I think Kritiq's post from late on Monday bears repeating (I have C+Pd below). She suggests that SS is geared up to deal with abusive families or carers, not gangs. So they ignored gangs because they didn't know what to do about them.
The Muslim issue - my analogy would be that child abuse was endemic in the Catholic church for decades. That doesn't mean we stop talking about it, or ignore it because non-priests and non-Catholics also carry out abuse (and Church of England priests - see Megan Stammer's school governor who stands accused of multiple cases).
It's not unreasonable to look at the racial element, both in the way it apparently frightened the authorities off investigating - Anne Cryer MP was shouted down when she tried to raise the issue in West Yorkshire - and in the profile of the perpetrators in some cases. Very far from all cases of abuse, just as Catholic priests are not the only abusers (and clearly not all Catholic priests were/are abusers either). Look at the allegations about Jimmy Saville - we must have police and SS that are not afraid to investigate abuse, no matter WHO the accused is.
Kritiq's post from Monday:
"Beancurd's right on this. I work with kids in an area of the UK that is predominately white British and the problem of child sexual exploitation is rife and extremely worrying. It's worth reading this report (at least the summary at the start) from University of Bedfordshire explaining some of the reasons responses to the problem from all agencies have been pretty feeble so far. (It pertains to England, but the same team are currently undertaking a similar study on behalf of the Scottish Government. I doubt the findings will be all that different.
"I think this issue presents a MASSIVE challenge for all agencies involved in safeguarding children. Child protection policies and procedures are geared up to protecting children who have been harmed or are at risk of harm from their parents or someone in a parent/carer role. They simply aren't set up to deal with this problem.
"The young people involved don't always see what they are doing as harmful. They may see it as doing something "grown up" and like the kudos it gives them amongst their peers as well as the financial rewards. Older siblings or even parents may encourage or at least not discourage them. One 13 year old we worked with was very pissed off when the police got involved because it meant she got in trouble with her parents and cut off her supply line of phone credit, alcohol and cigarettes.
"It's often an older boyfriend who "grooms" them into sexual exploitation, not the stereotype old man in a dirty mac with sweeties. Agencies they come in contact may not notice anything particularly untoward about what's happening when it appears to be in the context of a "relationship."
"Attitudes of practitioners can also get in the way. I've heard senior social workers, teachers, youth workers, health workers and police officers fail to see a child at risk even when they know they are involved in potentially harmful activities. They often see the girls as "streetwise" or "bad eggs" rather than victims of child abuse.
"There needs to be a MASSIVE shift in understanding of the dynamics and process of child sexual exploitation amongst all professionals, and amongst parents as well as a far bigger emphasis on it within schools if this is to be seriously addressed.
"I think we also need to take a sober look at particularly how sexualised messages in popular culture effectively help to "groom" girls in such a way that they are perhaps more susceptible now to sexual exploitation than ever before."