More ‘Asian’ Grooming Gang Abusers Sentenced in Oxford, England

Picture: Oxford Mail

Three more members of Asian grooming and ausers have been sentenced for multiple rapes, indecent assaults, pimping and drug dealing offences in Oxford, the ~University city that has been the site of some of the worst examples of systematic grooming and abouse of young, often vulnerable, British girls by Muslim men of predominantly Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds.

41-year-old Naim Khan ( 24/8/1978), 44-year-old Mohammed Nazir (20/3/1975), and 42-year-old Raheem Ahmed (22/2/1977) had all been convicted of the sex related crimes and held on remand awaiting sentencing, according to a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announcement. Their offences included:

• Seven counts of rape (two counts were multiple incidents covering at least 12 occasions); four counts of indecent assault (two counts were multiple incidents covering at least 15 occasions); one count of procuring a man to rape the victim; two counts of procuring men to indecently assault the victim; one count of supplying class B drugs on at least 12 occasions (Victim 1)
  one count of indecent assault (Victim 2)
• Six counts of rape (four counts were multiple incidents covering at least 14 occasions); five counts of indecent assault (all counts were multiple incidents covering at least 27 occasions); one count of procuring a man to rape the victim; three counts of procuring men to indecently assault the victim (one count was a multiple incident covering at least three occasions); one count of supplying class B drugs on at least 10 occasions (Victim 1)
• Two counts of indecent assault, and one count of supplying class B drugs on at least 10 occasions (Victim 1)

A fourth gang member, 42-year-old Afzal Mohammed of Randolph Street, Oxford, was acquitted of one count of rape.

The convicted trio have been “jailed for a total of 49 years”, with Khan, Nazir, and Ahmed receiving terms of 24 years, 20 years, and five years — but this may be misleading. Criminals handed multiple sentences are generally told they will serve them concurrently — i.e. all at the same time, rendering all but the longest effectively meaningless. So in spite of the public outcry over previous cases in Oxford and elsewhere around the country, most notoriously in Rotherham and Rochdale, the authorities are still intent on giving the kid – glove treatment to criminals of migrant backgrounds.

They are also usually eligible for automatic early release on licence halfway through non-“life” terms, or else at the two-thirds point with Parole Board approval if handed special “extended” sentences.

While the CPS did not spell out the full details of the Oxford gang’s sentencing immediately clear in their announcement, probably to avoid triggering the kind of outcry that has previously resulted from black and Asian rapists being given much lighter sentences than a European man convicted of multiple rapes of migrant women could expect to receive. A prime example of uch discriminatory treatment of convicted offenders was the case for Telford rape gang ringleader Mubarek Ali, who became eligible for release on licence — which he received — less than five years into a supposed 22-year sentence.

A particularly nasty aspect of the abuse carried out by the Oxford gangs was the sadistic nature of the abuse and the casual disregard for the humanity of their victims. In Britain and other civilised cultures we would not tolerate animals being treated so badly yet the far – left scumbags who control our politicised police forces and judiciary are dertermined that we be forced to accept it from foreigners who have been welcomed into our nations.

“The abuse to which [the victims] were subjected to by these men was horrendous and sadistic,” said Principal Investigator Mark Glover in comments reported by the Oxford Mail.

“They have had to live with the actions of these predatory offenders for the majority of their livthey have all been impacted in different ways,” he added.

“They will never be able to forget what happened to them all those years ago.”

Senior prosecutor Clare Tucker said the “depraved” groomers had “told the teenagers [their abuse] was normal in relationships between men and women and threatened the victims if they resisted or complained.”

One of the victims, who told the jury Naim Khan “began to pimp her out to other Asian males, made her sexually available to other men in return for payment”, revealed the consequences of her abuse in an impact statement: “My life has been destroyed. I cannot form loving or lasting relationships with men. I have not been able to care for my children as a mother should be able to.”

She says she did not report the abuse she suffered for some time, at first because of threats by the abusers, and then because she “felt disgusted by what those men did to me” when she was aged between 14 and 15 — “I just didn’t want it to come out and for anyone to know.”

Such cases have become an all to familar story in Britain since the story of the Rotherham case broke in 2012. The Abuse gangs had already been operating for years and worried parent and citizens who were aware of what whas happ[ening and tried to report it to police or social care authorities were dismissed as racilaly prejudiced cranks. It has since emerged that the order to soft pedal on investigations into the gangs came from the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions who at the was Kier Starmer, who is currently a contender for leadership of the Labour Party.

Back to contents table

Advertisement

Covering Up The Cover UP

So the cover up inquiry into the lost dossier on paedophiles in parliament allegedly handed to former Home Secretary Leon Brittan by the late Geoffrey Dickens MP and subsequently lost by Home Office staff (Brittan’s name figured in the list of kiddie fiddlers named by the dossier allegedly) has concluded that there is no proof the file was deliberately destroyed and therefore we must accept there was no cover up, neither this nor any previous or future government is, was or ever will be involved in wrongdoing of any kind and bloggers who keep asking awkward questions can fuck the fucking fuck off.

These conclusions have naturally aroused some sceptical responses,and not only from the blogosphere. Even some sections of the normally servile mainstream media are gobsmacked at the blatancy of the cover up.

But the story has raised one laugh for me. In the comment thread on the report carried by Breitbart London, which contained this composite picture of Dickens and Brittan …

Geoffrey Dickens (left) and Leon Brittan (image source)

… somebody tagged as Englebert has commented:

“Is Leon Brittans face real? It looks like he’s wearing a mask made from bits of dead people.”

Read full story and comment thread at Breitbart, London

RELATED POSTS:
Westminster child abuse and murder claims ‘tip of the iceberg’ in scandal, Home Secretary May warns
Birmingham Child Abuse report awaited
Cochdale Child Abuse Case posts
Rotherham child abuse case posts
The New World Order Paedophile Who Used His Status To Dodge Justice
Why do the political left love paedophiles so much

What A Wonderful Result

Forget the World Cup (well done Germany though) the big result of the weekend is another great win for the conspiracy theorists as former appeal Court Jude and Cover – Up artist par excellence Baroness Butler – Sloss is forced by a torrent of public outrage to step down as chair of the official whitewashing of inquiry into sexual high crimes and misdemeanours among the elite.

With allegations that have been simmering since the 1980s now coming to the boil, and Butler – Sloss having been involved in a previous cover up while her brother, former Attoney General to Margaret Thatcher’s government Sir Michael Havers having been accused of cronyism for his failure to prosecute diplomat and known paedophile, the late Sir Peter Ancram andgoing way beyond his job description in his efforts to prevent Tory MP Geoffery (honourable-but-dim) Dickens using Parliamentary privilege to name Ancram, surely David Cameron’s decision to appoint Butler – Sloss for her expertise in covering up investigating allegations of sexual abuse committed by members of the elite must be an indication of complicity in the cover up rather than pure and simple incompetence.

Whichever way you look at it, the way all this has at last expoled in the establishments face (and driven another million or so votes to UKIP) is a great result for those of us who have been talking about corruption at all levels of the establishment for thirty years now (I was doing jokes about Havers and Ancram, Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall, Leon Brittan and hush puppies (any a numberr of Labour figures) in the early 1980s (and getting pulled offstage for going too far over the line on one occasion).

But forget the establishment and their cover ups, let’s do a bit of examining the evidence of our own:

Butler-Sloss ‘kept allegations of bishop’s abuse quiet because she she ‘cared about the Church

Why Do The Left Love Paedophiles

Judge Butler – Sloss Best To Head Elitist Paedophile Cover Up Inquiry – Cameron

No Conspiracy Of Silence On Elitist Paedophiles

Organising a Cover Up to Cover Up a Cover up? Just call The Establishment

Conspiracy: What Has Induced The BBC paranoia about paedophiles

RELATED POSTS:
What Happened To Battling Barbara’s VIP Paedophile Dossier
The Greenteeth menu of conspiracies

How’s About That Then?

Can anybody tell me why we need an enquiry into the Jimmy Saville affair?

Do we need an enquiry because forty years ago it was an accepted part of life that people in positions of authority abused that authority?

I left school in ’74 and entered the workplace, a slightly naive 16 year old.

It wasn’t long before a (married) friend of my Dad’s was offering me a lift home and then stopping in a lay-by hoping for a snog and a grope.
At least he had the decency to take ‘no’ for an answer.

Then there was the chap I worked with who was well over twice my age (also married), in fact he would have been about as old as my Dad, so nearly forty years older than me, making improper suggestions including going to stay at his house whilst his missus was away.

And so it went on, culminating in my boss at the time pinning me up against the pipework when we were alone in the building and saying -got to admit this is one hell of a smooth chat up line, there again he was Welsh, (married and slightly more than twice my age)- “I’ve wanted to fuck you since the day I first saw you.”

When I politely declined he made my life a misery until the point where I could stand it no longer and left. Obviously if I would have accepted this charming offer I would have enjoyed a shining career, or maybe not.

And bear in mind I wouldn’t class myself as, to use one of Dad’s favourite phrases, “a raving beauty”.

It certainly wasn’t unusual for such behaviour in the workplace, and lets face it people with power do use that power to get what they want, always have done and probably to a certain extent always will.

And there will always be those who go along with it for their own ends.
Ever heard of the casting couch? How about wealthy older men with their trophy wives? Rock stars and groupies? Premier League footballers “roasting” sessions? These girls are willing participants, pursuing their own agendas.

So at the BBC in the late sixties through to the eighties the morals of the employees were a bit loose.

And you can say that the girls Jim was fixing it for were underage, but as I recall in my early teens we all wanted to look and be taken for older than we were. We lied about our ages to get into ‘X’ films, discos, the pub. Having watched my daughter and her friends go through exactly the same processes I don’t think anything has changed much there. We didn’t want to go out with boys our own age cos they were so immature. We wanted to go out with men and be treated like women. Some girls probably knew that to be treated like a woman you had to be willing to behave like a woman, and some would not.

So why do we need an enquiry into it?

You may as well have an enquiry into servants seduced by their employers in Victorian and Edwardian times.

It was what happened at the time.

Hopefully it would not be tolerated today, by colleagues, by “victims”, by all the people who knew about this open secret, because now we all know about child abuse, grooming, paedophillia, sexual abuse, harrassment, bigotry and discrimination. We all know and should not be too shy to say when something isn’t right. We know there are people we can talk to and to complain to should the need arise.

Perhaps the inquiry should be looking into whether the behaviour prevalent amongst its presenters forty years ago is still prevalent now. That would be something.
If it was then perhaps there could be some discussion of how to prevent it.

I’ll give you the advice we gave to SezJez.

Don’t put yourself in situations you can’t easily get out off, e.g. don’t let yourself end up in a bedroom with a boy at a party unless you want to get laid.

Don’t lose control, i.e. don’t get so drunk, off your face, that you don’t know what is happening to you.

Most importantly REMEMBER NO MATTER HOW NICE THEY SEEM ALL MEN WANT TO DO IS GET INSIDE YOUR KNICKERS.

Unfortunately not many teenagers heed such warnings.

So perhaps instead of spending money on a pointless inquiry that will conclude that sex was a central part of the BBC a reasonably long time ago the money would be better spent educating youngsters to have a bit more self respect and realistic expectations.

That could be achieved by having some old codger dress up as Jimmy Saville and stick his tongue down their throats.

Certainly be enough to put aanybody off I would have thought.