- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,680
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Grooming gangs tend to victimize dozens and sometimes hundreds of children, which the average lone groomer doesn't. Grooming gangs are more of a danger for that reason. But besides that, I didn't lie anyway. The article I based my thread on said that 84% of men convicted of child grooming since 2005 were Asian.
The vast majority of men convicted of grooming young white girls – 84 per cent – are of Asian origin, according to a report to be published this week.
The study by the renowned counter-extremism think-tank Quilliam says that of these, seven in ten are believed to be of Pakistani-Muslim heritage.
Asian gangs have deliberately abused white girls because they hold entrenched racist attitudes towards them as being ‘easy targets’ for sex, according to the report, which is based on the testimonies of convicted Asian men during court hearings.
The study – likely to provoke controversy – is written by two British Pakistani authors, who say they hope it will encourage their community to ‘take responsibility’.
https://www.debatepolitics.com/euro...ex-grooming-cases.html?highlight=84%+grooming
Where was the lie? I stated what was printed online by a news organization.
You posted untrue information time and time again in that thread, it started with the titel:
Muslims are 84% of the child sexual predators in UK sex grooming case
Which was and is BS as:
1. it only talked about grooming gangs
2. there is question as to the validity of the claims in the Quilliam reports
3. EVIDENCE!!!!
And with evidence I mean that Asians who are convicted of sexual offenses against minors are only 4% of all convicted child sex criminals where as VAST majority (upwards of 80%) where white men.
Another piece of evidence was that the sample size which the quilliam used was too small to make general assumptions as it looked mostly at a few high profile cases.
Fact is, that the vast majority of sexual offenders in cases in which minors are the victim, are white offenders. But they either do not work in gangs or their gangs were ignored by the Quilliam report.
What do we know about the ethnicity of people involved in sexual offences against children? - Full Fact
Now back to point 2, the validity of the report, this is a comment about this report:
The report faced fierce criticism from academic researchers. Ella Cockbain, a lecturer in security and crime science, is an expert on child sexual exploitation. She said it “is a case study in bad science: riddled with errors, inconsistencies, a glaring lack of transparency, sweeping claims and gross generalisations unfounded its own ‘data’”.
Using “extensive data mining methods”, Quilliam researchers found 58 cases between 2005 and 2017, leading to 264 convictions for “group-based CSE involving grooming tactics”. There is no information as to where the data comes from, how it was selected or how ethnicity identified. Of the 264, 222 were Asian, hence the figure of 84% of grooming gang offenders being Asian. Just 18 were white.
Critics have pointed out, however, that even a casual media search produces far more white perpetrators of group CSE who seem to have been ignored by Adil and Rafiq. And 58 cases over a period of 12 years seems exceptionally low. As the Quilliam report itself notes, a Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) study found 57 cases of Type 1 offending (in Quilliam’s eyes, the equivalent of grooming gangs) in 2012 alone. Rafiq told me he was unsure about the reasons for the disparity but that it may be a difference between grooming cases and court convictions
We’re told 84% of grooming gangs are Asian. But where’s the evidence? | Kenan Malik | Opinion | The Guardian