Asian paedophile and prostitution rings

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Asian paedophile and prostitution rings

The latest case of Asians allegedly ruining the lives of under-age British girls by raping, drugging and conditioning is underway in Oxford, and it seems that wherever there's an Asian, and particularly Pakistani community in Britain, there's a gang feeding off the vulnerability of young girls.
Most were targeted from children's homes and records show that the Oxford ring had been in existence from 2004 until last year, when their crimes were finally discovered. What use are the police if they take eight years to crack a case like this? Are they blind or just plain thick in the head? Some might think they were in on it, the way it seems to be happening everywhere.
Police aside, what does this case say about our care system?
That the rapist-drug-dealing-pimps used children's homes as a base from which to introduce young girls to drink and drugs only goes to show what a joke our children's homes really are. The average child in care costs the taxpayer about £1600 a week! Money well spent? Yes, if you're paedophile.
We can easily say that this is not a cultural problem pertinent only to Asians (because it most certainly is not), but hasn't political correctness gone awry when we cannot identify one culture as a particularly prevalent perpetrator without being labelled racist?
That the Asian men would not be seen to be using their own young girls to satisfy their depravity must go some way to revealing them as unswervingly racist, in that they see British girls as easy prey (compared to their own), unsupervised and unmonitered by their 'carers'.
Something has to be said about those Asian men who believe that temptation was too great and abuse too openly available and straightforward to avoid involvement with the gangs. They knew what they were doing, just as a man who kills knows what he is doing.
Yes, Jimmy Savile has opened a can of worms, and sentiment against under-age sex has never been so high, but here are men who are without a shed of doubt guilty of an eight-year long reign of torturous terror of young British girls under our noses, yet we all know they'll get a sentence of about five/six years in prison, costing the taxpayer another £35000 a year per rapist. These hideous excuses of human beings hiding behind religion and family have robbed dozens of young girls' innocence, and the true cost to their emotional wellbeing will only be known in the future, but they know how tolerant the British are (legal system and people alike).
I would like to see very strict sentencing for anyone involved in child prostitution rings.
Does anyone believe that capital punishment should be brought back, and, if so, for which crimes?

Hi Stan I dont like the thought of it either and am all for forgiveness, but the price of forgiveness to society has soared. And what of innocent people killed: the price families pay lasts a lifetime. There's also judicial migration to consider. Paedos go to Thailand because the child sex trade has been accounted for by a very weak govt. Goldman Sachs enslave Africa for its minerals and crop because they can get away with it, poisoning and starving the givers. If Britain becomes a hive for child prostitution, it will be because of the weakness of our will to do something about it. Examples need to be made otherwise our most vulnerable children will become no more than pieces of meat for international abusers to prey on. What would rather: a few very bad people put to death or thousands of children robbed of their lives?

 

I think you are treading on very dangerous ground here - and I've added an allegedly to your original statement because the case is under way and no verdict has been pronounced. I think that the whole question of grooming and paedophilia is not race-based. There are men of all persuasions who are liable to this activity - and I agree that we just haven't taken this sufficiently seriously in the past. Capital punishment certainly is not the answer - but a proper care system and some acceptance amongst all parents that children are their responsibility will go a long way towards helping to prevent it. Just don't play the race card - it's utterly meaningless in this instance and damages your argument.
Capital punishment? No, never.

 

Hi Tony, I'm not playing the race card. Saying it how it is seems to cause more concern than the actual crime, which is disconcerting, but a sign of the times. Rotherham amd Rochdale were the last two cases, and it's fact that those of south Asian origin are in charge of the grooming rings all over the country. It's also well known that there are many more cases to come, all concerning south Asian (predominantly Pakistani) grooming rings. Taking a self-righteous, all-tolerant view is OK but blindness from the concrete facts, which social services and police have also chosen to ignore for so long, only strengthens the depraved cause of the paedophiles. Of the 600 child victims in the Rotherham ring, only one gang members has had a sentence passed against him. Is that justice? Expect the same in Oxford with massive legal bills for the taxpayer. It's your right to imagine that these grooming rings are not of a certain race but the truth will out. It always does. By that time, though, it will be old news and most people will have put it to the back of their minds. They didn't really care in the first place, so what is ever learnt? My argument is this; very strong sentencing to send out a clear message to ALL races in this country. If there is a particular race that is proven to be prevalent in the perpetration of such crimes, then that needs to be considered. In many ways, I view the paedophiles as social terrorists, ruining young British lives because they havent got the bottle to fight for their 'cause'.That is not a racist view. It is a purely honest, open view to the cases in hand.

 

Wow, wish I could come up with a character half as funny as blighters. "I'm not a racist but there's a pakistani paedophile gang in every town." Pure genius!

 

I agree with a lot that Blighters has to say. I think he has a point when it seems we have to be more concerned with who we label paedophiles but no one seems to notice that Jimmy Saville's name is bandied about quite freely and that doesn't seem to cause the same response. And no I wouldn't bring back capital punishment I would bring in castration for perpetrators of sexual crimes against defenceless and vulnerable children preferably without anaesthetic. I would love to live in a utopian land where liberal and tolerant ideas were enough to see people treat one another with humanity and respect but the fact is that such ideas are seen as weakness and are seized on by people so depraved that they prey on little children. I think it is time for the victim to be put first. Those children have had their lives ruined and they have suffered physically so perhaps some physical punishment might deter because at the moment what if anything is there to protect children of any nationality or culture. If there is something then it just isn't working. And before I too am accused of being racist I would feel as outraged for a Pakistani child as I would for a British child. Look at the recent case in India of the woman gang raped. That is a crime against humanity and may well see the perpetrators get the death penalty and quite rightly in my opinion if the case is proved. Note also that she was an adult not a child and that it has understandably sparked protests and outrage. And I don't think the above comment mocking Blighters is a very clever response. Perhaps you need to consider of all the things that Blighter's said what it was you picked on to comment.
 
Thanks Moya. You've made some excellent points pertinent to the post. The anti-racist card is so easy to play but so utterly meaningless in determining the real and present dangers in society. You mentioned that we are failing to protect children, and that's true. There are many reasons attached to this problems, but most, if not all, return to protection. Unfortunately, the protection afforded to paedophiles, landed gentry, the rich and famous, the venerable and respected is far greater than that offered to vulnerable children. In fact, it negates any chance of their protection. Jimmy Savile was afforded protection because of who he was and what he supposedly represented. The BBC had invested six decades of trust to this paedophile, those working under him were too scared they'd lose their jobs, and, once he'd died, all the BBC were interested in was saving face at any cost, especially with a very expensive Christmas special already produced. Alongside Savile were all his associate paedos from royal dignitary to Thatcher aide. These people were being protected to defend the hideous status quo that rules our lives. If they had been outed, we would naturally have to question our leaders more deeply than for their unbelievably short-sighted politics. Hypocrisy must reign because it breeds contempt, mostly in ourselves for allowing to happen under our noses. And what of the judges, high-end police staff, celebrities, politicians who have used the system of silence to ruin lives with their own brands of depravity? How could these people be vilified? It would cause outrage, and this is partly why we hear 'The public couldn't accept the truth if we told them'. The other part is to protect their own for the self-seeking destruction on offer to those with power. That's the well-heeled sorted then, and so protection for the children they abuse is just not workable. Then there are the police forces, social services agencies and children homes that need protection in order to drastically reduce the risk of victims suing against these authorities in place to tackle paedophilia. Of the 600 victims in Rotherham, only four were used as evidence to incriminate the nine members of the gang, and only one member has had his sentence passed. I don't know who the victims are but I wouldn't be surprised if they'd been outside the jurisdiction of the children's homes and had provided little communication with soc servives and police to lessen implications to the authorities. The last ( equally massive) protection policy that deters justice is that given by the law system to criminals in general. As you pointed out, it's time criminals were vilified and victims supported, but that won't happen with the current system and with the powerful manipulating it to the advantage. Probably the only reason the south Asian gangs are being taken to task is because they have no such worldly protection. Most of these men probably come from lowly backgrounds; taxi-driver, supermarket staff, shopkeeper, caterer, so which esteemed and respectable pillar of the community would want to protect them? Their vilification, or the perception that they will be vilified, works in many ways (feeds the racial tensions amongst the poorer cross sections of the UK, takes away focus from other cross sections of paedophile gangs, makes the public believe that something is being done, allows the very fashionable topic of exposing paedo rings to run further its distance) but the problem will persist so long as the protected paedos remain active. Richard

 

I think we are confusing two different points. Firstly, we need to reform the care system in this country. For a very long time it has failed the children who are placed into it. Time and time again children in care homes are targetted by pimps, paedophiles and the unscrupulous. It really is Dickensian and should be recognised as a national disgrace. Secondly, we need to take the word of the sexually assualted seriously. It is clear from the Savile case and others that complaints have not been dealt with properly and efficiently. If those who are abused could be persuaded that a visit to the police station would see them get some protection and the perpetrators of the crimes brought to justice then that would be a major step forward. Capital punishment helps no one and nothing. It just leads to tragic injustice. That too has been shown time after time.
Regarding your last point which I totally agree with by the way, many would counter by saying that the (human) cost of miscarriages of justice (however frequent) is a price worth paying!

 

Stan it is indeed the latter to which I was referring - the moral cost not the financial cost.