But I'm researching Human Trafficking right now
But not critically assessing, it would appear. Rather like people who think they are "researching" vaccination by reading websites and nodding when it sounds truthy.
Let's put to one side that cases of human trafficking involve, you know, trafficking and therefore the physical removal of someone from one location to another. Cases of child abduction other than as part of custody disputes are incredibly rare in the UK and, even if we chuck in unexplained disappearances of all sorts, it's about fifty a year. Fifty too many, obviously, but not remotely the epidemic you are trying to claim. But that's accepting your conflation of grooming with trafficking, which is misleading.
A young person (make or female) looks nice, friendly, helpful, usually charismatic strikes up conversation with a young person. It doesn't have to have that day, but its called "grooming" and eventually the victim thinks it's their own idea to go away.
So you'll be providing some evidence of cases such as that happening in the UK in any significant quantity. Note: not Rotherham, Telford, Oxford etc, hideous and upsetting as they are. Because there was little to no "go away" in those cases, and indeed the heart of the scandal is parents who knew their children were being abused and yet knew precisely where they were being unable to access help, support and police intervention. There were no? almost no? cases within those hideous stories of abduction, trafficking or other removal from context. Their very horror is in the "under our noses" element. This is not, for emphasis, to minimise, trivialise, "other" or otherwise reduce the enormity of the crimes against the victims in those cases: it is to point out that calling it "trafficking" is entirely missing the point, and conflating two very different crimes. But let's go with your argument and conflate them.
I read a quote from a policeman who said "EVERY parent who loses a child this way says 'my dd said that he treated her like a princess.'"
Firstly, a large proportion of the children who were the victims in Rotherham were from backgrounds where "parent" means "the state". Secondly, you're being very vague about "loses a child". So, not Rotherham, then, but abduction and murder? Abduction and permanent disappearance? Such cases are largely sui generis, but you're claiming there is an epidemic of children being groomed and then abducted permanently? Cases, please? They'll be quite newsworthy, wouldn't you say?
It's 2nd to drugs, crosses all socioeconomic strata and 57% are white, English speaking girls. 32 million people a year.
And we get to the total bollocks part, which makes me say "if you're researching it for an undergraduate course, do better, before your tutor says 'critically evaluate your sources'."
32 million x 0.57 = 18m, roughly. About 360m people speak English as their first language, but a large proportion of them are not white. I'm not going to write your essay for you, but can we settle on 80% of people who speak English as a first language being white? It's about right. So 288m. Half of them are female. 144m. Making some handwaving assumptions about demographics (and bearing in mind that in general it is not white populations which are growing) let's say "girls" means 0-20, life expectancy 80 (which is about right for white, English speaking populations), so 25%, or 36m.
You are claiming that every year, out of a world-side population of 36 million white, English speaking women aged under 20, 18 million of them are the victims of child trafficking. You are claiming that each year, FIFTY PERCENT OF ALL WHITE YOUNG WOMEN ARE TRAFFICKED EACH YEAR. So by the time someone gets to 20, there is only a one in a million chance (literally: 1 over 2 to the 20) that they have not been trafficked at least once?
Seriously? You are claiming that out of every million young white women, 999 999 of them have been the victims of trafficking (disappeared, police involved, "gone away", trafficking) at least once?
That's taking wild hysteria to whole new heights.