They were sentenced to deportation, but victims of the Rochdale grooming gang still see their attackers in public

First topic message reminder :

Home Secretary Sajid Javid has been asked to take "urgent action" and deport four members of a grooming gang who abused girls in Rochdale.

Tony Lloyd, the town's MP, said "victims deserve better".

Shabir Ahmed, 66, Abdul Rauf, 50, Abdul Aziz, 48 and Adil Khan, 49, who have dual UK-Pakistani citizenship, were among nine men jailed in 2012 for exploiting girls as young as 12.

The Home Office will not say whether a decision has been made to deport them.

Ahmed, who was known as "Daddy" in the gang, is still serving a 22-year jail term for rape.

In August 2018, Aziz, Khan and Rauf lost an appeal against being stripped of their British citizenship.

Ahmed, Rauf, Aziz, and Khan, lost a previous battle to keep British citizenship in February 2017.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Some vulnerable girls in Rochdale were plied with drinks and drugs by groomers
Mr Lloyd is calling on Mr Javid to explain why the four have not yet been deported and has tabled a motion in parliament.

He said: "These crimes were at the most serious level and victims deserve better.

"I would ask Sajid Javid to take urgent action. I want them to be deported."

He said the public would be "bewildered" and added: "People are still angry."

Maggie Oliver, who quit Greater Manchester Police and turned whistleblower, said victims had been "failed again and again and again" but they expected "very, very little from the authorities".

She said they saw their abusers on a "fairly regular basis" and it was "really distressing" and "disgraceful".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-48668381

This is turning into a never-ending nightmare for these young women! Pathetic.

Quill, I note in a couple of threads you are the one judging people on their culture, religion and class....no one else is doing that as far as I can see.

Quill, you really should actually read up on this as you’re making yourself look really, really, silly.

Yeah, you should look into some of the victims' testimony, Quill. It's hard to imagine that girls of that age could have been able to dream up those accusations.

I think racial sensitivity is a good thing, but it needs to go out the window when it comes to justice. Race shouldn't be allowed to tilt justice at all, toward guilt or toward innocence.

We all know that there are decent people and horrible people in every racial group, religion, whatever. And we have to keep in mind that the goal is that those decent people are treated fairly and that those horrible people are given what they deserve. The goal is not to create a new privileged class of people, to elevate one group over another or to give anyone rights that don't belong to everyone.

Quill is actually taking the stance that because they were Muslim people were ready to believe the worst when in actual fact, the complete opposite was true.
The police were worried about racial tension and the girls were let down badly by a totally idiotic bunch of people.

Before you go any further with this Quill, you really do need to either watch the docu-drama or read up on the facts.

Ben wrote:I think racial sensitivity is a good thing, but it needs to go out the window when it comes to justice. Race shouldn't be allowed to tilt justice at all...

Yet we allow it to happen every day. The weak and dispossessed are prosecuted everyday, sometimes without justification, while the wealthy and privileged are allowed to go about their business.

How do you explain Mike Tyson, a black man who went to prison for doing the same thing that white & wealthy William Kennedy Smith did with impunity? Race tilting justice, eh? Justice is subordinated to popular sentiment everyday...you just have to look.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben wrote:I think racial sensitivity is a good thing, but it needs to go out the window when it comes to justice. Race shouldn't be allowed to tilt justice at all...

Yet we allow it to happen every day.  The weak and dispossessed are prosecuted everyday, sometimes without justification, while the wealthy and privileged are allowed to go about their business.

How do you explain Mike Tyson, a black man who went to prison for doing the same thing that white & wealthy William Kennedy Smith did with impunity?  Race tilting justice, eh?  Justice is subordinated to popular sentiment everyday...you just have to look.

Well being as the this is the UK, the above is about the worst whataboutism argument going

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

The problem with that argument, Quill, is that this sort of organised - and it is most decidedly highly organised - grooming followed by the systematic abuse, rape and enforced prostitution of young (and frequently VERY young)  predominently white girls was virtually unknown in the UK before the establishment of large, concentrated communities of  families of mainly Pakistani extraction.

Local authorities and police in the towns an cities most affected have already admitted that in the past they have been reluctant to take action "in the interests of social cohesion."

I find it hard to believe that "grooming followed by the systematic abuse, rape and enforced prostitution of young (and frequently VERY young) predominently white girls was virtually unknown in the UK."  Hasn't anyone looked into the activities of eastern Europeans in this regard?  Trump has close ties to these people--hence his love of the Russians and Vladimir Putin--and that might have tipped us off before you.  But human trafficking has been going on for decades.

Actually, the involvement of Muslims is quite minimal, and recent.  The disdain that the Muslim culture has for the wide-open Western culture is more of an individual thing, and involves younger boys.

But these young men seem to have been convicted more from public sentiment, than from individual acts.

You may well "find it hard to believe", Quill, but it is nevertheless true, and although it gives me neither pleasure nor satisfaction to say it, I lived in the Rotherham area of South Yorkshire - location of the most notorious of the organised grooming and abuse of young white girls - throughout the 50s and 60s before the huge influx of Asian immigration, and this type of crime was unknown then. I worked on local newspapers at the time, apart from my time in the RAF, and had it been going on I and my fellow hacks would have known about it.

The men primarily responsible are from Pakistani backgrounds of both first and second generation immigrants, and the gangs of abusers are apparently connected largely to taxi businesses - drivers and controllers - who come into contact with girls when they are their most vulnerable, trying to get home after clubbing and pubbing (often under age) and frequently stoned on booze and/or drugs.

Being Muslims, of varying degrees of devoutness, these men tend to regard girls in skimpy clothing out on the streets and worse for wear on drink with utter contempt and being little better than whores. Why do you think that girls of Asian and Afro-Caribbean heritage are very rarely groomed and abused in this way?

But this was Rotherham, not Islamabad...and culture and background or no,t it is a crime of the most heinous nature and wanting to see them punished to the fullest extent of the law is NOT racist or Islamophobic.

I have never heard of such organised abused by men originally from the same part of the world and of Sikh or Hundu faiths, of whom there are very many in this country. Just the opposite, in fact....in the main they are model citizens and I personally have huge respect for them.

Eastern European abuse, which you mentioned, is different in that these more modern immigrants tend to traffic girls from their own part of the world to work in organised brothels. It is no less reprehensible, but it is vastly different.

And human trafficking has been going on for centuries, not decades...from the time of Arab (Muslim, I fear!) slave traders and Romans if not long before.

Suffice it to say you have a grudge against Pakistanis, Fred?

That all I'm saying. It's hard to overcome public sentiment when some group is singled out with strong disfavor.

What aboutism yet again

Quill thinks these men are innocent and have been stitched up, helped by the general public who he thinks are biased because these men are Muslims. Never mind the evidence eh Quill?

Quill's credit card

If any group was singled out to receive abhorrent treatment in the cases we are all talking about it was not the Pakistani's, Muslims or black people, it was the young white women.
Not only were/are these sexual crimes against underage kids, they are also  hate crimes too.
Racial hatred doesn't just work in one direction.

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill thinks these men are innocent and have been stitched up, helped by the general public who he thinks are biased because these men are Muslims. Never mind the evidence eh Quill?

Not really.  I could care less about these guys.  I have been talking about 'public sentiment' and affecting the outcome of trials, criminal or civil, all along.

Original Quill wrote:Suffice it to say you have a grudge against Pakistanis, Fred?

That all I'm saying.  It's hard to overcome public sentiment when some group is singled out with strong disfavor.

That, with respect, is a pretty ridiculous and quite offensive assertion and one that I might have hoped would be beneath you, particularly given the pretty disgusting choice of "illustration" of what you clearly assume to be my view.

Perhaps you would have preferred, as social services and senior police officers were eventually forced to admit, to have swept the issue under the carpet "in the interests of social cohesion."

The only result of that cowardly and utterly immoral stance was that the abuse was allowed to go on for so long and to have eventually ruined the lives of so many innocent young British girls before the men were named, shamed and prosecuted...at which stage the details of practically all of them were made public and the overwhelming ethnic background of the criminal gangs was revealed.

The suggestion that I would not have had a "grudge" against them if they were other than Pakistani Muslims is palpable nonsense.

Fred M. wrote:That, with respect, is a pretty ridiculous and quite offensive assertion and one that I might have hoped would be beneath you, particularly given the pretty disgusting choice of "illustration" of what you clearly assume to be my view.

The illustration was merely to make a point.  Public sentiment can overcome jury verdicts, and even arrests.  We've been seeing for, oh, I guess, 400-years,

Nothing can be as offensive as that picture, to those guys hanging.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:That, with respect, is a pretty ridiculous and quite offensive assertion and one that I might have hoped would be beneath you, particularly given the pretty disgusting choice of "illustration" of what you clearly assume to be my view.

The illustration was merely to make a point.  Public sentiment can overcome jury verdicts, and even arrests.  We've been seeing for, oh, I guess, 400-years,

Nothing can be as offensive as that picture, to those guys hanging.

Yes, I found it offensive because anyone with a shed of decency in them would find it offensive; more than offensive, in fact.

But quite what corollary exists between the the murder and lynching of black people in the United States and my condemnation of Pakistani organised gangs who have been serially grooming, abusing and raping young British white girls escapes me.

Your position on this strikes me as being one of reverse racism at its most blatant: Because these men are primarily from an ethnicity, culture and religion that in some forms accepts the treatment of its own women as second class citizens and very young and vulnerable white girls in the UK in particular as being little better that whores because of their dress and social habits, and so available to be exploited for their own filthy perversions, we must not only understand but tolerate their criminality and the devastating effects on young lives.

Because that, in a nutshell, is the position originally adopted by both social workers and senior local authority and police officials "in the interests of community relations."

And I was under the impression that you were a liberally minded lawyer who fought against such blatant and damaging official coverups and the misery and heartbreak that they caused.

Green from me Fred !

Fred M. wrote:Yes, I found it offensive because anyone with a shed of decency in them would find it offensive; more than offensive, in fact.

A maxim I learned in high school: Tough titty said the kitty, but the milk's still good.  What offends you is the strength of my style, not the content of the message.

That's the effect I wanted.  Sometimes you have shock someone into realizing that what they believe in, is unfortunately the equivalent of something they would detest.  People often hide from their harsh beliefs by soft-peddling their ideas.  Doing the converse wakes them up.

Lawyer speak again Quill, are you Black by the way ? Just asking !

nicko wrote:Lawyer speak again Quill,   are you Black by the way ? Just asking !

No, it's the way we manipulate language all the time.  When we like an idea, we frame it with pretty pictures: "Make America Great Again".  But when it comes to reality, it's a different picture:



See...there I did it again.  Even if the juxtaposition isn't so extreme, you get the polarity of the idea.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The illustration was merely to make a point.  Public sentiment can overcome jury verdicts, and even arrests.  We've been seeing for, oh, I guess, 400-years,

Nothing can be as offensive as that picture, to those guys hanging.

Yes, I found it offensive because anyone with a shed of decency in them would find it offensive; more than offensive, in fact.

But quite what corollary exists between the the murder and lynching of black people in the United States and my condemnation of Pakistani organised gangs who have been serially grooming, abusing and raping young British white girls escapes me.

Your position on this strikes me as being one of reverse racism at its most blatant: Because these men are primarily from an ethnicity, culture and religion that in some forms accepts the treatment of its own women as second class citizens and very young and vulnerable white girls in the UK in particular as being little better that whores because of their dress and social habits, and so available to be exploited for their own filthy perversions,  we must not only understand but tolerate their criminality and the devastating effects on young lives.

Because that, in a nutshell, is the position originally adopted by both social workers and senior local authority and police officials "in the interests of community relations."

And I was under the impression that you were a liberally minded lawyer who fought against such blatant and damaging official coverups and the misery and heartbreak that they caused.

Green from me also Fred

Quill, what do you think about the Pakistani grooming gang? Because that’s what we are all discussing.

Not hanging blacks.
Not kids in cages.

Quill, you're shucking and jiving and hopping and bopping but you won't dance your way out of this one.

Justice has nothing to do with making a false equivalency between the way some people are treated in one part of the world and the way other people are treated in a different part of the world.

Ben Reilly wrote:Quill, you're shucking and jiving and hopping and bopping but you won't dance your way out of this one.

Justice has nothing to do with making a false equivalency between the way some people are treated in one part of the world and the way other people are treated in a different part of the world.

Tell that to the wealthy and influential...then get back to me.

Till then, I'll play it my way. The classic example is right in front of you.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Quill, you're shucking and jiving and hopping and bopping but you won't dance your way out of this one.

Justice has nothing to do with making a false equivalency between the way some people are treated in one part of the world and the way other people are treated in a different part of the world.

Tell that to the wealthy and influential...then get back to me.

Till then, I'll play it my way.  The classic example is right in front of you.

And that has relevance to the topic of this thread, how?
None. That’s what.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tell that to the wealthy and influential...then get back to me.

Till then, I'll play it my way.  The classic example is right in front of you.

And that has relevance to the topic of this thread, how?
None. That’s what.

Equality before the law. Eds, you can't just make relevance go away by fiat. In law, issues and permutations of issues have a nasty way of coming up on their own, over and over.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tell that to the wealthy and influential...then get back to me.

Till then, I'll play it my way.  The classic example is right in front of you.

And that has relevance to the topic of this thread, how?
None. That’s what.

Equality before the law.  Eds, you can't just make relevance go away by fiat.  In law, issues and permutations of issues have a nasty way of coming up on their own, over and over.

And I say, unless you have really looked into this particular case, as many of us have, then perhaps you should reconsider your stance.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Equality before the law.  Eds, you can't just make relevance go away by fiat.  In law, issues and permutations of issues have a nasty way of coming up on their own, over and over.

And I say, unless you have really looked into this particular case, as many of us have, then perhaps you should reconsider your stance.

Nonsense, you don't need to get into a detail quagmire in order to recognize a pattern.

How do you think precedence takes shape?  Case #1 and case #2 are not the same in detail, but courts find like circumstances between two cases all the time.

The subject of a given case under the microscope is the underlying issue, not the factual minutiǽ.

3rd time of asking Quill, are you Black, yes or no please !

nicko wrote:3rd time of asking Quill, are you Black, yes or no please !

Already answered. Read above ^, and be filled with glee.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Equality before the law.  Eds, you can't just make relevance go away by fiat.  In law, issues and permutations of issues have a nasty way of coming up on their own, over and over.

And I say, unless you have really looked into this particular case, as many of us have, then perhaps you should reconsider your stance.

Nonsense, you don't need to get into a detail quagmire in order to recognize a pattern.

How do you think precedence takes shape?  Case #1 and case #2 are not the same in detail, but courts find like circumstances between two cases all the time.

The subject of a given case under the microscope is the underlying issue, not the factual minutiǽ.

Quill, I hereby give up. I’d say that a truly good judge doesn’t generalise the way you seem to and actually listens to evidence.

nicko wrote:3rd time of asking Quill, are you Black, yes or no please !

He's "third generation Scottish", whatever that is. He doesn't think that Scottish people can be black.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Equality before the law.  Eds, you can't just make relevance go away by fiat.  In law, issues and permutations of issues have a nasty way of coming up on their own, over and over.

And I say, unless you have really looked into this particular case, as many of us have, then perhaps you should reconsider your stance.

Nonsense, you don't need to get into a detail quagmire in order to recognize a pattern.

How do you think precedence takes shape?  Case #1 and case #2 are not the same in detail, but courts find like circumstances between two cases all the time.

The subject of a given case under the microscope is the underlying issue, not the factual minutiǽ.

In this case, the precedent is that numerous gangs have been accused of doing this all throughout northern England, and I've never heard a trial lawyer hand-wave away things like facts as a "detail quagmire" or "minutia." The facts matter quite a bit in criminal cases, do they not?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense, you don't need to get into a detail quagmire in order to recognize a pattern.

How do you think precedence takes shape? Case #1 and case #2 are not the same in detail, but courts find like circumstances between two cases all the time.

The subject of a given case under the microscope is the underlying issue, not the factual minutiǽ.

In this case, the precedent is that numerous gangs have been accused of doing this all throughout northern England, and I've never heard a trial lawyer hand-wave away things like facts as a "detail quagmire" or "minutia." The facts matter quite a bit in criminal cases, do they not?

I don't care about this case. I've elevated my discussion to issues of principle. If you believe that law is principled, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

I used the term "detail quagmire" to signal that I'm not now interested in this case, if I ever was. I don't know the facts, nor do you. Only the parties and lawyers involved know the facts. Further, you and I know only what trickles down to some reporter, who wants us to know only his slant.

To me this case is a platform for a scam that the wealthy and privileged play on the public every day. Anyone who wants to regurgitate the story fed to them by some reporter, is doing no better...I can assure.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense, you don't need to get into a detail quagmire in order to recognize a pattern.

How do you think precedence takes shape?  Case #1 and case #2 are not the same in detail, but courts find like circumstances between two cases all the time.

The subject of a given case under the microscope is the underlying issue, not the factual minutiǽ.

In this case, the precedent is that numerous gangs have been accused of doing this all throughout northern England, and I've never heard a trial lawyer hand-wave away things like facts as a "detail quagmire" or "minutia." The facts matter quite a bit in criminal cases, do they not?

I don't care about this case.  I've elevated my discussion to issues of principle.  If you believe that law is principled, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

I used the term "detail quagmire" to signal that I'm not now interested in this case, if I ever was.  I don't know the facts, nor do you.  Only the parties and lawyers involved know the facts.  Further, you and I know only what trickles down to some reporter, who wants us to know only his slant.

To me this case is a platform for a scam that the wealthy and privileged play on the public every day.  Anyone who wants to regurgitate the story fed to them by some reporter, is doing no better...I can assure.

Maybe you should start a new thread, then. This thread is about the Rochdale grooming gangs.

People who say they were raped deserve to have their allegations taken seriously ... even if the accused are Pakistani Muslims.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't care about this case.  I've elevated my discussion to issues of principle.  If you believe that law is principled, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

I used the term "detail quagmire" to signal that I'm not now interested in this case, if I ever was.  I don't know the facts, nor do you.  Only the parties and lawyers involved know the facts.  Further, you and I know only what trickles down to some reporter, who wants us to know only his slant.

To me this case is a platform for a scam that the wealthy and privileged play on the public every day.  Anyone who wants to regurgitate the story fed to them by some reporter, is doing no better...I can assure.

Maybe you should start a new thread, then. This thread is about the Rochdale grooming gangs.

People who say they were raped deserve to have their allegations taken seriously ... even if the accused are Pakistani Muslims.

One topic bleeds into another.  If you are going to stick to that rule strictly. we would have a bunch three post threads.

OP: Some guy raped a girl, somewhere.
1st respondent: Bastard.
2nd respondent: I hate that.
3rd respondent: Wow!
4th respondent: Did the police catch him?

(pause)

OP: If you want to talk about the police, start another thread!

Get my meaning, Ben?

Quill, you have totally avoided the topic on this thread and I do have to wonder whether you’d taken the same stance had it been WHITE MEN raping BLACK / ASIAN GIRLS.

Get my meaning, Quill?

eddie wrote:Quill, you have totally avoided the topic on this thread and I do have to wonder whether you’d taken the same stance had it been WHITE MEN raping BLACK / ASIAN GIRLS.

Get my meaning, Quill?

OK, I will willingly start my own thread when I have a comment to make.  I will call it “Quill’s response to: They were sentenced to deportation, but victims of the Rochdale grooming gang still see their attackers in public,” etc., etc.

If everyone does that, it will increase the thread count immensely.  Maybe forumotion will start paying.  It will make it hard to follow the dialogue, but it will stop the bleeding over into other subjects.

Quill is not White, and it shows !

nicko wrote:Quill is not White, and it shows !

Quill is not a lawyer, and it shows.

+1

Many of the men, when in court, said quite openly that it is permitted in Islam and that the girls were trash and there to be used.

The mens wives/sisters/mothers etc supported them and also said the girls were trash

According to ex police who have now felt safe in speaking said that all these cases, when brought to light, were only ever treated as singularities and were not seen as a ''pattern of behaviour'' even though they clearly were.


it is on record that Gordon Brown, when in office, emailed the head of police and specifically ordered them NOT to investigate any claims of rape or grooming or abuse from the Muslim community because - as far as he were concerned - these girls had made their own choices. (Some as young as 11, and extremely vulnerable)

we know that at least in once instance a father went to a house where he knew his daughter was being held and was arrested by police.

we know that at least in one instance the police turned up at one of these addresses and there were about 20 Muslim men there with one girl. the police arrested the young girl for being drunk.

we know of an instance where a young girl was in a car with a Muslim man and he told the police she was there of her own free will. she was too petrified to say anything and the police just fucked off

the girls families were threatened not only by the rapists but also by police.

we know that police and council authorities refused to act

we know it is in many many towns and cities up and down the uk

we know it is still happening

that is all

Good post Gels, and it is still happening,  it's also common knowledge that the majority of men who abused, raped, and in at least one case performed a do it yourself abortion in a filthy back room with a coat hanger  on a very young girl, are still free, in the same towns where the abuse was organised.
I live in the next town to two of the places where these gangs operated.
Local radio did extensive research into what was happening years ago. A few (and only a few for obvious reasons) Muslim women, who were related to some of the men charged, spoke openly of their disgust at what the men had done/were still doing.
How anyone can deny what was/is happening is not only ridiculous, it's dangerous, because thats EXACTLY how these animals got away with it for so bloody long in the first place.

+1