Talk:Telford child sexual exploitation scandal

Sourcing

Please note that per WP:BLP policy, any assertions regarding living persons MUST be cited to reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Oxford sex gang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio

Noting here that I removed the prod because this situation (not only the convictions) is notable, and I fixed the copyvio by linking to the BBC and placing the charges in quotation marks. The way the BBC has phrased this isn't clear, so ideally we should look for a source that says what the actual charges were (e.g. sexual activity with a child). SarahSV ^(talk) 19:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Uncomfortable racial emphasis

Why does it matter that the victims were white and the perpetrators were Muslim men? BrianBrecker (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It matters that the victims are generally white because they are being targeted because they are white, as Anthony Stansfeld, the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley, and former Crown Prosecution Service chief Lord MacDonald have stated. --1.136.110.218 (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

likewise with the perpetrators being Muslim - Trevor Phillips (The former chairman of the equality and human rights commission) said that describing these gangs as Asian wrongly points the finger at ethnic groups like Indian Hindus who have not been implicated. He went on to say in that same article that "What the perpetrators have in common is their proclaimed faith. They are Muslims, and many of them would claim to be practising. It is not Islamophobic to point this out" --1.136.110.218 (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not change the heading for a section. Secondly please note WP:IRS In regards to the Daily Mail. Also note you are using evidence from Oxford in regards to Telford, this is WP:OR and should be ignored.185.9.19.152 (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Mail source is being used for its quote from Trevor Philips and the Oxford for its quote from Anthony Stansfeld, as was mentioned above, so they are fine to use in this setting. --2001:8003:5448:9700:81BD:B637:2488:73F5 (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2018

British-Asian needs to be changed to British-Pakistani, because while British-Asian includes British-Pakistanis, it also includes British-Indians and British-Burmans, who have been unjustly included under the primarily British-Pakistani suspects and convicts. This overbearing label also discriminates against Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Buddhists who are being wrongly lumped in with the actual definite criminals. If other British Asians, not originally (descended) from Pakistan, are convicted, then this request can rightly be considered void.

"British-Asian"->"British-Pakistani" 12.34.252.34 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done It is a term of description not an attempt at a collective allocation of blame, so the issue you perceive simply does not arise. If it was an unfair attempt at a collective allocation of blame then it would be just as unfair to narrow it down to people of Pakistani descent when the vast majority of them don't commit this sort of crime either. (Hint: All collective ethnic allocations of blame are intrinsically unfair and we are not touching any of them with a stick!) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

if they are mostly British Pakistani, should it be changed to "mostly British Pakistani"?--1.136.106.201 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No. If you do not have an explicit source (not a tabloid) that specifies this in regards to specifically this case, no.185.9.19.144 (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2018

Change "scanadal" to the proper spelling of "scandal" ScrappyD (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Investigations of perpetrators

I have no idea why there is such focus on the investigations of the ethnicity of perpetrators, it is only tangentially relevant to the article, even then what's written seems to be written from the perspective of pushing the POV of a couple of researchers. Please don't give too much prominence to any particular people or any particular viewpoint, particularly when what's written appears to contain false statements. The claim that the report says that the gangs were mostly white is clearly false, given that it is sourced to earlier reports - [https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/23810/7/If%20its%20not%20better%20its%20not%20the%20end_web%20copy.pdf][https://static.lgfl.net/LgflNet/downloads/online-safety/LGfL-OS-Research-Archive-2012-Childrens-Commissioner-CSE.pdf]. The 2012 reports says that identification of perpetrators by victims breaks down the ethnicity as 36% white and 27% Asian (others black or unspecified), the 2015 report gives police data on CSE groups and gangs - 42% White or White British, 14% Asian or Asian British (others black or unspecified), it is only when considering all models of CSE (not just group or gang-based CSE) do you get a majority of white (59%). The report says "most commonly", which is not the same as "most". The Guardian also mis-reported the findings as saying most gangs are white, when the report says group (there is a distinction between the two), and it does not make such certain statement, qualifying it with "likely" because there are a lot of uncertainty about the data (there is in fact no data to support it, they just made the assumption it is likely the same as CSA). The statement given by the researchers is not what the report says, which instead say "it is difficult to draw conclusions about the ethnicity of offenders as existing research is limited and data collection is poor", hardly a ringing endorsement of their research. Even a cursory look at the figures would suggest white people are under-represented in the gangs (white population is still well over 70%) and Asian over-represented (population still under 10%, it's only when you look at the under-18 young people do you get a higher percentage, but they are hardly the people involved in CSE gangs.) The claim made by the researchers is just self-praise and dubious, and should not be included. Giving so much space to them is also clearly UNDUE, particularly when the issue is tangential to the article (it could be argued that there is a case for deleting the whole "Investigation" sub-section). Hzh (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)