This is from yesterday.
A few points worthy of note:
The word Muslim is never mentioned. The religious aspect of this is considered completely off-limits. In the minds of our ruling class, the fact that the core texts of Islam sanction the sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women and children has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims do, in fact, practise the sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women and children, from Britain to Nigeria and Iraq.
The racial angle is almost a fallback position the ruling class moves to to avoid having to admit the religious aspect of this behaviour.
I haven't read the report yet but even in the press conference, its author is pushing back against the racial aspect, vaguely claiming that "research shows" that people of other races also suffer abuse. She is not clear about whether any of the 1400 victims were not "white" or not non-Muslim. Nor is she clear about whether this "abuse" she vaguely refers to was of the same nature as the kind described in this report. So we can see that the cover-up is still in effect.
The repellent Dan Hodges blogs about the racial aspect of the case here. To his credit, he discusses it candidly and admits that he, too, initially wanted to cover it up. Hodges is a member of the organisation Searchlight which acts as kind of ongoing inquisition in Britain, tracking down people who oppose the repopulation of their country by aliens and "exposing" them, revealing their personal details so they can be threatened and physically attacked by "antifa" thugs and seeking to have them hounded from their jobs. It is a key part of the "anti-racist" moral hysteria that has come to dominate public life in Britain. And it was exactly this moral hysteria that led the police and council workers to conceal the depravity going on in their midst. Dan Hodges is complicit in this abomination as surely as any of the local authority staff.
At one point in this press conference, you hear the voice of the journalist Andrew Norfolk asking critical questions. Norfolk is the one who, writing for the Times newspaper, actually broke this story nationwide and brought it into the realm of public acceptance. He deserves credit for that. But he also deserves blame for the fact that, as he himself has admitted, he knew about the story for years before he ever wrote about it, consciously deciding to suppress it because "he didn't want to help the BNP". Eventually, he decided that this approach was no longer tenable. Nonetheless, he himself, for years, made exactly the same choice that the police and councillors and social workers were making, that is to elevate their bizarre political and moral obsession with supporting the repopulation of their country by alien peoples above the welfare of the ordinary, vulnerable human beings it was their job to protect.
For more on the Andrew Norfolk connection, see this post on my older blog.
He made this admission in response a comment that accused him of being, at one stage, complicit in the cover-up for political reasons. His reply also came as a comment underneath an article posted on the Times website about two years ago.
This has been a two-year investigation.
Anne Cryer raised concerns in 2003 about what was happening in Keighley, West Yorkshire. We ran a brief story and moved on. I could and should have pleaded for time to look into it. I regret deeply that it took another seven years of growing unease before I finally sought and was given permission to examine in detail what seemed to be a pattern of offending across so many northern towns and cities.
I know that back in 2003 a major factor in my failure to probe thoroughly into Anne Cryer's allegations was a reluctance give undue weight to claims that were a fantasy story for the far right's poisonously simplistic message of white equals good, Muslim equals evil. Liberal squeamishness was given priority over vulnerable children. It is not a mistake I intend to repeat.
You call for an inquiry into journalists' failure to report this. I'd gently suggest that there might be certain representatives of other organisations - police forces, local authorities, mainstream political parties - who merit a higher place in your firing line than the messengers who were too slow to reveal a crime model whose existence those authorities denied and continue to deny.
They had the evidence. They knew the girls. They knew that grotesque crimes were being committed against children. They went to the meetings. They had a mountain of case files and internal reports. And they had the power to tackle it.