Wikipedia does it again

The Pakistani pimp grooming gang scandal in Northern England was actually just a moral panic on the part of white racists, according to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, that eternally trustworthy fount of neutral knowledge, headlines:

Grooming gang moral panic in the United Kingdom

You see, it wasn’t an industrial-scale scandal committed by men of South Asian migrant descent against adolescent English girls, it was a “moral panic” on the part of anybody was was concerned about it.

The Muslim grooming gang panic is a moral panic alleging that Asian (specifically South Asian, Pakistani and Muslim) men are sexually abusing young White girls in the United Kingdom. Right-wing and far-right activists, as well as more mainstream individuals, helped popularise the terminology in the 2010s.[1][2][3][4]

Public concerns about South Asian grooming gangs began after multiple high-profile child sex abuse scandals perpetrated primarily by South Asian men, including the Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal in late 2010, in which 1,400 girls as young as 11 were found to have been raped, trafficked, abducted, beaten, and intimidated by men predominantly of Pakistani heritage over a period of 15 years with limited prosecution.[5] It was later exacerbated by the Rochdale child sex abuse case and the Telford child sexual exploitation scandal.[6][3]

A report from the Home Office was unable to prove any link between sexual assault and South Asian ethnicity. White perpetrators, who make up the majority race in the UK, have been shown to be more represented in sexual assault and group-based sexual abuse crimes than any other ethnicity in the United Kingdom.[4][7][8] The report suggests there is likely no connection between ethnic groups and child sexual abuse.[9] Despite the lack of evidence, British media outlets have reinforced the stereotype by disproportionately reporting on South Asian group-based sexual assault crimes at the expense of other similar cases involving White abusers.[3]

Jonatan Pallessen explains:

So [the Home Office report] says that 75% of perpetrators were Asian! (In UK this term is used for their Indian and Pakistani populations.) This is out of a 4.4-6.9% share of the population in 2001-2011.

This means that not only is there a connection between ethnicity and grooming gangs, there is an extremely strong connection. So how did that turn into the claims in the newspaper articles and the Wikipedia page? They come from the Home Office report also describing two previous reports, which claim that the majority of group-based child exploitation were by committed by Whites. However, the Home Office report notes that the data from these two reports relate to a time period when many agencies were less familiar with grooming gangs, and "very little was recognised or recorded about this kind of offence or offender by police at the time." Furthermore the reports say that "Ethnicity and Nationality were sometimes confused. Unless a perpetrator had actually been arrested, it was difficult to be sure whether or not their ethnicity had been correctly identified." So we should clearly not have high confidence in the exact numbers from these reports.

Curiously, the two reports were both by the same first author, Sue Berelowitz. She is a former child protection deputy commissioner, who was let go after she failed to speak out about Pakistani grooming gangs.

So the newspapers skipped over where the Home Office report says that Asian grooming gangs are the majority, and instead focused on the Home Office report also mentioning these reports which were based on unreliable data, and were both made by a person who was fired for failing in exactly this case.

These statements were then taken from the newspapers and added to Wikipedia. And since the claim on Wikipedia now became that there is "likely no connection between ethnic groups and child sexual abuse", the Wikipedia article goes further and calls it a moral panic for people to talk about Pakistani grooming gangs.

I first wrote about the Pakistani pimp problem in northern England in 2013, after hearing about it for years. It sounded too awful to be true: surely, if it were as bad as all that, it couldn’t be that covered up. But, when I finally did the work, I discovered it really was atrocious and the British Establishment had been working assiduously to silence anyone distasteful enough to mention it.

Keep in mind, though, this wasn’t pedophilia in the classic sense: it was Pakistani-descended low-lifes pimping out underage but post-pubescent English working class girls to their pals and uncles on a mass scale. But the Nice People at the BBC and the like considered it racist and xenophobic to mention this pervasive sex abuse of adolescent English girls by Pakistanis, so The Establishment covered it up for decades.

Finally, a year later in 2014, the obscure English city of Rotherham (not the big Dutch port of Rotterdam) commissioned an Official Report on the pimp problem in Rotherham.

Reporters love Official Reports because they can’t get in trouble for quoting them. They don’t need to weigh evidence and determine what really happened. They just can quote.

So I am a big fan of the narrative value of Official Reports.

But because of the media emphasis on Rotherham, with its Official Report, the narrative-twisters were able to imply that, well, that’s just a peculiar problem in Rotherham.

Actually, by all evidence, it was a big problem everywhere in England where there were large Pakistani populations (especially, Pakistani Mipuris, whom other Pakistanis consider an embarrassment).

Ed West wrote in 2022:

I was there [Telford] earlier this month with a team making a documentary for GB News, led and presented by journalist Charlie Peters, on a phenomenon so horrific and so widespread one would hardly conceive of it. Here, in a town of 140,000 or so people, some 1,000 young girls were systematically raped and sexually abused by gangs of men over a number of years — and this figure has been described as ‘tame’ by a witness to a recent inquiry.

The perpetrators were mostly Pakistani men, the victims were overwhelmingly poor, white and English. The girls, as young as 11 or 12, were given drink and drugs, gang raped and passed around, and threatened if they told the police. Countless such testimonies were confirmed by the authorities, and investigations here reported quite extreme and unprintable forms of sexual abuse. In this town seven men went to jail, although five were given relatively short sentences and are most likely out again.

The strangest thing about this story is that this was happening in dozens of cities across England over the course of two decades before it became a national story. As many as 10,000 girls were raped in this way, and countless people in positions of authority, in children’s services and police, knew about it.

There is simply no crime or horror like this in modern English history, not even from the most grizzly period of the industrial revolution; Dickens couldn’t have conceived of anything so squalid or criminal. Yet it was happening across England, and in small towns like Telford a huge proportion of the community would have been in some way connected to someone affected.

All that was different about Rotherham was that the city officials had the moxie to stop covering up for the pimps and commission an official report.

And then the liars went back to work claiming The Science proves that it’s not a Pakistani problem, white men are just as bad. Of course, that’s not true, but numbers make most people’s brains tired, so nice people outsource their quantitative analysis to people who tell them what they want to hear: white men are Bad and immigrants are good.

In particular, Wikipedia has been increasingly corrupted by hate-filled obsessives: just look up, for starters, my entry or “Race and IQ."