Much of the grooming gang debate concerns the ethnicity of the perpetrators, with some figures suggesting that around 80% are Muslims of Pakistani origin. Yet other figures suggest that Pakistanis are not overrepresented in child sexual abuse. What is the truth of the matter?
The best evidence we have on the ethnic make-up of grooming gangs comes from a 2020 paper by Kish Bhatti-Sinclair and Charles Sutcliffe. The academics collected data on prosecutions of these gangs between 1997 and 2017 by reviewing over 2,000 media reports. They identified 498 accused perpetrators, of whom 83% had Muslim names. This figure is consistent with two earlier analyses, one by the academic Ella Cockbain and one by the now-defunct think tank Quilliam.
Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe also carried out an analysis of British local authorities. They found that the Pakistani share of the local population was even more strongly associated with the rate of prosecutions for grooming gang offences than was the Muslim share. They also found that the Bangladeshi share was not associated with the rate of prosecutions. This led them to conclude that most perpetrators are Muslims of Pakistani origin. Note that there are three main ethnic groups in Britain with a high percentage of Muslims: Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Arabs.
As Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe observed in their paper, “group-based localised child sexual exploitation” (the technical term for grooming gangs) is a sub-category of child sexual abuse. This raises the question of whether Pakistanis are overrepresented among those prosecuted for child sexual abuse in general.
According to a recent report by the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA), Pakistanis comprise only 2% of those prosecuted for child sexual abuse in 2022. Since they make up 2.7% of the population of England and Wales, this would suggest they are not overrepresented. However, the figures reported by the CSA refer to all sub-categories of child sexual abuse, including less serious offences such as those relating to indecent images. It is therefore worth asking what we know about perpetrators of the most serious offences.
In March last year, the Government published data on prosecutions for indictable offences during the years 2020–2023. These data can be broken down by offence and ethnicity. The three most serious offences of interest are “Rape of a female aged under 16”, “Rape of a female child under 13 by a male”, and “Sexual assault of a female child under 13 – penetration”. Of the individuals prosecuted for these offences in the years 2021–2023 with known ethnicity, 7.2% were Pakistani. This means that Pakistanis were overrepresented but by much less than in grooming gangs. (Data from 2020 were excluded, owing to the low number of prosecutions during the pandemic.)
Incidentally, the dataset also includes convictions. Of those convicted of the three offences in question, 4.7% were Pakistani. So Pakistanis were again overrepresented but by much less than in grooming gangs.
A major caveat is that ethnicity is “not stated” for 32% of the 3,585 individuals prosecuted. If Pakistanis are overrepresented among those for whom ethnicity is “not stated”, they would be even more overrepresented among all those prosecuted. On the other hand, if the ethnic distribution of those for whom ethnicity is “not stated” is the same as the ethnic distribution of those with known ethnicity, they would not be.
It is worth noting that the issue of missing ethnicity is not specific to the three offences in question. When it comes to “Fraud by false representation”, for example, the percentage for whom ethnicity is “not stated” is even higher. In other words, missing ethnicity is a general issue with the data, rather than one only affecting serious or “politicised” offences.
Ethnic makeup of prison population matches prosecutions data
There is some indication that the ethnic distribution of those with missing ethnicity might be similar to the ethnic distribution of those with known ethnicity. The Government publishes a broad ethnic breakdown of the prison population and here the number with missing ethnicity is only 1%. If ethnic minorities are more likely to have missing ethnicity in the prosecutions data, they should be comparatively overrepresented in the prison data. However, there is no evidence of this.
Asians and black people are marginally underrepresented in the prison data. Mixed individuals are neither under nor overrepresented. Whites and individuals from “Other” ethnicities are marginally overrepresented. Of course, this is a somewhat crude comparison, so shouldn’t be given too much weight. (Individuals with missing ethnicity are excluded. Indictable-only offences are the most serious and hence most likely to result in a prison sentence.)
Are the prosecutions data consistent with Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe’s findings? The two academics identified 498 accused perpetrators from 1997–2017, of which roughly 80% were Pakistanis. This equates to 19 Pakistanis prosecuted for grooming gang offences per year, though not all were prosecuted for the most serious offences. According to the prosecutions data, 175 Pakistanis were prosecuted for the most serious offences from 2021–2023, which equates to 58 per year. The two datasets therefore seem consistent, given that some of the most serious offences for which Pakistanis were prosecuted will have occurred outside the context of grooming gangs.
Two further caveats are in order. Pakistanis may be less overrepresented than expected because the authorities are still reluctant to prosecute grooming gangs for fear of appearing “racist” — though this may be less of an issue since 2014 — or because offences within the community are less likely to be reported. Also, the prosecutions data relate to the most recent period and it’s possible that Pakistanis were more overrepresented in the past.
Evidence suggests that Muslims of Pakistani origin are massively overrepresented in grooming gangs, though other Muslims do not appear to be. Regarding the most serious offences relating to child sexual abuse, the evidence is less clear. What we can say is that, among those prosecuted for such offences with known ethnicity, Pakistanis are overrepresented, but by much less than in grooming gangs.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf every Pakistani muslim who had abused young girls had been charged and convicted those stats would look radically different.
Absolutely you hit the bullseye. The whole Rotherham scandal is that thousands of rapists were NOT PROSECUTED because of their ethnicity.
When testimony in trials is taken into account, the girls concerned consistently report being ‘farmed’ out to dozens of perpetrators, yet the numbers on trial are much less than this; so yes, you’re absolutely right.
Like Gisele Pelicot….except she was unconscious.
The numbers of that group are clearly over-represented even based on this data, but the actual proportion would be even higher – as grooming gangs were not prosecuted seriously till recently, lack of prosecution of many of those involved in these gangs (as you pointed out), and also because serious sexual crimes against women within their community would go completely unreported, for obvious reasons.
One potentially easy proxy though. The number of Indian Hindu / Sikhs are roughly the same as Pakistani muslim immigrants.
If you work out the ratio of the two groups being convicted, that’s an easy way to figure out if a) there is a severe disparity and b) the disparity is primarily due to religion, rather than being “Asian”.
It seems, rather, to be due to some combination of factors which is present (to this degree) only in Muslim Pakistani communities. What the stats show is that it is not all Muslims, nor is it all Asians.
It’s worst among Pakistani muslims, but there were numerous muslims of other countries involved – some even from Libya etc so even the disgusting use of “Asian” gangs to protect their identity – not only maligns non muslim Asians, but is actually fairly inaccurate.
It’s not a surprise really that rates are zero among Indian, Chinese or Lankan non muslims. That’s in fact normal behaviour.
Takes a really warped, really twisted mindset to migrate somewhere, where you are accepted, given equal rights, etc, and then repay that by targeting on a mass scale young girls of the host country.
It’s genuinely mind boggling, when you think about it.
Perhaps they see themselves as missionaries?
Or invaders.
One of UHs Canadian contributors of this ethnicity- and a woman had written a bold and frank article last year.
It is a fact that women who step outside the home, are not draped from head to toe and are not in consonance with the tenets of Sunni Islamic orthodoxy are viewed as loose and therefore subject to a completely depraved treatment at the hands of this group.
I disagree. Your comment suggests you don’t understand how research works.
For it to be valid, it has to be seen to be completely objective. I suspect what you’re railing against is that it doesn’t appear to be supporting a particular position. It’s precisely for that reason that it’s most valuable.
Really? You seem to be too sure of your own conclusions, and frankly not too intelligent in the way you go about them.
Ha! I’ll up your ante on intelligence any day of the week.
And yes… really. They’re not my ‘conclusions’, they’re an assessment of your comment in the light of the article.
If you’d care to explain to me why i’m mistaken, i’ll be happy to hear it.
PS: it’s also noted that you’ve edited your comment to remove the point i replied to.
That’s rather cowardly, and should be noted by anyone else prior to commenting or ‘voting’.
It is amazing how many people who are of somewhat leftist persuasion, seems to be more offended by other people comments or the need for be “completely objective”, rather than the sheer horror of what went on for decades, or the fairly obvious conclusion that the attitude of a particular ethnic – religious group is to blame.
3-4% of population, but bulk of the members of a dozen massive rape gangs. Want some research or statistical analysis on the odds of that happening?
Edited: to be fair, not to have a go at you, not fully clear on the context. Just generally disgusted and fed up with the way things are being handled.
Just saw a video of a female MP being distraught about the “rude” language being used by a reform MP on these gangs.
Unbelievable, really.
If you want to win a prize for rudeness you do deserve it.
No point in trying to discuss with your ilk.
Re your intelligence, I think you may have completely misread Sayantani’s comment. Either way, your intelligence is not exactly shining.
Sayantani – I think you might have missed out a comma.
Confess I didn’t see pre edited version, so may be wrong.
New research just in: turns out, people from Lancashire and Scotland are more inclined to glassing than people from other parts of Britain.
Study was done in poncey southern uni however.
Sadly, the article misses the point.
The ‘law of the land’ is the negotiated parameters of acceptable social behavior for anyone – anyone – who chooses to exist within a governing country or state.
Once we allow the inclusion of inherent or immutable characteristics (which are completely irrelevant to a crime being committed) into a discussion about guilt or innocence, we implicitly place these characteristics above the law itself. By so doing, racism, sexism, or any number of other inherent or immutable -isms start to become the very center of that governing country or state. Whether one is a white supremacist or a progressive racist/antisemite – both of these bigoted views place inherent and immutable characteristics in front of the ‘law of the land.’
Logically, these -isms can only lead to one thing: The inevitable demotion and eventual dissolution of the State’s current laws that prohibit such things as rape, murder, theft, etc; thereby, creating a vacuum to be filled by inequality and the tribal impulse of might equalling right (that is, as long as one has the currently ‘favored’ inherent or immutable characteristics).
In short, arguments like “He or she may have committed the crime, but [insert inherent and/or immutable characteristic that favor or condemn the person] ….” leads only to the -isms of tribalism and destroys the law and civilization.
All are equal before the law, or none are equal before the law.
And it is ONLY by being equal before the law that an individual of a currently-disfavored group has a chance to survive. Which is why I’m so confused as to why the current progressives Woke movement seeks to shift society toward favoring or disfavoring a person based on inherent and immutable characteristics. Whether they’re successful or not, don’t they understand that that their actions open the door to every other tribal impulse to do the same? History shows that the biggest cohesive tribe generally wins tribal conflicts, to the detriment of all of the minority tribes.
Why would we want to tread this dreaded path again as a civilization?
Thanks for clearly working out the source of “Pakistanis are not overrepresented in child sexual abuse” nonsense.
It’s the same trick that they pull to suggest universities are full of racists – conflate relatively minor offences, with more serious ones.
In case of the universities, it is used to inflate the numbers to make it appear the problem is worse than it is.
In case of the grooming gangs, it’s to submerge the identity of the group mainly involved by drowning the numbers in other irrelevant data on less serious offences.
Regardless of the ethnicity of the offenders, the victims were overwhelmingly white British, yet the overwhelmingly white British authorities not only ignored the plight of the girls but in some cases facilitated the continuation of the crimes. That is the true scandal. British society and culture are not so much being invaded as being betrayed and sacrificed by the middle class elite who seem to hate their own country. But to what end?In any case you cannot blame air for filling the vacuum.
Yes. And this is why we need an inquiry – so that the public officials who enabled this abuse can be named and held to account.
Isn’t the whole point to investigate and prosecute these crimes, regardless of ethnicity?
Absolutely is: which is why the failure to investigate and prosecute these crimes needs to be subject to a much more thorough inquiry. Any attempt by the authorities to ‘shield’ any group from prosecution must be rooted out.
Yes, of course – but the whole problem is that political correctness has prevented that from happening. (In this context the term “political incorrectness” hardly seems adequate).
Astonishingly, it was described at the time as “sensitivity”.
That is the whole point here Jim – a specific group has been able to commit crimes with something approaching impunity because of their ethnicity.
The data shows a not insignificant percentage of Pakistani Muslim men have been protected (or tolerated) within their own community. More importantly, they were also sheltered from consequences of their actions by those tasked with investigating and/or prosecuting crime and those tasked with a duty of care towards the victims.
It is quite clear that many of the latter have chosen to allow serious crimes to go unchallenged for ‘community cohesion’ reasons or simple moral cowardice and it is essential this culture is addressed and those responsible are held to account.
Group? Are you saying all Muslims of Pakistani heritage?
You do know the Chief prosecutor who nailed most of the Gangs once he was appointed was Muslim of Pakistani heritage?
You read the Jay Report or just waking up to this now? I strongly suspect you, and many others here on the comments section, years behind and only stimulated now by a chance at a racial hustle.
So deep Jonny. You’re the deep thinker here. Such nuance and ability to synthesise information.
Afzal is an enthusiastic self-publicist and it seems you have bought his PR pitch without examining the detail. Afzal is from NW Pakistan whereas the great majority of the child rapists are Mirpuris. I doubt Afzal feels much ethnic affinity with them.
He was also only the CPS head on the NW from 2011-2015. There have been many prosecutions outside the NW and since 2015. So no, he hasn’t nailed most of the gangs, especially as the crimes are continuing to this day.
He was also responsible for starting the rumour, in 2017, about a 2008 Home Office memo allegedly instructing police forces not to investigate these crimes. This seems to have been an attempt to take the heat off CPS failings and he has recently admitted that the memo doesn’t exist. It was a misunderstanding by the police officers who allegedly told him about it, he now says.
And no, Phil did not say all Muslims of Pakistani heritage, he specifically referred to a percentage of that group.
Thanks for the defence and the additional info. As you point out, his attention span didn’t go beyond my first paragraph so l dread to think how much of the Jay report he understands.
The irony is that my main target is the people in public office who enabled the abuse to continue and grow. In many cases, l suspect, they will have exhibited the same sort of lazy, knee jerk thinking JW demonstrates in this thread and Starmer and co have demonstrated over the last week.
The chief prosecutor only got a small percentage of the gangs convicted at the time because most were not charged or arrested. In two interviews he made a false statement proclaiming in 2008 ( Gordon Brown’s office) sent a circular email that stated ” the girls were wholly accountable for their own sexual behaviour “. Gordon Brown denied the circular was ever written & sent to staff . There has been no evidence found of this letter on record or anyone else having seen it either . I daresay Nazir Afzal the chief prosecutor views align more with the persecutors of the Pakistani rape gangs than the victims !
So well worded, thank you.
I wondered the same thing. Why would one start the analysis with the number of prosecutions rather than the number of occurrences? The core question is whether certain ethnicities offend at higher rates. The answer might be that certain questions are not to be asked.
The problem with Child abuse is much remains unreported. So far as reported goes child sexual abuse is most often within families, and some evidence most in broken families. That latter point, as Stats show, is less pronounced in ethnic groups.
So quite what a true position would look like is unknown but be careful about jumping to an ethnic determination theory.
Possibly, but still, one should start with cases that are reported, not with cases that are prosecuted. That one ethnic group offends at higher rates, even much higher rates, than another, does not for a moment suggest an “ethnic deterioration theory”.
Why does it seem to you that anyone is jumping to an ethic theory ? In all the rape cases of the girl victims it is Pakistani Muslim gangs committing these crimes & that is what the victims reported . I’m finding it extremely difficult how anyone can deny the ethnicity of the perpetrators when it is as blatant as day. We have all known it’s been going on for years & still going on in the whole of Britain but constantly being pushed under the carpet & covered up by the people who are supposed to be protecting the child victims!
Everyone gets very upset and exercised when a violent crime has racist motive.
Always odd how these rapes, by Pakistani gangs on female white children or young girls never get described as a racist hate crime.
Esp when testimony often records rapist calling the victims white slags, white meat etc.
It seems undeniable that there is racial element in these appalling crimes. That might also go some way to explaing why the rapes often get reported as torture or involve some sadistic humiliation. As per the recent published judges summing up.
This apparent inconsistency gives credence to the two tier justice claims.
The takeaway from all these various article is always the same. The focus on the perpetrator, cultural and contextual considerations, etc
But never any real concern can be detected for the poor girls themselves.
Given no support by the police, by social services, by society at large.
One can only imagine the loneliness and desolation of these children (you’re still a child at 17) being treated in such an appalling way with grown ups that purport to care (and paid to care) looking the other way or at least trying to downplay your experiences.
Equally remarkable, considering the publicity the Stephen Lawrence and George Floyd crimes attracted, is the complete lack of statistics in the race of the *victims*.
It is not really reverse racism. These girls are despised principally because they are kuffar ie non Muslims just as the Yazidi women and girl were. The first grooming gangs back in the 80s tried it on with Sikh girls but the Sikhs fought back. With their young men. On the streets. So easier prey was sought- white working class girls. This was described coyly by local press as “fights about women” and the police seem not to have got involved. But when white fathers tried to rescue their daughters they were arrested.
Britain, the West, Is in the grip of weird racist cult which is fundamentally anti-white. Imagine being afraid of stopping racist rape against white children because you might be called ‘racist’?
This cult has to go. Even if intentions are not ‘evil’, results are evil. The left have become mentally ill, and evil.
Pakistani is not a particularly useful ethnonym.
‘Pakistan’, as such, was only invented in 1948 and and is comprised mostly by Punjabis, Pathans and Sindhis. However, as I understand it, 80% or more of what we call “British Pakistanis” are descended from one single district in Azad Kashmir, namely Mirpur.
So Mirpuri is the more acurate and meaningful ethnonym.
To know the nature of Mirpuris is perhaps to better understand the nature of ‘British Pakistanis’. Clannishness in family, acumen in politics and business and austere Barlevi revivalism in their religion.
But they aren’t grooming gangs, they are rape and torture gangs. They only target white girls because they are seen as scum and subhuman, there only to fulfil their sexual frustrations and weird fantasies.
It is not paedophilia. There is no desire for these children, nor is the action fuelled by a desire to kill or maim in the normal way. This is about being anti white and seeing white children as subhuman scum. It is racism against white peoples it its most disgusting form ; so please call it what it is and stop including it in statistics it doesn’t belong in.
It’s about time we started recording white racism and hate crimes in this country.
After all, I thought we were supposed to be equal in society.
Something else I suspect is overlooked is the region where the perpetrators lived. I have a suspicion the vast majority of them lived in the north of England.
There appears to be a concerted effort to obscure the facts for motives of community cohesion, sensitivity over immigration and a desire not to stereotype on the part of non-Pakistani origin officialdom and a traditional desire to avoid shame in the Pakistani community itself.
This has made a clear picture difficult to confirm but the evidence that has emerged despite efforts to obscure it is that there is a relatively high proportion of sexual predators within the Muslim Pakistani community and the extent of the problem is probably underestimated because of efforts within the community and by officialdom to obfuscate or at least make little effort to improve a statistical understand of the extent of the problem.
Despite the fog obscuring the facts it does seem to a Muslim/Pakistani cultural issue rather than Asian or Muslim (at least in the UK) one. What should be done? Firstly vigorous efforts should be made to prosecute all those involved and deport the perpetrators so that the community is made aware that race relations will not provide a shield to such behaviour. Of course this is likely to encounter a redoubling of community efforts to shield the perpetrators and it is this connection that we should also do all we can to support and empower more westernised men and particularly women from these communities to get the message across that harmonious race relations depend upon a real realignment of attitudes towards such behaviour in line at least with that of the host community so that predators are restrained by community pressure to conform to the standards of behaviour of the prevailing UK culture – if not to do do better. Race relations will not improve unless the issue is tackled vigorously and honestly.
Agree with your reasoning on this but how are you going to ensure it is enacted when so many of the people who would be expected to implement the policy would oppose it – do remember, these are the same people who allowed the problem to develop in the first place and still worship at the altar of the multculti ‘brown man persecuted and always good’ belief system.
Obviously the perpetrators take the blame – but it must have come across to these men that nobody really gave a damn about those girls. What other opinion would you come to after years of carrying out abuse, pretty much in plain sight, with nobody lifting a finger.
The key in the early days of prosecutions (late 00s) was the victims (young girls largely) were being ripped apart in Court by Barristers and cases collapsing as a result. That was one of the reasons some Police seem to have thought chance of conviction limited. The point being the reasons convictions were minimal was not quite as straight forward as political correctness gone mad, although that had a role as confirmed by Alexis Jay.
The rules in Court needed changing. And they were, by the current PM shortly after he met the investigative journalist who first broke the scandal – Andrew Norfolk when he was DPP. Convictions of gangs then started to happen.
Read the Jay Report and you get more of the background on what a 7yr investigation found and then recommended. Then yourself and others, better informed, can comment with more insight into a horrid set of events.
Not sure why you have received down votes for this observation. It is, of course, hard to obtain convictions where the victim is not regarded as particularly credible and is easily confused about her testimony. The jury has to be sure. I haven’t read the Jay report and don’t have time to but can you let us know what rule improvements Starmer helped initiate that made a difference?
The main one is how he sought to rebalance fairness to victim as well as accused. Too often the credibility of the victim or key witness was undermined without balancing the position by an assessment of the account being given by the accused and their pattern of behaviour. He also recognised the fear some victims had of being accused of criminal false accusations of rape – used as threat by defending lawyers and some Police and changed those rules so the girls would have less of a concern about their own legal jeopardy.
Importantly too he appointed Azful and backed him when he sought to overturn previous decision not to prosecute Grooming gang members. Azful is a pretty impressive and important player in all this. He went after the Gangs recognising the culture behind them. He’s also been v vocal about the culture in some Muslim communities regarding women. Think there was a TV prog back in c2017 that dramatised some of this and showed his role.
Are you saying he did this specifically in response to the rape gangs cases?
I have to say that I have heard lots about making it easier to convict men accused of rape, generally by reducing standards of proof- and of course there was the play Prima Facie – but I’ve never heard any specific mention of Pakistani rape gangs in relation to this. Indeed, what one noticed was its absence.
Rules probably better meant as Guidance to Police and Cts – CPS would not seek to prosecute these girls of false allegations. That’s an important bit of assurance that removed a threat holding some back from testifying.
Listen to Andrew Norfolk’s description of what was going on in the Court rooms in late 00s and what else he found when he started to dig deeper.
His meeting back then with the DPP informed the changes DPP then made.
My understanding is that Starmer implemented a fundamental change in how CPS handles allegations of sexual crimes by women – i.e. that allegations by made by women were to be treated as true from the outset, until proven otherwise. This completely inverted the traditional legal principle that an accused person (e.g. a man accused of rape in this context) is deemed innocent until proved guilty. I cannot cite any source for this, but I do recall clearly media discussion about this key change in approach at the time. Perhaps there’s someone out there who may be able to validate my understanding, or contradict it.
Thanks for this. Not sure why you got downvotes without comments. This is what is good about having a comments section.
If someone feels you are wrong on the facts they should comment.
The point that you persistently refuse to address is the complicity of public officials in these crimes and, by extension, of the Labour Party establishment who have completely failed to hold those people to account. That’s the real issue here and the reason we need a public enquiry.
Groan. And you fail to i) read the Jay Report where you can see what her 7yr investigation said about this ii) and as ever you forget Tories and the Right were in power for 14 of the last 14.5yrs. Th fact you were perhaps asleep when Jay reported no great surprise as it seems you were in a coma for much of the last decade.
I’ve just read the executive summary of the report. I would honestly say that it downplays the specificity of the sexual abuse carried out by Muslim rape gangs, that it does not suggest recommendations to address issues of political correctness, and it treats the issue as a general, even global issue rather than focussing on the specifics of this particular phenomena.
Nobody is denying that child sexual abuse is pretty much universal, but the kind, degree and extent matters.
I’ve reflected a bit on this, and I think the resistance to further investigation comes down to the following. For the right this is an issue related to mass immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness, Pakistani men and islam – and more generally the left and the left wing project. They are looking to the left to own up to having caused this issue. I don’t mean left just in terms of the party in power at the time. They have a point.
The left do not want the issue framed in this way for obvious reasons. They would rather downplay the role of political correctness, multiculturalism and specific ethnic groups and frame this as an issue with men in general. They do not want it portrayed as an outcome of mass immigration or related to a specific ethnic group. They would rather fit it to their own feminist agenda as a problem with men in general.
In other words it’s a political football.
In balance I think more needs to be done to look at why this happened, and people are right to be dissatisfied with what has been done so far – and I do think that many on the left are looking, if not for a whitewash, at least for a reframing in terms of their own agenda.
No amount of insult can conceal the fact that none, N-O-N-E, not one, of your Labour cronies have been held to account for enabling this abuse.
That last paragraph is a zinger – it’s not spelling out the conclusion, but asking us to join the dots.
Ok, in the sentences below the word Pakistani has been replaced with ‘foo’, Muslim with ‘bar’, and grooming gang with, um, ‘garply’ (odd choices, but I’m a coder, it’s a foible, just go with it for a moment).
“…Evidence suggests that bars of foo origin are massively overrepresented in garpleys…”
“…among those prosecuted for such offences with known ethnicity, foos are overrepresented, but by much less than in garpleys…”
If I were presented with a bunch of data (with all context stripped out) which showed the above two patterns incontrovertibly, and was then asked to comment on the data, I would reach the conclusion that the vast bulk of the garpleys of foo bar origin had not been prosecuted. What am I missing?
If Labour has their way you’ll be prosecuted for this!
Lots of figures, no comprehensible conclusion…obviously a piece of modern research.
Now do Ivor Caplin.
I’d rather not
Caplin thought that a 15-year-old would be attracted to a 66-year-old if he wore clown shoes and had a bag of sweets. This worldly-wise genius was a Defence Minister.
There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Is the article really a ‘fact check’ when the facts are incomplete?
“A major caveat is that ethnicity is “not stated” for 32% of the 3,585 individuals prosecuted.”
How convenient. Another ‘nothing to see here’ moment. All this does is feed the suspicion that the authorities are hiding things from its citizens.
Just as the ethic makeup of those who mutilate their daughters genitals is obscured by the ethic makeup of those prosecuted for this heinous act.
This leads to the general culture of Pakistan. I have never read anything positive about the culture of Pakistan. It is only renowned for losing wars, corruption and hating their neighbours in India.
Over-representation or not it’s a minuscule proportion of Muslim men of Pakistani heritage. Therefore do all those labouring the racial hustle point want to start stating the obvious converse fact that the vast majority of Muslim men of Pakistani heritage are NOT and were NOT involved in Grooming Gangs? Not so prepared are you.
The main Prosecutor, Nazir Azful, who nailed many of the Gangs after the DPP had changed the rules under which the victims were treated in Court, is of course a Muslim of Pakistani heritage too. So how about a bit of stats – the ethnicity of someone who did more than any cretin here making racial hustle comments to nail these horrid men was a, wait for it, man of Muslim Pakistani heritage.
Now put your prejudice back in a box, read the Jay Report, and start to understand what happened and what needs to now happen. You’ve come to it very late.
the obvious converse fact that the vast majority of Muslim men of Pakistani heritage are NOT and were NOT involved in Grooming Gangs
I’m sure they’re not. But there’s a certain inconsistency here, isn’t there? You lambast others for making categorical statements without evidence, yet never hesitate to do it yourself.
Your attitude is precisely why there has been no justice for the grooming gangs’ victims. No-one is say ALL pakistani men are groomers of underage white British girls any more than they are saying all white underage British girls were victims. You are deflecting from the facts.
The name is “Nazir Afzal” according to Wikipedia.
Nice, careful work here – appreciated.
Has anybody collated the number of victims in GBLCSE and how that relates to the ethnicity of the perpetrators? Because I think that would tell us how men in such gangs behave if they feel themselves inviolate/protected by race or religion (or any other characteristic such as profession)? Did the institutional failures actually create more victims rather than simply fail to protect existing ones?
“According to a recent report by the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA), Pakistanis comprise only 2% of those prosecuted for child sexual abuse in 2022. Since they make up 2.7% of the population of England and Wales, this would suggest they are not overrepresented.”
You need to account for overall population statistics inc. males and females, whereas stats for prosecutions for CSA will overwhelmingly apply to males only. If the former is split roughly 50/50 this will have a significant impact.
This is good information, but it is the deflection being used to avoid an inquiry. What I really want to know is: what proportion of reported child gang rapes were covered up, in total; and what proportion of those were carried out by Pakistani Muslims?
For example, I can imagine a situation where social workers, police and prosecutors were reluctant to investigate child gang rape across the board, because of the difficulty of securing a conviction. In that case, it would be fair to say there was nothing special about Rotherham etc. Perhaps, since 2011 or thereabouts, we have seen many more convictions across the board; not just in Rotherham etc. Perhaps.
Alternatively, perhaps 50 or 100% of the cases that they declined to investigate were because of the ethnic origins of the perpetrators. Perhaps the number of prosecutions increased only because they could not hide it any longer. If that is the case, as it seems to be on the face of it, then we have a monumental scandal in public service.
So much heavy lifting to figure out something that is common knowledge in the UK Pakistani and Indian community, and even more so in Pakistan.
The authors of the study, and those not ideologically blinded or squeamish should just ask around-it is mostly young men of Mirpuri descent or birth, from Mirpur, on the Pakistani side of Kashmir, who have a reputation for what, in the sub-continent, is euphemistically known as “Eve-teasing”. South Asians are quite prudish about matters sexual, and reputations for “bad behavior” (another euphemism over there) don’t come from nowhere. Folk wisdom and intuition is spot-on in this matter. Sadly, native wisdom, a deeply human natural talent, is much denigrated by moderns, especially on the Left,