Why "industrial rape gangs" is truthful language
This is a quickie - I was challenged by a friend and reader when I referred to “industrial rape gangs” on Twitter, so this is by way of a defence of that usage. I don’t think the latter two words are contentious (although some would prefer ‘clan’ to ‘gang’) so I’ll concentrate on ‘industrial’.
The use of the word ‘industry’ is common in describing an organised economic activity, and doesn’t have to be related to what is conventionally thought of as ‘heavy industry’ like mining or steel-making. So leisure is an industry, finance is an industry, heritage is an industry. In describing the activity of these gangs as industrial I am alluding to the financially-driven and systemic nature of the practice. In other words pointing out that there is a multi-million pound enterprise entwined with the moral horrors at the centre. Girls were being pimped for up to £600 a time, and combine that number with the number of victims - a reasonable estimate would be into six figures - then you have a hundred million pound economic enterprise. It’s reasonable to call that an industry, and to call the product of it “industrial rape”.
Why do I think a reasonable estimate of victims is into six figures? If such an estimate is absurdly high then the ascription of “industrial” does become untenable, so the number of victims does matter - indeed, part of my motivation in using the word is to allude to the scale of the problem, as I do not believe the scale is properly understood. Indeed, ignorance of the scale is deliberately fostered by those in positions of power, principally the Labour party, as there is much evidence for the collusion between local councillors and the perpetrators. So there are problems with the data, such as the absence of proper categorisation; there are problems with the reporting of the crimes (not all the crimes are reported); and there are problems to do with aggregating sufficient evidence to lead to a prosecution (for prosecutions do at least offer a chance at ‘hard data’). These problems could all be overcome with sufficient political will - which is why there is a call for a statutory national inquiry - but there isn’t yet sufficient political pressure to bring that about. It would be better to have definitive figures, but we know enough, both in extent (fifty towns) and scale (1400 victims in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013) to know that, as a minimally very conservative estimate, there are many tens of thousands of victims. Hence I would defend the ‘into six figures’ as reasonable. Which means that, if it were operating as a single company, we would be looking at something like The Works Stores.
Of course, this language isn’t original to me - even David Cameron used it ten years ago, and the situation has become progressively worse ever since.
I appreciate your boldness and strength in defending this.
I would say sexual predation- and especially the billion dollar organized sex-trade- is one of the ugliest and most under-highlighted "causalities" of our "Modernity Myth" (that everything is getting better, now).
With the emptiness of godlessness (to use my own brazenly old-fashioned term), we are left with the oldest, basest human passions. I personally believe (without having done the research; I'm open to being wrong), the vastness and horror of the global sex-trade is under-reported and under-appreciated at a popular level, because invariably the power-holders and news-makers, they are beneficiaries of these "services."
Bluntly: all powerful men, they use the sex trade themselves.
Anyway.
Kudos for going where Christian's aught to be, boldly, in our care for the most vulnerable.
-mb
We've had a national inquiry & it reported less than 3 years ago:-
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/inquiry/final-report.html
No recommendations were implemented by the previous government & the current government have begun to implement some. I can't see that another statutory inquiry will achieve much at this stage: I think it'll only serve to delay the issue & do little to help victims.
You make it very clear that it is hard to provide precise data: it is. I think one of the recommendations of the Jay inquiry is to do this: then we can support the use of 'industrial'- I submit now that that term isn't helpful: it tends to inflame & make this a political football. It doesn't help victims & it doesn't advance prosecutions.
It is clear from what has already emerged that there was some collision: the Jay report makes it clear. I think the Rotherham issue will eventually show significant historical abuse & failings (although the Jay report makes it clear).
I'd submit that the current furore is driven a lot by political rhetoric and has elevated into the level of a moral panic.
I submit that we need clear thinking, prosecutions, implementation of the Jay report, encouragement of whistle blowers etc to come forth etcetera.