There will be a national enquiry into the grooming gangs

Pg 125

In July 2022 the Telford Independent Inquiry found up to 1,000 children may have
been sexually exploited between 1989 to 2017, with a high proportion of offenders
identified as coming from Asian or Pakistani ethnic backgrounds. Like the Jay report
years before, the Inquiry was notable for its directness on ethnicity. They said they were unable to examine this prevalence further due to the absence of any evidence submitted by offenders and on a lack of engagement from the Asian community
The Telford inquiry report commented on the apparent concern of agencies to tread
carefully in order to avoid stirring up racial or community tensions and made strong
recommendations about the need for transparency in the future. However, in the
positive progress report published two years later, there was still a high proportion of
missing data on the ethnicity of perpetrators.
We heard from police forces that local authorities would discourage them from
publicising the successful conviction of perpetrators of group-based child sexual
exploitation due to fears of raising tensions. Publicising successful prosecutions is a
well-established method for police to encourage other victims to come forward,
especially those that are historically under-reported like child sexual abuse and
exploitation

You asked several times a couple of days ago, on this thread, why ethnicity was relevant - the implication being it wasn't and people were racist to suggest so.

Has the Casey report, now released, changed your view on that?

Casey Review, Pg 121

Senior officials in the police, local authorities and other agencies writing in reports or
in public statements to the media conclude from the flawed available data that the
majority of group-based child sexual exploitation offending is committed by White
perpetrators or that the ethnic profile is ‘mixed’. Some also portray or even dismiss
concerns about Asian offenders as either a ‘media coverage’ issue or ‘historical
offending’, which risks detracting attention from all types of child sexual abuse. This
is misleading. The seniority of the officials making these statements also makes it far
more difficult for frontline staff to feel they can challenge them.

Pg 123

More often than not, the [earlier] official reports do not discuss the perpetrators, let alone
their ethnicity or any cultural drivers. There is a palpable discomfort in any discussion
of ethnicity in most of them. Where ethnicity is mentioned, it is referred to in
euphemisms such as ‘the local community’, or it is buried deep in the report and only
vaguely referenced in any contents index or executive summary. Most choose to
reside in more comfortable territory of examination and discussion of systems,
processes and multi-agency partnerships. These are important, and it is essential to
identify and learn lessons from failures. But it is also vital to be rigorous in trying to
understand the nature of and motivations for offending if agencies are to better
protect children.

I haven't in any way, shape or form denied what happened. I would appreciate it if you could back up your claims with evidence.

Sorry, but the game’s up. The years of denial and DARVO tactics don’t work anymore. Casting doubt on those calling out on what happened to working-class girls doesn’t discredit the facts — it only shows how uncomfortable the truth still is for many.

Many people speak out about this precisely because they care about CSA victims, many posters here are CSA survivors themselves or come from communities directly affected. The tone you’re taking ends up doing exactly what institutions did back then: brushing aside survivors because acknowledging their abuse is politically inconvenient — a pattern typified by Polly Toynbee The Guardian (where else).

These conversations are being had now, for many they’re uncomfortable truths. The silence on this horrendous, monstrous rape scandal is over.

What argument? And there's that theasuras again, are you passing it round?

When you’ve lost the argument ( look at the poll) then all you have left is deflection, obfuscation and abuse .

You said you wondered why some ethnicities were crossed out.

I said do you not know?

It is a closed question with a yes or no answer. You either do know or you do not.

By all means crack on and do not engage I am more than happy with that decision, do you know you don't need to announce it? (You won't understand that question) 😂

I’m afraid I really struggle to understand your points so I won’t be engaging with you anymore

I misread and voted yabu.

Absolutely necessary.

The projection is real.

Do you not know?

Didn't cross out data with me. They just didn't ask. Why is that I wonder?

Working-class communities of all backgrounds face serious systemic neglect — that’s not in question. But dismissing what happened to white working-class girls just because others also suffered too isn’t right.

The Casey report makes it clear: white working-class girls were specifically and deliberately targeted in many grooming gang cases. Offenders saw them as “easy,” “available,” and less likely to be protected or believed. That perception came from deep-seated class prejudice and racialised misogyny — the idea that white girls from poor communities were worthless. These girls weren’t treated as victims; they were dismissed as “slags” or “making choices,” even by the very professionals meant to protect them.

No one is saying they’re the only ones suffering. But they’re often amongst the least listened to, most written off, and politically inconvenient. These communities are rarely at the centre of national conversations about injustice. They’re often spoken about, not listened to — and when they do speak, they’re painted as reactionary or backward. That makes them some of the easiest to dismiss — not because their suffering is less real, but because it doesn’t fit the usual narrative.

We can acknowledge the shared struggles of all working-class communities without erasing the specific ways some were targeted.

Shameful response . It’s hard to believe you truly care about the survivors or potential victims in the future

Yes - it was very interesting to hear that ethnicity had been crossed out with felt pen.
What was that about I wonder? 🧐

Yes - this is EXACTLY the mindset that failed the victims

Absolutely everyone picks bits which was what I said in my post! I also didn't say it was anything new. I was replying to someone so hence that was why I posted what was said. Not sure why you are implying I am suggesting it is new?

The data does show most are white. The data does show that the highest proportion are pakistani. Both are true at the same time with the data we have.

I’m reading you perfectly well in the context of your posts and general line of argument, notably your early glossing over of the Mipuri girls and your insinuation that white WC communities are uniquely hard done by when the reality is that WC communities of all backgrounds experience many common problems.

HTH

Agree. It’s why we’re here, this kind of accusation.

How honestly dare you accuse the op of those things ? Fucking horrendous

Well said op 👏👏👏

You’re at odds with the inquiry and new viewpoint.

There's nothing new about the flawed/missing data, @Fetaface; reports have mentioned it for years, but interestingly it doesn't stop some picking whatever bits that suit to insist most group abusers are (insert identifier of choice)

It's true that the Home Office also claimed most such groups are white, but then like all governments they'll claim whatever's politically expedient regardless of the actual facts, knowing perfectly well that the media will do the rest

I would however like to know, given the proven reluctance of our authorities to address this at all, just what influences were brought to bear over that mere one third of cases where ethnicity was noted and whether there was encouragement to gatheer data on some races while leaving others unrecorded, but whether this will ever be focused on is anyone's guess