Some dissident thoughts on Rotherham

The report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham last year unleashed a storm of anger in the mainstream media which has not yet abated, judging by the number of times it is still referred to in online discussions on the subject. In truth no one emerged unscathed from the claims made in this report, not the police, not Rotherham council, not the local Muslim community, not the teenage girls, not even the report itself or the way it has been commented on in the media. The findings are being used as a stick to beat the Labour Party for its alleged willingness, for reasons of cultural sensitivity, to protect and conceal the behaviour of favoured minorities, and as ammunition against the supposed 'cover up' of the extensive 'paedophiles network' fondly believed by many to be at the heart of the British political establishment. One revealing factor is that concern over 'child sexual abuse' now appears to override concern over 'racism' in the politically correct league table of priorities.

It is clearly outrageous that fathers who raise concerns about their daughters to the police are themselves arrested, or that teenage girls are doused with petrol, threatened with violence and passed around as sexual playthings by gangs of men. This blog has been vociferous in its condemnation of the sheer madness of allowing large scale open ended immigration of people who, through cultural and racial differences, can only with difficulty be properly assimilated into mainstream British society. However, this does not mean that the local Muslim community should be vilified for the clearly criminal actions of a relatively small number of their men, as many in the media are now doing. There is nothing in Islam which justifies or condones the worst kind of behaviour contained in this report. These men are clearly acting as freelancers outside the beliefs of the religion and community to which it is claimed they belong.

However, the report itself and its presentation in the mainstream media also raise serious concerns about objectivity, balance and fairness. Leaving aside the widespread uncritical acceptance of the curious arithmetic on how the number of 1400 victims has been calculated (in reality, only 15 accusers have so far reached court); the reporting has exaggerated the extent of the extreme events outlined in the previous paragraph by confusing and conflating them with what has mostly been occurring, consensual yet foolhardy sexual activity by teenage girls with older men. It heaps blame on the local authority child protection managers without any critical examination of the behaviour, outlook and attitude of the teenage girls, or any meaningful assessment of the powers or knowledge the authorities had available to them to micro-manage the girls' lifestyle choices.

What has been happening here is that teenage girls have exchanged sexual favours for drink, drugs, cigarettes, money, attention, affection (mostly bogus) and an invitation into a more glamorous, albeit degenerate, adult world. According to numerous surveys a third of teenagers below the age of consent are sexually active. So these teenage girls are behaving no differently in this respect from large numbers of their peers. What appears to differentiate these encounters is that some of the men appear to be acting in groups and are of an older generation than is generally the case with their white male equivalents.

As a result of this furore calls are now being made that it should be a criminal offence not to report suspicions of 'child sexual abuse'. However, this much overused and exaggerated term is now routinely assumed by the authorities to cover any kind of sexual or 'grooming' activity by, or with, a person under the age of consent. If this is brought into law, and includes young teenagers, it will keep our legal system very busy indeed, require the building of vast number of prisons and tie down much police time at the expense of pursuing other crimes of greater concern to the public.

It will also put an end to the 'Gillick competence' which allows medical professionals to provide contraceptives to teenage girls below the age of consent, without their parents' knowledge. This was seen as a safeguard against unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which liberals in the 1980s fought hard to retain against a legal challenge. They even produced a badge with the message 'under16s are people not property', a viewpoint that is not much heard these days. As the Rotherham report makes clear young teenagers are now assumed to be the property of the state, and that it is acceptable that their private relationships should be controlled accordingly.