Aiding and Abetting Gang Rape, the British Police

Even for an American, Bruce Bawer, in FrontPage Magazine, here is quite outspoken. Good! It’s overdue. And note that it is hard for a Briton to do since their free speech rights have been so eroded.

It started in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, where the scandal made headlines in 2012, and where about 1500 victims have since been identified. Then came Rochdale, in Greater Manchester. There followed revelations from Lancashire, Birmingham, Surrey, Leeds, Bradford, and Gloucestershire, with the number of victims in each of these areas numbering in the hundreds or more.

Now an inquiry in Manchester proper has shown that – surprise! – that city isn’t immune to the predations of grooming gangs, either.

Commissioned by Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, the inquiry found that at least 57 girls, many of whom lived in government-run children’s care homes, “were raped and abused by up to 100 members of a Manchester grooming gang sixteen years ago – but despite police and social workers knowing what was happening they weren’t stopped.” The girls, wrote Jennifer Williams in the Manchester Evening News on January 14, “were hooked on drugs, groomed, raped and emotionally broken.” Much of this, moreover, went on “‘in plain sight’ of officials”; indeed, “Greater Manchester Police dropped an operation that identified up to 97 potential suspects,” at least eight of whom went on to commit more assaults, and in August 2018, the city’s Chief Constable “refused to reopen the dropped operation.” At least one of the rape victims, Victoria Agoglia, who “had repeatedly told social workers she was being injected with drugs and raped,” was given no help whatsoever, and ended up dying in 2003, at the age of fifteen, of a heroin overdose, with the then coroner, Simon Nelson, concluding (in the face of massive evidence to the contrary) that “her death could not have been foreseen by the authorities,” and with records showing that Agoglia had, at age 13, been dismissed by social workers as a prostitute.

And of course the reason why those authorities did nothing about the abuse of any of these girls was that virtually all of the perpetrators were Pakistani Muslims – or, in the parlance of the British media, “Asians” – and the cops, social workers, child-services officials, politicians, and others were scared of offending the Muslim community. The man responsible for Agoglia’s death, one Mohammed Yaqoob, was cleared of manslaughter charges. Meanwhile, the Telegraph reported that cops looking into the Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs were told by their superiors – who were driven by “fears over race relations,” concern about “sensitive community issues,” and a reluctance to amp up “community tensions” – to leave the Pakistanis alone and instead find and arrest rapists of “other ethnicities.” And they obeyed.

The story is the same all over Britain. The authorities are afraid of the Muslims, and will not investigate, let alone prosecute them. They like to call it ‘political correctness’ but it’s not. What it is is craven cowardice, perpetrated by the police and the prosecutors, and allowing the destruction of hundreds (maybe thousands) of working class British girls and women. And it is not what American police call ‘going fetal’ when you know that the leadership and politicians are out to get the police, like in Chicago and Baltimore. It’s worse, much worse, it the willing acquiescence of the rank and file to subvert the course of justice lead by corrupt police leaders and politicians. I can’t think of anything more despicable. Except maybe their willingness to prosecute (and persecute) anyone who criticizes their treason.

Maggie Oliver, a former Manchester detective who doggedly led that investigation, reacted to the inquiry’s findings by directing a justifiably furious j’accuse at “the people at the top of the police and at social services.” She added: “The chief constable, assistant chief constables, head of social services, the people who knew the facts, who knew the truth and they chose to bury the truth. That, in my opinion, is unforgivable.” And she asked: “why are those people not facing charges of misconduct in a public office? Where is the accountability? They should be put in front of a court of law.”

Indeed. And keep in mind that, like their counterparts across Britain, the Manchester police, while refusing to save children from rapists belonging to a protected minority group, have been zealous in their harassment of citizens who have dared to speak out in criticism of that same group. In 2017, the Times reported that cops across Britain were arresting an average of nine people a day “for posting allegedly offensive messages online” as part of a “campaign to combat social media hate speech”; in addition, over 3,300 people had been “detained and questioned” in 2016 for such offenses. As British journalist Brendan O’Neill noted in Reason in 2018, “This birthplace of John Stuart Mill, this nation that gave the world John Milton and his Areopagitica, still one of the greatest cries for the ‘liberty to utter,’ is now at the forefront of shutting speech down.” Yes, they’re not just going after critics of Islam; they’re also prosecuting people for posting rap lyrics online and for filming dogs making Nazi salutes. But this nefarious new Thought Police activity and the systematic refusal of police to arrest Muslim rapists share an identical motive – a pusillanimous terror of offending Muslims.

Read it all at the link above. Is it fixable? Sure anything man can make, man can unmake or fix. What matters is the will and leadership to do so. That I see nowhere on the horizon, and without it, the Britain that we have known that built the modern world, and all in it, including the United States, is dead and moldering in its open grave.

Sir Robert Scruton


First a personal note, it is good to see ‘The Unit’ liking posts, here again, he has been missed since the first of the year. I look forward to his resumption of commenting. 🙂

Sir Roger Scruton died of cancer over the weekend, at home in England surrounded by his family. As Steven Hayward says on PowerLine:

Sir Roger deserves to be considered the greatest conservative thinker and writer of the last generation—full stop—certainly the most prolific and wide-ranging since G.K. Chesterton, having published more than 50 books and countless articles.

And yet he’s very hard for me, at least, to write about. I agreed with him almost always, but what he said was in a way so simple, so commonsensical, that it seemed to hardly need saying, and yet it did, and he always said it well, with great humor. Steven again.

Although Scruton can throw down with the deepest and most complex of modern philosophers such as Wittgenstein, when it came to conservatism he was not a dense theorist or systematizer. To the contrary, he liked to say that conservatism should begin with love—the things we love, the places we love, and the institutions we ought to love, but often don’t, because of the imperfections in all things human. In the introduction to his book The Meaning of Conservatism, Scruton writes that “Conservatism may rarely announce itself in maxims, formulae, or aims. Its essence is inarticulate, and its expression, when compelled, skeptical.”

Why “inarticulate”?  Because, as he explains elsewhere, the liberal has the easy job in the modern world. The liberal points at the imperfections and defects of existing institutions or the existing social order, strikes a pose of indignation, and huffs that surely something better is required, usually with the attitude that the something better is simply a matter of will. The conservative faces the tougher challenge of understanding and explaining the often subtle reasons why existing institutions, no matter how imperfect, work better than speculative alternatives.

This is true, and pretty obvious, really. It’s always easier to criticize and show what’s wrong, even if one sticks to the truth, which these days is not a given. It is always much harder to see why the time-honored system works although imperfectly, better than any of the simplistic proposed replacements.

Kevin Donnelly in the Spectator Australia has some thoughts as well.

In opposition to the nanny state and big government much like Edmund Burke’s vision of little platoons, Scruton in his book Conservatism stresses the value of “the networks of familiarity and trust on which a community depends for its longevity”.   Scruton also suggests ordinary people are conservative by nature; something not acknowledged by society’s intellectual elites.

An intellectual class that sees itself as “gifted with superior insight and intellect and therefore inevitably critical of whatever it is that ordinary people do by way of surviving.  An intellectual class that does not identify with the way of life around it”.

Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States by Hilary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables”, Scott Morrison’s ability to win the support of the “quiet Australians” and Boris Johnson’s success attracting traditional Labor voters are proof of Scruton’s thesis.

He’s correct and if they do their jobs well, the continued strength of the Anglosphere will be his greatest memorial.

Scruton, like the poet T S Eliot and the philosopher Michael Oakeshott. believed the purpose of education is to initiate succeeding generations into what Matthew Arnold described as “the best that has been thought and said”. 

For Scruton what mattered most “is the spiritual and moral health of a community” and it’s understandable why he abhorred the destructive impact of cultural-left theory on the academy especially the impact of postmodernism and deconstructionism on music, art, literature and history.

When discussing the threats to modern conservatism Scruton identifies one of its chief enemies as political correctness and “its restraint on freedom of expression and its emphasis in everything on Western guilt”.

A very great man of towering intellect and peripatetic interests. His loss will be keenly felt.

Godspeed, Sir Roger.

Starkey on the Election

I’ve got a cold I can’t seem to shake, and the meds keep me falling asleep. So I’ve essentially got nothing prepared. Sorry. Meantime hears a video of Dr. David Starkey on last month’s British election. It’s very good.


China’s teething Problems

Yesterday we looked at how the Royal Navy is progressing smoothly in its return to big deck carrier aviation. Most of that is down to British know-how and the professionalism of the Royal Navy. But some of it is also due to the United States Navy, who has helped Britain maintain the skills and ethos of air warfare at sea. It’s been a remarkably successful program for both countries.

But another country wants to play in this league, Communist China. And no surprise its program isn’t running so smoothly. Strategy Page explains.

Earlier in 2019 it looked like China was moving forward to expand its carrier force by building four steam powered carriers followed by a larger nuclear powered class similar to the American ones. At the end of 2019 it was announced that plans had changed. There were numerous problems that contributed to the decision and it meant a smaller Chinese fleet with far fewer carriers.

The most immediate problem was the trade war with the United States. Exports to the U.S. are down 23 percent and devaluation of the yuan (the Chinese currency) mean that dollars coming from the U.S. trade is down by nearly 30 percent. […]

The second problem is military technology. China expected difficulties developing and implementing all the many technologies needed to effectively operate carrier task forces. Fixing those problems is taking longer than expected. This is especially true with the carriers and aircraft that can operate from them. Most of China’s modern aircraft are illegal copies of Russian designs and efforts to implement lots of stolen American aircraft tech has not gone as smoothly as hoped. […]

There is another problem with those claims; many Chinese neighbors have increased their defense spending specifically to deal with the Chinese navy. The American naval forces in the western Pacific plus the fleets of South Korea and Japan were already a formidable naval force blocking Chinese use of gunboat diplomacy. But now many smaller nations are allied with the larger anti-Chinese nations and those smaller nations are buying lots of submarines, fighter-bombers with anti-ship missiles as well as shore based anti-ship missiles. The Chinese plan to build more warships and intimidate neighbors into submission backfired. The many threatened neighbors united and joined an arms race China cannot afford.

One could almost feel sorry for them if they weren’t bloodthirsty tyrants. But they are, and so the most likely targets for US (and British, YAY!) carrier planes in the next decade or so is likely to be those carriers of the Chinese Army Navy

Look, there’s not much to add if you read the link. But it’s good they are having problems, and we should do what we can to make them worse. We had a huge head start back in the day, started as a British colony, and adopting many of the RNs attitudes. And still, 250 years on, we speak the same language, and not only English but other little things, like always seeking the weather gage, so to force the engagement, even against odds. That’s why the single-ship actions in our wars against Britain were so thrilling, nobody was will to run.

The Chinese are assiduous students of history, but there remains a chasm between reading what needs to happen and knowing it instinctively, and that’s the difference. Can the Chinese overcome that? sure, eventually, but it will be expensive in both money and blood. The Royal Navy has been around since the launch of HMS Mary Rose in 1510, the US Navy back to 13 October 1775. That’s a lot of knowledge and tradition to overcome. Many have tried, none so far have succeeded. There is a reason why Catherine the Great of Russia once declared that the greatest Russian admiral was John Paul Jones.

Seventy-eight years ago this year the US Pacific fleet sailed into battle against Japan against overwhelming odds and in five minutes won the war against Japan. It’s what we do. And it is what the British taught us as well.

The Anglo Saxon O Antiphons

I wanted to give you a Christmas Eve post of mine, but in looking around, I find I haven’t written one, and I have no time to do so now. So we go back to one of my favorite bloggers, “A Clerk of Oxford” who did a wonderful job of explaining the Anglo-Saxon versions of the O Antiphons and how they relate to the seasons. Enjoy

The Trinity, surrounded by angels with multi-coloured wings
(from the Grimbald Gospels, made in Canterbury in the 11th century, BL Add. 34890, f. 114v)

A Clerk of Oxford always manages to give us an appreciation of how much we owe to the Anglo-Saxons. Many of us who are Anglophone Christians are likely aware of the O Antiphons, which we share with the Catholics, but how many of us know that there are Anglo Saxon versions of them. There are, and they are quite beautiful, and echo down in our liturgies as well. Here is one she calls O Beautiful Trinity and you really should read her article, I’m simply pulling her translation here, and the article is fascinating.

O beautiful, plenteous in honours,
high and holy, heavenly Trinity
blessed far abroad across the spacious plains,
who by right speech-bearers,
wretched earth-dwellers, should supremely praise
with all their power, now God, true to his pledge,
has revealed a Saviour to us, that we may know him.
And so the ones swift in action, endowed with glory,
that truth-fast race of seraphim
and the angels above, ever praising,
sing with untiring strength
on high with resounding voices,
most beautifully far and near. They have
a special office with the King: to them Christ granted
that they might enjoy his presence with their eyes,
forever without end, radiantly adorned,
worship the Ruler afar and wide,
and with their wings guard the face
of the Lord almighty, eternal God,
and eagerly throng around the prince’s throne,
whichever of them can swoop in flight
nearest to our Saviour in those courts of peace.
They adore the Beloved One, and within the light
speak these words to him, and worship
the noble originator of all created things:
‘Holy are you, holy, Prince of the high angels,
true Lord of Victories, forever are you holy,
Lord of Lords! Your glory will remain eternally
on earth among mortals in every age,
honoured far and wide. You are the God of hosts,
for you have filled earth and heaven
with your glory, Shelter of warriors,
Helm of all creatures. Eternal salvation
be to you on high, and on earth praise,
bright among men. Dearly blessed are you,
who come in the name of the Lord to the multitudes,
to be a comfort to the lowly. To you be eternal praise
in the heights, forever without end.’

And here in a post called O Wondrous Exchange, she brings us the last section of these. Again, I’m merely giving you the translated poetry, its story is fascinating.

O, that is a wondrous exchange in the life of men!
that mankind’s merciful Creator
received from a maiden flesh unmarred,
and she had not known the love of a man,
nor did the Lord of Victory come
by the seed of a human on earth; but that was a more skilful art
than all earth-dwellers could comprehend
in its mystery, how he, glory of the skies,
high lord of the heavens, brought help
to the race of men through his mother’s womb.
And coming forth thus, the Saviour of the peoples
deals out his forgiveness every day
to help mankind, Lord of hosts.
And so we, eager for glory, praise him
devotedly in deeds and words. That is high wisdom
in every person who has understanding,
ever to most often and most intently
and most eagerly praise God.
He will grant him the reward of grace,
the holy Saviour himself,
even in that homeland where he never before came,
in the joy of the land of the living,
where he will dwell, blessed, from thenceforth,
live forever without end. Amen.

How glorious these are, even in translation, how wonderful they must have seemed a thousand years ago, in the language of the people. Then at the very end is a promise in a wonderful muddle of pronouns. Let’s let the Clerk explain and then it follows.

This individual with whom the poem closes is anyone who chooses to gather up the powers of their mind, to reflect upon the mysterious ‘exchange’ of human flesh and holy spirit, and – here at the end of the poem – to hold in memory all that has come before. By doing so this ‘he’ (who is any of us) comes to an eternal joy which is expressed, oddly but rather beautifully, in a closing muddle of pronouns:

He him þære lisse lean forgildeð, 
se gehalgoda hælend sylfa, 
efne in þam eðle þær he ær ne cwom, 
in lifgendra londes wynne, 
þær he gesælig siþþan eardað, 
ealne widan feorh wunað butan ende. 

He will grant him the reward of grace,
the holy Saviour himself,

even in that homeland where he never came before,
in the joy of the land of the living,
where he will dwell, blessed, from thenceforth,
live forever without end.

Who is ‘he’ here? Sometimes clearly Christ, and sometimes the mindful man, but the last, at least, might well be both. Perhaps they become one in that strange place, a final wonder from a poem full of marvels: a land where humans have never yet been, but which is their true home.

Have a wondrous Christmas week.

England Turns Blue and That’s a Good Thing

Britain voted yesterday, and I’d say the people know what they want. They want a rational government and they want Brexit. Like our cities, there are a lot of people who always vote Labour, just as their grandfather did, but there were a lot fewer of them yesterday.

This is the map from the Brexit referendum. You might notice how closely it tracks with the Tory’s victories yesterday. There were other issues, of course, including the full-on communist-terrorist bent of Jeremy Corbyn (who I read has resigned from the chairmanship) at the head of the Labour party. They were just as self-destructive as our Democrats look to be, which probably provided an excuse for some of those traditional Labourites. That doesn’t mean that Brexit is clear sailing now. The Tories have been sending (at best) mixed signals since before the referendum. You may remember that the Scottish Conservative Party workers were pulled down to northern England by Westminster to work against the referendum. Without much effect, it turned out. Still, Boris has talked a good game throughout, and working through a hung Parliament was never likely to go well. So we’ll see what he says with a ~90 seat majority. Yes, that is pretty much by definition a landslide, and he thoroughly demolished Labour’s red wall. It reminded me of our 2016 election, in fact, so here’s that map.

Do you see the same thing I do? In both cases, there are urban enclaves and some traditional union strongholds scattered across the face of basically conservative countries. Boris made inroads on them yesterday, and I think Trump will as well.

The list of recognizable names (even to a Yank) that lost yesterday is long. Amongst them (according to the Spectator AU)

  • Laura Pidcock (Lab, Shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights)
  • Chuka Umunna (LD after changing parties a couple times) In fact, all the MPs who loudly changed parties lost.
  • Zac Goldsmith (Con in a strongly Remain constituency)
  • Dennis Skinner (Lab, had been in his seat since 1970)
  • Dominic Grieve (Con, and the arch remainer in the party)
  • Chris Williamson ( I former Labour who got suspended for playing down Labour’s anti-Semitism)

The other big losers yesterday include the “Party of Davos” (pretty much what we call globalism) and once again the media, especially the BBC, Sky, and almost all of the papers. I gather the comedic value was right up there with Election Night 2016 in the US. Good, their demise is long overdue. And by the way, the polls were wildly wrong, again.

So, perhaps a sea change, also perhaps an acceptable Brexit, or maybe not, we’ll have to see. I’m not completely convinced that Boris (or his party) want a full Brexit, but the difficulties he had with the old   Parliament do make it hard to tell. Now it is time for him to fish or cut bait. 96 is a plenty large enough majority (and much larger than anyone expected) to carry the policy through.

I haven’t seen the numbers of spoiled ballots, if some of the people I know are any indication, it may have been high. Given party politics, a good result. It’s a mistake to think the Conservative Party is conservative, it hasn’t been since they mutinied against Margaret Thatcher, they tend to be socialist lite but that should be better than a guy who thinks Maduro had the right idea.

I also think that it’s a good omen for us here, I still think the referendum was one cause of Trump’s victory, especially the nomination, and it won’t hurt here either.

Now if Boris will Get a clean Brexit Done!


%d bloggers like this: