The issue of grooming gangs has been a major subject of debate in recent weeks. One figure that has been repeatedly cited is that 1 in 73 Muslim men in the town of Rotherham has been prosecuted for grooming gang offences. While technically true, this figure is slightly misleading.
Its source is a 2020 paper by Kish Bhatti-Sinclair and Charles Sutcliffe. These researchers collected data on prosecutions of grooming gangs between 1997 and 2017 by reviewing over 2,000 media reports. They identified 498 accused perpetrators, of whom 83% had Muslim names. The researchers then calculated, for each local authority where there had been at least one prosecution during the relevant time period, the number of Muslim men per Muslim prosecuted for grooming gang offences. For Rotherham, the number was 73.
Why is this figure misleading? There are two reasons.
The first is that it is the second highest fraction out of all the figures in Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe’s table. For example, in Slough (which had the second lowest fraction) the number of Muslim men per Muslim prosecuted for grooming gang offences was 10,874. Is this because there is something fundamentally different about Slough? Perhaps. More likely is that the rate of prosecutions for grooming gang offence is a noisy measure of the true, underlying rate of grooming gang offences.
Overall, Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe estimated that 1 in 2,200 Muslim men in England was prosecuted for grooming gang offences. This figure is arguably more informative than the one for Rotherham, since it averages out a lot of the noise. The true underlying rate could, of course, be higher than 1 in 2,200 if many cases are not recorded. And it could vary between smaller towns like Slough and Rotherham, and larger cities like Birmingham and London.
The second reason why the figure for Rotherham, and indeed all the figures in Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe’s table, are misleading is that they were computed by dividing the number of Muslim men in a single year by the number of Muslim men prosecuted over 20 years. This is not normally how crime rates are computed, and for good reason: it’s not comparing apples with apples.
Crime rates (or prosecution rates) are useful because they tell us how many crimes were committed relative to the total number of potential opportunities for crime. For crimes committed over multiple years, the total number of potential opportunities is much larger than the number of people who were alive in a single year. Assuming for the sake of simplicity that the population is stable, the total number of potential opportunities is equal to the number of people multiplied by the number of years (i.e., the number of person-years).
To see why this is right, note that if we used an arbitrarily long time-interval for the number of crimes, we could eventually conclude that every single person in the relevant category had been prosecuted! But this would be meaningless.
We therefore need to multiply the denominator of Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe’s figures by 20. In other words, the least misleading way to present the numbers from their table would be to say that: in the period 1997–2017, Muslim men in England and Wales were prosecuted for grooming gang offences at an average rate of 1 in 44,000.
Once again, this could well be an underestimate of the true underlying rate if many cases are not recorded. But the statement itself is accurate, since it refers to prosecutions not actual cases. It’s also worth noting that Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe found evidence that Pakistanis specifically, rather than Muslims in general, were dramatically overrepresented among grooming gang offenders.
An earlier version of this article referred to “potential criminals” rather than “potential opportunities for crime”.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This tragedy occurred in Bradfordistan yesterday. What’s unusual is that they’ve named the attacker and even stated his ethnicity. Sadly, what isn’t unusual is that as far as stabbings go, much like sexual assaults, it’s the usual suspect, yet to be apprehended;
”Police are hunting a suspect after a young mum was stabbed to death in a busy city centre.
The victim, a 27-year-old woman, was killed ‘in broad daylight’ in Bradford on Saturday afternoon while pushing a pram.
Locals say the victim was stabbed four times in the neck and left to die in front of her baby boy.
Police are still trying ‘to locate and arrest the man responsible’ after he was said to run from the scene in Bradford and have now named Habibur Masum as a suspect.”
https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/07/woman-27-stabbed-death-broad-daylight-killer-loose-20600506/
Good grief.
Enoch was right.
So was Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson, Paul Weston and Sir Winston Churchill.
Paul Weston arrested for quoting Winston Churchill’s words on Islam | Daily Mail Online
Weston quoted Churchill:
‘Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
‘Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
‘No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.’
Churchill was far too restrained when describing Islam, or maybe he wasn’t fully aware of the horrors that can be imposed, particularly on women, by conservative/fundamentalist Muslims. As just one example, last month the Taliban reintroduced death by stoning for women convicted of adultery. It seems like “adultery” actually means any sex outside of (forced) marriage, including by consenting young women. However we’re all meant to respect Islam and under Sir Kneel Starmer will be guilty of a criminal offence for criticising the “religion of peace”.
True, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Little did Sir Winston imagine that only a few decades after he wrote those words, an Englishman would be arrested for quoting him.
I note the Mail sidebar quotes a longer piece which includes that your quoted.
“‘How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!,’ wrote Churchill.
‘Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
‘The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
‘A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
‘The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
‘Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
‘No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.'”
while I know and have worked with many Moslem who have risen above this, I cannot disagree that this tenet remains valid amongst the majority. I wouldnt mind betting the woman who reported Paul Weston ( a former frequent and informed contributor to Kathy Gyngell’s far right* Conservative Woman) to the police is some liberal leftwinger who is completely ignorant of the veracity of this summary. I will endeavour to remember it.
*=
Winston obviously got closer to the truth than the abridged part of his speech suggests. The bit about slavery is particularly apt. Domestic slavery is bad enough, but young women/girls in forced marriages are also sex slaves as under Islamic law they can’t choose not to have sex with their husband. There’s a Hadith that says that a woman should always be sexually available to her husband, even on the back of a camel (but this Hadith won’t be displayed at Kings Cross).
Is there any point saying more on this subject as I’m pretty sure the vast majority of DS commenters know the full facts about Islam. It’s how to get the rest of the population to see the truth that’s the real challenge.
Thanks for that wonderful extended quote. One sentence is particularly striking, and sums up the real difference between Christianity and other religions worldwide, including satanism:
“A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.”
I was surprised to read somewhere the honest view of an Indian immigrant to the USA, who said that the reason he left India was to get away from Indians, because all they cared about was sex and money, whereas Ethnic Europeans (= white people) were interested in so many other things.
And I’ve just watched one of Katie Hopkins’ newest videos. I forgot to add her to the List of Honour above, which should be Enoch Powell, Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson, Paul Weston, Katie Hopkins & Sir Winston Churchill, among many other brave people.
Katie Hopkins: how long before the UK has an ‘Islam Party’ approved by the Electoral Commission? (youtube.com)
Reverend Simon Sideways made the point that maybe people will have to embrace Christianity — Just like with the Orange Order, not all will believe in it but they march as one because they know what is at stake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJE-vA7IgE
Thanks for that link, with some great comments agreeing with you, such as this from SparkyAlan1411:
“I’m a 60 year old white English man and have been atheist since birth. I am seriously thinking of going to church regularly and all atheists need to consider the same. We were brought up with Christian values that hark back hundreds of years. It is part of our islanders DNA. We should support those values before they are taken over by inferior religious ideas that have no place in the Northern Hemisphere…a show of strength and unity that once made Britain great and its inhabitants revered.”
Some of us have been quietly doing this for decades and been scoffed at for following our Sky-pixie. Not sure the founder of the faith would be too chuffed with people using it for purposes of ‘up-yours, Mohammed- ness’.
I suppose those converting to Islam in jail are about as earnest in the endeavour as the lying so-and-so’s declaring their intention to follow Jesus if it will get them granted asylum.
We need more jails, prison staff, and a more punitive penal system.
Well done to Richard Eldred for highlighting Jonathan Hall’s report.
Jonathan Hall KC: at last an honest judge who actually strives for Justice,
a King’s Counsel who tells the truth to the public, thereby serving the people and the monarch.
Not really a surprise when Islamification of Britain seems to be a policy for both Labour and Tories.
I am not a pedant do mot mean to detract from this important piece but to grow to 15,584 from 3,681 is an increase of 4 times so it is 423% of (this equates to “times”) 3,681.
Thank you all for your contribution and quotes by Churchill. Aren’t you afraid the police will knock on your door too? LOL. Now I know we have entered a state of totalitarianism where anyone can report ‘hate’ to the police and the latter does act on it; it is beyond belief or common sense.
“Ministry of Justice figures recently revealed there were 15,584 Muslim prisoners in England and Wales last September compared to just 3,681 in 1997.”
———
In 1997 there were between 1.2 and 1.4 million Muslims in the UK.
In 2022 there were 3.87 million, which means there are probably about 4.5 million now.
So the increase of 3.1 million Muslims has resulted in an increase of 11,903 prisoners; and that’s at a time when sentencing deters incarceration.
Perhaps that is why we saw a call for criminals to be sentenced differently, depending on their level of “deprivation.”