A statement from Tommy Robinson:
Suella Braverman broke the internet the other day and got me trending on Twitter (even though I’ve been banned from the platform again) after stating an all too obvious fact, one that I have been harassed and persecuted for, persecution from the police, the media, radical left wing activist hate groups, the judiciary, politicians, big tech and the British security services.
Suella said, and I quote:
“The grooming gang scandal is a stain on our country, local reviews in Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford exposed the systematic rape, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable young women and girls by organised gangs, almost all of them British – Pakistani men”.
Firstly, well done Suella for stating what has been obvious for at least all the time of my activism, so around 15 years roughly. Better late than never. Despite the scourge of ‘grooming gangs’ been known about for decades.
The English Defence League
During the time I led the English Defence league (from 2009), my supporters and I continually raised the issue of grooming gangs operating in towns and cities all across the United Kingdom. Our methods for raising awareness were criticised by everyone across the political spectrum, we were hounded, castigated, defamed, ridiculed and labelled as ‘far right racists’ and thugs by the media.
Desperate times called for desperate measures, and by bringing the matter of the grooming gang epidemic fully into the British public’s consciousness, we managed to do something nobody else was prepared to do. We forced politicians to actually start talking about this matter in Parliament; we forced mainstream media to report on it; we forced police forces across the country to start tackling street grooming; we forced the issue of independent inquiries; we shamed local councils and social services into taking action.
We set out to protect innocent children from sexual predators. I believe our hard fought activism went some way in providing that protection.
I’m sure I can speak on behalf of not just myself, but everyone who has supported me in this long battle, we took all the slurs, the defamation, the negative press, the political jabs, and the persecution that came with it, and we took it because it was the right thing to do, we never wavered in our fight.
Truth be told, you can see our activism made an impact. While we were slated by just about everyone, we started to see more and more investigations, more and more arrests, something that never happened before in the preceding forty years (at least not on the scale that it did).
So, my message to all you politicians out there who are now brave enough to talk about it and finally do something about it…
You’re welcome.
A slow process in recognising the problem.
Sajid Javid, a Conservative MP and home secretary back in 2018 attached the ‘highest priority to tackling child sexual exploitation’ on the back of what happened to Labour MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion, a brave woman who dared to say the UK “has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls”.
Ironic that it took a Labour MP to get the ball rolling and for him to consider dealing with these very real issues. But perhaps that was only because she received death threats. I’ve received many death threats, and so have many other activists who dared to speak about very obvious issues.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sajid-javid-pakistani-child-sex-abuse-grooming-gangs-rotherham-home-office-a8464191.html
Sajid Javid had one thing going for him though, he’s of Pakistani heritage, so when he called for an investigation into why members of sexual grooming gangs are disproportionately from a Pakistani background, he didn’t get quite as much pushback from mainstream media, certainly not as much as me, a white working-class lad from the Islamic terror town of Luton.
Maybe that’s because we live in an era where only brown skinned people can talk about brown skinned problems? It’s racial retardation, its political correctness gone mad, its madness that has now morphed into a woke embarrassment, where every issue is politicised and racialised, and only those from their ‘oppressed minority group’ can actually speak freely about it. Where only a brown skinned Pakistani Muslim can say there could be ‘cultural reasons’ for the epidemic of Pakistani grooming gangs.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sajid-javid-pakistan-culture-reasons-grooming-gangs-home-secretary-a8699391.html
Unfortunately, in this regressive system of political correctness, the predominantly poor vulnerable white girl victims and their families were not able to speak with the same frankness.
They were told “Shut up for the sake of diversity”, Labour MP Naz Shah absolutely agrees with this sentiment, although in retrospect, she claimed her retweet was merely an ‘accident’, a ‘mistake’, something she later deleted from her social media and corrected, but only after an outpouring of public condemnation, of course.
You can read more about that on the link below.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/labour-mp-shares-message-telling-rotherham-sex-abuse-victims-shut-sake-diversity-114807910.html
You know, Naz Shah once Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities; once Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion; now Minister for Crime Reduction, that Naz Shah. Someone handing out those roles had a sense of irony. That’s your plan for crime reduction? “Shut up for the sake of diversity”?
Anyway, after all of Sajid Javid’s very public calls for an investigation into the ethnicity of grooming gangs, his investigation drew the ire of Nazir Afzal, the prosecutor who brought the Rochdale grooming gang to justice. Nazir criticised him for ‘shelving research’ into the reasons why grooming gangs are mainly Muslim men of Pakistani heritage.
Nazir went public himself saying there was a ‘shocking’ lack of action into the claims of a massive overrepresentation of Pakistani Muslim men in a very specific type of child sexual exploitation.
So much for Sajid saying the abuse ‘disgraced his heritage’ eh?
Why was Sajid dragging his feet over this investigation he promised? Were deep state unelected bureaucrats, political hacks and civil servants in the home office quietly pushing back on him? Were they refusing to carry out an investigation? Are they just a bunch of useless woke wankers?
Probably.
Nazir Afzal’s criticism was made public nearly a year after this investigation was promised.
On the 24th of July 2019 Priti Patel was appointed as the new Home Secretary, the ever so long in the making grooming gang investigation promised by her predecessor now lay squarely at her feet. Sajid Javid could now wash his hands of this political inconvenience. So, what did Priti Patel say about this promised investigation?
Well, she ordered officials to ‘explain the status of the grooming gang review’
You can read more about that on the link below.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/grooming-gang-review-priti-patel-home-office_uk_5e3b21b1c5b6bb0ffc0a55ee
But that was only after her department (the Home Office) claimed releasing the findings were ‘not in the public interest’.
Let that sink in for a moment, consider the attitude of Priti Patels Home Office staff, it was not in the public interest to publish the findings on the characteristics of grooming gangs?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gang-rotherham-review-home-office-findings-a9344896.html
What an absolute disgrace. Some unelected, woke wanker (or wankers) decided the British public shouldn’t get to know about the characteristics or the ethnicity of perpetrators of street grooming, of child sexual exploitation.
These people don’t have the courage or moral clarity to know that hiding the true nature of the problem just stokes more anger.
The question is “Why hide the truth?”
This is now late February 2020, nearly two years after Sajid Javid promised a full investigation, one that was to be published for the British public to read and digest. At the time it stank of a cover up, it still does to be honest. The fact that Priti Patel had to order staff in her department to explain why the long-awaited review into the ethnicity of grooming gangs was not going to be published as promised by her predecessor should tell us something.
It also took the pressure of a government petition signed by over 126,000 people demanding answers they were promised back in 2018.
The Home Office appeared to capitulate to the pressure, Priti herself said:
“Victims of these sickening child sex abuse groups have told me how they were let down by the state in the name of political correctness.
What happened to these children remains one of the biggest stains on our country’s conscience. It is shameful. I am determined to deliver justice for victims and ensure something like this can never happen again.”
You can read more about that on the link below.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grooming-gang-report-government-uk-home-office-a9522326.html
Unsurprisingly Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham and Nazir Afzal welcomed the reports upcoming publication.
So where Sajid Javid had failed, out of fear or incompetence, Priti Patel wasn’t going to get pushed around by her woke, diseased civil servant department subordinates, at least it would seem. Well, there had to be some pushback on her for calling out this disgraceful cover up, so it should come as no surprise that by November 2020, Priti Patel was accused of ‘bullying civil servants’ in her department. An accusation that was largely ignored by then Prime Minister Boris (the buffoon) Johnson.
Priti Patel had become – justifiably in many instances – frustrated by the Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness. Well, what a shocker, perhaps that’s something indicative of the fragile woke wankers working in the Home Office? Maybe they have form for this kind of behaviour? Maybe they are politically correct, paralysed parasites, leeching off British taxpayers, doing little (if anything at all) to address real problems faced by the working class.
You can read more about that on the link below.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55015488
Definitions matter – politically correct white lies
Since Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his Home Secretary Suella Braverman ‘went public’ about an ‘overrepresentation’ of Pakistani men involved in grooming gangs (normally defined as ‘type 1 group’ street grooming offenders) who target mostly white, vulnerable, underage girls, the media went apoplectic.
The usual slurs of racism, bigotry, othering, racial profiling, institutional and systemic racism and much more went to print, in my estimation, in a desperate attempt to hide the truth. So, let’s talk about hiding the truth.
Back in June 2013 the CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection and a command of the National Crime Agency) published a report titled ‘Threat Assessment of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse).
You can find the CEOP website here – https://www.ceop.police.uk/safety-centre/
Here is the original link to their report published in 2013 – https://ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/CEOP_TACSEA2013_240613%20FINAL.pdf
Are you having trouble opening the original link to that report by any chance?
Luckily the internet doesn’t forget, you can find an archived link to the report here – https://web.archive.org/web/20130707004455/https://ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/CEOP_TACSEA2013_240613%20FINAL.pdf
Why is this relevant?
Well, for a start, why would such an important report now be inaccessible? The CEOP website is still alive using the same domain name. So, it must have been taken down, for reasons unknown, of course.
Channel 4 featured that link on their website too when they reported on it at the time. This was in the aftermath of Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham, resigning after writing an article in the Sun newspaper, this was after 17 men and one woman were found guilty of committing nearly 100 offences, including rape, against vulnerable women and girls in Newcastle.
Here are the names of those sex offenders:
Mohammed Azram, Jahanghir Zaman, Nashir Uddin, Saiful Islam, Mohammed Hassan Ali, Yasser Hussain, Abdul Sabe, Habibur Rahim, Badrul Hussain, Mohibur Rahman, Abdulhamid Minoyee, Monjour Choudhury, Prabhat Nelli, Eisa Mousavi, Taherul Alam, Nadeem Aslam, Redwan Siddquee, and finally Carolann Gallon (a white female).
You can find the Channel 4 link below.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/what-do-we-know-about-the-ethnicity-of-sexual-abuse-gangs
Anyway, back to the ‘vanished from the internet’ report from the CEOP, and why it is relevant. It is relevant because it actually broke down ‘group offenders’ into two separate, but very specific categories.
Type 1 sex offenders:
Type 1 group abuse involves targeting a victim, or victims, based on their vulnerability.
CEOP says: The focus here appears to be on the sexual abuse of teenagers and young adults on the basis of their vulnerability, rather than as a result of a specific preferential sexual interest in children.
CEOP assesses that type 1 offenders are unlikely to identify themselves as having a sexual interest in children, but molest children because they are vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
Type 2 sex offenders:
Type 2 group abusers are defined as having “a longstanding sexual interest in children”.
Type 2 groups operate in a way that’s often characterised as a paedophile “ring”. In other words, these offenders are not simply targeting children because they are vulnerable, but because they are children.
Here is where it gets interesting, remember Muslim grooming gangs are well known for preying on young vulnerable girls. In fact, the report makes it clear that:
Asian men make up 75 per cent of “Type 1” group abusers, who target children and young women because they are vulnerable.
But white men make up 100 per cent of recorded “Type 2” group abusers, who target children because of a longstanding paedophilic interest.
The report also mentions that:
Type 1 groups tend to be larger: the majority involve groups of four abusers, compared to Type 2 abusers, who tend to act in pairs. Looking at the report’s data, that means in terms of raw figures, there are more Asian men carrying out group abuse than white men (229 compared to 70).
Call me all the bigot names under the sun if you like, the facts are there, they were there in 2013.
The question is, are those facts in the most recent Home Office report published in December 2020?
Actually, they are, but they are buried underneath a pile of political correctness, linguistic gymnastics, and definitions that, I would argue, deliberately obscure the obvious.
I’m sure that’s all a coincidence.
A new definition – obscuring facts
After a wait of nearly three years, the Home Office finally published a report into their findings of ‘Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation – Characteristics of Offending’.
You can find that report on the link below.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/944206/Group-based_CSE_Paper.pdf
The report itself goes into a lot of detail ‘defining definitions’ that it uses. For the purposes of the specific issue I am talking about here, I’m going to delve into the definition of ‘what is a group’.
The reason being is that as per the CEOP report from 2013, it specifically lays out a clear definition of what a ‘type 1’ offender is, as well as what a ‘type 2’ offender is.
To briefly go over that again, as per their report:
‘Type 1’ group offender involves targeting a victim, or victims, based on their vulnerability. They molest children because they are vulnerable to sexual exploitation.
17% of recorded ‘type 1’ group offenders were white (compared to 86% of the UK population being white (at the time).
75% of recorded ‘type 1’ group offenders who target victims based on their vulnerability, were ‘Asian’.
‘Type 2’ group offenders were defined as having ‘a longstanding interest in children’.
‘Type 2’ group offenders operate in a way often characterised as ‘a paedophile ring’.
‘Type 2’ group offenders tend to act in pairs (a couple).
‘Type 1’ offenders tend to operate in larger groups (four or more).
Why is the distinction important?
Because the 2020 Home Office report actually conflates/merges both sets of group offenders, type 1 AND type 2.
In doing so, the Home Office report actually dilutes the statistical facts laid out in the 2013 CEOP report.
The 75% of recorded ‘type 1’ Asian group offenders, targeting victims primarily because of their vulnerability has now been absorbed and overtaken by ‘majority white offenders’, even though the two types of offenders are VERY different.
How can this be?
If you go to page 14 of the 2020 Home Office report (which goes into a lot of detail ‘redefining’ the parameters of the report), you will find this:
The Office of the Children’s Commissioner has distinguished groups and gangs as follows:
“Gangs are relatively durable, predominantly street-based social groups of children, young people and, not infrequently, young adults who see themselves, and are seen by others, as affiliates of a discrete, named group who (1) engage in a range of criminal activity and violence; (2) identify or lay claim to territory (3) have some form of identifying structural feature; and (4) are in conflict with similar groups. Groups are two or more people of any age, connected through formal or informal associations or networks, including, but not exclusive to, friendship groups.”
Paragraph 37 of the Home Office report clearly states it ‘adopts’ this definition from The Office of the Children’s Commissioner – to include what is commonly known and reported on in the media as a ‘grooming gang’.
The Home Office has shifted its focus away from ‘gangs’ to ‘group’ for reporting purposes. A ‘group’ is now clearly defined as ‘two people’. Which means it now mixes (deliberately in my opinion for the purposes of political correctness) type 1 and type 2 offenders.
In other words, two different offending types, one predominantly Asian, based on vulnerability, the other predominantly white, acting as a ‘pair’ (or a couple) as part of a ‘paedophile ring’.
I don’t want you to take my word for it, I ask each and everyone of you to go to the links I have provided and see for yourselves. Draw your own conclusions. Challenge me on this issue.
My conclusion
There are plenty more holes to pick in the politically correct, deliberately obscuring Home Office report. MEP Patrick O’Flynn produced a fantastic article calling out the reports shortcomings, as well as calling out the ‘virtuous’ left-wing media for their propaganda.
You can find his article in Spiked on the link below.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/04/03/the-shameless-dishonesty-over-grooming-gangs/
When I’m talking about left-wing media, I’m talking about the likes of the Guardian, (a newspaper sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) who ran with headlines such as:
Not even Suella Braverman’s own department agrees with her about ‘grooming gangs’
Link here – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/04/suella-braverman-grooming-gangs-child-seual-abuse-home-secretary-prejudice
And….
Most child sexual abuse gangs made up of white men, Home Office report says.
Link to that article below.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/15/child-sexual-abuse-gangs-white-men-home-office-report
The Guardian reports are, deceptive, disingenuous, misleading, and without any doubt, FAKE NEWS!!!
What should we expect from a Bill Gates sponsored ‘news outlet’?
When people go beyond reading headlines and actually take the time (as I do) to look at what’s behind the headline, more often than not, you can find an ideological bent, a subversion of the truth, and partisan political platitudes in the hope that you people, you children (because that how politicians and the media treat you, as children) don’t look beyond their manufactured narrative, beyond their ‘definitions’, beyond their partisanship, their sponsors, their financiers, their enslavement to an ideology with political correctness as its foundation.
We must be better.
We must call these peddlers of disinformation out every single time.
To quote a part of MEP Patrick O’Flynn’s article published in Spiked:
One section Braverman’s critics are fond of quoting says: ‘Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation offenders are most commonly white.’ This is based on an official data-collection exercise in 2011, which found of 2,300 possible CSE offenders, no basic information was held about 1,100 of them. Among the remaining 1,200 possible offenders, there was no ethnicity data for 38 per cent of them. Of the approximately 750 suspects about whom ethnicity data was recorded, 30 per cent were white and 28 per cent were Asian. So yes, most commonly white – just about.
But can you see the glaring anomaly here? Given that the Asian share of the UK population was about eight per cent in 2011, this finding points to an massive overrepresentation of between three- and four-fold. A second, smaller sample from 2013, which the 2020 Home Office report mentions in passing, found that out of 306 offenders, some 75 per cent were of Asian heritage. That’s an overrepresentation of almost 10-fold, although the Home Office mandarins who wrote the report somehow forgot to point this out.
I conclude this.
You have been lied to again and again, from shadowy, unelected, deep state bureaucrats and ‘public servants’ who never wanted this information published for public consumption.
The 2013 CEOP report highlights the massive over-representation of British Pakistani child rapists in these crimes of child sexual exploitation.
The 2020 report went to great lengths to ‘redefine terms’ to obscure the facts from you.
The latest media coverage is a deliberate attempt to cover up the massively disproportionate over-representation of British Pakistani child rapists in these crimes of child sexual exploitation.
The efforts to hide the truth from you will continue because to discuss the reality will cause you to ask questions about the catastrophic failure of their unilateral multicultural experiment.
Sajid Javid was probably glad to bail out of the fight – a coward; Priti Patel was nobbled by the Whitehall madarins – a casualty. The question for us all is will Suella Braverman be strong enough to actually make a difference?
Another question is….
Are you?
