In the case of Rotherham, I believe that most of those committing the crimes were not foreign; most were British born British nationals. Ethnicity is not the same as immigration status.

▲

gib444 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Congratulations, you've corrected us on the usage of the word immigrant. Now can we return to the topic?

Whilst we're on Rotherham:

"...by men predominantly of Pakistani heritage" [0]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-61868863

Their parents or grandparents were immigrants...

	▲	roryirvine 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The topic was crimes committed by "foreign men", and your link refers to crimes committed by non-immigrants. So it would seem that you're the one straying from the topic.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

carlosjobim 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The question is: Would the crimes have been covered up by authorities if the predators were ethnically English and the victims were children of foreigners?

▲

notahacker 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Anyone who's actually paid any attention to the many documented failings of the child protection services in those cases knows the answer to that question is "yes".

	▲	dash2 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The problem with that argument is that, IIRC, there is direct evidence that one reasons that the abuse was covered up was that authorities were afraid of being accused of racism and/or of stirring up ethnic tensions. I don't think that, to accept this, you need believe that CPS is always perfect when this issue is absent.