Topic: Failures in Rotherham led to sexual abuse of 1,400 girls

[Pandora]

It’s the guys you trust who can betray you. The enemy will fight you, but you know that already.

... Betrayal was in the news again today, when Britain was rocked by allegations that the entire English town of Rotherham had for years been in the grip of an “Asian” gang which raped or kidnapped or abused some 1,400 mostly white underaged girls. The town authorities apparently knew as did the police, but they suppressed the facts out of the fear of being called ‘racist’ and more probably, the physical menaces of these ‘Asians’.

The ‘Asians’ were of course Pakistani Muslims, which is not to say that every apple in the barrel is bad, but nevertheless they were that sort of apple. The British public are momentarily outraged, but the Rotherham officials, including the official in charge of child welfare, aren’t too worried, aware they will be protected by the political system. Roger Stone, the head of Rotherham Council has in fact urged everyone to move on.

    No council officers in Rotherham will face disciplinary action, despite the resignation of its council leader, chief executive Martin Kimber has said, after a report found around 1,400 children were sexually exploited in the town over a 16-year period. Council leader Roger Stone said:

        I believe it is only right that I, as Leader, take responsibility on behalf of the Council for the historic failings that are described so clearly in the report and it is my intention to do so.

        I have always considered my most important job as Leader has been to share my passion for this borough and to work in the best interests of everyone here in Rotherham. I believe my decision to step down, though not an easy one for me to make, does exactly that, allowing a new chapter in the history of Rotherham Borough Council to begin.

And doubtless everyone will move on. There are too many horrors in the world for people to dwell on the fates of 1,400 low income girls from a little town. The reaction of the Pakistani Muslims is also predictable.  The Washington Post quotes Muhbeen Hussain, founder of  the British Muslim Youth as essentially saying ’it is your fault for not arresting us’.

    the reason the problem has gone on for so long isn’t about race, despite the authorities tiptoeing around the issue. What it is about, he argues, is a lack of accountability.  “Saying it’s about race is just an excuse for the failure of the local council. Are they not going to arrest a drug dealer because the Muslims may be upset? It’s ludicrous … as a Pakistani Muslim I don’t find anything within our religion to condone this.”

Doubtless there’s nothing in his religion that explicitly instructs it believers to act thus, but there’s something in the atmosphere. The BBC reports that investigators have only now just discovered “child sexual exploitation is happening in a ‘number of towns’ in different parts of the country”. Rotherham might just be the tip of the iceberg.

But Muhbeen Hussain is at least fighting his side, arguing his cause. Our problem, as Hussain notes, is that the Western elites have quit fighting theirs.  If the British authorities really wanted peace with the “Asians”, they should have as he suggests, arrested them.  Assent is consent, or may be perceived as such.

You may disagree with Hussein. You may hate what you think is his side. But at least he’s no traitor, not to his side at least. Not like those mealy mouthed politicians in Rotherham. As Daniel Hannan notes “interesting to see whether people in Rotherham keep voting for Labour councils. On the evidence so far, they will.” Because the arrangement is  the “Asians” will vote for Labour and in return Labour will let them practice their traditions unhindered under the color of diversity and tolerance. Expect Labour to dominate in Rotherham until the day the Democratic Party loses Detroit.

The role of radical Islam in Britain is as the proxy Brownshirt wing of the Left.  The Left knows that if it can terrorize a town into surrendering   — and indeed a nation — into surrendering their children with their proxy thugs, then the door is open to everything. Rotherham is not about racism. It is about fascism: about aspiring tyrants with impeccable double-barreled Anglo-Saxon names, wearing fashionable dress nightly luring a passive population into the chute of slavery with dulcet tones over national TV.

... The greatest safety for traitors lies in quite literally abolishing war.  For as long as ‘war’ does not legally exist they can never legally be traitors, not even if they abet the rape and abuse of 1,400 under age girls in a single British town, not even if they fight for ISIS.  The principal danger to the Left lies in matters getting out of hand. Should the boys go too far — should their proxies start a de facto war —  they will be de facto traitors, in which case all the bets are off.  One of the subliminal promises by Left is that the Jihadis will forbear from attacking them should they gain power. And the reason is simple. The Jihad benefits when the Left is in office.

[Glock32]

I can't even read this sh*t anymore, y'all.  It's the same story throughout Europe.  "Mohammed" is now the most common boys name in many European cities.  Women in Norway are dyeing their Nordic blonde to jet black to avoid being singled out by Muslim rape gangs.

There are days when I really feel I'm beginning to crack.  The problem, and the solution, are so painfully obvious but it's just not happening anywhere.  Who are we that we won't even protect our daughters from the depredations of invading barbarians?

[Pandora]

I hear you, Glock.  Some of the Rotherham fathers (when there were fathers present) did try to save their girls and they were arrested instead of the animals.

[Glock32]

From Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

TONY WOODLIEF: The Turned Back.

I will tell you something about courage and cowardice. I will speak primarily about men, because I am a man, and because the evil that grieves me was glimpsed by men, and these men turned away their eyes.

News accounts from England reveal that over 1,400 children in the borough of Rotherham were systematically brutalized over the past decade. The authors of this damning report indicate that the actual number is likely much higher. The report also details gang rapes of 11 year-olds. Children doused in gasoline and threatened with matches. A “grooming” process that entails addicting children to drugs. Children murdered, others missing.

Local police have known about this for over ten years. So have all manner of child welfare authorities and local government officials. They convened conferences to discuss it. They combatted it with guidelines and policies. They bravely met for many hours, and boldly authored internal memos.

Perhaps we should expect no more when community preservation is outsourced to bureaucracies, but the unavoidable reality is that on many occasions, Rotherham police came upon children being sexually exploited—in some cases, in the very instance of being raped—and arrested no one. The perpetrators are Pakistani; they might call us racists. The children seemed to consent. These gangs are violent.

All of which amount to an admission by those police officers that they are cowards, and something less than men. I’m reminded of the janitors who discovered Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky’s rape of children, and who said nothing, for fear of losing their jobs. They were cowards too, and deserve to be remembered as such.

Indeed. A moral response to this behavior might involve those officials, among others, hanging from lampposts. The legal system is, ultimately, an ancient bargain: Renounce your mob violence and blood feuds and we will provide you with justice. It could be argued that such a default as this calls the whole bargain into question, and justifies self-help along ancient lines.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/194085/


What other solution is there?  The whole notion of the social compact is disregarded in this, and in so many other things (border protection anyone?). If the State will no longer even pretend to provide real justice, then people will get justice in other ways available to them.  That's not a warning or a threat, that's just a recognition that water finds its own level. When it happens it will be completely legitimate, and those people who claimed a monopoly of force in exchange for providing justice will find themselves right alongside the actual perpetrators. I make no distinction between them.

[Pandora]

What other solution is there?

None.

The whole notion of the social compact is disregarded in this, and in so many other things (border protection anyone?). If the State will no longer even pretend to provide real justice, then people will get justice in other ways available to them.  That's not a warning or a threat, that's just a recognition that water finds its own level. When it happens it will be completely legitimate, and those people who claimed a monopoly of force in exchange for providing justice will find themselves right alongside the actual perpetrators. I make no distinction between them.

They've nullified themselves and their "monopoly".  The only "justice" they uphold now is arbitrary and self-serving, which negates our "need" for them and dissolves the deal.  Which, in essence, just repeats and reaffirms what you've written.

But, one more thing:  when the straighten-this-sh*t-out time arrives and they're declaiming we 'have no right' no take justice into our own hands, we'll remind them that justice always remains in our hands, we simply, for a time, lent them some of our authoritah.

And then we can put paid as well to this "driving is a privilege" bullspit.

[Libertas]

Sometimes being killed or imprisoned by fools is necessary to protect ones family and I for one would have no qualms dispatching these animals or anyone harboring or enabling them.  They'll all learn this soon enough, maybe not in Britain, but in enough places.