Rivers of Tears

Britain's Pakistani Grooming Gangs

The topic of Pakistani grooming gangs has, once again, hit the headlines. Justified outrage is, once again, pouring out from the mouths and fingertips of the masses. The elite classes are falling over themselves to make statements on the matter—whether condemning ‘failures’ which they all too often had a hand in, or, bizarrely, implicitly attempting to justify such cover-ups by invoking the importance of race relations in ‘multi-cultural Britain’.

The newest furore was sparked after the release of trial transcripts revealing yet more horrific details of the depravity these cases involve. We won’t go into that here; you can read them for yourself if you can stomach it.

So what has the Government’s response been? Well, Labour’s Safeguarding Minster Jess Phillips has rejected a request from Oldham Council for a government-led inquiry into the grooming gangs. She stated that it’s not the government’s place, and the council should do it themselves, but the real reason is quite simple: Labour prioritises the Muslim vote over the safety of vulnerable English girls. Ironic, as Phillips is the author of this tweet:

Keir Starmer has not, at the time of writing, given an official statement. This is hardly surprising; as Director of Public Prosecutions between 2008-2013, Starmer himself played a large, if indirect, role in every lax sentence, in every miscarriage of justice seen in these cases, so it’s understandable—given his awful approval rating—that he’d not want to be too hasty in addressing the public on this issue.

Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch put out a statement, saying:

Unfortunately for her, though, a community note was added clarifying things:

That the Tories have the gall to come out and demand new inquiries now just goes to show the pure audacity and opportunism with which they operate. Sure, the Pakistani grooming gangs operated, for the most part, in Labour-run areas, and much of the cover-up took place at the local level (i.e., by Labour-affiliated council staff and politicians), but the Conservatives cannot escape blame. They had fourteen long years to tackle this scourge—ironically, around about the average age of the grooming gang victims.

Despite their newfound zeal for justice, the Conservative track record speaks volumes. Over a decade in power has yielded next to nothing in the way of meaningful change. How many times did they promise they would “get tough on crime”? And how many times were those promises broken? How many inquiries were announced with great triumph, only to fade into obscurity, their recommendations either ignored or diluted into insignificance? The hypocrisy is staggering; the party that presided over the largest expansion of immigration in the country’s history, and whose neo-liberal policies led to the de-industrialisation and decay of the North in the first place—creating the conditions for this scandal—now wants to be seen as just as outraged as the rest of us.

Of course, we cannot forget the role of Labour in this national disgrace. It is a simple fact that much of this institutional failure occurred in areas where Labour has held power continuously for decades. Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford—names now synonymous with the systematic exploitation of vulnerable English girls—are all Labour strongholds. It was Labour councils, Labour-affiliated social workers, and Labour politicians who too often prioritised their ideological commitment to diversity over the safety of children.

There is, predictably when discussing the Labour Party, an element of anti-British hatred. Back in 2017, Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford, retweeted a tweet from an Owen Jones parody account stating that “Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.” She later claimed it was accidental.

The cult of diversity is a major priority for the Westminster dinner-party class. The fear of being labelled racist, it seems, outweighed successive governments’ responsibility to protect vulnerable native girls from the clutches of imported gang rapists, and to deliver justice. The culpability is shared here; it was Blair’s New Labour which began the multi-cultural experiment in the first place; both New Labour and the Tories brought in the anti-discrimination laws which effectively outlawed opposition to our demographic replacement; and the Tories, possessing not a single spine among them, refused at any point to effectively push back on the tide of political correctness which spurred these cover-ups.

Reform’s Rupert Lowe has been very strong on this issue thus far, being perhaps the first British MP to ever call for the collective deportations of communities.

There have been, to date, precisely zero cases of a Pakistani community member alerting the police to the operations of grooming gangs. No community leader or imam has ever come forward to put a stop to the horrors his people have been inflicting on ours. The issue is deeper than the Pakistani rapists themselves. There are certainly tens of thousands of other Pakistanis out there who knew somebody involved—perhaps a family member—and chose to remain silent.

There is a good reason for this, of course: ethnic solidarity. The sort of ethnic solidarity that, if it were still present in English communities, would have prevented anything like this from ever happening. The sort of ethnic solidarity that has been steadily stamped out in order to pave the way for the ‘multi-cultural Britain’ we have had thrust upon us. The sort of ethnic solidarity that terrifies subversive rats like Konstantin Kisin. You’ll recall, of course, the interview Kisin did with a grooming gang victim, in which he chastised her for broaching the topic of white community solidity, reminding her that we mustn’t look at things in terms of groups, or we’re basically fascists. I do wish foreigners would stop lecturing us on “British values” and assuming to themselves the role of moral arbiters in debates that, frankly, have nothing to do with them.

---

Which brings me onto my next point. Every politician, every leftist agitator, and every liberal pundit has blood on their hands, for creating and sustaining a political environment in which this scandal was even possible.

One notable figure to receive fierce pushback in recent days is historian and co-host of ‘The Rest Is History’ podcast Tom Holland, whose tweet from 2015 on the grooming gang cover-ups resurfaced to a chorus of execration.

No matter the point he was trying to make, the idea that the ‘true nightmare’ of Rotherham could be anything other than the druggings, abuses, gang-rapes, trafficking, and murders that occurred there is both absurd and despicable.

In another tweet following this resurfacing, Holland states that “They thought they were doing the right thing: they were nervous of provoking racial tensions, and this is not in and of itself an ignoble worry. The tragedy, however, was that this motivation served to blind so many people to the monstrousness of what was being done. Indeed, it may still be blinding them.” Which, sure, is phrased in a far better manner than the original tweet, but still misses the point. Nobody in their right mind should even be considering the potential implications for race relations. If race relations are worsened by the grooming gang reports, that’s the fault of the Pakistani Muslims committing these acts.

He later explained himself further:

I’d like to respond and give ‘my position’:

1. The authorities’ highest responsibility is to their own people: the native British.

2. If there exists a responsibility for the preservation of good race relations, this is a lesser priority.

3. Therefore, the wellbeing of the British takes precedent over the preservation of good race relations.

4. In the context of Pakistani rape gangs, attempts to preserve good race relations run directly counter to the wellbeing of the British people, as they facilitate their continuation, and obstruct meaningful resolutions.

5. Therefore, owing to the gravity of the situation, the preservation of race relations must be eschewed entirely in favour of the wellbeing of the British.

6. Grooming gang members, and the authorities who prioritised race relations over the wellbeing of the British, must be punished for justice to be served.

7. The severity of such punishment should reflect the seriousness of the crime.

8. Therefore, hangings.

For some context, let’s take a look at the ‘noble’ actions undertaken in service of ‘preserving good race relations’. In Rotherham—where at least 1,400 girls were abused and raped by Pakistani men—the Council applied for a High Court injunction in 2012 to block the publication of a case review about the abuse and murder of Laura Wilson (a seriously harrowing story). Its publication was then forced by the Conservative government at the time (fair play). The Norfolk report later revealed that the aforementioned case review neglected to mention the ethnicity of the men involved even once in its 144 pages. A fact that some might consider to be quite relevant, as the murder was a so-called honour killing. There are other similar examples.

Let’s take a look at the culture that dominates in the organisations tasked with dealing with these issues. A document from Rotherham's Safeguarding Children Board reported that the crimes had “cultural characteristics which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity”, and continued:

“There are sensitivities of ethnicity with potential to endanger the harmony of community relationships. Great care will be taken in drafting this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham's qualities of diversity. It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.”

Of course, we know now that “suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon” are absolutely warranted, considering the vast overrepresentation of Pakistani Muslims in the abuse, grooming, rape, and trafficking of young English girls. Regardless, shouldn’t the authors of these reports aim at accurately collecting the facts of the matter, rather than seeking to impose their progressive ideals on the results? The suggestion that the report’s findings must “embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity” is simply despicable.

In a defence of Tom Holland, the journalist Ed West states, “Multicultural societies always live in fear of communal violence.” My question is, if this is the case, shouldn’t the government, rather than attempting to play the mediator between conflicting ethnic groups, be clear that its main concern is the wellbeing of the natives, with the implicit (or explicit) message that if our guests are not satisfied with that arrangement, they are welcome—and encouraged—to leave? Doesn’t covering up immigrant-on-native crime—especially when ethnicity is a motivating factor, as it often has been in these rape gang cases—indicate a stronger commitment to the pretence of the country as a multi-cultural success story than the wellbeing of the British people, ostensibly the government’s sole purpose? The ‘nobility’ of trying to preserve race relations is absolutely irrelevant when it functionally amounts to a mass cover-up campaign for the gang-rapes of thousands of native girls by foreigners.

Moreover, it was not the British themselves who ever asked that their home’s borders be flung open to harbour masses from the length and breadth of the Earth. This was foisted upon us, despite consistent and vocal rejection of the premise. Every election for the last 50 years has been won on a manifesto promising a reduction in immigration. So the idea that politicians must hide the true extent of the consequences of this immigration from us in order to keep the peace in multi-cultural Britain is doubly absurd; we never consented to this in the first place.

I’d like to be clear that I don’t believe Holland is consciously trying to justify this duplicity; his attempt at an explanation for such behaviour does, however, come off as a defence of those who undertook that task. His subsequent doubling down on the ‘nobility’ of their actions, and his refusal to apologise for the dreadful phrasing of his first statement (“the true nightmare of Rotherham”) just makes him look even worse. When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

---

Rivers of Tears

Enoch Powell’s prediction of metaphorical ‘rivers of blood’ has, in many ways, been vindicated over the decades, though some would contest this. What is absolutely undeniable, however, are the collective rivers of tears which have flowed from the eyes of every young girl, every mother and father, every sister and brother denied justice by a despicable political class hell-bent on demographically replacing us at any and every cost, while gaslighting us that it’s ‘our strength’, just to rub salt in the wounds.

Here’s a Powell quote that quite aptly sums up my thoughts on the immigration problem in general: “Some problems are unavoidable. Some evils can be coped with, but not prevented. But that a nation should have saddled itself, without necessity and without countervailing benefit, with a wholly avoidable problem of immense dimensions is enough to make one weep...”

New Labour set out to “rub the right’s noses in diversity”, and they’ve certainly achieved that. I only wonder if they knew ahead of time the irreparable damage their plan would cause, and decided to go ahead with it anyway, driven by the most sadistic form of oikophobic contempt imaginable. Or were they simply so unforgivably incompetent that they failed to foresee such a predictable outcome, more than 30 years after Powell laid out his concerns?

One interesting thought conjured by the grooming gang scandal, and the other plainly hateful acts perpetrated by our guests is this: the charge that we’re a bunch of bloodthirsty, genocidal maniacs is patently false (obviously), but the behaviour of our foreign imports betrays the fact that they themselves don’t even believe it. If they did, they wouldn’t act the way they do out of fear of the consequences. I’ve written on the failure of multi-culturalism more generally elsewhere.

What we are witnessing is a toxic symbiosis between two political parties more concerned with their respective images than with the truth. The Conservatives, happy to use the grooming gang scandals as a stick with which to beat Labour, failed to muster the courage to act decisively when in a position to do so. They’re both spineless and deluded. Labour, meanwhile, buried its head in the sand, preferring to perpetuate the fantasy of harmonious multiculturalism rather than confront the awful consequences of the Pandora’s box of immigration which they themselves opened. I hope Blair is happy with himself.

The public would do well to remember this: neither party can claim innocence in this shameful saga. This is not just a Labour failure or a Conservative failure—it is a failure of Britain’s entire political and social establishment, one that continues to fester while the victims remain an afterthought in a game of political one-upmanship. Neither party is willing to address the issue honestly, because they are both complicit.

And where do we go from here? Another inquiry will, presumably, be opened. Another set of recommendations that will be ignored. Yet more finger-pointing between the red and blue factions of the Westminster bubble. Deluded leftists employing their favourite tactic: framing outrage over these scandals as cynical “far-right” propagandising against their multi-cultural brethren.

I thought over the past few days that the left had been incredibly quiet on the issue this time around. Obviously, this is because they view all of politics as a matter of optics rather than actually attempting to fix problems. It’s very difficult for the left to find a stable position from which to fight in this instance, since gangs of foreigners raping native girls en masse goes in only one, clear-cut, moral direction. Already, though, the media and politicians have begun to reframe the debate, shifting instead to bringing up Tommy Robinson as a stand-in for the grooming gang case. This is very helpful for the left, since they can attack him, obviously, and he serves as a conduit through which to regain the moral high-ground and employ the tactic outlined above. It’s all so tiresome. This pivot is a distraction, intended to take the heat off the rape gangs issue so the left can regroup and create a more favourable field for political debate.

This cycle will repeat itself until there is a fundamental reckoning with the cultural, political, and bureaucratic rot that allowed this atrocity to occur in the first place. Anything less will be another betrayal—not just of the victims, but of the nation itself. It was the Pakistani grooming gangs issue that radicalised me. Let us hope that each time the tragedy returns to the headlines, it serves to drag the Overton window to a far enough extent that the issue can finally be resolved, once and for all, and the process of healing and reflection can begin, both for the victims and for the nation as a whole.