The point is we simply dont know the extent of abuse, anywhere. The article is relevant to this thread because of 2 assumptions about asian abusers only going for white girls, and that asian girls arent as vulnerable. Their testimony is important in breaking some of these myths and exposing that it is the family unit, in all cultures, that is the main breeding ground for child abuse. The obsession with in which groups abuse is more likely to occur is quite baffling. The racialising of the discussion hasnt developed from correct interpretation of data, it is from politicians and media agenda pushing. Now people here are attempting to add legitimacy with f** packet analysis, while dismissing actual journalists.

So you prefer cherry picking the parts of the article that suits the conclusion you're trying to reach?

Ok.

You have clearly misread the article. It is a counter to claims about only white girls being targeted in these kinds of cases. That is all. It does not attempt any quantitative measure about under reporting, you cant possibly conclude there is proportionally more abuse by Asian men than white based on this article. What you can do is use it to refute some of the assumptions made earlier in the thread and be more open minded about who is at risk.

You really don't get it do you? It's not racist to suggest that a small group of truly evil men held racist motives for their attacks. I mean, we are talking about some of the most despicable men in society, who raped and tortured children, and you are somehow defending them by saying their crimes could not possibly have been racially motivated.

And this is exactly the point. it has been reported that many people in professions whose responsibility it is to protect the victims in this case turned a blind eye as they themselves did not want to be accused of racism.

Attitudes ITT confirm that anyone who suggests their might have been racial motives behind these cases is immediately attacked by some people as being a racist themselves.

If institutional political correctness did not protect the children in these cases, then the system has failed thousands of abused children in the same way institutional racism failed Stephen Lawrence and countless others.

wow this is seriously twisted. Show me where I defend rapists and child abusers please.
Your obsession with racial motivation does nothing to address the real issues about how the family unit/sexism/misogyny creates the conditions for abuse. Many of the victims in these cases were first victims of sexual abuse within their own families.
You are naïve if you don't think politicians manipulate these stories for their own ends but you are quite content with repeating propaganda here and dressing it up as fact.

Comparing 'institutionalised political correctness' (as you term it) with institutional racism has to be a sick joke. Thanks to PC, black people don't have to be content with being referred to as nig nogs, women don't have to put up with misogynistic comments etc etc. It is in fact a response to the kind of racist practices for example exposed by the Macpherson report post Stephen Lawrence, hence your insanity for conflating the two.
What the police did in these cases was what they usually do, fail to believe the victims, make stuff up, ignore evidence, protect their own.
POLITCAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD tho

Bear in mind we are talking about men who douse their victims in petrol and threaten to set them on fire:

Yet somehow, my suggestion that there might be a racial motivation behind their behaviour is somehow a "horrible statement".

Hopefully you don't have any direct involvement in this area, so you aren't. Your comments show you're perfectly willing to defend rapists and child abusers by being happy to dismiss proper statistical conclusions with untested hypotheses. You say we need to find the real cause behind child abuse, but you're clearly only willing to look at potential causes that fit with your own blinkered world view.

So now it's not that they just happen to be cab drivers that caused it? Interesting.

So you admit I didn't defend them.

re-read thread, have a coffee.

Ive already told you what causes child abuse in the vast majority of cases. This is backed up by a mountain of study. But go ahead and carry on talking crap, I'm done now.

You are, in your own words, "by proxy" defending them against accusations that their behaviour might have been racially motivated.

Yep, you are.

You're only seeing what you want to see and avoiding anything that challenges that narrative. The article points out that there are cultural differences which make asian victims even less likely to report abuse:

'The majority of the girls were unwilling to speak to the authorities, and none would bring charges against their abusers, said Gohir. "Blackmail was a key factor in these girls complying and not speaking out, and the shame and honour card was used time and time again'

'Girls were also worried about the consequences of speaking out or being forced into a marriage'

'women and victims from minorities are even more reluctant to report these crimes, in part because of honour and shame issues'

The report itself states that the overwhelming majority of abusers of Asian/ Muslim girls are from the same background and the victims have specific vulnerabilities associated with their culture which are exploited and constitute a barrier to disclosure and reporting.

'Our research shows that Asian offenders are more likely to target girls from their own communities. The intra-community model where the perpetrators and offenders are from the same ethnic background appears more common than the model promoted by the media where they are from different ethnic backgrounds'

So basically the article, and study, set out to show that Asian gangs/men aren't only targetting white girls however, as the report points out they are more likely to target girls in their own community then we can extrapolate something further and that is that under-reporting of abuse applies even more in cases where Asian men are the abusers.

To add to the above, from the CEOPC study 97% of victims were white and 24% of the abusers were Asian (this could be even higher as 32% were recorded as unknown). So if, as the Unheard Voices report claims, they are even more likely to be abusing people within their own community then it's clear that under-reporting disproportionally applies to Asian men.

Either you accept the report and it's conclusions, including the ones you seem to want to ignore, or you can ignore it and ALL it's conclusions. Trying to pick out something that you believe supports your position while ignoring those that are uncomfortable isn't really an option.

Just realised the figures from the CEOPC study I quoted refers to potential offenders grooming girls (at least 24% Asian men).
In terms of perpetrators it gives the figures as 545 were white, 415 were Asian and 244 were black. The ethnicity of 21% of perpetrators was not recorded.

.

Unbelievable.

Considering it's Naz Shah, it's completely believable.

Is that a genuine retweet? I seen it yesterday but dismissed it as fake.

Seems to be genuine.

The original tweet was from a parody account. Dunno if that's relevant

presumably she thought it was owen jones and just retweeted without actually reading it

(orig tweet was from an owen jones parody acct)

Is there anyway an MP could keep their job after retweeting that?

No doubt she will.

Considering this was only last year I would guess so

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...on-from-labour

Turkey has been a moderate country for decades, Bangladesh Pakistan and Afghanistan clearly are not. Unfortunately with what's happening in Turkey now there is a big danger of that country going backwards....the more Islam the more women are looked on as second class.

If that's her retweet it would be ridiculous if she's not sacked after her previous posts. I've seen ISIS supporters post less hate.

The one I posted she admitted and apologised for so it's definitely her.