Last week the wickedly delayed and secreted and, thus, widely written-off Home Office report Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation – Characteristics of Offending finally saw the light of day, albeit only after FoI requests from the media and much in-fighting between Home Secretary Priti Patel and her recalcitrant civil servants.  It literally whitewashed the paedophile rape and prostituton of white girls, and some Sikh and black girls too.  It’s white men, it said.  “No credible evidence for a far-right stereotype that has spread widely in the media”, the Guardian said.

Generally honest assessments are available at the Speccie, written by the doughty Patrick O’Flynn:

Digging into the report’s section on the ethnicity of offenders one learns that an official data collection exercise in 2011 involving police forces and other agencies found that of 2,300 possible offenders there was no basic information held about 1,100. Among the remaining 1,200, ethnicity data was not known for 38 per cent. Of the remaining suspects – approximately 750 by my arithmetic – ‘30 per cent of offenders were White, while 28 per cent were Asian’. This presumably is the finding used to justify ‘most commonly White’ – but which seems to miss the obvious point that the white population of England and Wales is around 80 per cent overall.

A second smaller study from 2013 mentioned in the report found that of 306 offenders looked at, 75 per cent were Asian, which actually amounts to a ten-fold over-representation, though the report does not point this out.

Instead, it trots out irrelevances to lead itself away from the veritable elephant in the room. At one point it cites information from police forces suggesting that ‘the nationalities and ethnicities of offenders and suspects… varied considerably, including American, Angolan, Bangladeshi, Bengal, British…’ (etc. ad infinitum). Yet has anyone ever suggested that there are nationalities completely immune to taking part in group CSE? Not to my knowledge.

... and at Spiked!, written by someone named Rakib Ehsan:

If the (woeful) defence for inaction is that by intervening in cases where white girls were being abused by groups of Pakistani-origin men, there is a risk of upsetting race relations, then is it not plausible that the police and city council would have been more comfortable with making robust interventions if the majority of both victims and suspected offenders share the same ethnic background?

... and at the Daily Mail, written by Labour Party animal and obsessive anti-racist but (for professional purposes, you understand) right-wing journo Dan Hodges.  He is claiming to have the inside story:

One other key area – the one Ms Patel was careful to highlight in her foreword – was the lack of hard data on the ethnicity of offenders. It was an issue Home Office aides kept using as a rationale for not drawing a clearer link to the predominance of Asian offenders found in countless high-profile grooming cases. But as one official explained: ‘They were right, there wasn’t any hard data. But that was because people didn’t want to record it or look for it because they knew exactly what they would find.’

... It’s more than 20 years since the authorities were first alerted to the pattern of systemic abuse of children in Rochdale. And there has still not been any official national recognition of the horrors inflicted by Asian grooming gangs.

Nor is this simply about providing closure for the victims, important though that is. Because the abuse is still happening today.

As one former victim, Sammy Woodhouse, told me: ‘I want justice. As a survivor I want to keep the pressure on to put this right. If we understand who’s doing this we can prevent and tackle it. But the report doesn’t do that. It’s pointless.’

There’s a reason. Windrush. Grenfell. Footballers taking a knee. The impact of Covid on black and ethnic communities. The British people are consistently told to view issues through the prism of race. Save for one. When it comes to the systemic mass child abuse, they are instructed to turn a blind eye. To do so, the Home Office says, is in the public interest.

The Home Office is wrong. It is not in the public interest to continue to cover up of one of the darkest chapters in our nation’s history.

It isn’t as if the public are not now fully aware of the activity of Muslim paedophile prostitution gangs, many of them formerly engaged in the more risky drug trade.  Since the early efforts of, first, the BNP and of Ann Cryer and Channel 4 Dispatches and then, several years later, of Andrew Norfolk and The Times, to drag the matter into the light, journalistic investigations have been frequent.  For example, in 2017 the Sunday Mirror launched an investigation into the situation in just one town, Telford, finding that:

Britain’s ‘worst ever’ child grooming scandal exposed: Hundreds of young girls raped, beaten, sold for sex and some even KILLED

Authorities failed to act over 40 years - despite repeated warnings to social workers - with up to 1,000 girls, some as young as 11, abused in Telford

... Girls as young as 11 have been lured from their families to be drugged, beaten and raped in an epidemic that, say victims, is still ongoing.

THREE people were murdered and two others died in tragedies linked to the scandal.

The Mirror’s 18-month investigation reveals abuse on unprecedented levels. We found:

# Social workers knew of abuse in the 1990s but police took a decade to launch a probe

# Council staff viewed abused and trafficked children as “prostitutes” instead of victims, according to previously unseen files

# Authorities failed to keep details of abusers from Asian communities for fear of “racism”

# Police failed to investigate one recent case five times until an MP intervened

# One victim said cops tried to stop her finding out why her abusers had not been prosecuted because they feared she would talk to us.

So we come to the Guardian’s response to the report.  Last week an initial news report appeared which, overall, was fairly balanced.  But then on Saturday we were treated to a classically wrong-headed, bitter opinion piece written by a Muslim kind-of academic named Waqas Tuffail (a Pakistani male name) and a feminist anti-racist white woman, Ella Cockbain.  It concluded that:

The common denominator is not immigration, race, culture or Islam. Child sexual abuse is the product of a complex interplay of patriarchy, power, exploitation, opportunity and disregard for children.

This week marks a watershed moment in a decade of discussion of “grooming gangs”: a much-anticipated Home Office report has concluded that there is no credible evidence that any one ethnic group is over-represented in cases of child sexual exploitation.

For many in Britain today the term “grooming gang” immediately suggests Pakistani-heritage Muslim men abusing white girls, but the Home Office researchers now tell us that “research has found that group-based offenders are most commonly White”.

A powerful modern racial myth has been exploded. What started as a far-right trope had migrated into the mainstream, meeting little resistance along the way. In 2011, the Times and its chief investigative reporter, Andrew Norfolk, claimed to have uncovered a new ethnic crime threat, shrouded until then in a supposed “conspiracy of silence”.

... The claims that “grooming gangs” were not properly investigated due to “political correctness” and a fear of being accused of racism are heavily undermined by decades of research highlighting the consistent over-policing of minority communities.

The Muslim bloke’s page at the site for something called “Leeds Beckett University” informs us that:

I am currently a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Leeds Beckett University in the School of Social Sciences. In this role I am pursuing my research interests concerning ‘race’ and anti-racism, the policing of marginalised communities and the criminalisation of Muslim minorities.

So it is clear where he is coming from.  But Miss Cockbain - rather a pretty thing, btw - and her not at all pretty need to save the Muslim colonies in our home from uncomfortable facts remain a psychological enigma.  Her home page at UCL reveals that:

Dr Ella Cockbain is an Associate Professor in the Department of Security and Crime Science at University College London (UCL) and a visiting research fellow at Leiden University in the Netherlands. Her research focuses in particular on human trafficking, child sexual exploitation and labour exploitation. Ella is interested in rigorous, outcome-oriented research and nuanced, evidence-informed responses to complex issues.

Well, in her desire to prove that “the far right” are wrong about everything and white men are the real offenders, she probably isn’t too interested in asking how many clients these girls had in the wider Muslim colonies.  We saw from Jay and from some of the trials that it was not unknown for upwards of a hundred local men to be using a single girl.  Andrew Norfolk spoke of a girl trafficked from Essex to Rotherham and, on her first night, forced to “entertain” fifty men.  They were queuing on the stairs of the house where she had been taken.  These gangs are businesses, after all.  The going rate for a white child can be three, four, five times what an adult prostitute will charge.

Every one of those men ... everyone who ever used one of these girls ... is an abuser.  What does that mean for the crime figures?  What does it mean for the perception of Muslim male morality?  How can Miss Cockbain proffer an opinion on the matter at all if she does not know the extent of such abuse in the general Muslim male population?

Of course, the real question is: why does she have this pathological need to find Muslim men innocent and white men guilty?  How many white men are grooming, trafficking and prostituting girls on the streets of Britain’s towns and cities such that they may have fifty or a hundred regular clients?  And what, anyway, does she mean by white?  There are thousands upon thousands of white male criminals come into our home to ply their trade.  They are not us.  Would she care to discipline her usage more rigorously and assort the data accordingly?  Unlikely, one would think.  It might make it too hard to poke a politicised finger in the native British male eye.

Further, by her unnatural, scheming apologetics what service does she think she is providing to the scores of thousands of women and girls who have fallen victim to these gangs over the last four decades?  She affects to care for such women, and has devoted her academic work to studying the phenomenon of international trafficking.  But by her disdain for the racial truth she disdains every one of them.

There is something inside the head of the academic left, and of the political left which it feeds with ideas.  It is a politically acquired but morally applied sickness, an obsessive, pointblank presumption against the moral standing and natural right of their own people.  There is probably no cure.  The sickness has disfigured the minds of all these creatures too deeply - and, thereby, rendered them forever beneath our contempt.  But, anyway, how might we account for this deeply unattractive, indeed offensive political and personal phenomenon, marked as it is by racial self-contempt, the implacable rejection of the natural in us, the obsessive moral inflation which abides in the preening claims to personal “openness” and “tolerance”, the joy of destruction, the compulsive need to punish and punish again until nothing of our energy for life remains.

Of all this ... of everything about this weird, insatiable appetite for doing harm ... it is not the bare-faced aggression or the insufferably self-regarding conceit which most offends.  No, it is the ocean-deep hypocrisy which slops around these damaged minds.  Somewhere in their heads they know they are racist filth – they must.  For example, the MPs who thought prior to Rochdale and Rotherham, and probably still think today, that the fear and suffering of thousands of white children prostituted to non-whites every year don’t matter to them ... just don’t register because all that really counts in their immoral universe is the war on “racism” … those people are racist hypocrites of the first order.  They cannot be unaware of their own grotesque dual standard.  But the satisfaction to their egos of projecting racism upon us is just too needed and too great to pass up.

Psychologically, that satisfaction constitutes a reward experienced after freudian projection.  It has an onanistic quality to it.  It also rewards the (always only temporary) resolution of their hypocritical dual standard.  To a large extent, projection is a mechanical consequence of that dual standard.  For, dual standards cannot reside among self-aware people.  Because it is mechanical we are bound to think about our opponents not as free agents but as identically formed psychological widgets popping out of some metal hopper, probably located in a humanities department near you.  Are we really only dealing here with the postmodern liberal-left psychology … a power mania of the second son, overturning everything that is, while explaining its naked bigotry and intolerance as the polar opposite?  The elder brother must, at all consequences, be slain at last (ie, “the right” must have its nose “rubbed in diversity”)?

In fact, all left-liberals themselves explain and excuse their hostilities as a function of liberalism’s breaking of the bounds.  By this reading it is “fully human” to be “open” and “welcoming” to novelty, even to the point where all morality relativises except the cause of one’s own people’s life, which is “hate”.  But even that doesn’t explain the huge negative energy displayed towards those who are not at the same cutting edge of liberalism’s human project.  If, after all, these wonderfully adventurous paragons of the liberal virtues were really what they say they are, would they not turn and look upon the face of those struggling behind with brotherly compassion?  But their face betrays not compassion but a desultory hatred of what is, and a hatred, ultimately of all that is of the self which is not made by their puerile rebellion.

It is why the left is so committed to the ideology of anti-Nature which it finds in the (almost exclusively Jewish-authored) radical equalitarian philosophies of the 19th and 20th centuries.  This is what the great personality-producing machine of Christianity and the collapse of Christianity, modernity, urbanism, materialism, liberalism, hyper-individualism and hyper-equalitarianism, internationalism, multiracialism, et al manufactures in our time.  For all of these are hugely reductive of the human estate.

Perhaps, then, it is enough to answer the original question - how can we account for this deeply unattractive, indeed offensive political and personal phenomenon? – in the most simple way: because the joy in destruction is enough for destructive human beings, and what comes after … all the manifest ideological goals … is only an excuse, was only ever an excuse.  Mental pathology does not profess humane goals after all, which should surprise no one.