I don't think 'fearful' is the correct word, or 'unhappy' or 'angry'. Many people see what is happening around them and reject the line peddled by the authorities, and the liberal-left, that multi-culturalism and mass immigration are of great benefit. It is similar to the way the majority of people rejected the line that being in the EU was of great benefit when they could see before their eyes that it is not. As Lincoln said, "you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time".

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

I don't think that people who can't have sex become rapists, or sexual offenders. I think they just tend towards masturbating more. I don't abstaining makes you more likely to turn to children as a surrogate.

However, I do think that in such a situation, someone might be willing to cross a more blurred line involving age of consent. Especially, if they're paying for it (as they can rationalise it as a transaction).

A key thing to remember here, is that the core group of abusers where also pimping these girls out to others, and fairly well organised in their set up. Most organised crime gangs tend to be built on 'lines of trust' typically ethnicity and family.

I suspect the instances of sexual abuse involving ethnicity is that these groups probably informed each other and flourished because they were being ignored and that they focused on people they could trust - and that some degree of informal communication exists among these groups (i.e. some guy in Rochdale is involved to some degree, maybe as a punter, likes it and tells a like minded friend in Derby about it, they start doing the same thing).

Its odd how these kind of informal criminal networks tend to crop up. Its a bit like drug dealers. A group of kids get into smoking weed. One of them probably ends up being the guy 'who knows the guy', who's getting it for his mates. He gets to know his supplier. He's taking the risk, so why not make some money. So he starts buying in bulkier amounts, as does his supplier, in order to fulfil the orders.

The supplier moves 'up a level', and a network of people beneath him, move into dealing.

Sadly.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Technically, the American Mafia, I but yes, very much so. Organised crime tends to corrupt along cultural and family lines, as a means of remaining concealed.

But they also tend to serve vices within those communities. Most organised crime gangs also tend to avoid 'pissing off' their own community too much, and tend to focus really damaging crimes outside their 'own'. For example, the American Mafia was heavily involved in the heroin trade in the US, but less so in Italian communities. Similarly in prostitution, and this is very relevant, the tendency was to not 'involve good local girls'.

I suspect that because many of these girls were white, and 'not good girls', the wider community, including the police and social services, turned a blind eye for reasons of their own convenience, and the only people who really suffered were the girls. The Muslim community, the punters, the pimps, the police, social services, and community benefitted to some extent, and rationalised these crimes against that.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

We are a tribal species and we find ways to divide. We also encourage what benefits us and reject what is detrimental. In a complex society those lines are sometimes blurred or exaggerated by a barrage of information and are often seen differently depending on existing prejudices and perceptions. They are not necessarily determined by any one factor but nationality,class,wealth,religion,football team, it's all fair game in the game of division for the benefit of perceived self interest.

Well certainly what benefits us can appear counter intuitive and that is not surprising given the complexity of our existence. One assumes that we are driven toward what is beneficial but if one accepts the Dawkinsian view, our genes are what matter and we are just the vehicle. Whether it is possible to reason what is best for our genes or if we simply are driven by instinct to protect them or if both are one and the same is an interesting question.
Alliances and division both play a part in this and there must be conditions or a tipping point where the value changes and one becomes more favorable. There might also be a genetic 'memory' which prejudices against one group or a particular situation.

Never seems to be any non-Muslim "Asians" from India either - I expect they are too busy working hard, being law-abiding, integrating well and making their welcome contribution to society.

Edited by hedgehog50 (13 Apr 2017 8.13am)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]