It’s rare to find a publication so flawed and yet so influential as the Quilliam Foundation’s report on “grooming gangs”. Launched in December 2017 to much fanfare and little scrutiny, it spawned the now widespread statistic that “84% of grooming gang offenders” are Asian. Why should we care about a dud report? It’s simple: bad science makes for bad policy and bad practice. If misinformation isn’t challenged, then the ultimate losers will be sexually exploited children and already marginalised minority groups.
Recurrent photo montages of brown faces convicted in high-profile “grooming” trials have reinforced dubious stereotypes, skewed perceptions and detracted from a much more complex reality. Child sexual exploitation and abuse affects diverse victims, happens in varied contexts and occurs on a vast scale.
I’ve spent years researching child sexual exploitation (CSE), focusing in particular on complex networks in places including Derby, Rotherham, Telford and Rochdale. These offenders committed vile crimes and they’re undoubtedly just the tip of the iceberg. Yet, recurrent photo montages of brown faces convicted in high-profile “grooming” trials have reinforced dubious stereotypes, skewed perceptions and detracted from a much more complex reality. Child sexual exploitation and abuse affects diverse victims, happens in varied contexts and occurs on a vast scale. In 2016/17 alone, the police in England and Wales recorded over 13,000 child rapes and tens of thousands of other child sexual offences. That’s despite the fact that only a fraction of child sexual abuse is even reported in the first place: studies suggest as little as 3-15%.
Against this context, the Quilliam report’s sample of just 264 convicted offenders over 12 years is clearly very partial. Despite repeated claims to be “academic” and “evidence-based”, the report is quite simply a case study in bad science. For a start, it doesn’t declare any peer review, source of funding or potential conflicts of interest. Such omissions are troubling.
Peer review is vital for quality control and Quilliam’s funders and allegiances give obvious cause for concern. Moreover, the more child sexual abuse is seen as a Muslim problem, the more this self-styled “counter-extremism” think-tank stands to gain. With no relevant academic or professional credentials to draw on, the authors instead foreground their British-Pakistani heritage. Their identity isn’t the issue here, rather the quality of their work: identity politics mustn’t exempt shoddy research from scrutiny.
The “study” also suffers from a glaring lack of transparency: beyond the vague and essentially meaningless assertion that “extensive data mining methods” were used, virtually nothing is revealed about the data and their provenance (e.g. basics like sampling strategy, search terms, sources and inclusion parameters).
Since the authors neither reveal their methods nor list more than a handful of the cases they analysed, their work can’t be replicated or verified. Such secrecy is odd since the data seems to come from open sources (media reports, most likely), which aren’t sensitive per se; they may be commercially sensitive, however, if they reveal the methods to be less than honest. In a move illustrative of the report’s poor quality, much of Quilliam’s own “data” section is little more than a crude rehash of results from another report entirely: a 2013 report by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), stripped of all its vital caveats about its limitations.
Despite these major methodological problems, the report is riddled with dramatic over-claims of the kind rarely encountered in credible research. For example, the authors promise to “definitively demonstrate” whether certain groups are over-represented among “grooming gangs” and describe their results are “conclusively irrefutable”. Yet, the report categorically fails to deliver on its claim to be a “comprehensive data analysis of all group child-sex offences committed in the United Kingdom over a period of 12 years”.
After criticism began to mount online, Quilliam made furtive corrections, notably deleting this claim to be “comprehensive”. When challenged on the corrections, they outright denied them, even producing a spurious letter from their IT company. Side-by-side comparison and the reports’ own metadata exposed that lie. Secretly editing published research is highly irregular and unethical but lying about doing so is all the worse.
From my own research, I know that eight of the victims who bravely testified in this case were black or minority ethnicity: to whitewash them out so categorically (and others too, I wonder?) isn’t just untrue but deeply insulting.
Strangely, the “specific crime profile” Quilliam claim to investigate is actually described in three different ways: “all group child-sex offences”, “group-based localised street grooming of young girls” and “grooming gang” offences. All have different remits. None are properly defined for measurement purposes and none exist in law, meaning they cannot be easily and consistently delineated from other abuse at scale.
The report’s statistical analysis of the characteristics of “grooming gang offenders” is nothing more than a basic counting exercise. It details offenders’ ethnicity but neither their heritage nor religion, making it quite the leap then to make claims about Pakistani Muslim over-representation.
Without presenting any analysis of victims’ characteristics (which would rarely be detailed in media coverage), how could they reasonably conclude that “the Asian male/white female, perpetrator-victim dynamic is the undeniable prominent feature”?
For me, one of the most problematic claims is that ”all of the victims who have come forward so far and revealed their identity have been white”. One of their ten case studies was from Derby. From my own research, I know that eight of the victims who bravely testified in this case were black or minority ethnicity: to whitewash them out so categorically (and others too, I wonder?) isn’t just untrue but deeply insulting.
The report also fixates on “racial difference.. highlighted through repeated reference to the ‘whiteness’ of the victims”. Since this claim is so central to the report, it’s striking that relevant evidence is provided for just one of the 264 offenders (less than 0.4% of the whole sample). The other two pieces of ‘evidence’ provided suggest the authors were scraping the barrel to substantiate their claims: for example, one is a racist insult from an offender to… a ticket inspector.
From start to finish, the Quilliam report is full of unsubstantiated, misleading, misinterpreted, misattributed and untrue information. The authors cherry pick information to support their central thesis that regressive Pakistani Muslim culture drives grooming, omitting information that undermines it. Whether by accident or design, relevant material from court judgements that challenged this position was conspicuous in its absence.
Despite asserting that “all possible caveats relating to the accuracy of the data” are accounted for, the authors overlook some of the most fundamental biases associated with using crime-related data: for example, whether victims come forward to the police (self-selection bias) and their cases are investigated and prosecuted (institutional bias). If they were indeed relying on media coverage, then more important still is the well-known issue of media bias, affecting whether eventual convictions are publicised.
Part of the issue seems to be the reaction that if even British Pakistani Muslims say that their community is responsible for most grooming gangs, then it must be true (identity politics in action).
It is ironic that a report full of spurious claims and unreliable information should itself contain a warning against “false assurances” that “allow debate to be hijacked by those who may wish to promote their own political agenda and malign entire communities based on the actions of a few”.
Despite failing even to show correlation between offenders’ characteristics and their involvement in “grooming gangs”, the authors go on to make a series of emotive claims about causality. They speculate at length about how their results are linked to hot political issues such as female genital mutilation, child marriage, misogyny, homophobia, women’s rights and integration of migrants. Their treatment of these complex issues as the logical explanation for their (limited) findings is both intellectually dishonest and sensationalist.
For all its glaring flaws, the Quilliam report played in perfectly to established stereotypes around the ‘Asian sex gang predator’. Its intrinsic news appeal was likely bolstered by the organisation’s network of media contacts and ready access to large platforms. The report launched on Sky News, followed by much publicity across The Times, The Independent, The Telegraph, the BBC, LBC and many other outlets. Over a year on, the report has barely been scrutinised by the mainstream media.
I’ve said before, bad evidence makes for bad policy and practice. The apparent ramifications of the Quilliam report and the narrative it feeds continue to be felt. Part of the issue seems to be the reaction that if even British Pakistani Muslims say that their community is responsible for most grooming gangs, then it must be true (identity politics in action).
Mainstream politicians have picked up on the report but their handling of it is sometimes subtle. Labour MP Sarah Champion – famously compelled to resign from the front bench over a race-baiting article on grooming in The Sun and later lauded in the Quilliam report – spearheaded a letter to the Home Secretary Sajid Javid in May last year, calling for research into the “drivers” of “organised grooming gangs”. In a follow up letter to Javid, a group of interfaith politicians led by Lord Singh of Wimbledon echoed her calls, this time explicitly citing the Quilliam report as evidence of “Britain’s sexual grooming gang epidemic”. Javid’s response to Champion outlined his plans in this space. Deviating markedly from this letter’s explicit contents, The Times reported that Javid had “ordered research into why men convicted of grooming-gang sex crimes are disproportionately of Pakistani origin”. Numerous other media outlets then ran this story, enforcing the impression that Home Secretary accepted the basic premise that there was a specific problem with disproportionality.
The report’s 84 per cent statistic, with its veneer of legitimacy, assists Islamophobic agendas and claims of “rape jihad”
If there was a misunderstanding, it appears neither Champion nor Javid tried to correct it. Continuing in a similar vein, Javid later tweeted about “sick Asian paedophiles”. In this dog-whistle of a tweet, he further entrenched a racial stereotype that rests as ever on very shaky foundations. Years of austerity measures have decimated funding for many public services, harming efforts to tackle CSE and support its victims. Throwing out crowd-pleasing rhetoric is easy; addressing systemic problems takes more work.
The Quilliam report has been used more overtly by the far-right. Former Chief Prosecutor Nazir Afzal has argued that grooming is “now the biggest recruiter for the far-right”. The report’s 84 per cent statistic, with its veneer of legitimacy, assists Islamophobic agendas and claims of “rape jihad”: a term favoured by the likes of “Tommy Robinson” (Stephen Yaxley Lennon) and Anne Marie Waters, leader of the extreme anti-Islam party For Britain.
Last year, UKIP’s Alan Craig infamously claimed that the UK was facing “a holocaust…of our daughters”, arguing that Quilliam had “traced a major part of the influence [on abuse] back to the Islamic faith”.
Reading the report, it’s easy to imagine how its talk of “divisive, unevolved cultural identities” might inflame and enrage those already concerned with supposedly irresolvable culture clashes. Indeed, UKIP’s Lord Pearson of Rannoch raised the Quilliam report in parliament, claiming “we are looking at millions of rapes of white and Sikh girls by Muslim men”.
Meanwhile, Tommy Robinson – with whom Quilliam had previously controversially allied themselves – cited the Quilliam report in his defence bundle. It is ironic that far-right figureheads should use “grooming gangs” as a campaign tool, given the disregard both Tommy Robinson and BNP leader Nick Griffin have shown for CSE victims’ welfare in endangering major trials with their attention-seeking antics.
In December 2018, Sikh Youth UK, which has also hosted and promoted events with Tommy Robinson, released their own report on ‘religiously aggravated sexual exploitation’ of Sikh girls. Much like Quilliam’s, it was analytically and empirically very weak: a diatribe that made sweeping claims about large-scale abuse by Pakistani Muslims based on scant evidence.
Worryingly, recent accounts now indicate that the far-right is seeking to infiltrate child sexual abuse survivor groups to add credence to their cause.
I’ve spoken to victims and survivors on social media who say they feel erased from dominant debate around CSE as their abuse didn’t fit the white female victim/Asian male offender stereotype. They felt they mattered less to people. Is that really the message we want to be sending? While there are, of course, other factors at play in these developments beyond the Quilliam report, it has certainly fuelled and legitimised myopic narratives around child sexual abuse. With Tommy Robinson recently appointed UKIP’s special advisor on “rape gangs”, the Finsbury Park Mosque attack remains a grim warning that far-right propaganda in this space can have very real consequences.
Further afield, at least fifty people were tragically killed in a white supremacist terrorist attack at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. The killer had “for Rotherham” scrawled on his ammunition and two pages in his “manifesto” dedicated to the idea that “invading forces” were raping “European women”, drawing heavily on CSE cases in the UK. Although not directly cited here, Quilliam’s report has undoubtedly helped advance and affirm such tropes around the rape of white indigenous girls by swarthy foreign men.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with research into crime and ethnicity. The problem here is that Quilliam have launched a piece of inflammatory pseudoscience into the public domain, promoted it heavily as valid evidence and refused to engage meaningfully with legitimate criticisms.
Concerns raised, including my own, have been met with silence, obfuscation or outright attacks. Emotions run understandably high where child sexual abuse is concerned, meaning that responsible research is particularly vital.
Before making claims about “proportionality”, surely we should take into account the way that a whole host of factors – demographic, familial, cultural, occupational, institutional and structural – may affect the opportunities potential offenders have to commit crimes and their interactions with the criminal justice system itself. Some of these may be mediated by ethnicity, but it’s a mistake to assume that ethnicity itself is to blame.
It’s crucial to look at the bigger picture: court data show Asians weren’t over represented among roughly 172,000 men & 27,000 women convicted of any sexual offence in England & Wales in 2016.
The same goes for religion, although it’s worth stressing that data on offenders’ religion simply aren’t collected as standard. Once again, it’s crucial to look at the bigger picture: court data show Asians weren’t over represented among roughly 172,000 men & 27,000 women convicted of any sexual offence in England & Wales in 2016. More specifically, Asians were actually underrepresented (at 4%) among the approximately 6,200 defendants prosecuted in 2015/2016 for sexual offences flagged as child abuse related.
When I point out that Asians are not over-represented in such national datasets, I’m often accused of deflecting. People argue that categories like all sexual offences or even all child sexual abuse are too broad and we need to look at specific subsets. I agree that these are broad categories but surely it’s sensible to look at the most extensive data available? I think it’s right to put more trust in large-scale, national datasets than patchy, small-scale datasets with limited coverage.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that analysis and responses can’t be tailored to the specific characteristics and contexts of particular forms of abuse and geographical areas. Specificity is both important and helpful in tackling crimes. But to be useful – especially in the context of measurement – any ‘types’ should be clearly defined and capable of being consistently applied. They should not be built up around an apparently predetermined racial model, as happened with “grooming gangs”. Moreover, the dominant focus on Asian groups can lead to visibility bias and differential responses, meaning abuse that does not conform to stereotypes may be more readily overlooked. Indeed, the Drew Review of South Yorkshire Police’s responses to CSE emphasised that difficulties arise “if a police force has too narrow a definition of child sexual exploitation”.
Tackling child sexual abuse effectively requires dramatically improved responses, good data, honest research and proper funding. We need evidence, not propaganda.
It suggested a focus on Pakistani heritage offending groups had led police and “possibly the whole partnership to look for signs of exploitation in the wrong places”. Meanwhile, Chief Constable Simon Bailey, the National Police Chiefs Council lead on child protection, emphasises that “across all categories of child sexual abuse” most offenders are white, despite disproportionate media attention on Asian “grooming gangs”.
The Quilliam report has done nothing to add to our understanding of CSE. Instead, it has single-mindedly promoted a simplistic position based on shoddy research and apparent self-interest. They must take responsibility and retract this useless report. In the meantime, the rest of us owe it to all children who have been or might be sexually exploited to treat it as the sham it is. Tackling child sexual abuse effectively requires dramatically improved responses, good data, honest research and proper funding. We need evidence, not propaganda.
Dr Ella Cockbain tweets as @DrEllaC and this article builds on her earlier Twitter critique of the Quilliam report.
Not sure that I would agree with the author’s conclusions. Lots of national-level reports aren’t written by academics and in the case of the ‘think-tank’ ones, are often selective in their use of evidence in order to support existing ideologies. But the same often applies to academic papers and peer reviews can be highly partial, often as much about whether the reviewer ‘likes’ what they are reading, rather than objective analysis.
The impression I get is that the author doesn’t like the conclusion that CSE is associated with men of Asian heritage, and is looking for any yardstick to criticise. Actually, a sample of 264 offenders is pretty good by the standards of social science research which is mostly qualitative and frequently draws sweeping conclusions from small samples.
Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, Derby – the convictions were dominated by Asian-heritage men and were associated with serious levels of actual and threatened violence. The offenders may or may not be representative of the entirety but commonsense dictates that there is a problem there which needs to be confronted.
Dr Ella has dismissed the research of many others and she conveniently labels any research other than her own as racist and right wing. Many victims have said they were raped by thousands of Pakistani Muslim men over many years, and taken to be raped by other Pakistani Muslims throughout the country, the towns those girls are from are towns with a population of Pakistani Muslims of no more than 5% so perhaps Dr Ella can explain why their abusers were not mostly white men? Many victims have also stated that both race and religion were factors used in the abuse against them. Why is Dr Ella ignoring the experiences of these girls?
My focus here was on the specific claims of the Quilliam report & the broader national data on child sex offenders, as opposed to specific sub-types. That said, I think you make a fair point and travelling child sex offenders (who go to various countries, including ones in Asia, Central & South America & Eastern Europe) are often forgotten amid this debate.
Ahmed: Yes, travelling child sex offenders (be it to Asia, the Americas, Eastern Europe etc) are also a serious problem and often neglected in public debate.
Rob H: Of course measures should be taken to tackle any and all child sexual abuse. I don’t know how you read otherwise from the article. I’m afraid that the issue here is far more about the total lack of transparency around methods (including sampling) than the actual sample size per se (although it is important to see this figure in perspective against the number of child sex offences in general). It is totally unclear how the sample was obtained, meaning it cannot be relied upon. This is not a credible study, however much you might want it to be.
Libby: No, I certainly don’t label any research other than my own as “racist and right-wing”. The Quilliam report is simply rubbish masquerading as credible research and it would be wrong not to call it out for that. I am not ignoring or minimising the experiences of any victims and have utmost sympathy with the brave survivors who have come forward (and equally so with those who have not). The crimes individuals have suffered are horrific and they deserve justice. Bad evidence and generalising from specific, apparently cherry-picked cases to make sweeping and misleading claims does not help tackle child sexual abuse.
Miqdaad: If you are encountering such attitudes, I hope you are doing something to challenge them. If you are aware of crimes going on, you really should report them to the police as a matter of urgency rather than posting here.
Sandra: I presume you mean the same Peter McLoughlin who has written a vehemently anti-Islam book with “Tommy Robinson”? I suspect nothing I say will make a blind bit of difference if that’s your idea of an unbiased source.
The 2 victims in articles here are absolutely horrific examples of these Muslim rape gangs, both were raped for many years by thousands, if you are correct and they are not over represented please explain why their abusers were predominantly Pakistani and not white males?
Strange that you happily condemn Catholic and white abusers. Why are you ignoring the sheer depravity of these evil racist rape gangs?
Speaking of bad evidence, anyone who reads Ms Cockbains articles should be deeply concerned that the two twitter accounts she regularly gives accreditation for helping with her research and her self-acclaimed ‘debunking’ of Quilliam’s grooming gang article @NewerEra and @Reg_Left_Media are both left wing activists who use social media platforms to dispute the very existence of Muslim grooming gangs, yet despite nearly 20 known UK Muslim grooming gang court cases to date since 2011 they J. Spooner & J.Stubbs co wrote an article Feb 24, 2018 titled “Making a Monster” – How ‘The Times’ Created the ‘Asian Grooming Gang’ which incredibly claims that Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs do not actually exist, ignoring the proven testimonials and many biographies written by victims of ‘Muslim grooming gangs’ Spooner and Stubbs claim that the meticulous research on these criminal gangs by The Times is purported – simply a concocted myth designed to fit a right wing narrative, and a bizarre and deliberate attempt to demonise the Pakistani Muslim community.
The fact that Ms Cockbain openly colludes with such individuals who make such ludicrous allegations to suit their political agenda should definitely bring into question both her own professional integrity and her ability to draw unbiased conclusions. Anyone who buys into Cockbains questionable research should also ask why she and her trusted grooming gang experts Spooner and Stubbs do not also question decades of documented examples of Catholic priests being overrepresented and demonised in child abuse cases.
Hello CathyD. You see a little confused here, perhaps I can help clarify. Neither of the two people you mention have been involved in my research (that would be odd). I’m certainly not colluding” with them, or indeed anyone else. As a recognised academic expert in this field, I am perfectly capable of deconstructing shoddy “research”. On that note, as lovely as it is to be patronised, it’s Dr Cockbain if we’re using titles. Otherwise, just Ella is fine.
I do believe in giving credit where due. That’s why I have acknowledged the article on Medium that @NewerEra & @Reg_Left_Media wrote about the Quilliam report last year. That piece was timely, rigorous and fair in its criticisms. The article you discuss here is another one entirely, although also good. You are (deliberately, I suspect) misrepresenting that too. Criticising The Times’ creation of a racialised crime threat (something I wrote about myself back in 2013) *in no way* equates to denying the existence of specific offenders or the devastating harms they caused. It is entirely possible – indeed necessary & sensible – both to condemn individual abusers and to criticise a misleading and harmful narrative.
I have spoken out about the Quilliam report because it is rubbish dressed up as credible academic research. I’m not aware of similarly high-profile & misleading “research”/bogus statistical claims regarding Catholic priests. If you are, perhaps you should highlight them and take issue with those instead. Time permitting, I’d also be happy to take a look.
Surely what is important here is that a crime is a crime. To the victim what is important and needs to be remedied is that a crime has been committed. The ethnicity of the perpetrator is largely irrelevant as a crime is not made worse because of ethnicity. Secondly I think it reassuring that it is recognised that focus towards particular ‘sub-sects’ of crime mean that smoke screens are created and that certain groups of perpetrators and victims can be overlooked. For example white perpetrator and white victim, white perpetrator and non white victim and non white perpetrator and non white victim. This is the real tragedy in trying to ensure people ‘bear the brunt’ according to ethnicity.
Ethnicity is always conveniently irrelevant when the crime is against whites. If Christian grooming gangs were raping thousands of Pakistani Muslim girls there would be outrage from the very people who claim the ethnicity and religion of the abusers is irrelevant.
If the race and religion of perpetrators is irrelevant then why do we have Muslim Anti Hate organisations such as Tellmama who constantly report on convictions by non Muslims against Muslims? The double standards are causing a huge problem.
Surely exactly the same should apply to all?
Marie 79 – I am not sure where you get your information from but ethnicity is usually considered irrelevant, as standard practise in media circles, when the perpetrators are white. With regards to Pakistani Muslim girls getting raped, this should indeed result in an outrage, but all right minded people would ignore ethnicity as an issue, because a crime is a crime irrespective of the ethnicity of the perpetrator who committed the crime and the ethnicity of the victim of the crime.
You are right that some organisations like tell mama collate information about hate crime targeted at Muslims but this is irrespective of the ethnicity and religion of the perpetrator and yes other organisations collate similar information about victims of other forms of hate crime where the intended targets may be people of a different set of protected characteristics.
The problem with collecting information solely about the backgrounds of the perpetrators is that firstly it can result in use and abuse of the stories of the victims of such crime and also the ignoring of other victims who do not fulfil the desired agenda. The agenda being misinformation leading to hate.
Censorship is real. Shame on this website for deleting my comment.
Hide the truth. Feed the lies.
People reading this dont bother commenting as if it doesnt fit the narrative its deleted.
@shameonDr.Ella – your comment was reported by a reader and judged by our team as personally abusive to the author which breaks our House Rules (see here: https://policinginsight.com/house-rules/ ) that govern user behaviour on our site.
This is an important subject and we encourage vigorous discussion in our comments section however the discourse must be courteous and address the issues and not be an opportunity to personally abuse the article author or other readers posting comments.
Thank you for your interest in Policing Insight
Policing Insight Team
You rightly criticise the Quilliam Foundation for not including their sampling methodology in their report. However, the bottom line is that their sample produced a figure (84%) which is very close to the Muslim statistical population for grooming gang rape. Please see my workings below.
I see that you will not entertain research done by Peter McLoughlin on the grooming gang scandal. Paul L and RichieRich make valid points in this regard which you have not replied to. I have Peter McLoughlin’s book titled: “Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal” and it is a well-researched authoritative book on the subject. Without doubt, Peter McLoughlin is an outstanding researcher.
Peter McLoughlin has produced an online list. He uses prosecution data of those jailed to date for grooming gang rape to calculate his figure for the percentage of those jailed who are Muslim. As Paul L states in his comment and I concur, this is 100% accurate. On the right-hand side of the list is a column marked: “ratio Muslims to total convicted”. As at 7 January 2020, it is 335/394 which equates to 85% .
The Quilliam Foundation Report is dated December 2017. Assuming the latest date for evidence to be included in that report was November 2017, you will see from Peter McLoughlin’s list that as at 16 November 2017, the ratio was 274/316 = 86%. Quilliam’s 84% is therefore accurate enough for a sample of cases.
85% of those jailed to date for grooming gang rape of predominantly white schoolgirls are Muslims despite being only 5% of the country’s population. Muslims are therefore grossly overrepresented in this particularly horrendous type of sexual crime against children. That statistic is the most significant factor in this crime.
They are predominantly Pakistani Muslims because most Muslims in the UK are of Pakistani descent. The Muslim grooming rape gangs in Bristol are Somali because Muslims in Bristol are predominantly of Somali descent. Pakistani Christians are not involved and neither are Hindus and Sikhs.
It was systemic brutally violent gang rape on an industrial scale of predominantly white schoolgirls. For many reasons including authorities not keeping accurate records, the number of schoolgirl victims is difficult to say but 100,000 wouldn’t be an exaggeration. Grandfathers, fathers, grandsons, sons, uncles, nephews and cousins were involved in the Muslim grooming rape gangs. It was a “family thing”. The victims were aged 11 to 15 and the perpetrators were aged 17 to 76 so some of the girls would have been violently gang raped by men old enough to be their great grandfathers!
The agony of countless thousands of schoolgirls being brutally gang raped was added to by the police failing to act for over 20 years because of the fear of being called racist even when the girls and their parents pleaded for help. They treated the child victims like prostitutes. Local authorities hid the crime and actively prevented people speaking out.
I often debate this subject in online forums. What strikes me and other debaters as being particularly abhorrent is that left wing and Muslim debaters do their upmost to obfuscate the problem. Indeed, I was linked to your article by a debater trying to do just that. After all, if you can rubbish a report by an officially recognised Muslim organisation on the subject, it helps to obfuscate the problem and classify those highlighting the problem as being far right, racist and Islamophobic etc. You do that here to Anne Marie Waters, Peter McLoughlin and others. Even the highly respected Times journalist, Andrew Norfolk, who brought this horrendous crime and its cover up to light, is accused of racism and Islamophobia by left wing and Muslim organisations .
Dr Cockbain, at 85% of offenders, Muslims are grossly overrepresented in the grooming gang rape of predominantly white schoolgirls on an industrial scale and the Quilliam report is sufficiently accurate in that significant statistic. To claim otherwise is to obfuscate the depth of Muslim involvement in this horrendous crime.
McLoughlin’s an idiot. One that he conveniently leaves out is that most victims are pakistani muslims themselves. He also ignores that pakistani women had been trying to speak out for years, that quite a few men also had and that issues like community loyalty and protecting the community image had MUCH more to do with it.
The ugly truth is that the “Muslim’s” are inherently rapists is as accurate as the believe that Jews control banking.
I’ll say it clearly. George Harrison, Paul L Richie Rich and Libby? If the rapists were white you’d be saying the victims were all whores. That’s the reason people didn’t act.
right wingers also hate andrew norfolk.
McLouglin’s a pseudoscientist who openly ignores that in India there ARE hindus who commit sexual crimes alongside muslims
The reason they didn’t act was because they saw the girls as worthless whores who deserved it. McLoughlin shamelessly ignores that there ARE rings of white people going around raping as well, which rather cuts down on his stats
Also considering that Quilliam itself said the police records were inaccessible AT BEST they’re cherrypicking
Multiple problems. Firstly according to the Jay Report a LOT of pakistani girls were ALSO raped and abused. They DID try to go forwards, often at great personal cost. They ultimately DID get their message out as well. Also, if you look at a more accurate metric Pakistanis are overwhelmingly NOT actively criminals. Finally not only is Islam NOT the main reason ( a desire to protect the community is a far more likely reason ) but the reason the police ignored victims was because they saw the girls as worthless whores who deserved it. The “political correctness” is pure ass covering
Georgy multiple problems
1.) McLouglin has no problem outright lying to get what he wants. He ignores that many pakistani girls have been raped.
2.) He ignores that they DID try to speak out at great personal cost.
3.) He ALSO ignores that the media and cops were just as dismissive of them
4.) That NON White victims get ignored or underreported
5.) That the city councils often saw the victims as worthless whores and that the “fear of looking racist” is just a pathetic after the fact justification to ignore their own glaring sexism.
6.) Considering how Ruzwana Bashir was treated if people kept silent it was more to protect the community reputation
7.) There is no commandment saying to rape children
If the Quilliam report refuses to submit it’s methodology than any sampling it does is automatically worthless and given how they shamelessly ignore MUSLIM victims of gang rape it’s pretty safe to assume that the report is a tissue of lies. Anyone saying Peter McLoughlin is an excellent researcher is an idiot
The topic of this debate is the Quilliam report into grooming rape gangs and whether it is accurate enough to be quoted by other agencies and people. At the heart of this topic is whether Muslim men are grossly overrepresented in this particular crime as the Quilliam report states.
You repeatedly mention Muslim girls being victims of gang rape. I have great sympathy for any victim of child sexual abuse but were they victims of grooming rape gangs? I ask this because except for a small number of Sikh victims, all the victims of Muslim grooming rape gangs have been white girls.
I have proved using Peter McLoughlin’s information which is taken from “actual” prosecution data that the Quilliam report’s 84% is within the range of acceptability of a sample within a population. The “population” is the “actual” number of people jailed to date for the crime of grooming gang rape.
“Anyone saying Peter McLoughlin is an excellent researcher is an idiot”.
Ad hominem abuse detracts from your side of the debate. Your task is to prove that Peter McLoughlin’s evidence is wrong.
I proved Muslim men are grossly overrepresented in the crime of grooming gang rape of predominantly white schoolgirls and the Quilliam report is sufficiently accurate in this regard. You have failed to prove me wrong.
Actually you didn’t. I did prove you wrong
1.) The definition not only includes numerous crimes that are NOT uniquely related to child sex abuse they also deliberately leave out group crimes where white people predominate (sexual abuse in sports clubs, political organizations schools etc.) making the definition McLoughlin uses so vague and limited as to be worthless.
2.) In that regard since the statistical method is worthless the numbers Quilliam cites are junk. Mcloughlin also relies on false data, conflating different crimes and ignoring ones that don’t fit his narrative that muslims are evil. He misuses data to suit his own needs and gleefully ignores ones that don’t.
3.) Contrary to what you’re arguing the vast bulk of the victims are NOT white girls or sikhs.
McLoughlin was simply lying or ignoring that most girls don’t come forwards due to shame
So no. I DID prove you wrong. You deliberately ignored what Dr Cockbain actually said because you think Muslims are subhuman
I wonder if Dr Cockbain has actually looked at what Islamic texts say about women and non-Muslims? The overall tenor of her work gives the impression for a desire to exculpate Islam as a set of ideas at any cost. Perhaps that is why so many of her works are cited in the latest Home Office whitewash on the nature of grooming gangs.
No one wants total focus on one subset of CSE to the exclusion of all other types but the prevalence of these gangs and the the disturbing similarities in excuses that accompany this debate on grooming gangs to that on jihad attacks is concerning.
I would like to know if Dr Cockbain agrees with the following given their provenance?
ECHR: “its [sharia] rules on the legal status of women”. – Annual report 2003
“Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”
Council of Europe: “While wives clearly have a duty of fidelity, husbands do not.” ajdoc28 (2016)
This report says the general principles of sharia include permitting wife beating and discrimination against non-Muslims: “non-Muslims do not have the same rights as Muslims in civil and criminal law,24which is discrimination on the ground of religion within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention.”
“The Assembly considers that the various Islamic declarations on human rights, adopted since the 1980s, while being more religious than legal, fail to reconcile Islam with universal human rights, especially insofar as Sharia is their unique source of reference. ”
I also wonder if she has considered items like this translation of the Shafi’i manual of sharia because it could easily condition a mindset that non-Muslim women are “easy meat”!!!
“Women and children of the land that has been conquered are considered booty of the war and they are considered slaves.
The master who owns a woman slave can use her in any way for his sexual pleasure; he can marry her if he wants. In intercourse the satisfaction of the female slave is not important at all. The female slave does not have to be Muslim convert. Even if she is pagan the sexual intercourse is Halal (permissible). A female Muslim is not allowed to have sexual relation with her slave without marriage….he is also allowed to lend her to another man without her consent to have sexual intercourse without marriage.”
Let’s face it: hundreds of thousands of working class white girls are worth a lot less to Cockbairn and the political class including in academia, but all politicians of all parties.
I’ve read the report. Let me paraphrase: