Wednesday, 29 June 2011
The mainstream media today is almost gleefully pouncing on the report about child grooming that reveals that "only" 26% of the perps were "Asian". The Guardian gives us a typical example in its sub-heading:

Director of child exploitation protection warns against jumping to conclusions as findings do not support claims of Asian gangs

We should take a moment to consider how extraordinarily disproportionate this figure of 26% is. Muslims are probably, at most, no more than 5% of the British population. So even according to these highly questionable figures, their involvement in this evil is 5 times greater than would be expected given their share of the population. Despite this, Peter Davies, the head of CEOP, the agency that commissioned this report, is still playing the same old politically correct games:

But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality.

"I would send a note of caution about trying to extrapolate anything from this. Looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours," he said.


The assessment was commissioned after national debate over what some people had identified as a pattern of Asian men operating in gangs to groom young white girls and sexually abuse them. Davies said the findings did not support this suggestion.

This is a shameful denial of an obvious truth. The findings clearly do support the suggestion. But these figures almost certainly massively understate the problem, for several reasons. First of all, as the report itself says, the data is incomplete and "ethnicity had not been recorded in 32% of cases".

Second, the report covers the phenomenon of child grooming on the street generally, not specifically group-related activity. This means it includes lots of deviant individuals involved in the activity. It is the phenomenon of group sexual abuse that tends, overwhelmingly, to be a crime committed by ethnic minorities against the ethnic majority. This is true of virtually all forms of group sexual abuse, such as gang rape, for example, not just the sexual grooming of children. I have no doubt that if group-based abuse was separated from individual abuse, the "Asian" element of child grooming would prove to be far, far higher. A figure of 95% would not surprise me.

Third, police ethnicity data in relation to crimes simply cannot be trusted. Under Labour, for reasons of political correctness, the police, rather than making their own assessment of a suspect's race, were instructed to accept the person's own racial self-definition. Muslims, masters of fraud that they are, quickly spotted how they could exploit this foolish flaw in the system. When being booked for an offence, the Muslims would simply describe themselves as "white". The police would know better but would be required to accept it. The advantage for the Muslim, of course, is that the next time he commits a crime, mugging an old woman say, when the victim is describing the perp to the police, she will say he was "Asian". The police then go away and trawl for "Asian" suspects in their database. But the sly Muslim is already in there as "white", so he doesn't show up.


Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews