READERS are probably aware of the sickening reports from the Northern England town of Rotherham, where Pakistani gangs raped, threatened and assaulted an alleged 1,400 white girls over the course of 16 years. The crimes included in some cases dousing young girls with gasoline and threatening to light them on fire if they did not comply. The local police are accused of ignoring the incidents. Social workers reportedly were hesitant to publicize the problem out of fear of appearing racist. And, according to one source, local Muslim leaders were familiar with the activities of the gangs and hushed up the incidents.

According to Paul Austin Murphy, of Liberty GB, the outcry by the press is hypocritical. Muslim gangs prey on white girls in towns across England, he writes, and newspapers routinely cover up the race and religion of the perpetrators in the cases they do report:

Many of the newspapers which are now keen to point the finger at Rotherham Council were once part of the problem. National newspapers (as well as regional ones) – on the whole – hardly ever featured these cases. And even when they did, they too would never say that virtually all the perpetrators were Pakistani – never mind that they were Muslims.

The Daily Mail, for example, continues the problem by failing to mention the fact that the perpetrators were overwhelmingly Muslim. How can this – or any – newspaper castigate Rotherham Council when it’s committing the same wrong? The Daily Mail says that it was wrong for councillors, police and social workers to have been afraid of saying that the perpetrators were Pakistani. So why now is this newspaper afraid of saying that they were nearly all Muslims?

The thing is, most sexual groomers in the UK are of Pakistani heritage simply because most Muslims in the UK are of Pakistani heritage. If most Muslims in the UK were Arabic (or north African), then nearly all the offenders would be Arabic (or north African). I’m willing to acknowledge that there may be – in theory at least – slight differences of degree between different Muslim ethnic groups. However, since there is a problem with north African, Somalian and Arabic sexual grooming in Sweden, Norway, France and other European countries, I doubt that the differences between Pakistani Muslims and Arabic/ north African Muslims would be that large.

And this points to one obvious conclusion: the problem is not one of race. It’s one of religion (i.e. Islam) and the culture generated by that religion.

The other important point is that Rotherham Council’s confessions (or self-criticisms) – and even the retroactive actions of the police and newspapers – have all been the result of external outrage. What I mean by that is that councillors, newspapers and the police came to realise that the public at large – at least in the areas affected – was well aware of what was happening and very angry that nothing was being done about it. And only when that outrage (partly as a result of EDL demos and various independent investigations) reached a certain critical mass (roughly in 2010) did councils, the police and newspapers begin questioning their various positions on the massive problem of Muslim grooming gangs in England.

Murphy’s point that religion, not race, is the problem is not quite right. Obviously, girls are targeted because of their race.

— Comments —

Alan Alexis writes:

I think you are mistaken.

It is actually both.

The Paki’s target White, English girls, both because of their white skin, and because they are non-Muslim Kaffirs.

Targeting these girls specifically is seen within the Muslim community as striking a blow against both the hated Kaffirs, and a “conquest” of the White Girls that many Paki’s covet. (at least secretly)

Add in the fact that the Paki’s project their own bias onto others. A Muslim women who is raped brings the ultimate shame to her family. I suspect that many Paki’s think that the same will happen to the English Girls they groom. And, If not, well they still got to defile Kaffir Women.

 Laura writes:

That’s what I meant to say. Murphy suggests it is only religion. It is both.

Mary writes:

I was not familiar with the term “sex grooming” so I did a search and found this (don’t know anything about it’s accuracy but it seems to fit in with the story you posted):

From Annalisa Lista at www.west-info.eu:

In the name of Sharia, men are seducing young girls outside the school gate, making them fall in love and then prostituting them out to family and friends. This is the scandalous phenomenon of grooming, which has been going on behind closed doors for over 20 years in the UK and has been denounced by the Law and Freedom Foundation. About 1,000 girls a year fall victim to grooming, mostly aged 11 to 16, most of them virgins with a Christian, Sikh or even atheist background. Initially they are seduced by constant attention and gifts, then initiated into the world of drugs and alcohol before being offered sexually to brothers, cousins and friends of the supposed ‘boyfriend’. But who are the abusers? Most of them are married Muslim men in their thirties or older. They act undisturbed in the name of their religion, often with the complicity of taxi drivers and shop owners at the scenes of the crimes. They threaten to kill and beat the defenceless girls and their families if the girls don’t cooperate, so that the perpetrators don’t lose money on this ‘business’. This phenomenon has been underestimated by social services, charities and police for fear of being labelled racist. But the problem is growing and concerns not just the UK, but also the Netherlands and other countries.

Anti-Globalist Expatriate writes:

The head of the largest taxpayer-funded children’s charity in the UK is . . . wait for it . . . a Pakistani Muslim.

Who recently led a gang of armed men to ‘resolve’ a land dispute back in his native Pakistan.

And the woman who headed child protection services in Rotherham is the same individual who removed children from foster care because the foster parents in question had the temerity to vote UKIP.

Dennis Mangan (note that you can’t find his weblog via a Google search, but you can find it on Bing) summarizes.

John D. writes:

What happened in Rotherham is just the tip of a very large iceberg: these crimes have been committed all across the country. Everyone who wants to understand exactly what these gangs do should read the report ‘“Easy Meat” – Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery’ by the Law and Freedom Foundation.

Below is the overview of the report from the foundation’s site:

“The report examines in detail:

• What these gangs  do
• The chronology of the problem
• Institutional failure and the abuse of the narrative of racism
• The Islamic cultural background
• The scale of the problem

It establishes that 20 years ago child-care professionals dealing with the victims made recommendations which could have protected the schoolgirl victims, but these steps have never been implemented.

The report is definitive – there is no analysis of this problem of this quality anywhere.

It goes into substantial detail, but anyone interested in the subject will find their time is well invested. It’s a 333-page PDF file.

In the videos here, here, here and here, Gavin Boby, the foundation’s director, discusses how his organisation blocks the planning applications of Mosques and the rape gangs. 

Thank you for your blog.

Please follow and like us: