Oxford Sex Gang: Scores More Victims Identified

BBC News, May 14, 2014

Exactly a year ago, seven men were convicted of raping and trafficking six girls aged from 11 to 15 between 2004 and 2012.

The victims were groomed and subjected to sadistic sexual abuse.

Since then, Thames Valley Police has reviewed about 180 cases of vulnerable children potentially at risk.

The investigation, which began in 2012, has heard from dozens of girls who were connected to the gang.

The Kingfisher unit, which was set up by Thames Valley Police and Oxfordshire County Council in November 2012, also involves social services, health and education services.

Police ‘concerns’

In the past year, it has been involved in 20 criminal investigations and has served 40 abduction notices.

An abduction notice can be served if police receive a complaint that a man is hanging around with a young teenager. If he is spotted with the girl again, he can be arrested for abduction.

Det Supt Joe Kidman, senior investigating officer for operation Bullfinch, said: “We’ve had a number of young women come forward and give us very important accounts.

“We’ve also identified people we wanted to speak to and they’ve also given us very significant accounts.

“I would say that the figure is of around 50 to 60 young women that we have our concerns about.

“They may well be in a much better position now, but we consider they could have been victims.”

Victims sold

Last year’s trial at the Old Bailey heard how six girls were plied with alcohol and drugs before being forced to perform sex acts. Some were beaten and burned.

The court heard how the men–two of east African origin and five of Pakistani origin–identified vulnerable girls for abuse and then groomed each one of them until they were under the control of the gang.

They were then each either abused by the men themselves, given to the men’s friends or offered at a price to others who were not on trial.

The girls were mostly chosen because their unsettled or troubled lives made them easier to manipulate.

After the case concluded, social services and the police apologised for not acting sooner.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Guest

    I’m shocked, shocked, it wasn’t their La Crosse team.

    • Fair Dinkum

      Well, I was shocked until I realized they weren’t white La Crosse players or white policemen. Now, I’m just angry at the way institutional racism and white privilege forced these poor men of color into lives of crime.

  • Zaporizhian Sich

    There is only one way to deal with these things, and had it fell to me to mete out justice they will be begging for a quick death. Throwing them in a cell with fifty other prisoners who know they raped children will be just the beginning.

    • David Ashton

      Return of Spartacus.

      • Sick of it

        Europe was white when men like the fellow in that picture ruled.

    • The Final Solution

      Don’t count on it. All the other prisoners are of the same Muslim/Pakistani/African origins.

  • Sharps Rifle

    Muslims. If the race isn’t mentioned, you know it’s negroes; if the religion is kept silent (or no names are given), it’s muslims. Plus, by stating east Africa and Pakistan, that says all we need to know. Somalis, Kenyans, Sudanese are most likely…and the Pakis are well known for their rape and “grooming” gangs.

    Death would be too easy for those slimeballs.

    • captainc

      I agree.

  • Truthseeker

    Anyone who doesn’t object to such atrocities being committed against their own people is a traitor. If you would rather write it off as an anomaly and feel good about yourself than acknowledge that these horrific activities wouldn’t exist without these misfits in your society, then you’re enabling them and causing these things to happen. Stand up for your own and expel these vermin, England.

  • While everyone is focused on Boko Haram, most of the world is missing this.

    Because…the victims are white.

    • Sue

      Perhaps that’s why the headline for Boko? To cover this.

      • David Ashton

        A Whiter Shade of Pale…Oh no, that was Procul Harum.

  • JohnEngelman

    Exactly a year ago, seven men were convicted of raping and trafficking six girls aged from 11 to 15 between 2004 and 2012…

    The court heard how the men–two of east African origin and five of Pakistani origin

    – BBC News, May 14, 2014

    Why am I not surprised about the origin?

  • Steven Barr

    I’m certainly not “blaming the victim” here and I’m appalled by what these men did but I have to say this would probably never have happened if these girls has a father in the home. The welfare system in this country is an insanity, making it easier for young women to bring up their children without a husband as the government will take care of everything. The death of the traditional family seems to me to be as big a threat to white survival as immigration.

  • JSS

    “The girls were mostly chosen because their unsettled or troubled lives made them easier to manipulate”

    These girls were troubled and unsettled due to growing up in a culture that is anti family, anti White, and pro black and Muslim. These girls were groomed by the disgusting system they were born into first. Now that system “apologizes” for not acting sooner. Yeah they are so sorry that they will surely import a few million more Pakis and Africans and keep jailing anyone who speaks out against the Islamization of Britain.

    • Einsatzgrenadier

      They love blacks and pakis because when these savages are allowed to rampage through white neighborhoods and communities, whites pack up everything they have and immediately flee to whiter, more rural areas. It’s all about ethnically cleansing whites in order to make way for New World Order Britain, a nightmarish multicultural cesspool that thrives on the brutal corporate exploitation of docile non-white slave laborers.

      • 1G25

        “…whites pack up everything they have and immediately flee to whiter, more rural areas.”

        A sad consequence of Britain’s not having a Second Amendment.

  • The Final Solution

    Another great benefit of diversity. Obviously this has nothing to do with race. These men were clearly marginalized by all those racist English people with their racist St. George’s Cross. They were forced into this.

  • borogirl54

    I saw an interview with an imam who was asked by a reporter why are white and Sikh girls targeted by these gangs and not Asian women. He answered that Asian families know each other and if their own girls were abused the same way, there would be consequences”.

    • Anna Tree

      Doing deceit like his “prophet”! What he said is only a partial truth!

      Those muslims targeted white and Sikh girls because they were not muslims. It is okay to rape a non-muslims, moreover like that Australian imam Sheikh Taj El-Din Hamid Hilaly said a few years ago (when the media was reporting the spree of rapes and gang-rapes in Europe and Australia,) if the meat is not covered (i.e. the woman doesn’t wear hijjab).

      As per islam, a muslim can have sex with a muslim woman/girl only after a marriage ceremony and a written contract signed by her (she agrees to give herself, body and mind, for a sum of money! Same in Judaism): nikkah means sex and marriage (the word has even entered French slang for sex). But a muslim can also have sex with his slaves or with non-muslim women kidnapped during jihad because he now owns them: read koran 4:24 “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess”
      See more at wikiislam net/wiki/Adultery_is_Permitted_in_Islam

      A muslim may sell his slave girl as long as she is not pregnant with his child. He may sell her to another man who is then permitted to have sexual relations with her because she is now his right hand possession.
      You can read what I wrote in the following book (see the titles of the paragraphs, from p. 337. Unfortunately the preview of the pages is only until p.180)
      books:
      google ca/books?id=vZAwBTUqTa4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

      —-

      I have taken the following from a muslim website islam tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=10896 but it has been deleted since then (but you can since read something similar from islamqa info/en/20802)

      “It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariah, but it is not necessary for him to delve into each law in order to find the underlying wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta’ala has said in the Holy
      Quraan: “Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan” which means, more or less, that, “You have been given a very small portion of knowledge”. Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariah, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariah (Allah forbid), on the contrary, it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariah is contradictory to wisdom.

      Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariah to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the “Ameerul-Mu’mineen” (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be ‘possessed’, bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariah instituted a ‘marriage ceremony’ in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, “Bismillahi Allahu Akbar” are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become “Halaal” and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes “Halaal” merely through ‘possession’ which substitutes for the slaughtering.
      In other words, just as legal possession of a fish that has been fished out of the water, makes it Halaal for human consumption without the initiation of a formal slaughtering process; similarly legal possession of a slave woman made her Halaal for the purpose of coition with her owner without the initiation of a formal marriage ceremony.

      In short, permission to have intercourse with a slave woman was not something barbaric or uncivilised; on the contrary, it was almost as good as a marriage ceremony.

      Similarly, if a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim. Bringing her into Islamic territory necessitates the rendering of her previous marriage as null and void by Islamic law because with her husband in enemy territory and she in Islamic territory, it becomes virtually impossible for them to meet and live as man and wife.[/b] That is why it is not permissible to have intercourse with a woman whose husband is also taken into captivity and put into slavery with her.

      With all these similarities it does not make sense to regard copulation with a slave woman distasteful whilst copulation with one’s wife is not regarded as distasteful.

      A question that may still arise is that why does the owner of a slave woman not marry her before having relations with her? Well, this is impracticable because of a few intricate technicalities. Firstly, we know that a man has to give “Mahr” (dower-money) to his bride. The Holy Quran says:-

      [ A r a b i c ]
      Trans: “And allowed unto you is whatsoever is beyond that, so that ye may seek them with your substance (i.e. with your dower-money)(4:24).

      Thus, “Mahr” is a conditional prerequisite of Nikaah. If a man has to marry his slave woman, it would not be possible for him to abide by this condition of ‘Mahr’ because by Islamic law, a slave does not have rights over any property, i.e. she cannot own anything. In fact, whatever she has with her too, i.e. her clothing, etc., is all regarded as the property of her owner. Therefore, If he gets married to his slave girl and gives her the ‘Mahr’ she cannot become the owner of it because she has no right of ownership. The ‘Mahr’ would bounce back to the owner of the slave girl and it would tantamount to giving the ‘Mahr’ to himself. Hence, the owner would become the payer as well as the PAYEE of the ‘Mahr’ which would only result in the mockery of the whole system of ‘Mahr’. It would be absolutely superfluous to have such a marriage ceremony performed that makes a mockery of the ‘Mahr’ system. Hence, the owner cannot get married to her while she remains a slave girl. However, if he sets her free, then he can get married to her on the basis of her having become a liberated woman.

      Although the owner himself cannot get married to his slave woman, without giving her freedom, he can get her married to someone else. If he gets her married to someone else, then only her husband can now have intercourse with her and the owner’s right of having intercourse with her comes to an end. All these facts prove that the slave girl does not become an instrument of sex; on the contrary, her honour is upheld, in that only one man is allowed to have intercourse with her JUST AS only one man (the husband) is allowed to have intercourse with his lawfully wedded wife.

      Islam ensured that the slave girl’s duties were not restricted merely to domestic chores but also gave her master permission to copulate with her. This concession created an atmosphere of love and harmony between the slave girl and her master. Islam thereby raised the status of the war captive-maidens close to that of wives. It was a psychological cure to her grief-stricken heart, being deprived of her family and thrown into the hands of a strange society.

      In fact, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam [“prophet” mohamed]himself possessed slave girls. In this way, he was able to demonstrate practically how kindly and politely the slave should be treated. [b]Because it is relevant to the topic, it would be appropriate to mention here that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam also had four slave girls. One was Hazrat Maria Qibtiyya Radhiallahu Anha who was the mother of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam’s son, Ibrahim Alayhis Salaam who passed away in infanthood. The others were, Hazrat Rayhaan binte Samoon; Hazrat Nafisa and a fourth, whose name has not been recorded in History.”

    • Zaporizhian Sich

      Sooner or later, whites Britons are going to hunt down and kill these invaders, and their families too for good measure. What they are doing is war, and sooner or later waging war brings the inevitable retribution that results in their families being slain as revenge.

      • Long Live Dixie

        I’m not sure if today’s Anglo-Saxons have any fight left in them. Obviously, the invaders know this.

        • DNA Explains It All

          No, we most certainly do have fight left. Too long we have listened to the tripe of the tribe. This too shall pass.

        • NoMosqueHere

          The muslims are very adept at sniffing out weakness. The Iranians are masterful at it. As one black said about today’s whites: “Yo’ ancestors was badasses, but you is weak.”

          • Sick of it

            The ONLY reason the third world has/will have nuclear weapons is because we invented such weapons and handed them the knowledge and equipment they needed to reproduce our invention on a silver platter. Scientific achievements should not be shared with enemies, except on the receiving end.

    • Sick of it

      Sometimes I’m amazed to see the parents of such white victims on the news, who talk about how much they love their daughter….and yet there are no “consequences”.

  • Frank_DeScushin

    C’mon Michelle Obama and other Liberal “eilites” — Why aren’t you posting self-righteous selfies with #Don’tRapeOurGirls signs?

    Oh, that’s right, the girls being trafficked in this case are white. Those English girls aren’t a important as Nigerian girls in the New World Order.

    • NoMosqueHere

      Blacks want white girls abused or even killed. They see it as “the chickens coming home to roost,” a revenge fantasy come to life. Whites who expect support from blacks in such matters are deluded.

      • Sick of it

        After reading various 19th century narratives on Africa, I’ve come to the conclusion that they just like killing people who are different from them. Not specifically white people. And then they also seem to enjoy killing each other.

    • kikz2

      interesting tidbit of story.. my kids and i were approached ystrdy shopping by two white teen girls. they yammered on about some church mission to Africa.. i stopped them in mid sentence.. “Little White girls don’t need to go to Africa for any reason, it’s dangerous!”… “Sorry, I can’t support that, good luck w/your mission”.. they thanked me, and both left rather quickly.. in hindsight, there was so much more i could’ve said……..but on the polite side, should’ve added, “there are many opportunities to help the less fortunate here in your own country, leave Africa to the Africans.

  • Romulus

    Kill them all, leave none alive. Not half breeds, not pakis,not muslims, not any foreigners of the non European variety.

    I’m so angry that I must end commentary at this time.

  • So CAL Snowman

    “After the case concluded, social services and the police apologised for not acting sooner.”

    No doubt they were too afraid of appearing racist to do anything about it. The feelings and emotions of black and brown invaders are more important in the UK than the lives and well being of the native White girls.

    • Pro_Whitey

      You hit it right on the head. I believe AmRen has posted stories about how the BBC suppressed the grooming/rape trend because they did not want to sound like the BNP.

  • MekongDelta69

    Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, Holder, Nobama, Timmy Wiseguy, and Morris $leaze are on their way to England on Air Farce One, as we speak to hold massive protests.

    Or not

  • Zimriel

    Strange. No comments at the BBC’s site. Maybe it’s just open to those who’ve paid their licence fee, or bought the BBC package on cable.

    • Apologies if I am missing a sarcastic element in your reply…..but the comments are not open to anybody.

      The BBC tell you what to think, they are not interested in what people think, and certainly would not open comments up on this subject – because they know what would happen, and that disgusts them, so they simply don’t offer the facility.

      • Zimriel

        Yes, I was attempting “deadpan”.

  • Zimriel

    The militants are pretty much self-selected for that. Well-adjusted people, including nominal Muslims, just want to get through the day and go home to the wife.

    But some creep whom no woman (or gay man) looks at twice, and whom little kids avoid walking down the street – he might be interested in what the Koran has to say about the next world.

  • more disturbing is why so many underage white girls in Britain prefer sexual slavery and/or exploitation to life at home with Mum

    The Post Christian West is debased. The fault also lies within

  • saxonsun

    Check out today’s London Evening Standard online. They actually have an article asking “How halal are you?” England is lost.

  • wretchedwhiterabbit

    “groomed”? Really? It sounds so “civilized”, like calling a queer, “gay”, or calling an anti-White, “anti-racist”.

  • Anna Tree

    True.

    The difference is that slavery is allowed by allah in the koran and done by “prophet” mohamed himself.

    So while other cultures/religions can denounce their past actions, islam cannot and will not: denouncing slavery, jihad or pedophily is denouncing allah and mohamed.

    Muslim enslavers and rapists during jihad, child bride husbands or jihadis ARE EXACTLY following the orders or allowance of allah in the koran for jihad (koran 9:5 etc), child marriage (65:4), rape and slavery (4:24) etc They are exactly following the teachings and behavior of “prophet” mohamed who killed and mass-killed (read about the Banu Qurayza, Asma Bint Marwan, Abu Afiq etc), raped women taken as booty of jihad (Zuwayriah, Raihannah, Mariah the Copt, Safiya etc), was a p ed 0phil (he had sess with his 3rd wife, 9 year old Aisha), enslaved and stole (Banu Mustalip, Banu Nadir, Khaibar etc… it’s how he attracted followers to his islam, he first preach quite peacefully for 10 years in Mecca but got only a few followers) etc… Muslim terrorists are sadly not giving a bad image of islam, they are good muslims, they are islam.

    As per islam “prophet” mohamed is the uswa hasana (the model of conduct of excellence), the al insan al kamil (the perfect human), that is THE best man ever, THE guide to follow for all mankind, all time and all places (koran 68:4, 33:21, 60:4, 60:6), therefore whatever he did is islamic and halal, he had slaves, he raped women taken as booty of jihad, he killed Non-muslims who didn’t accept the superiority of islam. It is why good muslims who follow islam will never say those things are forbiden. Unless they are deceiving, lying to protect islam, doing takiyah… because to say those things archaic or unislamic would mean to say mohamed was unislamic and the koran not eternal.

    Everything “prophet” mohamed did is halal (allowed), therefor islamic, and cannot be criticized or outlaw. It is why the sharia allows child brides, jihad and slavery. It is why the muslim countries didn’t sign the Declaration of Human Rights. it is why there are so many “terrorists”/”extremists” in islam: they are just good muslims; and it is why it is not only forbidden but not possible to moderate/modernize/reform islam because islamic “morals” are frozen in the “moral compass” provided by the behavior of a 7th century Bedouin warlord. To denounce or moderate, modernize, reform this moral compass is to destroy
    islam, that no muslims will do and they will kill those who do that
    (and they do kill, even in our non-muslim free countries). Reform
    judaism or Christianity remain Judaism and Christianity but reforming islam means to contradict mohamed and allah.