Today a new report into ‘abuse’ (sic) in Rotherham has hit the news with headlines in leading media outlets like the BBC reading:
At least 1,400 children were subjected to appalling sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, a report has found.
Children as young as 11 were raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, it said.
Or indeed take The Guardian:
Report claims police and council agencies failed victims, some of whom were threatened with guns and gang-raped
About 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham over a 16-year period, according to a report that concluded “it is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered”.
Is this true? Of course not! The report itself seems to be full of anecdotes and exaggerations. The media then exaggerate even more.
Let’s look at the claims of ‘gang rapes’. The only mention of a gang rape (other than a dubious reference to an earlier report) seems to be the following tiny sentence:
One young person told us that ‘gang rape’ was a usual
part of growing up in the area of Rotherham in which she lived.
*ONE* young person claimed that gang rapes were going on. Hardly an epidemic of gang rapes and far too anecdotal to end up in a professional report! Quite likely she was just taking the piss (wouldn’t you if some puritanical sex-hating feminist wondered up and started asking idiotic questions?).
But it gets worse! The author’s true colours are shown in the following astonishing sentence:
Many of the victims were unable to recognise that they had been groomed and exploited, and some blamed themselves not just for their own abuse, but for what happened to other victims.
As many of my readers may recognise this is of course feminist speak for “consensual sex that feminists disapprove of”. In other words these ‘victims’ were not victims at all and were engaging in perfectly normal, consensual underage sex acts. Since they do not consider themselves victims they are, therefore, not victims. Only a sick, radical feminist, puritanical mind would forcibly call someone a victim against their will.
Infact, we can see the author giving some very specific examples of how she loves to abuse children by FORCING victimhood on them
Child N (2013) was 12 when extremely indecent images of her were discovered on the phones of fellow students. There were suspicions that older men and one woman had groomed her via Facebook. Her family were very shocked by photos and video images that had been taken of her, and have co-operated fully with the Police and the support offered by the CSE team. Child N was very angry at the
agencies trying to help her. She showed no understanding of the risks of online contact with strangers and was not willing to disclose anything about those who have groomed and exploited her.
If you read the above paragraph it seems that the author is almost becoming angry at the child for not accepting the author’s bigoted lies that the child is a ‘victim’. Clearly the author has no real interest in protecting or helping children, but some sort of hateful alterior (feminist) motive.
Need another example? Here’s one:
Child A (2000)6 was 12 when the risk of sexual exploitation became known. She was associating with a group of older Asian men and possibly taking drugs. She disclosed having had intercourse with 5 adults. Two of the adults received police cautions after admitting to the Police that they had intercourse with Child A. Child A continued to go missing and was at high risk of sexual exploitation. A child protection case conference was held. It was agreed by all at the conference that Child A should be registered. However, the CID representative argued against the category of sexual abuse being used because he thought that Child A had been ‘100% consensual in every incident’. This was overruled, with all others at the case conference demonstrating a clear understanding that this was a crime and a young child was not capable of consenting to the abuse she had suffered. She was supported appropriately once she was placed on the child protection register.
Even some officials pointed out that the above case was clearly consensual. But, no, the author goes on her bigoted rant that an apparently young child (is 12 really that young?) was not capable of consenting to a sexual relationship. It is amazing to note how far we have come in the construction of the ‘paedophile police state’ apparatus. In 2000 men could have just got a caution for intercourse with a teenager (this was before the Sexual Offences Act 2003). Today a male can expect no less than around 6 years of violent assault and beatings in prison.
And lastly (though there are many more dodgy paragraphs in the report) let us end by looking at how the author doesn’t like kids to have fun and supports abusive parents:
One parent, who agreed to her child being placed in a residential unit in order to protect her, wrote to children’s social care expressing her fears for her daughter’s safety. She described her despair that instead of being protected, her child was being exposed to even worse abuse than when she was at home:
“My child (age 13) may appear to be a mature child, yet some of her actions and the risks to which she constantly puts herself are those of a very immature and naïve person. She constantly stays out all night getting drunk, mixing with older mature adults, and refuses to be bound by any rules.”
Good god! Her daughter wants to go out and have fun! We can’t have that, can we? And she likes older men? Good God! Reverse paedophilia! Seems to me that the only ‘abuser’ there is her mother. Not to mention the author of this report, Alexis Jay, who now has the blood of millions of innocent men wrongly convicted of sexual offences on her hands.
Oh, by the way, this is a picture of this loathsome woman.
Now what was that twitter hashtag… #feministsareugly or something?
In all seriousness though, reports like these are deaths by a thousand cuts. I simply haven’t had time to go through it thoroughly. Our enemies have far more funding than us to churn out crap like this and by the time I have dissected the report piece by piece (which I am not paid to do) our enemies will be onto their next set of lies. However, all considering I think I’ve shown enough lies in the report here to discard it as anti-sex bigotry and dogma. Any politician passing (yet another) wave of sex law reforms based on the claims made in this report should be thrown in jail.