Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Oxford gang found guilty of grooming and sexually exploiting girls watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Poor girls, to think they weren't even believed by the Police or by Social services good riddance to bad rubbish.
    I can't believe it took all these posts for someone to actually mention the girls. What the hell were the social services doing?

    On a side note, another reason to support gay rights to adopt children. A child in a loving a caring home would be far less at risk to such a horrendous appeal. Clearly people who do not support gay adoption are so out of touch of what it's like living a care home.

    Also, I'd like to know what will happen to the girls afterwards. Will they be let down by society again?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If these girls were not protected by social services, then that is a serious problem. These men probably have a Muslim background but that doesn't mean they were practicing Islam (we don't know for sure if these men in particular were practicing), but it is a concern that a lot of rapes recently are caused by men with a Muslim background, Islam is clear on rape and abuse so why is this the case? Is it because the Muslims communities are not really doing enough to educate Muslims on such behavior?

    In my opinion, if there is a trend that Muslim men or men with Muslim background are getting together and committing such acts then I feel that Muslim communities should speak out to Muslims and remind them that such behavior is not allowed, educating and guiding Muslims is the best way to prevent them of even thinking about rape. It is important that both Muslim and Non Muslim communities should work together to drive this behavior out.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    well, joke's on them because I can't see their arse holes remaining unexploited for very long in the nick
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Funny you should mention that. You are forgetting of course the extensively documented and reported upon sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic church, aren't you?

    When you get a thread called "Catholic church paedophile priests", no one comes along to say "I don't understand why it needs to be labelled 'Catholic' and/or 'priests', paedophiles come in all religions and occupations, this crime is down to the individual"

    Even though we know full well that the vast vast majority of Catholics and priests (and even Catholic priests) are not paedophiles, the surprising number of incidents that have been uncovered always causes attention to be drawn to the fact that there have indeed been a number of Catholic priests turning out to be paedophiles, and consequently a not undeserved correlation to be drawn between Catholic priests and paedophilia, with multitudes of jokes and innuendos about them buggering altarboys.

    No one seems to have a problem with pointing out the fact that those commiting these crimes were Catholic priests, indeed this fact is always relevant and important.

    In this case (or number of cases) it was down to a single group, not an individual.

    And in spite of these groups being widely dispersed around the country with no evidence of any two groups having had contact with each other, every single one of the members of these groups had certain ethnic minority racial characteristics in common and quite possibly religious beliefs too. As did their victims.

    According to you, apparently why this is irrelevant and unimportant.
    No mate, you've got the wrong end of the stick. Catholic priests are Catholic priests. If it was a Catholic man carrying out the paedophilia, the media wouldn't mention his religion. If it was Muslim Imams carrying out paedophilia, I would have NO problem with Muslim Imams being described as such, in fact it would be imperative that they were described that way.

    Pakistani grooming gangs, whilst they have a Muslim BACKGROUND, no person with an ounce of objectivity could describe them as 'Muslims'. There is no evidence to suggest they are 'Muslim', or even if they believe in God, for that matter. I thought I had dissected this point sufficiently in my earlier post? The media wants to have it both ways: they want to use 'Muslim' as an ethnic designation (ie don't at all acknowledge whether said Muslims are practicing or not) but use the argument that being nasty to Muslims isn't racist, because Islam is a religion, not an ethnic group. Re-read my earlier post.

    Dude, I read Mailonline religiously. The disparity between how crime is reported if a 'Muslim' commits and how it's reported if it's a Christian/atheist is stark. Religion doesn't even come into it if it's a white guy. I could almost write a thesis on this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samir12)
    Islam is clear on rape and abuse so why is this the case? Is it because the Muslims communities are not really doing enough to educate Muslims on such behavior?
    But this demography of people are so far removed from being Muslim, how do you reach out to them? They scoff at religion. They wouldn't be seen dead in a mosque. Why are they expected to be, act, think like a Muslim? Just because their mum or dad were Muslim? When a white British criminal commits a crime, does anyone talk about the failure of the Church? Does anyone tell priest or ministers to look at what they're teaching white, British youth? No. So why should Muslims have a collective responsibility for people that nominally share their faith? It's a double standard.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eb1234)
    But this demography of people are so far removed from being Muslim, how do you reach out to them? They scoff at religion. They wouldn't be seen dead in a mosque. Why are they expected to be, act, think like a Muslim? Just because their mum or dad were Muslim? When a white British criminal commits a crime, does anyone talk about the failure of the Church? Does anyone tell priest or ministers to look at what they're teaching white, British youth? No. So why should Muslims have a collective responsibility for people that nominally share their faith? It's a double standard.
    I'm not saying Muslims have a responsibility, I'm saying we should do something anyway to prevent Muslims in the future from committing these acts. Non Muslims need to know that Muslims do not condone this sort of behavior otherwise some people will just keep on point fingers at Islam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure if it's just the halo effect, but has anyone ever noticed how there are never ANY goodlooking paedophiles? Coincidence? I think not. Dirty slimeballs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eb1234)
    But this demography of people are so far removed from being Muslim, how do you reach out to them? They scoff at religion. They wouldn't be seen dead in a mosque. Why are they expected to be, act, think like a Muslim? Just because their mum or dad were Muslim? When a white British criminal commits a crime, does anyone talk about the failure of the Church? Does anyone tell priest or ministers to look at what they're teaching white, British youth? No. So why should Muslims have a collective responsibility for people that nominally share their faith? It's a double standard.

    I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you here I am afraid.

    The reason why the Muslim Pakistani community must speak out and have a tremendous responsibility to do as much as they can about this is bascially because of the shockingly high representation of Muslim Pakistani men in the grooming statistics:

    CEOP study:

    http://www.channel4.com/news/ceop-wa...grooming-study

    In their words:

    In the grooming statistics, 49% were white and 46% Asian: the proportion of Pakistani Asians remains unknown. However, in a country where Asians constitute 7% of the general population, this is a striking figure.

    We believe that there are two main profiles of the on-street groomer. First, we have the white offenders, who typically offend alone. So far, nothing new: the lone white male is the norm for UK child sex offences. Second, however, there are Asian offenders, many of whom are of Pakistani origin. They seem much more likely to offend in groups, lending their abuse a curiously social dimension. In our research, which focuses on large offending groups, we analysed police data from five major on-street grooming investigations. Of the 52 suspects charged, 83% were Asian Pakistani, 11% Asian other and 6% white British. These are shocking statistics and the over-representation of Asian offenders within this dataset certainly merits attention.'

    Another article:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyl...actor-rochdale

    Oxford was not an isolated case. There have been convictions of Muslim Pakistani men grooming, raping and pimping children out in Rochdale, Rotherham, Leeds, Carlisle, Bradford, Liverpool, Ipswich, Derby, London, Oxford and others too.

    Two things are causing this:

    1. the moral cowardice of gutless social services and police to investigate and arrest these men because of fears of being called racist.

    2. The grooming of vulnerable white children by these Muslim Pakistani paedophile gangs who have racist and contemptuous attitudes to the girls themselves:

    'The Guardian has been told by one victim, known as Girl C, in an interview after she gave her evidence, that the men exclusively wanted white girls to abuse.'

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ma...grooming-girls

    I want to emphasise though that certainly not all Muslims are doing this, nor Pakistanis, nor Muslim Pakistanis either. This is done by a minority of Muslim Pakistanis who have this paedophile subculture. It was a muslim Pakistani, Nazir Afzal, who brought the Rochdale perverts to court, overturning a previous CPS decision not to prosecute (if Nazir Afzal stood as MP in my town, I would vote for him). Simiarlly many other British Muslim Pakistanis have spoken out against this evil, when the gutless PC social services have simply turned a blind eye.

    I am trying to be fair here. the vast majority of Muslims and Pakistanis and Muslim Pakistanis too woudl deplore such actions. But the very high representation of Muslim Pakistanis in such paedophile gangs does warrant attention, this dangerous subculture within the Muslim Pakistani community. And it follows that the Muslim Pakistani community has to do everything in its power to root such appalling racist and perverted attitudes out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    They were targeted them because white, non-Muslim girls are seen as 'less' of value in their communities.

    I live in London and have seen this type of hostile, aggressive and degrading attitude toward white women. Although these were not women, they're were 12 year old kids. Just abusing the unclean infidels as they saw it.

    Well, Actually we dont see white girls are inferior or anything you described. I certainly don't and neither do my social circle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But why are you labeling them as Muslim? What indication do you have that they are Muslim? Their families are Muslim? That is meaningless. Their families come from majority Muslim countries? Meaningless also. My problem is with the labeling.

    I don't mind too much when the media talks about Muslim terrorists, because in all fairness, those guys are practicing Muslims, albeit severely misguided and bonkers. These paedophile gangs are NOT Muslim!!! They may come from Muslim families, but that is not sufficient evidence for their Muslimness. As we keep hearing, Islam is not a race. It is belief and practice. What evidence is there that these gangs were acting in any way consistent with Islamic belief and practice? Zero.

    Online paedophile and child porn rings are typically white guys. Does anyone bash Christianity or atheism for that? Nobody is addressing any of the arguments I've made.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eb1234)
    I have read this entire discussion, and frankly, I'm disappointed at the quality of debate here. I myself am a practicing Muslim, and I'm disgusted by the existence of these gangs (as any sane person should be) and annoyed at the way the media cover it.

    I think it's fair to say that these scumbags had a Muslim background. By that, I mean someone in their family would have practiced Islam at some point. That does NOT make them Muslims. It's interesting, religious background only becomes an issue in the media when someone with a Muslim background commits a crime. If religious background were mentioned in EVERY news article, we'd be seeing expressions like 'Christian rapist' or 'Atheist abuser' much more frequently (as it is, we don't see that at all). What I'm trying to say is that these people are definitely NOT practicing Muslims.

    It's funny how people here are blaming Islam for sexual repression etc etc and all the tired, lazy stereotypes about Muslims. These men belong to the drinking, drug-taking, clubbing, hedonistic subculture of their communities. Any Muslims on this board will know exactly the sort of people I'm talking about. The kind that you see twice a year at Eid prayers with zigzags shaved into their hair, but you will never see anywhere near a mosque for the remainder of the year. They were almost definitely getting laid on a regular basis and weren't suffering from any form of 'sexual repression'.

    I read Dr Targey's article in the Mail yesterday, and I just laughed out loud. It was so abysmally poor, he is a shameless self-promoter, and will just say what the Establishment wants to hear to get ahead. Any Muslims here ever hear an Imam talk about white girls negatively? Any Muslims here ever heard an Imam even talk about sex?!?! No. I have been going to mosque for the better part of 20 years and never heard the sentiments discussed in that article mentioned by a scholar. And Dr Targey is implying these scumbags even attend mosque. What an idiot. I bet he can't name a single Imam that has said any of the things he says in that article. If he can, then he's complicit in all of this for not alerting the authorities. He is a brazen liar.

    Are these people just 'targeting white girls'? I would argue that they target anything vulnerable with a vagina. There have been cases of these gangs raping Asian girls too. I recall Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra writing that Asian girls would be less likely to report any abuse because of the increased stigma associated with being raped in that particular culture. What no-one else is addressing is that Pakistanis are a close knit community. They all know each other. My wife is half-Pakistani and her dad seems to be related somehow or other to 70% of Bradford. If word had got out that a Pakistani man had raped a Pakistani girl, then that man would almost definitely find himself dismembered by the girl's brothers, uncles, cousins etc. I'm sure you've all heard the expression 'don't s*** where you eat'. That's why it may seem that they are targeting white girls specifically whereas in reality it is merely a logistical issue.

    It's such a dumbass argument to say 'well, the Prophet's wife was a child, so child rape is permitted by Islam'. Utter nonsense. First of all, none of these men give a damn about religious teaching, so why would they give a damn about the Prophet's behaviour? Secondly, Aisha is considered by just about every Muslim to have been post-pubescent when she married the Prophet, so how does that legitimise sex with a child?

    Funny, how when the papers show you the mug shots of 'Muslim terrorists', they're always beardy, stern looking men with hats and robes etc. And the supposed 'Muslim paedophiles' look nothing more than chavs. Why has no-one made this observation? If Islam encouraged paedophila, wouldn't we be seeing a lot of beardy, robed guys in these grooming gangs?

    The bottom line is these people are nothing more than drug dealing, criminal scum. Islam is against any sexual activity outside marriage. Religion is a red herring here folks. Try to look at the story from a different angle.

    Eb1234

    Amazing post
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flyingarmbarman)
    if that floats your boatbut in the case of this , Thriftwork incorrectly 'collectively' described these as asian, when two were african. They were all however muslim, so that is a more accurate description was the point.
    I think actively describing them as "Muslims" is a little misleading. We don't know to what extent they participated in, or kept to Islamic ordinance. In fact, by virtue of the crimes they committed, they specifically weren't very observant of the religion.

    It'd be more accurate to describe them as "coming from Muslim backgrounds" or "Muslim communities". That's not me trying to surreptitiously distance them from the rest of Muslims - it's just that I highly doubt "reverence for Allah" was high on their list of priorities when raping bona fide children.

    Also the point was that some rather simple minded people automatically equate muslim=asian , which it does not, there are far more non-muslim asians on the planet, islam is a middle eastern religion, like christianity, not an asian one.
    You're correct to point out this idiosyncrasy, but the association is formed by the fact that the majority of this country's Muslims stem largely from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It's not a fair association to make, but it's understandable why it's there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Funny you should mention that. You are forgetting of course the extensively documented and reported upon sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic church, aren't you?

    When you get a thread called "Catholic church paedophile priests", no one comes along to say "I don't understand why it needs to be labelled 'Catholic' and/or 'priests', paedophiles come in all religions and occupations, this crime is down to the individual"

    Even though we know full well that the vast vast majority of Catholics and priests (and even Catholic priests) are not paedophiles, the surprising number of incidents that have been uncovered always causes attention to be drawn to the fact that there have indeed been a number of Catholic priests turning out to be paedophiles, and consequently a not undeserved correlation to be drawn between Catholic priests and paedophilia, with multitudes of jokes and innuendos about them buggering altarboys.

    No one seems to have a problem with pointing out the fact that those commiting these crimes were Catholic priests, indeed this fact is always relevant and important.

    In this case (or number of cases) it was down to a single group, not an individual.

    And in spite of these groups being widely dispersed around the country with no evidence of any two groups having had contact with each other, every single one of the members of these groups had certain ethnic minority racial characteristics in common and quite possibly religious beliefs too. As did their victims.

    According to you, apparently why this is irrelevant and unimportant.
    You're a whiny little cu** arn't you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I just don't understand why the word 'Muslim' get bandied about so much. Like I say, I don't mind if there's evidence that people perpetrating a crime are Muslim (although, there is still a double standard, as other criminal's religions are invariably never mentioned) are labelled as such. It's just when we have a scenario whereby drug dealing, chav scum are labelled as Muslim, for no other reason than their families may have been Muslims at some point. I have a problem with that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eb1234)
    I just don't understand why the word 'Muslim' get bandied about so much. Like I say, I don't mind if there's evidence that people perpetrating a crime are Muslim (although, there is still a double standard, as other criminal's religions are invariably never mentioned) are labelled as such. It's just when we have a scenario whereby drug dealing, chav scum are labelled as Muslim, for no other reason than their families may have been Muslims at some point. I have a problem with that.
    I'd say it's just that people are desperately trying to pinpoint the root of this problem, and to find connections between these people. 'They', if we can call them 'they', by accepting they share a cultural background, have certain things in common. They are hugely overrepresented in this particular crime - what else are people supposed to do? Continue to skirt around their backgrounds and pretend they randomly all happened to get together and decide to do this and they were all randomly fine with it?

    Edit: You are clearly a purveyor of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Have you not thought that maybe something of their received knowledge of Islam and the connected culture could have something to do with this? They don't have to have been model Muslims for Islam to be connected to it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    1) Argument: The rapists were Pakistani/Muslim therefore all Pakistani/Muslim men are sex criminals.
    2) Counter argument: Ok and what about all the victims of child abuse at the hands/penises of Catholic priests?
    3) Conclusion: All religions are screwed and the world will be an infinitely happier place when we accept that individuals are responsible for their own actions and cease to base our lives on fantastical constructs which have no empirical support whatsoever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    But why isn't the same standard therefore applied to white (nominally 'Christian') paedophile rings? I'm quite old so remember a case in Belgium of a paedophile ring in the 90s going up to the highest echelons of society. Nobody referred to their ethnicity or faith. A paedophile ring was uncovered in Cornwall last year (minimal media coverage btw) of ALL white people. Why wasn't their religious background mentioned in the media coverage.

    If I am guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy, all I want is some consistency with how these crimes are reported. I think I have illustrated my case in my previous posts with enough examples and counter examples.

    Here's an experiment you can do: go to dailymail.co.uk. Go to the search facility. Type in 'paedophile ring'. Click 'oldest' first. Scroll through the articles. You will not find a single mention of ethnicity or religion in any article unless it's Pakistanis (with the exception of Catholic priests). If they want to talk about religion (even though that is completely immaterial to the discussion) they should talk about everyone's religion. Otherwise they shouldn't mention it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    'They', if we can call them 'they', by accepting they share a cultural background, have certain things in common. They are hugely overrepresented in this particular crime - what else are people supposed to do? Continue to skirt around their backgrounds and pretend they randomly all happened to get together and decide to do this and they were all randomly fine with it?
    Every white British criminal shares a cultural background. Do we stigmatize white culture or Christianity for this? Is that the intelligent thing to do? Can we not accept that people are evil, regardless of which background they come from?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eb1234)
    But why isn't the same standard therefore applied to white (nominally 'Christian') paedophile rings? I'm quite old so remember a case in Belgium of a paedophile ring in the 90s going up to the highest echelons of society. Nobody referred to their ethnicity or faith. A paedophile ring was uncovered in Cornwall last year (minimal media coverage btw) of ALL white people. Why wasn't their religious background mentioned in the media coverage.

    If I am guilty of the No True Scotsman fallacy, all I want is some consistency with how these crimes are reported. I think I have illustrated my case in my previous posts with enough examples and counter examples.

    Here's an experiment you can do: go to dailymail.co.uk. Go to the search facility. Type in 'paedophile ring'. Click 'oldest' first. Scroll through the articles. You will not find a single mention of ethnicity or religion in any article unless it's Pakistanis (with the exception of Catholic priests). If they want to talk about religion (even though that is completely immaterial to the discussion) they should talk about everyone's religion. Otherwise they shouldn't mention it.
    How can you not grasp that it is because the proportion of these people with Pakistani Muslim backgrounds (regardless of whether you would say they can be called Muslims themselves) make up an entirely disproportionate amount of the perpetrators in these particular group grooming cases, and that white, Christian people aren't mentioned as being white/Christian because that is the way to describe the vast majority of the population. It doesn't narrow anything down whatsoever and does not have even a hint of significant correlatory value, unlike the Pakistani Muslim issue.

    No-one is saying about Pakistanis, or about Muslims. You can say it has nothing whatsoever to do with being Pakistani and nothing whatsoever to do with being Muslim all you like, but then we're still left with a shocking number of Pakistani Muslim perpetrators of this crime. If we can't talk about possible connections, we're not going to get anywhere. Stop being so bloody defensive and obstinate.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 23, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.