Rotherham child rape gangs: At least 1400 victims

[Pickman's model]

The majority White community of course. Were Savile and the others Pakistani?

but that in itself's a bit dodge as "white" might be polish, irish, or italian. it's like saying asian, which might be turkish or might be yakut.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

The racialisation of crime and the media's focus on race with regards to this issue is reminiscent of the mugging scare. That's all. Keep up.

?

No. It isn't reminiscent at all. For reasons which have already been explained. Grow up.

 

[quiquaquo]

but that in itself's a bit dodge as "white" might be polish, irish, or italian. it's like saying asian, which might be turkish or might be yakut.

Deflection.

 

[happie chappie]

It's revealing that you say "if so why (and what is to be done about it)" and you didn't say "if not why (and what is to be done with white men about it)" isn't it?

Why is it revealing? I could rephrase it if you like but you still haven't answered the question.

The Rotherham report specifically mentions Pakistani men. The cases in Derby et al almost exclusively involve Pakistani men.

Let's turn it round. Are you saying that race is totally irrelevant in these cases?

If so, that's not what Jay's report says, certainly in relation to Rotherham. She's the expert in this field. She's acknowledged as being independent.

So, again, you need to say why Jay's report is wrong and then take it up with her.

In the interim, just answer the questions.

 

[Ole]

Deflection.

This is about Rotherham.

You're the one deflecting by talking about Savile.

 

[Das Uberdog]

And there lies the problem...1400 kids abused by asian men and you discuss race, 600 or so children abused by saville, dozens by rolf harris, dozens by clifford, dozens by hall, hundreds by cyril smith...all white men, and no discussion of race takes place...why is that?
Oh yeah I forgot...its an issue of race cos you say so cos you somewhere that pakistani men are disproportionately involved.
Screw facts, screw reality...just spout shit with no proof and scream pc gone mad at anyone who disagrees.
The issue is not race...it is the abuse of children ffs

ok, no-one actually brought you the stats so i'll go through them here:

the white population makes up 87.1% of the population, the 'Asian' population of Britain makes up around 6.9% and of that the Pakistani community makes up around 1.9%. when it comes to general sex offender stats, they match up reasonably proportionately (81.9% of sex offenders are white, 5.6 'Asian'). however when it comes to grooming gangs, 39% of the offenders are white and 26% 'Asian'. though the table i include below includes a majority of 'undefined' within that category, if we collate it with other reports such as the Times report from 2011 we can see that within those numbers, the great bulk are of Pakistani origin ['of the 56 offenders convicted since 1997 for crimes relating to on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16, three were white, 53 were Asian of which 50 were Muslim, most were from the British Pakistani community'].

http://ceop.police.uk/Publications/

i bring it up just because people have referenced these stats a few times now but no-one's actually put down the figures.

 

[dylanredefined]

While race is a small part of it the major problem is that the police and the authorities seem to have taken stupid pills and not done their jobs.
It can't be that difficult to just to interview one of the assailants and mount a few extra patrols where they hung around. Even if you can't get a conviction you could at least scare them off.
It is not like the gangs were powerful or influential.

 

[Pickman's model]

Deflection.

by no means. when i hear about child abuse i don't immediately consider the hue of the perpetrator's skin. nonce is nonce whether white black brown or green

 

[Citizen66]

Why is it revealing? I could rephrase it if you like but you still haven't answered the question.

The Rotherham report specifically mentions Pakistani men. The cases in Derby et al almost exclusively involve Pakistani men.

Let's turn it round. Are you saying that race is totally irrelevant in these cases?

If so, that's not what Jay's report says, certainly in relation to Rotherham. She's the expert in this field. She's acknowledged as being independent.

So, again, you need to say why Jay's report is wrong and then take it up with her.

In the interim, just answer the questions.

Can you list the other crimes where you discuss the importance of the race of the perpetrators please? Or is it just child rape by Pakistani men that falls into this category?

As to your daft question, are we talking globally here? Or just here in the UK? Was the race of the men on Pitcairn relevant to their offending? Because I never saw it mentioned once.

 

[brogdale]

While race is a small part of it the major problem is that the police and the authorities seem to have taken stupid pills and not done their jobs.
It can't be that difficult to just to interview one of the assailants and mount a few extra patrols where they hung around. Even if you can't get a conviction you could at least scare them off.
It is not like the gangs were powerful or influential.

The report does not suggest anything of the sort. Far from citing stupidity, Jay makes plain that the refusal to pursue proceedings on behalf of the abused girls/women was deliberate and wilful. Those decision also emerge from a culture that needs to be understood and challenged.

 

[butchersapron]

Can you list the other crimes where you discuss the importance of the race of the perpetrators please? Or is it just child rape by Pakistani men that falls into this category?

As to your daft question, are we talking globally here? Or just here in the UK? Was the race of the men on Pitcairn relevant to their offending? Because I never saw it mentioned once.

The culture of child rape and abuse on the Island was.

 

[happie chappie]

Can you list the other crimes where you discuss the importance of the race of the perpetrators please? Or is it just child rape by Pakistani men that falls into this category?

As to your daft question, are we talking globally here? Or just here in the UK? Was the race of the men on Pitcairn relevant to their offending? Because I never saw it mentioned once.

I think we both know we're talking about the UK, primarily England.

Race is relevant because Jay specifically mentions it.

The question's quite simple - do you disagree with what she says?

If not, the onus is on you to say why. You've still not done so.

Please do not avoid answering the question by asking another question.

 

[Pickman's model]

Race is relevant because Jay specifically mentions it.

so that's the way the parameters of debate are framed here? on someone else's say-so?

 

[Lurdan]

In my opinion no-one could ACTUALLY READ THE REPORT and come to the conclusion that the only reason the Police didn't act was because they were afraid of being branded as racist, unless they were so obsessed with race that it inhibited their ability to read and understand.

The Police didn't act for lot's and lots of reasons - here's just a few :

• it was 'consensual'
• it was 'prostitution'
• 'they were asking for it'
• 'there were more important crimes affecting more important people'
• some of the victims wouldn't co-operate
• some of the victims wouldn't accept that they were victims of crime
• some of the victims were unlikely to present well in Court
• some of the victims might be easy to discredit in court
• investigations were very likely to be be time and resource consuming
• it didn't fall into the targeted initiatives to direct scarce resources at specific sorts of crime affecting more significant people
• it was easier to set up a joint working party to meet occasionally to discuss how difficult it all is
• it was easier to try refer the victims to other agencies
• it was easier to close the file
• hmmm, where I put that file...
• because this is South Yorkshire Police

 

[Grandma Death]

But child sex abuse isn't a problem exclusive to men from Pakistan. Nor is Paedophile gangs. So why should their race be 'questioned' but Jimmy Savile's race not? Can you see the trap you're falling into here?

No I don't. You quoted my link to figures which was about the racial profile of offenders. I'm not suggesting child abuse is exclusive to Pakistani men. That's very clear from all of my posts

 

[happie chappie]

so that's the way the parameters of debate are framed here? on someone else's say-so?

Why shouldn't it be? She's investigated the matter more than anyone on these Boards ever will.

She's independent. She's acknowledged as an expert in this matter. As far as I know no one has criticised her methodology or findings.

 

[Pickman's model]

In my opinion no-one could ACTUALLY READ THE REPORT and come to the conclusion that the only reason the Police didn't act was because they were afraid of being branded as racist, unless they were so obsessed with race that it inhibited their ability to read and understand.

The Police didn't act for lot's and lots of reasons - here's just a few :

• it was 'consensual'
• it was 'prostitution'
• 'they were asking for it'
• 'there were more important crimes affecting more important people'
• some of the victims wouldn't co-operate
• some of the victims wouldn't accept that they were victims of crime
• some of the victims were unlikely to present well in Court
• some of the victims might be easy to discredit in court
• investigations were very likely to be be time and resource consuming
• it didn't fall into the targeted initiatives to direct scarce resources at specific sorts of crime affecting more significant people
• it was easier to set up a joint working party to meet occasionally to discuss how difficult it all is
• it was easier to try refer the victims to other agencies
• it was easier to close the file
• hmmm, where I put that file...
• because this is South Yorkshire Police

yeh. but this is urban. and few people here do reading the report.

 

[Grandma Death]

You are unlikely to get an unbiased opinion from Sri Lankans, Indians or indeed Bangladeshi people for starters. British people of Pakistani origin are like most immigrant communities living in a past that is fast disappearing back home, one only has to look to British emigrants to Spain and Australia to see similar entrenched views. These same 'British Pakistanis' are further hindered by socio economic deprivation both historic and actual, racism and last but not least the fact that many originate from the most deprived parts of what is now Pakistan, namely Mirpur and Kashmir. Jokes about Mirpuris are sadly very common in the community.

Sure some Pakistanis are racist but probably no more so there their neighbours to the east with their entrenched caste system and accompanying religion. It should be remembered that the presence of large numbers of Muslims and Christians across the sub continent results from an historical attempt to leave the iniquity of the caste system.

I didn't suggest I'd get an unbiased opinion from my friend. I disagreed with him. Isn't that clear in my post?

 

[Citizen66]

I think we both know we're talking about the UK, primarily England.

Race is relevant because Jay specifically mentions it.

The question's quite simple - do you disagree with what she says?

If not, the onus is on you to say why. You've still not done so.

Please do not avoid answering the question by asking another question.

Simple Simon says put your hands on your head. I'm having a debate with you.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think we both know we're talking about the UK, primarily England.

Race is relevant because Jay specifically mentions it.

The question's quite simple - do you disagree with what she says?

If not, the onus is on you to say why. You've still not done so.

Please do not avoid answering the question by asking another question.

just the one: could you name the paragraph you've taken this specific reference from? otherwise it's hard to say i agree.

 

[dylanredefined]

The report does not suggest anything of the sort. Far from citing stupidity, Jay makes plain that the refusal to pursue proceedings on behalf of the abused girls/women was deliberate and wilful. Those decision also emerge from a culture that needs to be understood and challenged.

Honestly it is hard to tell the difference from the outside. The authorities are told and do nothing either evil or stupid or both. Heads should role.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why shouldn't it be? She's investigated the matter more than anyone on these Boards ever will.

She's independent. She's acknowledged as an expert in this matter. As far as I know no one has criticised her methodology or findings.

and you're saying she's framing it in terms of race.

 

[Grandma Death]

ok, no-one actually brought you the stats so i'll go through them here:

the white population makes up 87.1% of the population, the 'Asian' population of Britain makes up around 6.9% and of that the Pakistani community makes up around 1.9%. when it comes to general sex offender stats, they match up reasonably proportionately (81.9% of sex offenders are white, 5.6 'Asian'). however when it comes to grooming gangs, 39% of the offenders are white and 26% 'Asian'. though the table i include below includes a majority of 'undefined' within that category, if we collate it with other reports such as the Times report from 2011 we can see that within those numbers, the great bulk are of Pakistani origin ['of the 56 offenders convicted since 1997 for crimes relating to on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16, three were white, 53 were Asian of which 50 were Muslim, most were from the British Pakistani community'].

http://ceop.police.uk/Publications/

i bring it up just because people have referenced these stats a few times now but no-one's actually put down the figures.

Thanks. And the right are utilising these figures for their own agenda. Which is why we can't bury our heads in the sand when it comes to this. If we don't have an answer then the right will just shout the loudest. I have already explained why I think these figures exist. I'd also add the occupations of some of the offenders have helped provide a degree of cover. This has already been put forward by some commentators and I'd agree with this.

 

[DotCommunist]

yesterdays sun headline '1400 victims of the PC brigade'

we know the murdoch press is scum but using horrific widespread sexual abuse to fight for the right to call people wog is a new low.

 

[articul8]

It should not need to be said that these cultures do not stand in for the entirety of the societies that produced these cultures or the individuals who make it up.

Many of those who are arguing this had nothing to do with race are doing so with the best of intentions but doing so on dodgy grounds that assume when the racial aspect is properly dispensed with then the cultural aspect must necessarily go too - as race = culture. That's worrying and suggests that the far-right and racists have won a large part of their battle.

If race and culture have become synonymous we're in a very bad place, agreed, so problematising the easy equation of the two is very important. (Wondering whether the concept of ethnicity has become an enabling vehicle for conflating the two?)

At the same time, obviously, cultural characteristics don't float entirely free from their situatedness in particular contexts - geographies, histories, class and I suppose biology even - factors which in some sense condition cultural development, even as they are at the same time culturally mediated. So you can't say race and culture are ever fully separate (except at a significant level of analytical abstraction) even if they are non-identical.

 

[butchersapron]

If race and culture have become synonymous we're in a very bad place, agreed, so problematising the easy equation of the two is very important. (Wondering whether the concept of ethnicity has become an enabling vehicle for conflating the two?)

At the same time, obviously, cultural characteristics don't float entirely free from their situatedness in particular contexts - geographies, histories, class and I suppose biology even - factors which in some sense condition cultural development, even as they are at the same time culturally mediated. So you can't say race and culture are ever fully separate (except at a significant level of analytical abstraction) even if they are non-identical.

Let's talk politics for now though prof.

 

[toggle]

Had a lengthy conversation with my mate last night who's Asian (of Sri Lankan heritage) he argued in general Pakistani culture is misogynistic. He also suggested if we can say the met is institutionally racist we can say the same about the Pakistani community . My issue with this is this entire debate about culture is quite offensive. I readily accept misogynistic attitudes exist in the Pakistani community as it does throughout society. I accept its degrees of too. But what drove these men was sex, power and vulnerability. I won't accept they did it because they were misogynistic because not all misogynists comitt crimes like this. Secondly why aren't we having this debate about white attitudes and the high level peado rings. In fact such a debate arguably takes the heat off the states failings. We need to be focusing why these girls were in the position they were and why the police and local authority ignored the girls.

the police and local auhtorities ignored them, because they are also part of a misogynistic society. once these children had been typed as worthless and then expected to manage their own lives as though they were adult women, then they were on their own, in the hands of the men who wanted to fuck them. the shit they were going through, coercion, threat to their families, physical abuse, would still be abuse that most adult women wouldn't have been able to deal with, without help, but once these children were labelled as making adult decisions they were left to be abused.

the attitudes towards female children from working class estates, that they were considered scum, but also an attitude that they grow up faster than 'proper' m/c girls. so they were labelled as adult when they neither were, nor should have been. but also the fact that once labelled as making adult decisions, they were on their own. this shows that misogynistic culture is influenced by some nasty assumptions made about w/c girls.

if you need any further proof of the levels of institutional misogeny then consider why this level of abuse was deemed acceptable towards someone deemed to be capable of making adult choices. is it Ok to offer no support to 'adult women' who are being sexually and physically abused? to ignore reports that women are being forced into sexual activity - that's rape, btw.

and a lot of misogynists do commit offenses against women. they may not be getting their kicks out of raping teenage girls, but don't try to label the misogyny in this case as something seperate to the misogyny that leads men to commit other acts against women that are designed to give them a thrill at the expense of girls and women. it's still getting their jollies out male power over females. whether it's curb crawling girls walking home from school, DV, street harassment. and it's all routinely ignored by authorities.

and i'm trying to work my way through this idea, but I think it plays a big part in why men from a culture that expresses it's misogeny through covering and controlling it's women - supposedly to protect them from other men, would look at women who aren't covered and controlled.

but also the naked female flesh plastered over newspapers, magazines, ad posters. acceptable as sexuality on display to sell shit. but a slag who is asking for it walking down the street. we give out huge mixed messages about the role of women and women's sexuality, and particularly the sexuality of teenage girls. mix this with the different message they got about pakistani women, and this mix can be twisted into a belief that girls that aren't covered up are available.

this can't just be about what is wrong with the way these men and their society throught about women, but also about how this relates to the way british society treats women as well. but that won't happen.

 

[happie chappie]

and you're saying she's framing it in terms of race.

I didn't say she framed the entire debate in terms of race. But she says it was a factor. Are you saying she is wrong in coming to that conclusion?

 

[Pickman's model]

I didn't say she framed the entire debate in terms of race. But she says it was a factor. Are you saying she is wrong in coming to that conclusion?

which paragraph are you referring to?

 

[happie chappie]

Simple Simon says put your hands on your head. I'm having a debate with you.

I've no idea what the Simple Simon reference is about. I'm more than happy to engage in the debate with you. That's what these Boards are for, after all.