The Following is what the Guardian took down off its website:
girigirihanasu 27 Aug 2014 11:49 The Guardian and the PC establishment is complicit in creating the climate of PC fear which, it seems, was the reason these monsters weren't stopped earlier.
I used to live in High Wycombe. I bought a house on the edge of large Pakistani area, 100 yards from a mosque. The house was on a street that was almost 100% non-Pakistani. Regularly on a Sunday night, gangs of Pakistani children would run down our street throwing eggs at windows and daubing graffiti (mostly obscene, sometimes along the lines of 'kuffars') on doors. My neighbours and I grew fed up with this, so we went to see the local Imam. He apologised profusely and the 'raids' ceased immediately. All well and good... except when I related the story to some of my Guardian-wielding accusers they accused me of being a racist. "How do you know they were Pakistani? What does it matter?" etc etc. I was made to feel like some sort of Nazi thug, even though I had happily bought a house in a Muslim area whereas my Guardian reading friends lived in leafy, all-white suburbs. And not only that, I had made the local Imam a personal friend. It made me very sensitive to the PC though police and how it was controlling our society. After that it was very easy to spot PC thought police at work.
The 'Asian sex grooming' gangs story broke a few years ago, but of course it was only papers such as the Daily Mail that gave it any sort of realistic coverage. The word amongst the leafy suburb-dwelling PC brigade was that it was along the lines of "of course the DM would print that sort of rubbish" and anyone who thought the story was true, or that it pointed to an underlying problem of greater proportions, was accused of being an islamophobe or a nasty waycist.
This is the climate under which the Rotherham social services probably worked. Decent staff in fear of their jobs, and PC staff protecting their PC credentials. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more precious to the politically correct than their PC credentials. They will turn a blind eye to abuse, rape even... it took a murder for them to reluctantly stir themselves into some sort of action.
By showering all and sundry with ridiculous accusations of racism, bigotry and (ludicrously) 'islamophobia' , the 'elite' (=comfortable leafy suburb-dwelling condescending self-righteous pompous pillocks) have created a climate in which it was easy for these thugs to commit their crimes.
About 1,400 children were sexually exploited in a northern England town, a report concluded in a damning account of failures by authorities to prevent victims as young as 11 from being beaten, raped and trafficked...
Q: When is the sexual abuse of children culturally, socially and politically acceptable?
A: When it's committed with industrial efficiency by organised gangs of mainly Pakistani men in English Northern towns like Burnley, Oldham and Rotherham, of course.
But obviously you're not allowed to admit this or you might sound racist. That's why, for example, in today's BBC report into the fact that at least 1400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual abuse in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, you have to wade 20 paragraphs in before finally you discover the ethnic identity of the perpetrators.
And even then, the embarrassing fact slips out only with the most blushing mealy-mouthedness:
By far the majority of perpetrators of abuse were described as "Asian" by victims.
Well hang on, a second. What this phrase seems to be hinting at is the possibility that the men involved weren't "Asian" (note to US readers: Asian is UK PC-speak for Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, not orientals) but that the victims mistakenly took them to be so. Is that actually the case or not?
Let's have a look at the names of the Rotherham men found guilty by Sheffield Crown Court in 2010 of raping or sexually abusing girls as young as 12 shall we. Maybe that'll help.
Nope. Absolutely no clues there, then...
Still, let's suppose for a moment that the names of the gang members had been, say, John Smith, Barry Thorpe, Arthur Ramsbotham and Quentin Fforbes-Smythe. Are we seriously to believe that they would have been permitted to spend over a decade grooming, trafficking, drugging and raping young girls without arousing the concern of Rotherham Council's extensive social services department or the attentions of the local police?
I doubt it, somehow. It's not as if we're talking here about sporadic instances of carefully concealed abuse which anyone could be forgiven for not having noticed. We're talking about flagrant sexual abuse on an epic scale. Here is what today's independent Inquiry has to say:
In just over a third of cases, children affected by sexual exploitation were previously known to services because of child protection and neglect. It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.
This abuse is not confined to the past but continues to this day. In May 2014, the caseload of the specialist child sexual exploitation team was 51. More CSE cases were held by other children's social care teams. There were 16 looked after children who were identified by children’s social care as being at serious risk of sexual exploitation or having been sexually exploited. In 2013, the Police received 157 reports concerning child sexual exploitation in the Borough.
Over the first twelve years covered by this Inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant. From the beginning, there was growing evidence that child sexual exploitation was a serious problem in Rotherham. This came from those working in residential care and from youth workers who knew the young people well.
Within social care, the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers. At an operational level, the Police gave no priority to CSE, regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime. Further stark evidence came in 2002, 2003 and 2006 with three reports known to the Police and the Council, which could not have been clearer in their description of the situation in Rotherham. The first of these reports was effectively suppressed because some senior officers disbelieved the data it contained. This had led to suggestions of cover- up. The other two reports set out the links between child sexual exploitation and drugs, guns and criminality in the Borough. These reports were ignored and no action was taken to deal with the issues that were identified in them.
The local authorities, in other words, knew exactly what was going on. Yet still they did nothing. Why?
Well we've already answered that, pretty much. It's because the kind of politically correct, left-leaning and basically rather thick people that local authorities like Rotherham Council tend to have working for them are so paralysed by modish concerns about cultural sensitivity that they have made an obscene judgement call: better to allow at least 1400 kids to be hideously abused than to be thought guilty of the far greater crimes of being thought a bit racist or accidentally offending someone.
(And this isn't an incident confined to Rotherham by the way. The same thing happened recently in Oxford, again involving men with decidedly un-Anglo-Saxon names, again over a long period of time because all the relevant authorities were scared of sounding the alarm in case they came across as racist)
Yep, these people really are that thick and warped. They've had it drilled into them - probably on courses like this one, organised by Common Purpose - that they must celebrate "diversity" at every opportunity. And if that means letting a few Pakistani men rape kids, douse them with petrol and threaten them with guns, well who are we to judge? Quite possibly it's one of those vital cultural differences that we'll be trained better to understand when we attend our next Common Purpose course with some title like Embracing The Other: Leadership Strategies For Multicultural Community Development. Till then, let's not be quick to cast the first stone, eh? After all, there may be aspects of ourculture that they find equally alien and troubling. The rule of law say; respect for women; children's rights; trendy Western liberal crap like that...