Talk:Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

Revision

I think the last two revisions of this article should be hidden. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Case is the Ajmer rape case. While removal was appropriate, I am not performing revision deletion — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The revisions do not meet any of the criteria for redaction. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I beg to differ. IMHO it meets #2. And perhaps a bit of #3. Debresser (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa, I agree with Debresser, so I have done the revision deletion. The material was not just reporting of fact, it was an attempt to contaminate by association people on the basis of their family membership, name, or religion. That is grossly offensive and it is purely disruptive material unrelated to the aims of the project. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 22:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious circumstances re: demography of victims, reference link, WP:SYNTH

I refer to the following sentence from the article's lead:

In August 2014 the Jay report concluded that an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white British girls,[15] had been sexually abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 by predominantly British-Pakistani men (Kurdish and Kosovar men were also involved).[16][13]

I am specifically concerned with the statement "an estimated 1,400 children, most of them white British girls". Note that the link in reference [15] is rotten, taking us to a .pdf file for a Bramley Parish Council election result:

http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham

Here is the current link to the Jay report:

https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/download/31/independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham-1997---2013

This 150 page report mentions the word "white" 12 times. I will start by quoting the first, most relevant use of it (p. 35, 5.5):

In this part of the report, we have not specified the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators. In a large number of the historic cases in particular, most of the victims in the cases we sampled were white British children, and the majority of the perpetrators were from minority ethnic communities. They were described generically in the files as ‘Asian males’ without precise reference being made to their ethnicity."

So the report does not specify that most of the estimated 1,400 victims were white British, nor does it specify the ethnicity of their abusers. It merely states that, in a large number of the notorious cases, out of 66 samples (see p. 35, 5.1), most victims were white British.

We cannot conclude that the estimated 1,400 victims in Rotherdam were mostly white British based on anything in this report.

Veering off topic a bit, many of the cases mentioned in the report did not even take place in Rotherham. For example, one of them is from Derby:

"November 2010, a Derby court case, in which 9 men were convicted of grooming and abuse in three separate trials. "Operation Retriever", involving more than 100 police officers, identified 27 victims. 22 were white, three black and two Asian."

^ I would like to note that in this sample, the percentage of white victims (81%) is roughly proportionate to the white population of Derby (80.3% as of 2011). The three black victims, representing 11% of the total, are more over-represented relative to their share of Derby's population (just 3.0%)

Jay's recent samples also include cases from Oldham, Rockdale, Carlile, Brierville, etc... without mentioning the race of the victims.

The report does however mention that the majority of the perpetrators in Rotherham were Pakistani by heritage, as mentioned in the Wiki article. From p.92:

"In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010. The file reading carried out by the Inquiry also confirmed that the ethnic origin of many perpetrators was ‘Asian’. In one major case in the mid-2000s, the convicted perpetrator was Afghan. Latterly, some child victims of CSE and some perpetrators had originated from the Roma Slovak community, with a steady increase in the number of child protection cases involving Roma children, though mainly in the category of neglect. Work with Roma families was one of the six priorities of the Child Sexual Exploitation sub-group of the Safeguarding Board in 2012. The Roma population in Rotherham was proportionately much larger than in bigger areas such as Bradford and Manchester."

[...]

"Dr Heal, in her 2003 report, stated that 'In Rotherham the local Asian community are reported to rarely speak about them [the perpetrators].' The subject was taboo and local people were probably equally frightened of the violent tendencies of the perpetrators as the young women they were abusing. In her 2006 report she described how the appeal of organised sexual exploitation for Asian gangs had changed. In the past, it had been for their personal gratification, whereas now it offered 'career and financial opportunities to young Asian men who got involved’.  She also noted that Iraqi Kurds and Kosovan men were participating in organised activities against young women."

The report does also note that violence against Asian girls is underreported:

(p. 94-95)

"The Home Affairs Select Committee quoted witnesses saying that cases of Asian men grooming Asian girls did not come to light because victims 'are often alienated and ostracised by their own families and by the whole community, if they go public with allegations of abuse."

[...]

"With hindsight, it is clear that women and girls in the Pakistani community in Rotherham should have been encouraged and empowered by the authorities to speak out about perpetrators and their own experiences as victims of sexual exploitation, so often hidden from sight. The Safeguarding Board has recently received a presentation from a local Pakistani women's group about abuse within their community. The Board should address as a priority the under-reporting of exploitation and abuse in minority ethnic communities. We recommend that the relevant agencies immediately initiate dialogue about CSE with minority ethnic communities, and in particular with the Pakistani-heritage community. This should be done in consultation with local women's groups, and should develop strategies that support young women and girls from the community to participate without fear or threat."

So, to reiterate... This report does not state that the majority of an estimated 1,400 Rotherham victims are white British. In fact, it specifically says it does not specify. It does mention white British, Asian and Roma Slovak victims in Rotherham, without specifying numbers or percentages, plus black victims elsewhere. It does state that the known Rotherham perps are of Pakistani heritage, and some Kosovan and Iraqi Kurd suspects. It also notes that Asian victims are likely underreported. Hunan201p (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Have reverted this for the time being. First of all, that was a longstanding version, and consensus should be establish before making changes.

Regardless of that, I agree that he source is a bit ambivalent about this. By this I do not mean to say that I agree with the proposed change, just that the source is not clear about this. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Good evening, @Debresser: In your recent revision of the article, you said that my revert contradicts page 35 of the Jay report. Can you explain how, please? I agree that the report is ambivalent -- in contrast to the very bold Wiki passages that I changed. All I see on page 35 of the Jay report is that the Inquiry team looked at 66 case files and determined that a large number of the "historic" cases involved White Britsh girls. Whatever that means. I saw nothing to indicate that the "estimated" 1,400 Rotherdam victims were majority white British, nor even that the majority of victims in the 66 case files were British. Only "a large number of the historic cases in particlar". Hunan201p (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you wrote that above. How is The Sun as a source? Because in that article it says "It revealed that at least 1,400 children, most of them white girls aged 11–15, had been sexually abused in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 by predominantly British-Pakistani men." Debresser (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for my hamfisted response to you, Debresser. With regards to The Sun, it is apparently a deprecated source on Wikipedia. I suspect this is due to its right-wing bias. I personally feel the current entry on the Wiki reflects a right-wing bias, as well, as I've seen it propagated on far-right and racial nationalist websites. Certainly, the "1,400 white girls raped" interpretation has been a popular rallying cry among white nationalists, and it would be a shame if Wikipedia had bolstered this interpretation of the report, especially if it wasn't actually in the report itself. But I digress. Hunan201p (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. Let me put it this way: if the information is correct, as I suspect it to be, it would be a shame if we had to remove it just because one source is not conclusive and the other deprecated. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

What evidence for we have that the information is correct? The sources that parrot “majority” white are using the same report we are all looking at, it seems that they have completely misinterpreted it, we cannot use sources that are based on falsities, it is not just that one source is not conclusive, it is that the sources making the claims are based on misinterpretations. I agree with Hunan201p, it should be removed from the article as there is no supporting evidence for it, and the only hard evidence is the report, which does not say what the right wing tabloids say it does.AllSaintsNext (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any argument that the original source (Alexis Jay) does not state that the estimated 1400 victims were white. Hunan201p (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

myself and Hunan201p are clearly in agreement that the corresponding edit removing statements alluding to the misrepresentation of “mostly white” should be made, a consensus needs to be agreed, and 2 are clearly in favour, is anyone against, and if so, why? AllSaintsNext (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit appalled that users openly claim to want to remove content that has been sourced here for years because they find that it is used as arguments by rights wingers. It's akin to users suddenly wanting to remove content from the Chernobyl's page because it's used by opponents of nuclear energy. We've got sources about the majority of the victims being White childrens [1], [2]. Erasing that info only bolster the right wingers who claim there's censorship.--Aréat (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m even more appalled that you haven’t even seemed to read the beginning of this talk section. In fact, your own “source about the majority of victims being white children” the Jay report, is broken down by Hunan201p above, and actually shows that the Jay report does NOT say this. Have you actually read the talk page discussion as I asked you to repeatedly? It doesn’t say that the majority of victims were white children at all. Stating “erasing that information will only bolster right wingers” is nonsense, it’s entirely correct to say in the article what the jay report says, and it does NOT say anything about the majority being white. So I ask again, does anyone who has actually READ the information, object to removal of clearly false statements from the article? It still remains 2 Ayes, 0 against. AllSaintsNext (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I provided both sources, which point to the victims being white. The report as well as the other course point to victim overall being majority chite, and doesn't affirm that the Rotherham ones weren't as well, it just doesn't confirm it. The other source provide data. What are your sources of them not being so? I haven't seen you back your point.--Aréat (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be seriously struggling with reading comprehension. You provided sources that DONT support what you’re saying. The Jay report NO WHERE says that the victims were “overall majority white” - can you show me where it says this? P35, 5.1 refers to “notorious cases” and says no such conclusion that the “majority were white british”. As stated by Hunan201p at 15:47, 25 December, the report does not that state that the majority of an estimated 1400 victims were white british, it “specifically says it does not specify”. Your sources disprove your own claim, it’s quite pertinent you have not read them and have copied and pasted to your own downfall. If you don’t have any evidence showing that the jay report says the overall majority of victims are white british, I will make the edits as per Hunan201p’s revision again as we have consensus. AllSaintsNext (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The November 2012 report clearly state that the majority of victims of Child sexual exploitation in Gangs and groups are white, on page 94. The Jay Report also clearly state that Most of the victims sampled were white children on page 35. Now, do you have a source that point out that Rotheram's victims weren't white as usual? Because I havent seen you provide one. Don't think belittling me here make for an argument or a source.--Aréat (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, you’re going to need to start to read what’s infront of you before replying. As I stated, p35 of the Jay report is referring to “notorious” cases, seconded by Hunan201p, it does NOT say that the overall 1400 victims were majority white, in fact it “specicically says it does not specify”. The November 2012 report is irrelevant to the statement that of the 1400 children the majority were white british, when the source in the article is the Jay report, which doesn’t say this at all. Saying “do I have a source that the victims weren’t white as usual?” Is nonsense, it is up to YOU to prove that the majority were white, and the Jay report does not say this. AllSaintsNext (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Your conclusions are off. We do have sources that point out that most victims are white, as provided above. The Jay Report reinstate that fact, then explain that as for itself it won't specify it. There's source pointing out that white whildren make a majority of victims. You at best take out a part of a source that then say it won't talk about whether the victims it will go on in details are white. That doesn't mean they aren't. We've got a "positive" and a "neutral". If you want to make the change we're talking about, you need to provide a source that goes against the other and specify the victims here weren't mostly white as usual. I don't see your "negative".--Aréat (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

UTC)

Lets make this very simple. Show me where the Jay report says that the majority of the 1400 estimated victims were White British. Show me where it actually makes this statement. You don’t have any sources whatsoever that state this, the Jay report certainly does not. Therefore, you dont add things to an article because you think they “might be true” you add things that are supported by sources, and if you can’t show me exactly where the Jay report says this, then unfortunately you haven’t a leg to stand on, and the edit will be made. AllSaintsNext (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)