So okay: Britain’s got rape-gangs. This is not so good from the feminist point of view. But look on the bright side: the ludicrous excuses about the rape-gangs are being made by powerful women. In “The Blessings of Diversity”, I looked at the weasel words of the glass-ceiling-smashers: Sue Berelowitz, Joanna Simons and Laura Johnston. Feminists will be pleased to hear that there’s more to come. Here’s another glass-ceiling-smasher with more ludicrous excuses:

Thames Valley Police Chief Constable Sara Thornton said she was sorry the paedophile ring [in Oxford] had not been brought to justice sooner. Asked if she had considered offering her resignation she said: “I think the focus for me is on driving improvements into the future.” She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme the cases were originally looked at individually and added: “I don’t think we understood the extent that the abuse was systematic and it was organised. It was only when we sat down, pooled our information with that of the social workers, that we began to piece together the picture which explained what was happening in terms of this criminal network in Oxford.” (Sex gang victim accuses council, The Shropshire Star, May 14, 2013)

Chief Constable Sara Thornton’s words might look like English, but they’re not. They’re actually Weaselese, the special language used by liberals to evade inconvenient reality and escape personal responsibility. To understand what the Chief Constable really means, you need to read this:

Oxford sex gang: girls as young as 11 “forced into prostitution” Girls as young as 11 were forced into prostitution and trafficked around the country by the Oxford paedophile ring. The gang of seven – convicted at the Old Bailey on Tuesday – used and abused their victims over long periods of time, subjecting them to “extreme depravity”, including biting and being horse-whipped. And, as with the Rochdale grooming ring, opportunities to stop the abuse were missed time and again. One of the victims described how she was even threatened with arrest for wasting police time when she tried to report the abuse. Having secured their confidence, the men would ply them with alcohol and introduce them to drugs such as cannabis, crack and heroin. The youngsters would become addicted, making them even more dependent on the men, who would also threaten to harm them or their families if they tried to leave. The girls were often taken to guest houses or empty private properties in Oxford, some of which were used solely for abuse. Men would travel from Bradford, Leeds, London and Slough to pay to have sex with the girls in appointments arranged by the gang. One youngster described two of the men as “the sick sex monsters”. Another was branded with a hairpin which was bent and heated up by a man who regarded her as his property. One girl, referred to as Girl A for legal reasons, felt brave enough to face her abusers in court, while others gave evidence from behind a curtain. She wept as she described how the gang threatened to burn her younger brother alive unless she had sex with them. She was repeatedly raped and sold for sex between 2004 and 2007 when she was aged 12 to 15. When she went to police, no action was taken. She claimed that they threatened to arrest her instead. “They threatened on a number of occasions to arrest me for wasting police time for turning up at a police station in a state after running away,” she said. “Any self-respecting police officer would have seen something was wrong. If you pick up a child who is covered in cigarette burns and bruises, something is fundamentally wrong. Adults should be doing their jobs, it’s not down to a child.” … Girl B said she was told she would be shot if she did not have sex with men when she was 14. Now 21, she said the men would wait for her near her children’s home. She would then be driven to various places where she would be plied with drink and drugs in order to be raped or sold to other men. She said Akhtar Dogar threatened her when she refused to perform a sex act. “He said if I didn’t do what I was told he knew someone who would shoot me,” she told jurors. In August 2006, she was taken to a flat off Rectory Road, Oxford. She called police when she realised there were 11 men who wanted to have sex with her. Girl C wept as she described how she was plied with drugs and forced to have sex with strangers while being filmed at the age of 13. Now aged 20, Girl C said she felt wanted by the man who had been nice to her at first and fed her drugs. … She was taken to London, Coventry and Manchester to have sex with older men and given heroin and crack cocaine. On one occasion, in London, she was fed so much crack that she could not breathe and was rushed to hospital. Girl D, now aged 19, gave the most harrowing evidence. She was groomed at the age of 11 and turned into a sex slave by an older man. She had gone to a flat “to chill” and was given drink and drugs. Mohammed Karrar followed her to the bathroom and raped her. He later introduced her to other men and told her to perform sex acts on them. At the age of 12, she was taken to a house in Reading, where she was forced to undergo an illegal abortion on the living room floor. … On one occasion, she threatened him with a lock knife after he raped her in a bathroom. Her punishment was being hit across the head with a baseball bat and assaulted with its metal handle. … Girl D said when she was 12 and a half, she was taken to a flat and prepared to have group sex with at least four men. She said five men arrived and started drinking and taking cocaine. “I felt really ill. I felt in a daze. I remember being lifted onto a kitchen table. I had sex with all of them, four of them.” Afterwards, she said she was taken two or three times a week to High Wycombe for “sex parties”. There would be three or four men present and she would be subjected to indignities such as biting and being horse-whipped. She also had candle wax poured on her and was tied up. Some men would call her “our baby girl” while at other times men would “swarm” around her. At 13, she was injected with heroin. From then on, she would be beaten if she refused. (Oxford sex gang: girls as young as 11 “forced into prostitution”, The Daily Telegraph, 14 May 2013)

Chief Constable Sara Thornton says the cases were “originally looked at individually.” That’s Weaselese, not English. Translated into English, it means: “The victims repeatedly sought police help, but were ignored or threatened with arrest.” Chief Constable Sara Thornton also says that the police “didn’t understand” that “the abuse was systematic and organised.” Again, that’s Weaselese. Translated into English, it means: “Year after year, we turned a blind eye to blatant sex-crimes because they were being committed by non-White men against White girls.”

The problem wasn’t that the crimes were “systematic and organized,” the problem was that the crimes were both highly serious and highly visible. It was police neglect that allowed them to become “systematic and organized.” So Sarah Thornton is using police failure as an excuse for police failure.

She goes on to say that it was “only when” the police “pooled their information” with “social workers” that they could “piece together the picture which explained what was happening.” This is perhaps the finest Weaselese of all. You see, on the one hand, the police knew that serious crimes were being committed in Oxford. And, on the other hand, social workers knew that serious crimes were being committed in Oxford. A decade went by, but at last the police and social workers found time in their busy anti-racist schedules to “pool their information.” And it was “only” then that they realized – with horror and consternation – that serious crimes were being committed. And in Oxford, no less!

There’s more fine Weaselese in the excuses offered by Joanna Simons, the chief executive of Oxfordshire county council:

We are incredibly sorry we were not able to stop it any sooner. We were up against a gang of devious criminals. The girls thought they were their friends… These are devious crimes that are very complicated. (See here and here)

When Joanna Simons says the criminals were “devious,” she’s telling a truth to convey a lie. Yes, non-White adults were able to trick White children into being raped, tortured and prostituted. But Joanna Simons is not a child. Nor are the police and social workers working for her council:

Karrar was brazen in his exploitation of Girl D and acted in the belief that the authorities would never challenge him – something that for years proved to be true. Isolated, terrified and dependant on the drugs she was being fed, she summoned up the courage to report Karrar to the police twice; once in May 2005 and again in 2007. Nothing happened. Social workers also knew and did not act. One told the court it was the “general consensus” of the staff in her care home that she was being groomed. In 2007, while Girl D was on a trip with a social worker, Karrar and his brother repeatedly called her mobile phone. When her social worker answered one of the calls, Karrar told him: “If you don’t get her I’ll fuck you up, I’ll fuck her up and I’ll fuck her mum up.” (Oxford gang skillfully groomed young victims then sold them for £600 a time, The Guardian, 14 May 2013)

From Joanna Simons’ adult point of view, the correct description of the crimes is not “devious,” but “brazen” and “blatant.” As a lying liberal, she doesn’t use the correct description. She prefers to use Weaselese and tell lies. She also says that the crimes were “very complicated.” That’s more Weaselese. Translated into English, it means: “Thanks to our neglect, the sex-criminals committed a lot of crimes, which would eventually take a long time to record and investigate.” So the crimes were “complicated,” i.e. numerous, because the authorities permitted them to carry on. Joanna Simons then uses the scale of the crimes as an excuse for not ending them sooner. There’s a word for that kind of brazen dishonesty: chutzpah. The word isn’t native to the English language, but that’s because the behaviour it describes was once unfamiliar in English-speaking cultures.

But that’s enough Weaselese from lying liberal females. Let’s have some Weaselese from a lying liberal male instead:

The Rotherham grooming case shows the dangers of confusing criminality with culture, by Peter Watt If you are a parent then there are some things that scare you more than others. Someone else hurting your children is pretty high up that list. The details emerging from Rotherham over the last few months [written in September 2012] about the systematic abuse of young girls are truly the stuff of parental nightmare. But it’s all made worse because it now seems that for over ten years those charged with protecting children and young people failed. In fact, worst of all, they decided to look the other way! They made a choice: protect children in the face of overwhelming evidence of sexual abuse and cruelty or worry more about some misconceived notion of “cultural sensitivities”, as if there is any culture where rape is acceptable. They chose the latter. It is important to say that the Times [paywall] has led the way in exposing both the abuse and the cover up. And some of the details that they have uncovered from confidential reports are some of the most shocking that you can imagine. The documents revealed by the Times give details of events over the years for which no one was prosecuted such as: • Fifty-four Rotherham children were linked to sexual exploitation by three brothers from one British Pakistani family, 18 identifying one brother as their “boyfriend” and several allegedly made pregnant by him; • A 14-year-old girl from a loving, supportive family was allegedly held in a flat and forced to perform sex acts on five men, four of them Pakistani, plus a 32-year-old Iraqi Kurd. She gave a filmed police interview and identified her abusers; • One girl, 15, spent days in hospital after a broken bottle was allegedly forced inside her by two young British Pakistani men in a park, causing her to bleed extensively; • A 13-year-old girl was found at 3am with disrupted clothing in a house with a large group of Asian men who had fed her vodka. A neighbour reported the girl’s screams. Police arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly but did not question the men. But the police and local authorities knew – and did nothing! As the Times says: “A confidential 2010 report by the police intelligence bureau warning that thousands of such crimes were committed in the county each year. It contains explosive details about the men responsible for the most serious, co-ordinated abuse. “Possibly the most shocking threat is the existence of substantial and organised offender networks that groom and exploit victims on a worrying scale,” the report says. “Practitioners throughout the force state there is a problem with networks of Asian offenders both locally and nationally. This was particularly stressed in Sheffield and even more so in Rotherham, where there appears to be a significant problem with networks of Asian males exploiting young white females. Such groups are said to have trafficked South Yorkshire child victims to many other cities, including Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford and Dover”. But nothing was done; why? Well, in 2010 the Rotherham Safeguarding Children board produced another report. The board is made up of senior representation from local schools, social services, voluntary sector and the police. Now remember that no one had been prosecuted but enough was clearly known and there were enough concerns for a report to be commissioned into what had been going on, in fact still was going on. They helpfully noted that the crimes (presumably they meant alleged) had: “cultural characteristics … which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity.” And for the avoidance of doubt as to where priorities lay: “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.” So scores of girls aged 12–16 from a small geographical area are groomed, gang-raped and then intimidated into silence by a small group of men of Pakistani origin and: “It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.” What bloody planet are these people on? No one is suggesting that all Pakistani men are rapists for God’s sake. There is nothing genetic or cultural about criminality. But a sick and distorted sense of political and cultural sensitivity allowed criminals to go unprosecuted and worse the horror to continue for years for young girls in Rotherham. The irony is that this “culturally sensitive” approach will be seen as manna from heaven to the racists, who will surely exploit this to the max. Sadly the voices of most local families of Pakistani origin won’t be heard. Their horror, their sense of shame about an incredibly small and nasty group of misogynist men from their community, will be missed by many. And in reality they were also let down by the decisions taken by the local police and local authorities. Local MP Dennis [sic] MacShane has been a refreshingly strong voice this week saying: “There’s a culture here of denial and cover-up and a refusal to accept the reality that we have men living in the Rotherham community who treat young girls as objects for their sexual pleasure. It’s time to tell the truth. We must root out this evil.” He is right. … The really big story this week has been the uncovering of what surely must be one of the most shocking and largest scale child abuse scandals ever. And quite frankly it is that we should be getting hot under the collar about and demanding a full public enquiry into. Or is industrial scale rape simply not newsworthy enough? Peter Watt was general secretary of the Labour party (The Rotherham grooming case shows the dangers of confusing criminality with culture, Labour-Uncut.co.uk, September 27, 2012)

“What bloody planet are these people on?” asks Peter Watt, former general secretary of the Labour party. The answer is: Planet Labour. The council overseeing “the culture of denial and cover-up” was a Labour council, which meant that it was unrelentingly hostile to the White working-class. The slug-like neo-conservative Denis MacShane was on the same planet: he was the Labour Member of Parliament (MP) for Rotherham. His role in the scandal is well summarized by this comment on Watt’s article by a member of the public:

Thank God Denis MacShane got elected in 2010 and has spoken out about the vile episode. Why did the previous MP for Rotherham say nothing for 10 years and leave it all to brave Denis? (See here)

The comment is sarcastic. MacShane was the “MP for Rotherham” throughout the period covered by the scandal. He said and did nothing while “scores” of non-vibrant White girls were abused by vibrant non-Whites. In other words, he was part of the “culture of cover-up and denial” and he helped the “evil” to flourish. He spoke out only when the Times exposed the scandal in 2012. So when Watt calls MacShane a “refreshingly strong voice,” he’s using Weaselese. He means: “MacShane stayed silent as long as he could.”

Watt is also using Weaselese when he talks about an “incredibly small” number of Pakistani men being involved in the abuse. First, that’s not true: there were (and still are) “substantial and organised offender networks.” “Substantial” means what it says. Second, there were “thousands” of offences in a single county, committed overwhelmingly against the White working-class whom the Labour party are supposed to champion and protect. The clue’s in the party’s name: it’s called “Labour.” Nowadays, that’s an Orwellian title. The Labour party works to harm the White working-class, not protect it:

A close ally of [the Labour leader] Ed Miliband has attacked Labour for “lying” about immigration. Lord Glasman – a leading academic and personal friend of the Labour leader – said that the previous Labour government [1997–2010] had used mass immigration to control wages. In an article for Progress magazine, the Labour peer wrote: “Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration … and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.” Labour let in 2.2 million migrants during its 13 years in power. … Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 recently: “What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing. Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.” He said: “In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. [Labour’s] commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.” (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April, 2011)