“Easy Meat” Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery

Rapport uit UK, van, Peter Mc Loughlin, Gavin Bobby. “Easy Meat” Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery. Comprehensive Report on the Grooming Gangs.

Dit laat een veel schokkender en niet politiek correct beeld zien, van wat moslims hier doen met jonge meisjes.

De verhouding verkrachtingen in UK, wanneer men in de berekeningen rekening hield met het feit dat moslims slechts 5% van de bevolking uitmaken is 154 tegen 1.

Dat cijfer leest u goed; Moslims zijn in 154 gevallen dader van en verkrachting, wanneer een niet moslim dat 1 maal zal doen.

Die berekeningen zijn gedaan op basis van het aantal veroordelingen in de rechtbanken en zonder rekening te houden met bevooroordeelde sociale instanties. Die willen de waarheid alleen maar verbloemen.

Dit zijn de objectieve feiten.

Op elke pagina van dit 332 pagina's tellende rapport staat er horror.

U hoorde er hier nog nooit over. Dat zal u toch niet echt verwonderen.

Dat heeft niets met ras, maar met religie, cultuur en opvoeding (of gebrek er aan) te maken.

Ik ken geen enkel rapport dat zo diepgravend een onderzoek heeft gedaan naar dit onderwerp. 

In Zweden is de verkrachtingsgolf ook enorm, maar mag vanwege totaal misplaatste politieke correctheid niet worden onderzocht. Stockholm rape

Ook in België is er geen onderzoek. We herinneren ons nog wel Marion Van San en hoe deze werd teruggefloten door Groen en Sp-a. 

Laten we niet meer zwijgen en deze feiten, cijfers en onderzoeken, hoe schokkend ook, gewoon nnaar buiten brengen. 



Comprehensive Report on the Grooming Gangs


This is a shocking report. It is written with care, but the evidence is hard to believe. Readers should beware, because there is something to feel angry about on most pages: the prevalence of the crime; the length of time that it has continued; its blatancy; the lengths our authorities have gone to in order to cover up for it; but most of all, the vulnerability and suffering of the victims.

That anger is going to spread as awareness of this crime spreads. Denial and damage limitation won’t work any more.

It is hard to think of something more calculated to incite public violence than the targeting of native girls for rape by an immigrant population. The use of inter communal rape in the most savage territorial conflicts testifies to its perception as a weapon, and the fear of it evokes the most primal instincts.

And this is the basis for our plea to our civil authorities to stamp out this crime by any lawful means: if the suffering of the victims can’t motivate you, then consider the threat to your grip on power.

Vigilante violence disables its own society, and is one of the short-cuts from Queen’s peace to all-against-all. The self-appointed doer of justice tears a hole in the entire fabric of the law. He is accountable to no one, and if his violence can be inflicted on child rapists then thieves and debtors will be next.

The danger of vigilante justice.

Let me tell a story, some hypothetical events to illustrate how quickly power can spin out of the authorities’ hands.

It may be argued that the situation is too violent, but violence is what happens when ethnic hostility meets civil disorder. I have tried to underplay the descriptions, to assuage the sensitive. I hope the passage of time won’t reproach me for failing to point out the dangers in clear enough words. 

Suppose a group of former soldiers, with weapons and intelligence training, are bored with their post-service jobs for security companies and print shops, and tired of the pub going which keeps them in touch with each other and with what bestowed a sense of pride and purpose. Their patriotism is frustrated by their impotence in the face of predatory criminality. They gained a none-too-rosy view of Islamic culture during their tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, and its presence in Britain has become a frequent topic of conversation.

Fuelled by beer and boredom, their conversation turns to outrage at the failure to eradicate child rape gangs, and to boasts about how quickly they could eradicate them. One of them points out the number of Muslims among those convicted for grooming crimes, relative to the proportion of Muslims in Britain: he’s been looking through the convictions and realised that almost everyone convicted for these crimes has a Muslim name, when Muslims are only 5% of the population. They do some quick calculations, and conclude that Muslims are 154 times likelier to be perpetrators of these crimes than non-Muslims.1 Another points out that it’s worse than that: there’s not been one case where the victim was a Muslim and the paedophiles 


Some of the calculations get lost in the bar room hubbub, but they were as follows: muslims made up 89% of offenders from the most reliable lists, i.e. the lists of convictions as compiled by Andrew Norfolk, where guilt and innocence had been tested in the glare of a courtroom, uninfluenced by the professional self interest of social work- ers’ feedback forms. But muslims made up 5% of the population. Their calculations were:

The likelihood of individual Muslims to commit this offence is: 89÷5%=1,780.00

The likelihood of individual non-Muslims to commit this offence is: 11÷95%=11.58

So the likelihood of individual Muslims to commit this offence, compared to individual non Muslims, is:1, 780 ÷ 11.58 = 153.73

I.e. Muslims are roughly 154 times more likely than non-Muslims to commit this crime. There is some squabbling, and much mathematical to-ing and fro-ing, as to whether the figure can really be so steep. But, after much swearing at mobile phone calculator apps, that is the figure settled on...


were non-Muslims. “They’re raping our kids, we’re not raping their kids. There’s something wrong with Muslims,” he says.

They say they could put an end to this problem. They mean if they were given the chance, like. Infuriated by each new crop of bearded paedophiles glowering from the front pages, their talk becomes more sober and less boastful.

Prompted a few weeks later by reports of a particularly incompetent police investigation, idle talk turns to not-so-idle planning.

Tipped off by a disillusioned child protection worker or police officer as to the location of a B n’ B establishment used for this crime, they decide to put their plans into action.

Instead of planning a reprisal raid – as one or two Sikh groups appear to have done in response to the abuse of Sikh girls – they decide that prevention is better than cure. Acting on information received, they surveil the premises, noting when the 13 year old girl is led into the building, and when the clients follow.

One evening they lay in wait, force their way inside the building, and into the room where a semi comatose girl is held.

A terrible massacre follows: they shoot dead all the men in that room, without warning, at point blank range.

They are caught, arrested, charged with murder, and plead not guilty.

The appalling aftermath leaves no room to deny the killings. So, at trial, they admit the facts but claim their actions were justified because they were done in the prevention of a crime.

The prosecution are left with the unenviable task of rebutting this defence beyond reasonable doubt, and argue that the Defendants’ actions were not “reasonable in all the circumstances” because lesser force would have sufficed. 

The Defendants cite the fact that American states specifically sanction citizens’ use of “deadly force” against home invasion, whether or not the life of the householder is threatened, and even in some car chases. Similar laws have been proposed for this country in the case of burglary, and would enjoy substantial public support. They argue that most people agree that the gang rape of children is more serious than burglary. They refer to the BBC’s “No charge for Texas dad who killed daughter’s rapist” story, and the comments beneath.2

The prosecution also submit that the killers failed to inform the authorities before taking the law into their own hands, to which the killers point out that the authorities already knew – since they got their information from a disaffected member of one such authority – and that nothing had happened so far.

The judge is more conscious of the dangers of DIY justice than many people, so she is perturbed by the defence. But she is unable to prevent it going to the jury. She gives the correct guidance to the twelve men and women that it is hard to see how such extreme force can be considered reasonable when civil authorities such as police and child protection units are paid to prevent these crimes. And that whilst the crime of child rape is a terrible one, massacre is out of all proportion to it.

The jury retire and are unable to reach a verdict. Anonymous reports in some newspapers suggest later that half of the jurors refused to see anything wrong with killing members of a child rape gang. A retrial is held, followed, unusually, by a second retrial. But no verdict is ever reached, and the judge at the second retrial instructs the foreman to acquit the defendants. Picture the enthusiastic celebrations outside the court – based more on soccer chants than study of the dovetail joint between law and civil society.

News of the acquittal spreads fast. Other groups of would be vigilantes, take on board that it is OK to kill child rapists, especially 

them Muslim ones. The more buccaneering gangs soon branch into other areas of enforcement and dispute resolution. Before long they become the people to report crimes and quarrels to in certain areas. They even open their own brothels, some of which are sometimes somewhat casual about age restrictions – an irony that the liberal press are quick to spot, but which the police are slow to risk enforcing against for fear of upsetting the calm stalemate.

This situation is not so far-fetched as you might hope. The fragility of civilisation, the basic human need for security, plus an absence of law (to say nothing of budget constraints) enable the violent to pull in those around them like a fire-storm. It is, therefore, essential that our authorities stamp out these offences visibly, aggressively, and fast. They need to be seen to break with their previous inertia in doing so.

It is not realistic merely to condemn this crime. It must be suppressed. If not, those of us who are now execrated as firebrands, but who later try to preach restraint, will be brushed aside with the simple words: “They rape our children.”

Gavin Boby Law And Freedom Foundation