Brexit: the lessons of Rotherham

by Richard North

Note: Great minds think alike! SIG

Brexit: the lessons of Rotherham000a Rotherham-028 abuse.jpg

The outrage of the media over the events of Rotherham needs to be taken as much with a pinch of salt as the expressions of regret by representatives of the public services who so egregiously failed in their collective duties.

As much as anything, the media kept the lid on events, only reacting after it was safe to do so, following events tardily and reluctantly, rather than leading the way.

But, as the detail emerges of the 1,400 or so white girls who were “groomed” and sexually assaulted by gangs of Asian (mainly Pakistani) men, the one institution which does not come away with any blame or shame is the European Union.

That is not to say that the role of the EU was impeccable – simply that it was irrelevant. The Pakistani men, some of them second or third-generation immigrants, did not come here under EU freedom of movement provisions. They came here under UK law, in accordance with policies decided by UK politicians.

There was no EU directive that stated that Asian men had a license to rape, or that they should be treated preferentially by public officials, who chose to do nothing for fear of being branded “racist”.

There is nothing in any EU regulation that I know of that demands that South Yorkshire police should display its usual level of malevolent incompetence, and there is certainly nothing that insists the police complaints system is not fit for purpose – a closed, self-referential loop that prevents any complaint being pursued to its logical and necessary conclusion.

Nor can I find any directive that tells us that, of all the many hundreds of officials who were involved in this affair – who took their salaries and will take their pensions for duties they failed to discharge – should escape Scot free, with not a single one disciplined, much less fired.

In other words, in terms of failures, this is a very British affair. This is something we did to ourselves, without the least outside intervention. The EU can rightly hold up its hands and say “not guilty”.

And that is the lesson for “Brexit”. Despite the tendency in some quarters to blame the EU for all our woes, much of the evils of our modern society result in the failings of our own system.

The corollary of this, of course, is that leaving the EU will not sort out these problems. An independent sovereign UK would be just as capable of spawning such evils as is the UK as a member of the European Union.

Hence, of course, my assertion, that we cannot be content simply to prepare an exit plan which takes us out of the EU and hands back powers to the very people who have proved themselves criminally incompetent on so many others matters.

As far as local authorities go, I have lost count of the times I have written that the system is fundamentally rotten to the core, and needs root and branch reform. From that premise we built The Harrogate Agenda, the essence of which we have incorporated in Chapter 17 of the Flexcit plan.

In the meantime, the “system” will look after itself. No one will be fired – no pensions will be docked, and apart from the ritual hand-wringing and the token resignation of the Council leader, nothing much will change.

Should we ever get to leave the EU, without us recognising that our own system of government is also irredeemably flawed, we may not end up much better off, despite our best endeavours.




  • The fact that generations of UK parliamentarians and bureaucrats have grown up believing and stating that nothing is their fault, they are not responsible and have no locus over all the competences assumed by the EU IS a contributory psychological factor in their behaving in exactly the same manner in the few areas over which they do have authority.
    However what idiot blames all evil on the EU? Nobody I know. This is a typical tactic, often used by the EU, to make ascribe an outrageous claim to the ‘opposition’ which the opposition has never put, and then win on that point rather than the case at hand.
    Underhand, Richard.

  • We don’t really know what went on in Rotherham. The report doesn’t tell us what went on in Rotherham. It doesn’t even tell us that there were 1400 girls “groomed” in Rotherham (already morphing into “more than 1400” by the media); that is an estimate. It tells us nothing about who a “grooming gang” or “rape gang” actually are. It provides us with some lurid individual incidents of thuggery- one child who is “reported as” having petrol poured over them is represented as pluralised “children” or “girls” and so on.

    We also, if we read the report, find considerable numbers of victims who, despite the best efforts of “counsellors”, refused to agree that they had been groomed or were victims at all. Their opinion is disregarded as brainwashing. We find the casual representation of what appear to be extremes as the average. We find apparently that every girl in Rotherham under 18 (yes, 18) who had some sort of contact with an “Asian” roped into the phenomenon. We find a rather everyday phenomenon- teenage girls defying their parents to indulge in sex, drinking and other behaviours considered wild- turned into some kind of Islamic assault on Western Civilisation.

    So what we have is more of the paedohysteria, combined with the deliciously appealing fear of Muslims, and thus a panic to which everyone is invited.

    Heads must roll. Yeah. Whatever.

    • andromeda077342014

      A high concentration of unemployed young men of whatever race in striking difference of a high concentration of vulnerable girls of whatever race inadequately supervised was bound to lead to trouble.

      It is not so much that the spawn of problem families are being sexually exploited by sex predators, but that they are being exploited by sex predators *of the Muslim persuasion*.

      On Muslim sex predators and their apparently superior skills of sexual preying

  • andromeda077342014

    Why is no journalist asking what Shaun Wright meant when he asked “Why are you picking on Rotheram?”

    Are all UK journalists also involved in a cover up?

  • This is outside the usual Ian. For a start the left want this hidden not puffed full of air. It is not a trawling job but the reverse–a “we don’t want to know” job.
    As for the mossies–I don’t blame people. We have a large, vocal. unassimilated (and not going to be except perhaps for the far future) group we didn’t ask for, don’t want, which has no respect for our values and is trying with leftist help to force as many of its “values” on us as it can (sharia, mosques,supermarket halal). Leftist scum have tried to silence entirely appropriate dissent –but now they have run into a bugbear of their own creation. The femmis have created the paedo panic and the leftist sharia-suckers have now tripped over it. People are finding courage to criticise the RoP because the scum of the left can’t have it both ways. Paedo,Paedo, Paedo if you are white but Silence of the Lambs if you are culturally enriched.
    I have only skimmed the report so far but, so far, it is annoyingly short on exact detail and precise accusation about what has happened–x raped at no 32 Nowhere street by 3 (named) males, y abused(description of events) at 25 Coronation street by Mustapha Lique etc. The report is far too vague. That is a clear similarity with the Yewtree twaddle. But how is this since the usual gang of femmi-lefts have not had a hand in it as far as I know?. All of this is both against and highly retrograde to the leftist agenda

  • Getting rid of the EU would mean getting rid of one layer of government – there would still be all the other layers. It would be a start – but there would be a lot still to do.

    Ian – you are mistaken about happened in this northern town, profoundly so,

    • I don’t actually know what went on in Rotherham. What I do know is that the report doesn’t tell me. Yes, I’ve read it. It doesn’t tell you either, or anyone else. But it appears to. That is the dangerous thing about “reports” of this kind.

  • On the matter of the EU, North is of course quite correct. Paul is also quite correct to say that it would be the removal of a layer of government.

    But to me, the problem we have is an idea of government in terms of both its function and its system, and it is an idea of government- I tend to call it something like “The Progressive Model”- which is overwhelmingly an invention of the Anglosphere, and it is this idea of government which is the current enemy of Liberty. Which brings us back to issues debated in other threads.

  • I have long been sceptical of UKIP’s commitment to a referendum. Suppose the Conservative Party scrapes its way back into office in 2015, gives us a referendum in 2017, and the British people vote to leave. What then? We will be outside of the European Union, but that won’t mean much if we have the same parasitical class of authoritarian social-democrats ruling over us. We will still have the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, the Communications Act and a vast range of other laws codifying political correctness as state ideology. The Proposed New Independent School Standards came from our own ruling class, not from the marauders of Brussels and Strasbourg. People like Michael Gove and David Cameron are the ones who support the ideological encroachment of the state into private education, and their efforts would persist regardless of our formal relationship with the European Union. There are other EU countries which have no such problem and are not being forced by Brussels to clamp down on true independent schooling.

    If the Scottish end up voting for independence and being denied quick accession into the European Union, it will be an interesting case study. Will the severance of ties with the EU (even if only on a transitional basis) transform the SNP and Labour from a group of politically correct pansies into defenders of true civil liberty? I think not. One impetus behind the Scottish independence movement is a heavy resentment towards the Conservative Party because of its perceived desire to cut down the welfare state; this is similar to the anti-Troika rhetoric of the popular socialist movements in Spain, Greece and Portugal, who are raging against “austerity” and all cuts to public spending. The SNP itself views the authoritarian “Nordic model” as an aspirational ideal, which hardly bodes well for Scotland’s prospects if it leaves the United Kingdom. Norway is a good example of a European country which exists outside of the EU, but nonetheless has a stifling officialdom with deep layers of red tape, sky-high tax rates, and a judiciary which is all too happy to imprison people (“Islamists”, “racists” and so forth) for thoughtcrimes.

    All of that said, I am no friend of the European Union, nor am I here as its apologist. It is a malicious institution, but it is not the only cause of our woes. I would be happy to leave today, because doing so would deprive our ruling class of its whipping boy and force them to be held accountable for constitutional atrocities like the Human Rights Act. It would also, as mentioned in other comments, remove one layer of government.

    By the way, Spiked published an interesting piece earlier this week which touches on the same issue:

    “Framing the discussion on human-rights laws simply in terms of Euroscepticism will only avoid or confuse the debate. What happens in the Strasbourg court is far less important that what is happening in courts north of the English Channel.”

    • Comment moved to front page

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s