How the elite class mislead you --Part 2
A three part series on how the people who rule over us try and hide the truth from you
Matt Goodwin’s newsletter goes to 79,400 subscribers from 181 countries. Like our stuff? Then for the equivalent of buying us a pint become a paying supporter. Help us make a difference while gaining access to the full archive, exclusive posts, events, discounts, comments and the knowledge you’re supporting independent writers who are pushing back. You can join us on YouTube, Insta, TikTok, X and Facebook.
Last week, we began a three-part series on how the elite class in British society —that left-leaning group of people who disproportionately dominate the institutions—mislead and gaslight the rest of the country when it comes to some of the most important issues of our time.
While the members of this left-leaning class talk endlessly about the need to counter “misinformation”, it is often they who are fully invested in spreading misinformation, especially when it comes to issues, beliefs, and events that do not support their socially liberal if not radically woke agenda.
In Part One, we looked at the strange case of London’s Labour Mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has been pushing some rather misleading statistics about the impact of mass immigration on the UK economy, which contrary to what the new elite would have you believe is definitely not propelling us to the prosperous, sunlit uplands.
In Part Two, we turn to former BBC presenter and now podcaster Emily Maitlis, who, for all the reasons I’m about to outline, has similarly morphed into a symbol of this insular and increasingly remote class—somebody who clams she is interested in things such as truth, evidence and knowledge, except when these things happen to challenge or completely undermine her own ideological worldview.
Maitlis caught my attention because of her debate with former Reform UK and now independent MP, Rupert Lowe, during which she completely misrepresented the evidence on another issue that many people care a great deal about but which the elite class would rather not have to discuss —the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
In the heated debate, a clip of which you can watch below, a visibly irritated, angry, and at times self-righteous Maitlis repeatedly criticised and attacked Lowe for what she clearly thinks are extreme views.
Much like the reaction of the elite class to the scandal more generally, she criticises him for drawing attention to the rape gangs. She criticises him for calling out one specific group. She criticises him for demanding a dedicated national inquiry into the issue. And she openly rejects much of what he says.
“It is absolutely not true”, she says, that the vast majority of rape gang perpetrators are Pakistani Muslim, even citing a report in The Times to suggest that whites are more likely to be involved in the rape gangs than Pakistani Muslims.
She openly describes Lowe as “racist” for talking about it, before going on to say that Lowe, who recently asked members of the public to donate to a campaign that is trying to force a fresh inquiry on the issue, should be “ashamed” for “making money” out of the “re-exploitation” of the victims of rape gangs.
And she makes an argument that is often made by Labour MPs, suggesting Rupert Lowe and others are wasting their time calling for a dedicated inquiry because “there has already been one”, in reference to the inquiry that was headed by Professor Alexis Jay, and which concluded its work three years ago.
Before I deconstruct these points one by one, and show you why Emily Maitlis and the elite class are completely and utterly wrong on this issue, watch this clip:
Let’s start with Maitlis’s suggestion that white British men are more likely to be involved in organised rape gangs, that “there are four times, eight times, ten times as many white grooming gang suspects”.
To be honest, I wasn’t surprised to hear her say this.
Why?
Because it’s the same view I encountered when I gave a talk to the similarly white, affluent, liberal and insular members of the elite class at the University of Oxford, many of whom, like Maitlis, are heavily invested in doing all they can to deny the uncomfortable reality.
Much like Lowe, for more than an hour I watched some of the most educated people in the country fall over themselves to claim that minorities have done nothing wrong and that, actually, the rape gang scandal is somehow the fault of white people.
The only problem is this is completely and utterly wrong.
And to be perfectly honest with you I think it’s outrageous that we have to keep pointing this out to supposed “journalists” who are meant to be committed to pursuing the truth, not morphing into political activists who routinely prioritise their own radical ideological views over the truth.
The reality is this.
Anybody who knows anything about the rape gang scandal knows there is now a mountain of evidence which points clearly to the conclusion that everybody in the elite class would rather we all avoid and pretend is not there.
Pakistani Muslim men are consistently and disproportionately more likely to be arrested and convicted of organised rape gang activity.
Here’s what I wrote last year, in this newsletter, right after I discussed the issue at Oxford, where, astonishingly, I also found myself having to point out to the audience that one of the most prolific rape gangs in the country had been active in … Oxford.
My summary of the evidence is worth quoting and reading in full not only because we’ve welcomed a lot of new readers since then but because, clearly, lots of people in the media class are still not aware of what is actually behind the scandal:
“Journalist Andrew Norfolk was the first to draw attention to the scandal, in 2011, writing about how girls as young as 12 had had abortions as a result of abuse while one girl, aged only 13, appeared to have been raped more than 50 times.
Writing in in The Times, in 2011, he noted that in 17 trials held between 1997 and 2011 across 13 towns, 53 of the 56 offenders were described as Asian, of which 50 were Muslim and most were members of the British Pakistani community.
More detailed investigations followed and they tell a remarkably consistent story.
In towns like Rotherham, where this problem has been endemic, social workers admitted that while most perpetrators were ‘Asian men’, data on ethnicity was deliberately excluded from presentations because it was considered controversial.
When it was included, in a series of reports between 2011 and 2015, it showed, clearly, that Asian men, usually of Pakistani heritage, were consistently over-represented as abusers —even if they were not the majority of abusers.
In 2015, a report by Louise Casey likewise concluded that Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) ‘concerned a majority of white, female, adolescent or teenage victims and a majority of Pakistani heritage adult male perpetrators’. It noted:
“The predominant involvement of Pakistani heritage men was certainly the view of all those who Inspectors spoke to who had been close to operational work around street grooming and CSE in Rotherham in the previous 15 years … perpetrators were usually described as being Pakistani men. This was a matter of fact”.
Professor Alexis Jay, in her report in 2014, similarly concluded most perpetrators of organised grooming “were of Pakistani heritage”. Police in Rochdale also identified the men convicted at a trial as being “mainly British Pakistani”.
Slightly later, an independent review in the town of Telford concluded abusers were mainly males of ‘southern Asian heritage’. And, as in Rotherham, it noted efforts to explore the scandal and a problem with “Pakistani youths” had been shut down due to accusations of it being considered “racist”. The report noted:
“…on the papers disclosed by key stakeholders, it is an undeniable fact that a high proportion of those cases involved perpetrators that were described by victims/survivors and others as being “Asian” or, often, “Pakistani” … the evidence plainly shows that the majority of CSE suspects in Telford during my Terms of Reference were men of southern Asian heritage”.
Even in Oxfordshire, where I found people rushing to downplay or refute these claims, a serious case review, in 2015, found as many as 373 children had been targeted over 16 years and called for research into why a significant proportion of people convicted in these kind of cases are of “Pakistani and/or Muslim heritage”.
Then, in 2020, academics Kish Bhatti-Sinclair and Charles Sutcliffe published an academic paper which examined 73 trials covering 44 towns and 498 accused.
Analysing the names of accusers, they found 83% of the people prosecuted for ‘group localised child sexual exploitation’ were Muslim:
“A regression analysis found that both the Muslim and the Pakistani proportions of the local population are powerful variables in explaining the level of GLCSE [group localised child sexual exploitation] in an area.
The proportion of the local population that is Pakistani origin is more powerful in explaining the level of GLCSE than the Muslim proportion, suggesting that, irrespective of their names, most of the defendants are of Pakistani origin.”
Which is why we have some truly shocking statistics in some areas of Britain.
Like the fact that in Rochdale, 1 in every 280 Muslim men over the age of 16 were prosecuted for rape gang offences, in Telford it was 1 in every 126, and in Rotherham, the epicentre of the scandal, it was 1 in every 73. Think about that. 1 in every 73.
And nor is this the only evidence which, clearly, the producers and editors of the News Agents podcast either have not bothered to read or find too uncomfortable.
This is one of our exclusive posts for paid subscribers who make our work possible. Upgrade now to support our work and access everything. If you are a pensioner, emergency worker, or student then please e-mail us at matt@mattgoodwin.org
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Matt Goodwin to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.