This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Derby child sex abuse ring article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
...Though you might think it was, from the tone of this article. It is sensationalist, and seems overly concerned with stressing the ethnic background of the offenders. Given these issues, I have asked for outside input via the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump removed 'Asian' from the intro [1]. I reverted him, saying "Fact is origin/religion of the men is a big factor in this". AndyTheGrump then reverted, saying "Your opinion is irrelevant - we go by sources, and WP:NPOV". But the fact that the men were all Asian and Muslim is supported by numerous cited refs in the article, and that this is a key part of the events is also obvious from the article. AndyTheGrump chooses to ignore this.
My point is that I think the introduction should say the men were all "Muslim Asian men" as it is an important factor. The reason we should say Muslim (apart from them being Muslim) is so as not to smear all Asians (Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains etc.). We could say they were all of Pakistani origin instead of Asian, but would need a good source to verify that. Actually I think the PC term is 'South Asian'. Having a PC POV and refusing to say Muslim Asian men did this is to do a disservice to the victims - women - who where victimised by the gange because of the gang's attitude to women. But this is controversial, so I thought it best to bring it up on talk. Aarghdvaark ( talk) 05:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
A simple question for AnkhMorpork: why did your table violate WP:BLP policy by including men from, an Asian background who hadn't been convicted of any sex-related crimes, while excluding a man not from an Asian background, "a convicted sex offender and the only non-Asian defendant, got three years for two breaches of Sexual Offender Prevention Order which banned him from contact with under 18s"? [4] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the names of three individuals not convicted of sex-related crimes from the table - their inclusion in the table (in an article entitled 'Derby sex gang') was a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you support describing all nine people convicted as part of the sex gang? Ankh. Morpork 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I did a rather poor quality quick and dirty search of the net using just one name and found this rather interesting sources:
Men convicted in shocking sex abuse case - 24/11/2010
Five men have been convicted of a string of sexual offences against young, vulnerable teenage girls and women in a case described as one of 'shocking and persistent abuse' by Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Samantha Shallow. Three other men were found guilty of related offences.
Ms Shallow, Crown Advocate in the East Midlands Complex Casework Unit said: "This is a shocking case of persistent targeting and sexual abuse of young, vulnerable girls and women over a sustained period by a group of criminals.(Sic)
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
Better still I found a rather interesting comment form THE JUDGE:
However Judge Head told Saddique and 28-year-old Liaqat: ‘It was never the Crown’s case that these offences were racially motivated or aggravated. I have considered this myself but I have concluded that your overwhelming aim was to secure as much sex as possible.’ SOURCE
First the number of convicts being reported by the BBC seem to be wrong CPS say 8 BBC say 9 - so throw away that source! Until some can do basic math they can't be quoted or relied upon as a source of anything but error and bad media!
The judge made it clear that race was not an issue - so nay content leading to that implication is not WP:NPOV and also brings up WP:BLP all over again!
This RFC is null and Void and should be shut immediately! - there are far more basic issues to address and get right such as facts and not nuance of meaning! -- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
"Nine of the 13-strong gang were convicted of grooming and raping girls between 12 and 18 years old". Sourced to [7] and [8]. Neither source states that all 13 men were part of any gang. This is a misrepresentation of the sources, and a gross WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The CPS have a press release
Men convicted in shocking sex abuse case - 24/11/2010
Five men have been convicted of a string of sexual offences against young, vulnerable teenage girls and women in a case described as one of 'shocking and persistent abuse' by Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Samantha Shallow. Three other men were found guilty of related offences.
Ms Shallow, Crown Advocate in the East Midlands Complex Casework Unit said: "This is a shocking case of persistent targeting and sexual abuse of young, vulnerable girls and women over a sustained period by a group of criminals.(Sic)
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
The numbers of people convicted are given by the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE as 8 - all of the media sources being quoted give the number 9. It appears that either there is a 9th convict who can;'t be identified in any way to protect a child victim - else number of Journalist and media Editors at the BBC - the Independent - the Telegraph have been negligent, can't count and have simply been reporting a factoid and this is a clear case of The Woozle Effect.
Until such time as the number of people convicted can be reconciled with the CPS source (You can't get much better) any source which which is linked to the number 9 (That is all BBC - Independent and Telegraph 100% of teh sources used ) have to be treated as not meeting NPOV standards and Quality Requirements.
This page is being tagged for NPOV - POV lede and Multiple_issues.
There is far more here than just WP:BLP - there are basic facts being ignored and basic errors in logic and reason. -- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 11:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
-- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The table claims that a '<-redacted->' was convicted for "sexual activity with a child, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child". Neither of the sources cited names this individual at all. I shall be removing this, raising this gross violation of WP:BLP policy at WP:BLPN, and will expect a clear and prompt explanation from the individual responsible for inserting it. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Concerning "I have removed it. I must have got confused with <-redact link-> I was reading about in which the name was cited. This was an unfortunate error on my part, and I obviously will be more careful in the future." - It may account for the name being used - but I can find no source that links that name to any listed activity as given in that Highly Dubious table! When and how did that linkage come about? There has to be either a source that can reasonable and rationally show the error providing an explanation (even if mitigation is not possible) ... so where is the source linking the name to the activities as give in that table? Are we dealing with Bad Source - Bad Edits - Synth - or Other? --
TTFN--
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (
talk) 18:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not make this worse than it is by making further links to the individual named. I have asked as a matter of urgency that the name be redacted - and making further links only compounds the problem. This will need admin attention - but ONLY AFTER the material is removed. 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Any Suggestions on where to start and how to avoid recurrence of past errors and comply fully with Wiki House Rules? -- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 19:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Right - Whilst others seek to play power games and mess about else where, this page still needs attention and quality control.
I'm adding the sections below so that there can be focused editing by heading. Input is welcome, especially any additional and unused sources which can be used to verify content and aid clarity.
Presently the lede reads
The Derby sex gang was a group of men who sexually abused up to a hundred girls in Derby, England[1][2] in one of the most severe cases of sexual abuse in recent times.[3] In 2010 after an undercover investigation by Derbyshire police, members of the group were charged with 75 offences relating to 26 girls. Nine of the 13 accused were convicted of grooming and raping girls between 12 and 18 years old.[2][1] The attacks provoked fierce discussion about race and sexual exploitation.[4]
Are there any concerns as to neutrality, Pov or references?
-- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The section presently reads:
The gang of thirteen men, mainly from Asian backgrounds, lived throughout Derby and the police believed they met through a shared attraction for young girls.[1] The leaders of the gang were Abid Mohammed Saddique and Mohammed Romaan Liaqat, both married men with young children.[2] They were considered devout Muslims and family-orientated men,[1] but away from their homes, they would cruise around the streets of Derby in a BMW, wearing designer clothes, targeting young girls.[1] CCTV footage showed the gang leaders making repeated efforts to entice a pair of girls standing by the side of the road into their car.[3] The police later discovered vodka and plastic cups under the car seats.[3] Saddique was accused of having sexual activity with a 12-year-old in Darley Park, and Liaqat had sex with a 14-year-old in their vehicle.[1] After legal proceedings were launched against them, Saddique and Liaqat grew long beards and adopted Islamic dress.[1]
Evidently the line "The gang of thirteen men, mainly from Asian backgrounds, lived throughout Derby and the police believed they met through a shared attraction for young girls." is seen by some as contentious.
I would propose the following re-write "The 13 strong gang were from the Derby area and the police believed they met through a shared attraction for young girls. There were 12 Asian and one Caucasian men in the group."
I believe that as there is a limited number of people 13 - and there are specific numbers 12 and 1 it is not correct to use generic terms such as "mainly" - it lacks precision and also can be seen to encourage readers to take a mass perception and transfer it generically and even globally. Whilst wiki is not responsible for how people use content elsewhere, there is the responsibility for editors to present content so as to not promote bias. Accurate numbers are anti-bias and pro accuracy.
To This I would add a note that there are distinctions in sexual attraction to minors - Paedophilia vs Hebephilia vs Ephebophilia - there are ambiguities in sources with the word Paedophilia etc being used in ways that are not accurate and emotive. Wiki content should not allow such an imbalance to be be embedded here - so it's reasonable to assist readers with note.-- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The victims, aged between 12-18, were predominantly vulnerable girls from a troubled backgrounds, and some of them were in care and known to social services.[1][3] The men would target girls at train stations, on estates, and walking home from school.[1] The gang would first befriend the girls inviting them out for a drive or a drink, and supplied them with alcohol and drugs.[3][1] The grooming process was then intensified and the girls were invited to parties and further meetings were arranged.[1] The girls were then driven to secluded areas and were sexually abused and raped.[3][1] The abuse took place in houses and hotels across the Midlands, parks and even the victims’ own homes.[1][2] Two victims were threatened with hammers while another was locked up before being raped.[5] Sometimes, up to six men would be involved in the often violent assaults which the gang would film on their mobile phones.[3] Three gang members were filmed having sex with a 14-year-old girl in a hotel room to the sound of noisy cheering.[1] Some of the girls were locked up to prevent them escaping.[3] A 16-year-old victim stated: "I will never ever understand what has made them so evil and ignorant that still to this day they think they've not done anything wrong."[3]
I see big problems in this section. A few points:
-- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Derby police were aware of rumours of a paedophile gang operating in the city.[1] On 30 December 2008, Staffordshire police stopped a car on suspicion of shoplifting, carrying three gang members and three young girls.[3] The girls had been reported missing from a care home in Derby.[3] The police drove the girls back to Derby, and during the journey, they told the officers about what had been taking place.[1] Derbyshire police force launched an undercover investigation called Operation Retriever, setting up surveillance and tailing the gang's BMW around Derby.[1] Detectives collected DNA samples from several of the crime scenes.[5] Siddique was wearing an electronic tag after a previous conviction for assaulting a woman.[1] On 24 April 2009, two distressed teenagers stumbled out of a flat that was under surveillance and said that they had been raped.[3] The police had been unaware of their presence. The victims told the police of other girls who had been assaulted, and the police soon discovered a campaign of systematic grooming and abuse within the city. Detective Inspector of Derbyshire police, Shaun Dawson, said, "When we arrested them, we had no idea of the scale of this. Once we had them locked up other victims spoke out and it snowballed from there."[1] Debbie Platt, who led the police investigation, said she was shocked at the extent of the abuse and said it was like "a campaign of rape against children."[3] The police stated that the abuse could have continued for a lot longer.[1]
I'll start with the line "Derby police were aware of rumours of a paedophile gang operating in the city." - which simply implies the past. I believe that there needs to be clarity of time frames - otherwise it can be taken to mean that there has always been some paedophile gang operating in the city since the dawn of time! Are there any sources which place the time frame before 30 December 2008 with any degree of certainty (Decade - year - first known event) which allow for an accurately constructed time line to be presented. A generic reference to the past is not really good enough.
-- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The crown prosecution service charged the gang with 75 charges relating to twenty six girls, ranging from rape to intimidating witnesses, [1] though police believed there were many more victims. The men were charged in three separate trials. [2]
Name Conviction [3] [2] Abid Mohammed Saddique rape, sexual assault, sexual activity with a child, perverting the course of justice, aiding and abetting rape, false imprisonment, making child pornography Romaan Liaqat rape, sexual assault, aiding and abetting rape, affray, sexual activity with a child, making child pornography Akshay Kumar making child pornography Faisal Mehmood sexual activity with a child Mohammed Imran Rehman rape Graham Blackham breaches of Sexual Offender Prevention Order
I think that the following need to be made clear as the have quite an impact upon how content is presented and also perceived.
Big Questions -
Should the table address sentencing rather than charges? This may seem a cop out, but I have to point to the rights of Victims to use Wiki and not be abused by overly detailed content which does not add to overall reality. Footnotes can direct those who need full details to external sources.
I'm not even going to quote this section.
I think there needs to be a basic question addressed - why is there need for this section at all? Who decides what is and what is not analysis of events?
It may be best to look at time lines again for factual accuracy and to maintain clarity of how things developed over time - pre trial - post trial - post sentencing etc. -- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
After this case, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) attempted a nationwide assessment of child grooming. [4] [5] The report found that police, social services and charities were failing to properly investigate this "hidden issue" [5] and that a quarter of offenders reported for child grooming since 2008 were Asian, an apparently disproportionate figure, [6] but Peter Davies, the head of Ceop, was quick to clarify that the findings did not provide a national picture because of incomplete data, and cautioned against extrapolating anything from the results. [6] He added that "looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours." [6]
Again - I'm not sure that this section needs to exist. Also from the outset it is misleading. CEOP constantly monitor for and act upon child grooming - they didn't suddenly decide to start after this case.
CEOP has existed since April 2006 and there has been a phased introduction of their work in conjuration with partners ever since - starting it's main recognised operations in 2009, by which time the police were acting. The wording implies that CEOP had not acted earlier to protect the victims - they could not act they did not exist! -- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
References
radar
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Tprowl
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBCconvicted
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Oxford sex gang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Derby child sex abuse ring article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
...Though you might think it was, from the tone of this article. It is sensationalist, and seems overly concerned with stressing the ethnic background of the offenders. Given these issues, I have asked for outside input via the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump removed 'Asian' from the intro [1]. I reverted him, saying "Fact is origin/religion of the men is a big factor in this". AndyTheGrump then reverted, saying "Your opinion is irrelevant - we go by sources, and WP:NPOV". But the fact that the men were all Asian and Muslim is supported by numerous cited refs in the article, and that this is a key part of the events is also obvious from the article. AndyTheGrump chooses to ignore this.
My point is that I think the introduction should say the men were all "Muslim Asian men" as it is an important factor. The reason we should say Muslim (apart from them being Muslim) is so as not to smear all Asians (Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains etc.). We could say they were all of Pakistani origin instead of Asian, but would need a good source to verify that. Actually I think the PC term is 'South Asian'. Having a PC POV and refusing to say Muslim Asian men did this is to do a disservice to the victims - women - who where victimised by the gange because of the gang's attitude to women. But this is controversial, so I thought it best to bring it up on talk. Aarghdvaark ( talk) 05:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
A simple question for AnkhMorpork: why did your table violate WP:BLP policy by including men from, an Asian background who hadn't been convicted of any sex-related crimes, while excluding a man not from an Asian background, "a convicted sex offender and the only non-Asian defendant, got three years for two breaches of Sexual Offender Prevention Order which banned him from contact with under 18s"? [4] AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the names of three individuals not convicted of sex-related crimes from the table - their inclusion in the table (in an article entitled 'Derby sex gang') was a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you support describing all nine people convicted as part of the sex gang? Ankh. Morpork 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I did a rather poor quality quick and dirty search of the net using just one name and found this rather interesting sources:
Men convicted in shocking sex abuse case - 24/11/2010
Five men have been convicted of a string of sexual offences against young, vulnerable teenage girls and women in a case described as one of 'shocking and persistent abuse' by Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Samantha Shallow. Three other men were found guilty of related offences.
Ms Shallow, Crown Advocate in the East Midlands Complex Casework Unit said: "This is a shocking case of persistent targeting and sexual abuse of young, vulnerable girls and women over a sustained period by a group of criminals.(Sic)
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
Better still I found a rather interesting comment form THE JUDGE:
However Judge Head told Saddique and 28-year-old Liaqat: ‘It was never the Crown’s case that these offences were racially motivated or aggravated. I have considered this myself but I have concluded that your overwhelming aim was to secure as much sex as possible.’ SOURCE
First the number of convicts being reported by the BBC seem to be wrong CPS say 8 BBC say 9 - so throw away that source! Until some can do basic math they can't be quoted or relied upon as a source of anything but error and bad media!
The judge made it clear that race was not an issue - so nay content leading to that implication is not WP:NPOV and also brings up WP:BLP all over again!
This RFC is null and Void and should be shut immediately! - there are far more basic issues to address and get right such as facts and not nuance of meaning! -- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
"Nine of the 13-strong gang were convicted of grooming and raping girls between 12 and 18 years old". Sourced to [7] and [8]. Neither source states that all 13 men were part of any gang. This is a misrepresentation of the sources, and a gross WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The CPS have a press release
Men convicted in shocking sex abuse case - 24/11/2010
Five men have been convicted of a string of sexual offences against young, vulnerable teenage girls and women in a case described as one of 'shocking and persistent abuse' by Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Samantha Shallow. Three other men were found guilty of related offences.
Ms Shallow, Crown Advocate in the East Midlands Complex Casework Unit said: "This is a shocking case of persistent targeting and sexual abuse of young, vulnerable girls and women over a sustained period by a group of criminals.(Sic)
THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
The numbers of people convicted are given by the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE as 8 - all of the media sources being quoted give the number 9. It appears that either there is a 9th convict who can;'t be identified in any way to protect a child victim - else number of Journalist and media Editors at the BBC - the Independent - the Telegraph have been negligent, can't count and have simply been reporting a factoid and this is a clear case of The Woozle Effect.
Until such time as the number of people convicted can be reconciled with the CPS source (You can't get much better) any source which which is linked to the number 9 (That is all BBC - Independent and Telegraph 100% of teh sources used ) have to be treated as not meeting NPOV standards and Quality Requirements.
This page is being tagged for NPOV - POV lede and Multiple_issues.
There is far more here than just WP:BLP - there are basic facts being ignored and basic errors in logic and reason. -- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 11:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
-- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The table claims that a '<-redacted->' was convicted for "sexual activity with a child, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child". Neither of the sources cited names this individual at all. I shall be removing this, raising this gross violation of WP:BLP policy at WP:BLPN, and will expect a clear and prompt explanation from the individual responsible for inserting it. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Concerning "I have removed it. I must have got confused with <-redact link-> I was reading about in which the name was cited. This was an unfortunate error on my part, and I obviously will be more careful in the future." - It may account for the name being used - but I can find no source that links that name to any listed activity as given in that Highly Dubious table! When and how did that linkage come about? There has to be either a source that can reasonable and rationally show the error providing an explanation (even if mitigation is not possible) ... so where is the source linking the name to the activities as give in that table? Are we dealing with Bad Source - Bad Edits - Synth - or Other? --
TTFN--
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (
talk) 18:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not make this worse than it is by making further links to the individual named. I have asked as a matter of urgency that the name be redacted - and making further links only compounds the problem. This will need admin attention - but ONLY AFTER the material is removed. 18:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Any Suggestions on where to start and how to avoid recurrence of past errors and comply fully with Wiki House Rules? -- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 19:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Right - Whilst others seek to play power games and mess about else where, this page still needs attention and quality control.
I'm adding the sections below so that there can be focused editing by heading. Input is welcome, especially any additional and unused sources which can be used to verify content and aid clarity.
Presently the lede reads
The Derby sex gang was a group of men who sexually abused up to a hundred girls in Derby, England[1][2] in one of the most severe cases of sexual abuse in recent times.[3] In 2010 after an undercover investigation by Derbyshire police, members of the group were charged with 75 offences relating to 26 girls. Nine of the 13 accused were convicted of grooming and raping girls between 12 and 18 years old.[2][1] The attacks provoked fierce discussion about race and sexual exploitation.[4]
Are there any concerns as to neutrality, Pov or references?
-- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The section presently reads:
The gang of thirteen men, mainly from Asian backgrounds, lived throughout Derby and the police believed they met through a shared attraction for young girls.[1] The leaders of the gang were Abid Mohammed Saddique and Mohammed Romaan Liaqat, both married men with young children.[2] They were considered devout Muslims and family-orientated men,[1] but away from their homes, they would cruise around the streets of Derby in a BMW, wearing designer clothes, targeting young girls.[1] CCTV footage showed the gang leaders making repeated efforts to entice a pair of girls standing by the side of the road into their car.[3] The police later discovered vodka and plastic cups under the car seats.[3] Saddique was accused of having sexual activity with a 12-year-old in Darley Park, and Liaqat had sex with a 14-year-old in their vehicle.[1] After legal proceedings were launched against them, Saddique and Liaqat grew long beards and adopted Islamic dress.[1]
Evidently the line "The gang of thirteen men, mainly from Asian backgrounds, lived throughout Derby and the police believed they met through a shared attraction for young girls." is seen by some as contentious.
I would propose the following re-write "The 13 strong gang were from the Derby area and the police believed they met through a shared attraction for young girls. There were 12 Asian and one Caucasian men in the group."
I believe that as there is a limited number of people 13 - and there are specific numbers 12 and 1 it is not correct to use generic terms such as "mainly" - it lacks precision and also can be seen to encourage readers to take a mass perception and transfer it generically and even globally. Whilst wiki is not responsible for how people use content elsewhere, there is the responsibility for editors to present content so as to not promote bias. Accurate numbers are anti-bias and pro accuracy.
To This I would add a note that there are distinctions in sexual attraction to minors - Paedophilia vs Hebephilia vs Ephebophilia - there are ambiguities in sources with the word Paedophilia etc being used in ways that are not accurate and emotive. Wiki content should not allow such an imbalance to be be embedded here - so it's reasonable to assist readers with note.-- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The victims, aged between 12-18, were predominantly vulnerable girls from a troubled backgrounds, and some of them were in care and known to social services.[1][3] The men would target girls at train stations, on estates, and walking home from school.[1] The gang would first befriend the girls inviting them out for a drive or a drink, and supplied them with alcohol and drugs.[3][1] The grooming process was then intensified and the girls were invited to parties and further meetings were arranged.[1] The girls were then driven to secluded areas and were sexually abused and raped.[3][1] The abuse took place in houses and hotels across the Midlands, parks and even the victims’ own homes.[1][2] Two victims were threatened with hammers while another was locked up before being raped.[5] Sometimes, up to six men would be involved in the often violent assaults which the gang would film on their mobile phones.[3] Three gang members were filmed having sex with a 14-year-old girl in a hotel room to the sound of noisy cheering.[1] Some of the girls were locked up to prevent them escaping.[3] A 16-year-old victim stated: "I will never ever understand what has made them so evil and ignorant that still to this day they think they've not done anything wrong."[3]
I see big problems in this section. A few points:
-- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Derby police were aware of rumours of a paedophile gang operating in the city.[1] On 30 December 2008, Staffordshire police stopped a car on suspicion of shoplifting, carrying three gang members and three young girls.[3] The girls had been reported missing from a care home in Derby.[3] The police drove the girls back to Derby, and during the journey, they told the officers about what had been taking place.[1] Derbyshire police force launched an undercover investigation called Operation Retriever, setting up surveillance and tailing the gang's BMW around Derby.[1] Detectives collected DNA samples from several of the crime scenes.[5] Siddique was wearing an electronic tag after a previous conviction for assaulting a woman.[1] On 24 April 2009, two distressed teenagers stumbled out of a flat that was under surveillance and said that they had been raped.[3] The police had been unaware of their presence. The victims told the police of other girls who had been assaulted, and the police soon discovered a campaign of systematic grooming and abuse within the city. Detective Inspector of Derbyshire police, Shaun Dawson, said, "When we arrested them, we had no idea of the scale of this. Once we had them locked up other victims spoke out and it snowballed from there."[1] Debbie Platt, who led the police investigation, said she was shocked at the extent of the abuse and said it was like "a campaign of rape against children."[3] The police stated that the abuse could have continued for a lot longer.[1]
I'll start with the line "Derby police were aware of rumours of a paedophile gang operating in the city." - which simply implies the past. I believe that there needs to be clarity of time frames - otherwise it can be taken to mean that there has always been some paedophile gang operating in the city since the dawn of time! Are there any sources which place the time frame before 30 December 2008 with any degree of certainty (Decade - year - first known event) which allow for an accurately constructed time line to be presented. A generic reference to the past is not really good enough.
-- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The crown prosecution service charged the gang with 75 charges relating to twenty six girls, ranging from rape to intimidating witnesses, [1] though police believed there were many more victims. The men were charged in three separate trials. [2]
Name Conviction [3] [2] Abid Mohammed Saddique rape, sexual assault, sexual activity with a child, perverting the course of justice, aiding and abetting rape, false imprisonment, making child pornography Romaan Liaqat rape, sexual assault, aiding and abetting rape, affray, sexual activity with a child, making child pornography Akshay Kumar making child pornography Faisal Mehmood sexual activity with a child Mohammed Imran Rehman rape Graham Blackham breaches of Sexual Offender Prevention Order
I think that the following need to be made clear as the have quite an impact upon how content is presented and also perceived.
Big Questions -
Should the table address sentencing rather than charges? This may seem a cop out, but I have to point to the rights of Victims to use Wiki and not be abused by overly detailed content which does not add to overall reality. Footnotes can direct those who need full details to external sources.
I'm not even going to quote this section.
I think there needs to be a basic question addressed - why is there need for this section at all? Who decides what is and what is not analysis of events?
It may be best to look at time lines again for factual accuracy and to maintain clarity of how things developed over time - pre trial - post trial - post sentencing etc. -- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
After this case, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) attempted a nationwide assessment of child grooming. [4] [5] The report found that police, social services and charities were failing to properly investigate this "hidden issue" [5] and that a quarter of offenders reported for child grooming since 2008 were Asian, an apparently disproportionate figure, [6] but Peter Davies, the head of Ceop, was quick to clarify that the findings did not provide a national picture because of incomplete data, and cautioned against extrapolating anything from the results. [6] He added that "looking at this issue through the lens of ethnicity does not do the victims any favours." [6]
Again - I'm not sure that this section needs to exist. Also from the outset it is misleading. CEOP constantly monitor for and act upon child grooming - they didn't suddenly decide to start after this case.
CEOP has existed since April 2006 and there has been a phased introduction of their work in conjuration with partners ever since - starting it's main recognised operations in 2009, by which time the police were acting. The wording implies that CEOP had not acted earlier to protect the victims - they could not act they did not exist! -- TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) ( talk) 17:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
References
radar
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Tprowl
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBCconvicted
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Oxford sex gang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 13:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)