There's a particular name for this kind of sexual exploitation, I think. Do the experts call it "localised grooming" (as opposed to, say, internet grooming, familial rape etc.)? Maybe someone can correct or confirm that.
Anyway, various comments on this thread prove the point Norfolk was making - that the obvious connection between the gangs has been and still is being consistently ignored, treated as irrelevant, or, in the case of the blind, denied..
From the OP:
" the abusers ...came from a diverse range of backgrounds including Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Iranian, Iraqi, Kurdish, Turkish, Albanian and Eastern European".
Perfectly true, but not from a diverse range of religions[i. Not all Muslims are not rapists, but (with the exception of the case documented on East Enders a few years ago) most of this type of rapist are Muslim.
Now, if the gangs were made up almost exclusively of Mormons or Methodists, everybody, I repeat, [i]everybody] would be asking "What is it about Methodism/Mormonism which explains this?". (Anybody going to tell me I'm wrong about that?) I fully allow that the connection could turn out to be accidental and that the unifying factor lies outside the religious culture. But that answer could only be determined as the result of a proper enquiry, not in advance of one.