To think the roots of the grooming gangs go back to failures from the 1950s on?

[Carla786]

I was reading Hina Husain's excellent article here and it made me think

https://unherd.com/2025/06/mirpuris-and-the-problem-of-integration/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

that discussion of the roots of the grooming gangs tends to focus on Blair's failed multiculturalism policies, local council/police etc failings.

But what rarely gets talked about is why and how large parts of the northern Mirpuri Pakistani communities were allowed to get to such a self-segregated and dysfunctional state to begin with.
Why was there no research in the 1950s-60s on the clan systems, misogynistic practices prevalent in rural Mirpuri villages when they were encouraged to immigrate? Why PMs from Wilson, Heath, Thatcher etc never appear to make integration of such communities a priority to some extent?

Most stuff just seems to blame PC culture & Tony Blair, who do share a huge amount of blame, but less is asked about why this situation, clearly full of potential issues, was never addressed much from the 60s to 1997...

Well, marriage in the sense we understand it here in the UK had its roots in the 'union' being essentially a financial arrangement, with the woman as property (obviously I don't think that's a good thing, just in case 👍)

The existence of 2000 madrassas in the UK which exist because the communities don’t want to out their children in UK state education is a great concern. I remember a number of these were found to be in breach of safeguarding and safety standards and segregating boys and girls in order to treat girls badly - back in the days when the chilling effect of accusations of Islamophobia’ didn’t paralyse our regulatory bodies.

Relationships did occur between British men and Indian women, particularly in the early colonial period. Some were consensual, some were actually sexual coercion or exploitation.Children were born from these unions (Anglo-Indians or Eurasians). Some fathers acknowledged them; others did not. Mothers and relatives often raised these children, and some faced poverty or social marginalisation.

The idea of widespread, household-based sexual slavery under the wives’ noses is exaggerated and not supported by evidence. Historians definitely note instances of abuse, neglect, and stigma, but there was no systematic practice like that.

Good books on the origins of the Anglo-Indian community include Clare Fuller, Bernard O'brien & Pamela Nightingale.

What are your sources for the mass sexual exploitation narrative? Do you have any links? Book titles?

In the 70s and 80s a lot of the concern was around West Indian immigrants - the Afro carribean immigration that started with windrush,

Pakistanis largely were not on the national political radar.

Why not? Why was there no curiosity about what kind of communities were coming?

Please may I have the title?

The reaping what we sowed was in reference to how the British Empire saw itself as a force to civilise other cultures. But our ‘civilising’ influence included tacit approval of and participation in sex trafficking. So it is no wonder we British still do it here and now and no wonder that immigrants from parts of the former Empire who were shown by us that it’s ok still do it too when they immigrated here. The minor over-représentation is due to the fact that sex trafficking is usually along class lines, and most lower class people in any country can’t afford to emigrate. I would wager that white British would be over represented as members of grooming gangs compared to the local men in the global south right now…

Well, who are you reading? The accounts by the white British or the accounts written in Hindu or Urdu by the colonised? There is a lot of white washing in how the colonists were most eager to reassure the reader that their advances were most welcome.

editing- never mind, I can see you’re reading only the western pov on the history.

Could you recommend some Hindi or Urdu accounts to read? I would be interested.

'Reaping what it sowed' is an awful term to use in this discussion. This isn't just a generic societal issue. There are individual victims who have experienced serious harm through no fault of their own. Using the term you have makes it sound like it was deserved, like the victims deserve to be abused just for being born white British. Punishment for the crimes of their ancestors. Justifying the crimes of evil men because a white man did it first.

Given the uproar each time changes are suggested to cultural norms or traditional practices by 'the British' to other cultures or heritages, I can imagine the voices looking back on the colonists if they went in to countries saying 'here old boy you cant rape and sexually exploit your women, we'll put a stop to this'

Yes, it would be more of the same that the white man came along putting all their cultural mores onto populations that didnt want it, didnt need it, were quite happy as you are thank you very much.

Ashutosh Kumar and Ghauitra Bahadur are both respected historians who have translated many primary sources on systemic colonial sexual violence in the 19th c.

Where is your evidence for this? Which English men told the Pakistani men it was ‘civilised and superior’ to traffic young women for sex?

Your claims remind me of the trans activists who say, in all seriousness, that people of colour didn’t understand who was male and who was female until white settlers introduced the concept to them.

Absolute nonsense.

I am sorry for choosing an insensitive phrase. I tend to compartmentalise the emotions out of the history of atrocities. It’s a coping mechanism for me when thinking about the horrors of billions of women over millenia subjected to sexual violence. I will take your comment seriously and endeavour to choose my words more sensitively.

Sigh, British men told them by doing it in India to local women while claiming that British is best, our culture is more civilised, you need to be more like us etc.

Thank you. I read of these with interest.

Kumar & Bahadur describe disgusting behaviour to women

However, they are writing about Indians in African plantations used as 'coolies'. Not Indians in India.

Why would sexual abuse in African colonies affect Mirpuri Pakistani attitudes? Would they even be aware of it?

I believe it.

I lived in Luton briefly in the mid 80s as a rather broken teenager. I was in no way trafficked or groomed. I didn’t know such a thing existed.

I did know that after 7 sexual assaults in 8 months that Luton was basically a hell on earth designed to destroy what little remained of my will to live.

I blamed myself for so long. The depths of my depression deepened. It would be years before I heard of the phenomenon and realised it hadn’t been something I’d done, that had been lost in translation, bringing it on myself. It had been who I was.

The depths of masochism and self-loathing in this country staggers me. The Left really have done a superb job of teaching us to hate ourselves. So many people now respond to these issues like brainwashed prisoners, or well-trained seals - just mindlessly repeating the woke narrative. I can’t be bothered to challenge your crude and simplistic post. The idea that other cultures learned sexual abuse and exploitation from us is beyond ridiculous. Men throughout history, in every culture from China to Mexico, have raped and abused and exploited lower class girls.

Still, at least you’ve got the courage to openly say what so many on the Left really think - which is that those girls in Rotherham were paying off a colonial debt and deserved it. We all know the Left couldn’t care less about them and wish they’d just shut up.

You talk about reaping what they’ve sowed, well the Left better pray there is never another major war, because the Left will reap what they have sowed. After the fall of Dunkirk, when Britain was on the brink of invasion, my grandfather cycled into town to join the RAF and defend his country. If that happened today, I wouldn’t lift a toenail to defend this country, nor would millions of others like me.

I see, so when were Indian men and Indian culture (because women were involved of course as well) going to change their behaviours if they were never introduced to the British?

Was it on the cards and the horrid British stopped all that?

I don’t know why but I could make some informed guesses.

firstly, I grew up in a northern mill town, there were many Pakistanis there. They were largely encouraged to get jobs at factories and mills etc and were scattered around the country.

many of the Afro Caribbean people who came were focused in London - and our media and government has always been very London focused.

secondly, many of the Afro Caribbean people who came had been educated and were expecting to be treated with respect in Britain and when they were not there were reactions.

the Pakistani people who came were generally not as educated and those who were often had English as second or third language. They were better off in Britain and were (largely) happy with how they were treated. (Please note I am not saying they were treated well, just that there were fewer protests, etc),

again for cultural reasons the Pakistani people largely got married, had children, lived within their own community. The West Indians less so - you can read articles from the 70s and 80s getting very worried about the mixed race marriages that were happening, and the number of children born outside marriage. These were considered signs of “social breakdown”.

at the time the Pakistani immigrants aligned better with the values then in play - get married, don’t have kids before marriage, don’t have affairs, don’t get divorced, and get a job and work hard.

Excellent post

Barbary slave trade primarily operated from the 16th to the early 19th century (approx. 1530–1780s), with intense activity along the North African coast (Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli) and the Mediterranean. During this period, Barbary corsairs captured 1 million to 1.25 million European Christians, largely ending after European/American intervention.

I wonder how summerfever would react if someone tried saying whites learnt about slavery from watching the ottomans?

Or the Romans and the Normans

I mean the fact that the whole aristocracy is formed out of the Normans means the French should be crying into their baguettes for what they made us do.

All ' Asians' are not the same. We may look the same but we are not. Personally, as someone of Southern Indian heritage, from a community that values education for women, I resent being lumped in with grooming gangs, madrasas and women denied education.

And no, colonialism is never an excuse for women being raped and assaulted. Absolutely vile to blame colonial debt for grooming gangs. But yes, lumping all Asians in one category has muddled government policy.

Or, conversely, we could think about, and dicuss, the question posed by the OP without immediately 'what-abouting'.

Source: ChatGPT