History repeats itself in the UK: another child sex abuse ring and another coverup
Seems to be Rotherham all over again:
The Sunday Mirror blew open ANOTHER child sex abuse ring in Britain. This 18-month investigation found up to 1,000 girls, as young as 11, raped, sold for sex, and even killed for over 40 years in Telford, located 146 miles southeast of London.
If you read about Rotherham you know what I’m talking about (I wrote about Rotherham here). The pattern in Telford seems to be the same: decades-long sexual abuse of many young girls who were essentially turned into sex slaves by groups of “Asian” men, with the authorities looking the other way despite numerous reports, and sometimes punishing those who tried to call it to their attention:
—Social workers knew of abuse in the 1990s but police took a decade to launch a probe
—Council staff viewed abused and trafficked children as “prostitutes” instead of victims, according to previously unseen files
—Authorities failed to keep details of abusers from Asian communities for fear of “racism”
—Police failed to investigate one recent case five times until an MP intervened
—One victim said cops tried to stop her finding out why her abusers had not been prosecuted because they feared she would talk to us
As for this “Asian” business (the men in both cases appear to be Middle Eastern), I discussed that already here. Although to people in the US it seems to be a word the British MSM is using to coverup the actual ethnic and religious origins of the perpetrators, in Britain it is not as complete a coverup as it seems, although it still is a coverup of sorts.
In Britain the word “Asian” is commonly used to mean people from South Asia (India and Pakistan, as well as Bangladesh). As I wrote in that post I just linked:
So it seems that the use of the word “Asian” itself, in reference to this story, is a way of at least partially hiding the origins of the criminals, because it lumps all South Asian Britons together, and they are most definitely not a unitary group. By doing so it not only hides the actual country from which these people came [in Rotherham it was Pakistan], but it hides the religion they practice, which is predominantly the Muslim religion.
It appears so far that this pattern of mostly Pakistini perpetrators is holding for Telford, as well. It is not bigotry to point out this fact; here’s a relevant article from last December:
In a new study, Quilliam says its researchers discovered differences in the way paedophiles from different backgrounds operated.
It said white offenders often acted alone, while child abusers from Asian backgrounds were more likely to work in so-called grooming gangs.
The organisation, which usually focuses on counter-extremism, said it found 222 of 264, or 84 per cent, of people convicted of specific grooming-gang crimes in the UK since 2005 were Asian…
The report’s co-author, Haras Rafiq, is from Rochdale, where 19 British-Pakistani men were jailed between 2012 and 2015 after a grooming ring thought to have abused at least 47 girls was uncovered.
Mr Rafiq told Sky News: “I’m from the heart of where one of the biggest high-profile cases has happened over the last few years, and I’m saying it’s very important that we do talk about it because the problem won’t go away.
“We didn’t want there to be a pattern of people from our ethnic demographic carrying out these attacks. But unfortunately we were proven wrong.”
Non-Asian men in Britain also abuse children, but the pattern is different:
… in “Type 1” offenders work in groups such as grooming gangs to target victims based on vulnerability, while “Type 2” offenders form paedophile rings to carry out abuse because of a specific sexual interest in children.
The “Asian” men tend to be Type 1 whereas the others tend to be Type 2. Although the article doesn’t mention it, I am fairly sure that authorities in Britain don’t look the other way and fail to investigate or prosecute the non-Asian men they way they did in Rotherham and Telford with the “Asian” men, for fear of being accused of racism. My guess is that this pattern existed in other communities in Britain, too.
bet you this ASIAN man isn’t a Chinese, Korean or Japanese.
Why use a identifier when the meaning of it is so board that it lacks the ability to distinguish anything?
Why call the person Asian, just call it an organism to avoid sexism with identifying him as a man or speciesism with identifying that person as a person.
Hurts my heart.
More authorities taking care of a narrative instead of doing their jobs and taking care of people, in this case powerless girls.
I wonder how British men in these communities handle this information.
Somebody’s going to have to re-write Rule Brittania!
The Pommies have gone supine before the invading hoards.
Tragedy really to see Europe lost without firing a shot, and now England too.
Dave:
Brits know what the term means, though. That’s a British paper, and in Britain the term never means anything other than Pakastani, Indian, or from Bangladesh. It’s explained here.
The confusion (for the British reader) isn’t with people of Chinese, Japanese, or Korean descent. The confusion is between people from Pakistan and people from India, when the more general term “Asian” is used. As far as I know, the sex ring people were of Pakastani descent.
“Why use a identifier when the meaning of it is so board that it lacks the ability to distinguish anything?”
Same reason Germany publishes wanted posters with the faces censored. To make it look like the authorities are doing something about it, without actually doing anything about it.
Yet another example of government failure. What motivates these officials to look the other way? Do they fear for their personal safety? Are they afraid they’ll be accused of racism or anti-Asian (Brit definition) bias? So what if they thought these kids were prostitutes, isn’t that illegal in Britain?
This is the sort of story that induces in me pain and anguish as well as anger and a desire for vengeance, not to mention its hardly receiving any coverage at The Guardian or on the BBC, although it is, without question, the most egregious human rights atrocity anywhere in the West over the last generation. Meanwhile, the spineless authorities in the UK have denied entry to the conservative Youtuber Lauren Southern.
steve walsh To answer your question, search for “rotherham” and “diversity” or “rock the multicultural boat”
Any society that refuses to protect its females has no future.
“All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplus, adornment, luxury, and folly, which can and must be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “Women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal.” R.A. Heinlein
note: by “racial survival” Heinlein was referring to the entire human race.
I know it’s a geek thing and not nearly as serious as the subject of the article, but 146 miles southeast of London is France. How about northwest?
Jvermeer:
You are correct: reciprocal bearing? Telford is NW of London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford
You don’t have to be an old biblical prophet of YHVH to see evil. You just need to have open eyes and pay attention.
Surah 33:59:
This is one of those verses in the Quran that, when a non-Muslim cites it, Muslims accuse the non-Muslim of taking it out of context. That’s almost always a red herring. Throughout the Quran there are numerous verses in which Allah claims that the Quran is a perfectly clear book that explains everything in detail. What the Muslim is attempting to do is to claim that they know better than Allah or Muhammad what the Quran means, which is heresy. I always enjoy challenging the Muslim by giving them all the context they can stand and more, both putting it in scriptural context by citing surrounding verses as well as using the authoritative Islamic texts to put it in historical context.
There is no context that can save the Quran. It turns out that Allah says exactly what he means and verses such as the above are just as bad as they first appear. Often even worse.
The fact of the matter is that among the horrible teachings of Islam is that non-Muslim women only exist for the sexual pleasure of Muslim men. There are ahadith that teach that the only non-Muslims who will enter paradise are Christian and Jewish women, who will become the sex slaves of the Muslim men. Every Friday across Europe and North America (but more commonly in Europe where the Muslim population has reached critical mass in many countries) Imams and Sheikhs give sermons that that women who aren’t wearing head scarves are prostitutes.
In 2006 the senior Sunni cleric in Australia gave a sermon in Sydney’s largest mosque in which he compared uncovered women to uncovered meat. This was following some high profile trials. A Muslim rape gang had been caught after committing multiple brutal rapes and the perps received decades in prison. The cleric, Sheik Taj Aldin al Hilali, said if you put out a tray of meat without a cover it isn’t the cats’s fault if they show up and start feasting. It’s the uncovered meat’s fault. Clearly the cleric disagreed with the verdicts, saying if the women had stayed inside or had covered themselves when going outside they never would have “tempted the cats” and wouldn’t have been raped.
The surprising thing is that the wider Australian public was surprised the Sheikh would give a sermon about how some women are just asking to be raped. It took about a month or so for the story to filter out because none of the Muslims who listened to the sermon thought there was anything even slightly wrong with it. There is no way with even the slightest bit of study you can maintain the delusion that Islam is a religion of peace. I would think by now Western populaces would understand perfectly well what Islam preaches but I’m not surprised that so many non-Muslims really want to remain in a state of ignorance. As if they can ignore it and it will just go away. But there’s a reason why the courts where the Rotherham rapists were tried and convicted were packed with supporters, and the rapists were lead away to shouts of Allahu Akbar. And among their supporters were their wives, who blamed the British girls for everything since they had “no fear of Allah.”
It isn’t just something Muslim men do when “hijacking” Islam. It is Islam; it’s what Islam teaches. They aren’t getting their Islam wrong. I suppose this is where I should say that most Muslim men will go their entire lives without raping any girls. But Islam is unique among religions. German researchers conducted a study of religious people with 45,000 participants. Islam is the only religion they found where the more devout its adherents became, and the more knowledgeable they became, the more violent they were. Other religions, from Judaism to Buddhism and everything in between, had the opposite affect.
Muslim men simply aren’t expected to control themselves around women. It’s the woman’s fault if she tempts the man. Which is why when a man and a woman, who are not married to each other, are alone together it’s just assumed that they will have sex. This is actually a fairly common method for Iranian men to get rid of inconvenient wives; they accuse them of being alone with another man and it’s automatically adultery. Which exposes the Muslim dodge that Jihad doesn’t mean holy war but an internal spiritual struggle. It certainly doesn’t work very well, considering Muslim women have to dress in tents and never be alone with a man because despite a lifetime of the “internal spiritual struggle” he still hasn’t developed spiritually to the point where he can resist the urge to rape.
Speaking of Iranian women, the women who removed their veils during the recent protests and have been arrested are getting raped, tortured, and beaten in Iranian jails as they await trial. They face up to ten years in prison on multiple charges. One of the charges is incitement to prostitution. So if Sunni and Shia religious authorities both interpret Surah 33:59 exactly the same way I understand it, I’d say I understand the context perfectly well.
Thanks to Steve 57 for that bracing explanation. I would submit that Kenny Rodgers’ The Coward of the County explores the current moral condition of western men. As I am fond of repeating, Toynbee’s analysis of civilisational failure states that when the dominant elite loses the confidence of the internal proletariat, the external proletariat invades. Lets call what happened to Rome a Type1 invasion and what is happening in Europe now a Type 2 invasion (just to mix things up a bit and put chronology first). So in our still unfolding Type 2 case of civilisational failure the outstanding question is whether or not the external proletariat will sufficiently vex the internal proletariat to cause them to cease being cowards. So far the Brits were sufficiently vexed to Brexit, and the continental types are only about one third vexed – if that. Nonetheless I heard Conrad Black opine somewhere on Youtube that the French police and military were quite different than us muddling Anglo-Saxons in that once they decide to act that had a long standing reputation for brutal ruthlessness. Much is yet to unfold.
…the French police and military were quite different than us muddling Anglo-Saxons in that once they decide to act that had a long standing reputation for brutal ruthlessness.
Lorenz Guide: Perhaps Black is referring to the Paris Massacre in which the French police quietly killed 40-300 Algerians in one night and covered it up for 40 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961
Europe has a violent history. Much of the motivation for the EU was to put that violence behind them. I wouldn’t be too sure they have.
IMO Europe won’t go quietly into the night of demographic decline without large-scale violence.
I used to look at how Islamic feudal systems worked. They called it Iqta or something like that.
It was interesting to me how in Western feudalism, there are generally 3 land owning powers: city dwellers that get taxes from trade and docks, feudal lords that get taxes and power from their baronies, and bishops that have an archbishopric that is similar to a castle town.
These classes of individuals could not easily mix. In order for an aristocratic noble to hold a city or bishopric, he needed a mayor as a vassal for the city and a bishop as vassal for the bishopric. This resulted in very effective local defense, but poor centralization of funding for military wars overseas. A bishop or mayor rarely paid 50% of their taxes to their liege lord. A bishop, in fact, often sent their money to the P of Rome instead… so a Feudal lord, even though he may have a lot of territory, was often broke and could not effectively obtain a lot of war funds. His assets were mostly his army, which was sustained by his castle towns.
In Islam, whoever had the most territories or army power inherited almost all the lands from his patriarch’s line. And in Islam, the aristocratic lord could personally hold mosques as well as castle towns. In fact, the money for jihad came from mosques+castle towns, and military recruitment continued for both areas. Those not of the faith would get to pay the jizya, an extra tax. So no matter what, the feudal lord of a territory would get more and more taxes and military power which can be used to conquer more and more territory.
It is quite the ingenious system and it explains how Islam could have taken so much territory in only a hundred or so years. Lucifer wasn’t slacking when he came up with that one. Ghenghis Khan and Attilla both had very clever usage of tribal and technological systems, but the amount of new things at the core of Islam was quite unrivaled. The ability to sustain totalitarian power and control of humanity for extremely long periods of time is a specialty of the Watchers. Humans, even the best of us, can barely top Genghis Khan’s line, Attila’s short success, and Alexander’s burst and blown up Empire.
The top of the Islamic system is the Caliph, a combination of religious head with military/political head. So instead of the P of Rome calling for a Crusade and nobles having to find ways to fund it, the Caliph can call a jihad and every Muslim leader will be itching for it, as it allows them to expand their territory and obtain more taxes. The Spanish part of the Islamic Empire was conquered quite early and they used to send 1000+ blonde sex slaves to the Caliph’s harem every once in awhile as “tribute”. It was a mutually satisfying relationship. How did these slaves get from Western Europe to the Middle East?
Vatican, Italian merchant families, and Jews. Something people don’t want to talk about… Very embarrassing, but survival of the fittest is tough for humans.
Islam even did a slave raid against Iceland, of all places. Islam was the new vikings, and unlike the Norse vikings, Islam did not convert to Christianity and lose their fangs.