Rupert Lowe’s rape gang enquiry, report published

[Yddraigoldragon]

The report has been published, link below.

http://bit.ly/4uE5odw

It is harrowing.

Nearly 100% of the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes against young girls, were carried out by thousands of Pakistani Muslim men, in dozens of towns across England - Rotherham, Rochdale, Halifax, Aylebury, Banbury, Bristol, Derby, Huddersfield, Manchester, Newcastle, Oxford, Peterborough, Telford and others.
One of the Bradford victims, who was raped and abused from the age of 13, was married to one of her abusers at the age of 15 in an Islamic ceremony, with her male Pakistani social worker present. The social worker, Anwar Meah, was investigated by police, but no further action was taken. You cannot make this up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c89ezepnj0jo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooming_gangs_scandal

Why do I always get the feeling that those making such comments would let hell freeze over before putting what’s right before their political convictions?

I also want to object to a point that people make which is something along the lines of "they only found that 95% of grooming gangs were Muslim because they were only looking for Muslim grooming gangs, therefore this entire study is invalid".

I want to push back against the idea that it's not valid to go into a study/inquiry/report with a research question of "what is the scale of the Muslim grooming gang problem across the UK?"

(I'm not saying that Lowe did this, but it's similar in concept to being interested narrowly only in, say, "rape gangs facilitated by taxi firms" or "rape gangs where there is a significant ethnic clan factor" or something, which will limit the scope and result in disproportionate numbers of Pakistani Muslims (for example).)

This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

In such a study, your goal is to discover a) the scale of this particular, narrow type of crime; and b) any unique characteristics about it which might make it easier to identify it and target prevention efforts at, beyond generic child abuse prevention efforts.

For example, let's say a hypothetical report makes the following claims.

1. 100% of the gangs we studied were non-white. Of these, 90% were Pakistani Muslim, 5% were from other Muslim countries, and 5% were non-Muslim.

2. We identified 50k victims in total from all the gangs we looked at. The majority of victims were in major cities in the North, with very few found in Devon and Cornwall.

3. We observed that all the gangs we looked at involved members who were close family relations, and that there was a clear pattern of having a member of the group get a job in a position of power such as council worker, police etc who would then use their position to protect their relatives. Existing conflict of interest legislation only considers spouses but not cousins and we recommend it should be expanded for people from close clan-based ethnic/cultural groups.

It would be reasonable to object to someone using this study to claim that "95% of all rapists are Pakistani Muslims" for example, or "there are no white rapists". Statement (1) is more a statement of scope. They did not study any white groups.

It's not reasonable to ignore statements (2) and (3). This is useful and interesting data for trying to specifically understand the problem of Pakistani Muslim gangs. Replying with "what about the Catholic Church" etc is irrelevant because this study was not about the Catholic Church and cannot be used to make claims about it.

It's also unreasonable to claim that it's biased or illegal or propaganda etc to conduct the study at all. There's clear public interest and appetite to more fully specifically understand the extent of these gangs, because we potentially will base public policy on the results.

Remember: Rupert Lowe could have conducted the same study with the same parameters and only found a handful of victims, if it really weren't a problem.

Because if they admit that to themselves, their whole house if cards twisted belief structure falls apart. They can't admit it to themselves. Much like parents who have transitioned their kids, can't go back.

The rapist would be of the same class too.

Why would the police protect a known drug dealing taxi driver over a girl from a care home?

If anything, the police would know that locking these men up for one crime would reduce other crimes.

I wouldn't trust Rupert Lowe as far as I could throw him. This week he said Tommy Robinson would be welcome in his party. He's financed by Elon Musk. Rupert Lowe cares about Rupert Lowe, not women and girls.

In 2016, an Ahmadiyya Muslim was murdered in Scotland, by a Pakistani, Sunni Muslim from Bradford. Asad Shah, was stabbed to death by Tanveer Ahmed, for posting messages online, calling for peace and harmony amongst all communities.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Asad_Shah

Do you think society previously protected children over rapey men? When there was less immigration and a higher percentage of white British?
There's always been a culture of not believing children or saying maybe the 14 year old girl shouldn't have been dressing/behaving provocatively blah blah blah.
Children should of course be believed, protected in anyway possible and the crimes investigated properly. But the far right are using these crimes against children to promote this as an immigrant issue, to stir up hatred and promote their party not to protect children.
They will cherry pick crimes by immigrants and ignore any crimes by white men. They will organise rallies where the offender is not a white British man whilst also allowing sex offenders and violent things into the party and the marches with no issue.
The wider picture needs to be looked at, including the crimes by immigrants and non-immigrants alike. But I can't see anything funded by restore or reform as a good source of information whilst they're so willing to ignore the crimes of their own members and other white men.

Typical leftist response:
https://x.com/BlackDumpling/status/2067173463190593651?s=20

I can only assume deflection posters may be one of the people who hid this type of behaviour.

There are many politicians I can’t stand but if they wrote this I would give them credit for doing it. This isn’t about party politics it’s about the rape of 250k girls in GB. I’m not a fan of Boris Johnson but had he written this report I’d say ‘I’m not normally keen on Boris but I am so pleased he helped raped children get heard’.

A wet and woolly MP would never have been involved with this type of report, it was always going to be a controversial type of person. It had to be as even parents on Mumsnet are defending the child gang rapists over the raped children! It’s incredible!

I think we are always going to have reports like this until there is an acknowledgement that racism - both from the perpetrators and the authorities is acknowledged by government.

If it happened in only one area it could be seen as individual corruption or ineptitude. But it happened in so many places, over so many years, involving so many officials we have to look at institutional attitudes.

I don’t disagree with you on this, but I just think these awful testimonies have a right to be heard. I hope (probably naively) that this report can be used to exert some pressure on the government to keep their own inquiry (that they had to u turn on due to pressure) focussed on this specific issue. And I’m not saying Lowe and his inner circle aren’t far right, but as pp said, not everyone who engages with this report or thinks everything done so far on the gangs is inadequate or has concerns about immigration is far right, and it’s a frequent overuse of the term by people on SM, including here. I am not far right because I want there to be clarity and openness about these specific rape gangs, and nor am I far right because I don’t believe a man can become a woman. I’ve been called a “Nazi” for both on SM, and it just alienates people and I’m sure as pp have said makes them more receptive to the actual far right messages, because it’s just “common sense”.

I’m sure you personally aren’t saying this, but just to be clear for others.

Jesus fucking Christ!!

So they have had the uttermost shit start to life, but because this all happened before they got gang raped in a cess pit by men who were specifically targeting them on an industrial scale, that's not worthy of an inquiry into who was doing it and why it was allowed to be ignored by many services.

Think that view is on the same level as Andrew Tate, not Mumsnet

That’s not an answer on whether the victims should be ignored

This is exactly what my last post was talking about.

Who cares if they're ignoring the crimes of white men?

They have identified a set of crimes which did happen, and they identified some patterns between those crimes, and they have some proposals for dealing with this particular sort of crime.

They're not claiming to be studying every single possible type of crime.

I agree, as I and a pp said earlier, there could be no investigation into child abuse in the Catholic Church following the same logic and the report would just be one sentence “All men rape”.

Be filled with prejudice and hatred? Doesn't sound like peace to me. What action are you actually taking? Shouting at people on the internet?

Yes, I agree. But I actually think, more so, that the nation-wide scale of the gangs points to the nation-wide scale of corruption and men using state apparatus to rape and torture children.

"Following our extensive investigation we have concluded that the real problem is carbon-based lifeforms. Stop promoting hatred and division!"

I think attitude like this are people reassuring themselves that it couldn't happen to them or their children.

Im not an alcoholic and dont let my 12 year old out by herself, so we are safe.

They crowdfunded the best part of a million quid for this thing, and I don't know where the money was spent.

Regardless, I know that Rupert Lowe's slogan is "I don't care", but if he'd been willing to listen to some basic comms advice, I could have given him a few tips to make his report more credible. Nothing too fancy, just common sense tips like:

• Have some terms of reference, and maybe a research methodology.
• Get some experts involved. I know lawyers are expensive, but you've got enough money in the pot for one. Think about getting in a criminologist or statistician. PhD researchers can be surprisingly good value for money.
• Don't hand over the report to be written by Lotus Munchers podcasters and allow them to stuff it full of political rhetoric about capital punishment and the British Nationality Act 1948.
• Try to have at least one woman with editorial oversight.
• Get your report sense checked by an editor so it doesn't have absurdities like referring to girls being "trafficked across county lines", which just sounds like it was written by someone who's watched too many American TV dramas and doesn't know what county lines are in a UK context.
• Don't launch your political party five hours after you've concluded the inquiry hearings.
• Don't publish your report two days before a high-profile by-election.
• Don't allow your report to credit Tommy Robinson as a whistleblower.
• Maybe suggest to Sammy Woodhouse that it wasn't a great idea to travel to Portugal to be a star speaker at a conference full of open white nationalists, and organised by Martin Sellner, an Austrian neo-nazi permanently banned from the UK, who has also been photographed hobnobbing with Restore policy chief Harrison Pitt (the main author of the report).

Some very basic due diligence would have made this much less easy to dismiss.

Have you quoted the right person?

Please could you point to where I said "they're not worthy of an inquiry", or anything along those lines?

I think you'll find I've said nothing of the sort.

Their suffering is, however, being used for political reasons. Say some.
No it isn't in this case because this Inquiry was held openly. Names have been given even if not made public.
The Labour Party Police and Social Services Departments tried to hush it up, belittle the victims and denied the extent of the crimes.
Now that really was done for POLITICAL PURPOSES and the coverup continues today.
Sammy Woodhouse suffered horribly, her account is on Wikipedia. (Which is independent). Read it then come back and trivialise or take cheap shots at those who are trying to ensure that it stops and is not repeated.
To all those complaining about Rupert Lowe ask why no other leading public figure took the job on. Anyone could have. Ed Davey could have stopped falling in the water and tried something serious. Jeremy Corbyn isn't very busy, Retired Judges or Admirals, Many could have, but they didn't only Rupert Lowe did.
If you are a victim You don't question the political affiliations of the Good Samaritan. You are just grateful that at least one person is willing to help and lend a sympathetic ear.

That is an understatement !!
😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥Those poor children.

Are you denying there is a link? Because it would seem clear that girls who don't have people watching out for them or who already have skewed boundaries due to abuse from a young age are more vulnerable to slipping through the cracks and being targeted.