The one man who has the best understanding of the depth and history of the rape gangs is Peter McLoughlin, yet the main media outlets seem determined to bury anything to do with him. Indeed, despite the huge significance of the gangs, Mr McLoughlin seems to be the only person who has tabulated the history & scale of Muslim rape gangs. He wrote “Easy Meat” and “Muhammed’s Koran” and is here interviewed by “Brian of London”. His website is here (I'll give you an interesting introductory page to start with).
This is an insightful 64 minute interview which should not be missed.
Many points are covered, including:~
- Mr McLoughlin's ongoing Twitter ban;
- Lord Pearson’s recent question in the House of Lords is discussed. Astonishingly, the question includes “what steps are being taken to prosecute Police & local authorities” for their complicity - it seems there are 33 Cops under serious investigation! Afterwards Lord Pearson held a Press conference on his question, to which no members of the Press came except “Tommy Robinson”. There was a complaint that bringing in “Tommy Robinson” exposes the house to threats of violence;
- Mr McLoughlin describes his journey from accepting the established media story about the Muslim rape gangs being merely a racist attempt to slander a whole people group, to the point where he researched the matter himself and ended up producing a book. Though there are many nationalities involved in perpetrating these crimes the offenders are overwhelmingly Muslims;
- He alleges that the media historically used a deliberate tactic of isolating each Muslim rape gang case to prevent the public seeing the pattern. This is backed up by the current reporting on such cases;
- He places the large media outlets in with “the establishment” as a whole. Mr McLoughlin has some strident criticisms of the BBC, which he calls part of the “Controlled Media”;
- Amazingly, the earliest case of Muslim rape gangs in Britain dates back to 1975! and the scale of the many cover-ups is huge;
- As I noted the other day, Lord Pearson asks if we are allowed to criticise a religion or will this be automatically considered hateful? Do note with interest the tremulous response! There is an obvious terror in the government at allowing genuine discussion of the Islamic nature of the rape gangs and the larger matter of free speech & Islam itself. Yes, "terror" is a fair word to use I think;
- Mr McLoughlin notes that Islam is thoroughly imbued with “hate speech” (see here for instance), but this is ignored, indeed protected, by the British government;
- He discusses the history of what happened to those who brought up the Muslim grooming gangs and moreover the greater perturbance of a culture of ignoring the subject as it was seen to be radioactive in racial terms;
- How the British Sikh population were among the first to comprehend and respond to this issue with their girls as they had already a long experience with such in the Indian subcontinent before moving to Britain. Very interesting discussion;
- How the “Antifascists” and the Chief Constable for the West Yorkshire Police worked together to stop a documentary airing on the gangs before a General election as it may sway the result (is the moderation of political opinion now the job of the Police?) At the same time, between 1997-2006, the Labour Party was committed to passing a law criminalisng anyone who offended Muslims. People could be prosecuted for hate speech even if it was unintentional. This was only narrowly stopped by the House of Lords after being passed in the Commons;
- The significance of the number “ten thousand” when used by Muslims;
- Andrew Norfolk is discussed – Mr Norfolk admits that even he did not act on a lot of information he had. He admitted that it was only the rise of the EDL who pushed him to get started on all this;
- Comparison is made with the Dutch experience and how they dealt with it;
- The duplicity of the Serious Organised Crime Agency of the British Police in not warning school children as their Dutch contemporaries did. It is alleged that Police spent more time & energy prosecuting “Tommy Robinson” than the entire Muslim rape gang issue;
- Mr McLouchlin outlines the pathetic coverage of the Mainstream media of his “Easy meat” book and the treatment of the BBC of the rape gang issue. This is fascinating: people who Peter had given his book to told him that they did not believe the book until they saw a BBC TV dramatization of it! This is absolutely astonishing to me. It is like the film Wag the dog: “I saw it on TV. It must be true” – until then most people simply will not accept veracious accounts. Even today that BBC documentary, though shown once, has been buried by them. Why?;
- Mr McLoughlin expresses the belief that perhaps the greatest fear in all this horror is not merely that members of the public will take vigilante action but that juries will refuse to convict the vigilantes as they have won wide public sympathy. This would represent a widespread breakdown of confidence in the system. It seems to me that such a day is coming.;
- The matter of murder and intention behind the murder is discussed. Should motive affect sentencing? To wit: if I murder a man yet did not do so because he belonged to a minority, but for some other reason, should I receive a lighter sentence than someone who murders on that basis? Does motive really matter that much?
FYI :~ Darren Osborne is the man guilty of running down some Muslims outside a Islamic centre last year. Baroness Warsi, who criticised the meeting between Lord Pearson & "Tommy Robinson" is a Muslim member of the House of Lords.
And down the Rabbit hole we go...