Front Page Mag (a blog for the conservative David Horowitz Freedom Center) quotes an unnamed report that UK authorities were complicit in the support of sexually abusive Muslims:

The police did their part… for the Muslim rapists.

The report heard of two cases where fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused only to be arrested themselves when police were called.

Is there evidence that men were arrested in this way - trying to rescue their daughters from sexual abuse?


3 Answers 3


The text of the report can be downloaded from here.

The report includes the following paragraph,

5.9 In two of the cases we read, fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene. In a small number of cases (which have already received media attention) the victims were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault against children.

It's possible that no further specific details are forthcoming: for example, arrest records and police reports (unlike evidence presented in court) might not be available to the general pubic.

The Preface to the report says,

The Inquiry applied the definition of child sexual exploitation which is used in Government guidance and is set out in Appendix 4, paragraph 48 of this report. The methodology included reading a wide range of minutes, reports and case files

I include the first quote above, as evidence for your "Is it true?" question:

  • The report is higher-quality (i.e. more direct) evidence than the newspaper report you referenced; i.e. it shows that the quote in the newspaper report you cited was not misquoting the official report.
  • The report doesn't shed additional light on the 'editorializing' in the newspaper article, i.e. the "The police did their part… for the Muslim rapists" sentence.

The report does not confirm or identify, for those two specific 'cases':

  • Whether the homes were of "Muslim rapists"
  • What the specific type of "being abused" was
  • The names of the victims of the abuse
  • The names of the arrestees (the victims' fathers)
  • What they were arrested for.

The report in question is titled "Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham".

  • The independent inquiry was commissioned by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in October 2013 (Wikipedia says it was commissioned in November 2013, citing this BBC article).

  • It is (quoting its title) an inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham.

  • The scope of its investigation included examining case files of child sexual exploitation cases, to determine whether officials (including police, Council, social workers, etc., in Rotherham) acted appropriately

    c) Consider managerial and political oversight, leadership and direction, operational management practice including supervision, support and guidance and the roles and responsibilities of other parties including the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, health services, schools, parents, family and the Local Safeguarding Children Board.

    e) Identify who in the Council knew what information when and determine whether that information was used effectively and in the best interests of protecting young people.

    g) Ensure that the cases reviewed will include those identified in the national press.

It was therefore important that the investigation be independent of the Council, which comissioned the report. The terms of its independence are stated in Appendix A (page 121) of the inquiry, as follows:

Appendix 1: Terms of Reference for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation 1997 - 2013

  1. That it be conducted by an independent person with appropriate skills, experience and abilities who has not previously been employed by or undertaken work, either directly or indirectly, for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, nor is a relation of any member or officer of the Council past or present. Prior to appointment the independent person will be required to sign a declaration to that effect. The person should be on a list of reputable persons recommended to the Council by the Local Government Association.

The leader of the inquiry and author of the report is Alexis Jay OBE:

Alexis Jay is a Visiting Professor at the University of Strathclyde and the Independent Chair of the Centre for Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland (CELCIS).[1] Professor Jay is a former senior social worker.[2] She was previously Chief Social Work Adviser to the Scottish Government.[3] and a former president of the Association of Directors of Social Work.[4]

In 2005 she took up the post of Chief Social Work Inspector at the Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA), a government organisation scrutinising all aspects of social services provided by local authorities in Scotland.[5] She served as Chief Executive and Chief Social Work Inspector until the functions of SWIA and the Care Commission were taken over by the Care Inspectorate in 2011. She then remained as Chief Social Work Adviser to the Scottish Government until early 2013.

She led the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham, an investigation into child sexual abuse in the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham in South Yorkshire.[3] She is the author of the investigation's report, published in August 2014.[6]

The report was published in August 2014 (about two weeks ago as of today).

It was subsequent to (i.e. preceded by) articles published in The Times, for example,

On 24th September 2012, The Times reported Andrew Norfolk’s investigation into CSE in Rotherham.

i.e. Police files reveal vast child protection scandal

  • 9
    Perhaps except that 'consensually' and 'being abused' probably don't belong together in the same sentence: they may be a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. Some of the victims in the report were 'under age' (legally unable to consent). Others were coerced by threats (which also doesn't count as 'consent'). You can (if you want to) get further details, about other cases than these two, by reading the report.
    – ChrisW
    Sep 6, 2014 at 10:45
  • 1
    They were also driven to other houses, force was used, and gangrapes were done with underage girls. The word consensual is...... Out of place
    – Spork
    Sep 6, 2014 at 12:25
  • 8
    "Out of place" ... it's also characterized as victim blaming
    – ChrisW
    Sep 6, 2014 at 12:54
  • 2
    @SharenEayrs Adding injury to insult, it was people's (including the police's) describing it as "consensual" that was a reason why they didn't intervene to stop it.
    – ChrisW
    Sep 6, 2014 at 14:36
  • 1
    @Christian I edited the answer to append details about the who commissioned the report, about how it's 'independent', about who led the investigation and wrote the report, and something about why it was commissioned (e.g. articles in The Times).
    – ChrisW
    Sep 6, 2014 at 20:47

From this article:

One of the key findings was that some senior people in the council and the police had sought to “downplay” the Pakistani heritage of many perpetrators and left frontline staff “confused as to what they were supposed to say and do and what would be interpreted as ‘racist’”.

The report outlined horrifying stories of missed opportunities to catch perpetrators, fathers being arrested for trying to remove their daughters from houses where the girls were being abused and whistle-blowers being silenced.

  • 4
    Welcome to Skeptics. It would be good to link to the report and quote it directly rather than an article three years later.
    – Oddthinking
    Nov 28, 2020 at 21:41

Here's the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police being questioned on Rotherham grooming gangs. Skip to 08:20 for the relevant questions. https://youtu.be/ISQUWdUYA5g

(spoiler) They did arrest men for trying to save their daughters from gang rape.

  • 8
    Please transcribe the relevant quote that says this, so readers dont need to spend a long time hunting for it. (Spoiler: I listened to over 2 minutes from 8m20 and there was no confirmation of your claim.)
    – Oddthinking
    Jan 23, 2020 at 23:37
  • norfman, listen again, at 08:36 " in paragraph 5.9..." it's all there.
    – Mario
    Jan 26, 2020 at 13:34
  • 5
    @Mario: One person asks a question about the contents of a report - presumably the report mentioned by the OP. The Chief Constable doesn't answer the question. This isn't a confirmation at all.
    – Oddthinking
    Jan 26, 2020 at 14:04
  • The video is no longer available.
    – pinegulf
    Dec 7, 2020 at 8:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .