Suella Braverman vows to stamp out grooming gangs behind organised child sex abuse

[IwantToRetire]

The Home Secretary, writing in The Mail on Sunday, pledges to 'track down and punish the grooming gangs with the same sense of mission and determination' used to pursue the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, the black British teenager who was killed in a racially motivated attack at a bus stop in South London in 1993.

Ms Braverman, who was born in Harrow, in North-West London, to a Kenyan mother and Mauritian father, writes: 'The time has come to make right one of the greatest injustices seen in Britain in modern times. The systematic rape, exploitation and abuse of young girls by organised gangs of older men – and the disgraceful failure of the authorities to act despite ample evidence – is a stain on our country.'

A Buddhist, Ms Braverman describes the 'perpetrators' as 'groups of men, almost all British-Pakistani, who hold cultural attitudes completely incompatible with British values'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11928629/SUELLA-BRAVERMAN-mission-ensure-really-no-hiding-place-gangs-grooming-young-girls.html

I am not sure if this is just the DM take on what she said, or if it accurately reflects what she said.

If she did say this and not talk about how men of all cultures, given the opportunity, have and will exploit young women, then she is letting down all the women who are exploited.

If some want to make this a Left/Right issue, which it really isn't, its a policing issue..... why are Tory voters defending this appalling record

Who are you talking about? Tory voters? Who? Who is defending what? I’ve just stated earlier reducing police numbers has contributed to this. Do you read others comments at all or just type away… Tory voters blah blah blah

Why don't you elaborate why this issue is a higher priority for you than sexual abuse of children generally? Or the appalling rape statistics at the moment?

It's not a higher priority. It's an equal priority. One of the many wrongs against women and girls that needs putting right.
Hope this clears things up for you.

It’s typical with a few posters. A shame as the threads end up the same way.

Feel free. But as upthread Jonei accused me of not caring about white girls I think its pot, kettle

I don't know if Jonei is racist. Saying certain things gives a certain impression. I should know, I've been called a man hater on here enough for being feminist. I don't hate men so I don't find it offensive.

I feel maybe some posters are keen to get the thread pulled at this point, who knows why

CSE includes “sex trafficking Eastern Europeans” the issue is doing more to fight CSE gangs…all of them.

CSA is usually in the home, behind closed doors by relatives or family friends and so requires a different approach from combatting CSE.

Okay, I am going to say this.

"men of British Pakistani origin": this type of descriptor, or variations of it, is used over and over again when discussing grooming gangs. And, typically, there is always a reactive clamour over racism, dog-whistles, and white-men-do-it-too.

Only this ignores the deeper problem with the descriptor. When you actually look at the backgrounds of the men associated with these grooming gangs, you realise the descriptor is subtly misleading. The majority of these men are not British-by-birth of Kashmiri/Pakistani/Indian Muslim familial heritage; they are, instead, foreign nationals that have acquired British citizenship as adults through marriage.

So while, legally, they are British because they have a British passport (and a number of them have been dual passport holders, and at least one has scarpered back to their home country when the Police got involved), they were not born and brought up in Britain, nor are their parents British.

To my mind, it is misleading to lump them in with British-born men from Kashmiri/Pakistani/Indian Muslim heritage families, who have grown up in Britain and whose parents, and maybe even grandparents, were born in Britain too.

It's similar to describing an English bloke who went to Thailand and married a Thai girl as "a man of Thai English origin", which kinda puts him in the same descriptive category as a Thailand-born child who has one Thai and one English parent and has lived all their life in Thailand. But these two things are not the same . . . not by a long chalk.

I think it is important to recognise that many of these men acquired British citizenship as adults.

One: because these specific grooming gangs are not a British male problem, so to speak. It's not Mo and Hassan who were in your class at primary school, but Mo and Hassan are being badly smeared by association because their grandparents were from Pakistan and they are Muslim.

Two: it also explains why it is occurring and why the attitudes to working class British girls are so appalling (remember: there have also been Sikh and Hindu victims in some cases). What we see with these cases are imported malevolent attitudes towards "the other": in this case, "the other" are British working class girls of a variety of ethnicities.

Three: it also explains how it could take place for so long. These groups of men are, to some extent, on the outskirts of minority communities in Britain. They are outsiders to British-born Pakistani-heritage communities; they are on the fringes, and operate on, the fringes of those communities. This has been why policing it has been so difficult. In some British-Pakistani areas, nobody really knew who these men were, and they were scared to say anything anyway.

Four: I think it is really important to realise that British-born Pakistani-heritage families are unjustly pincered by this issue: on the one side by the "British Pakistani" description and on the other by the "WMDIT" reaction. The truth is: these are not their crimes.

No I am saying that I am sure anyone reading your posts will be able to judge for themselves, whether or not the posts are racist.

In which case its a majority white crime - so why focus specifically on Pakistani men?

I actually trust the NCA/police to do their job here and spot any patterns in offenders and use them to bring those offenders to justice.

I think our politicians calling out a particular ethnicity stigmatises them and provides a justification for racists to take vigilante action.

Like this
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi

Do you think my posts are racist jgw1?

Yes or no.

Simple answer.

Why don't you read the Twitter thread I posted you for the answer to your questions. If you expect people to read your links, then you should also do the same...

@ColdMeg I think it is important to recognise that many of these men acquired British citizenship as adults. Yes if true that is really important. Thanks for your post.

I feel maybe some posters are keen to get the thread pulled at this point, who knows why

Good point. Do you want to get the thread pulled I wonder...

Presumably all those who are so supportive of Braverman tackling one part of CSE now, were as vehment in their condemnation of her and Rishi Sunak when they announced that the victims of trafikking would not be supported by the systems in place to prevent slavery?

I did read it and I commented on it. Scroll back up and you'll see. I even linked Priti Patels "official" finding

Or are you saying your twitter source is more authoritative than the government analysis? That's awkward for Braverman

I can tell @Jonei isn’t racist.

I am really pleased with SB’s statements on a number of things - on the push towards blasphemy laws and against free speech, the transing of kids, non-crime hate incidents, and grooming gangs. Her statements have literally helped me in dealing with my kids’ school. She could almost be a mumsnetter.

Cold your post is insightful and a useful one

@L3ThirtySeven so you will join me in condeming Braverman and Sunak for announcing a few weeks ago there intention to remove some of the protections those who are traffiked for sex currently have?

It’s a majority white crime with majority white victims because we are a majority white country.

But history has shown us that insofar as catching non-white CSE gang members, the authorities have hesitated despite tons of evidence and victims coming forward from taking action. So the non-white gangs got away with CSE for far longer than the white gangs did. This is historic FACT. Which is why the acceptance that we should understand that anyone can be a perpetrator or victim.

They are acknowledging an injustice that happened in recent times and saying they intend to do more and better when fighting CSE gangs.

Not at all. But I'm not the one being aerated for being challenged on my views and accusing everyone of being anti tory keyboard warriors

Why do you need me to tell you if you are racist?

I am touched though that you value my opinion so highly.

But history has shown us that insofar as catching non-white CSE gang members, the authorities have hesitated despite tons of evidence and victims coming forward from taking action. So the non-white gangs got away with CSE for far longer than the white gangs did. This is historic FACT. Which is why the acceptance that we should understand that anyone can be a perpetrator or victim

Recent history has shown that sexual predators are often able to operate without being caught, even when reported.

The Catholic Church
The Met police
Various sports
Various schools
Savile
Children's homes

I find it interesting people are so up in arms about this when other sexual abuse is overlooked and ignored.

So the non-white gangs got away with CSE for far longer than the white gangs did. This is historic FACT.
And I don't believe this is fact at all.

Some of the background to this from 2021, including Priti Patel:

www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/04/no-asian-grooming-gangs-are-not-a-myth/

"One critical article, entitled ‘The Sex Gang Whitewash’, came in the Mail on Sundayy_. Here it was noted that it was home secretary Priti Patel who eventually pushed to have the report written up. Something another minister claims those overseeing the results of the report were ‘reluctant’ to do.

Indeed, it is the issue of grooming gangs and the failure to release the latest findings that is believed to have led to the tension between Patel and her civil servants, particularly Sir Philip Rutnamm_, who eventually resigned claiming a problem of ‘bullying’ in the Home Office."

The same article says:

"The report in question was set up two-and-a-half years ago, by then home secretary Sajid Javid, specifically to look into the ‘characteristics’ of grooming gangs following a number of high-profile controversies about the proportion of men of Pakistani heritage found to be involved with child sexual exploitation.

It was particularly surprising given that the Home Office had sat on the original report and claimed it was only for ‘internal’ purposes. At the time, the Independent filed an FOI request and this helped to spark a petition, calling for the report to be published, which received 130,000 signaturess_."

This also leaps off the page:

"What struck me as being particularly curious about the claim made by the Guardian — that it is ‘white men’ who are key to child sexual abuse gangs — was that in the second paragraph of the article it was noted that the report found that ‘there was not enough evidence to conclude that child sexual abuse gangs were disproportionately made up of Asian offenders’.

If the evidence was inconclusive about Asian offenders, how could there be such certainty about white men being the main culprits?"

I don't value your opinion at all to be honest. Im just asking you to clarify your smear. But you won't dare do that will you.

It’s not being overlooked or ignored though. You’re just engaging in whataboutery.