Here’s YET another report of an alleged instance of child grooming by “men”;

 “Ten men have been arrested by police on suspicion of committing serious sexual offences following raids across the Bradford district. The arrests were made as part of an ongoing investigation by West Yorkshire Police, which is believed to be linked to sexual grooming. The men, who were arrested when police swooped on Wednesday, have been released on bail pending further inquiries. The investigation is thought to relate to alleged offences against a 14-year-old Keighley girl.”

The BBC seems to have overlooked this one. I wonder why?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Leftie-Loather says:

    More like the BPC, BritishPaedophileCorporation.


    • noggin says:

      or even PPC, Protect Paedostani (muslim) Corp.
      BBC you ought to hang your heads in shame.
      Shame … SHAME! on the bbc, and every other
      cartel of PC deceivers, that disgustingly call themselves media.
      there are no words to describe the contempt.


  2. Beness says:

    maybe it’s on their Bradford social activities page somewhere. They would never bury it surely?


  3. As I See It says:

    The BBC will not show interest in this issue until there is case where a gang of white men are involved.

    Watch the Beeboids suddenly prick up their ears when that rich seam of paydirt is uncovered.


  4. Mice Height says:

    Whilst regrettable, the drugging raping and occasional murder of these ghastly pieces of white working-class filth is barely worth a mention as these cases are far outweighed by the benefits of ‘diversity’, and we must expect some casualties as we march toward our multicultural utopia. As long as those casualties are from those who sit at the bottom of the ‘Progressive Stack’ it’s fine.
    Hardly worth making a song and dance about, I mean, it’s not THAT serious, not on a par with say, someone calling a black footballer . . . . black . . . .


  5. Mice Height says:

    The name ‘Mohamed’ seems to keep coming up in reports of these types of crimes. Well, from some news sources:


    • Leftie-Loather says:

      Hardly surprising at all, Mice, when you see where their beloved paedophilia all kicked off!
      “Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated”.
      No wonder she was his favorite wife”!

      I need a bucket.


      • Agnostic Muzlamic says:

        Your just repeating the same old tired line ‘he’s a paedo’ blah, blah. Do a bit of reading beyond the internet and you’ll realise that you’re talking rubbish. Bearing in mind that the majority of convictions for paedophilia are against white men, what would you say their inspiration is?


        • Dave s says:

          Given that the majority population is white one would expect the majority convictions to be of white men. As to their motivation I would put forward only the evil that is in some mens’ hearts.
          This same evil is in the hearts of all men who carry out this dreadful crime.
          That said these child grooming cases involving multiple men from a specific minority culture have the capacity to undermine civil order in England and unless they are confronted and openly dealt with it will lead to a polarisation of communities and strife for all.


          • Mice Height says:

            I think it’s been noted by many of us on here that it’s only the ‘on street’ grooming that’s over represented by Muslims, but always against non Muslims.
            The majority of gang rapes are carried out by blacks against other blacks, and the majority of online grooming is carried out by whites against other whites.
            Let’s not get side tracked though, it’s the BBC’s failure to mention detail that we’re discussing.


        • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

          you are redwhiteandblue and I claim my £5 !


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Agnostic whatsit, are you saying that the last bunch convicted of this were lying, and that the judge who convicted them was talking rubbish and got his info from the internet?


        • RCE says:

          What ‘reading beyond the internet’ would that be?


        • Wahine says:

          Given that the marriage age for girls in many muslim countries is so low and often ignored (they are often sold to pay off debts) and where young boys are concerned homosexuality is not a crime until after puberty (think bacha boys and Afghan warlords and those lads strewn around like pearls in the Islamic Paradise as per the Quran) it would seem that paedophilia, as the west defines it, is not a problem in some muslim lands. One cannot prosecute what is not against the law nor or there ever any stats. kept in these countries even if they were reported to the authorities. To keep quiet and pretend it never happened so your family is not shamed is so much more preferable. Poor kids!

          But of course, those of us who are well read about Islam know this is not true because Mohammed did not clearly explain that these things were haram e.g. a female who is divorced but who has not yet had her menses does not have to wait three months after her divorce to remarry because obviously like post pubescent girls there is no chance that she may be pregnant unlike those who have already started their menstrual cycles.

          If the prophet did not specifically forbid something then it is allowed! Perhaps you could enlighten us about this specific subject seeing as there are quite a lot of books out there that address this subject, written mostly by muslims who have lived and survived paedophilia and incest in their Islamic birth countries.


  6. It's all too much says:

    It’s a long time since I have left a comment but I would like to re-iterate something that I have posted on this site before.

    The BBC and the liberal establishment denied the existence of this problem consistently and refused to investigate it in any way until the evidence was utterly overwhelming.

    I can clearly remember in the mid/late 1990’s the BBC informing me as a fact that these grooming and mass abuse stories were vile and specifically racist lies fabricated by the BNP in an attempt to stir up racial tensions in the post industrial north for the BNP’s own poisonous political and ideological ends. This editorial ‘line-to-take’ was supported by numerous incandescently ‘offended’ and outraged ‘community leaders’ and at no time was there an examination of the substance of the allegations.

    These ‘lies’, ‘smears’ and ‘fabrications’ were then cited by the BBC as a prime cause and as a mitigation for the race riots in Bolton / Rochdale etc in the mid 1990’s, for who wouldn’t riot if someone said that about your hard working -god-fearing dad/uncle/cousin/nice bloke who drives a taxi/owns a take-away …… I remember this vividly and quite particularly the instant assumption, the ‘knee-jerk reaction’ of the BBC: totally discrediting the white working class (or under class) whose daughters were the victims because the BNP had flagged the issue. I have no truck with neo-nazi fantasists but to discredit their allegations because you dislike their political opinions is not acceptable. Imagine this: ‘sorry madam I cannot accept that you have any substance to your allegation that X assaulted you, this is because you are a Marxist and likely to make things up to advance your cause’. Similarly there has been little examination of the reasoning of the perpetrators – their mindset behind the targeting of the white girls who are the victims of these gangs – the profound contempt and disdain for them and the assumption that they are so utterly inferior that anything can be done to them. Why do the perpetrators believe this?

    The entire liberal establishment which naturally includes the BBC and the ‘institutionally racist’ police refused to even countenance the complaints of the girls and their parents. There are plenty of other areas where this mind set dominates – we won’t look at this because it will reveal some very nasty cans of repellent worms.
    – Kindoki and other African witchcraft practices in London have already seen at least one child decapitated and dumped in the Thames, and another beaten to death with a hammer. How about a Panorama special?
    – The ‘cultural norm’ (as cited by social workers in the Victoria Climbie case) that allows west africans to import unrelated children to ‘ better their lives’ The Panorama special on the Climbie case really (and quite rightly) tore into the UK establishment but never asked questions like why was she with her ‘aunt’, how did she get here from France, etc.
    – The soft pedalling by virtually everyone in the media of outright daughter killing for socio/religious and economic reasons (by the way, how many Moslem boys have been murdered by their families for the disgrace of having sexual relations with white women? Is this an indication of somthing a bit like racism?)
    – Slave holding in the ‘Travelling community’ – are the BBC working assiduously under cover to find out if there are more cases?
    I won’t go on as I think that I have made my point

    It is not in any way racist to want to examine these criminal activities, and there are many crimes and wholly vile practices in the white indigenous population (child abuse, incest, marital rape etc) that need to be examined too. However isn’t it more rational to examine terrible social problems and crimes on the basis of evidence rather than ideology? The BBC again and again simply decides on a narrative structure and selects the evidence that it wants to share with the population whilst ignoring “inconvenient truths”. I agree with what posters write here every day – the BBC prides itself on ‘analysis’ rather than reporting facts, and is totally in the thrall of its own institutional mind set. Literally EVERYTHING it produces is based upon “convenient truths”.


    • Merlin says:

      Well said Sir… great comment if you don’t mind me saying! And have no fear, because Mr Vance and Co. (and everyone else here apart from a few trolls) are not afraid to tell the truth, unlike The One News Outlet With Three Names (aka: BBC, Guardian and Independent). United we stand on BBC bias and Left-wing political correctness.
      Along with a growing army of angry but decent and law-abiding citizens of this country, you have had enough of the Left-wing lies, censorship and tyranny. I sincerely hope you’ll become a regular poster because I, for one, really enjoyed the above post as it hit the nail firmly on the head.


    • geyza says:

      Excellent, courageous and truthful writing from you.

      I could only add to:

      “The BBC and the liberal establishment denied the existence of this problem consistently and refused to investigate it in any way until the evidence was utterly overwhelming.”

      I would have added there,
      …through the criminal prosecutions of the first few perpetrators of these vile, racist child rapes. And even then, the BBC’s own reporting was wilfully and deliberately skewed to falsify and contradict the Judges own summing up, when the BBC went overboard to protect the cultural and religious background of the rapists, and to protect and repeat the politically correct fear, paranoia and hysteria, which allowed these vile crimes to continue so much longer than necessary and which guaranteed that there would be even more victims. The BBC refuted and denied ANY cultural basis for a bunch of Islamic Pakistani men, repeatedly drugging and violently raping white children. The Judge made it clear that there WAS a cultural element to these crimes and to the reason why these crimes were not investigated (for so long as there was a labour government in power, by the way).

      The BBC actually acted to PROTECT the violent, racist child rapists and attack the judge and the community and BLAME the girls themselves.

      Coming from a left wing organisation, I wonder how the militant feminists that work there feel about the BBC seemingly to encourage the “they deserved it because of how they dressed and behaved” argument? I guess even left wing militant feminists place racism above sexism in their hierarchy of PC thought crimes.

      It is all utterly sickening.


      • Pah says:

        It’s not the first time and it won’t be the last that the BBC whitewashes (ahem) the Labour party where child abuse is concerned.

        Look at Margaret Hodge and Islington LBC reaction to child abuse accusations. And she became Minister for Children! YCMIU!!

        If she’d been a Tory would they ever let us forget her calling a victim ‘extremely disturbed?’


    • John Anderson says:

      Superb post

      BBC staff appear to have no shame about covering up stuff that does not fit their multi-culti narrative


  7. Merlin says:

    The fact that the BBC are denying the British population a right to hear about every incident of alleged grooming is a national disgrace; a formal complaint should be made. The cases, now, total well within the 30s… maybe more. If it were the other way round… say a Christian grooming young Muslim girls, there would be a thermonuclear blitzkrieg on Western culture!


    • RCE says:

      Oh it’s more than 30. Every reasonable sized town with a Pakistani population has at least one such case a week, and has done for a while.


  8. Beness says:

    When you can control the news agenda you can make the whole population malleable. Until something like the internet comes along and allows people from all corners to connect and communicate.
    The BBC hate Bloggers (they disagree with) and they hate communication that they cannot control. The free thinkers will always see through the manufactured information but unfortunately there are a load of lazy thinkers who just swallow what’s delivered as long as they get Eastenders and other such tosh they are quite happy.


    • geyza says:

      Hence the war on Murdoch and the BBC’s incessant lies and scaremongering about Murdoch “getting a monopoly on the media”

      Considering the BBC’s near monopoly on news media, that is a joke.

      The only think Murdoch was close to getting a monopoly on is American drama series and American sitcoms.


  9. Harold says:

    The biggest problem is that the Marxists know they can easily brainwash the youth of this country with their blatant lies and propaganda; they’re just so impressionable. Therefore, it really is coming down to a battle of the minds… where we need to get out there and spread the truth against Left-wing nonsense.
    What’s that old saying from Lenin? ‘A lie told often enough becomes the truth…’ The BBC’s code of practice!


  10. George R says:

    BRADFORD: colonised by Islam, via Mass Immigration (continuing), as promoted by Labour, Lib Dems, Tories (and INBBC)- as part of an irreversible, ‘multicultural’, political experiment on British society.


    • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

      Never forget that our “Dave” wants 80 million more muslims in the EU by the accession of Turkey into the EU:
      write to your tory MP and ask why?


  11. RCE says:

    O David Gregory, where art thou?


    • David Gregory says:

      Well I don’t know anything about the case. Arrested and bailed there’s not much more to say at this stage. If the argument is the BBC is covering this up then you’d have to level the same charge at every other broadcaster and every newspaper bar the Daily Star.


      • Leftie-Loather says:

        Wake up!
        And you’re of course most conveniently ignoring that, completely unlike with your beloved BritishBrainwashingCorporation, no-one with a TV and/or computer HAS TO undemocratically fund “every other broadcaster”!


      • RCE says:

        ‘Well I don’t know anything about the case.’

        That’s because it is not being reported, the very thrust of the thread.

        ‘Arrested and bailed there’s not much more to say at this stage.’

        How about: ‘It is now impossible to avoid the fact that there is a serious problem here and muting of the discourse is putting vulnerable children at even greater risk’?

        ‘If the argument is the BBC is covering this up then you’d have to level the same charge at every other broadcaster and every newspaper bar the Daily Star.’

        There is no ‘if’. And I do level the charge at the others; have a look at their blogs and comments on their pages and you’ll see l am far from alone.

        Your post is wholly typical of you, David. Polite, cogent, and reeking of the most despicable opinionated bigotry and arrogance.


      • Pah says:


        Leaving the Muslims aspects aside don’t you think there’s a story about how poor state children homes are? Why are so many orphans ending up damaged and broken when the state is taking care of them?

        I’d’ve thought any journalist worth his salt would have been on straight away.


        • David Gregory says:
          • RCE says:

            You were quick out of the blocks on that one, Davey boy!

            But this is a red herring, of course, that the BBC seizes upon readily, just as you have here. Blaming the care system for children being abused is like blaming women who wear short skirts for getting raped.

            It’s also a frequent defence by muslim paedophiles; “Allah wanted me to have her, that’s why he put her there”.


          • RCE says:

            And I’m as sure as I can be that the girl doing the voice over is of Pakistani descent, whereas the real victim will have been anything but.

            Nice work, BBC.


          • John Anderson says:

            David Gregory

            That is a ten-line story. It is NOT an investigation, merely a brief reference to a Government decision. And as usual it does not mention which community is responsible.

            I am surprised you should try to kid us that it is the BBC doing its job.

            The BBC employs hundreds and hundreds of journalists. Where are its ongoing investigations into all this terrible pattern of Pakistani grooming ? The BBC seldom has the guts to even mention which specific culture and moral code has spawned all this dreadful criminal behaviour.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Pah, that was the thrust of the Question Time episode after the last batch of convictions: blame the girls for being too easy, then blame the care homes for letting them out in the evenings, then blaming society for making it so. No blame whatsoever for the perpetrators. It was appalling, if you recall.


      • Jim Dandy says:

        Quite. Neither Sky, ITN or the broadsheets appear to have reported this yet.


        • RCE says:

          Oh – that’s all right then. The BBC is only part of the cover up, so they are off the hook.

          Thanks for the elucidation.


      • Umbongo says:

        This indeed concentrated on failures of the child-care system in Rochdale. But, I couldn’t help noticing, the report was actually a thinly veiled attack on private care homes which predominate in Rochdale. The sum of “£200,00 per child” annual cost for private care was also flagged up. No mention of the cost of local council cost, of course, which – since it wasn’t mentioned – is probably in the same ball-park.
        No mention either of the background of possible perps in Rochdale. Although the recent grooming case was mentioned no details of the perps were disclosed.
        So what do we have? A non-report telling us nothing we didn’t already know ie that there’s a serious deficiency in child care arrangements in Rochdale and elsewhere and a government minister is brought on with a serious expression on his face to say “It’s serious!”.
        All the viewer is (quite deliberately) left with is the implication that because the child-care arrangements in Rochdale feature largely private carehomes, the outcome is worse than in London with a predominance of council-run care-homes.
        As to no other news organisation reporting this – why would they bother? Clue: they are “news” organisations. This wasn’t news – it was propaganda masquerading as a serious analysis of a serious situation. There was no “news” content and only the briefest disclosure of partial facts leading to a desired conclusion which is that more public expenditure provided direct by the public sector will stop grooming of children – and the obverse implication of this – it’s all the fault of the cutz.


  12. George R says:

    A reprise: in memory of Ray HONEYFORD (1934-2012).

    “Farewell to a martyr to political correctness: Bradford headmaster Ray Honeyford – hounded for warning of the perils of multiculturalism – dies a saddened but vindicated man.”

    By Leo Mckinstry

    Read more:–hounded-warning-perils-multiculturalism–dies-saddened-vindicated-man.html#ixzz20sgNW7q5


    • TigerOC says:

      I apologise in advance for the long post but my thoughts may help your greater understanding of the delineation of cultures/nationalities/colour.
      Ray Honeyford was of the opinion that until immigrants integrate with our society there will be no harmony. I say that integration of divergent cultures almost never occurs and the segregation will always be there.
      By your legal terms I am an immigrant having arrived from South Africa in 1998. I am third generation white African however I do have an English born mother (born here because it was safer here than in Africa). Ethnically I am English and married to an English born wife. I was born in Southern Rhodesia and educated there. My whole education was British based and I hold British exam results. Of my 8 great grandparents 2 are from Yorkshire and 6 Cornish.
      Until coming here I lived my life in a very multicultural society. Southern Rhodesian whites were predominantly of English extraction with some Afrikaaners. The indigenous population was comprised of 4 ethnic groups; Shona in the North, Matabele in the South, Manica in the East and a small tribe in the South East related to the people of Mozambique.
      So what is the relevance? They’re all of Bantu origin BUT they speak different languages. The Matabele are of Zulu extraction and their language has no commonality with Shona at all. They have differing customs and cultural belief systems. They do not inter-marry and seldom mix outside the work environment. They live in cultural groups when in a mixed environment. Any of this sound familiar?
      Lets look at South Africa probably one of the oldest colonies on the planet. Settled 400 years ago by the Dutch they settled the Cape of Good Hope. In the 1700’s many French Hugenots that fled France also settled there. Both groups follow a protestant conservative form of Christianity. Both spoke a similar language in that Flemish is very similar to Dutch. Within a hundred years there was no discernible French identity but surnames such as de Villiers, Le Grange provide evidence of their ancestry.
      If integration was part of human nature there would be no definitive European White people descended from this group of people because logically they would have married into the native African population and would in British terms be black now.
      The legacy is a population of people known as Cape Coloureds (Kaapies) These are the product of dalliances between white male (mainly employers) and black/Malay (slaves). The Cape coloureds see themselves as a distinct group and neither aligned with either the Black Bantu races or Whites.
      What about the integration of the white European races. There has been little integration between whites of Afrikaans (Dutch) and English extraction. There were also waves of German settlements in South Africa as well and many of these remain intact and many still speak German and live in German communities. Nelson Mandela is himself a by-product of a German’s dalliance. He has a great grandparent going by the name of Mandel from an area called Stutterheim in the Eastern Cape.
      There has been some integration between English and Afrikaans as a result of enforced language skills in the schools during the apartheid era. Most white kids in South Africa are bilingual.
      The interesting part is how the structure works. Where 2 ethnically different whites marry the mother commands the ethnic path.
      I have a cousin both of whose parents are English speaking but he is bilingual. His wife has a Scottish father and Afrikaans mother. She is bilingual but speaks Afrikaans as a home language. Their children are almost totally Afrikaans and although bilingual their English is poor.
      So even if communities share a common skin colour, the same religious beliefs but different languages, integration is difficult and can take many generations. Communities with no cultural links, different religious beliefs, different languages almost never integrate. However within the master/servant relationship you might see aberrations.
      So what you see here is natural and almost impossible to break through. In the Southern African environment most people tried to learn as mush as possible about their neighbours belief systems and make allowance for those to allow them to get along and most spoke more than two languages. At the same time we celebrated our own culture, language and heritage.
      Personally I believe voluntary integration of diverse cultures is impossible. South African history has proved this and one sees similar structures within the USA.


      • Dave s says:

        A very good post indeed. I shall be attending a funeral on Friday of an old friend. A South African. An Afrikanner. When he joined the army in WW2 ( he was captured at Tobruk) his grandmother refused ever to talk to him again so great was her dislike of the British and the Empire.
        His son, raised in England with an English mother went later to SA and found that he had to learn to speak Afrikaans very quickly if he was to be accepted.
        As you say integration is always a slow and difficult process.


      • RCE says:

        With the greatest respect I think this misses an important point about multiculturalism.

        The respect for others’ beliefs and rights is not the same as multiculturalism. Such respect can easily task place within a monoculture (and does, in many places). Some monocultures (eg Islam), of course, do not have this characteristic.

        The difference with multiculturalism is that it is the belief that all cultures are fundamentally equal; thus the culture that circumsizes small girls, denies females access to education, stones gays to death in public and forces people to marry against their wishes is deemed equal to one that does none of these things.

        Which is, of course, a denial of reality.


  13. jimbola says:

    The trouble is the lib/lad/con dictatorship will press on regardless with the project, paying occasional lip-service to it just to hush us for a while.


  14. fitzfitz says:

    Islamic Turkey : vile, truly vile cruelty to animals – especially to dogs …