1400 children sexually exploited in UK town Rotherham: report

[JockPieandBeans]

You will no doubt leap upon the fact that the Asian men are disproportionately represented; which is something I have never denied and something which an earlier link of mine went some way towards explaining.

I do not need to leap on anything.have a look at the Stats YOU provided. It tells its own story.

But the figures show that this terrible crime is not exclusively committed by Asians or Muslims.

I have already acknowledged that in a response to Simple 1. The question that should be getting asked and answered is why there is such a high proportion from the Asian community, who represent about 5% of the population.

I did ask you to provide a link of gangs who were NOT Muslims, who have used the same MO over the past 10 years. Not links to individuals.

Indeed, most paedophiles are not in grooming gangs but acting individually; usually abusing a family member or someone known to them already; and the vast majority of them are white non Muslims.

Which makes the MO of the gangs in Rotherham and Bristol even more suspect.

So what is it ? Does it come from Mosques ? The Qu'ran ? Or is there a huge network of Muslim peados throughout the UK ?

For gangs of Muslim Somali's and gangs of Muslim Pakistani's to have the same MO. That MO is coming from the same place.

Edited December 2, 2014 by JockPieandBeans

[7by7]

The evidence shows that some Muslim men of Pakistani origin do engage in this horrible crime and are members of grooming gangs. Just as the evidence I provided shows that gangs, not individuals, of non Muslim white men do the same!

That Muslim men are disproportionally represented in these gangs; those which are known about, has previously been explained. But if you paid any attention to the news you would know that more such gangs are coming to light, and these gangs consist of white men; often white men in positions of power and influence.

There is no evidence to show that Muslim men of Pakistani ethnicity commit this crime BECAUSE they are Muslim men of Pakistani origin.

Your continued assertion that they do so because of their religion and ethnicity is based purely on prejudice.

As is your assertion that their MO is spread via mosques and the Koran!

What about the abuse in Catholic children's homes, for example? Do you equally assert that those abusers committed their terrible acts because they were white Roman Catholics?

Do you equally assert that their MO was spread through Catholic churches and the Bible?

To do so would be as unfounded and ridiculous as your assertions about mosques and the Koran.

You are merely repeating the same hate filled lies, not responding to the posted evidence showing those lies for what they are.

You can continue this racist onanism on your own.

[nontabury]

The evidence shows that some Muslim men of Pakistani origin do engage in this horrible crime and are members of grooming gangs. Just as the evidence I provided shows that gangs, not individuals, of non Muslim white men do the same!

That Muslim men are disproportionally represented in these gangs; those which are known about, has previously been explained. But if you paid any attention to the news you would know that more such gangs are coming to light, and these gangs consist of white men; often white men in positions of power and influence.

There is no evidence to show that Muslim men of Pakistani ethnicity commit this crime BECAUSE they are Muslim men of Pakistani origin.

Your continued assertion that they do so because of their religion and ethnicity is based purely on prejudice.

As is your assertion that their MO is spread via mosques and the Koran!

What about the abuse in Catholic children's homes, for example? Do you equally assert that those abusers committed their terrible acts because they were white Roman Catholics?

Do you equally assert that their MO was spread through Catholic churches and the Bible?

To do so would be as unfounded and ridiculous as your assertions about mosques and the Koran.

You are merely repeating the same hate filled lies, not responding to the posted evidence showing those lies for what they are.

You can continue this racist onanism on your own.

The Roman Catholic priests who committed those horrible crimes, did not as far as I know, target children from another religion or colour. Unfortunately that cannot be said for those Muslims (and I accept that it was only a minority) who did in fact target non Muslim girls in Rotherham.

Furthermore 7by7, you seem to have a problem in acknowledging that SOME Muslims can also be racist, it's not a one way street.

[JockPieandBeans]

You are merely repeating the same hate filled lies, not responding to the posted evidence showing those lies for what they are.

Yes Mohammed, it is just me spouting hate filled lies !!

The sexual abuse of children takes different social forms: from

sporadic child abductions, to organised child pornography rings, to

abuse by parents or care-home staff. All of it is awful, and none of it

should be ignored. The phenomenon of gangs of men who loiter with

impunity around schoolgirls, luring them into a life of addiction and

prostitution is a distinct category of child sexual abuse, but a category

that the authorities in Britain have deliberately ignored for 25 years.

They ignored it, despite it being clearly put on the national agenda as

long ago as 2003.

One of the defining features of this crime is the ethnic/cultural

homogeneity of the gang members, and the refusal of other

members of their community to speak out about them or to

condemn their behaviour. The gangs are often made up of brothers

and members of their extended family, who take part in the grooming

and/or rape of the schoolgirls.1

In both Britain and the Netherlands,

the gangs appear to be overwhelmingly men who are Muslim.

Through the doctrine of multiculturalism, enforced via political

correctness, the gangs in Britain were basically operating with

impunity between 1988 and 2009.

http://lawandfreedomfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Easy-Meat-Multiculturalism-Islam-and-Child-Sex-Slavery-05-03-2014.pdf

I suggest you have a read at this report.

I'm still waiting for a link to a White grooming gang.

Edited December 3, 2014 by JockPieandBeans

[simple1]

I'm still waiting for a link to a White grooming gang.

52 groups where ethnicity data was provided, 26 (50 per cent) comprised all Asian offenders, 11 (21 per cent) were all white, 9 (17 per cent) groups had offenders from multiple ethnicities, 4 (8 per cent) were all black offenders and there were 2 (4 per cent) exclusively Arab groups.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-grooming-gangs/18739

[JockPieandBeans]

Simple 1

It was a rhetorical question. I had previously read this blog.

Damning stats and the stats on pages 149 & 150 of the report a provided at #706 is just as damning.

No doubt the author will be branded a fully paid up member of the BNP by a certain poster.

[jacky54]

The cause of Pakistani child rapists in the UK is the influence of the Koran and the example set by the prophet who carried out similar acts of violence against girls. The cause in other groups is different, but anyone denying that Islam is the cause with the Pakistanis and Somalis is living in apologist world.

[7by7]

JockPieandBeans,

I have NEVER denied, apologised for or tried to excuse the fact that gangs of Muslim men groom and sexually abuse young girls; in fact I have frequently said the opposite.

I have NEVER denied that the authorities inaction in the Rotherham and other similar cases was in part motivated by a fear of being branded racist; in fact I have frequently said the opposite.

That you still insist otherwise can only be explained by your inability to understand what I post; do you have problems with English?

I have provided links which show that there have been more white grooming gangs than Muslim ones; you must have had difficulty reading them as well.

Here is another one: Police in UK investigating 54 paedophile grooming gangs

....according to the Independent "on-street grooming is not the sole preserve of Asian men" and "the most detailed research on the phenomenon so far found that, in 43 per cent of cases, the abusers were white." Figures cited by the deputy children's commissioner also state that 28 percent of victims are from ethnic minority groups.

Decades long sexual abuse of vulnerable children in care homes are also under historical investigation. The Mirror recently reported "Detectives are investigating 84 suspects as part of a massive children’s homes sex abuse probe spanning three decades." While the perpetrators are not considered as grooming gangs they are part of a massive paedophile network with allegations of establishment cover up.

As for the report from the Law and freedom Foundation; previously called Mosque Busters, whilst it makes some valid points, as even you have managed to do sometimes amidst your polemics, the organisation which published it is hardly independent.

Something which even the Daily Mail acknowledges

Vacancies for volunteers were posted on the EDL website.

EDL has since endorsed the Law and Freedom Foundation

In the Rochdale and similar cases there was, as the official report shows, the inexcusable disbelief by the authorities of those girls and boys who complained; an appalling factor in many cases, from gangs to individuals. That is one reason why not only these grooming gangs, but also people like Saville, Roache and Hall got away with it for so many years.

[JockPieandBeans]

JockPieandBeans,

I have NEVER denied, apologised for or tried to excuse the fact that gangs of Muslim men groom and sexually abuse young girls; in fact I have frequently said the opposite.

I have NEVER denied that the authorities inaction in the Rotherham and other similar cases was in part motivated by a fear of being branded racist; in fact I have frequently said the opposite.

That you still insist otherwise can only be explained by your inability to understand what I post; do you have problems with English?

I have provided links which show that there have been more white grooming gangs than Muslim ones; you must have had difficulty reading them as well.

Here is another one: Police in UK investigating 54 paedophile grooming gangs

....according to the Independent "on-street grooming is not the sole preserve of Asian men" and "the most detailed research on the phenomenon so far found that, in 43 per cent of cases, the abusers were white." Figures cited by the deputy children's commissioner also state that 28 percent of victims are from ethnic minority groups.

Decades long sexual abuse of vulnerable children in care homes are also under historical investigation. The Mirror recently reported "Detectives are investigating 84 suspects as part of a massive children’s homes sex abuse probe spanning three decades." While the perpetrators are not considered as grooming gangs they are part of a massive paedophile network with allegations of establishment cover up.

As for the report from the Law and freedom Foundation; previously called Mosque Busters, whilst it makes some valid points, as even you have managed to do sometimes amidst your polemics, the organisation which published it is hardly independent.

In the Rochdale and similar cases there was, as the official report shows, the inexcusable disbelief by the authorities of those girls and boys who complained; an appalling factor in many cases, from gangs to individuals. That is one reason why not only these grooming gangs, but also people like Saville, Roache and Hall got away with it for so many years.

I think you need to re-read this whole thread. You have done nothing but deny, deflect and ignore.

It now seems that evidence is popping up left, right and centre that contradicts you.

Whilst I will agree that groups like the EDL etc are nothing more than a bunch of clowns, it is not hard to work out why they could be growing in popularity. I can also understand why groups like the EDL would endorse the Law and Freedom Foundation.

Not withstanding, the atrocities carried out by Muslims are only starting to get reported. The stats so far are an abomination. I dread to think what the true numbers are, especially if the Asian Community starts to speak out.

I have already provided links to sh!tloads of ongoing investigations. I also pointed out that currently 1200 people from the West Midlands are being given specialised training to deal with what is to come.

Just for your info, Surrey as a whole has a very low level of " Multiculturalism " Granted Woking is at the higher end of the scale for Surry. But not a patch on many towns and cities across England.

Just 1 example. Figure from the 2001 census. Which will be flawed anyway due to the way it is carried out.

Slough has one of the highest Black Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME) populations in the UK (36%). Since the 2001 Census, the town has also seen large arrivals of migrants from Eastern Europe (particularly Poland), and from Somalia and other parts of Africa.

http://www.slough.gov.uk/council/strategies-plans-and-policies/equality-and-diversity.aspx

If I could be @rsed I would provide a load of links. Better things to do with my time.

In the Rochdale and similar cases there was, as the official report shows, the inexcusable disbelief by the authorities of those girls and boys who complained; an appalling factor in many cases, from gangs to individuals. That is one reason why not only these grooming gangs, but also people like Saville, Roache and Hall got away with it for so many years.

Lets get something straight right here and now. It was nothing to do with disbelief by the Authorities. The Official report clearly highlights that it was DELIBERATELY ignored and swept under the carpet on the orders from those above.

But you keep believing that you live in Wonderland.

Edited December 4, 2014 by JockPieandBeans

[7by7]

Your deliberate ignoring and nay saying of everything which I post makes any intelligent debate with you impossible.

The irony is, if you actually bothered to read my posts in their entirety, rather than scanning them for points you can use to abuse me, then you would find that we are actually in agreement on everything except one issue.

That issue being that these men committed their horrible crimes because of their religion and ethnicity. A claim which you have miserably failed to find any evidence to substantiate.

BTW, what the population of Surrey and Woking have to do with this topic, only you know. But any figures you will find are for the whole borough, large in area and large in population.

Figures for the actual town itself, where I and most of the Muslim population actually live, will tell a different story.

Edited December 5, 2014 by 7by7

[Morch]

JockPieandBeans,

I have NEVER denied, apologised for or tried to excuse the fact that gangs of Muslim men groom and sexually abuse young girls; in fact I have frequently said the opposite.

I have NEVER denied that the authorities inaction in the Rotherham and other similar cases was in part motivated by a fear of being branded racist; in fact I have frequently said the opposite.

That you still insist otherwise can only be explained by your inability to understand what I post; do you have problems with English?

I have provided links which show that there have been more white grooming gangs than Muslim ones; you must have had difficulty reading them as well.

Here is another one: Police in UK investigating 54 paedophile grooming gangs

....according to the Independent "on-street grooming is not the sole preserve of Asian men" and "the most detailed research on the phenomenon so far found that, in 43 per cent of cases, the abusers were white." Figures cited by the deputy children's commissioner also state that 28 percent of victims are from ethnic minority groups.

Decades long sexual abuse of vulnerable children in care homes are also under historical investigation. The Mirror recently reported "Detectives are investigating 84 suspects as part of a massive children’s homes sex abuse probe spanning three decades." While the perpetrators are not considered as grooming gangs they are part of a massive paedophile network with allegations of establishment cover up.

As for the report from the Law and freedom Foundation; previously called Mosque Busters, whilst it makes some valid points, as even you have managed to do sometimes amidst your polemics, the organisation which published it is hardly independent.

Something which even the Daily Mail acknowledges

Vacancies for volunteers were posted on the EDL website.

EDL has since endorsed the Law and Freedom Foundation

In the Rochdale and similar cases there was, as the official report shows, the inexcusable disbelief by the authorities of those girls and boys who complained; an appalling factor in many cases, from gangs to individuals. That is one reason why not only these grooming gangs, but also people like Saville, Roache and Hall got away with it for so many years.

The link you quoted cites 43% of the abusers were white. Given overall demographics doesn't it raise a question regading

them 57% of the offenders which are, apparently, over represented in relation to their actual numbers in the population?

On the same note, wondering how does 28% of the victims being of ethnic minority groups seats with overall demographics.

[nontabury]

JockPieandBeans,

I have NEVER denied, apologised for or tried to excuse the fact that gangs of Muslim men groom and sexually abuse young girls; in fact I have frequently said the opposite.

I have NEVER denied that the authorities inaction in the Rotherham and other similar cases was in part motivated by a fear of being branded racist; in fact I have frequently said the opposite.

That you still insist otherwise can only be explained by your inability to understand what I post; do you have problems with English?

I have provided links which show that there have been more white grooming gangs than Muslim ones; you must have had difficulty reading them as well.

Here is another one: Police in UK investigating 54 paedophile grooming gangs

....according to the Independent "on-street grooming is not the sole preserve of Asian men" and "the most detailed research on the phenomenon so far found that, in 43 per cent of cases, the abusers were white." Figures cited by the deputy children's commissioner also state that 28 percent of victims are from ethnic minority groups.

Decades long sexual abuse of vulnerable children in care homes are also under historical investigation. The Mirror recently reported "Detectives are investigating 84 suspects as part of a massive children’s homes sex abuse probe spanning three decades." While the perpetrators are not considered as grooming gangs they are part of a massive paedophile network with allegations of establishment cover up.

As for the report from the Law and freedom Foundation; previously called Mosque Busters, whilst it makes some valid points, as even you have managed to do sometimes amidst your polemics, the organisation which published it is hardly independent.

Something which even the Daily Mail acknowledges

Vacancies for volunteers were posted on the EDL website.

EDL has since endorsed the Law and Freedom Foundation

In the Rochdale and similar cases there was, as the official report shows, the inexcusable disbelief by the authorities of those girls and boys who complained; an appalling factor in many cases, from gangs to individuals. That is one reason why not only these grooming gangs, but also people like Saville, Roache and Hall got away with it for so many years.

The link you quoted cites 43% of the abusers were white. Given overall demographics doesn't it raise a question regading

them 57% of the offenders which are, apparently, over represented in relation to their actual numbers in the population?

On the same note, wondering how does 28% of the victims being of ethnic minority groups seats with overall demographics.

Re 28% of the victims being of ethnic minority groups, well certainly this is not correct for Rotherham. 100% of know victims of these particular abusers were none Muslim.

[JockPieandBeans]

That issue being that these men committed their horrible crimes because of their religion and ethnicity. A claim which you have miserably failed to find any evidence to substantiate.

Again you twist what I said.

I said.

The atrocities that were carried in Rotherham were carried out by Muslims of Pakistani origin.

The atrocities that were carried out in Bristol were carried out by Muslims of Somali origin.

I do not think any sane person would try and deny what I said.

How about you provide evidence that they did not carry out these atrocities because they were Muslims ? Although they are hardly likely to admit it.

I wont bother going into, and providing links to the other unsavoury aspects of islam, that are not compatible with Western Society, you will just deny that they exist.

[simple1]

Re 28% of the victims being of ethnic minority groups, well certainly this is not correct for Rotherham. 100% of know victims of these particular abusers were none Muslim.

Posts removed to enable reply.

Not correct - from the Rotherham report...

11.14 One of the local Pakistani women's groups described how Pakistani-heritage girls

were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside

school gates at dinner times and after school. They also cited cases in Rotherham

where Pakistani landlords had befriended Pakistani women and girls on their own for

purposes of sex, then passed on their name to other men who had then contacted

them for sex. The women and girls feared reporting such incidents to the Police

because it would affect their future marriage prospects.

[nontabury]

Re 28% of the victims being of ethnic minority groups, well certainly this is not correct for Rotherham. 100% of know victims of these particular abusers were none Muslim.

Posts removed to enable reply.

Not correct - from the Rotherham report...

11.14 One of the local Pakistani women's groups described how Pakistani-heritage girls

were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside

school gates at dinner times and after school. They also cited cases in Rotherham

where Pakistani landlords had befriended Pakistani women and girls on their own for

purposes of sex, then passed on their name to other men who had then contacted

them for sex. The women and girls feared reporting such incidents to the Police

because it would affect their future marriage prospects.

Correct, unfortunately these reports originated from the Muslims, many people in Rotherham consider them to be downright lies. Their thinking is that the Muslims are trying to camouflage what was actually happening, by pretending it was also happening to Muslim girls.

[Scott]

Most sex offenders are opportunists and they prey on those that are vulnerable. As a very general rule, they do not target people because of their religion. Those that do are usually sex for reasons other than sexual gratification.

[simple1]

Re 28% of the victims being of ethnic minority groups, well certainly this is not correct for Rotherham. 100% of know victims of these particular abusers were none Muslim.

Posts removed to enable reply.

Not correct - from the Rotherham report...

11.14 One of the local Pakistani women's groups described how Pakistani-heritage girls

were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside

school gates at dinner times and after school. They also cited cases in Rotherham

where Pakistani landlords had befriended Pakistani women and girls on their own for

purposes of sex, then passed on their name to other men who had then contacted

them for sex. The women and girls feared reporting such incidents to the Police

because it would affect their future marriage prospects.

Correct, unfortunately these reports originated from the Muslims, many people in Rotherham consider them to be downright lies. Their thinking is that the Muslims are trying to camouflage what was actually happening, by pretending it was also happening to Muslim girls.

The content for the report was provided by the UK Muslim Women's Network. The Rotherham report does provide more detail of sexual abuse within the Muslim community in the UK; refer below. I fail to see why these activities would be precluded from the overall sexual offending by criminals with a Muslim background in Rotherham.

The UK Muslim Women's Network is an advocacy group for Muslim females subjected to abuse and regularly report on crimes such as CSE & FGM. Not the profile of a group that are attempting to minimise sexual crimes committed by those from a Muslim heritage in Rotherham or elsewhere in the UK

11.15 The UK Muslim Women's Network produced a report on CSE in September 2013

which drew on 35 case studies of women from across the UK who were victims, the

majority of whom were Muslim. It highlighted that Asian girls were being sexually

exploited where authorities were failing to identify or support them. They were most

vulnerable to men from their own communities who manipulated cultural norms to

prevent them from reporting their abuse. It described how this abuse was being

carried out. 'Offending behaviour mostly involved men operating in groups . . . The

victim was being passed around and prostituted amongst many other men. Our

research also showed that complex grooming ‘hierarchies’ were at play. The physical

abuse included oral, anal and vaginal rape; role play; insertion of objects into the

vagina; severe beatings; burning with cigarettes; tying down; enacting rape that

included ripping clothes off and sexual activity over the webcam.' This description

mirrors the abuse committed by Pakistani-heritage perpetrators on white girls in

Rotherham.

[JockPieandBeans]

Most sex offenders are opportunists and they prey on those that are vulnerable. As a very general rule, they do not target people because of their religion. Those that do are usually sex for reasons other than sexual gratification.

Whilst most sex offenders are indeed opportunists. They do not target because of vulnerability or any other reason. In the vast majority of cases they strike because they think they will get away with it.

The cases that have come to light in the recent past, Rochdale, Rotherham and Bristol show a very different MO.

When you have different groups of people, from different continents employing the same MO. There is normally a factor that links these groups. It is my experience, that in the main, Africans and Asians do not normally have a buddy buddy relationship.

This then narrows down the links for this particular MO.

[7by7]

That issue being that these men committed their horrible crimes because of their religion and ethnicity. A claim which you have miserably failed to find any evidence to substantiate.

Again you twist what I said.

I said.

The atrocities that were carried in Rotherham were carried out by Muslims of Pakistani origin.

The atrocities that were carried out in Bristol were carried out by Muslims of Somali origin.

I do not think any sane person would try and deny what I said.

I am not twisting what you said; I am quoting your exact words!

I said they carried out these atrocities because the were animals of Muslim Pakistani origin. I stand by that statement.

(7by7 emphasis)

Are you now withdrawing that statement?

Of course no one is going to deny that the men in Rochdale and other cases were Muslims; although whether they were practicing Muslims and regular Mosque attenders is something I don't know; do you?

You are now trying to deny saying something which you did clearly say; are you calling yourself insane?

How about you provide evidence that they did not carry out these atrocities because they were Muslims ? Although they are hardly likely to admit it.

You are asking me to prove a negative.

However, I will point out to you that Islamic extremists who commit their atrocities due to their perverted interpretation of their faith proclaim it loudly at every opportunity. I would have thought that if these men really believed that their religion not only condoned these foul acts but actually encouraged them, as you and others think, then they would at the very least have mentioned it at some point!

I wont bother with your ridiculous last paragraph.

[7by7]

Most sex offenders are opportunists and they prey on those that are vulnerable..........

When I made this point

These despicable men were opportunists; they took advantage of vulnerable girls who were in the wrong places at the wrong times; usually late at night.

I was subject to abuse and accusations of being an apologist for paedophiles!

Will those who did so react to Scott's statement in the same way?

[jacky54]

You have never been 'abused' and I don't recall you being accused of apologising for paedophiles. What you do is constantly apologise for the causes of jihad and the abuse of children and that cause in the case of Pakistanis and Somalis in these cases is ISLAM. Do stop trying to play the victim card, it convinces nobody.

Edited December 6, 2014 by jacky54

[7by7]

Quotes of previous posts removed to comply with forum software.

The link you (7by7) quoted cites 43% of the abusers were white. Given overall demographics doesn't it raise a question regading
them 57% of the offenders which are, apparently, over represented in relation to their actual numbers in the population?

As said earlier; a lot of it comes down to opportunity.

Asian men are overrepresented in the sort of occupations which make targeting these girls easier; taxi drivers, takeaways etc.

As shown, white grooming gangs do exist; but white paedophiles are more likely to be acting as individuals, in small groups, such as Saville and his recently convicted mate, or all in one place such as the Catholic children's home scandal.

When the perpetrators are Asian, particularly when they are Muslim, the media emphasise their race and religion; which they don't do when the perpetrators of this most vile crime are white.

Why the media focus on race in the ‘child grooming’ trial?

The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and at times even The Times have placed a lot of emphasis on the races of the people involved without offering wider context. The GMP Assistant Chief Constable said today:

It is not a racial issue. This is about adults preying on vulnerable young children. It just happens that in this particular area and time the demographics were that these were Asian men.

However, in large parts of the country we are seeing on-street grooming, child sexual exploitation happening in each of our towns and it isn’t about a race issue. The street grooming issue is about vulnerability and who has access to that vulnerability.

This is exactly right. These heinous men found it easier to prey on young white girls, but don’t think for a second that they would not do the same to Asian girls. Tales of rape, sexual exploitation and trafficking are rife across the Indian sub-continent.

The idea that they avoided Asian girls because somehow they have more respect for them is utter rubbish; they have no respect for any women of any race

On the same note, wondering how does 28% of the victims being of ethnic minority groups seats with overall demographics.

It shows that they are over represented.

From the 2011 census, 87.27% of the UK population is white, 12.73% Asian, black, etc. (source)

So if, as claimed by some, Asian, Muslim paedophiles only target white girls, who is responsible for the abuse of the 28% of victims who are non white?

Edited December 6, 2014 by 7by7

[7by7]

You have never been 'abused' and I don't recall you being accused of apologising for paedophiles. What you do is constantly apologise for the causes of jihad and the abuse of children and that cause in the case of Pakistanis and Somalis in these cases is ISLAM. Do stop trying to play the victim card, it convinces nobody.

You say you don't recall me being called an apologist; then call me one!

At least, unlike JPB, you are not now trying to hide that you believe these men committed their crimes because they are Muslims.

Plenty of evidence has been produced to show that these men and their vile acts have been condemned by Muslim leaders, imams etc. as un Islamic.

When will you or JPB or anyone else who believes as you do produce even a scrap of evidence to show that they were motivated by their religion?

[jacky54]

Word twisting again, i said I had not seen you accused of being an apologist for paedophiles. Perhaps if you could find the time to read the Koran, the hadith and the practices of the prophet who these abusers follow you would not only have a bit of credibility on here, but also you would not have to keep asking for 'proof'

[7by7]

Maybe you should read some of the many scholarly articles which dispute the claims that Aisha was only 9 when Mohammed married her and that the Koran condones child marriage and sex with children.

Many have been linked to and quoted from before; here's another one. Rejecting the Myth of Sanctioned Child Marriage in Islam.

How is it that Saudi Arabia still allows child marriage when they've known Aisha's real age all along (the biographies I reference are written in Arabic, for Heaven's sake!), or that Pakistan's rape laws cleave to British colonial precedent?

In Pakistan, a woman can be punished for being raped if the rapist denies her claims. But when Muhammad was faced with a woman who told him she'd been raped, he had the man in question executed on the testimony of the woman, whom he pronounced blameless, alone.

.......

What's my bottom line? The age Aisha attained before she married the Prophet is one issue we have to put to rest -- for the sake of children everywhere. There is absolutely no question that Aisha was an adult when she consummated her marriage with Muhammad of her own free will, and she lived out her life in the earliest days of Islam the un-harassed and proudly participatory equal of everyone, just like every other man, woman or child under God.

At the time of Mohammed the age when a girl was considered old enough for marriage and sex was the age when she reached puberty; i.e. started to menstruate. Not just in the Arab world, but Europe, too.

In most European countries now the age of consent is 16 or above; in many it's lower; in Spain it's only 13! (source)

The men in this case are of Pakistani origin; sex outside marriage in Pakistan is illegal and the minimum age for marriage is 18 (source).

So, as can be seen, the argument that these men committed these foul acts because of their religion and ethnicity simply does not stand up.

[jacky54]

But he married her when she was SIX that was not the age of puberty, he raped her when she was NINE that was not the age of puberty. Raping nine year olds was not normal in those times. So we have this filthy perverted example of child abuse set by the 'perfect man' somebody that all Muslims men say they want to emulate, and you ask for evidence, good god man it could hardly be any clearer.

You will of course now try to pretend that Aisha was not 6 and was not raped at nine, that's what apologists do.

Edited December 6, 2014 by jacky54

[Scott]

Most sex offenders are opportunists and they prey on those that are vulnerable..........

When I made this point

These despicable men were opportunists; they took advantage of vulnerable girls who were in the wrong places at the wrong times; usually late at night.

I was subject to abuse and accusations of being an apologist for paedophiles!

Will those who did so react to Scott's statement in the same way?

I am really not too fussed by what I get called, although this thread isn't about me (or you) for that matter. In my previous life, I spent years working with sexually abused children and with sex offenders, including those in a prison setting. They ran the gamit from voyeurs to those that had raped and killed their victims.

I've seen offenders who targeted their victims by age, and for those who have sex with young children, the age can be quite specific -- for example they might like 9 year olds, but not 8 year old or 10 year olds. I have seen children targeted because of race -- but these were usually minority children and they were from the most vulnerable sector of the sub-culture.

I have not kept up closely with this situation, but I would hazard a guess that the children targeted were from vulnerable backgrounds, such as single parent families, living in institutions, having legal problems including drug and alcohol abuse. Some of the perpetrators may well have preferred 'white' girls, but that is a racial preference, not a religious one.

I've never seen any group of offenders that targeted on the basis of religion. Did these children have to fill out an application and answer a question about what religion they were? Or, were most of them members of the majority population and happen to be non-Muslim? How many Muslim children are in care in those areas?

[7by7]

Jacky54, read the link I provided above. It is the latest one of many posted which, using sound historical evidence, reject the claim that she was a child when he married her, or that he raped her at all; let alone when she was a child.

There are really only three reasons to insist -- as so many do -- that Aisha was only 9 years old when Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam (PBUH) married her: Either you are such a crazy Islamophile that you are willing to go to your grave insisting Muhammad could do whatever he wanted, or you are such a crazy Islamophobe that you want to insist he did, or you are such a weirdly religious sex-crazed pervert that you hope accusing him makes it OK for you to do it too.

Which are you?

The author continues

There is absolutely no other reason to either make or repeat that disgusting claim. Aisha was married in 622 C.E., and although her exact birthday is unknown, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari recorded that it happened before Islam was revealed in 610. The earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, Abu Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham's recension of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah -- The Life of the Messenger of God records that Aisha accepted Islam shortly after it was revealed -- 12 years before her marriage -- and there is no way she could have done so as an infant or toddler.

Furthermore, it is a matter of incontrovertible historical record that Aisha was involved in the Battles of Badr in 624 and Uhud in 625, in neither of which was anyone under the age of 15 allowed.

Finally, Imam Wali-ud-Din Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Khatib, dead for more than 700 years, recorded in the biographical section of Miskat al-Masabih that Asma, her elder sister of 10 years, died at the age of 100, 72 years after Aisha's wedding. This makes Aisha's age at the time of her marriage at least 14, and at the time of her marriage's consummation almost 20.

So, at the very least she must have been 12, though probably older, when married and possibly much older when the marriage was consummated.

12, or even younger, was a common age for marriage at the time, both in the Arab world and Christian Europe.

For example, Henry VII of England was born at Pembroke Castle on 28 January 1457 to the 13-year-old Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond.

The age of consent in England and Wales was raised from 12 to 13 in 1875 and from 13 to 16 in 1885.

As said above; in Spain it is still only 13!

[oldsailor35]

1400 from a small town like Rotherham! The scale of this problem is massive.

I wonder if all these girls and their families feel culturally enriched now?

I have a problem getting my head around the word "Families"..................Where in the hell are/were they when this is going on ?

[oldsailor35]

Every child or person who could have possibly involved in any way, must be interviewed in a secure situation. The police from another county should be brought in, in a similar way to the 'Operation Countryman' investigation. Do not let this rest.