Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:17, 23 July 2012

Crime and Criminal Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	British crime (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime

	Pedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch

Move

I suggest that this article be moved, either simply to correct the capitalisation, or to a different title if one is put forward. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I was a tad too hasty.Ankh.Morpork 19:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It'll do fine for the moment :) When a few more people discover the article, more ideas will surface. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Roger (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Title is currently a bit wordy and is not commonly used to describe the gang. I propose moving the page to either:

• Rochdale sex gang
• Rochdale sex ring
• Rochdale sex traffickers
• Rochdale pedophile ring

Ankh.Morpork 21:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought about this earlier today while reading The Grauniad - they were using a different phrase to describe the group/case: "Rochdale child sex ring." This is also used by Huff Post , ITV and Manc Evening News. Also I note that there has been a flurry of further arrests in Rochdale . Keristrasza (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think your title is more descriptive then the current one, although it may be covered by "Rochdale pedophile ring". I have added information about subsequent arrests and a second sex ring.Ankh.Morpork 22:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Sensational "tabloid-ish" details

We need to guard against including excessively sensational detail, WP is not a tabloid. Roger (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

:Agreed sensationalist crap by right winger users obvious copyright violations also 109.150.60.218 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Nangparbat sock - Ankh.Morpork 21:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dates

Someone needs to add the dates to all the news reports, standardise on DMY for the dates, and then remove the inuse template. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gang members and victims

The article does not say anywhere how many people; perpetrators and victims, were involved. Roger (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Now it says ten men (nine of Pakistani origin and one Afghan) but at least one source says nine were convicted - this needs to be resolved. Roger (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, have read several sources to check (true some of the reporting is a bit unclear), but 9 were convicted out of 11 charged, I have modded to reflect this, with the corresponding ref. On another matter, I feel that the final section needs a serious rewrite, there is overrepetition of British Pakistani men and suchlike, if you have a few minutes? And, btw, good, logical reordering of the info in the gang members section. CaptainScreebo 12:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There were 12 defendants: 9 were found guilty, 1 was cleared "after the jury was unable to agree a verdict and the prosecution offered no further evidence", 1 was found not guilty and 1 skipped bail before the trial and has yet to be recaptured. Keristrasza (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have modified the section and added the ref to reflect this. CaptainScreebo 11:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have done a small edit to clearly state that twelve men were originally charged. Roger (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Good, I also agree with your revert of the unnecessary repetition of British Pakistani, it's explicitly mentioned in the lede and the previous section. Thanks. CaptainScreebo 12:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Abuse

This content was removed from the article:

One of the girls was raped in a bedroom above the Balti House takeaway in Rochdale. The gang used a former victim, a 15-year-old white girl who had become the girlfriend of one of the gang members, to help recruit other girls. The girls were driven to houses around the north of England, and were raped by paedophiles, mainly British Pakistanis, who had paid small sums of money for these encounters. Girls as young as thirteen were taken to towns and cities in northern England including Rochdale, Oldham, Nelson, Bradford and Leeds. Some girls were raped by up to five men at a time.

It was mainly based on this article which states:

They and three other men used a one-time victim to recruit other girls so they could be driven to “chill” houses around the north of England for sordid sex. Some of the teenagers had sex willingly, but others were raped by up to five men at a time. The paedophiles who paid small sums of money for the frequently violent encounters were predominantly British Pakistanis...This teenager, nicknamed The Honey Monster, became the girlfriend of one of the gang and kept victims quiet with alcohol, food and small sums of money. She often accompanied girls as young as 13 on journeys to such towns and cities as Rochdale, Oldham, Nelson, Bradford and Leeds.

Can you suggest how I might improve this content so that I might be reinserted?Ankh.Morpork 16:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As the person who removed it, my suggestion is to leave it out entirely as it is sensationalist, undue detail, Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid, if people wish to read all the sordid details then they can click on the different refs etc. Two examples are already given of the men's extreme disregard for their victims as well as the phrase "They were plied with drugs and alcohol and were passed around to friends and family to use for sex", isn't that sufficient? At the moment, the article (apart from the last section) reads, in my opinion, in a fairly measured encyclopaedic tone as befits Misplaced Pages. It doesn't really need any more expansion as far as I can see. CaptainScreebo 17:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, you are not the sole arbiter of content. Keristrasza (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that these girls were transported around England and raped in exchange for money is a very relevant detail, and demonstrates the extent of these activities. Since you wish to minimise on the sordid detail, I propose reducing it to, "The girls were driven to houses around the north of England, and were raped by paedophiles, mainly British Pakistanis, who had paid small sums of money for these encounters. Girls as young as thirteen were taken to towns and cities in northern England including Rochdale, Oldham, Nelson, Bradford and Leeds."Ankh.Morpork 17:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, this is more complex than meets the eye, I am currently reading the first seven or so sources (Telegraph, Guardian, BBC) and will reply later. For example, there is no mention that one of the first victims was subsequently encouraged to recruit others. For the moment, the money that changed hands was mainly given to the girls (and the "ringleader" accuses them of being prostitutes) to coerce them into sex, there is one tiny mention in the Mail article that men paid other men to supply them with girls, but 1) I am checking the other sources to see if this fact is mentioned 2) the Mail is a shitrag not considered to be a very reliable source for this type of sensationalist affair. Going back to my reading. CaptainScreebo 18:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Are English court transcripts published or otherwise routinely made available to the public? Roger (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really sure, try the help desk, there are some Brits over there (I am one too, although exiled), who are very knowledgeable, ukexpat comes to mind, as do many others. CaptainScreebo 18:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not. Keristrasza (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Compliance with Misplaced Pages:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources would anyway be necessary.Ankh.Morpork 22:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuing my previous reply, Ankh, you might be interested to look at this page, which is an official governement site defining sex offences. Please read sectiopn 58 and then see above sections 52 and 53. If these people were charged with sex trafficking it implies that they transported under-age girls and used coercive methods to force them to engage in sex, but it also tells us that there wasn't enough evidence for the police to charge them with out and out pimping, as your current proposal implies, or the charges would have been different cf. sections 52, 53 of website cited. CaptainScreebo 18:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

They weren't charged with "pimping" as the procurer was the 15 year old girl whom they elected not to prosecute "because lawyers in the case saw her, too, as a victim reasoned that her moral code had been so skewed by years of abuse that she saw nothing wrong with submitting other girls to the misery she had suffered herself." Prior to April 2010, paying for the sexual services of another was not illegal in England; only after this date did s14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 introduce a new section (53A) into the Sexual Offences Act 2003 criminalising "Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc." Keristrasza (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ok your text is not acceptable, there are too many issues, I am tired, we'll work this out and come to a balanced report tomorrow, or later, I hope. CaptainScreebo 19:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is improper to draw inferences from the CPS' actions counter to what the sources explicitly state. As a means of explanation, CPS' burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, a stringent standard not applied to standard of proof required in libel cases or other civil cases for that matter. Secondly, the above description does not clearly establish that the pedophiles controlled the prostitution for "the expectation of gain" which is a necessary component of the Section 53 actus reus.Ankh.Morpork 19:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• Be careful and don't talk shit, you're getting into serious non-NPOv terrritory here, the law is the law and your definitions are your defintions, Original researech appears to be what you are doing to imply that they were "prostituting" the girls, and they didn't charge them with "expectation of gain", so n prostitutiN CaptainScreebo 20:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork is correct: you are talking horseshit if you are saying that the only way to understand a criminal case is to base it on the actions of the CPS. For example, in this case, there were 47 victims, but the CPS proceeded with just 5 of them. This was for simplicity, for reasons of time, for the welfare of the victims. It is the walnut v. sledgehammer principle. Keristrasza (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As I established previously, I am not seeking to imply anything. My proposed text reads:

The girls were driven to houses around the north of England, and were raped by paedophiles, mainly British Pakistanis, who had paid small sums of money for these encounters. Girls as young as thirteen were taken to towns and cities in northern England including Rochdale, Oldham, Nelson, Bradford and Leeds. Some girls were raped by up to five men at a time.

This is based on this source which states:

"They and three other men used a one-time victim to recruit other girls so they could be driven to “chill” houses around the north of England for sordid sex. Some of the teenagers had sex willingly, but others were raped by up to five men at a time. The paedophiles who paid small sums of money for the frequently violent encounters were predominantly British Pakistanis...This teenager, nicknamed The Honey Monster, became the girlfriend of one of the gang and kept victims quiet with alcohol, food and small sums of money. She often accompanied girls as young as 13 on journeys to such towns and cities as Rochdale, Oldham, Nelson, Bradford and Leeds.

You wish to disqualify this addition based upon a spurious inference that "there wasn't enough evidence for the police to charge them with out and out pimping", and I was seeking to explain to you why this argument was invalid, as well as obvious original research. Both of your reverts say "NOT* supported by sources", why is this not the case, and how can this be rectified. Ankh.Morpork 20:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have suitable references for the information you wish to add, then add it. Screebo is incorrect in his interpretation, and also - suggesting that facts be omitted and readers left to find them in the references - mistaken in his understanding of what an encyclopaedia actually is. It is a repository for facts, not a loose collection of links pointing you to find the information elsewhere. Keristrasza (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He is a robust reverter and I would much prefer to achieve consensus for its inclusion. As it stands, I genuinely do not understand his grounds of complaint, and it is possible that it is simply a misunderstanding. Ankh.Morpork 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: Actually, don't add it. My apologies, I haven't looked at the revision history yet so it occurred to me I may be advising you to break 3RR. Suggest the redraft here. Keristrasza (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, please relax. Misplaced Pages does not have deadlines so there is plenty time to reach consensus here.
Keep in mind that all content of this article must comply with WP:BLP and also respect the privacy of the victims, who are all minors.

"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material."
From WP:BLP

Thanks Roger (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"The girls were driven to properties in several towns and cities around the north of England, including Rochdale, Oldham, Nelson, Bradford and Leeds, and subjected to rape by numerous men, mainly British Pakistanis, who had paid small sums of money for these encounters. Some of the girls, whose ages ranged from 13 to 15, were raped by up to five men at a time." This is supported by the Nigel Bunyan/Telegraph reference. The use of the word "paedophile" is subject to challenge on a purely diagnostic basis: while criminal law in England often uses the term for all underage-sex offenders, they would be more accurately described as hebephiles due to the age of the girls. Keristrasza (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• To Ankh, Keris and any others interested, I decided to go away for a bit and come back with a cooler, clearer head. My main concerns were with some unsourced statements (viz. "One of the girls was raped in a bedroom above the Balti House takeaway in Rochdale") which may be true, but did not appear in any of the sources used, and some perceived synthesis and a slightly sensationalist tone. Also, the section as it stood made a lot of claims and all the refs were bunched together at the end, making it difficult to check which ref referred to what statement.

So I have tried to improve the section, firstly by adding more background detail about the initial CPS refusal to prosecute and the role of the HM and the gang's recruitment methods, separating this into a first section, and then rewriting the second part, reffing the specific statements to each source. I object to the use of the word "beaten" as no source says this, they refer to "frequently violent encounters" or "physically assaulted", which could cover pushing, constraining, slapping, manhandling, shouting etc. but beating implies multiple, repetitive blows delivered by a hand or some other object (such as a cane, a bat etc.).

The whole affair is deeply shocking but also complex as there were willing and unwilling participants, coercion, bribing the girls with favours etc. and I have tried to convey this in a more encyclopaedic tone. CaptainScreebo 12:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and the edits have improved the article. Unfortunately, this type of incident is always going to generate a lot more heat than light, although for all the wrong reasons =/ Keristrasza (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad you appreciate them, I am still a bit concerned that Ankh has some sort of agenda, as he keeps trying to reinsert stuff that is already stated and "jazz up" the section about abuse. Ankh, this is an encyclopaedia, I have tried to write the details in a matter-of-fact considered tone, please stop trying to add repetitive, unnecessary, inflammatory content. CaptainScreebo 13:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Since you are keen to state that no source says 'beaten' which has a different meaning to 'physically assaulted', why are you preventing its inclusion in the article after I have identified a source that clearly uses this term.Ankh.Morpork 13:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, and while one of the BBC sources does state "beaten and forced" the other one doesn't, and we already have "physically assaulted, raped, obliged" which, I feel, is a sufficient summary of the nature of the events. CaptainScreebo 13:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it necessary for other sources to use this term? Since you previously stated that "beating implies multiple, repetitive blows delivered by a hand or some other object (such as a cane, a bat etc.)", which of these terms do you consider adequately conveying this meaning?Ankh.Morpork 13:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ankh, please stop with your sensationalism, one of my initial worries (and a cause of the rather heated discussion above) was your synthesis, taking stuff that you've read here and there, bunging it into one paragraph and incorrectly reffing it. Physical assault can include beating, so that's covered, it just wasn't in one of the three refs that were being used to support the paragraph as it stood. CaptainScreebo 13:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how this reconciles with your previous assertions that while "physically assaulted" could "cover pushing, constraining, slapping, manhandling, shouting etc", 'beating' implies multiple, repetitive blows delivered by a hand or some other object (such as a cane, a bat etc.).Ankh.Morpork 14:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(reset indent)"Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988: An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force. A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another Where there is a battery the defendant should be charged with 'assault by beating'. (DPP v Little (1992) 1 All ER 299)" Keristrasza (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If the term beating connotes what Screbo states: "multiple, repetitive blows delivered by a hand or some other object (such as a cane, a bat etc.)", the relevant charge more probably a Section 47 offence of the OAPA 1861. See Miller (1954) 2 QB 282. Anyway, I await an explanation how these two terms with a markedly different meaning can be said to include the connotations of the the other.Ankh.Morpork 14:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

BNP

No mention of the BNP and the allegations of jury contact, Nick Griffin's tweet etc. I think it is relevant to include. There were also violent incidents in Rochdale as a result of the arrests and trial. Keristrasza (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Scope

The article currently concerns the most recent trial, and mentions the latest arrests. Is it worth starting a discussion yet about whether to widen the scope and include the previous trials? Not an exhaustive list but there was also:

• Leeds (November 1997) - Police uncover ring of taxi drivers grooming girls as young as 12, using them for sex in room above taxi office and taking them to other towns. 23 arrests, 20 victims. Five charged.
• Keighley (November 2003 & February 2005) - Operation Parsonage, launched after complaints from parents and two secondary schools about ring of men grooming teenage girls for sex. Police interview 33 girls aged 13 to 17. Up to 50 men believed to be involved. Ten people charged with offences including rape.
• Oldham (June 2007) - Inquiry into grooming and abuse of 20 girls. More than 20 men arrested, three charged with rape.
• Blackburn (August 2007) - Inquiry into the grooming of girls as young as 12 by gangs of men expanded to include all child sexual exploitation. Case involved two men who plied two girls, both 14 and in the care of social services, with alcohol and drugs before having sex with them. They were passed to brothers, uncles and older friends for sex.
• Sheffield (January 2008) - UK Human Trafficking Centre began inquiry after social services identified girls missing from home. 33 victims aged 12 to 15.
• Skipton (July 2009) - Three men found guilty of 28 sexual offences against a girl from Skipton who was running wild and "craved attention". The trial heard that she was targeted then plied with drugs, alcohol and cigarettes before series of rapes and other sex acts were carried out when she was aged 14 and 15.
• Rochdale (February 2010) - Girl, 16, agreed to go to house where she was given whisky and possibly sleeping medication before being raped several times by three men, two of whom "used a whisky bottle to further degrade her". Fourth man took pictures of the abuse.
• Rochdale (August 2010) - Independent school pupil, 14, from Rochdale, groomed and supplied with alcohol and drugs before being forced to have sex with numerous men in flats and to work on the streets as a prostitute.
• Preston (September 2010) - Operation Deter, investigating child sexual exploitation involving girls and older men in Preston.
• Rotherham (November 2010) - Five men convicted of grooming three girls, two aged 13 and one 15, all under social services supervision, before using them for sex. Victims offered gifts, car rides, cigarettes, alcohol and cannabis.
• Derby (November 2010) - Operation Retriever identified 27 victims: 22 white, three black and two Asian. Victims were targeted on streets, housing estates, at railway station and on their way home from school. Girls were given alcohol and drugs then taken to "parties" where they were used by older men for sex. Abuse was filmed by men to share with friends.

Controversial area, really, would require a lot of input from editors to ensure it didn't degrade into simply a hate page. Thoughts? Keristrasza (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

IMHO each case should have its own article - provided it meets notability of course. A more general article about the broader issue may be possible (if there are sources that have published such "overviews" of this type of abuse of vulnerable girls in the UK) but it should definitely be more than just a list of cases. Roger (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, looking at discussions that are going on elsewhere on WP with regard to the Rochdale case, this whole subject is a very hot potato. But a wider look at the issue might be Child sex trafficking in the UK. Keristrasza (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide links to these other discussions please. Roger (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#British_Pakistanis and Talk:British Pakistanis. Keristrasza (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Roger (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

First convictions

The article states "They were predominantly British Pakistanis and were the first people in Britain to be convicted of sex trafficking on 8 May 2012." I'm not sure that this is correct - in November 2008 six men were convicted at Southwark Crown Court of various offences including trafficking a teenaged girl within the UK for sexual exploitation. I don't know at the moment if this was the first successful prosecution, but it certainly predates the 2012 case. I only hang back from altering the article because I'm unsure if the original editor intended a different meaning - or criminal offence - with the phrase chosen. Keristrasza (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly written in several sources. It is my understanding that this was the first Section 58 of the SOA 2003 conviction, while previous instances were Section 57 offences.Ankh.Morpork 15:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I initially thought the same - the Grauniad article states that the girl was Slovakian and one of the offences was s57; however, Ali Arslan was convicted of "trafficking the teenager within the UK for sexual exploitation" which would be s58. The Met's page here also states "Nine years for trafficking within the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation." Keristrasza (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the cases was charged under Section 4(2) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004?Ankh.Morpork 16:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible, yes. But the phrase in the article needs to be altered to reflect that. They may be the first convicted of s58 SOA 2003, but they're definitely not the first convicted of "sex trafficking." Keristrasza (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Should add, s4(2) doesn't use the term "sexual." Keristrasza (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ye I know, there's no sexual element. You raise a very valid point which I would like clarified. If you can locate the relevant case names, I would appreciate that.Ankh.Morpork 18:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Searching as we speak. Keristrasza (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

See this EWCA Crim 2436; 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 2 Ankh.Morpork 18:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Bailli link . At ¶14 it indicates that they were convicted under s57 and s58: " It is well-known that, by section 172 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, in sentencing an offender every court must have regard to any guidelines which are relevant to the offender's case The definitive guidelines on the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were published in April 2007. So far as trafficking for sexual exploitation is concerned, they cover the offences under sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Sexual Offences Act." Doci, according to ¶19, was also convicted under s58: "Although the offence of which he was convicted was trafficking within and not into the United Kingdom" Keristrasza (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

So where to from here, loads of sources say one thing but OR quite clearly indicates otherwise.Ankh.Morpork 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps sources are referring to a British national?Ankh.Morpork 19:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

British trafficker or victim? I tend towards the view that they mean the first conviction for trafficking British girls. But it is certainly far from clear. Keristrasza (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Paedos?

Firstly, they definitely weren't paedos, they would have been ephebophiles. I changed the intro to reflect that.

Secondly, do we even have any particular reason to think they were that? Ephebophilia is according to the article a huge preference for underage girls. As far as we know they were just men without morals, picking on teenagers cause they could manipulate them more easily. I would think most straight men, had they no morals, while not wanting a relationship with a fifteen year old girl could, er, appreciate them physically in a physical way. Egg Centric 00:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations Wikipidia contributors

...for your excellent work in furthering the promotion of racist bigotry via this article.

"By now surely everyone knows the case of the eight men convicted of picking vulnerable underage girls off the streets, then plying them with drink and drugs before having sex with them. A shocking story. But maybe you haven't heard. Because these sex assaults did not take place in Rochdale, where a similar story led the news for days in May, but in Derby earlier this month. Fifteen girls aged 13 to 15, many of them in care, were preyed on by the men. And though they were not working as a gang, their methods were similar – often targeting children in care and luring them with, among other things, cuddly toys. But this time, of the eight predators, seven were white, not Asian. And the story made barely a ripple in the national media".

Can anyone now explain why I should not now (a) move this article for deletion, as the heap of sensationalist tabloid bigotry it clearly is, and (b) call for those who so vigorously defended it to be banned from further 'contributions' to Misplaced Pages. Or are they now at work writing articles on other "non-Asian sex gangs"? And if not, why not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you could get off your high horse for a moment and consider how horrific a crime this was committed by these men. Several very prominent figures, including the Minister for Children and Families, Tim Loughton, and Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation - as clearly stated in the article - have publicly called for the details and implications of this crime not to be swept under the carpet. That alone justifies the existence of this article.

Rather than moving to delete this article, perhaps you should create another article to do with the Derby crime with appropriate citations. Alfietucker (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

this article seriously violates neutral point of view by using non-reliable sources, such as this one , which clearly misrepresent the original findings. this source is not "the times" or "the guardian" from britain. in addition, several important points are missing which in turn creates the impression that this crime is a british-pakistani phenomena. one more thing: andy is absolutely right. this article furthers racism. also, the source he provided is spot on. -- altetendekrabbe  09:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think anyone who checks the link can see it's not "The Guardian" from Britain, but perhaps it needs to be clearer that it's an Indian newspaper (I'll see to that myself). As to "several important points are missing", what's stopping you from including these in the article (with relevant and reliable citations, of course)? Alfietucker (talk) 10:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

i suggest you remove the opinion piece from the "sunday guardian". just look at the title...-- altetendekrabbe  11:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you do this yourself :-). The only reason why I haven't myself is I'm reluctant to pay a subscription just to get access to the original Times article to which it refers and which it seems sensible to replace it with. Alfietucker (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Greater Manchester articles
• Low-importance Greater Manchester articles