Grooming gangs of England, draft notes

From here:


I am glad you published this Part II to your essay, Dr. Alexander. I am a firm believer in your core views on many things, but I strongly diverged with you in re Part I.

You raise excellent points here, most of which I can agree with. However, I would urge you to consider the definition of “danger” it today’s world. (“But what do we do after the danger passes?”) There is no shortage of people who report the tragedies, the mass murders, the attacks, etc. What tis sorely lacking, however, is an acknowledgment of the danger that lurks beneath our feet, perpetrated not by those whom we define as terrorists, but rather, by those in official capacities who enable, excuse, and protect them – who are not themselves terrorists.

As an example, I submit the Rotherham, England rape gang scandal. For at least twelve years, school officials, social workers and the police knew about, but did nothing to do stop overlapping Pakistani pedophile rape gangs that were operating there. No matter how many times the victimized girls (ages 11-16) reported what was happening to them, these officials not only did nothing, they created entire programs of denial and intimidation against those who wanted to act. At a minimum, 1,400 girls were victimized – but now, outside officials are saying this may only be 10% of the actual number.
And it is from within these very gangs that the terrorist attacks against England, France, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Norway are being planned and perpetrated.

Then, there is the same thing, the official complicity, that occurred within Sweden. Twenty years ago, it was one of the most peaceful, serene countries in the world. Now, it is acknowledged as the “rape capitol of the West,” with one in four women and girls told they will be the victim of rape (not sexual harassment, or assault – full-on rape) in their lives.

I submit these facts because I think the definition of “danger” needs to be expanded to acknowledge the underlying issues, the ideologies that foment the danger that we see on our TV screens. But when someone says just what I have, and is backed up by sober documentation, they are called a “racist” or “intolerant” by the same officials who are supposed to be protecting us.

To bring my point home, you said, “Most people, including myself, would defend themselves or their families if they were personally threatened.” But what if you knew that the very same school officials who allowed other girls in the school that your daughters attend to be victimized in this way, to remain on the job, while your daughters still attend? The danger is still present, because:
a) These officials still have the power to enable these attacks, and fail to report them or cooperate with law enforcement, and b) The same gangs, driven by the same ideology, are operating within your town, and you are told that to say anything about what they are being taught, is to make you a bad person.
I am not trying to be controversial, or to dismiss the virtues of the approaches you recommend to creating more harmony and peace in the world. But I firmly believe that how you define “danger” must be expanded to encompass not only the imminent threats, the perpetrators, but those who are supposed to be acting in our defense, and yet, are actually complicit in allowing this danger to grow and grow and grow beneath our feet, until one or 1,400 girls are victimized, or buildings are knocked down, or planes start falling from the sky.

Or, as happened yesterday, jihadis who were let out of jail early, after being convicted for collaborating with ISIS, beheaded a priest before his congregation…The French authorities knew exactly who those guys were and what their ideology was, yet they let them back out onto France’s streets over and over again.

Respectfully submitted,
Jon Sutz


To share/print this item: