
To be fair to individual social workers (thats not something you hear me say often) they can’t actually DO anything to stop the children in their care from disappearing off with every Abdul, Aziz and Mohammed that turns up in an old Mercedes, even if they wanted to (and I’m sure plenty do care for their wards). They’re not allowed to grab young Chantelle and say ‘You’re not going anywhere at 8pm at night young lady, you’re staying in your room!’, that would be assault and kidnap. Its their ‘uman right to go off shagging middle aged Asian men if they want to……..
“It’s quite simple. If a muslim does something bad (rape etc) it’s nothing to do with islam so he’s labelled Asian. If he does something good (scratches head) it’s all to do with Islam so he’s labelled muslim.”
It’s simple. A Muslim man just stole and ate my bacon sandwich. Can we blame that on Islam?
As Tim notes above, most of this lot are from Bradford. And all of this lot are men. Hence, by the same logic, we need to do something about either everyone from Bradford, or all men. Why do you think that makes any sense?
(PS. Thanks to those who filled in most of my arguments for me. You’re starting to learn! 🙂 )
“Or weren’t there grooming gangs before we became culturally vibrant?”
You might want to ask the Catholic Church that question.
“most of this lot are from Bradford. And all of this lot are men. Hence, by the same logic, we need to do something about either everyone from Bradford, or all men. Why do you think that makes any sense?”
They’re also all Muslims (maybe our Kieran excepted, though he doesn’t exactly look Sikh, C of E or Confucian) so perhaps we should do something about all Muslims instead?
See how NIV avoided expanding it outwards further – they’re Bradfordians, they’re males – why not expand further to say they’re not pensioners, and not pre-pubescent.
What does it tell us about policy? Not a lot.
But expand the question outwards you did sir. So why not run your thought process the other way and drill inwards
How many were degree educated ( i.e. passed a degree, or passed A-levels if under 22 )?
How many were Sunni? As opposed to Ahmadi or Shia.
Uncomfortable questions if you have the tabula rasa view. Imv, of course.
@ AndrewC: ” Or weren’t there grooming gangs before we became culturally vibrant? ”
Not quite ‘gangs’ but men, of various complexions, who preferred boys seemed to feature heavily in the 1980’s and 90’s:
“ Most seriously, it also reported that there was a culture that tolerated relationships between care staff and teenage boys. It also blocked the investigation of people from gay or ethnic backgrounds.”
“Were the grooming gangs all white back in the 50s, 60s and 70s?”
I was looking up old reports of the Islington care home abuse scandal (80s and early 90s – the one that Margaret Hodge tried to sweep under the carpet), and came across a quote – in the Guardian – that the Council “blocked the investigation of people from gay or ethnic backgrounds”. So perhaps this started earlier than I thought.
There was historic abuse at children’s homes and boarding schools etc. But no where near the level of systemised satanic abuse that the papers were trying to spread.
Remind of a comment from a First Nations elder I saw speaking about the residential schools when people were talking about the church and evil he pointed out that where prey gathers you will always find predators
Lets not forget that Cyril Smith the Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) for Rochdale from 26 October 1972 – 9 April 1992 was under investigation for child abuse allegations in 1970, but these allegations were brushed under the carpet.
MI5 knew of cover-up over Cyril Smith child abuse, inquiry hears
So it’s not just the care home workers, Christian Brothers, priests, coppers and local politicians that are into a bit of assorted child sexual abuse, some MP’s have been into it too.
Not that this is surprising to anyone. If people have power over anything (money, sex, resources) then somebody will abuse that power at some point. Which is why the best solution is to try not to give power to (or over) anyone.
I never thought the Cyril Smith cover-up was very successful; I remember us sniggering about him as schoolboys in the early 80s.
But I suppose there was a lot of him to cover up.
“See how NIV avoided expanding it outwards further – they’re Bradfordians, they’re males – why not expand further to say they’re not pensioners, and not pre-pubescent.”
Brilliant idea! Let’s do that!
“Uncomfortable questions if you have the tabula rasa view. Imv, of course.”
Depends whether you subscribe to the ‘Group A Group B Trick’ of course. If you don’t, not uncomfortable at all.
Many have said of Jimmy Savile (before the revelations, if they can be described as such), “I knew he were an odd fucker”. The problem is that there is a world of difference between “odd fucker” and “kiddy fiddler”.
Ok NIV, you want your grandchildren to be safe in the future. What’s the best policies in your view.
-I don’t want unproductive policing going after all the groups we’ve mentioned, which is starting to cover all primates. If someone running away from a crime scene is observed doing a sub 5:00 minute mile fully clothed, then it was unlikely to be a woman.
-I want productive policing. Not a police State where everyone is a suspect and informant. In the end it’s all about productivity.
It has become very noticeable that the Gruniad has more and more articles without comments these days, even under the opinion banner, now why could that be !
“I admit I’m not up on the history of these things but I’d guess there have always been “care home refuges”. Were the grooming gangs all white back in the 50s, 60s and 70s? Or weren’t there grooming gangs before we became culturally vibrant?”
Reckon Margaret Hodge would be your go-to for expertise on that one.
To respond to NiV’s usual bollocks. There’s a fundamental difference between the Asian “grooming gangs” & historic child sex abuse rings. They were grooming children almost entirely for their own use. So what was going on wasn’t known outside a very small circle. The Asian gangs were renting them out. To do that they had to get customers which means they had to be offering the stock about. It’s the nature of this business that not all men offered the opportunity will take it. Generally it’s a minority. So a lot of men must of been asked over a lengthy period. Things like that don’t remain a secret. Especially in close communities where everybody knows everybody else by one or two removes. Ergo, what was going on must have been well known throughout the community. And none of them said a dicky-bird.
It’s not just the men just convicted. It’s the entire community.
@ John Galt
Let us not forget that Cyril Smith was the *Labour* Mayor of Rochdale and it was the *Labour* party that arranged the cover-up.
Savile–as said often before– likely did nothing other be the fall guy in the wrong time/place to start a Marxist/feminist bullshit storm–largely facilitated by Treason May and her Yewtree circus.
Once you look at the stories in terms of evidence, meta-data and known contradictions they fall apart faster than Andrew’s salts dissolve in water.
Smith I have done no research on. But all claims of any one man –who is not some kind of King or Autocrat (council prick/MP doesn’t–or didn’t in Smith’s time–cut it) and is from a non-rapey culture–being a one man abuse army are suspect in my book.
Now–at the other end of the scale we have that propagandist evildoer NiV –who is a deceitful bullshit salesman for CM. He chunks upwards always in a transparent attempt to muddy the waters and hide his eternal egotistical wickedness and stupidity. They’re not RoP they’re humans who wear trousers so we should lock up anyone who… blah.blah,blah. But millions of innocent folk also wear…..
As always –NiV=bullshit on stilts.
WiggiatLarge–Gab has this new function where you can add comments on a screen with the original piece still up. It can’t force comments onto lying leftist pages but you can open Gab and see the original piece and then freely comment on it. So anyone with Gab HAS a comments page for Gladrag or any other left-liar page.One that anybody with Gab can look at. Not as good as forcing the Gladrag to have comments but still a great idea and something likely to grow and grow.
News just out on Lord Ahmed, a Pakistan-born resident of Rotherham, South Yorkshire. If being made a life peer isn’t enough to turn someone away from raping underage girls, what is?
“To respond to NiV’s usual bollocks. There’s a fundamental difference between the Asian “grooming gangs” & historic child sex abuse rings. They were grooming children almost entirely for their own use.”
You may be thinking of the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 child sex abusers. One type are paedophiles specifically interested in children, quite rare, the other are just standard heterosexual men interested in anything young and female, who target teenagers because they’re vulnerable and naive and easier to pressure.
That the criminal world does this has been long known. Any cop show on TV will have many examples of the trope. Cop goes to talk to street girls, for information. The cops know what’s going on, but they can’t do anything about it because the girl will fight them if they try. The girls are society drop-outs, no-hopers, drug-users, no education, no job, no money, no class the sort of rough housing estate residents you might see on the Jeremy Kyle show. They’re often abused and pimped out by their boyfriends, but won’t report it. They need the money. Often, their ‘boyfriend’ is the best they can hope to get, someone they’re dependent on, and frequently somebody they’re seriously scared of. If she reports it and he gets off – which he probably will because it’s her word against his, and she’s usually morally compromised too – he’s going to come after her. So she won’t talk, and the cops can’t do anything without solid evidence.
They’re gang members. When you get a lot of poor people packed together some turn to crime. The police are no use for defending the community since the criminals live closer and always around, so they form gangs for mutual protection. And then the gangs run the crime in their turf. You get the gan’s protection from other gangs, but in return you have to participate in their criminal activities. They’re used to violence. They’re used to enforcement, and revenge attacks. For a boy to join a gang, he’ll probably have to fight on their behalf. If girls want to get into gangs, they usually have to trade sex for it, although they often are also involved in shop-lifting, fraud, or hiding the stash. They can either be the girlfriend of a male gang member, or join the gang in their own right. But in the gang they’re still second-class citizens, and open to abuse. They’re commonly required to have sex with multiple partners – it’s where the phrase “gang-bang” originally came from back in the 1950s. If you see any depiction of a street gang, there will often be a bunch of girls hanging around with them – generally young, grossly underdressed, and vulnerable.
So of course people know about it. We knew about the Mafia. We knew about the London criminals, the Kray twins and so on. We know today about the London drug gangs – knifings, shootings, rapes, and murders are common. We know that those who rat them out to the police get targeted for violent retribution. As a member of the gang you’re expected to join in, to act and be like them, to like doing the things they do. Details of how their society works internally have been reported in the papers. But knowing about it and being able to stop it are two different things. The police need solid evidence, cooperative reliable witnesses who will stand up in court, forensic evidence, etc. They need to be able to *prove* beyond reasonable doubt it’s not a false accusation. The #MeToo crowd argue that we should always believe the girl, and that rape accusations are never false, but that’s not a road any man should want society to go down. Real life is messy, and often in shades of grey.
Street gangs of all ethnicities treat young women this way, and always have. Whether the Yorkshire gangs are unusual in going after younger girls more, and if so why, is an open question. It may be they are, for any of a hundred different possible reasons. Some gangs specialise. Maybe one person had the idea and it spread locally. Maybe there were an unusually large number of vulnerable girls in those towns. Or it may be that all criminal gangs do it, but the EDL picked on those few gangs that happened to be Asian and ran a massive publicity campaign trying to highlight what was going on, to stir up racial hatred against asians generally. That prodded the girls into reporting it to the police, since there was suddenly more support and more chance they’d be believed, and maybe it prodded the police to devote more resources to it. Usually it’s seen by police as an attempt to bail out the ocean – remove one gang, and two more pop up to replace it. They normally just try to keep it under control. But with the publicity they would be forced into spending more resources.
It’s a complex and messy situation, with lots of unknowns, and lots of different factors contributing. I’d think the biggest two were poverty, and the adolescent male “lad culture” attitude to women. Gangs in poor areas are a difficult problem to solve. It’s not helped by every article on the subject either raising the subject of race/religion, or being attacked for not raising it, when it’s only one of a hundred other factors also not being mentioned and that likely has nothing to do with it. But stupid people are attached to their fallacies. We want to attack group A. Group B have done something bad, and overlap slightly more with Group A than the average. If we highlight the tiny group in the intersection, pointing out repeatedly that these Group B baddies are members of Group A and don’t mention all the infinitely many other groups they’re members of, maybe we can get society to do something about the latter.
And the problem with that is that it’s a trick that anyone can play on any Group A they choose. As Bongo says, the logic of the method ultimately leads to us targeting all primates. But pointing that out doesn’t convince any of them that the fallacy is stupid and should be abandoned totally, oh no! All they want to know is how they can draw the line, so they can use it on the groups they want to use it on, but not have it spread to include themselves. There’s no reasoning with such people.
But it’s fun to try!
What I don’t understand with people like NiV is why they don’t just say, Yes, you’re right, it’s obvious that there is a serious problem with muslim men in mostly northern towns abusing, raping and torturing young white girls in significant numbers.
Because it fucking is obvious. I mean, the government’s own reports found this (and that it was not investigated for fear of shouts of ‘Racism!’ of the sort dished out by people like the conspicuously quiet Ironman). Labour MPs have talked about it. Pakistani lawyers and ‘community leaders’ have talked about it.
But NiV keeps on trying to pretend we only notice because we’re racists and that it’s no different to anything else.
All I gather from that lot is someone watches far too much television.
One wonders about the point of having a “care home” for underage girls that can’t keep them in at night.
@interested “But NiV keeps on trying to pretend we only notice because we’re racists and that it’s no different to anything else.
My theory is that NiV hopes that by making excuses for the Pak child rapists, they’ll be grateful and that one evening he’ll be allowed to stop guarding the empty taxis and be invited to have a go at some drugged up underage girl.
Or he’s a cunt.
As pointed out by others, this goes community wide. There were dozens in the organising gangs, hundreds of rapists and thousands in the communities who knew. There are no parallels outside the Pak Muslim community.
“One wonders about the point of having a “care home” for underage girls that can’t keep them in at night.”
Proof, if any were needed, that the lefts dream – the state as parent – is a shitty idea and cant work.
The counter to your group A group B fallacy is simple and obvious and if you have failed to notice it since you came here, it’s from lack understanding of you audience.
Young British girls a the victims of these crimes. The country is supposed to looks after its own citizens first. If every time a person comes to Britain from Pakistan to improve their lives, we slightly increase the child rape at the expense of a British girls getting raped.
Every time you repeat your group A group B argument, you basically say that you prefer a non-Brit to get a better life even if a Brit gets raped.
Even if the Brits here do more rape, that is no reason to make the country more rapist filled.
Even if immigrants commit less crime on average than a native, you are still adding to the total crime at the expense of the native populace.
That is never going to sell!!!!!!! Except to the left, who already hate their own country men, women LGBTQ +++wtf personage.
“But NiV keeps on trying to pretend we only notice because we’re racists and that it’s no different to anything else. Why?”
Because you only notice because you’re racists and it’s no different to anything else. Really.
You lot: The moon is the same size as the sun. It’s obvious! Just look at them!
NiV: No, the sun is a lot bigger than the moon. It just looks the same size because it’s a lot further away.
You lot: Why does NiV keep pretending the sun is bigger than the moon, that it only looks the same size because it’s further away?
NiV: Because it is!
You lot: Don’t be ridiculous! Just look at them! It’s obvious!
You lot: Idiot!
To someone using the ‘Group A Group B Trick’, it seems “obvious” because it’s a vaguely plausible-sounding argument that confirms what they already believe to be true. They don’t think about checking the logic – because they don’t want to, don’t think they need to, and they probably wouldn’t know how to. “It’s obvious! How do you check something that’s obvious?”
But as soon as you use the exact same method to prove a claim they believe to be false, they can see the fallacy straight away. They’re all men. They’re all from the north. They’re all heterosexual. They all wear trousers. … They’re all primates. There are an infinite number of ‘Group A’ categories they belong to. And it would obviously be stupid to try to smear any of those other categories in toto with the crimes of Group B. You wind up with stupid statements like “All men are rapists”, which you know are not true. (Feminists, of course, think that’s a statement of the obvious…) You can see immediately that near objects look bigger than objects further away when you already know how big they are. But that doesn’t help with the sun/moon thing if the picture in your head you’re checking that against has them the same size.
It’s like watching a toddler that refuses to let go of a favourite toy. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
You might want to ask the Catholic Church that question.
Niv we don’t need to ask them, we hold them in contempt because of their actions and do not give them the benefit of the doubt.
We especially don’t turn and around and say hey the Church is blameless! It’s just some random Europeans! Nothing to see here, no lessons to be learned, avert your eyes!
Now stop trying to defend the indefensible.
The major problem with your example NiV is that we are the ones saying the sun is much bigger than the moon, and you are the one saying it isn’t.
We’re not racist – we are the ones generally complaining that it is unfair to refer to these criminals as “Asians“ (which is the closest anyone gets to a racial description, usually) and that we should perhaps more properly refer to them by their religious affiliation, or their nationality of origin. I don’t see anyone on here attacking Sikhs or Hindus or Indians, who are generally racially indistinguishable from most of these perpetrators, and that is because they are not generally the perpetrators, and we are not racists.
You guys don’t like to accept this, because ‘racism!’ is such a powerful, if juvenile, retort, but Islam is not a race: there are yellow, black, white, brown and beige Muslims, and that’s an end to that.
It is amusing to watch people like you, who are genuinely enabling the rape and torture of young girls by your active defence of their rapists and torturers, trying to seize the high ground.
“We’re not racist – we are the ones generally complaining that it is unfair to refer to these criminals as “Asians“ (which is the closest anyone gets to a racial description, usually) and that we should perhaps more properly refer to them by their religious affiliation, or their nationality of origin.”
And why is referring to them by their religion or nationality any better (or different) to referring to them by their race? Or their sex, or city of residence, or blood group, or any other characteristic?
Why not simply refer to them as rapists?
“It is amusing to watch people like you, who are genuinely enabling the rape and torture of young girls by your active defence of their rapists and torturers, trying to seize the high ground.”
How many times do I have to explain the same point? I’m NOT defending any rapists and torturers (Group B). I’m defending the people who are NOT rapists and torturers, but who happen to share a particular characteristic with a few of them (Group A).
This is the same damn point I’ve been repeating for months, and you’re still apparently too thick to get it. You want to attack Group A (e.g. Muslims), but the public don’t agree. So you find a Group B (rapists) that overlaps, and you highlight the overlap cases, using their Group B membership to arouse public outrage, but directing all your proposals for a preventative or punitive response against Group A. Anyone who points out that 99%+ of Group A are innocent you accuse of defending Group B.
I’m not defending the rapists! They’re Group B, the bad guys, the ones I keep telling you that you should be blaming. As far as I’m concerned, anyone convicted should be jailed for a very long time. What I’m objecting to is greasy liars exploiting child rape to further their sordid propaganda campaigns against all the many instantiations of Group A. Who are NOT the rapists. Who when the SJWs pull the same slimy trick can include you.
Are you seriously telling me that even after all this time you’re still too thick to understand what the ‘Group A Group B Trick’ actually is? That the entire point of the argument has somehow bypassed your understanding? Or are you just ‘playing dumb’ to be annoying?
Group A are the scumbag gangs, a steady procession of which are being jailed for drugging, raping, pimping out and generally treating as worthless commodities vulnerable white girls nearly all teenagers, many under the age of legal consent.
Group A are 95% Pak Muslims.
In addition to the gangs convicted, hundreds of the gangs’ friends in their communities also raped these girls while shoutingg vile insults at them.
You say there’s nothing we can deduce from this about the attitude of Pak Muslim men?
Because, oh look, over there – a squirrel.
“Group A are the scumbag gangs”
Ohhh! You want to fight ‘scumbag gangs’? Why didn’t you say so?
I’ve got no objection whatsoever to you taking on ‘scumbag gangs’. But that’s not the phrase you used, is it?
I’m perfectly fine with attacking Group A (Mohammedans). It’s a fucking evil death cult and should be put on the same footing as Aztec human sacrifice or Thuggee. Sooner the world’s shot of it the better.
“Whether the Yorkshire gangs are unusual in going after younger girls more, and if so why, is an open question.
Fucking Yorkshires. You never get this problem in Oxford or Bristol or Aylesbury.