Rotherham sex abuse scandal: we cannot ignore that race played a part in these crimes

The Telegraph ^ | August 27, 2014 | Dan Hodges

[Sherman Logan]

The abuse experienced by the children of Rotherham is beyond belief. Sexual abuse. Physical abuse. Psychological abuse. It is all laid out in brutal detail in the report by Alexis Jay.

But one equally vicious aspect of the assaults on these children is identified in a less explicit way. And that is the manner in which the vast majority of the Rotherham victims were also racially abused.

[donna]

It’s not about race:

When Baby Boomers were children it was Moslem. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) noted,”Moslem is the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage. Muslim is preferred by scholars and by English-speaking adherents of Islam.”

A Muslim in Arabic means “one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam.

By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means “one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

http://hnn.us/articles/524.html

[Sherman Logan]

Well, if white people attacking Muslim Asians can be accused of racism, then surely Muslim Asians attacking whites can be too.

[donna]

Except, it’s not about race.

[Sherman Logan]

There is no reason the perps’ motivation can’t involve both race and religion.

[BroJoeK]

Thanks for that link, but it still makes no sense.

The report says five (or is it eight) Pakistani men were convicted in 2010 of raping seven white children, but provided no details -- did they walk into the schools and grab children?
How does this go on and "nobody knows"?

Then we are told, no the number was 50 girls, but now it's 58, as of 2012.
But then three members of one family alone abused 61 girls!
How does this happen?
Are there no parents? No teachers? No police?
Sixty-one girls and not one complained? Nobody ever knew?

Now we see a report where it's said, no, the number is not seven children raped, it's not 58, it's not another 61, it's 1,400!

The mind boggles, the head spins, are we talking about England here, or Britistan?

"According to the report, children as young as eleven were 'raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated.'
Three previous inquiries had presented similar findings but, according to the report, had been 'effectively suppressed' because officials 'did not believe the data'."

I don't believe this data, I don't "get" what's going on, something is wrong -- very wrong -- with this entire picture.

What is it?

[OldNewYork]

If the fathers were even around. This case is so disgusting, in so many ways.

[Sherman Logan]

The 1400 girls are supposedly in an area of South Yorkshire of around 200,000 population.

Most if not all of these unfortunate girls were from the English white underclass, which bears remarkable similarities to our own black underclass. See the writings of Theodore Dalrymple.

IOW, there isn’t a father around, and generally not all that much in the way of a mother.

[donna]

They aren't raping the children because they are white; the Moslems are raping the non-Moslem children .

The cover-up is due to political correctness which won't allow anyone to state the above.

Finally! Veil lifted on Muslim rape epidemic
‘They are simply living by the 7th century rules of a desert warrior’
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/finally-muslim-rape-epidemic-in-spotlight/#cv5oBiU5Sg6tFYrf.99

[aquila48]

Sounds like it was the religion not the race.

[aquila48]

PC kills... and rapes.

[Pining_4_TX]

One theory - most of the bravest British men were killed off in the world wars. What was left to reproduce, reproduced a pretty passive bunch of spineless wonders.

No man should be sent to war until he has fathered offspring.

[Sherman Logan]

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Sometimes people have mixed motives.

[joma89]

Sun Tsu said it best with, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” I believe the “asians” /sarc, have done exactly that in this case and many other cases that are also already known yet nothing is being done about it.

JoMa

[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "Most if not all of these unfortunate girls were from the English white underclass, which bears remarkable similarities to our own black underclass."

Oddly enough, I woke up this morning with just that idea -- I've read all about this before, here in the USA.

So, to explain it all, we're talking just two words: projects and politics.

Projects:

Bluntly stated: "projects" are warehouses for the poor, maintained at government expense, in which all semblance of family & community is stripped away, by government policy, where drugs and violent gangs run wild, and whose sole contribution to society at large is to provide enough votes to keep Democrats permanently in power.

So we are talking about children from the projects, in the US mostly black, but in Britain mostly white.
As you say, no fathers and barely a mother, on reaching puberty young girls often move in with an older man, let's call him "sugar daddy", frequently become pregnant, and so we speak of "children having children".

Having babies makes the girls eligible for welfare, and at a certain age (is it 18?) for government housing assistance.
At that point, if they wish, they & their children can move out of "sugar daddy's" place into their own apartment -- providing they don't marry, or show evidence of a permanent boy friend.
And that is the most benign of possible outcomes.

Very often drugs & other crimes are involved, girls are trafficked, go to jail and/or lose custody of their children -- all that in the USA.

So (hypothesizing here) this is the background, the "real story" in Britain, in which we now see Muslim men becoming new "sugar daddies", a role perhaps cynically accepted by police, until something triggers a crackdown -- such as public outrage over increasing reports of astronomical numbers of girls being abused.

Politics:

So why are we seeing such reports?
Are there really more "projects" girls being raped today than ever before?

Probably not, but note that the first report was five Pakistani men convicted of raping seven underage girls -- in 2010, the same year as the current British Conservative Party government took power in Parliament.
Seven girls seems like a lot, but hardly enough to support a media crusade against British Conservatism ("conservative" in Britain being strictly a relative term), and so that number must be seen to grow regularly, first seven girls, then 50+, then another 60, and now 1,400!
All under the Conservatives' watch -- doubless implicitly or explicitly blamed on "heartless conservative budget cuts".

So, my hypothesis is: it's a media campaign against "those heartless conservatives" who want to see young English girls raped by raging Muslim men!

What is the truth of the matter?
Likely Muslim gangs have taken over some of the turf & girls previously ruled by other British gangs, police have continued to turn a blind eye, as always, until as is not uncommon amongst Muslims, there is evidence of gross-brutality, and now police must begin to crack down -- just as soon as that heartless Conservative Government votes them more money.

Anyway, that's my hypothesis, and I'd welcome anybody's evidence either way, confirming or falsifying it.

[aquila48]

Actually the reports I’ve seen put most of the blame on Polical Correctness which is hardly a conservative idea.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/rotherham-fear-of-all-the-wrong-things-failed-1400-children/

http://www.smh.com.au/world/race-religion-immigration-the-rotherham-sex-abuse-scandal-consumes-uk-20140828-109acs.html

[Salvation]

** The overwhelming majority of the abusers were Asian men, primarily of Pakistani descent. And their victims were overwhelmingly white girls.**

UH-oh~

[Salvation]

And more facts:

**The 2011 census in Rotherham showed that 3.1 per cent of the population of the Borough were of Pakistani or Kashmiri ethnicity. Yet as Jay states, “In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010.**

[BroJoeK]

Political correctness merely refuses to acknowledge the perps are Pakistani.
The basic conditions, in the UK just as in the USA, are created by insane liberal social welfare policies.
So the Paks are merely the latest gangsters to rule the projects.
Yes, they are more violent & abusive than other gangs, after all, they belong to the religion of violence.
But they are fulfilling the same basic role as countless other gangs in other projects.

imho

[Sherman Logan]

Blaming it on the Tories might be the intent, but I really, really don’t think it will work.

The city in question, where the actual decisions not to deal with this were made, is the rough equivalent of a US Democrat single-party system city, except the party is Labour.

The claim is that the problem “started” in 97, and continued for 16 years to 2013. What else happened in 97? Labour took over the national government and held it till 2010.

So if Labour and its leftist allies in the media tries to make this out to be the Tories’ fault, I really believe it will backfire.

This article is by a Labour party worker, and published in a leftist paper. While it doesn’t blame Labour, I suspect readers aren’t stupid enough to not make the obvious connection. That the Comments have been closed is probably because they were doing exactly that.

[Sherman Logan]

“In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010."

And this statement itself might very well be spin.

Does "the majority" mean 51% or 95%? Big difference. If the actual percentage is available, using "the majority" is probably an attempt to obscure the severity of the problem.