Explosive "Gang Rape" Report Out of the UK

[frigidweirdo]

The question is why the lefty Anglo Saxon elites in the UK would do such a horrible and disgusting thing

Look at the US. Why is it being covered up now?

Why are the Epstein files being covered up? Even released there are still more questions than answers, and it goes right to the top.

 

[DonGlock26]

Yep. But what did they cover up? Just Pakistani grooming gangs, are grooming gangs all over?

There are issues here and the issues aren't just with Pakistani grooming gangs, though this is an issue, the issue is wide spread.

Do you think Rupert Lowe is interested in white grooming gangs? Or do you think he's only interested in the skin color of the Pakistanis?

What percentage of the grooming gang members were White?

 

[frigidweirdo]

As expected, EVERY leftist on this thread is vigorously defending the mass rape of children.

Who? Who is defending rape of children?

I'm not.

The problem with MAGA is that you read a few words and then decide you know what we're saying, and then decide that we're "defending" something.

Happens all the time. The amount of times I have people telling me "you said this", and I say "No, I didn't, try reading", it's ridiculous.

You people are dishonest.

And you're attacking the UK govt for not doing something, and yet support Trump who's not doing something about the Epstein files.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Anyone denying the truth about the rape gangs, migrant crimes, etc is complicit in the destruction of the UK. There needs to be a complete 180 in British politics. The British people haven't had an actual PM who represents them in many years. I hope that Rupert Lowe becomes the next PM and that Restore Britain sweeps the country in the next election.

Rupert Lowe would be an awful PM.

You don't become a good PM just because you can point at a problem and say "look, there's a problem."

Is there a problem with "migrant crimes"????

There's an issue with one immigrant community in the amount of crime they commit, and it's not the Pakistani community, it's the Jamaican community.

You don't know what's going on in the UK, but you know you hate minorities.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes everywhere.


A former 1st lady known criminal and a fake border czar marxist. Sure you wanna run with those? Please run them again.


Wrong again. Carly Fiorina comes to mind immediately, she ran in 2016 but Trump won the nomination and won the election, then in 2020, did you run a woman? No, you ran Joe Biden, then in 2024, the GOP of course was still running Trump for reelection and the only reason you ran a woman then was because Joe fell flat on his face and Harris was already the standing VP. Now in 2028, you are looking to run Gavin--- OK, he just might qualify as a woman...

Biden said before picking Harris that he wanted a woman for his VP, that is sexism. The GOP picks candidates based on best qualified, not most black or most deserving woman. Sex and gender by themselves are not a qualification for running the country Ace.

"Got any evidence"

"Yes".

Oh my ******* word.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's called grooming and the authorities looked away. You must be very proud.

Are you proud that this is happening in the US right now, and the media doesn't care, because the UK's story is juicier. The governments don't care, because it's a difficult issue that gets in the way of them earning easy money, and they don't care because the media hasn't picked up on it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is this the same 'police chief' that will send his/her subordinates out to arrest white people for posting anything negative about muzzies on social media?

Nobody is arresting white people for posting "anything negative about [insert insult] on social media"

But anyway.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Source?

Er... the report. It's in the OP.

What a stupid question.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The count of People Proceeded Against for Total Notifiable Offences broken down by Class Major, Class Minor, Accused Age and Accused Ethnic Appearance...


Your so called report doesn't distinguish religion, not to mention that it's classifying people based on 'appearance', hardly a scientific way to classify anything. And the scandal in the op is regarding officials looking the other way, so they wouldn't be in any stats or reports that you might come up with since these people weren't arrested, let alone prosecuted.

Yeah, sometimes you deal with the stats that you have.

What "scientific way" was Rupert Lowe using?

You demand 100% evidence for things you don't like, and 0% for anything you do like.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This makes the Epstein Saga look like nothing, but because this doesn't involve Trump in any way, and implicates your beloved Muzzies, you'll make a fool out of yourself trying to defend it.

Does it?

The Epstein files involve a limited number of wealthy men, whereas grooming in the UK is being carried out by a lot of people.

However you trying to pass the Epstein files off as nothing, is hilarious.

AND in the US there's a grooming scandal just waiting for everyone to point the finger at the UK and say "look how bad they are, we must be good then".

Online grooming and child sexual exploitation in the U.S. | Hope for Justice

The chilling reality of online grooming and exploitation. Research, resources and practical tips for you and your family, from a non-profit tackling this issue.

hopeforjustice.org

"Since the Covid pandemic and lockdowns, anti-trafficking non-profit Hope for Justice has been dealing with more and more cases of child sexual exploitation in the U.S. that have either begun online or happened solely online."

https://enoughabuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Grooming-Legislation-as-of-March-2026-1.pdf

"Overview: What is grooming, and why are some states passinglaws to define and/or criminalize it?"

 

[frigidweirdo]

What percentage of the grooming gang members were White?

Based on sources I've provided twice in this thread, it's about 85% white.

 

[OldFlame]

Nobody is arresting white people for posting "anything negative about [insert insult] on social media"

But anyway.

Lie.


UK police categorize online hate speech broadly under laws like the Malicious Communications Act and the Public Order Act.
However, broader UK policing and civil liberties data outlines the scale of these actions:

• Over 12,000 arrests were made across Britain in a single year for offensive online posts (under the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988).
• Freedom of information requests reveal that these types of annual digital offense arrests have roughly doubled over the last decade.
• Notable individual arrests include hundreds detained during widespread far-right riots, as well as high-profile convictions of individuals who used platforms like Facebook to promote anti-Islamic violence or to share extreme content.

Civil liberties organizations, such as ⁠Freedom House, have noted concerns that such laws are applied broadly and sometimes lead to the punishment of protected speech. Furthermore, human rights and legal advocates—like the ⁠Free Speech Union—point out a major disparity between arrests and final prosecutions, where the arrest and investigation process itself often serves as a primary penal deterrent.

 

[OldFlame]

Yeah, sometimes you deal with the stats that you have.

What "scientific way" was Rupert Lowe using?

You demand 100% evidence for things you don't like, and 0% for anything you do like.

Thanks for admitting that you lied.

 

[OldFlame]

Based on sources I've provided twice in this thread, it's about 85% white.

The excel spreadsheet?

 

[OldFlame]

Does it?

The Epstein files involve a limited number of wealthy men, whereas grooming in the UK is being carried out by a lot of people.

However you trying to pass the Epstein files off as nothing, is hilarious.

AND in the US there's a grooming scandal just waiting for everyone to point the finger at the UK and say "look how bad they are, we must be good then".

Online grooming and child sexual exploitation in the U.S. | Hope for Justice

The chilling reality of online grooming and exploitation. Research, resources and practical tips for you and your family, from a non-profit tackling this issue.

hopeforjustice.org

"Since the Covid pandemic and lockdowns, anti-trafficking non-profit Hope for Justice has been dealing with more and more cases of child sexual exploitation in the U.S. that have either begun online or happened solely online."

https://enoughabuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Grooming-Legislation-as-of-March-2026-1.pdf

"Overview: What is grooming, and why are some states passinglaws to define and/or criminalize it?"

Nothing you posted refuted what I said.

 

[toobfreak]

"Got any evidence" "Yes".
Oh my ******* word. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

Look imbecile, there is so much corroborating reports already out there everywhere in support of my claim that to question them all now is the ridiculous part! I mean, if you still need me to research and select links to prove it to you now after years of evidence and a hundred threads here already on the topic, do you really expect me to waste my time posting stuff that you'll just write off, dismiss, chuckle at and give me a Funny for?

Your argument is like getting hit in the head with a hammer a dozen times then when I agree that hurts, you're demanding me to prove it.

If you don't already know by now, Ace, nothing I can say here is likely at all to ever change your mind. You go right on thinking what you do. Muslims see non-Muslims as dhimmis, an inferior race, subhuman, and as such, things they could never condone doing or treating their own women as, they've conveniently made an excuse for doing to white, western women with impunity as a pure social outlet.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lie.


UK police categorize online hate speech broadly under laws like the Malicious Communications Act and the Public Order Act.
However, broader UK policing and civil liberties data outlines the scale of these actions:

• Over 12,000 arrests were made across Britain in a single year for offensive online posts (under the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988).
• Freedom of information requests reveal that these types of annual digital offense arrests have roughly doubled over the last decade.
• Notable individual arrests include hundreds detained during widespread far-right riots, as well as high-profile convictions of individuals who used platforms like Facebook to promote anti-Islamic violence or to share extreme content.

Civil liberties organizations, such as ⁠Freedom House, have noted concerns that such laws are applied broadly and sometimes lead to the punishment of protected speech. Furthermore, human rights and legal advocates—like the ⁠Free Speech Union—point out a major disparity between arrests and final prosecutions, where the arrest and investigation process itself often serves as a primary penal deterrent.

Yes, people are getting arrested for posting illegal things online. I didn't say they weren't.

The claim you made was that is anyone posts "anything" about Muslims, they get arrested. That simply isn't true.

Would you care to post any examples of posts that have led to an arrest?

Of course you wouldn't.

10% or so of those arrests led to a conviction.

How many of the 12,000 communications‑offence arrests ...

Executive summary Official reporting assembled by journalists and parliamentarians shows roughly 12,183 people were arrested under section 127 of the Com...

factually.co

Communications Act 2003 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Notable prosecutions"

"2012: Paul Chambers made a joke on Twitter in response to Robin Hood Airport cancelling flights. He said that unless the facility resolved the problem within a week, he would be "blowing the airport sky high". After an off-duty manager discovered the post, Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police. He was found guilty, lost his job and was ordered to pay a £385 fine and £600 in costs. However, after a strong public outcry and three appeals, the case was eventually overturned."

He threatened to blow the airport up.

"2014: A Lincolnshire man was charged with being grossly offensive after posting a photograph of a police officer on social media, with two phalluses drawn on it. The offending picture was passed on to Lincolnshire Police, who arrested the 20-year-old. He was ordered to pay £400 in compensation to the officer in question, in addition to £85 costs and a £60 victim surcharge."

This one is basically libel. Trump sues people for less.

"2017: R v Mwaikambo where a 43-year-old man posted one video and seven pictures of a victim of the Grenfell Tower fire to his Facebook account."

He posted pictures of dead people from the Grenfell Tower fire.

'Why I posted photos of Grenfell victim on social media'

A local resident explains why he posted photos of a man who had died in the Grenfell Tower fire on social media.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Morally I know it was wrong" said the man who got locked up for 3 months for doing it.

"018: Mark Meechan, a comedian and social commentator, was convicted under the Communications Act in 2018. He had made a video demonstrating how he had trained his girlfriend's dog to perform a Nazi salute upon hearing the phrase "Sieg Heil" and to respond to being asked if he wanted to "gas the Jews".

He didn't just do it, he made a video about wanting to gas Jews.

"2020: Conservative Party candidate Joshua Spencer was sentenced to 9 weeks in prison under section 127 for sending threatening messages to Yvette Cooper and her constituency staff."

Threatening someone.

You have to remember that with any law there will be people who take them to extremes. People who shouldn't be arrested, shouldn't be prosecuted. Others seem to get prosecuted and rightly so, and then get off because of a public outcry.

But this is a problem of the modern era. You can't go around PUBLISHING things. USMB has rules about this, and you will get banned and the police might turn up.

Mortimer is the best example on here, he got at least a talking to by the police.

The internet cannot be a place where crimes happen without anyone caring.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Thanks for admitting that you lied.

The excel spreadsheet?

Nothing you posted refuted what I said.

Pointless crap.

 

[OldFlame]

Yes, people are getting arrested for posting illegal things online. I didn't say they weren't.

The claim you made was that is anyone posts "anything" about Muslims, they get arrested. That simply isn't true.

Would you care to post any examples of posts that have led to an arrest?

Of course you wouldn't.

10% or so of those arrests led to a conviction.

How many of the 12,000 communications‑offence arrests ...

Executive summary Official reporting assembled by journalists and parliamentarians shows roughly 12,183 people were arrested under section 127 of the Com...

factually.co

Communications Act 2003 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Notable prosecutions"

"2012: Paul Chambers made a joke on Twitter in response to Robin Hood Airport cancelling flights. He said that unless the facility resolved the problem within a week, he would be "blowing the airport sky high". After an off-duty manager discovered the post, Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police. He was found guilty, lost his job and was ordered to pay a £385 fine and £600 in costs. However, after a strong public outcry and three appeals, the case was eventually overturned."

He threatened to blow the airport up.

"2014: A Lincolnshire man was charged with being grossly offensive after posting a photograph of a police officer on social media, with two phalluses drawn on it. The offending picture was passed on to Lincolnshire Police, who arrested the 20-year-old. He was ordered to pay £400 in compensation to the officer in question, in addition to £85 costs and a £60 victim surcharge."

This one is basically libel. Trump sues people for less.

"2017: R v Mwaikambo where a 43-year-old man posted one video and seven pictures of a victim of the Grenfell Tower fire to his Facebook account."

He posted pictures of dead people from the Grenfell Tower fire.

'Why I posted photos of Grenfell victim on social media'

A local resident explains why he posted photos of a man who had died in the Grenfell Tower fire on social media.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Morally I know it was wrong" said the man who got locked up for 3 months for doing it.

"018: Mark Meechan, a comedian and social commentator, was convicted under the Communications Act in 2018. He had made a video demonstrating how he had trained his girlfriend's dog to perform a Nazi salute upon hearing the phrase "Sieg Heil" and to respond to being asked if he wanted to "gas the Jews".

He didn't just do it, he made a video about wanting to gas Jews.

"2020: Conservative Party candidate Joshua Spencer was sentenced to 9 weeks in prison under section 127 for sending threatening messages to Yvette Cooper and her constituency staff."

Threatening someone.

You have to remember that with any law there will be people who take them to extremes. People who shouldn't be arrested, shouldn't be prosecuted. Others seem to get prosecuted and rightly so, and then get off because of a public outcry.

But this is a problem of the modern era. You can't go around PUBLISHING things. USMB has rules about this, and you will get banned and the police might turn up.

Mortimer is the best example on here, he got at least a talking to by the police.

The internet cannot be a place where crimes happen without anyone caring.

Crimes? Posting your opinion about the cult of Islam is a crime to you?

 

[OldFlame]

Yes, people are getting arrested for posting illegal things online. I didn't say they weren't.

The claim you made was that is anyone posts "anything" about Muslims, they get arrested. That simply isn't true.

Would you care to post any examples of posts that have led to an arrest?

Of course you wouldn't.

10% or so of those arrests led to a conviction.

How many of the 12,000 communications‑offence arrests ...

Executive summary Official reporting assembled by journalists and parliamentarians shows roughly 12,183 people were arrested under section 127 of the Com...

factually.co

Communications Act 2003 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Notable prosecutions"

"2012: Paul Chambers made a joke on Twitter in response to Robin Hood Airport cancelling flights. He said that unless the facility resolved the problem within a week, he would be "blowing the airport sky high". After an off-duty manager discovered the post, Chambers was arrested by anti-terror police. He was found guilty, lost his job and was ordered to pay a £385 fine and £600 in costs. However, after a strong public outcry and three appeals, the case was eventually overturned."

He threatened to blow the airport up.

"2014: A Lincolnshire man was charged with being grossly offensive after posting a photograph of a police officer on social media, with two phalluses drawn on it. The offending picture was passed on to Lincolnshire Police, who arrested the 20-year-old. He was ordered to pay £400 in compensation to the officer in question, in addition to £85 costs and a £60 victim surcharge."

This one is basically libel. Trump sues people for less.

"2017: R v Mwaikambo where a 43-year-old man posted one video and seven pictures of a victim of the Grenfell Tower fire to his Facebook account."

He posted pictures of dead people from the Grenfell Tower fire.

'Why I posted photos of Grenfell victim on social media'

A local resident explains why he posted photos of a man who had died in the Grenfell Tower fire on social media.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Morally I know it was wrong" said the man who got locked up for 3 months for doing it.

"018: Mark Meechan, a comedian and social commentator, was convicted under the Communications Act in 2018. He had made a video demonstrating how he had trained his girlfriend's dog to perform a Nazi salute upon hearing the phrase "Sieg Heil" and to respond to being asked if he wanted to "gas the Jews".

He didn't just do it, he made a video about wanting to gas Jews.

"2020: Conservative Party candidate Joshua Spencer was sentenced to 9 weeks in prison under section 127 for sending threatening messages to Yvette Cooper and her constituency staff."

Threatening someone.

You have to remember that with any law there will be people who take them to extremes. People who shouldn't be arrested, shouldn't be prosecuted. Others seem to get prosecuted and rightly so, and then get off because of a public outcry.

But this is a problem of the modern era. You can't go around PUBLISHING things. USMB has rules about this, and you will get banned and the police might turn up.

Mortimer is the best example on here, he got at least a talking to by the police.

The internet cannot be a place where crimes happen without anyone caring.

Southport riots: Ex-soldier jailed for anti-Islam Facebook posts

Daffron Williams posts included one of men in Islamic clothing holding swords, chasing a young boy.

www.bbc.com