Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Anglo-Saxon attitudes

Sexual double standards are not the preserve of conservatively-minded ethnic minorities.

By Nelson Jones Published 11 May 2012 16:09

BNP members protest outside Liverpool Crown Court, 9 May 2012. Photograph: Getty Images

I'm quite willing to believe that "cultural attitudes" underlay the apparent belief of members of the Asian criminal gang that young white girls, many of whom were or had been in care, were "easy meat" for their predatory sexual behaviour.

After all, such cultural attitudes are hardly confined to those with family connections in Pakistan. They even seem to have been prevalent at the Crown Prosecution Service, which decided back in 2008 that a girl who had come forward to describe being raped would not make a credible witness. If traditionally-minded Asians are indeed liable to believe that children like her are of less account than their own overprotected daughters it must be asked how they came by such ideas. Perhaps they have been reading the Daily Mail's frequent and lurid accounts of the Hogarthian decadence with which a high proportion of this nation's teenage girls supposedly conduct themselves.

A Guardian editorial yesterday helpfully explained that "the force that shaped it [the sexual abuse] was not the ethnicity of the abusers but the poor, chaotic family lives of the victims." Thus was the blame seemlessly (and perhaps unconsciously) transferred from the perpetrators. Poor and chaotic family lives may have rendered the victims vulnerable to the blandishments of these criminal gangs but it does not explain why they were raped. The only force that shaped the abuse was the behaviour of the abusers.

And it didn't take long, last night, for the BBC's "flagship" Question Time to degenerate into a veritable orgy of slut-shaming. Peter Oborne, a Telegraph journalist who has written extensively against Islamophobia, was the worst offender. "What does it tell us about what's happened to our society," he wondered, "that we have 12 year old girls, 13 year old girls, who are happy to give up their affection and their beauty to men in exchange for a packet of crisps or a bit of credit on their mobile phone?" He later elaborated that the girls had shown themselves "ready to surrender their innocence for a bag of crisps".

The implication is clear: the problem is with young girls, well below the age of consent, who (allegedly willingly) "surrender their innocence", rather than with the men who take. "Society" is to blame for allowing this to happen. The perpetrators, presumably, just couldn't help themselves, like children in a sweetshop. And Oborne's language of "beauty" and "innocence", with its nauseating fetishisation of female purity, seemed to embody precisely those "cultural attitudes" towards women that are assumed to characterise conservative Muslim communities.

A man in the audience who appeared to be a bishop then chipped in with the suggestion that 13 year-old girls "go out dressed as if they are looking for that sort of issue to take place". He later withdrew the obvious imputation that they were "asking for it", but it's striking how naturally the thought had come to his mind. As it came to the mind of Caroline Spelman that the solution lay in giving girls (it's always girls, isn't it?) "the right values... to keep themselves safe."

It would be naive to suppose that many of the girls who found themselves at the mercy of these gangs didn't already have "issues". A high proportion came from broken homes and had been in the care system. It's undeniable that such children are more likely than average to become involved in crime or drugs, to become pregnant at an early age, to end up homeless or engaged in street prostitution. But that only makes it more important not to make them complicit in their own degradation.

It's not so many years ago that it was standard practice for underage prostitutes to be regarded by the police and justice system as criminals rather than as victims. It's only a couple of weeks ago that a rape victim was named on Twitter by fans of the footballer convicted of assaulting her. The charge being levelled against her, effectively, was one of having "loose morals". No-one invoked the alien "cultural norms" of football supporters to explain such attitudes, as did David Starkey in response to the Asian grooming gangs, or saw it as evidence that the education system had failed adequately to convey the "history of feminism" in these islands.

The trial that ended this week in Liverpool was not the first, and won't be the last, to feature predominantly Pakistani-British gangs preying sexually upon mainly white girls from troubled backgrounds. There are, no doubt, special features at work in these cases: two that spring to mind are the sexual frustration experienced by young men from strict, patriarchal families and the "biraderi" system of male mutual support which might easily be debased into one of passing around young girls for sex. But the sexual double standards, the valuation of women based on their actual or presumed availability, the writing off of girls from difficult backgrounds as "white trash": such attitudes are far from being the preserve of those from conservatively-minded ethnic minorities.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: racism Rape feminism

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

48 comments

Sat, 2012-05-19 19:09 — rain (not verified)

The Manchester Police & Prosecution Service betrayed these girls, every official involved should be sacked & the Departments should be sued for dereliction of duty. The police and social workers who did nothing for fear of being “racist” should be jailed for their incompetence so that this never happens again. All Asian people have being lumped together by the politically correct press who are too scared to call them Muslims & instead call them Asians. I suggest the British officials get their act together, this is how civil wars start when this type of cultural outrage is ignored by the officials & the locals get fed up, and Anglo-Saxon attitudes are shown to conservatively-minded ethnic minorities.

Sun, 2012-05-13 20:43 — simon watt (not verified)

I live in the north. Many social workers I know are certain that Pakistani men in groups are grooming and sexually abusing young white girls from disturbed backgrounds. This is widespread far beyond Rochdale.

Mostly the abusers are groups of Pakistani men who dare not pursuse sexual activities with girls in their own community out of fear of what the men in the girls families will do to them. Their background is mostly Kashmiri -which was a satrapy of the Moghuls, a province kept by India after Independence because Nehru was born there, and since then kept in feudal darkness by the zaminda elites (feudal landowners). They cannot go back because of the corruption, and cannot go forward un til they are able to examine themselves.

The article looks clearly at the 'culture of the minority' who carry out this behaviour and their specific culture and behaviours. It says that the desire for multi-culti embarassment cannot be an excuse for this grooming of vulnerable young white girls. It is time that all of this be put into the open air. Time also for the Pakistani groups to examine the rotten aspects of their own society. Including honour killings, forced marriage, and genital mutilation. ..

I saw the Question Time programme. Mostly the commentators bent over backwards to maintain that this was not a race crime and the perpetratorare not racists against the whites. But this allows the 'culture of the minority' to remain unexamined. Clearly the Pakistani men do have attitudes of complete disrespect for the victims.

No-one benefits from this except the BNP who will gain many supporters. And if the minority Pakistani groups want the majority to protec t them from the fascists then they must start the long road to modernising their own society.

Mon, 2012-05-14 12:58 — jankaas (not verified)

"Clearly the Pakistani men do have attitudes of complete disrespect for the victims."

agreed. it seems equally true to say these men have shown a complete disrespect for their own religion/culture by doing drugs, drinking alcohol, and having sex with someone other than their wife.

i hope 2 things happen going forward;
1) the Pakistani community confront this behaviour, and report to the police as and when they find or suspect abuse.

2) these crimes are properly investigated and the offenders punished accordingly to the letter of the law.

Sun, 2012-05-13 14:01 — A. Cole (not verified)

This is a racial issue...........

After all if gangs of white paedophiles had targeted black or asian children in this way then the UK would sink into the sea from the shouts of RACISM!!

Sun, 2012-05-13 14:01 — A. Cole (not verified)

This is a racial issue...........

After all if gangs of white paedophiles had targeted black or asian children in this way then the UK would sink into the sea from the shouts of RACISM!!

Sun, 2012-05-13 12:00 — rain (not verified)

After yet another group of Pakistani Rapists have being arrested in Greater Manchester isn't it time we confronted this epidemic of organized gang rape and stopped pampering and making excuses for this misogynist mind-set called Islam. Maybe it would be advisable to castrate all male children of Pakistani origins born in Britain at the age of twelve: to prevent the continuation of this cultural outrage on young white girls and infants.

Sun, 2012-05-13 17:25 — jankaas (not verified)

define "epidemic" pls.

and your castration fantasy is extremely offensive, but then you knew that. you are an odd little fish Rain, one moment posting horse-shit, the next some intelligible analysis, then followed by even more horse-shit. a bit of a shit-sandwich, not very enjoyable.

Mon, 2012-05-14 06:53 — rain (not verified)

Isn't organised gang rape extremely offensive? "epidemic" is the right word to use to describe the shockingly high level of gang rape committed by groups of organised Pakistani Rapists. Castration is a workable solution for multiple rapists. Rochdale's Labour MP Simon Danczuk says he fears last week's conviction was not a one-off case and that organised gangs of Pakistani Rapists are operating in many other parts of Britain not just the Greater Manchester area and beyond.

Mon, 2012-05-14 12:50 — jankaas (not verified)

isn't rape in and of itself extremely offensive? (see how we can play that game till the cows come home...)

and you still haven't provided any verifiable data to allow your claim of "epidemic" and "shockingly high level of gang rape" to stand unquestioned. you just repeat this claim as if saying something over and over makes it more factual.

and you now shift the castration approach from "all Pakistani boys" to "multiple rapists". nice try...

all of this odd behaviour suggests you are either a WUM or you imagine everyone else is as dumb as you. which is it Rain?

Wed, 2012-05-16 13:16 — jankaas (not verified)

that settles it Rain, a WUM would have come back to me by now. so you are just another dumb turd outsmarted by the simplest tactic; playing fair with facts.

Fri, 2012-05-18 06:48 — rain (not verified)

Here are just a few examples of the [epidemic] of organized gang rape of children? Two Pakistani Rapists shared an 11-year-old Bradford schoolgirl for sex after she was bribed with alcohol; cigarettes and drugs both were jailed. Shabir Ahmed, 39 – branded “a dangerous, predatory paedophile” by a judge – was locked up for ten years and must spend an extra four on extended licence. Munwar Khan, 42, who paid the child £20 for sex, was imprisoned for three years and four months Ahmed forced the girl’s older sister to watch her being raped at his flat in Windsor Court, Little Horton, Bradford, and was witnessed by her horrified aunt through his open curtains, Bradford Crown Court heard. Ahmed was convicted last Friday of three offences of rape and grooming, two offences of indecently assaulting her vulnerable adult sister and nine of having obscene child pornography on his computer. Khan, of Morley Street, Bradford, pleaded guilty to two offences of having sex with the girl. Ahmed also has a conviction for indecently assaulting another girl of 12 in his car after plying her with alcohol. These Muslim men need to have the death penalty to tell them and others like them, what awaits them for their crimes. I really cannot stand to hear any more excuses that their religion and culture - fully based on their religious values - have "nothing" to do with it. Brought up to despise women, have full legal support and freedom to molest infants, rape women and abuse them has nothing to do with their mentality against women? Give me a break! Watching members of the ANL spitting and abusing mothers of other victims of this [epidemic] out Bradford crown court, just goes to show how far the political left has been corrupted by political Islam.

Sat, 2012-05-19 12:01 — jankaas (not verified)

you've moved the goal posts yet again Rain. this infantile behaviour of yours must cease. instead you need to defend your claims and provide data. all you've done in this latest post is to suggest that those horrendous few examples you've provided constitute an epidemic. though i note that you now bracket the word like so; [epidemic]

what is that all about Rain? let me guess, even you appear to have worked out your emotive hysterical language doesn't really fly.

add to that your previous disgusting demand that all Muslim boys should be castrated. you advocate physically mutilating children. that is something so evil that i doubt even those scum pedophile rapists would condone. well done Rain, you are worse than the very people you rail against. that is indeed some feat...

Sun, 2012-05-13 10:43 — EnragedBrit (not verified)

I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at a situation in which Muslim men ( as old as 59) feed vodka to kuffar girls (as young as 13) until they are so drunk that they do not know what is going on... and are then raped by as many as five Muslim men - even while they are semi-comatose and vomiting - and say it's the girls' fault.

But "Hugh" does exactly that. I would hazard a guess that this "Hugh" is really more likely to be "Mohammad."

Sun, 2012-05-13 08:00 — rain (not verified)

Why start trying to defend the indefensible. Too many on the political-left to readily spring to the defense of Muslim outrages: How can anyone who thinks himself progressive defend rape. We need to understand what motives these, overwhelming Pakistani Rapist. He’s the Muslim attitude to rape. If a woman gets raped, she is considered {guilty} of adultery unless she can provide four adult Muslim male witnesses who had watched the action and who would testify that the sex was actually forced on her and that she was not a willing partner in it. If she has only female witnesses in case she was raped by an intruder in front of her fellow wives and slave girls or in a women’s dormitory full of women witnesses then she is out of luck. Her punishment is stoning to death if she is married or hundred (100) lashes if she is single. It’s no wonder that western prisons are filled with Muslim rapists because they sincerely believe they aren’t committing any crime. There should be no hiding place for rapist and that includes the local mosque.

Sun, 2012-05-13 10:25 — jankaas (not verified)

this post is 100% better than that vile reactionary one of yours from 2 days ago.
i agree with this one, and i think you make the right point very well. there can never ever be a defense for rape, no matter what you imagine your culture finds acceptable.
but what is the solution? definitely not the hand wringing that seems the default position of our politicians too scared to even discuss this in plain english whenever race and culture are on the agenda.

Sat, 2012-05-12 23:26 — No2PC

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NzQ3NzY0MzE%3D

KUWAIT: A female political activist and former parliamentary candidate has recommended the introduction of legislation to legalize the provision of enslaved female concubines for Muslim men in Kuwait in a bid, she says, to protect those men from committing adultery or corruption.
The activist, Salwa Al-Mutairi, suggested apparently seriously in a video broadcast online that she had been informed by some clerics that affluent Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants 'casting spells' on them, would be better to purchase women from an 'enslaved maid' agency for sexual purposes.
She suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids.
We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said Al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.
This is not religiously forbidden," she added, indicating that Caliph Haroun Al-Rashid (766-809 AD) was married to one woman but possessed 200 concubines.

Note: the reference to Chechnya where Russian Christian slags can be kidnapped. of course its not much of a leap from kidnapping Christian slaves in checnnya to raping white kid above a takeaway.
Of course this article could be a Zionist crusader plot to smear the ummah, isnt that right Medhi???

Sat, 2012-05-12 23:00 — No2PC

No institutionally racist policing

Scene: Northern town. Pathetic figure of an English girl cowering on the ground in foetal position after being raped. Islamic man caught at the scene of the crime about to run back to the safety of his community, who will protect him no matter what. Luckily the police have caught him red-handed.

Sergeant to constable: Constable, grab that man, he’s just raped that poor girl!

Constable to sergeant: But sarge, he’s a Muslim.

The sergeant consults his cultural awareness handbook.

Sergeant to constable: Errr, okay lad, leave the bloke be. The chief will give us hell if we do owt.

Sergeant to man: Ummm sorry sir, cultural differences and all that … er, we didn’t see at first … I apologise and hope we didn’t cause sir any distress.

Man to universe: You racist sons of pigs and dogs! Allah (swt) will kill you all. She is old enough to menstruate … she is old enough for sex … and she chatted to me so she deserved it!

Result: ‘community cohesion’ preserved; useless coppers still in jobs; young girl’s life ruined.

For this we thank: Unite Against Fascism, Hope not Hate and all the miserable, money grubbing, self-serving crooks who pass as politicians these days, who have allowed this to become reality.

Sat, 2012-05-12 23:00 — No2PC

No institutionally racist policing

Sergeant to constable: Constable, grab that man, he’s just raped that poor girl!

Constable to sergeant: But sarge, he’s a Muslim.

The sergeant consults his cultural awareness handbook.

Sergeant to constable: Errr, okay lad, leave the bloke be. The chief will give us hell if we do owt.

Sergeant to man: Ummm sorry sir, cultural differences and all that … er, we didn’t see at first … I apologise and hope we didn’t cause sir any distress.

Man to universe: You racist sons of pigs and dogs! Allah (swt) will kill you all. She is old enough to menstruate … she is old enough for sex … and she chatted to me so she deserved it!

Result: ‘community cohesion’ preserved; useless coppers still in jobs; young girl’s life ruined.

For this we thank: Unite Against Fascism, Hope not Hate and all the miserable, money grubbing, self-serving crooks who pass as politicians these days, who have allowed this to become reality.

Sat, 2012-05-12 18:54 — jankaas (not verified)

there are some absolutes that are non-negotiable. one of those is the the age at which a human can provide their informed consent for sexual intercourse; 16 years old.

there's no doubt that children younger than that know about 'right' and 'wrong' but to insist they should be able to always get their choice right is not remotely realistic. children have to develop the ability to make the correct choices, and be allowed time to figure these things out. so 16 may be a bit young for some or a bit old for others, but 16 it is for everyone. so there is never an excuse for an adult to screw someone under that age. no matter what the minor is wearing, or saying, or willing to do. that child is off limits. transgress that boundary and you commit rape. go find someone else to screw, someone over 16.

anyone who tries to blur the line is imho scum, which apparently many on the Question Time are (i did not see the program, am relying on this article). failing to protect the under 16s is likely to occur as controlling the young is like herding cats, but the adults who rape these children have no excuse, ever. and trying to insist that the under 16s somehow ask for trouble is obnoxious in the extreme. a child, is a child, is a child, end of.

Sun, 2012-05-13 15:53 — willoyen

the age set by law is arbitrary, and doesn't correspond to nature's, that is why there is so much variation in different ages of consent: Italy 14; France 15; the Vatican, 12!
Presumably you agree with the State of Georgia's response in this case reported in the Economist's America's unjust sex laws:
"ONE day in 1996 the lights went off in a classroom in Georgia so that the students could watch a video. Wendy Whitaker, a 17-year-old pupil at the time, was sitting near the back. The boy next to her suggested that, since it was dark, she could perform oral sex on him without anyone noticing. She obliged. And that single teenage fumble wrecked her life.
Her classmate was three weeks shy of his 16th birthday. That made Ms Whitaker a criminal. She was arrested and charged with sodomy, which in Georgia can refer to oral sex. She met her court-appointed lawyer five minutes before the hearing. He told her to plead guilty. She did not really understand what was going on, so she did as she was told.
She was sentenced to five years on probation. Not being the most organised of people, she failed to meet all the conditions, such as checking in regularly with her probation officer. For a series of technical violations, she was incarcerated for more than a year, in the county jail, the state women’s prison and a boot camp. “I was in there with people who killed people. It’s crazy,” she says.
She finished her probation in 2002. But her ordeal continues. Georgia puts sex offenders on a public registry. Ms Whitaker’s name, photograph and address are easily accessible online, along with the information that she was convicted of “sodomy”.

Sun, 2012-05-13 16:51 — jankaas (not verified)

i hope that was a copy and paste job Willoyen as your presumption about me is wrong. now what?

Sun, 2012-05-13 20:07 — willoyen

yes, I copied and pasted from The Economist. "now what?" - fair question. I suppose I was just trying to say that one should be careful, rather than dogmatic about this complex and delicate area where nature, sexual development, law, and culture cross. The young woman in my quote was condemned and more or less destroyed because the boy, the 'victim' to a dogmatic mindset. was three weeks underage. I just wanted to point out that 'there is more under heaven and earth than is dreamt of in our philosophy, Horatio' Sorry, 'Jankaas'.

Mon, 2012-05-14 12:39 — jankaas (not verified)

no worries Willoyen. so we'll leave it there i guess.
i did in another post try and expand my views on this situation where essentailly peers end up experimenting together. i do advocate leniency there similar to the Dutch model where the age difference between the minor and the "adult" are taken into consideration, as is the age at which we view a person to be called an adult (18 in the UK and most of the world).

Sat, 2012-05-12 22:48 — Hugh (not verified)

This nonsense regarding the age of consent is ridiculous. Most children hit puberty at 12 these days. 4 years is a long time for hormones to be going riot without any sexual activity at all. Given the knowledge most 12-16 year old have about sex these days the age of consent is now inappropriately high. There are plenty of under 16s who are physically and mentally mature and frequent pubs and clubs with adults. I'd defy any man to distinguish some of these under age kids from legal adults and you can be sure there are plenty of adults unwittingly having sex with under 16s every weekend.

No, posts like this are just playing to the Daily Mail gallery. Shock! Horror! There are plenty of mature under 16s who could teach adults such as yourself a thing or two. Not that I imagine a mature discussion is possible on this issue.

Sun, 2012-05-13 10:01 — jankaas (not verified)

well done for defending pederasts, but like anyone trying to do so your claims are not supporetd by either evidence or logic.

the neurological evidence says that human brains, especially the bit that vital for decision making, don't fully mature untill about age 20.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16153045

and logically the ability to be able to get pregnant does not mean by default that human being is ready for sex.

that's evidence and logic for you Hugh, you're the one posting nonsense like the Daily Mail. now i rather doubt you're trying to support lowering the age of consent to the point at which individual girls start to menstruate, or when a boy has his first orgasm. you now need to explain yourself better than the "they ask for it" defense, or the "it's ever so tricky when you're drunk to keep your trousers on long enough to find out how old (s)he is".....

Sun, 2012-05-13 16:03 — willoyen

'pederasty' means sodomy, that's all. It has nothing to do with paedophilia or child abuse, and it is a common form of sexual intercourse among gay men, and others :). In your missionary zeal to hang all child abusers, you seem to be pouncing on all gay men from the age of consent up to the age of extinction; perhaps to your thinking the word 'pederast' sounds more vicious than the relatively tame-sounding 'paedophile'? Or maybe you are sincerely against male sexual intercourse....

Sun, 2012-05-13 17:00 — jankaas (not verified)

thanks for the pedantry regarding my use of pederast instead of paedophile. i stand corrected none the less and will try my utmost to use the correct terminology.

for the record, i don't have any issues with gay anything at all whatsoever, rather weird that you could think otherwise, but there we are. these threads are awash with me defending same sex marriage etc. nor do i wish to hang anyone, again how you get to such extremes i think means you just tend to over react and jump to conclusions.

so to be clear, i don't give a monkeys what consenting adults get up to with one another. but when it comes to children i am zero tolerance. the only leeway i accept is when the 2 persons involved are essentially peers. what would be an acceptable age difference would be another discussion, but let's remind ourselves that the males who screwed these girls were far older than them. that is rape, that is criminal, end of.

Sun, 2012-05-13 19:50 — willoyen

'for the record, i don't have any issues with gay anything at all whatsoever, rather weird that you could think otherwise'
I certainly don't think otherwise. I just thought I might point out a slip. Words have exact meanings, after all, and a small distortion can result in a howling mob burning down the premises of a paediatrician. Not that there are any people like that (the mob) posting on the NS.

Sun, 2012-05-13 12:45 — Hugh (not verified)

I'm not defending pederasts as you put it. I am merely pointing out that there is a lot of hysteria of the age of consent and you are merely amplifying that hysteria IMHO. In actual fact, the science demonstrates that the male brain is not fully mature until the age of 25-26. I don't know what ages the convicted men were at the time of these offences but, in theory, if they were less than 26 then they may well have an excuse for their actions on this basis. Perhaps not something you would be inclined to entertain though.

I am all for science being used it inform the debate but I don't think it would be helpful to raise the age of consent to 26. To all intents and purposes, I doubt that there is much difference between the brains of, say, 13 year olds and 16 year olds. 16 year olds are by no means mature.

I do think, however, that it's unnecessary to criminalise people by automatically assuming that children between the ages of 13 and 16 did not consent to sex regardless of the evidence.

Sun, 2012-05-13 17:17 — jankaas (not verified)

you have a very low threshold for labelling others as "hysterical", most bemusing.

you also have a compulsion to put words in my mouth, i wish you could restrain yourself a bit better. rather than post at length about what you imagine i think and want, why not spend more effort expanding your own position?

i accept that young persons want to have sex, some well before they turn 16. and if they happen to have sex with one of their peers then i would not wish to criminalise their behaviour. but when a girl under 16 has sex with an adult male (i.e. 18 is considered adult in the UK) i think there is the genuine potential of exploitation of a minor. some countries navigate this grey area by insisting that the age difference is less than 5 years until both persons are 21 or older. this seems pretty sensible. again all these ages have scientific data to support the brain is developing and that there is a disconnect between the physiological ability to do sex, and the psychological inability to come to sound conclusions regarding sex.

but these events we are discussing are nothing to do with a grey area. they involve very young girls and much older males. no matter how worldly these girls seemed, or how provocatively they dressed, or how much they may have said they wanted sex, it was 100% the responsibility of these older males to refuse. no excuses, none.

Sun, 2012-05-13 20:32 — Hugh (not verified)

I don't think it's low at all. For someone who mentions science in one breath and fulminates in such emotional language in the next I'm afraid I can't think of any other description for you.

I note that you ignored my points about the maturation of the male brain at around the age of 25/6. Accepting this would mean that you could not condemn those you define to be adult quite so easily if at all. Hardly surprising.

There are always grey areas I'm afraid. These girls thought the men were their boyfriends which would tend to suggest that they consented to sex. It's just the law that's decided that it is not possible for girls of their age to consent. I don't really think this is a good way to deal with the situation at all and probably further traumatises the girls involved.

I wonder how their young minds will cope with having been in love and then being told that the men they thought were their boyfriends were actually their abusers. I can't imagine it makes much sense to them and will be incredibly confusing when it comes to trying to understand sexual relationships.

Mon, 2012-05-14 12:33 — jankaas (not verified)

sigh....you write;

"For someone who mentions science in one breath and fulminates in such emotional language in the next I'm afraid I can't think of any other description for you."

since you now believe i fulminate in emotional language, and again i don't what what you're on about, i must conclude that you can't read what i write the way it is intended. on this subject matter in any case. so i won't trouble you further. bye.

Sat, 2012-05-12 18:44 — Non sequitur (not verified)

why does nobody mention the influence of pornography? quite often the unwashed masses of the world get their idea of white women's behaviour and desires from porn, and assume that these women are all fundamentally 'sluts' who just want to exist as so many holes in the service of the phallus...which is ofcourse a lie, lovingly staged and filmed to cater to the lazy desires of the western male...

Sat, 2012-05-12 01:56 — islamophobe (not verified)

why are the meeja making excuses for these savages? Burn every mosque in Europe. Goatfuckers go home. Starkey for PM.

Sat, 2012-05-12 18:55 — jankaas (not verified)

jerk

Sat, 2012-05-12 19:15 — Albert Tatlock (not verified)

That's funny, coming from someone who has shown himself to be a complete jerk on so many occasions. Jackass.

Sat, 2012-05-12 22:07 — jankaas (not verified)

oh look, it's Mr Wordplay himself Berk Titcock....

now what loser?

Fri, 2012-05-11 18:14 — Hugh (not verified)

You use the word degradation and yet are offended by Oborne's use of the words beuty and innocence.

The furore over this matter is just a prime example of the Anglo Saxon attitude towards sex writ large: not valuing sex and your body as much as right-thinking people is akin to a crime; selling access to your body for money or goods is degrading, etc., etc.

It's clear that these Muslim men targeted young white girls and not girls from their own communities because they view western society as amoral. I'm quite sure the tactics employed would have worked on vulnerable Asian girls too and yet they don't appear to have attempted to do so.

The issue of consent is interesting too: the age of criminal responsibility is 10 in England and yet the age of consent is 16. Just why is it that children as young as 10 are deemed to understand the criminal law and yet aren't deemed to be able to consent to sex. It is, quite simply, down to the schizophrenic anglo saxon attitude towards sex as shameful, dirty, etc., etc. These young girls weren't damaged by having had sex, they were damaged by being told that what they'd done was dirty and degrading and that they had lost their "innocence". In reality, they'd been persuaded to enter into an exchange of goods for services, aka, prostitution. They would have had a sense that what the men were doing was against the law if the age of criminal responsibility is anything to go by. Both parties knew that they were engaged in criminal activity and I don't think that absolving the girls of any blame whatsoever is quite the right thing to do. Are girls in care NEVER told not to accept gifts from strangers? I think not.

Sat, 2012-05-12 19:02 — jankaas (not verified)

on the age of consent vs criminal responsibility; the former is right the latter disgracefully wrong.

they should both be 16 as this is not about a human being knowing right from wrong, rather, it's about the ability to be able to choose correctly. this skill has to be learned, and very young humans brains are still developing.

i do therefor strongly disagree with your suggestion that these girls share some of the responsibility and blame for what happened to them. it is 100% down to the sh*ts who raped them, no one else.

Sat, 2012-05-12 22:38 — Hugh (not verified)

I disagree. I think the age of consent and criminal responsibility should be 13 as it is in various European countries. It may not be acceptable to the Daily Mail, frothing at the mouth, mouth breathers to say so but 13 year olds these days know all about sex and plenty of them are getting tanked up at the weekend and having sex. It's extraordinarily naive 13 year olds who don't know what they are being asked to do when a grown man tells them they want them to commit sex acts. I'm pretty sure most girls from a care background know what's what.

These men obviously knew they were having sex with underage girls and deserve what they got but so did the girls and if you don't agree you're kidding yourself on.

Sun, 2012-05-13 10:17 — jankaas (not verified)

you seem ever so sure of your position as being the correct one, yet i can't see anything beyond your sophistry. you provide absolutely no evidence, which ironically enough makes you the one guilty of Daily Mailism.

my position is one supported by evidence. the human brain is still developing at the time humans already reach sexual maturity (i.e being able to reproduce). that you insist the only thing of importance is the physiological is utterly flawed. these are children, and yes their behaviour is indeed accurately described as extremely naive, but that is part and parcel of growing up. these children get p*ssed as often as possible, and they assume because they can 'do' sex they may as well go at it. this is fraught with enough problems when these children have sex with one another, but it should remain classified as rape when an adult is involved.

a yes or no question if that's ok. do you think this debate should be firmly rooted in scientific evidence?

Sat, 2012-05-19 13:35 — rain (not verified)

"scientific evidence"? dick!! Do you work for the Roman Catholic Church? You seem quite versed in your pathetic attempts to deny the sexual exploitation of children takes place by gangs of Pakistani rapists? Here are a few more examples of the epidemic of organized rape by Pakistani rapists. Mohammed Sajid, 35, was sentenced to 12 years for rape, six years for conspiracy, one year for trafficking and six years, all concurrent, for sexual activity with a child. He will be deported back to Pakistan following the conclusion of his sentence. Adil Khan, 42, was given eight years for conspiracy and eight years, concurrently, for trafficking for sexual exploitation. He fathered a child from one of his 12-year-old victims. Hamid Safi, 22, was jailed for four years for conspiracy and one year, concurrently, for trafficking. He will be deported back to Pakistan following his sentence. Former Labour MP for Keighley Ann Cryer said the authorities had ignored complaints about the accused because they were afraid of being called racist.

Fri, 2012-05-11 17:48 — Spleenboy (not verified)

And why the picture of the BNP: is it their fault? Why not put up a picture of Hitler and Bin Laden as well?

Fri, 2012-05-11 17:46 — rain (not verified)

“A Guardian editorial yesterday helpfully explained that "the force that shaped it [the sexual abuse]. Was not the ethnicity of the abusers but the poor, chaotic family lives of the victims?" This is typical of the multiculturalist appeasement lobby: blame the white bitch. But let’s not digress. The extremely high incidences of rapes and sexual assaults committed by Muslim men in Western countries are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the Sunnah and the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as “their women,” the women who “belong” to hostile Infidels. They are booty to be taken, just as the lands of the Infidels someday will drop into Muslim hands because of the total capitulation of the political-left to violent misogynistic Islam. This is not just an appallingly vile crime, but ideologically-justified vile crime or rather, in Muslim eyes; attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men—his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us—our future booty. No wonder there is a deep and increasing suspicion against Muslims all across the civilized western world.

Fri, 2012-05-11 22:56 — Notimagain (not verified)

They were poor, un cultured and whitw- so not of any worth to the guardianista PC crowd. And from what we see of the excusiologist MSN crowd- it's back to business- abuse as usual from this week- poor whites don't matter they never did. The Liberal mind is oblivious to their suffering. It was ever the same.

Fri, 2012-05-11 17:45 — Spleenboy (not verified)

A fantastic exercise in how to say absolutely nothing. It's a sensitive subject, so lets try and talk around it without scratching the surface too hard, and just hope it all goes away.
Why do these issues always turn journalists into complete cowards?