Talk:Rochdale child sex abuse ring/Archive 1

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)


 * ✅ 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:

' Ankh '. Morpork  21:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rochdale sex gang
 * Rochdale sex ring
 * Rochdale sex traffickers
 * Rochdale pedophile ring
 * 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)



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.  Captain Screebo Parley! 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.  Captain Screebo Parley! 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.  Captain Screebo Parley! 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. It doesn't really need any more expansion as far as I can see.  Captain Screebo Parley! 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.  Captain Screebo  Parley! 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.  Captain Screebo Parley! 18:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. Keristrasza (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Compliance with BLP 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.  Captain Screebo Parley! 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 [and] 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.  Captain Screebo Parley! 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  Captain Screebo  Parley! 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:
 * This is based on this source which states:
 * "They and three other men used a one-time victim to recruit other girls Some of the teenagers had sex willingly, but ...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.
 * 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)
 * 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia'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.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia 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.  Captain Screebo Parley! 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.  Captain Screebo Parley! 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)
 * 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.  Captain Screebo Parley! 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)
 * 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.  Captain Screebo Parley! 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: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents 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 [2009] EWCA Crim 2436; [2010] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 2 <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' 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.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps sources are referring to a British national?<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' 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  Centri  c  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 Wikipedia. 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)
 * Andy, if you think this article is worthy of deletion, it is your prerogative to nominate it. Similarly, it is your prerogative to rage and bluster and make sanctimonious retirement speeches before flouncing back to the project. As for your "sensationalist tabloid" claims, I do believe this has been pointed out to you in the past, but the sources that discuss this are:


 * The Sunday Guardian
 * Rochdale News
 * The Telegraph
 * The Times(available here)
 * The Telegraph
 * BBC
 * The National
 * BBC
 * Guardian
 * AIM

Both a BBC documentary and a Channel 4 documentary have been made on this topic, and numerous sources of various political persuasions have also addressed this issue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  11:17, 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)
 * Restored with modifications per the Times source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  11:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Restored with a gross misrepresentation of the Times source you mean... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is what he actually said in the speech for those interested. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

More misrepresentations
first of all, what do the sources really state?

1) the independent-source clearly speaks of the "coalition for the removal of pimping" (crop) being based in leeds, a town in nothern england. crop represents 400 victims or so in leeds, not the total number of victims in england. the independent also notes that,

""the networks of men come from different backgrounds: in the north and midlands many have been british asians; in devon it was white men; in bath and bristol, afro-caribbeans; in London, all ethnic mixes, whites, iraqis, kurds, afghans, somalis"."

hence, gangs of different "backgrounds" are controlling different parts of the country. the source also state the "greater manchester police, in whose area the offences took place, has declared that 95 per cent of the men on its sex offenders register are white. just five per cent are asian." but if "narrowed to crimes involving groups of men grooming girls on the street", most "convicted were of pakistani heritage"... in the north. thus, "whites" make up the majority of the sexual offenders, involving all sexual crimes. period. however, if one looks at street grooming only, perpetrators of pakistani heritage are overrepresented...in the north.

2) the times-source quotes the "child exploitation and online protection centre",

"“kurds are identified as being dominant in the north east of england, but anglo-asian groups appear to be in control in the midlands. There are... suggestions that in london, west indian (caribbean) and bangladeshi networks are similarly exploiting . . . females for sex.”"

3) the guardian-source notes,

""researchers into child sex trafficking within the uk have warned of the dangers of racial stereotyping amid claims of a widespread problem of british pakistani men exploiting under-age white girls. authors of the first independent academic analysis looking at "on-street grooming", where young girls, spotted outside, including at the school gates, have become targets, said they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type". the authors, helen brayley and ella cockbain, from ucl's jill dando institute of security and crime science, said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the north and midlands, which found perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively from the british pakistani community, had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread.""

now, how are these facts used? the following paragraph in the current version is a complete misrepresentation of sources,

""hilary willmer, representing a Leeds-based support group for parents of sexually exploited girls, the coalition for the removal of pimping (crop), was quoted as saying "the vast majority [of] perpetrators are pakistani asians",[23] with sources inside crop claiming a percentage as high as 80 per cent (although, the independent noted, "kurdish, romanian and albanian gangs were also involved".")"

the paragraph links these crimes to the "british pakistani" community, while the sources clearly state that "racial" background has nothing to do with it, as street grooming gangs of different "backgrounds" dominate different parts of the country. it misleads the reader to believe that the majority of sexual perpetrators are "british pakistanis", while the sources clearly state the majority of the perpetrators are "whites".

i would also like to add the point made by andy,

"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". 

suggest to remove the whole "public debate"-section. if not, the article should be deleted.--  altetendekrabbe   08:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking time to outline your concerns about the section Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (as I assume they are primarily about since you tried to remove that section yesterday). To take your points as they are presented:
 * 1) Yes, CROP is based in Leeds, which both The Independent and The Guardian evidently think is relevant as Leeds is, like Greater Manchester, in North West England and less than 45 miles away in the next door county. Clearly the crime carried out by the Rochdale gang was of the type "involving groups of men grooming girls on the street": the particular nature of the crime, besides targeting mostly underage Caucasian girls, was that it involved a network of grown men working in close co-ordination. To quote rather more of the pertinent paragraph from The Independent: "In 18 child sexual exploitation trials since 1997 – in Derby, Leeds, Blackpool, Blackburn, Rotherham, Sheffield, Rochdale, Oldham and Birmingham – relating to the on-street grooming of girls aged 11 to 16 by two or more men, most of those convicted were of Pakistani heritage."


 * Nowhere does the Wikipedia article claim that CROP's research is applicable to anywhere outside the North of England. Please also bear in mind the title and scope of the article: Rochdale sex trafficking gang. Clearly statistics are only relevant in so far as they illuminate that specific crime, so talk of 'gangs of different "backgrounds" are controlling different parts of the country' - while it would certainly be relevant to an article about child grooming across the UK - is besides the point here.


 * 2) Rochdale is not in the North East of England, so the observation that Kurds dominate in that region for that particular type of crime is arguably beside the point (as are, most certainly, comments about West Indian and Bangladeshi criminals in London). On the other hand, perhaps the article could do with a further section with relevant comments from organizations which are concerned with monitoring such crimes, such as the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (from which The Times quote you've given comes from) and Barnados. I'm happy to give this a go.


 * 3) The concerns of Helen Brayley and Ella Cockbain about the use of their research is already covered in the article under The Times report of 5 January 2011.


 * Your summing up is, I have to say, a gross misrepresentation of the sources you cite: they most certainly do not claim 'that "racial" background has nothing to do with it', and - I repeat - the nature of the Rochdale gang was not merely that it involved men grooming and sexually abusing underage girls, but also that they worked as a coordinated gang. That particular crime in Rochdale, I'm afraid, was carried out predominantly by men of Pakistani origin. As the article makes clear several key Pakistani spokesmen have publicly stated that this fact should not be swept under the carpet but should be examined as to why this should have happened and to try to prevent it happening again. Alfietucker (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yer not from round ere, are ya? Leeds is not in North West England. MrDemeanour (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK it isn't - sorry for the slip. But it's still about 45 miles away from Greater Manchester and in the next county. Plus, that's no excuse for your having wiped out my last comment, which I've now reinstated. Alfietucker (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "CROP's research"? CROP is not remotely a 'research' organisation. In fact the only independent information on it at all that we have is that it has been accused of being a front for the BNP, and that after this accusation was made, it has been strangely silent. On the other hand, the article conveniently omits what real 'researchers' have said: "Indeed, though most of the victims are white British," the researchers say, "the proportion of black and minority ethnicity victims was actually higher than what might be expected, given the local demographics". The simple facts of the matter are that from the start this article has been written to sensationalise criminal activity by individuals from one particular ethnic minority in a few locations in one part of the country, while utterly ignoring the broader context. "Greater Manchester Police, in whose area the offences took place, has declared that 95 per cent of the men on its sex offenders register are white. Just five per cent are Asian". If those involved with creating this article are concerned about sex offences in England involving minors, why isn't the article about that? Why doesn't the article cover other cases, like the one in Derby? This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid newspaper, and article topics should be chosen for better reasons than to promote ethnic stereotyping, while totally misrepresenting the broader picture, where 95 per cent of offenders are white. This article should never have been written. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * i suggest to move this article to either afd or to npov/n in order to facilitate wider community participation in the discussion.--  altetendekrabbe   13:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Andy, with due respect, this is an article on the Rochdale case, which was widely and extensively reported not just by the tabloids but by the quality press (witness the citations from The Independent and The Guardian). And with good reason: the point is not that this was the first time minors had been preyed upon by a gang of men, but that for too long investigation was fudged, and questions have been raised whether fear of appearing racist prevented police and social services acting sooner and more effectively. I've just put in some more material indicating that the government is actually carrying out further relevant research in the wake of this case, and are passing measures to try to protect vulnerable children precisely because of what was highlighted by the case. Clearly there are very good reasons for having this article: not only was the crime widely and responsibly reported, but clearly there has been wide-spread response and consequences, not least from within government and the Muslim community.


 * And for these reasons, no, this definitely is not a candidate for AfD: to suggest such a thing in order to get "wider community participation" is attacking a nut with a sledgehammer. Certainly the article can do with more work, but it's absurd to go through AfD just to achieve that. Alfietucker (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "for too long investigation was fudged"? Citation needed. And yes, we know this article is on the cherry-picked-to-scapegoat-a-minority Rochdale case. If the government is carrying out broader research, then write an article on it - starting with the facts - that 95% of child sex offenders are white. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Andy, you're behaving like a troll now ("cherry-picked-to-scapegoat-a-minority Rochdale case"). I am not going to waste time counting the number of articles that have been published in the quality press devoted to this case. And no, I don't write Wiki articles at the behest of other editors. If you feel so strongly about it, perhaps you should give it a go yourself. Alfietucker (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that this early edit wasn't 'cherry-picked-to-scapegoat-a-minority'? It is self-evident that the POV-pushing bigot responsible only started the article to promote his sick agenda. And just because responsible newspapers got suckered into furthering the entirely unmerited scapegoating of an entire ethnic minority, that is no reason for Wikipedia to do the same. The evidence is clear - the overwhelming majority of child sex offenders in general are white, and there is no indication that in 'street grooming' cases any particular ethnicity dominates, other than in particular locations. The article was started with the intent to smear a community, and all the fancy words about 'quality press' don't alter the fact. And BTW, I asked for a source for your assertion that "for too long investigation was fudged" - you have failed to provide one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a source for my assertion, which by the way I've added to the article as on checking I see there were some details missing (i.e. that the police dropped their investigation after the CPS lawyer dropped the case). Regardless of the possible motives of the editor who started the Wikipedia article, clearly it's a story which has been covered extensively by all reputable news sources in the UK. The way to deal with it is not to try to censor it out of existence but to try to build a balanced article by collaborative editing on the basis of reputable sources. Alfietucker (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A 'balanced article' would cover the whole topic (child sexual abuse involving 'street grooming), rather than just a particular case used as an excuse to smear an ethnic minority. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, it's late and I'll be calling it a day. Just to repeat, the Rochdale case is clearly noteworthy in its own right. On the other hand, yes, it sounds a good idea to make a separate article on the UK phenomenon of 'street grooming': what's stopping you from writing this? Alfietucker (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * what's stopping him is the fact that the so-called "public debate"-section of this article is smearing a minority. it needs to go.--  altetendekrabbe   00:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Alte - that's a complete non sequitur: how on earth is a perceived problem with one article going to stop any editor from writing another. Besides, I'm sure Andy can answer for himself. If you are going to insist on attacking the "public debate" section of the article, rather than accuse it (wrongfully, IMHO) of "smearing a minority" it would be more constructive to detail your specific concerns with that section as it now stands. Alfietucker (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * alfie, are you stalking my edits on the islamophobia-page? making wp:points are not allowed. regarding this page: any wider community participation will shred this article to pieces, be it the npov/n or dr or afd. why? because the current "public debate"-section is scapegoating a whole minority group. note that i am not blaming you or anything.--   altetendekrabbe   14:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Altetendekrabbe - I am not obliged to answer your leading question. As far as I'm aware I'm free to edit where I see fit in Wikipedia. As for this page, you are most welcome to get wider community participation, bearing in mind that one should not violate WP:CANVASS; as I said earlier in this thread, the article could do with some more work, and if more editors are prepared to work constructively on it, great. Alfietucker (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * as a first step: the current "public debate"-section needs to go. we need to start from scratch. by doing so we'll remove a huge violation of npov. that's a good start.--  altetendekrabbe   14:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree. This is all pertinent material with solid citations. The way forward, if anything, is to raise any POV issues on this page, and then address them in the article if there are reliable sources to justify any changes. Alfietucker (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OWN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The material is reliably sourced from respectable papers and this information can be improved and added to present a comprehensive picture. However, calls for a total removal are wholly unwarranted. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  00:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lord Ahmed
A recent edit added a paragraph, sourced to the Daily Mail, regarding statements made by Lord Ahmed of Rotherham concerning the possible relevance of first-cousin marriages to the offences. This was the material added:

Lord Ahmed of Rotherham has suggested that the high rate of first cousin marriages among British Pakistanis may be the reason for such sex crimes.

Diff: Daily Mail source:

As I see it, there are multiple reasons to question the appropriateness of this material:

(a) Relevance: Nowhere in the source does it state that any of the offenders for the crimes referred to in our article are married to their first cousins.

(b) Trustworthiness of the source: As a quick check of WP:RSN should confirm, the Daily Mail is a questionable source to be using for such sensitive material - many are of the opinion that we shouldn't use it at all except for the most trivial details, and the Mail article concerned already contains an apology for getting a previous article on the subject wrong. Hardly grounds for optimism. And nor is the fact that the Mail saw fit to report an entirely unrelated issue which led to his brief jailing before release on appeal. Given their cavalier attitude to relevance, their self-admitted ability to get things wrong, and their general reputation for dubious sensationalism when covering issues relating to ethnic minorities, I can see little reason to assume that they report anything said to them by Lord Ahmed with due diligence. As far as I can tell, no other reputable media organisation has seen fit to report on this. Why not?

(c) Weight: This is the opinion of one individual. It is purely speculative, and there is nothing to indicate that Lord Ahmed has any specialist knowledge regarding the issues discussed. And aggain, no other mainstream source seems to consider this relevant.

(d) And finally, a selective reading of the source: Lord Ahmed seems to be actually holding "forced marriages" to "girls from overseas" responsible, rather than "the high rate of first cousin marriages among British Pakistanis". The only direct mention of first cousins is by the Daily Mail. And then there is the way the Mail's headline blaming "unhappy arranged marriages to cousins" being truncated to "first cousin marriage" - where did the 'unhappy' go to? Lord Ahmed doesn't seem to be saying that all first-cousin marriages are unhappy. Neither is the Mail. Both are suggesting that 'unhappy marriages' might be a factor regarding the offences. Neither are suggesting that first-cousin marriage per se is responsible. And note also that Lord Ahmed makes it clear that he doesn't see this as solely a problem amongst 'British Pakistanis' - the material added to our claims that article did, which is a clear misrepresentation of the source (and quite possibly a violation of WP:BLP policy, in that it is attributing a statement to someone who didn't say it).

Given these concerned, I suggest that before this material, or anything like it, is added to the article, the reliability of the source is raised at WP:RSN, that issues of weight are discussed, and that an agreed text which actually conforms to what the source says is arrived at via talk-page discussion and consensus - should it be agreed that this speculative material is relevant at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. An apology issued by the Mail relating to this matter: "Further to our article of January 30 (Grooming of girls by Asian gangs fuelled by unhappy arranged marriages to cousins), Lord Ahmed has asked us to make clear that the phenomenon of Asian men preying on vulnerable young girls is not only by men from Pakistan, and nor are the victims always white. We are happy to set the record straight." AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andythegrump. Please excuse the delayed response. My area had been hit by floods and the town was on the brink of getting washed away. No worries. The water has receded now and the communication lines, power supply etc. are limping back to normalcy =). I hope everything's well where you are. Enough of the chitchat. Let's get down to business now.

a]Relevance: Relevance of this material can be clearly see in this comment by Lord Ahmed (please check the sources for all the quotes which I provide to get the full context and to guard against any typos etc.)

"I am deeply worried about this as it has happened in my own backyard, and in Rochdale and Bradford.

This didn’t happen in my or my father’s generation. This is happening among young Pakistanis. While I respect individual choice, I think the community needs to look at marriages in the UK rather than cousin marriages or economic marriages from abroad." It is very clear that Lord Ahmed has linked the scandal in Rochdale to cousin marriages among young Pakistani Muslims. Please also give glance so some other sentences in the article:"A senior Muslim politician has blamed unhappy arranged marriages to cousins for leading some Asian men to prey on vulnerable young white girls to fulfil their sexual needs. Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, Britain’s first Muslim peer, is the first politician to make a link between first-cousin marriages and sex crimes by Asian men. ...Speaking out: Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, Britain's first Muslim peer, believes there is a link between first-cousin marriages and sex crimes by Asian men" It is immaterial whether we can see a logical connection or not. Our views on this matter count for zilch. But Lord Ahmed views on the matter are surely notable. The point about cousin marriages among young Pakistani Muslims is relevant because Lord Ahmed, UK's first Muslim peer, one of very very few Muslim peers, thinks it is relevant. Mentioning cousin marriage among Pakistani Muslims is not only relevant, but also essential to an understanding of the subject. Please see and focus on the part starting from "Apart from the human cost...." and continuing upto "...whether it's intra-cousin marriage or – closer to home – casually broken family structure." It immediately becomes clear that it is essential to discuss cousin marriage among Pakistanis to get an understanding of the subject. It is not me who is saying this, but the Guardian which says this. If anyone wants to dispute this point, please do so only by showing an equally good or better RS which says something like "cousin marriage is irrelevant to Rochdale scandal". I also do not agree that sources have to be extra reliable when reporting about minorities viz. when reporting about majority communities like Christians or Whites. If there is some such policy on WP, please show it. BTW you may also note that the author of the DM article is someone named "Abdul Taher". I take the name to be prima facie evidence that Abdul Taher is a Muslim. This too would militate against the suggestion that the article could be saying unfair things about Muslims. In the absence of some concrete evidence that Abdul Taher is non Muslim, he is a Muslim.

b)DM is not an RS: You say that DM is a questionable source for such material and that many at RSN consider it to be an RS only for the most trivial matters --- as if DM is a non RS for all intents and purposes. Not so. I think just a look at two user comments from the archives at RSN are sufficient to counter the "DM is non RS" claim. "True enough. Here's some words that are used though. 'Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis'. Now can we assess whether the Daily Mail is reliable when it says that UAF is a left-wing organisation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)" "Daily Mail has come up before and has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It's a mid-market paper and RS refers to 'especially newspapers at the quality end of the market'. I don't see any reason to doubt its reliability on everyday news. Its science reporting has come under particular fire, though, especially in relation to medical articles. The Daily Express is similar.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)" Some other parts of the conversation there were also quite illuminating. About 46 archive pages at RSN mention DM and you appear to have participated in about 21 of those discussions  . It appears that you have always been arguing about the complete unreliability of DM and you have always been told that this is not so. You may be having something against DM, but the long standing community consensus, as described in Itsmejudith's comment above should be respected and the community consensus should not be misrepresented. DM's reputation at RSN is considerably better than what your comment suggested. The consensus is that the reliability of DM should be judged on a case by case basis. We haven't yet done this for the present case. A recent discussion about the reliability of DM ended with four supports and four opposed. The claim that DM is a WP:QS is itself questionable-and DM is certainly not it. When you said that "many are of the opinion that we shouldn't use it at all except for the most trivial details" you must also need say that many support it and even are "Absolutely oppose" to axing it.. Failing to note this point is non neutral (and your campaign against DM at RSN is a long way from being "successful"). We are/were using DM as a source for Lord Ahmed's views and I shall now try to establish that the cited article from DM is certainly an RS for the purpose, and also the best article for the purpose. Since these views of Lord Ahmed's have not appeared in any other paper and since LA has been in contact with DM immediatly after the publication of the source in question, it is reasonable to assume that DM published LA's views because LA chose to give an interview to DM. If DM is a questionable source for LA's views, why did LA give an interview to DM in the first place. It is obvious that LA gave this interview because LA trusts DM to represent his views fairly. If LA trusts DM with his views, why shouldn't we? Both DM and LA are from UK and it is not as if LA would be unfamiliar with DM's reputation. This is enough to conclude that DM is an RS for LA's views. Moreover, we know that LA has communicated with DM regarding this article after it was published. If DM had misrepresented/misinterpreted LA in any way, it is reasonable to think that LA would have taken that opportunity to get all of those things fixed. Since LA does not see any misrepresentation/misinterpretation with the DM's representation of his views, it is obvious that we now have a source which has been reviewed by the proponent himself. Voila, DM is the best source for LA's views. There is nothing wrong with DM's representation of LA's views. You suggest that DM had made some mistake in some previous article and LA had asked for an apology, and you also suggest that DM issued an "apology". Sad to say, you are imagining things. What previous article? What "apology"? Who demanded an "apology"? Who gave an "apology"? What article contains an "apology"? There is no previous article and there is no "apology" issued anywhere in the article. Please read the thing again (properly). LA had only asked some points to be emphasized, which DM has done (which is an honourable thing to do). It is not an apology or admission of a mistake. And there was NO previous article. LA was talking to DM about the current article "Grooming of girls by Asian gangs fuelled by unhappy arranged marriages to cousins" only. Please try to get a grasp of the things you are talking about. c)Already covered in a)

d) You mostly seem to be making random, irrelevant allegations against DM and trying to (as usual) defame DM there. For example, you suggest that DM is non RS because it is saying some irrelevant things about LA. Well, saying something irrelevant does not magically make a source non RS. It may/may not be bad form, but no connection with their reliability. And I do not think that DM has said something irrelevant. Please also see the quotes in a). LA obviously sees a connection between the Rochdale scandal and cousin marriages among young Pakistani Muslims. I think it is your reading of the thing which is a "selective reading". Also note that it has already been demonstrated in b) that you may have poor reading abilities. I think my reading of the thing is correct and I am also willing to improve upon what I had written in the article. I agree that it may need some rewording, but no matter how we reword the sentence, noting "cousin marrige" among "Pakistani Muslims" is essential . I am agreeable to dropping "first" from "first cousin marriage" and I think we need to throw in the "unhappy marriage"  and "forced marriage" parts too. I would have done it anyway as I intended to expand that sentence. Thanks and regardsOrangesRyellow (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Listen jerk, I happen to have a first-class honours degree in one of the social sciences from on of Britain's leading universities - so cut out the crap about 'poor reading abilities'. As for the rest, I suggest you take the question of whether the Daily Mail is an appropriate source for the material you added to WP:RSN. Meanwhile, I am going to revert it per WP:BRD, and because you are still misrepresenting the source, and in the process violating WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Listen jerk I see that you have huge civility problems too. Instead of calling me jerk, if your reading abilities are OK, why don't you try explaining how your reading about "previous article" and "apology" are correct?OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Either take this to WP:RSN (and then discuss issues of weight here in the unlikely circumstances that your edit is seen to be properly sourced), or stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: the issue of the reliability of the Daily Mail in regard to this material has now been taken to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to add to the confusion, we seem to have a more recent source where Lord Ahmed makes entirely different claims about the possible reasons for individuals from Asian communities being involved in sex crimes. . Not that a source that seemingly refers to him as "Mr Ahmed", and quotes him (or possibly another Mr Ahmed?) as saying that "Nobody knows the reason but obviously there are young boys who are brought up in this country. Maybe because they have broken families themselves. Maybe because their fathers have worked 18-19 hour days and they've been out of the house and nobody to control or look after them" is particularly helpful. Perhaps we should merely say that Lord Ahmed has several opinions on the subject, but can't seem to make his mind up? Or perhaps we should look for more relevant content - from people who actually have something directly relevant to say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So ... this is the source you were talking about at RSN. I have studied it now, and it seems it is the same Lord Ahmed. It appears he is weakening his position on the cousin marriage issue. So, he would not be a strong source for the point and can probably be neglected. However, because of the Guardian article I linked above, I remain convinced that the cousin marriage point would be essential for this article. This means I would have to look for some other proponent for the cousin marriage point.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So you are now scrabbling around for sources to support your own opinion on the matter? So much for NPOV. And how the hell can it be essential when there has been no evidence cited so far that any of the individuals convicted are even married to their cousins, never mind that such marriages make sexual offences more likely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This in an encyclopedia. It discusses events and their impacts. IT DOES NOT MAKE POINTS. If you want to write essays or opinion pieces, go elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This in an encyclopedia. It discusses events and their impacts. My point exactly. The notable things said in the wake of this scandal need to be found and included. This is NPOV. And wikipedia is about verifiability rather than truth. Again, all notable views need to be included without worrying about their truth. And while including notable views, we need not censor anything to pander to anyone's sensibilities. If you don't like site policies, either get them changed or find another venue.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing notable about your views. You have provided no evidence that anyone else's views concerning the relevance of cousin marriages to these events are notable either. Cut out the bullshit about 'censorship' and take your soapbox elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Where did I say that my views need to be included in articlespace.? OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Go away and find sources that indicate that cousin marriages are relevant to an article which doesn't say that anyone is married to their cousin... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

See also's
ATG is removing three links from the see also section saying there is no connection. WP:SEEALSO however says "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." And as these links do have a connection in that gangs of men were attacking women then is an obvious connection as well. As such I am going to restore them. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are only reporting part of what WP:SEEALSO says: 'The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number'. Please explain (providing the necessary sources) why "a comprehensive article on the topic" of the Rochdale sex trafficking gang would specifically include material on gang rapes in Australia, rather than on more general issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I already did, and you are on 3RR BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You have provided no explanation whatsoever as to why these particular articles are of any significance. Please do so, as otherwise I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that the articles are being linked in an effort to smear a minority - at which point, a topic ban may well be called for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy, I do not give a shit what you assume, and in fact your post borders on a personal attack. I explained in my first post in this section why these are suitable for the see also section. I also gave you the quote from WP:SEEALSO which says these may be included. Now either respond to my first post or not,just leave the threats at the door. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, see you at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Darkness Shines that these links in the 'See also' section are relevant. There was a criticism that if we link to these why didn't we link to all gang rapes, but there are clear similarities in the attitudes of the perpetrators to their victims in these cases. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If anyone adds the contested links to 'see also' without providing an adequate explanation as to why those links in particular are of relevance, I will have no hesitation in raising the issue at ANI again. And no, your exercise in telepathy isn't an adequate explanation - it is bollocks, and you know it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The articles on the Muslim gang-rapes on white girls in Australia are pretty obviously related. Because they are about Muslim gang-rapes on white girls in Western countries, and elicited much the same discussion about Muslim attitudes to women, the extent to which ethnicity was a factor, and whether sexual crimes can be hate crimes. Someone interested in the Muslim gang-rapes in England will be interested in the Muslim gang-rapes in Australia. I believe that is an adequate explanation as to why those links in particular are of relevance. AndyTheGrump accused Darkness Shines of pushing an anti-Muslim agenda by including them, but I think AndyTheGrump is pushing a pro-Muslim agenda by excluding them. They are similar cases, like it or not. KillerBoogie (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How many articles do we have were gangs of men raped and abused women over an extended period of time? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think AndyTheGrump is just being political correct, but this weaselly way of talking does not protect future victims and does not help decent Muslims. These events have common factors: Muslim men from immigrant communities targetting non-Muslim girls, most of them underage, in Western countries. The events in Australia were horrific but are over now and are small scale compared to what went on and continues to go on in the UK. A quote: "It [the report on child sex abuse by gangs, by the Office of the Children’s Commission] recounts how, between 2010 and 2011, more than 2,500 children — mostly girls — were groomed, repeatedly violated, sold, beaten and terrorised. Thousands more remain invisible and unheard."


 * I cannot believe what I've just written - we are talking about 1000s of young girls just in one year in the UK being raped and prostituted by sex gangs which are predominantly Muslim, and that it is continuing right now. I personally think a contributory factor to why it is such a stain on the reputation of Muslims in the UK is the culture of political correctness in the UK. The same drivers were there in the young Muslim men in Australia and the UK, so why is it over in Australia (apart from the effect on the victims and their families) yet has grown to be the elephant in the room in the UK now? I think the answer is it was acknowledged in Australia as being ethnically motivated and the papers, the courts, the government and everyone else made it clear that any more occurrences would not be tolerated. If the UK had got a grip on this problem earlier, not only would 1000s of girls not have been raped but the extreme damage done to the perception of Muslims would not have occurred. People in the UK who sought to downplay these issues because of their sensitivity should have this on their conscience. Therefore I think it is right to link these events, because hiding things like this only causes much more grief in the end. Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to forget that we are writing an encyclopedia. You will need to take your activism elsewhere.  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  07:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * True that we are writing an encyclopaedia, and an encyclopaedia is where you go for information. This section is because AndyTheGrump does not want information to be made available to the reader in the form of 'See also' links. I think that is because of political correctness and I believe there is no place for political correctness in an encyclopaedia (except as an article)? Apologies for my rant above, but that was the basic point I was trying to get across. My 'activism' is that I believe readers should be able to find accurate information here, and that editors should not stop readers because they (the editors) think readers need to be shielded from stuff. But then probably everyone trying to put stuff into Wikipedia thinks that? Aarghdvaark (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. I think the 'See also' links should be re-instated. Do others agree or disagree? Just to clarify (there have been other links proposed), the links concerned are: Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Rotherham sex grooming case
 * Derby sex gang
 * Sydney gang rapes
 * Ashfield gang rapes
 * absolutely do not reinstate purely tangential and attempting to make a racial/ethnic link that is seriously inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Absolutely reinstate Links are completely relevant. Wikipedia is not to be censored. There are too few "see also" links and some more should be found and added. Thanks and regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Reinstate - Links are blatantly relevant. An informatic encyclopaedia needn't be subject to censorship. Until I am blocked, I will continue to ensure they are reinstated. For the record, before I get dumped with all the PC bullshit, I am from the British South-Asian community. Don't you dare cry wolf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.128.98 (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content
User:Anon12356 The Independent mentions both the BLP and the EDL a few lines in on the second paragraph of the source, so why did you remove the EDL from the section with the edit summary Removed not in source mention of EDL? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick note on replacing words
There's nothing wrong with repeating a word if it means the same thing both times. See elegant variation (which is an ironic name for the practice). CurrentUK (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you - you helped highlight the fact the sentence as it stood had unnecessary repetition, so I have amended accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Article scope and title
This article needs to be expanded to take on board other child sexual exploitation cases in Rochdale since the original trial, and the ongoing police investigation known as Operation Doublet. I suggest that, as a first step, the article be renamed Rochdale child sexual exploitation cases, and then be reshaped to give proper weight not just to the first trial but to later developments, such as today's BBC report - to attempt to give a fuller overview, in other words. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No response, so I've created Operation Doublet and linked it in to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)