The Rotherham 1,400 children plus – WHO is responsible?

[Isitmebut]

The Rotherham situation, where the authorities appear to have done NOTHING to protect children in care, goes back 16-years, as it appears there was a largely ethnic element involved and ‘the powers that CONTINUE to be’ in a job, were afraid in that political climate, to be seen as ‘racists’, but why?

I can remember posting when anyone even daring to mention the affects of immigration on housing, jobs and local services were called ‘racist’, sometimes whole posts/threads were deleted on media boards (even the Daily Mail) - while the government of the day, not held to account by the media on their side, were free to continue a ‘multicultural’ agenda they adopted in their first few years they never sought at the ballot box.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2354713/BBC-chief-admits-We-deep-liberal-bias-migrants--changed.html

But as this article points out, the fear of being accused a racist, affected even household conversations.
“Are we all racist now?”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10860492/Are-we-all-racist-now.html

And the problem with secret sofa government policies, where local authorities and media compliance is key to continued electoral success, is that you can’t be SEEN to raise ethnic issues OR plan ahead for the numbers in homes, healthcare or schools – especially in a 2010 General Election manifesto, in electoral damage limitation mode.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

The 2000’s seem to be a time when our public sector/local government numbers increased enormously, but seemed to both have THEIR OWN POLITICAL agendas, and failed so many vulnerable people, especially children in and out of care.

For no one in Rotherham to take responsibility for what happened to the 1,400 children (we know about), is a national disgrace – that is not good enough.

Well, I think if we are going to talk about the demographic of who is committing the crimes, we inevitably are talking about issues of gender. Many of the men in this case were Pakistani, but what about all the other recent cases in which there where white only gangs? Or the white men involve in this one? The biggest demographic correlation, in fact the only demographic is that all of these crimes were perpetrated by men and all victims of these crimes are not men - women and children. Why do you not see this as a gender issue and what value do you think comes from focusing on Pakistani perpetrators?

But this is not a crime committed only by Pakistani Muslims. It is a crime committed only by men, though

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10061217/Imams-promote-grooming-rings-Muslim-leader-claims.html?=1

Point taken. It is committed by men. That being said, virtually all rapes are undertaken by men. But in relation to so called grooming gangs involving Asian men, Asian men equals Muslim men. That being said the females in their community have been conspicuously silent and seemed to have closed ranks about what abuses their Muslim men have indulged in.

It's not a crime solely committed by Pakistani Muslims I don't think anyone intelligent enough is making that point, and yes it is majority men who commit these crimes.

Trying to reduce this to the lowest common denominator is not going to tackle the issue.

Well, women in all communities are quite silent on calling out the men, in my experience. One woman was punched in the face for calling out a man who groped her in Carnival last weekend, women like Caroline Criado-Perez have been been threatened with death for challenging male privilege in broader culture, so it's not as if speaking out is easy. And anyway, shouldn't it really be men speaking out? No matter which way you look at this is not the fault of women.

This is not a question of the lowest common denominator, it's a question of what do these perpetrators have in common? They are men living in our culture. It is our culture that equates masculinity with sexual "conquest". It is our culture in which consent is treated as a joke. It is in our culture that policemen responding to desperate parents in this case described the victims as girlfriends of the perpetrators, ignoring the fact that having sex with a child is a crime.

I think the problem with men speaking out against issues have been reduced to man-splaigning or white knighting so it's actually become reductive.

There are white grooming gangs, too, white men working in organised gangs trafficking children up and down the country, at the highest levels of our society. All men, the perpetrators. We have a problem in our society and it is that masculine identity is realised and proved through sexual prolificacy. And women and other not-men are accessories to the realisation of that identity.

I really don't think men engaging other men in conversations about the damage that constructing masculinity on the basis of sexual activity is wreaking on women and children is mansplaining.

This thread has moved away from the Rotherham abuses.

The police are not afraid of being seen as racist. They are unafraid of disproportionately targeting non-white men for every other kind of crime. Why do you think crimes of sexual violence are different?

Why is talking about rape culture and our cultural.ideas about consent not talking about the Rotherham rapes? Those men were predominantly Pakistani but there were white men, too. How can your assertion that Muslims "lack a moral compass" account for the white perpetrators and the cases of white grooming gangs?

Apologies. I have asked the mods to remove my last posting.

While I don't personally feel that race is the only issue in this particular case, I'm interested in the numerous claims about the prevalence of white men in other grooming gangs, and have tried to find some reliable data

I'm now very surprised at such remarks since the situation seems much less than clear; although the Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC) states that "Where records exist, between a quarter and half of groups of abusers are Asian" these records are said to be incomplete, with the ethnicity of offenders often not being recorded, recorded incorrectly or recorded more keenly for certain races

Maybe it would be well for this particular statistic to be recorded properly in future, if only to avoid baseless statements one way or the other?

The Peterborough 'gang' was Czech and Kurdish men.

Concentrating on race is clouding the issue of how this can be tackled. It is an industry in which the commodity being sold is children and images of children being abused.
It's not about race, it's about money.

As a society we need to address the make-up of our town centres. It's true that there is abuse in the leafy suburbs but that seems to be more opportunistic. The high-profile cases such as in Rotherham & the other large towns show mafia-style control and planning on a terrifying scale. Whichever cultural grouping controls the town centre, taxi service, fast food outlets etc. also controls the sex trade. This might be Pakistani in one town, eastern European in another and so on.

We also need to ensure that the people whose job it is to care for and protect vulnerable young people are able to actually do their jobs and report abuse without fear of reprimand, dismissal or thwarted promotion prospects. This I believe involves union back-up and more appreciation from society as a whole for the very difficult job they do.

We need to shout from the rooftops that abuse of children ( or any vulnerable person) is utterly unacceptable and will be prosecuted rigorously. If the criminal is found not to have a right to live here then deportation should be automatic.

And we need to look at how we can combat what I see as a growing and pervasive misogyny throughout society.

These things should be the issues we question political parties about as they gear up for the general election.

Mumsnet should take the lead in this.

I would agree that race has absolutely nothing to do with this. I would think that shared values and beliefs amongst the perpetrators does have something to do with it.

Right, I apologise for using the term Asian in this instance; that is my ignorance, I'm afraid

The fact that rape is perpetrated by only men is taking the heat from this particular brand of evil, which is that Pakistani men are grouping together - networking - sharing the abused bodies of only white girls. Why? Why the distinction in the colour and culture of the girls they rape? As far as I am aware, rapists from other demographics don't make such distinctions and I am fed up of disingenuous posters trying to avert our attention away from the fact that these Pakistani grooming gangs are operating under the safety net of some kind of culture which says that white girls are filthy kuffar deserving of no respect, no care and no safety.

These men are bastards of the highest order and posters proclaiming them as no different in any regard to your 'run-of-the-mill' rapist need to look at these gangs again; look at the discourse and language used to the girls and where this hatred for our culture and our women comes from and the deafening silence coming from their communities.

Get a bloody grip, all of you.

In this situation the crimes committed were by Pakistani Muslims which indicates there is a problem with the way in which they view all women and particularly young, white women in this situation.

I can't believe this thread has only garnered seven pages of interest from mumsnetters when banal threads full of bullshit can run to a thousand. Why? Why are mumsnetters keeping quiet about this evil?

Agree totally with you post pistol whipped.

The same thought's occurred to me, PistolWhipped ... it's hard not to compare it with the outrage which tends to breaks out on MN when it's believed that a minority group has been attacked in some way

It can only be because some MN-ers feel their left-wing, liberal, multiculturalism-loving ideologies would be severely challenged by examining the truths right before their very eyes. Let's not forget that MN is predominantly left-wing and that the founder's husband inhabits the upper echelons of The Guardian (or summat).

It makes me angry and frustrated and suspicious and cynical in equal measure and I don't quite know how to express myself without getting into trouble