I know we tackled this yesterday and it got quite a response but I think this post by B-BBC contributor Alan adds to the debate…

“Listened to Any Questions in astonishment…..they nearly all refused to engage with the real issue…not that girls were raped but how they were selected…..which is why the attacks went on for so long originally.

Raping girls in short skirts….“So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?”

Listened to Any Questions with mounting distaste and disgust….the issue of culture and religion in relation to Rochdale was not just ducked but actively swept aside and covered up. This was the problem originally which allowed these crimes to continue unchecked for so long and for so many victims to be attacked.

‘Professional Black’ Henry Bonsu excuses the rapes……the girls were easy …they were ‘pre groomed by society’ which is ….‘why girls give themselves away so cheaply.’

No Henry, they didn’t give themselves away, they were taken and raped, sometimes up to 20 times a day by gangs of men.

Henry was sacked by the BBC for being ‘too intellectual’ and he claims that : ‘I won’t go gently into that good night – the desire for a talk radio station specialising in black issues is very strong. Since my show was axed, I’ve had e-mails from doctors and lawyers, all asking what they can do to help.’  So he not only wants to discuss ‘Black issues’ but wants a radio network on the BBC just for that.

And yet he doesn’t want to talk about Asian, or rather, Muslim issues which might affect the wider community.

If you have a teenage daughter might you not be interested to know the norms and standards of behaviour and beliefs that drive another community that you live nearby? Wouldn’t you want to know what they think about your daughter and how they can behaviour towards her and treat her?

And what does Islam tell us about other cultures? What might that Muslim community be thinking in its heart of hearts?

‘If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.’
So said Muslim Imam Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali in Australia who alluded to gang rapes in Sydney suggesting the attackers (Muslim) were not entirely to blame.
While not specifically referring to the attacks on four women, for which a group of young Lebanese men received long jail sentences, Sheik Hilali said there were women who “sway suggestively” and wore make up and immodest dress … “and then you get a judge without mercy and he gives you 65 years… but the problem all began with who?”

The BBC were quick to go to the ‘moderate’ Muslim Council of Britain to reassure us about Rochdale and of course they did….no need to be scared of Muslims…because if you’re raped it’s possibly your own fault…you are to blame….which is essentially what the representative suggested.

Which is not too different to a more candid approach taken by the MCB about the Australian Imam:

Abduljalil Sajid, (Times £) a senior figure in the Muslim Council of Britain, offered support for Sheikh Taj Din al-Hilali’s views, saying that “loose women like prostitutes” encouraged men to be immoral. Dr Sajid, visiting Australia, said that Sheikh al-Hilali was attacking immodesty and loose dress, or “standing in the streets, inviting men to do these bad acts”.  Referring to the thrust of the Sheikh’s argument, he said: “So what is wrong in it? Who will object to that?”
After meeting him yesterday, Dr Sajid said: As far as I am concerned he is a great scholar and he has a great knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence.

Funny how much these ‘extremist’ scholars are held in such high esteem by the ‘moderate’ community.

Qaradawi is a case in point…..supporter of executing gay people (and Iran has apparently done so to 4000 gays …’according to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4,000 gay men and lesbians have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979.’) , beating women and suicide bombers.  A much respected scholar!

But don’t mention any of that…it might stoke or inflame racial/community tensions!

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Guest Who says:

    Just on a twittersurf but felt the need to bail as MSM now obsesses in fine detail about perversions of justice, whilst studiously tip-toeing around/excusing the physical kind with kids.


  2. Mice Height says:

    It seems that the majority of gang rapes are carried out by black gangs, usually on black girls.
    It seem that the majority of online grooming is carried out by whites, usually on white girls.
    It seems that the majority of on-street grooming is carried out by Muslims, never on Muslim girls.


    • Fred Bloggs says:

      Each offence has to be tested on it’s own merits to see if it is racist. The Asia ones are because Asian girls where much more available but not targeted.

      It is also clear that the political establishment for the past 15 years have been trying to keep it quiet for obvious reasons. They never learn, just like NI , that conspiracies unravel at some point.


      • Mice Height says:

        This is the CPS and Police’s obligation in law following on from the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998:

        Prosecutors must adopt a proactive approach to seeking further information from the police to help them to decide if a case may properly be prosecuted as a racially or religiously aggravated offence, or as one of the offences with a racial or religious element, or if there is evidence that should be presented to the court at sentence.

        Prosecutors have a duty to present all relevant material to allow the court to pass sentence in accordance with the law. Racial or religious aggravation makes an offence more serious and the court has a duty to take this into account when it sentences a defendant. Prosecutors must neither minimise nor omit relevant and admissible evidence of racial or religious aggravation.

        Further to the specific offences spawned by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the law imposes a general duty on criminal courts, when sentencing criminals, to treat more seriously any offence which can be shown to be racially or religiously aggravated (Section 145 Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force on 4 April 2005, and which replaced the similarly worded Section 153 Powers of Criminal Courts Act 2000).

        Squaring the circle, from the website of the CPS itself:

        It is essential that we make sure that we identify all those cases that might properly be prosecuted as specific racist or religious crimes, or where we can put that evidence before a court when it is deciding on sentence.

        This begins right at the point where we receive a file from the police. We have an agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) that the police will identify a file that meets the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report definition of a racist incident when they send it to the CPS to prosecute.

        The CPS uses this common definition to identify these cases and to monitor the decisions and outcomes. The definition is:

        A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.

        We also have an agreement with ACPO that the police will identify a file that refers to a religiously incident. We define a religious incident as:

        ‘Any incident which is believed to be motivated because of a persons religion or perceived religion, by the victim or any other person.’

        Both definitions help in raising awareness of the racist or religious element in any offence right from the point of reporting, through investigation, up to and including any prosecution.


        • Fred Bloggs says:

          So that Chief constable who said these attacks were not racist should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. One of the victims said it was racist. Clearly the police and the CPS do not want to know.


  3. curbishly says:

    An anonymous comment on another site;-

    When a Canadian Police Officer comes out and states that women minimise their chances of being raped when they dress conservatively and don’t get drunk there’s outrage: articles flow left right and centre, hundreds participate in ‘Slutwalk’ marches and the Twittersphere goes nuts with condemnation…

    When a series of Pakistani gangs go out and systematically rape and abuse hundreds of young girls who they felt were whores utterly unworthy of even a modicum of human decency what’s the response?



  4. chrisH says:

    Maybe we need to be really looking at these cultural black holes-and are we now to rename them?…and maybe Whitehall?
    But my real point is these “social silences”-where Islamic wrongdoing meets Western floppy levers of justice and control.
    As long as the tumbleweed is allowed to blow across the minds of our elites like old dope, we will lose kids and good people to a culture that despises weakness.
    Where Islam meets homosexuality…silence.
    Where Islam meets feminism…silence again
    Where Islam meets any damn faith but itself…bloodshed.
    The only creed that can share its fouled bed is Socialism (and its bastard children like liberalism, multiculturalism etc)…for as Nasser, Gadhaffi and Bashar show…it is easily accommodated for appeasing and offering up the necks of its internal enemies.
    Where things are NOT said, because the BBC etc want us to stay silent…there Islam is doing its building right now.
    Time to blow holes in these quiet zones-like the EU, like immigration and like appeasing Islam…before the bombers discover just how easy we are about losing our heads for the sake of their God.


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      Chris, 100% correct. However there are a lot of folk on here preaching to the converted.
      How can we spread the message beyond this blog? I have tried twitter but it never gets retweeted and I’m regarded as a lone voiced nutcase generally. I see the inbbc indoctrination (ya know palestinians perfect and innocent ) coming through in the arguments against me. But somewere there has to be a better way to disseminate our truths.


  5. aol_user_2c400fad1e17d821d6f6ad23070eff63 says:

    So true – leftwing intellectuals and their imitators always seek to recruit a more robust group to do the heavy lifting of the revolution.

    The working class let them down by voting conservative and preferring right wing tabloids to the Socialists Worker – the workers preferred pragmatism to ideology.

    The left hopes that Muslims who are by nature ideological, and already alienated from Western culture will prove more able allies in the fight against western capitalism. So eager are the left to sign up Muslims as their hired muscle that they are prepared to overlook the fact that Muslims are diametrically opposed to nearly all of their values.

    That’s why leftwingers and leftwing organisations like the BBC are apologists for attitudes, actions and even crimes in the Islamic community that they would condemn out of hand in anyone else.

    But the Muslims aren’t fooled – as far as they are concerned their leftwing protectors are just kaffir – they might be useful idiots but they are still just kaffir.


  6. Millie Tant says:

    It was on Any Questions? a couple of years ago that we were given the answer as to why there is silence – and thus failure on the part of our authorities.
    They were discussing the mosque planned for near Ground Zero when Ruth Deech, an establishment figure, explained / let the cat out of the bag: “…we have refrained from criticising certain things, for example, attitudes to women…people have kept quiet…”
    Hear it at around 15mins 50secs onwards:
    The discussion of the topic started with the question asked at 8 39.
    Details of the programme:

    As far as I recall, nobody on the programme, or morely widely, batted an eyelid at this admission. It’s obviously so accepted as to be unremarkable and not cause any reaction or public comment.
    Sensitivity, you know!


  7. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Where the hell are all the feminists and wimmenz’ rights activists? They bitch about lapdancing clubs, but are nowhere to be seen now. First they came for your daughters, and you were silent….


    • chrisH says:

      Does Womans Hour allow for a suggestion box,regarding topics it might discuss.
      Safe to say, the next few weeks will be more about whether there are enough Harriets, Jacquis and Yvettes running things…but not a peep about the Chardonnays, Kylies getting raped once stuck in childrens homes for their “safety”., whilst the well-upholstered ghost of Sharon Shoesmith blame Dubya for everything.
      “Place of safety”?…more like a meat rack shop window to those Princes of Islam the BBC would have us believe in.


      • Millie Tant says:

        I’d be very surprised if they haven’t discussed it already.


        • wally greeninker says:

          The silence of Harry’s Place on this topic has been deafening.


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      First they came for:


    • johnnythefish says:

      It’s all down to the hierarchy of leftie ideologies – where there’s a conflict, there’s an already agreed order of preference, so the leftie luvvies automatically know how to react. As pro-Islam is at the very top of the hierarchy (closely followed by anti-Israel then anti-America), the feminists knew they have had to keep schtum on this issue, and the BBC therefore knew better than to invite them on to discuss it.


      • Demon says:

        I would have a guess at the order as follows:

        1. Pro Islam
        2. Anti-Israel (and supporters)
        3. Anti non-pro-Palestinian Jews
        4. Pro Gay
        5. Pro Feminist (aka anti Men)
        6. Anti Moderate or Right-of-centre politicians or press
        7. Anti Working Class people with minds of their own
        8. Anti Bankers (who carry the can for Brown’s cock-ups)
        9. Pro Man-made climate change fraudsters
        10. Pro Terrorist of any cause except pro-Israel (could be higher on the list)
        11. Pro Rioter
        12. Anti Police (other than those like Blair who are useful idiots)
        13. Anti Military
        14. Anti American (except those that support the Leader)
        15. Anti Black Americans who support the Republicans

        This is my first atempt so the order may be differsnt, and I have probably missed a lot of their prejudices.


        • johnnythefish says:

          Good starter list! I think gradually more and more people will wake up to this – once you’ve ‘got it’ the instances are so frequent and so obvious you wonder why you never spotted it before. A blatant example was Sweden’s thwarted attempts to extradite Assange on rape charges. The Left hurriedly weighed in with accusations of ‘trumped up’ charges. Ever heard of them doing that with any other rape case? So anti-Americanism trumped feminism on that one, which I know goes slightly against your perception of the hierarchy.


          • Demon says:

            Fair point. My list was off the top of my head really. When we think of instances, the order can be amended to fit the reality.


  8. chrisH says:

    And there`s more.
    The latest bloke in Carlisle has got 15 years for trying to procure teenage girls for his brothel…usual types of girls as well, need I add.
    The BBC website says he`s a Bangladeshi national…is that Bangladeshi again or not?
    Well ,in case you want to get Islam off the hook…he is referred to as owning an Indian takeaway, so those of us not in the know might think it was no Muslim problem-but an Indian one.
    Not at all-his name is Muslim, and he is an East Pakistani, as opposed to a Western one.
    No doubt he`ll be Asian if that keeps the death threat level down at Wood Lane to “hysterical”.
    If I were an Indian…I`d be mightily pissed off at this attempt to turn yet another sovereign country into something on the soles of the shoes of the BBC,,,like Israel.


    • Millie Tant says:

      It’s an odd thing but I have read that in this country most restaurants called Indian are not in fact Indian but Bagladeshi or Pakistani. So I am not in the least surprised that his takeaway is described as Indian.


      • wally greeninker says:

        Hindus don’t eat cows and that would seem to extend to cooking them as well. Although Bangladeshis run most of the restaurants in this country, the Bangldeshis themselves are largely fish eaters – half the country being underwater.


  9. Ian says:

    Sikhs and Hindus are sick of the “Asian” epithet being applied to groomers, as their children are victims of islam too.


  10. Jeff says:

    This latest charmer bombarded a TWELVE YEAR OLD girl with “suggestive” texts. He was trying to lure her into working for him as a prostitute. He then admitted, “the younger the better.”
    Just imagine the vociferous outrage if these despicable offences had been perpetrated by a bloke called John or Bert. And if the young girls had been Muslims, or any other minority, the feminists and the lefties would be screaming about it for months!
    Why the silence?


    • Demon says:

      The Scotties and Dezzies of the world are probably desperate to find one case where some whites attack a muslim female, adult or child, so they can scream “See it happens both ways”. I am certain they are really hoping for it to happen. Have you noticed how quiet they have become lately – they seem unable to find a way of defending the Rochdale criminals but they can’t bring themselves to condemn Muslims for any reason so discretion is the better part of valour for them.


  11. Leftie-Loather says:

    “‘Professional Black’ Henry Bonsu excuses the rapes……the girls were easy …they were ‘pre groomed by society’”

    WTF?!!!!…… Unbelievable, just absolutely unbelievable leftie crackpot crap!!! The bloke deserves a loving father’s ‘sensitive’ fist in his utterly pathetic cop out gob!!


    • Demon says:

      And please Professor Bonsu, remind us who “pre-groomed” these girls? Who was it that has been pushing sexualisation for underage children? Who is it that demands that girls as young as 12 are given contraceptives without their parents’ knowledge? Whose supporters are happy for very young girls to go out dressed provocatively with full make up? Who calls for children as young as nine to be given sex education lessons?

      If you are an average lefty you can put your hand up to all those questions. The poor girls of this country are beginning to reap what you’ve shown and you still blame the girls themselves, when they are still too young to make wise choices.


  12. DP111 says:

    Once upon a time, offering young girls to dragons was an accepted policy to appease the dragon, so that the dragon would leave rest of the community to live in peace.

    This was in times prehistoric. But since when did this policy of offering young girls to the Islamic dragon become active again. Why was this undeclared policy in force.