//I tend to regard that as a cultural issue, rather than a religious one. For reasons that I'm not entirely clear of, the gangs in question are often described as Muslim, but they were also mainly of Pakistani origin//
Is it Jim who "tends to regard that as a cultural issue, rather than a religious one", or is Jim uncritically (unusually for him) repeating the official li[n]e that this is nothing to do with Islam?
I'm not repeating any official lie, it's my own observation. At the very least, the fact that the perpetrators were almost universally of Pakistani origin is likely to be as important as their being Islam (which, in any case, follows almost by default of their being Pakistani).
/// the gangs in question are often described as Muslim, but they were also mainly of Pakistani origin. ///
Islam is the state religion of Pakistan, and about 95-98% of Pakistanis are Muslim. Pakistan has the second largest number of Muslims in the world after Indonesia. The majority are Sunni (estimated at 75-95%), with an estimated 5-20% Shia.
//Pakistani origin is likely to be as important as their being Islam//
Why, Jim? What exactly is it that you are observing? As you add "...follows almost by default of their being Pakistani" we're agreeing most rape gangs are Muslim and most Muslims in Britain are Pakistani descendents. (Not most of those in Bristol though).
I've mentioned several time on this forum the film "My Dangerous Lover Boy", a collusion between child protection services in Yorkshire (I believe) and in the Netherlands which had its own problem with "grooming" gangs. If you're looking for common factors between our rapist and the Dutch ones country of origin ceases to feature, Jim. Religion does not.
Btw, The man who did so much to bring the Pakistani rape gangs into the Public domain, (in The Times) Andrew Norfolk, admits that it was first brought to his attention by Tommy Robinson's EDL
I see the thread is slowly reverting to the default Answerbank discussion, 'Is Islam Bad?'
Not that surprising, I guess, considering the original story had zero substance to it.
For what it's worth, though, it's probably worth stressing that a self-publicist (who according to his own words in his own letter is paranoid) claims to have been mistreated and offers absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever. Not much for Mr. Javid to go on really.
All the same, v-e, it's a link worth noting, and I would have expected you at least to appreciate the importance of considering more than just the headline commonality -- that is, to appreciate the nuances here.
At any rate, describing these as "Muslim rape gangs" is essentially begging the question. Whatever Robinson said, there is more driving those men's than that factor of their lives.
According to Talbot's link, (Carlson interview) not only did he not plead guilty, he has never even received an explanation of exactly what he has been charged with!
From The Guardian report:-
Robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court. He was arrested, charged and sentenced within five hours.
From the BBC report:_
Robinson, from Bedfordshire, pleaded guilty to a charge of contempt of court.
I'm bemused by the lack of interest from those who shouted that everything was hunky-dory. He pleaded guilty Justice has been done.
Yet now we find out he didn’t plead guilty and a top judge has said the justice meted out was not done correctly they have lost interest in justice being seen to be done.