Ummm, I think the point was that according to eric jarvis - Bengali gangs based in the UK are statistically just as culpable when it comes to grooming vulnerable UK indigenous children for rape.
I see no proof of that in your link.
Looks like the Bangladeshis are mainly being the ones being trafficked? By Indians, Pakistanis and probably into the middle east and europe.
Child abuse, prostitution, pimping, gang rape, trafficking / slavery, etc - goes on all round the world: africa, the americas, the middle east, south asia, south-east asia, europe, the far east... everywhere.
Who happens to be the main local group of thugs, and which group happen to be the main victims - be it by caste, religion, skin colour, refugee status and/or sheer poverty - seems more a factor of chance and geography rather than anything deeper.
Looking back a 100 years or so there were a massive number of "white/european" men around the world taking advantage of local women and girls. Every war / invasion / colonisation sees the same. We can't really deduce anything that deep about any of the main world cultures, geographic regions or religions based on this wider track record (of men fucking over women, of adults fucking over children, of the powerful fucking over the weak, of the rich fucking over the poor).
That you are building so complex a theory based on Bradford seems kind of a narrow viewpoint to make broad-brush claims.
That Bangladesh is a major *global* hub of trafficking suggests that Bengali gangsters are *fully* involved in child prostitution/slavery, but the poorest countries have always found themselves ruthlessly exploited and enslaved. Maybe there are simply less Bengali gangsters in the UK doing anything at all because they are lower down the gangsters pecking here? That the CIA factbook says many Bengalis get shipped to India, Pakistan and the Middle East kind of suggests this to me.
