THREAD (PART 2 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/
The report’s own definition of “this specific crime profile” is far from specific. The two supposed “distinguishing factors” could and do apply to numerous forms of child sex abuse: “typical grooming techniques” & groups of two or more offenders. 2/
Were crimes against male victims included in the analysis? If not, why not? What about abusers operating online, in schools, places of worship, sports clubs etc? We know from elsewhere that grooming & group abuse happen in these contexts too. 3/
If these contexts were included, @QuilliamOrg 's final numbers seem very low. I suspect they were excluded. Their inclusion could have dramatically altered the results. 4/
Where did @QuilliamOrg get their data from? Strangely, the source of the data is never stated. I’m guessing their data came from a search of news coverage. 5/
Court records are briefly mentioned. Failure to mention relevant evidence from court that counters @QuilliamOrg ‘s key arguments indicates court documents were used highly selectively – if at all. 6/
Perhaps @QuilliamOrg searched a database of news to ensure their “comprehensive” (or was it “not comprehensive”?) coverage. If they didn’t, why not? To be reliable, research like this requires a systematic search strategy. 7/
If they did search a database(s), which one(s) & with which search term(s)? Search terms affect what results you get. Relying heavily on something like “grooming gangs” would be a poor choice given its obvious racial connotations. 8/
If @QuilliamOrg searched the press, which titles did they include: local/national/international; broadsheet/tabloid; which political leaning? All these factors help us understand how the data were identified & what biases they may contain. 9/
How did they decide which of the cases they found to include in their final data (sample)? Specific inclusion parameters let you filter out irrelevant results consistently. Without a precise definition, it is hard to have robust parameters. 10/
Could @QuilliamOrg really have assessed reliably from media coverage, say, whether these elusive “typical grooming techniques” necessary for inclusion had indeed been used by the offenders in question? I’m not convinced. 11/
Since the report neither properly reveals its methods nor lists all the cases included, its approach cannot be verified or replicated. This secrecy is odd since the data seem to come from open sources: they aren’t ‘sensitive’ in the standard sense. 12/
Of course, the data may be commercially sensitive if they expose flaws in the approach. Were the search & inclusion parameters adjusted to influence the outcome? If true, this would be very bad practice. 13/
Somehow – in a way impossible to assess from reading this “academic” report – @QuilliamOrg identified 264 offenders across a total of 58 cases. 14/
The report claims to address whether one ethnic, racial or religious group is “disproportionately represented”. Its statistical analysis is nothing more than a basic counting exercise. The analysis covers the 264 offenders’ ethnicity but neither their race nor religion. 15/
The admission of “imprecise ethnicity descriptors” raises questions about how valid even these ethnicity-related results really are. Did @QuilliamOrg simply guess based on names & pictures? 16/
Without consistent information on religion & heritage, how did they make the leap to claim that the “over-representation of Asian-ethnicity (predominantly British Pakistani origin) individuals in this specific crime profile is conclusively irrefutable”? 17/
The report claims that “the Asian male/white female, perpetrator-victim dynamic is the undeniable prominent feature.” But their data analysis didn’t actually cover victims’ characteristics, so how can such a claim be justified? 18/
Another specific claim is particularly problematic: “all of the victims who have come forward so far & revealed their identity have been white”. From the 10 case studies, I can see that @QuilliamOrg ‘s sample includes a case in Derby. 19/
I know this case very well from my own research. I know that eight of the brave young women who testified as victims were minority ethnicity (Black & Asian heritage). To deny their existence so categorically is not just untrue but deeply insulting. (bit.ly/2xwzYyz) 20/
Supposedly, “racial difference is highlighted through repeated reference to the ‘whiteness’ of the victims”. In fact, relevant such evidence is given for just one offender. Apparently generalising from less than 0.4% of the overall sample is highly suspect. 21/
Why not provide more evidence support this central claim? The two other examples given were not comments from an offender to his victim but remarks made in very different contexts, including to a ticket inspector. Such information is not relevant & its inclusion is misleading.22/
Despite evidence even of correlation being so woefully limited, the report goes on to claim a causal relationship: “white girls are targeted because they are seen as easy targets that are open to sexual relationships with a little persuasion.” 23/
The report discusses offenders’ “dysfunctional view of women, relationships & sex”, but provides no evidence as to how such insights were derived. Again, I question how such information was reliably obtained from the mysterious sources. 24/
While the report claims to detail “all possible caveats relating to the accuracy of the data”, this assertion is patently untrue. Serious concerns about transparency aside, this section overlooks major sources of bias. /25 (Continued in third thread)
Here are the links to the other threads:
Part 3:
Part 4:
(Back to Part 1: )
Part 3:
Part 4:
(Back to Part 1: )
