This week, a group of Pakistani-heritage men appeared in court. The 54-year-old alleged ringleader stands accused of preying on two vulnerable school girls, and abusing them ‘in the most humiliating and degrading way imaginable’. The girls were alleged to have been passed between six men in total, with prosecutor Rossano Scamardella KC telling jurors, ‘Unprotected sex was routine. The girls were lied to about it being forbidden for Muslim men to use protection. These men cared not a bit about sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies.’
It seems today we are more comfortable discussing the bad behaviour of posh, middle-aged, white men than the horrendous crimes Pakistani-heritage Muslims have been convicted of in Britain over the past few decades
One of the gang, charged with rape, indecent assault, indecency with a child, and assault by penetration, was described by Scamardella as a ‘nasty sexual predator’ who would use threat and force when needed to make sure his victims never felt safe saying no.
But here’s a question: do you know the name of the gang ringleader? Can you name any of the accused men? Do you know when or where the abuse took place? Or the city where the court case is being held? I’d wager that most people – even Spectator readers who keep abreast of the news – do not.
For the record, the alleged ringleader is Tahir Rashid, and the girls were abused in Rochdale. Sitting alongside Rashid in the court in Manchester this week are Mohammed Saleem, 46, of Rochdale; Sucklane Shah, 46, of no fixed abode, and Itfaq Hussain, 45, of Shawforth, who all deny rape. Then there’s Arshad Mohammed, 55, of Rochdale, who has entered not guilty pleas to rape and assault by penetration, and Amjad Mahmood, 53, of Rochdale, who is not in court but has pleaded not guilty to rape, indecent assault, indecency with a child and assault by penetration.
I do not wish to cast aspersions on readers for not knowing these names. This week has shown that, even when the fiasco surrounding the national inquiry into grooming gangs cannot be ignored, current cases of child sexual exploitation carried out by Pakistani-heritage men garner only scant coverage. Far from having his picture splashed across every newspaper front page, the name ‘Tahir Rashid’ has not been permitted to enter our collective conscience.
Of course, there is one man accused of sexual exploitation who has dominated this week’s headlines: Prince Andrew. Dishing dirt on the former-Duke must be the UK’s only thriving employment sector. News of his past exploits and current lack of humility refuses to die down; every few hours, a new revelation emerges. The upshot is that while I know little about the disgusting Rashid, I know seemingly everything about Prince Andrew. I know the name of the young woman he is alleged to have had sex with – Virginia Giuffre – and when and where this sordid event apparently took place. I know the messages he exchanged with Jeffrey Epstein – and that they were sent after he claimed their friendship had ended. I even know how much rent he pays, how often, and when the lease on his mansion expires. (Prince Andrew has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing.)
Here’s the thing. The men in court in Manchester stand accused of rape. The girls they are accused of targeting were underage: they were often picked up by gang members while still wearing their school uniform. We know that in other so-called grooming gang cases, men have drugged, beaten, repeatedly raped, and threatened girls as young as 12. Prince Andrew, in contrast, has not been convicted of any crime. While we can feel the utmost sympathy for the late Virginia Giuffre, the fact is that she was 17 at the time the then-Duke of York was alleged to have had sex with her, just above the age of consent.
Andrew’s seemingly insatiable appetite for sex and money and his poor choice of friends make him difficult to defend. But despite headline after headline, it is difficult to turn up much that is truly new in the story of Randy Andy and the Privileged Prince paying only a peppercorn rent. So why the endless coverage?
Sadly, it seems that today we are more comfortable discussing the bad behaviour of posh, middle-aged, white men than the horrendous crimes Pakistani-heritage Muslims have been convicted of in Britain over the past few decades. It is easier to talk about scandals surrounding a Prince than it is the rape of working-class girls. Even the Prime Minister is, it seems, prepared to play this game of distraction. As the national inquiry into grooming gangs descended into a shameful farce, Starmer backed calls for Prince Andrew to give evidence in parliament before a select committee of MPs. Forget Tahir Rashid, focus on Prince Andrew.
But imagine, just for a moment, how different things might be if the Pakistani-heritage men already found guilty of grooming and raping girls the length and breadth of Britain had been given just half as much press coverage as that dedicated to Prince Andrew.
Comments