Tuesday, 26 August 2014

Spot The Asian

Keith Joseph, Rhodes Boyson, Michael Havers, Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Laurens van der Post, Cyril Smith, Peter Righton, Peter Morrison, or their dear friend, protectress, and in Joseph's case even protégée, Margaret Thatcher.

I'll give you a clue. It's a trick question.

Most of the victims in Rotherham were not Asian, either. If the view of the social workers was that it was culturally normal and acceptable for them to be engaging in "consensual" sex from the age of 11, then that was not because these children's culture was Asian, or Muslim, or what have you. It was not. Today's report makes it clear that it would have been culturally impossible for any more than a handful of Asian or Muslim girls to have been victimised in this way.

Regular readers of this site, and readers of the more recent of my books to date, will have known for some years that it was long routine, not least in the Thatcher period, for training in such professions to include induction into the view that at least post-pubescent childhood sexual activity with adults was normal, natural, and beneficial to both or all parties.

The 1970s Radical Right was as keen on the abolition of the age of consent as it was on the repeal of the drug laws, among other legislation for public protection such as rent controls, or the rights of trade unions, or the pre-1986 restrictions on the City of London, or the powers of local government, or the public ownership of key amenities.

Or, indeed, the immigration controls to all of which Boris Johnson is so opposed, and which used to be exercised by the requirement of a union card for employment.

That hostility was all of a piece. It still is. Now as then, nothing can justify any part of it that cannot logically justify and require any and all of the others.


  1. The majority of the perpetrators were Asian you retard.

    Not the victims.

    1. Exactly.

      I have a feeling that Peter Hitchens will put you right on Sunday. The problem is that no one is protecting white girls. That is not the fault of Asians or Muslims, or at least not as such.

      According to white middle-class social workers, it was perfectly normal for poor white girls from puberty upwards to be having sex with adults.

      They must have been watching Shameless or something. Or writing it.

      If the problem had been Asian or Muslim culture, then the victims would also have been Asian or Muslim, or else the crimes themselves simply could not have occurred.

      The victims weren't, the crimes did, and the problem isn't.

  2. Correction the social workers were not middle class although they may have had pretensions. Youth workers were giving out condoms to 13 year olds at the time. It was the perceived culture in Rotherham

    1. And everywhere else. But not to Asian girls, they weren't.

      Everyone has paedophiles. But these ones knew that they stood no chance in their own community.

      Therefore, they turned to and on the white community. They knew that it would let them. It did.

  3. This is of course the same council that wouldn't allow a couple to adopt children because they were UKIP members.

    Politics clearly trumps child protection in every way up in that Leftwing hellhole.

    The Muslim gangs were allowed to do it (as with the homosexual paedophile ring in that another hardcore leftist council Islington) because wet politically correct scum prioritised the sensibilities of " minority groups" over the welfare of children.

    The Labour council leader may have resigned (albeit 1400 children too late) but not one of those Leftwing social workers has even lost so much as a pay grade. That's public sector accountability for you!

    Covering up child abuse isn't enough to get a social worker sacked. But being a member of UKIP is beyond the pale.

    Those liberal leftist filth should be put in the sea.

  4. This pattern of Loony Left councils covering up child abuse so as not to offend "minorities" reminds me of when the Daily Express were accused of being " homophobic" for first exposing the Islington scandal.

    Now in 21st century Rotherham Social Services, being a child rapist ( from a " minority") is not sufficient reason to take any action, but being a member of UKIP is enough to warrant immediate removal of your children.

    These Loony Left councils should be put out with the rest of the rubbish, and replaced with normal British people.

    1. Well, that rules you out, for a start.

  5. Just noticed David Lindsay actually wrote;

    "If the problem had been Asian or Muslim culture the victims would have been Asian or Muslim".

    The most monumentally stupid statement I've ever read.

    They target white girls precisely because Muslim culture teaches them to have less respect for those who don't share their faith-or their women's choice of attire.

    Anybody but a halfwit knows that.

    The files on these cases are replete with the term " kuffar bitches" and "white slags".

    Are you really thick enough to have made that earlier statement?

    1. They target white girls because they can. White adults will let them. Asian adults won't let them target Asian girls.

  6. From what I understand the children being targeted in both the Rotherham and Islington cases were in children's homes. The councils in both case had a duty of care to provide a safe environment for them in which they failed. Indeed worse it appeared that "community cohesion" trumped child abuse in social workers minds. If there is to be any justice for these girls the social workers (along with council and police officers) who decided that being raped and beaten by mainly Pakistani, but all Muslim men was consensual sex (unilaterally ignoring that the age of consent is 16) should be in the dock as accessories to the abuse of minors. Note the treatment of the idiotic Jeremy Forest I bet the very same apologist for these Muslim abusers were howling for his blood!

    1. No, the men were opportunists. That these girls were available was an internal white class thing.

    2. Sorry David I still disagree. It does appear that when parents and victims did try to intervene or go to the police they were told to go away or threatened with prosecution. We have all seen how even the most mischievous allegations of abuse made against white men have been taken seriously by the authorities. The only reason why these appalling events were actively ignored in Rotherham and Oxford was down to fears about "community cohesion" which is race. As a liberal I do find this an uncomfortable conclusion but it is the only common factor in all these particular cases.

  7. Does anyone really believe the 1400 victims statistic.

    Who are these victims? What are their names?

    1. I believe it.

      Of course we are never going to get their names.