Tag Archives: UK

Members of another UK-based Middle Eastern men sex-trafficking ring sentenced

UK police can't investigate sex-trafficking because it's racist
UK police can’t investigate sex-trafficking because it’s racist

I’ve blogged before about many of the different sex-trafficking rings run by men of Middle Eastern origin in the UK. The UK is a socialist country where the government has been taken over by “compassion” as the core value. As a result, the leaders are anxious to expose their citizens to higher taxes and crime as they take in more and more low-skilled immigrants from the Middle East.

Sky News reports:

Six men have each been jailed for up to 15 years over the rape of young girls in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire.

Usman Ali, 34, Gul Riaz, 43, Banaras Hussain, 39, Abdul Majid, 36, and two others who could not be named for legal purposes were jailed for a combined 55-and-a-half years on Wednesday.

They were found guilty of a total of nine counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault of two girls in the Huddersfield area between 1995 and 2011.

The victims… were aged 13 and 14 when the “insidious and persistent” abuse began…

It was the sixth trial related to West Yorkshire Police’s Operation Tendersea investigation – a probe into child grooming gangs in Huddersfield.

A total of 34 men have been convicted in the investigation, with prison sentences now totalling 377-and-a-half years.

As you know, about a dozen similar gangs have been found in the UK. What’s interesting is that the same UK police force that investigates offensive speech on social media isn’t interested in prosecuting older men who rape teenage girls and traffic them to other men. That’s because the same political correctness / compassion that makes offensive free speech bad also makes sex-trafficking by Middle Eastern men good. It would be racism to charge these men for raping teens.

And there won’t be any change in these priorities.

The far-left UK Independent reports:

The government is refusing to release official research on the characteristics of grooming gangs, claiming it is not in the “public interest”.

Survivors accused ministers of making “empty promises”, while a man who prosecuted abusers in Rochdale called for the Home Office to “show some courage and publish” its findings.

It comes after The Independent revealed that almost 19,000 suspected child sexual exploitation victims were identified by local authorities in just one year, sparking renewed calls for prevention efforts.

Sajid Javid promised the review as home secretary in July 2018, pledging that there would be “no no-go areas of inquiry”.

“I will not let cultural or political sensitivities get in the way of understanding the problem and doing something about it,” he said at the time.

“We know that in these recent high profile cases, where people convicted have been disproportionately from a Pakistani background.

“I’ve instructed my officials to explore the particular contexts and characteristics of these types of gangs.”

But the government has made no further announcements on the review following Mr Javid’s move to the Treasury last year.

Oh well. I guess 19,000 victims of child sexual exploitation is no big deal to the Labour Party politicians who arranged for the immigration of the men who raped them. But look on the bright side! At least these low-skilled immigrants vote overwhelmingly for socialism. So there’s that.

UK NHS government-run healthcare only available for people who agree with the government

The National Health Service is government-run socialist health care
The National Health Service is government-run socialist health care

I’ve been warning people about the dangers of government healthcare for some time. In government-run health care, people pay into the system based on their earnings. But treatment is handed out based on the government’s need to buy votes. In other words, you’re not paying for care at all. You’re forced to pay into a system where bureaucrats will decide later whether you get treated.

Here’s the latest story from the UK, reported by the Daily Wire:

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) announced Tuesday that, under new rules for the agency coming in April, medical care providers can refuse to give non-critical care to patients who are “racist,” sexist,” “homophobic,” or are otherwise insulting and aggressive towards hospital staff.

Right now, the NHS can refuse to treat anyone who are “aggressive” or “violent” out of concern for the well-being of health care workers, but the new rules, set to take effect in April of 2020, expand who the NHS can turn away — though it’s not entirely clear how the NHS would know a possible patient was “racist,” sexist,” or “homophobic,” or whether there are procedures in place to separate the truly mentally ill from the merely problematic.

Sky News reports that much of the decision may be made by front-line hospital workers: “these protections will extend to any harassment, bullying or discrimination, including homophobic, sexist or racist remarks.”

So, the key point about this is that the NHS workers can ALREADY refuse service to any patient who is aggressive or violent. The new rules go beyond that, to cover patients who are racist, sexist or homophobic. And I think it’s worth it to understand what counts as racist, sexist and homophobic in the UK to understand what that means. It just means having opinions about certain issues that the secular left in the UK disagree with.

Racism in the UK

For example, do you think that it’s bad that low-skilled immigrants from Middle East countries are brought into your country, and then they go on to form grooming / sex-trafficking rings where fatherless teen girls are passed by middle-aged men to be gang-raped? If you think that, then in the UK, you’re considered a racist. The police there refuse to investigate such crimes, because they are afraid of being labeled as “racist”, and being fired from their cushy unionized jobs as ideological enforcers of secular left values. You can find a list of cities in the UK where police considered it “racist” to stop sex-trafficking of young girls, because the perpetrators were not white. So that’s “racism” in the UK. If you don’t approve of sex-trafficking by low-skilled refugees, then you aren’t allowed to have the health care that you were forced to pay for with your taxes.

Homophobia in the UK

So, in the UK, there is an epidemic of knife crime and sex-trafficking going on, but the police aren’t really concerned about it. Stabbings and rapes, who cares? The more important problem that occupies these unionized government workers with guns is the problem of offensive tweets. So, in the UK, if you tweet mild disagreement with the LGBT agenda (and I mean mild disagreement – nothing that would break any other laws about inciting violence) then you can expect armed policemen to come to your place of work to correct you about your homophobia. And if you complain about how totalitarian the gay agenda people have become, well then you’ll be denied health care from the government healthcare system. You’re good enough to pay into the secular left monopoly, but if you need healthcare from them later then you can just go die in a ditch for your wrongthink. And since you already paid once for healthcare through taxes, you’re unlikely to have enough of your earnings to fly to America and pay for actual healthcare a second time. That’s by design, by the way. That’s a feature of single player health care.

Sexism in the UK

Did you know that in the UK, if you draw attention to the differences of men and women, that’s considered sexist? Let’s say that you are a taxpayer who is paying for police services provided by a government monopoly. The government monopoly on policing does not have any competitors who might provide you with better service for less money. So, they don’t have to care about you. And what happens in the UK is that people with non-STEM degrees go into government and try to force their secular biases on everyone else by setting government policy. So, although you are paying taxes for policing, you are not entitled to quality policing. Instead, social engineers in the government lower the standards for jobs like police officer so that women can get those jobs. And if you complain about these lowered fitness tests, because a woman police officer underperformed resulting in loss of property, injury or loss of life for you, then you’re labeled “sexist”. And you can be denied health care that you were forced to pay for through taxes.

Conclusion

It’s important for people living in America to look at other countries where the voters have given up their liberties in order to depend on massive government welfare programs. If you like public daycare, public schools, public hospitals, public libraries, government-run policing and basically government-run anything, then just understand that there will come a time when you will not be allowed to express your religious and political convictions in public or online. You might be fined. You might be dragged in front of a human rights tribunal. You might be arrested. You might be jailed. You might be fired. You might be put under a gag order. Whatever the secular left compassion crowd decides is appropriate to deal with your offensive opinions. And you will be paying for secular left government workers to do this to you through your mandatory taxes. There is no opt out.

UK leftists ban Christian evangelist Franklin Graham because he takes the Bible seriously

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are dead in the UK
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are dead in the UK

My UK Christian friends are always tell me how weird it is that American Christians insist that government operate within Constitutional limits. Why not let government ban self-defense? Why not let government to run education and healthcare? Why not let government to control energy production and consumption? Why not let government open the borders for multiculturalism?

Here’s an example of what happens in a country where Christians decide to abdicate law and policy to secular leftists.

The Daily Signal reports:

Evangelist and missionary Franklin Graham’s seven-city tour of the United Kingdom is now a trial, as all seven venues have dropped him.

Graham’s canceled dates likely are due to an “an outcry over his homophobic and Islamophobic comments,” CNN reports.

[…]Graham has been outspoken about other cultural issues, including gay rights and radical Islam, both hot topics in the U.K., where Islam is the fastest growing religion. Graham has said gays should go to “conversion therapy” to change, and once called Islam “evil.”

Interestingly, although multiple venues canceled Graham this year, this isn’t the first time the U.K. has had enough of the evangelist. In 2017, several members of Parliament moved to ban Graham from the U.K. for “hate speech” regarding gays and Muslims.

At the time, a “petition against Graham being granted a visa” had gathered 4,600 signatures. Nina Parker, pastor of Liberty Church in Blackpool, who organized the petition, said Graham’s presence would be “extremely destructive.”

Parker told The Guardian: “As a Christian and as a leader of a church that particularly welcomes LGBT people, I’m horrified that other local churches are inviting someone with this record of hate speech.”

Censorship of free speech, discourse, and individual autonomy in the United Kingdom has increased in the past several years.

British officials have cracked down on internet freedom. Even though several groups have pushed back against the government’s flagship internet regulation policy—which is so vague it covers nearly every kind of speech existent—it’s been an uphill battle.

In several dramatic cases, parents have lost their rights to their sick children as the U.K.’s court system usurped them and decided what care was best—typically, a removal of life support against the parents’ wishes.

Of course, any discourse offering a different perspective on LGBT groups or anything that might be seen as anti-transgender receives the most censorship—including being fired from one’s job…

I’ve blogged before about how the police in the UK occupy themselves with monitoring the Internet to punish citizens who dissent from the UK’s promotion of LGBT rights. If you disagree with LGBT rights, you’re sure to get a visit from armed policemen. On the other hand, the police officers don’t have any interest in investigating multiple sex-trafficking rings in multiple UK cities being run by immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. They don’t care about the gang-raping of fatherless teen girls – the important thing is to not look Islamophobic. That’s how they keep their jobs – they attack critics of the government’s LGBT and open borders policies so the government can be re-elected. When they’re not suppressing dissent from the government, they’re blocking off parents from taking their child home from a government-run hospitals that decided that the child (e.g. – Alfie) is beyond medical treatment.

That’s big government in the UK, and it’s supported by many, many conservative Christian pastors, who think that the free and open practice of Christianity is somehow compatible with an overpowered secular left centralized government. So, the conservative Christians in the UK love to mock the gun rights and low tax rates of American Christians, even as they can’t even safeguard their own freedom of speech and religious liberty. American Christians knew that big government and widespread dependency on welfare programs would destroy our religious liberty, so we fought it. They capitulated.

I’ve spoken to several prominent Christians in the UK, and even some who are deeply involved in apologetics and pro-life causes. I just want to be really clear. These people are so bad at Christian worldview, that they literally vote in the secular leftists who then turn around and enact government-funded abortion, LGBT fascism and sex-trafficking rings run by unskilled immigrants from the Middle East. Then they have the temerity to COMPLAIN about the policies of the leaders they voted for.

In the UK, which crime is worse? Sex trafficking, gang-rape or hate speech?

Scotland Police has time for monitoring social media
Scotland Police has time for monitoring social media

Whenever a story about sex-trafficking in the UK comes out, I always make sure to blog about it. Over the years, I must have blogged about a half-dozen sex-trafficking rings. I always point out how the sex-traffickers are ignored by the police, because of their Middle East origins. But the police in the UK aren’t useless. On the contrary, they are busy with more serious crimes.

Here is the latest story from the UK Daily Mail:

The rape and grooming of a vulnerable teenage girl was not investigated until five years after police were first informed, a court has heard.

Nine men, mostly from Sheffield, went on trial today accused of raping the girl when she was aged between 15 and 17 – treating her ‘like a piece of meat’ and abusing her ‘for their own sexual gratification’.

A tenth man is accused of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

The abuse was carried out when the teenage victim was drunk or on drugs, supplied by the grooming gang, jurors were told.

The complainant first told police about being raped and used for under-age sex in 2011 but no investigation was carried out or crime recorded, Sheffield Crown Court heard.

When the victim initially disclosed ‘one rape and incidents of sex with adult men as a minor’ to police, no crime was recorded by South Yorkshire Police.

Here are the names of the accused men:

  • Usman Din, 35
  • Tony Juone, 61
  • Kamaran Mahmoodi, 39
  • Shangar Ibrahimi, 30
  • Farhad Mirzaie, 29
  • Kawan Omar Ahmed, 31
  • Saman Mohammed, 41
  • Jasim Sammad Mohammed, 37
  • Nzar Anwar, 40
  • Saba Moussa Mohammad, 41

In the UK, the mass importation of unskilled Middle Eastern immigrants was promoted by the Labour Party (equivalent to our Democrat party) as a way to undo the conservative Christian majority.

Hate speech is a more important crime

Now the police didn’t have any time for the sex-trafficking and gang-raping of a teenage girl, because they were busy with more important things.

The UK Daily Mail report on a recent incident:

A mother was arrested in front of her children and locked up for seven hours after referring to a transgender woman as a man online.

Three officers detained Kate Scottow at her home before quizzing her at a police station about an argument with an activist on Twitter over so-called ‘deadnaming’.

The 38-year-old, from Hitchin, Hertfordshire, had her photograph, DNA and fingerprints taken and remains under investigation.

More than two months after her arrest on December 1, she has had neither her mobile phone or laptop returned…

[…]Writing on online forum Mumsnet, Mrs Scottow – who has also been served with a court order that bans her from referring to her accuser as a man – claimed: ‘I was arrested in my home by three officers, with my autistic ten-year-old daughter and breastfed 20-month-old son present.

‘I was then detained for seven hours in a cell with no sanitary products (which I said I needed) before being interviewed then later released under investigation … I was arrested for harassment and malicious communications because I called someone out and misgendered them on Twitter.’

They needed three police officers to arrest this dangerous criminal, to let her neighbors know how dangerous her hate speech was.

Does this happen a lot in the UK? Well, you just have to go back a few weeks to find another case.

Here is the UK Telegraph to report on another recent incident:

A docker from Humberside has been investigated by police over a limerick he posted on Twitter after an officer claimed it constitutes a ‘hate incident’ against transgender people.

Harry Miller, 53, from Lincoln was contacted on Wednesday by a community cohesion officer following a complaint that had been made about the plant and machinery dealer’s social media posts.

Citing 30 potentially offensive tweets, the PC singled out a limerick Mr Miller had retweeted which questioned whether transgender women are biological women.

[…]Even though no crime was committed, sharing the limerick online was recorded as a ‘hate incident’.

[…]After Mr Miller questioned why the complainant was being described as a “victim” if no crime had been committed, the officer told him: “We need to check your thinking”.

They have “community cohesion” officers, but they don’t have police officers who investigate sex-trafficking and gang-raping of teens. Oh, and you can’t defend yourself from criminals with a firearm , either. That’s illegal in the UK. You just have to let the criminal rape you and kill you. They are a very advanced country – much better than the United States.

UK police ignore underage sex-trafficking

What kinds of crimes might be ignored by the UK police? Here are some previous crimes that were ignored by the police.

The UK Daily Mail reports:

A victim of the ring said she was ‘let down’ by police and the Crown Prosecution Service because the issue of [Middle Eastern immigrant] gangs grooming young white girls was ‘unheard of’ at the time.

The girl, who was 15 when she was targeted by the gang, reported the abuse to police in August 2008 but the CPS decided not to prosecute because they did not believe a jury would find her ‘credible’.

The Evening Standard reports:

The girls, some as young as 11, were drugged, raped, trafficked and used as prostitutes while supposedly in the safe-keeping of the local authority in Oxford.

[…]Today five men of Pakistani origin and two from North Africa were convicted of more than 40 charges spanning eight years.

[…]The charges involved six girls between the ages of 11 and 15 who were abused over nine years in the Cowley area of Oxford.

[…]Girl D told how, at the age of 11, she was branded with a heated hairpin by a trafficker and loaned to other abusers for £600 an hour.

Over five years she was repeatedly raped by large groups of men in what she described as “torture sex”.

[…]Another victim, Girl A, complained of her plight to police on two occasions but no one was charged.

We have to learn what the Democrat party is planning for tomorrow by looking at what similar secular leftists are doing in other countries today. There isn’t a Democrat politician in the USA who doesn’t agree 100% with these UK policies. The only reason they haven’t been enacted here is because they don’t have the majorities in the House and Senate. Yet.

Why is it so difficult for a working man to be sole provider and leader of a home?

Welfare spending
Welfare spending

So, I’ve noticed that many men who are interested in marriage have been running into problems with their plans. One challenge is the problem of the financial costs of marriage. In order to undertake a marriage enterprise, men have to believe that they can pay the bills. And this is especially challenging to men who want a stay-at-home wife to raise their children.

*Please note that I am talking about unmarried (never married, divorced) women throughout this post.

Here’s my argument for why I think that feminism has made it harder for men to afford to get married:

  1. Feminism caused no-fault divorce.
  2. No-fault divorce laws led to more frequent divorces.
  3. Divorced women turn to government for financial support.
  4. Taxes increase in order to pay for more government spending.
  5. Men who were interested in marriage were hit with higher taxes, which made marriage enterprise financially unfeasible for them.

Here’s the evidence for each point.

1. Feminism was behind no-fault divorce, according to this feminist, pro-no-fault-divorce writer.

Excerpt:

Households of 2010 don’t look quite like they did in 1969, when no-fault divorce actually was a controversial topic and these counter-arguments held some weight. The working dad/stay-at-home mom model of the middle class has been replaced by two-parent earner households and a growing number of working mom/stay-at-home dad arrangements. In working poor and impoverished families, the one-parent provider model was never the norm. No-fault divorce seemed scary when it had never before existed, but the truth is that its introduction was long overdue. Feminist groups at the time supported no-fault divorce, as it provided women an escape hatch from desperately unhappy marriages in a society where they were already disadvantaged on almost every level, regardless of their marital status. Imagine an abusive marriage in 1968, when the court-savvy abuser could actually force the victim to stay in the relationship forever. Imagine that now, and you know why domestic violence attorneys are in full support of introducing no-fault divorce to New York. And the judges aren’t the only problem.

Note that the author of this piece thinks that it is not women’s fault that they choose men who they then want to divorce. It’s not the woman’s fault that she is unhappy with the man she courted with and then chose and then made vows to. She isn’t responsible for choosing a good man with chastity, sobriety, moral convictions, etc. She thinks that women shouldn’t be held responsible for their choices. Also, feminists think that children do fine without fathers.

2. Easier divorces means more divorces.

Abstract:

This paper analyzes a panel of 18 European countries spanning from 1950 to 2003 to examine the extent to which the legal reforms leading to “easier divorce” that took place during the second half of the 20th century have contributed to the increase in divorce rates across Europe. We use a quasi-experimental set-up and exploit the different timing of the reforms in divorce laws across countries. We account for unobserved country-specific factors by introducing country fixed effects, and we include country-specific trends to control for time-varying factors at the country level that may be correlated with divorce rates and divorce laws, such as changing social norms or slow moving demographic trends. We find that the different reforms that “made divorce easier” were followed by significant increases in divorce rates. The effect of no-fault legislation was strong and permanent, while unilateral reforms only had a temporary effect on divorce rates. Overall, we estimate that the legal reforms account for about 20 percent of the increase in divorce rates in Europe between 1960 and 2002.

It seems obvious, but more evidence never hurts. About 70% of divorces are initiated by women, either because they chose to marry the wrong man, or because they become unhappy with the right man.

3. Marital instability causes women to vote for bigger government for security.

Excerpt:

Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators. Suffrage also coincided with changes in the probability that prohibition would be enacted and changes in divorce laws.

[…]More work remains to be done on why women vote so differently, but our initial work provides scant evidence that it is due to self-interest arising from their employment by government. The only evidence that we found indicated that the gender gap in part arises from women’s fear that they are being left to raise children on their own (Lott and Kenny 1997). If this result is true, the continued breakdown of the family and higher divorce rates imply growing political conflicts between the sexes.

Bigger government must be paid for by higher taxes, which makes it harder for one working man’s income to provide for a family. In fact, feminists wanted men to be displaced as sole-providers. They would prefer that women are “equal” to men, and that means making women get out and work like men. It was no concern of theirs that children would be raised by strangers in daycares and government schools.

4. Women are in fact observed to vote for bigger government.

Excerpt:

On Tuesday, the nation made history. It made history in electing the first African American president; it made history in building a bigger margin for the first female Speaker of the House; it made history in delivering the biggest Democratic margin since 1964; it made history in sending a record number of people to the polls and the highest percentage turnout since the 1960 election. Analysts will spend the next few months sifting through the data, trying to figure out what happened and why. Historians will likely spend the next several years and decades studying this election, as well. But one thing is immediately clear. Unmarried women played a pivotal role in making this history and in changing this nation. They delivered a stunning 70 to 29 percent margin to Barack Obama and delivered similarly strong margins in races for Congress and the U.S. Senate. Although unmarried women have voted Democratic consistently since marital status has been was tracked, this election represents the highest margin recorded and a 16-point net gain at the Presidential level from 2004.

In fact, there was a recent (2011) study showing that unmarried women do in fact vote for higher taxes and more government as a substitute for a husband’s provider role.

Abstract:

The last three decades have witnessed the rise of a political gender gap in the United States wherein more women than men favor the Democratic party. We trace this development to the decline in marriage, which we posit has made men richer and women poorer. Data for the United States support this argument. First, there is a strong positive correlation between state divorce prevalence and the political gender gap – higher divorce prevalence reduces support for the Democrats among men but not women. Second, longitudinal data show that following marriage (divorce), women are less (more) likely to support the Democratic party.

What follows from voting Democrat?

If more people vote for Democrats then we will get higher taxes to pay for all the government spending. Higher taxes means that a married man can no longer retain enough of his earnings to support a family. And that means his wife has to work, and that means that his children will learn what the daycare workers and government school teachers decide they should learn.

But what do men want out of marriage? Men don’t want to marry a stressed-out competitor, and be yelled at in their own home. They want a homemaker who is focused on her husband and children. They want their children raised by someone who shares their worldview. Men want to produce moral, influential, independent children. Men want to be respected in their homes as sole provider. Men marry in order to lead on moral and spiritual issues. And men understand that a woman who doesn’t work outside the home usually makes a more feminine, supportive partner in the marriage enterprise.

If society, including the parents of daughters and the pastors of daughters, have decided that women don’t have to care about what men want out of marriage, then they should not be surprised that men don’t want marriage. Men may have no-commitment temporary sexual relationships with a secular left feminist who has been focused on her own feminist projects: travel, student loans, promiscuity, career, etc. But they certainly do not marry those women. When it comes to marriage, men want women who embrace the roles of wife and mother. And unlike shoes and handbags, we get a vote about whether or not the marriage happens.