How could 1,400 girls in the northern English town of Rotherham be groomed, tortured, trafficked and raped by Muslim gangs right under the noses of the police?
Will you be calling the police 'hurty helpline' yes or no? Watch part one of this genuinely jaw-dropping debate between Julia and South Yorkshire's Police & Crime Commissioner ▼@JuliaHB1 | https://t.co/sv3MZUm41cpic.twitter.com/jPFZJ7YveY
Julia: “I think those most affected were people terrified when a woman with a large knife ran through the town shouting’kill kill kill’. You’re telling me the feelings of someone who saw a nasty tweet were affected just as much!?” Watch part two below ▼ pic.twitter.com/PtdPBHq8Ew
Why is the BBC proving so reluctant to report on the horrific story of the 1000 young girls who, over a period of 40 years, have been groomed, drugged, serially raped and sometimes murdered by predominantly Muslim gangs in Telford, Shropshire?
Nick Ferrari accused the BBC of ignoring the Telford abuse scandal because it does not fit their agenda. https://t.co/Xi5NiLy3pm
Possibly for the same reason that so much of the UK media is now giving such prominence to the poisoning of Russian ex-double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, presumably on the orders of Vladimir Putin.
Rape is rape is rape. Or so the new generation of feminists would have us believe.
But our left-leaning news media would beg to differ. Some kinds of rape, we know from the coverage variously afforded them by organisations like the BBC and the Guardian, are definitely much, much worse than other kinds of rape.
Let me give you two recent examples from the news.
Organised groups of mostly middle-aged Muslim men of Pakistani heritage predate on vulnerable, pubescent girls, first seducing them with drugs, alcohol and displays of false affection, then employing them as sex slaves to be multiply raped over a period of years.
Call me a racist Islamophobe but I’d say in terms of nauseating appallingness example b) does slightly have the edge. This is not, in any way, to play down the revoltingness of Jimmy Savile’s crimes. Clearly he was a cold-eyed, ruthless, bastard of a serial sexual predator – and the more we learn about him, the more abhorrent he becomes: raping a small boy while dressed as a Womble? Really?? His sleaziness is so hideous as to be quite beyond parody.
But on any objective level, you’d surely have to concede that b) is the more significant crime both in terms of scale and sheer brutality. More girls were abused, more frequently and more aggressively. Not only that but its socio-political implications are much more far-reaching.
From the Jimmy Savile case we learn only this: that the sexual mores of the 1970s made it much easier for celebrities to molest underage girls; that the BBC had a culture for many years in which it considered certain of its celebrities too big too fail. This stuff is all in the past; not much can be done to be remedy it now – other than perhaps exhuming by Savile’s body and sticking his skull on a spike on Tower Bridge.
From the Rotherham case, on the other hand, we learn any number of extremely depressing things: that thanks to the failed doctrine of multiculturalism, Britain’s Islamic “communities” still live in a state of self-imposed Apartheid in which they feel little loyalty to or sympathy with the broader national culture; that a significant percentage of Muslims in Britain have a moral code which precludes them from seeing anything wrong in raping little white (and Sikh) girls, whom they see as worthless kuffar prostitutes; that the authorities which ought to be preventing this happening – social services; children’s welfare charities; the police; local politicians; local “community leaders” – have instead either turned a blind eye to it or actively colluded with the perpetrators; that despite Rotherham – and similar cases across the country – there is absolutely no appetite among our political class for any concerted action to deal with the problem or to punish those on whose watch these crimes were allowed to happen.
It is this contrast, unfortunately, which explains why the voices of Britain’s liberal chattering classes find the Jimmy Savile case so much easier to discuss at such length than they do cases like Rotherham.
On BBC Radio 4 Today this morning, two of the chattering classes’ big guns – Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline and Times columnist David Aaronovitch – were wheeled out to make all the right noises about Jimmy Savile and the awfulness thereof.
You cannot, I fear, ever imagine it giving similar treatment to the Muslim rape gang phenomenon because it’s simply too big a can of worms, in which so much of the Establishment is implicated.
Is it just my imagination or was there a widely publicised report a few weeks ago by a professor called Alexis Jay describing in clinical detail how at least 1400 mostly underage girls were groomed, drugged and raped over a period of years in the northern town of Rotherham by gangs of men from predominately Kashmiri-Pakistani Muslim backgrounds?
The reason I ask is that earlier this week, I was publicly called a liar, an Islamophobe and a racist for mentioning this fact on a BBC TV debate programme called – laughably – Free Speech. “Boo! Hiss!” went the studio audience. “Not true” went the silly girl panelist sitting to my left. “List one contemporary problem facing Britain that’s NOT the fault of Muslims? Are there any in your mind?” said someone on Twitter with evidently strong and somewhat unnerving radical Islamist sympathies.
It’s normally at this point in the proceedings that the moderator comes to your rescue. I know Jonathan or David Dimbleby would have done. Grumble though I do on occasion about the leftist bias of their respective programmes Any Questions and Question Time, the fact remains that the Dimblebys are bright, scrupulous, supremely well-informed professionals. No way would they allow it to go unchallenged if one of their panelists said something that was perfectly true only to have the rest of the panel and (almost) the entire audience to shout him down as a racist, Islamophobic liar.
But the same, unfortunately, could not be said for the moderators on this particular programme, which was evidently designed as a kind of looser, more youthful version of Question Time, aimed at the 16 to 34-year old demographic. They pointed the mics willy nilly at panelists and members of the audience with little regard to the sense – or nonsense – of what was being said.
Certainly, there was no evidence of any presiding intelligence shaping the show or the direction and balance of the debate. For all the difference the Blue-Peter-level moderation made, we could have been talking about Miley Cyrus’s twerking moves or Kim Kardashian’s bum, rather than about highly contentious, very serious and potentially dangerous issues like so-called “rape culture” and the radicalisation of young British Muslims.
Afterwards various viewers who had been appalled as I was by this car crash of debate asked why I’d volunteered for it. “Why go on James? It’s like stepping into the cretins’ den,” said one. Other comments from sympathisers included: “I had to turn it off,”; “You must have the patience of a saint after last night’s “Free Speech”,” It’s not a debate, more a left-wing hate-session against anyone daring not to conform”; “Have watched you on the BBC last night. I have to say that even growing up in communist Poland I have rarely seen such a shameless set up and left wing propaganda show. I admire your courage really.”
And the answer is: definitely not for the money. (£150 in case you wondered). No, the reason you do these things is partly in the naive hope that this time it will be different – that for once you’ll find a BBC debate programme where your function isn’t to play the token right-wing nutcase for the torture-porn delight of an audience of rabid lefties. And also because someone has to put the alternative viewpoint across, otherwise all you’re going to get is a bunch of people spouting the usually right-on, progressive cant and just agreeing with one another. If no one does this, then the enemy will have won.
So that’s why I did it but, God, I almost wish I hadn’t….
Here is the news: in Australia, a plot by Islamic State sympathisers to capture random members of the public and chop their heads off has been foiled by security services; in Syria, two Americans and a British hostage have been beheaded by an Islamist nicknamed Jihadi John – and another innocent Briton (a taxi driver captured while working for an aid convoy) has been told he is next on the list; across Britain, in the aftermath of the Rotherham enquiry, more and more evidence is emerging that in towns and cities all over the country mostly underage white girls have been systematically groomed, raped and trafficked by organised Muslim gangs, with the complicity of local government authorities, charity workers, police officers and the broader Muslim community.
Luckily, thanks to the BBC, we know what the real problem is here. It is, of course, our old friends, “Islamophobia” and “the spectre of a far right” backlash.
Both of these alleged threats featured prominently on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, including an interview with a former, self-confessed “far right” thug who revealed – presumably to no listener’s especial surprise – that the organisation to which he had belonged was racist, prone to violence, and likely to react strongly to issues like the Rotherham rape gangs.
Today also ran an interview with Tell Mama – the one-man activist organisation run by Fiyaz Mughal which has long since been exposed for its exaggerations and its threadbare methodology in cooking up an alleged spate of “anti-Muslim” hate crimes.
When, for example, last year Tell Mama reported that there had been 212 anti-Muslim incidents, it turned out that 57 per cent of these comprised disobliging comments on Twitter or Facebook, many of them emanating from outside Britain.
And the BBC Today show rounded off with a Muslim spokeswoman who was given space to assure listeners that mosques around Britain were already doing a great deal to combat extremism but hadn’t been given credit for it.
Phew. So that’s all right then.
Except, of course, it’s really not all right.
Perhaps it wouldn’t matter so much if this BBC feature were a rare aberration. But it’s not. It’s long-term house policy. Barely were the bodies of the 52 victims of the 7/7 London bus and tube suicide bombings cold than the BBC’s reporters were out pounding the streets looking for evidence of the real issue of concern – not Islamist extremism and its numerous fellow-travellers, of course, but yes, for the spectre of Islamophobia and an anti-Muslim backlash by “the far right.” It responded in the same way after the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby – complete, of course, with an interview about the “cycle of violence against Muslims” and the “underlying Islamophobia in our society” by our friend Fiyaz Mughal of Tell Mama.
One thought on “Memo to the BBC: it’s not the ‘far right’ which decapitates aid workers or rapes schoolgirls”
salgak says:18th September 2014 at 5:27 pmWe keep ignoring those Peaceful, Moderate Muslims. You know, the ones who are too busy to do anything about extremism, because they’re up in the hills somewhere, tending their Unicorns . . . .
Andrew Norfolk is the heroic, crusading Times chief investigative reporter who broke the Rotherham child sex story. But admirable though he surely is, does anyone else find something a bit disturbing about this statement he made this week?
“I didn’t want the story to be true because it made me deeply uncomfortable. The suggestion that men from a minority ethnic background were committing sex crimes against white children was always going to be the far right’s fantasy story come true. Innocent white victims, evil dark-skinned abusers. Liberal angst kicked instinctively into top gear.”
The thing that disturbs me is this: that Norfolk was apparently less discomfited by the enormity of the crime itself than he was by the spectre of the “far right’s” likely response. I’m sure he didn’t mean it to come out that way. I’ve no doubt he cares deeply about the suffering of the children he interviewed in the course of his investigations.
But the fact that he even raised the issue speaks volumes about the mentality of the liberal-left: so great is its fear of the Far Right Bogeyman that it will do almost anything avoid incurring its wrath – even, in some cases, if it means turning a blind eye to rape, fraud and worse.
All right, so it was only a straw poll conducted among viewers of yesterday’s BBC Sunday Morning Live debate programme: 95 per cent of Britons think multiculturalism has been a failure.
But as majority verdicts go, it was a pretty resounding one – and it was delivered despite the BBC’s best efforts to muddy the waters, first by wheeling out two of the nation’s Multi Culti Apologist big guns Owen Jones and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, and second by pretending that multiculturalism means something other than what it actually means.
Multiculturalism is a very specific political philosophy which could scarcely be further removed from the idea that we should live in one big, happy, multi-ethnic melting pot and all just get along. That’s because it means the exact opposite. It’s about separatism, not integration.
It was championed from at least the 1970s onwards by effete bien-pensants like Labour MP turned Social Democrat Roy Jenkins and is essentially a manifestation of the cultural guilt and self-hatred that afflicts the left-wing chattering classes. Rather than accept the truth which to most of us is glaringly obvious – that some cultures are manifestly superior to others – it urges us all to celebrate our differences and to accept values that we may personally find alien or even abhorrent in the name of creating a fairer, more tolerant and inclusive society.
So, for example, we in liberal Western culture generally take a dim view of marrying members of your own family, female genital mutilation, forced or arranged marriages, second-class status for women, voter fraud, systematic political corruption, honour killings, the organised grooming, trafficking and rape of underage girls, and so on.
In some of our immigrant communities, though, such practices are considered more or less acceptable. (And I’m only using that “more or less” modifier out of politeness).
2 thoughts on “What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism…”
darren.halliday says:1st September 2014 at 5:19 pmMulticulturalism is no longer just about the “celebration of diversity”. Yes diversity is OK when discussing music, food, dance and traditional celebrations. But now, the debate on multiculturalism has to address the issue of state and social policy (as various cultural practices and beliefs are at odds with traditional British values). Do we encourage discrimination based on gender in inheritance matters? Do we allow the teaching that homosexuality is sinful in our schools? Do we allow segregation in public meetings at Universities? Do we allow opinion leaders/educationalists to NOT condemn stoning as a punishment when directly asked (and then practice power over schools)? What is urgently needed is a definition of the boundaries of multiculturalism. We cannot function cohesively as a society, if this boundary is not clearly defined and key (not negotiable) values must prevail in our institutions and law making.
I’ve been reading the official report into the latest Muslim rape gang atrocity – in Oxford, this time, city of dreaming spires and the kind of place you’d never imagine such appalling crimes possible over such a period of time and on such a scale.
Be warned: the details are not for the squeamish.
But I think it’s important we’re all fully aware exactly what happened so that we can direct our righteous rage in the appropriate direction. People have been getting away with murder here – and I don’t mean the rapists: at least, finally, at long last, they’re going down. I mean the authorities responsible who, at time of writing, look as if they’re going to get off scot free.
Here, in bullet point form, are some excerpts from the testimony of the estimated 370 victims – all of them white girls, mostly from broken or abusive homes or in “care”, generally aged between about 12 and 15. The abusers were much older men from mainly Kashmiri-Pakistani backgrounds (though one of the convicted men was from Saudi Arabia, another from North Africa), who groomed the girls beforehand. That is they – or one of their younger associates – first showered these vulnerable, emotionally needy girls with affection that some of them had never had before; then they made them feel important and grown up by giving them gifts and alcohol and drugs; then, when the girls were hooked the trap-door suddenly shut and they found themselves being serially abused as sex slaves.
Oh, and the details below – according to the report – are the expurgated version. Apparently there’s other stuff so horrible the report wouldn’t print it.
They threatened to blow up my house with my Mum in it
I was expected to do things – if I didn’t they said they would come to my house and burn me alive. I had a baby brother
They took us to a field where there were other men who had come to have sex with us. I tried not to do it. There were five of them
I took so many drugs – it was just a mish-mash
Now I feel I was raped – I didn’t have any choice
I wouldn’t ever have said no – they’d have beaten the shit out of me
It was always Asian men
I got deeper and deeper into this group
Sometimes I was driven into alleys and woods and men would have sex with me
I wouldn’t have done this if I was sober. That’s why the men gave us so much to drink
Both men had sex with me lots of times – oral and vaginal
I hate them… all they do is rape you… all they want is sex… it’s happened to girls I know, not me before you ask, I not like that
When we were at the flats I knew I was there to have sex with whichever men were brought there.
He urinated on me
I was spit roasted [made to have sex simultaneously with two men]
I didn’t want to go to the places to do what I did, but it was my job
I went to London on my own to have sex with men they arranged
The fear is still very real for me – though they are in jail I still check the cars
This was going on for 15 years, remember. So where, you might wonder, were the police?
Well the report makes lots of excuses for them. Apparently, they were a bit confused over what technically constituted under age sex – statutory rape as it would be called in the US; they felt ill-equipped as to how to respond when, say they found a middle aged Pakistani taxi driver in a car with condoms and a drunk girl looking no older than 14 (yeah: maybe it was just her boyfriend, right?); and they hadn’t been taught properly about CSE (Child Sexual Exploitation), which is the formal term now given for this kind of crime.
But the really damning thing for me is the report’s revelations that actually some police officers DID try to speak out, desperately and repeatedly, only to have their concerns squashed or ignored.
salgak says:18th September 2014 at 5:27 pmWe keep ignoring those Peaceful, Moderate Muslims. You know, the ones who are too busy to do anything about extremism, because they’re up in the hills somewhere, tending their Unicorns . . . .
All right, so it was only a straw poll conducted among viewers of yesterday’s BBC Sunday Morning Live debate programme: 
darren.halliday says:
MellorSJ says: