Come on, there was in your first post. If there wasn't you wouldn't have had to make follow-up posts qualifying it. Just feels cheap to make sensational looking claims about something this sh*t. It's horrible enough to speak for itself.
Your numbers that focused on the no. of suspects vs. the no. of the population that was Muslim (2011) does the job of pointing out how endemic this was to a specific community. No hiding from that. Why post the first thing? Don't get it.
Actually, no.
The context was that BSB had said ‘using the actions of a few as a slur for many’… I’m pretty confident we were on the same page we were talking about Pakistani men that was specifically looked at in the report.
The confusion that’s been caused is when I said ‘1 in 16 men in Rotherham’ which other people have misinterpreted as all men in Rotherham. It was an error that wasn’t clarified for the wider audience.
To which BSB asked if it was national, I then specifically said only Rotherham.
Which report, as the only reference I can find to it is an old Telegraph article which makes a fair few assumptions to arrive at that figure
Those numbers are from the Telegraph, which cites National Crime Agency data from 2018.
In the Casey report, it breaks down similar statistics where 64% of 323 designated suspects were of Pakistani origin. Which tracks with what the Telegraph reported on in Jan.
