Huddersfield grooming gang jailed for abusing vulnerable girls
Twenty members of a “vile and wicked” grooming gang have been convicted of trafficking, drugging and raping vulnerable girls in a harrowing campaign of abuse across West Yorkshire. It can now be reported that the ringleader of the group, 35-year-old Amere Singh Dhaliwal, was jailed for life to serve a minimum of 18 years after being found guilty of 54 offences, including countless rapes of children.
Judge Geoffrey Marson QC said the crimes against 15 girls far exceeded anything he had previously seen. The gang’s “persistent and prolonged” offending, he said, was “at the top of the scale” of severity.
Details of the case, believed to be Britain’s single biggest grooming prosecution, can be disclosed after a judge agreed to lift reporting restrictions on Friday, following a legal challenge by media groups including the Guardian. One of the trials had previously almost collapsed when the anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson filmed defendants in a live Facebook video outside Leeds crown court.
Jurors in the three trials heard how the men, mostly from Huddersfield, plied girls as young as 11 with alcohol and drugs before sexually abusing them in car parks, hotels, takeaways, snooker halls, on moors and by reservoirs across the region.
Fifteen severely vulnerable girls fell victim to the gang between 2004 and 2011. One girl, aged 11 or 12 at the time, was abducted from a care home and supplied ecstasy before being made to perform sex acts, Leeds crown court heard. Many of the victims described how they were plied with drink and drugs at house parties then raped “one by one” by the men, who used plastic bags as condoms.
Dhaliwal was at the heart of the group, who referred to each other using nicknames including “Dracula,” “Beastie” and “Chiller” in monikers that were used in the three trials.
The girls were deliberately targeted for their vulnerabilities. All had troubled home lives, including one whose mother was unable to care for her due to drink and drug addictions.
Two of the girls had mild learning disabilities. At least one girl attempted suicide and another had an abortion, jurors heard. One of the girls was thrown out of a moving car outside her home. She had bruises all over her face and was under the influence of alcohol and drugs. They were made to feel special by flattery, going to parties, having rides in cars and given presents, the judge said. Many thought the men were showing them genuine affection.
>>16143 It's a sad indictment you feel child sex grooming gangs are so commonplace that you have been thoroughly desensitised to them and feel that the single largest prosecution for it isn't noteworthy.
The problem is that threads about grooming and sexual abuse of children always attract paedolads who will then tell you all sorts of things about how it's not that bad, and that childfuckery should even be legal and can be consensual and all that sort of thing. And before you know it, that's the kind of debate you will have on here.
If you must debate this kind of news story, then everybody is probably better off if you just go to the Daily Mail's web site. Paedo or not.
>>16148 We shouldn't discuss something because of something that clearly hasn't happened in this thread. Are you sure you don't have an ulterior motive here, lad?
>>16153 On the one hand, we've got a few sensitive souls who believe that brown people are beyond reproach and any criticism of the abusers can only be because of racism, so they're trying to pre-empt this by saying we shouldn't even be having the thread because the potential for racism is making them uncomfortable; you will note that their discomfort is brought about by their concerns of possible racism rather than the treatment of the victims themselves, which is similar to how Rotherham was enabled.
On the other hand, we have a massive edgelord who is so convinced that the mods are stopping him from saying what he wants to say, despite the fact he hasn't actually said anything yet, that he's imagining his posts are being deleted. Our self-appointed straight talking champion of free speech boldly soldiering on against the PC crowd trying to silence him from saying exactly how things are.
>>16155 >their discomfort is brought about by their concerns of possible racism rather than the treatment of the victims themselves, which is similar to how Rotherham was enabled.
The victims probably wouldn't want to talk about it much either I'm guessing.
>>16155 >On the one hand, we've got a few sensitive souls who believe that brown people are beyond reproach and any criticism of the abusers can only be because of racism
>>16160 I've noticed for a while now that cunt offs are most frequently initiated by the narky cunt who thinks he's able to get ahead of them and fend them off by announcing their imminent arrival. It's usually an invitation worse and ultimately more tedious than what would have happened otherwise.
It's all in Al-Mu'minoon, particularly verses 5 and 6 . As an exmuzlad who escaped the bullshit I can confirm within the 'community' a girl is seen as a woman from puberty based on I s lam. These beliefs run in masjids and the 'community'. There is a code of silence where gangsters are allowed to do what they do because they are 'from a certain religion' they are untouchable.
Many people despise this but at the same time are less reactive as it is a core tenet of belief that sex is ok at puberty as you are a woman. You need to be married to a girl who's hit puberty to have sex with her and you can beat her if your wife doesn't obey. Slave girls you can do what you want with them.
17 times the 'recital' refers to boiling water as torture but not once mentions sterilisation through boiling.
There is this thing called subtext. Threads about this sort of thing have happened a lot here over the years, with ARE SI declaring it a eskimo problem. so if the topic of rape pedophile gangs come up and it is all eskimos as it usually seems to be people will double down and pre-emtively treat the thread like it is BNP propaganda.
It has the added effect of demonstrating to any BNPist that even reporting the bare facts about a crime commited by a non-white person is enough to brand you a racist, further cementing their view of the world.
BNP died when Nick Griffin was allowed on Question Time. The reason why people voted BNP wasn't because they were neo nazis, it's because the BNP were against mslim rape gangs. Tommy Robinson joined the BNP because of the BNP approach to rape gangs , he fucked them off when he turned up with his black mates at the BNP meeting when they weren't allowed in.
>>16170 The problem with this sort of approach is that it allows the likes of the BNP to gain mileage.
Channel 4 made the documentary Edge of the City in 2004 about social services in Yorkshire, which featured two mothers claiming Asian men were grooming their daughters. The broadcast was initially withdrawn after pressure from the likes of UAF that it would drive up racial tensions and would lead to people voting BNP at the local and European elections that year. Unsurprisingly the BNP went full on with their propaganda.
In the end the BNP were proven right. Children were being groomed en masse. There was a cover-up in places like Rotherham. People didn't speak out because they were more concerned with being politically correct than the welfare of these girls. It means that the BNP gain credibility despite the fact they'll have really made matters worse.
Now Tommy Robinson is doing exactly the same about Huddersfield. He's been found in contempt of court but he's been able to portray himself as the only person to speak out and act as if the establishment wanted to hush up who the perpetrators are; for all we know the only reason the likes of the Guardian made the legal challenge to lift the reporting restrictions is because they knew exactly what Robinson's game was. The real reason for the media blackout was because there were so many defendants that there were several trials and they didn't want the outcome of the first ones to influence the later ones, but that doesn't matter to Robinson as he was allowed to shape the narrative with his video outside of court watched by hundreds of thousands.
Griffin. Farage. Robinson. They are all different cheeks of the same arse. They love to paint themselves as victims. The voice for the voiceless. Standing up against the system that wants to silence them. Pointing out things others are afraid to say. Getting their followers to eat out the palm of their hands, to the point that they're blindly followed when they start adding their bullshit to the mix. What happens when you ignore these people? Brexit.
>>16175 It's funny how, reading about Edge of the City, the UAF only got involved after the BNP started promoting the documentary in advance of its broadcast and calling it a "party political broadcast". The way you've written it is to suggest well-meaning people were allowing the BNP to exploit it by pre-emptively campaigning against it, when the BNP were exploiting it anyway.
>>16178 No, as I said, >>16175 is arguing that 'banning discussion of controversial topics allows the far-right to gain ground', and I'm undermining that facile premise by pointing out they have their facts wrong.
>>16179 Channel 4 made clear that they did not delay broadcast because of the BNP bandwagoning. It was due to lobbying from the likes of UAF and eventually the police. It's semantics due to your interpretation twisting what was said solely to suit the point being made.
You're being incredibly myopic by only focussing on the documentary. The BNP were making a lot of noise about child grooming for the better part of a decade before the Rotherham scandal was unveiled. It was barely discussed in the meantime and it's exactly this what the far-right look to exploit; it gives them unwarranted credibility. It is exactly the same tactics Tommy Robinson is disingenuously using over Huddersfield. You do not give these people the opportunity to paint themselves as victims.
>is arguing that 'banning discussion of controversial topics allows the far-right to gain ground', and I'm undermining that facile premise
Details of this particular example aside, this is EXACTLY how grassroots movements build. People become far more interested in politics, and entrenched in their views, when they feel they're being suppressed. It adds a lot of momentum.
Grooming ‘epidemic’ as almost 19,000 children identified as sexual exploitation victims in England
Almost 19,000 children have been sexually groomed in England in the past year, according to official figures that have prompted warnings of an “epidemic”.
Campaigners say the true figure is far higher and accused the government of failing to tackle child sexual exploitation, despite promises made after high-profile cases in Rotherham and Rochdale.
More than 18,700 suspected victims of child sexual exploitation were identified by local authorities in 2018-19, up from 3,300 five years before.
>>20799 I bet neither. It probably means that kids and the people around them are more willing to complain and the social workers on the front line are more receptive to allegations. They've certainly been trained to be more vigilant after the many scandals where victims have been systematically ignored. As a result I think things that were once seen as a bit scummy ("she just has an older boyfriend") is now being recorded as CSE.
Not sure if it's the same with children, but while rape complaints have continued to skyrocket convictions are decreasing in absolute terms.
>As a result I think things that were once seen as a bit scummy ("she just has an older boyfriend") is now being recorded as CSE.
Fair. The amount of 15 year old girls at my school who had boyfriends picking them up in cars etc was staggering, though we were a rough as fuck school.
I suppose you couldn't get away with that sort of thing now. Almost certainly for the best, gives those poor 15 year old lads a chance.
I did alright at that age, though looking back I definitely missed a couple of opportunities that were staring me in the face, the ones I pursued myself worked out well.
I think there's a well-documented case where the numbers of reported cases of suspected parental abuse shot up at a child daycare centre after the employees had received training on how to spot signs of it. A large portion of the suspected abuse could then not be subtantiated through actual evidence, and it left the reputation of quite a number of loving families damaged who had never done a thing to hurt their child. It was then concluded that the training the employees had been subjected to was too superficial and not up to standards, and had not made them competent judges of potential child abuse at all.
Can't find it now, but there was a whole scandal with that kind of thing some time in the 70s or 80s.
>Fair. The amount of 15 year old girls at my school who had boyfriends picking them up in cars etc was staggering, though we were a rough as fuck school.
One of the girls at my school had a boyfriend when she was 16 who drove an almost brand new Golf GTI and who would pick her up from school every other day. He was about 22, 23 and I think he had his own business or something. He showered her with gifts and expensive things, and she carried her nose a bit higher because, hey, she had a posho boyfriend who was a cool seven years older than her.
Didn't stop us from calling him a paedo and her a child prostitute under our breath.
I saw this stuff all the time, and remember thinking that when I got to car-ownership age I'd do the same, as it seemed so easy.
When I actually got to 18/19 I was in a band, and I can't even begin to describe how many girls we attracted by being musicians, let alone musicians with cars and a van and airtime on BBC Introducing. I don't think I shagged any 15 year olds then, it was usually easy enough to figure out their age via myspace.
I understand now why a lot of the girls I knew back then had strict fathers or angry fathers. Once you've seen how quickly a teenage girl will agree to suck you off in a backstage toilet, you could never have a daughter without that looming in your mind somewhere. If any of you lads do have daughters, if she ever comes home wearing a local band's tshirt, then I'm sorry, she's full of jizz.
As someone who also spent my twenties in bands, I can tell you this lads lying. The fanny doesn't come that easy, you have to grind your way through greasy dingy pubs and clubs weathering a complete vaginal drought for at least a couple of years before you start earning pussy for your music.
The trouble is that when you do start getting birds hitting on you at shows, yeah, they're often young, and you do have to be careful. But that's the thing. It's you, the person being prepositioned, who has to be careful, and these little slams are the ones who are completely up for it for who knows what reason.
We really have to confront and honestly have a conversation about that, I know it isn't pleasant and some people want to hand wave it off as a paedo-enabler argument, but we need to seriously look at it. What do we do about the fact lasses at 16 can tart themselves up to get in a club underage and start shagging blokes too old for them completely of their own will?
Our band was an emo (post hard-core really but whatever) band so rarely saw a dingy pub while playing our own music - we were playing basement venue shows and music oriented venues, the sorts of places teenagers go to watch emo bands. Just from MySpace alone we'd get lasses messaging us, never mind in real life. I promise if I was to lie about shagging it wouldn't be about shagging borderline illegals who only liked me for my embarrassing fringe.
While it would probably be perfectly legal for me as a late 30s bloke to shag a 16 year old, albeit massively morally questionable, honestly I don't think I would if I had the chance. I'm not sure what exactly a 16 year old would be able to give me in bed. It was bad enough the first time around when I was 16 years old myself and had to deal with all the adolescent teenlass drama of trying to get someone like that in bed. I don't think it's something I'd want to go through again. Also, a 16 year old will not have had her cherry popped that long ago, so the amount of sexual experience she will have will be fairly limited. I think you have to be at least borderline paedo if that kind of thing is something you actively pursue. At my age anyway.
>>20819 >I didn't get any as a teenager and want to see what it's like to do it at that age.
You can shoot your muck and be ready to go for round two about ten minutes later. When you're older you have a much longer refractory period so you only get one shot to give a good performance.
On the other hand, I think I remember reading something that women reach the height of their horniness around age 24 or thereabouts. Which I think I can kind of confirm. The 16- or 17-year-olds I had sex with as a teenlad seemed to "need it" significantly less than some women I dated years later who were in their mid-20s.
Maybe 20something women are just more secure in themselves and have an easier time just letting themselves go during sex, but I think one factor is also that a woman's estrogen levels are at their highest some time around age 18 to 20. Estrogen tends to dampen sexual desire also in women. And then when you throw hormonal contraceptives into the mix, it's plausible that as a general rule, the best sex you will have with a woman will not be when she's 17, but when she's in her mid-20s. Also, by that time, they will be more experienced, which means they won't give you a handjob that will feel like they're sanding down a chair leg.
>Our band was an emo (post hard-core really but whatever)
Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in that case, if your were in on that scene in the mid 2000s you were sat on top of the proverbial well. I was in a metal band around that time, albeit the kind of Trivium/A7X type shite lasses still listened to, but they were hardly throwing themselves at us.
I'm surprised nobody has ever accused Oli Sykes of being a pedo. I met him once and he was a right bellend. He definitely seemed like the type.
Most of my shagging since then has been achieved by having long hair and a profile picture of me playing a gig, though. Thankfully you can check people's age on Tinder and the like, but even then, I've literally had birds saying things like "I'm really 17 but I lied so I could sign up". In a lot of cases, I think being with an older bloke is desirable to them- Obviously they'll regret it horribly later in life, and it's any bloke's duty to leave well alone, but nevertheless.
Honestly though I don't think there's any kind of age to shaggability correlation. If my experience has taught me one thing, it's that slightly chubby (but not outright fat) ones are always the best. The ones who know they've got a cracking arse, but just enough of a muffin top to feel insecure about it, are the sweet spot. It's like the horseshoe theory.
Young girls in Hull preyed on by city 'sex gangs' - police confirm major investigation
Sex gangs preyed on young girls as part of a suspected child grooming ring in Hull, we can exclusively reveal.
Girls, including some of primary school age, have told how they were subjected to repeated rapes, sexual assaults and degrading treatment at locations around the city over several years. They say they were also trafficked further afield to be abused by more men.
Six young women bravely spoke to Hull Live about their ordeal at the hands of abusers they describe as being men of Asian and Middle Eastern backgrounds, including Turkish, Kurdish and Bangladeshi. All but one of the victims we spoke to were under 16 at the time and targeted at school, a children’s home and even a medical setting.
One victim describes being tied to a radiator while wearing her school uniform before being raped by a man in his sixties. Witnesses said another girl was raped by eight men while unconscious. The testimonies raise chilling parallels to rings exposed in other towns across England including Telford and Rotherham.
Our very own moderation team covering up the truth in the name of political correctness!
How the fuck does their community remain silent on this shit, I supposed to believe nobody knew kids were being raped next door?
>>34360 >No idea how it started considering there's not all that many of them
That's pretty much the same as what happened in Hull. At the turn of the century Hull was around 98% white British, with the largest minority being Chinese people at 0.3% (749 people). Over the next five years or so around 3,000 Iraqi Kurd asylum seekers were sent to Hull, generally referred to as "fucking Kosovans".
>"People were not friendly from the beginning," he remembers. "They would shout, 'Hey, Kosovan, why don't you go back to your own country?' I thought there was something wrong with this place.
Rotherham grooming scandal: Priti Patel says police must record ethnicity of child abuse suspects
Police have been accused of failing the victims of grooming gangs after an investigation found that the force at the centre of the Rotherham scandal was still not recording the ethnicities of suspected child abusers.
A secret intelligence report showed that South Yorkshire police were disregarding basic details of child sex offenders nearly a decade after The Times revealed widespread abuse in the town, largely by men of laplanderstani heritage.
In the 12 months to December 2019, officers in all four South Yorkshire police districts routinely failed to log the ethnicity of those suspected of sexually abusing minors. The highest failure rate was in the Rotherham district, where the ethnicity of 67 per cent of suspects went unrecorded. Internal intelligence profiles produced by the force in 2019 also revealed that the town was still seen as a “hotspot” for the sexual exploitation of children.
Grooming gangs tend to be Caucasian but there is regional variation and there are concerns that if forces do not record ethnicity they will be unable to spot patterns in their area. Inquiries ordered in 2013 after the Rotherham scandal found that child protection professionals had been reluctant to address the issue “for fear of being thought racist”.
South Yorkshire police have spent a year covering up serious failures to tackle the sexual abuse of children.
A request for copies of the force’s internal child sexual exploitation intelligence reports was first made in August last year. The force initially said it did not receive the request due to an “IT blip”, then that it could not provide copies of reports over a ten-year period, despite many other forces being able to, because it would be too expensive. The force rejected a reduced request, rejected an appeal against this refusal, and only after two appeals to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the transparency regulator, disclosed heavily redacted copies of the reports. A third regulatory appeal over the extent of the redactions is continuing.
The force admitted in internal emails that it was trying to block disclosure, freedom of information requests show. One officer said: “I think we need to stick to our guns as to do anything else would create an unwelcome precedent”.
>>36542 >Rotherham grooming scandal: Priti Patel says police must record ethnicity of child abuse suspects
Wasn't everyone being hyper aware of race the problem in the first place?
In a way, this story lets us all know what it feels like to be a minor suffering horrific abuse at the hands of foreigners while the authorities do nothing.
>>36544 The failings of other police forces is more telling in that regard.
A 2018 report that Nottinghamshire police tried to withhold revealed that victims were being left vulnerable because not all officers investigating child sexual exploitation were properly trained, meaning opportunities to charge offenders were missed. It also found that there were not enough sexual abuse specialist officers to deal with demand. It said that officers were not always aware when barring notices had been placed on those known to be a risk to children, and that a failure to share phone records with sexual exploitation investigation unit officers meant “opportunities to safeguard vulnerable victims are being missed”.
Bedfordshire police spent a year trying to block the release of a 2015 report that said that it could not agree with councils in the area as to which children were actually at risk. Out of a list of 1,535 names only 60 were agreed between all agencies and 130 agreed between social services and the police. There was also a lack of co-ordination within the force, the report said.
A 2015 report by Cumbria police found that some police officers viewed victims as being “as willing participants”, without properly checking the background of cases.
Hampshire police’s 2018 profile revealed that child exploitation warning notices, civil orders that ban a suspect from associating with a victim without having to go to trial, often simply led to the abuser approaching another child. It found this happened in as many as 36 per cent of cases, and that “governance, ownership and accountancy weaknesses” in the previous year “contributed to the mixed effectiveness of these tools”.
Hampshire police’s 2018 profile revealed that child exploitation warning notices, civil orders that ban a suspect from associating with a victim without having to go to trial, often simply led to the abuser approaching another child. It found this happened in as many as 36 per cent of cases, and that “governance, ownership and accountancy weaknesses” in the previous year “contributed to the mixed effectiveness of these tools”.
After a fifteen-month freedom of information battle Sussex police disclosed its 2019 report, which revealed that “many officers have little understanding of how important intelligence is and may feel they do not have time to complete an intelligence log” in relation to child sexual exploitation. The force also struggled with some partners such as schools and charities, saying it had to send back intelligence submissions due to poor quality.
North Yorkshire police found in 2017 that it was failing to flag offenders as being a risk to children until an offence was proven.
Lord Ahmed: Former peer guilty of child sex offences
Lord Ahmed of Rotherham was convicted of a serious sexual assault against a boy and the attempted rape of a young girl.
Sheffield Crown Court heard the repeated sexual abuse happened in Rotherham when he was a teenager.
The 64-year-old, who appeared under his real name of Nazir Ahmed, had denied the charges.
Lord Ahmed, who was convicted following a retrial, resigned from the House of Lords in November 2020 after a conduct committee report concluded he had sexually and emotionally exploited a vulnerable woman who sought his help.
Sorry if I hijack the thread, but I wonder if I am the only one to find this massive police incompetence as... suspicious? I wonder if there is something behind this strange string of failures. My idea is that the pedo rings were actually providing fresh meat for the British upper upper class (a bunch of inbred pedo psychopaths). That "we did not arrest them because we feared to be called racists" spiel looks like the kind of childish excuse that any Please don't ban me reader would gobble up without questioning. Maybe in 50 years, when everybody will be dead, the truth will come out.
>>36596 From what I remember, the police weren't that interested in investigating because they saw the girls as worthless slags who were asking for it willing participants. It was social services and other local authority departments that were too afraid to act out of fear of being branded racist. If you've worked for a council you'll realise how easy it is to bring about inaction by saying something like "you can't do that because of health and safety" because 95% of people won't know any better and feel it's plausible whereas the other 5% who know better won't stick their head above the parapet if they feel they're in the minority and will be shouted down. Don't rock the boat, basically.
>I wonder if I am the only one to find this massive police incompetence as... suspicious?
Coppers are just quite dim. Research shows that they're actually worse than the general population at telling when someone is lying, most likely because they have so much experience in dealing with people who are really bad at crime and so get caught constantly.
The Met's defence over the mis-handling of the Stephen Port case is that they aren't homophobic, just crap at their jobs.
In my experience, that is always a lie. Dumb people do not understand their own dumbness. Playing dumb works quite well, if you do not mind being regarded as an idiot
In my experience, every single time a person or an organization has used that "boo hoo hoo forgive me please I am just dumb" excuse, it was a lie to cover for something much worse than that. I bet that they were just covering for some MP or some Lord with a taste for young, fresh meat.
>In my experience, every single time a person or an organization has used that "boo hoo hoo forgive me please I am just dumb" excuse, it was a lie to cover for something much worse than that.
Really? Then you must live in a much more competent world than I do. Horrendous fuck-ups happen all the time, because a) human beings are very fallible and b) most organisations are at least somewhat dysfunctional and lacking in accountability.
Where malice is involved, it's frequently in the form of a cover-up of incompetence rather than a deliberate intent to cause harm. The Post Office scandal is an obvious example of this - nobody wanted to wrongly prosecute nearly a thousand people for fraud based on completely false evidence, but lying to the court for a decade was easier than admitting "we spent a billion quid on a useless IT system and we don't know what to do about it". The worst miscarriage of justice in British history was just a schoolboy lie taken to extremes.
The bleak reality is that most people are actually quite shit at their jobs and we've created a culture that allows powerful people to evade accountability. There's no grand conspiracy, just a tacit omerta. Nobody in a position of power wants to hold anyone else to account, because they might be next in line. Some people really do have terrible skeletons in their closet, but the secret most people are hiding is simply that they have no idea what they're doing and spend most of their working hours trying not to get caught out.
Are you by any chance the sort of person who wholeheartedly believes and accepts the accuser's story in every big sex scandal, because "I knew he was one of 'em"? The sort who can spot a carpet-bagger at forty paces?
The sort who is frequently wrong, is what I'm getting at.
