THREAD (PART 1 of 4): Why you shouldn’t trust @QuilliamOrg ‘s report on #groominggangs & the claim that 84% of “grooming gang offenders” are Asian. An evidence-based critique. 1/
First, let’s be clear: some Asian men have committed horrific sexual offences against children.The offenders we’ve seen on the news are real & they are certainly not the only ones.I’m not downplaying their vile crimes or the harms caused.I truly mean no disrespect to survivors.2/
I understand the anger, upset & outrage about “grooming gangs”. I don’t have lived experience of child sexual exploitation (CSE). I don’t have all the answers. But what I do know very well is research - & specifically around CSE (bit.ly/2ER2Uox). 3/
@QuilliamOrg ‘s shoddy “research” & dubious claims of “conclusively irrefutable” overrepresentation of Asian offenders have been promoted heavily, reported widely,cited uncritically & used to legitimise both casual racism & far-right activity. It’s time to call them to account.4/
I know many dislike the term ‘Asian’, but I use it here because it’s what is captured as standard in police & court statistics (national background & religion aren’t). Also, not all ‘Asian groomers’ were Pakistani heritage. 5/
My analysis in this thread is based on the contents of the report: I can only address what is publicly available. According to @MatthewStadlen & others @QuilliamOrg haven't responded to criticisms of the report. They appear to be standing by it. 6/ 
The @QuilliamOrg report begins by positioning the authors as the voice of reason from within the British Pakistani community. That’s fine: my concerns are about quality, not identity. But coming from a certain community cannot be a shield from valid criticism. 7/
From start to finish, the report is a case study in #badscience. That matters because bad science makes for bad decisions. These “data” are people & misrepresenting them can cause real harms. 8/
Despite its many flaws, the report is presented as “academic” & “evidence-based”, which exaggerates its credibility & gives readers false confidence. 9/
The report claims “every attempt” was made “to ensure the integrity of the information.” This claim is untrue. Peer review is the obvious way to assure quality. In any case, the report is so flawed in so many other ways that it clearly lacks “integrity”. 10/
Research ought to include a declaration of funding source & any conflicts of interest. We do so because a lung cancer study funded by a tobacco firm, say, should be scrutinised extra closely. This report contains no such information. 11/
Coverage of Quilliam’s funders & alliances gives me cause for concern.I also see potential conflict of interest: the more “grooming gangs” are seen as a Muslim problem,the more a “counter-extremism” think-tank stands to gain. (bit.ly/2QdeyeC ; bit.ly/2AGH8Qg)12/
The report makes sweeping, exaggerated claims of the type rarely heard from credible researchers. For example, it begins by seeking to “definitively demonstrate” whether certain groups are overrepresented & concludes that the findings are “conclusively irrefutable”. 13/
There are numerous examples of unsubstantiated, misleading, misattributed, misinterpreted and/or untrue information running through @QuilliamOrg 's report. 14/
There is also a glaring lack of transparency. We need precise definitions & methods to assess how reliable the results are, how far they can be generalised & what biases they may contain. That information lets us decide on trustworthiness. 15/
Despite claiming to “maintain transparency”, the @QuilliamOrg report tells us virtually nothing about its methods beyond the vague & effectively meaningless assertion that “extensive data mining methods” were used. 16/
The report claims to offer a “comprehensive data analysis of all group child-sex offences committed in the United Kingdom over a period of 12 years.” It provides nothing of the sort. “Comprehensive” means full coverage. 17/
The report is also full of contradictions, again undermining its credibility. For example, the data are described at several points as “not comprehensive”. How could it possibly offer “comprehensive data analysis” then? It simply can’t. 18/
Neither “grooming gang” nor “CSE” offences exist in law. Both terms are broad umbrella concepts covering numerous specific offences (e.g. rape). Many such offences are also used in incidents not seen as “CSE”. (see, e.g., bit.ly/2q7WLKq). 19/
The terms are broad, unclear & open to differences in interpretation & application. The absence of a specific legal offence or clear & effective definition of “group-based CSE” or “grooming gangs” means these issues are virtually impossible to measure reliably & at scale. 20/
The report from @QuilliamOrg gives three names for the “specific crime profile” it investigates: “’grooming gang’ offences”, “group-based localised street grooming of young girls” and “all group child-sex offences”. 21/
Does the report cover “all group child-sex offences” as claimed? No, absolutely not. For a start, it's also very difficult to disentangle at scale group-offences from solo-offences from standard national datasets like police or court records. 22/
The mention of a “lack of publicly available official data” suggests @QuilliamOrg had no access to such datasets anyway. 23/
The report's claim that “grooming gangs are distinctly divorced from individual CSE offenders” is untrue. My own research in this field shows people can & do offend both alone & in groups (same is true of research on many other crimes) (bit.ly/2xwzYyz). 24/
Elsewhere, the report claims to analyse the “specific crime profile” of “grooming gang offenders”. Since there is no such agreed “specific crime profile”, @QuilliamOrg would need to come up with a useable research definition of their own. 25/ (Continued in second thread)
Here are links to the rest of the threads:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
