1,400 girls had been abused
The journalist who uncovered the Rotherham grooming gangs scandal has said that even he massively underestimated the scale of the abuse.
…
Mr Norfolk had been putting pressure on Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police to answer questions about child sexual exploitation by predominantly Asian men since he started receiving tip-offs in 2011.
There it is again, that meaningless “Asian” euphemism. What Asian? Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Malayan, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Indian, Sri Lankan, what?
But this time the BBC does in fact admit the truth, albeit briefly.
He admitted that he had had to balance his instinct to reveal the abuse with concerns that the story’s publication would both stoke the reaction of the far-right and lead to accusations of racism.
“If you’d asked me the day before that press conference how many young teenage girls had been groomed and exploited in Rotherham over the time period the report covered, I would have guessed 150,” he said. He was “staggered” to hear Prof Jay reveal how 1,400 girls had been abused, trafficked to other cities, or had petrol poured on them. “They were treated like sub-human species for the pleasure of these men,” he added.
Mr Norfolk had first identified a “pattern” of Pakistani-heritage grooming gangs exploiting white girls in the north of England and the Midlands in 2010, but came up against a “conspiracy of silence” when he tried to elicit responses from police forces and councils.
He said that hearing Prof Jay explicitly refer to the perpetrators’ ethnic backgrounds was an “extraordinary” moment. “It was so hard-hitting, she didn’t mince her words. The response was seismic across the world.”
The BBC is still carefully avoiding the issue, of course. What does “Pakistani-heritage” imply? Islam. What about Islam? It’s obvious enough when the Beeb and others report on Afghanistan but not when they report on people of “Pakistani heritage.” They don’t want to stir up the Tommy Robinson fans, and they’re right not to want to do that, but drawing a tactful veil or rather burqa over the fact that Islam is intensely hostile to women has its drawbacks.
The Times had been called racist and Islamophobic for pursuing the investigation.
“It was a very difficult story to cover because it was a story about white British girls, aged typically between 12 to 15, being groomed and abused by men who, as the pattern seemed to become more clear, were overwhelmingly of Pakistani and Muslim heritage,” he said. “It’s not fun being regarded as somebody with abhorrent views, when in your heart, you know the opposite is the case.”
There were also fears about how far-right groups would react to the story, which did eventually lead to protests and marches descending on Rotherham. “It was a dream story for the far-right,” he said.
And a nightmare for the girls.
I suppose this is another case of ‘white women’s tears’? Or, in this case, white girls’ tears.
Sometimes the tears are real enough, the abuse is real enough, and the fact that they are white and their abusers are Muslim is a poor reason to cover up the story.
Had the police acted without racial and ethnic prejudice in favour of the sexual predators in the first place, it would still have been bad; but nowhere near as bad.
The whole country has been groomed throughout history to accept horrific sexual abuse of children by men hiding behind religion; first Christians, now Muslims. The children have been the pawn sacrifices in a game of chess between privileged men jockeying for power whilst trying to avoid all-out civil war.
The appalling scale of this abuse means that it’s all but impossible to prevent the white working class uprising which has already started. Oh, the white men in power who bear much responsibility for the situation are safely anonymous; the crowds and mobs will be after the obvious targets – brown men, their homes, businesses, and places of worship, regardless of ethnicity and religious affiliation.
The government could have prevented this decades ago, by refusing entry to religious leaders of extremely anti-Western views. They have stirred up racial and religious hatred amongst the male descendants of the original refugees, and – although I am not excusing it – it can hardly be surprising that, in the notable absence of official assistance, the native majority are moved to violence in retaliation.
We have come to a bad place when “don’t be racist” is interpreted as allowing references to ethnicity but not religion.
@trigger
Yes, the uprising has been incited by the establishment (well, mainly the Telegraph) with its anti-immigrant rhetoric*. It’s all “us” versus “them” and done for purely cynical reasons. Historically that has never worked out well.
*It was fine – completely non-racist. They hated the Poles as well.