SS accuses me of having my attitude "laid bare" via this quote:-

"It's not about whether it's positive or negative.

It's about what is true."

So let's examine a couple of things.

Is describing "grooming gangs" as "grooming gangs" a lie?

Is describing "grooming gangs" as "Islamic grooming gangs" the truth?

Now the first cannot be untrue. They are grooming gangs.

The second is. Why is that? There are several reasons.

The first being that no-one from the faith of Islam sent these people out to commit crime in their name. Islam won't be on any crime sheet.

The second is that there are several versions of the Islamic faith. To use the blanket term "Islamic" is no more accurate than describing the IRA as "Christian terrorists".

The third is that we have no actual proof that all the gang members are current, practising members of any faith. Some may be lapsed. Just because someone is called Mohammed is no reason to assume anything anymore than if someone is named Jesus they will be a Christian. Much more likely for sure but that's not good enough. More pertinently though the pictures I have seen of the gangs suggest they aren't all likely to be from one of the Islamic faiths. Some look as though they could be Sikhs.

So if you want this only to be about the truth, because the truth needs to be faced, then face the truth. They aren't "Islamic" grooming gangs. They are grooming gangs. The truth does indeed matter and there it has been really laid bare.

So should the police just say “We’re looking for some people” and leave it at that?

They are islamic or muslim or pakistani or asian or non white or brown.

As I have explained I really don't think those terms are either accurate or helpful to anyone or anything. Except for juicy headlines in the Mail.

But they definitely are describable as more than just 'criminals'.

Evil? Anti-social? Dangerous?

How they handle things internally, and on the doorsteps, is their business.

If they ask for the media to assist them then I would expect them to be more circumspect and, from what I can tell, they are. It's the sensationalist media that are the big problem.

If those responsible were predominantly Welsh, or had Liverpool accents or red hair wouldn’t it be mentioned at some stage? The media can’t help much if they’re are limited to describing the guilty parties.

If those responsible were predominantly Welsh, or had Liverpool accents or red hair wouldn’t it be mentioned at some stage? The media can’t help much if they’re are limited to describing the guilty parties.