Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rotherham child rape gangs: At least 1400 victims

Yeh. You've been here long enough I thought you'd know not to link to right wing websites, the my new book authored with Tommy Robinson ought to give the game away even to someone like you.
The person that pk endorsed is on gab because he was banned from twitter. Gab being the twitter for the far right, edgelords, loons etc. I had a look at his account and even if he didn't have such a close connection with Tommy Robinson, he doesn't strike me as being a particularly reliable source and just might have a somewhat unsavoury agenda.

peter mcloughlin tommy robinson.jpg
 
Its not just anecdotal its batshit the enemy is within dont order a curry cos they are all financing terrorism they might be polite but secretly they are all supporting terrorism or are raping our women conspiracy web crap.Even more bizarre when the person who says it allegedly goes touring Islamic countries with his girlfriends/chicks Just as well an acid burnt out Peter Davison look a like is there to protect them.

Lets be clear , it is a fact that there is an over representation of muslim men from the Indian subcontinent in the UK involved in organised sexual exploitation of white working class young girls. It is very hard to get away from this point and it doesn't do the victims any favours when people try and wriggle out of it.However what the Epsom Arsonist is suggesting is that the abuse of white working class girls is an organised and concious action, a sexual jihaadi , by Islamacists in the UK. He believes that this is a second front;bombs, stabbings , cars being driven into innocent people and then the sanctioned rape of pre teens and teenagers, all in the name of Islam.
What I'm surprised his alleged Muslim girlfriend/chick never let him in on the secret.Unless of course,with hindsight, she could have been part of the plan.
I think it's exactly as you put it (underlined bit), it's something that shouldn't be ignored. I'm not joining pk's 'sexual jihad' theory in saying that has to be discussed and yes, certainly, you could almost see some proponents of top down multiculturalism flinching when this was raised as these scandals were initially publicised. As an aside, I think it's interesting how local authorities pretty much used this as an excuse - 'oh we couldn't really do anything as we'd be accused of racism'. I think that really was an excuse - they had a clear statutory duty and they failed large numbers of working class girls.

But when it gets round to discussing the patterns in organised abuse, the leap to 'it's in their culture' is not only unhelpful, it actually closes off a materialist and realistic discussion. For me, the question to ask is why are the minority of Asian/Muslim men who abuse more likely than the minority of white/European/Christian men who abuse to do it in groups? And that takes you to the socio-economic conditions and segregation that developed over decades in (not only) northern towns. A mixture of Labour housing policies and Tory parental choice, different labour markets and the rest. It's that segregation that generates the collective bit of this. Shared religious backgrounds might be part of the social glue within a group - shared backgrounds always are - but isn't the start of the process. It's about class, misogyny and local authorities that shared the very prejudices the abusers had towards their victims.
 
I think it's exactly as you put it (underlined bit), it's something that shouldn't be ignored. I'm not joining pk's 'sexual jihad' theory in saying that has to be discussed and yes, certainly, you could almost see some proponents of top down multiculturalism flinching when this was raised as these scandals were initially publicised. As an aside, I think it's interesting how local authorities pretty much used this as an excuse - 'oh we couldn't really do anything as we'd be accused of racism'. I think that really was an excuse - they had a clear statutory duty and they failed large numbers of working class girls.

But when it gets round to discussing the patterns in organised abuse, the leap to 'it's in their culture' is not only unhelpful, it actually closes off a materialist and realistic discussion. For me, the question to ask is why are the minority of Asian/Muslim men who abuse more likely than the minority of white/European/Christian men who abuse to do it in groups? And that takes you to the socio-economic conditions and segregation that developed over decades in (not only) northern towns. A mixture of Labour housing policies and Tory parental choice, different labour markets and the rest. It's that segregation that generates the collective bit of this. Shared religious backgrounds might be part of the social glue within a group - shared backgrounds always are - but isn't the start of the process. It's about class, misogyny and local authorities that shared the very prejudices the abusers had towards their victims.
A quicker version, a question for pk - if there are such rapey tendencies within Pakistani Brits, why are white men still atop the table of offenders?
 
I also suspect a lot of those with some culpability in the social services sector for not acting aren't so much guilty of being 'soft' due to worries of racism but were more lazy/unmotivated in dealing with what would have been very difficult clients

I'm not sure you can entirely separate that aspect from concerns about community relations. The framing of the police and social services behaviour as being simply because of fear of being seen as racist definitely seems to be a right wing distortion, but there is no doubt that for the police community relations via community leaders is very important. And they may well not have wanted to jeopardize that relationship for the sake of a bunch of girls they had dismissed as chavs.
 
Its not just anecdotal its batshit the enemy is within dont order a curry cos they are all financing terrorism they might be polite but secretly they are all supporting terrorism or are raping our women conspiracy web crap.Even more bizarre when the person who says it allegedly goes touring Islamic countries with his girlfriends/chicks Just as well an acid burnt out Peter Davison look a like is there to protect them.

Lets be clear , it is a fact that there is an over representation of muslim men from the Indian subcontinent in the UK involved in organised sexual exploitation of white working class young girls. It is very hard to get away from this point and it doesn't do the victims any favours when people try and wriggle out of it.However what the Epsom Arsonist is suggesting is that the abuse of white working class girls is an organised and concious action, a sexual jihaadi , by Islamacists in the UK. He believes that this is a second front;bombs, stabbings , cars being driven into innocent people and then the sanctioned rape of pre teens and teenagers, all in the name of Islam.
What I'm surprised his alleged Muslim girlfriend/chick never let him in on the secret.Unless of course,with hindsight, she could have been part of the plan.

In the current scandal of police and LA inaction, the gangs are British Muslims. Why so many crimes? Because of police and LA inaction. The perpetrators found a criminal methodology and were allowed to exploit it entirely unchecked for decades. With no shortage of vulnerable girls, and no shortage of revolting punters, the phenomenon grew and grew.

But that's a perfect storm. All the factors in this case have occurred in all cultures of British society. In London, we have an urgent problem with Child Sexual Exploitation with street-Level drug gangs. Vulnerable girls are forced to travel into the suburbs and further to deliver packages to regional dealers. While there, they are repeatedly raped as part of the business relationship between the gangs. They are accompanied by muscle and threatened with violence to their families.

These perpetrators are not, by and large, British Asian or Muslim. The girls are by no means predominantly white. What you have is no shortage of vulnerable girls, and no shortage of scumbag punters. But unlike Rotherham etc, the police are interested because both gang violence and drug dealing are issues they are motivated to give a shit about. If it was just the exploited girls... I doubt anyone would care.

Further afield you have gangs trafficking young female refugees. Here, the victims are often Asian/Middle Eastern, and the scumbags hail from all backgrounds. The difference is that the most vulnerable girls are often Muslim.


Child sexual exploitation isn't a political or religious strategy. If it were, they'd target the daughters of the empowered classes. CSE happens because of patriarchy. And patriarchy is a long way from being an exclusively, or even predominantly Muslim problem.


Yes there's a whole load of patriarchal shit in the Quran. But these men are far from Islamist extremists. The fact that they're out boozing and having non-consensual sex with women outside of their marriages is a pretty strong clue.

They're just men, doing what a decent proportion of men have always done if they thought they could get away with it.
 
In the current scandal of police and LA inaction, the gangs are British Muslims. Why so many crimes? Because of police and LA inaction. The perpetrators found a criminal methodology and were allowed to exploit it entirely unchecked for decades. With no shortage of vulnerable girls, and no shortage of revolting punters, the phenomenon grew and grew.

But that's a perfect storm. All the factors in this case have occurred in all cultures of British society. In London, we have an urgent problem with Child Sexual Exploitation with street-Level drug gangs. Vulnerable girls are forced to travel into the suburbs and further to deliver packages to regional dealers. While there, they are repeatedly raped as part of the business relationship between the gangs. They are accompanied by muscle and threatened with violence to their families.

These perpetrators are not, by and large, British Asian or Muslim. The girls are by no means predominantly white. What you have is no shortage of vulnerable girls, and no shortage of scumbag punters. But unlike Rotherham etc, the police are interested because both gang violence and drug dealing are issues they are motivated to give a shit about. If it was just the exploited girls... I doubt anyone would care.

Further afield you have gangs trafficking young female refugees. Here, the victims are often Asian/Middle Eastern, and the scumbags hail from all backgrounds. The difference is that the most vulnerable girls are often Muslim. Just muslims being muslims. Just men being men.


Child sexual exploitation isn't a political or religious strategy. If it were, they'd target the daughters of the empowered classes. CSE happens because of patriarchy. And patriarchy is a long way from being an exclusively, or even predominantly Muslim problem.


Yes there's a whole load of patriarchal shit in the Quran. But these men are far from Islamist extremists. The fact that they're out boozing and having non-consensual sex with women outside of their marriages is a pretty strong clue.

They're just men, doing what a decent proportion of men have always done if they thought they could get away with it.
No one is 'just men' - there are men socialised into and acting out particular norms/expectations in specific determined situations. The latter part is key here - to suggest 'just men' is to ignore that. The same way this alt-right clown says 'just muslims'.
 
That's some generalisation!
You must know some really fucked up men. I don't know any man who would rape somebody if they thought they could get away with it, and I know a lot of men.
Yeah. You do. You think most rapists and similar go through life like Jimmy Saville with a big "weirdo" sign over their heads? Rapists are people's mates and brothers and colleagues. People who come across as decent blokes who would never do that.

How do people think it works. Near enough every woman has experienced sexual harassment, assault or violence multiple times. Even allowing for serial offenders, what proportion of men do you think are involved? Rape is rarer, but not vanishingly so. Neither, depressingly, is CSE.
 
No one is 'just men' - there are men socialised into and acting out particular norms/expectations in specific determined situations. The latter part is key here - to suggest 'just men' is to ignore that. The same way this alt-right clown says 'just muslims'.
They are men acting within the patriarchy. This behaviour is a norm/expectation among some groups of men throughout the globe and across history. Because of patriarchy.

The common factor in sexual exploitation isn't religion, or ethnicity, or location - it's that the exploiters are near universally men operating within patriarchal society. That is not irrelevant.
 
no sorry I was a drunken part of the scum of the earth but rape and organising gang rape wasn't part of being an average night out drunken fights and stupidity yes rape no.

No. because you were part of the majority who operate differently. But a proportion of men do these things, and they always have.
 
They are men acting within the patriarchy. This behaviour is a norm/expectation among some groups of men throughout the globe and across history. Because of patriarchy.

The common factor in sexual exploitation isn't religion, or ethnicity, or location - it's that the exploiters are near universally men operating within patriarchal society. That is not irrelevant.
There is a history to patriarchy - an identification of interests and possible power relations and then a consolidation of them into organisation and institutions and behaviours over time. To say 'just men' destroys this history, in fact destroys all critical understanding of these processes. It is the exact mirror of pk's just muslims.
 
Last edited:
Always struck me that the relevant part of the profile of these gangs was those things that enabled the way they operated as a group - night-time economy work's been mentioned and I suspect there's ways the surviving kinship ties in second and third generation operated that enabled and encouraged the gang behaviour, i.e. who they were didn't make them do it it just shaped the particular way they offended.
 
They are men acting within the patriarchy. This behaviour is a norm/expectation among some groups of men throughout the globe and across history. Because of patriarchy.

The common factor in sexual exploitation isn't religion, or ethnicity, or location - it's that the exploiters are near universally men operating within patriarchal society. That is not irrelevant.
Who said that it was irrelevant? One way to reduce this fact down to irrelevance - to write off the ways in which this happens and why - is to say just men.
 
There is a history to patriarchy - an identificationof interests and possible power relations and then a consolidation of them into organisation and institutions and behaviours over time. To say 'just men' destroys this history, in fact destroys all critical understanding of these processes. It is the exact mirror of pk's just muslims.
It seems to me that you're splitting hairs. I'm not trying to say there is something biological or fundamental within male humans that makes them do this. But the patriarchy is all we have. All men are subject to it, in varying traditions. It transcends religions and cultures and politics. It is inescapable at this point, and for the men who are alive today.
 
It seems to me that you're splitting hairs. I'm not trying to say there is something biological or fundamental within male humans that makes them do this. But the patriarchy is all we have. All men are subject to it, in varying traditions. It transcends religions and cultures and politics. It is inescapable at this point, and for the men who are alive today.
The notion of people acting in ways which might prefigure a better future society out the window then, being as we're all fucked up by the patriarchy
 
It transcends religions and cultures and politics. It is inescapable at this point, and for the men who are alive today.

I think patriarchy embodies culture, religion, politics... surely it is the visible symptom of an imbalance of power and is enacted entirely within the paradigms of this particular social moment...and as such, is amenable to change.
 
I think patriarchy embodies culture, religion, politics... surely it is the visible symptom of an imbalance of power and is enacted entirely within the paradigms of this particular social moment...and as such, is amenable to change.
Yeh, I was looking for this recognition of mutability, degree and possibility of change in spanglechick's posts: without success
 
If i said "all men are potential rapists" I'd understand the outcry. I didn't. I'm saying all men live within the patriarchy (which I didn't realise needed saying) and a fair proportion of men within patriarchy have always done this stuff.
 
Well, we have brothers, sons, fathers, friends... not inclined to give up as though all is fixed, frozen and determined forever. Not really certain that patriarchal power has the same potency it held a few decades ago...although power wears many disguises.

I confess to using this term ('the patriarchy') a bit loosely and even flippantly cos I am hopelessly lost and confused regarding nuances of 21st century life though.
 
Back
Top Bottom