On Wednesday our front page featured a story about the findings of the serious case review (SCR) into a child-abuse network in Oxfordshire. The headline, “Muslim sex grooming: call for national debate”, gave rise to a substantial postbag, ranging from the thoughtful to the formulaic and the downright fatuous.
The SCR made three main recommendations. The first two suggested scrutiny of the guidance relating to children at risk and the age of consent. The third read: “With a significant proportion of those found guilty nationally of group CSE [child sexual exploitation] being from a Pakistani and/or Muslim heritage, relevant government departments should research why this is the case, in order to guide prevention strategies.”
The Times chief investigative reporter, Andrew Norfolk, named journalist of the year at the 2014 British Journalism Awards for his pioneering work in this area, says, “To my knowledge this is the first time such a report has mentioned religion”.
When patterns began to emerge around street grooming by gangs of men in Rochdale, Rotherham, Bristol and elsewhere, the blanket term “Asian” for the majority of the offenders, proved inadequate and offensive, a point made by Sikh leaders in their letter published on Thursday. The alternatives, “of Pakistani heritage” or “Pakistani origin”, had their own problems. The suggestion by the SCR that faith groups and others should look at why perpetrators of this specific crime come from “a mainly Muslim culture” has proved even more controversial.
Most of the emails we received were adapted from a template provided mend.org.uk (Muslim Engagement and Development). The fact that they were repeating a formula did not, in many cases, conceal that there was genuine concern or hurt, on the part of those who sent them, at seeing the headline without the context of the rest of the story.
Advertisement
Nothing in our report or the SCR had, of course, suggested that anything about the behaviour of these criminals was endorsed by Islam. Imran Mohammad, however, in his email of complaint, said that linking Muslim with sex grooming in our headline was “deeply offensive. The behaviour of these criminals was clearly not inspired by their being Muslims, rather it was because they were not Muslim enough. There is no evidence that the apparent Muslim identity of these criminals contributed to their behaviour.” Our report, he said, “pandered to extreme right wing prejudice and will only serve to further alienate an entire community.”
Another correspondent asked: “When was the last time you mentioned a Christian p a edophile or a Jewish tax evader?”
Well, it depends if the religion is relevant. With child-abusing clerics, it’s safe to assume that “Catholic” or “CofE” will appear in the headline, and similarly when the SCR specifically cites “a mainly Muslim culture”. But I don’t think religion has ever mattered to tax evasion.
Bog-standard query
Advertisement
Here’s a question from Marion Witton: “Ann Treneman used the term ‘Bog Standard’ in a derogatory way in one of her columns, whereas I understood the term to have been derived from ‘British Or German Standard’ in engineering terms for something produced of a high standard that can be relied upon. I wondered whether any engineer readers could advise if this is correct?”
John Gilbert from Cheam, Surrey, wrote, in patriotic vein, “How pleasing to see Matthew Parris use the word ‘bottom’ and not ‘ass’. If the good old English word ‘arse’ is considered too vulgar, use ‘bottom’, or ‘bum’ if wanting to be a bit more colloquial, but leave donkeys alone.”
After our story about the book that helped Henry VIII get his annulment from Catherine of Aragon, Nicholas Riall from Corsham, or perhaps, Korsham, wrote: “An interesting piece, but why does The Times insist on spelling her name with a C? If you look at the tournament roll for 1511 that celebrated the birth of their short-lived first son, it can be seen that the initials of the royal couple are frequently displayed as H and K. There are plenty of other examples. Could not The Times render use its proper spelling, with a K not a C?”
I’m not sure, but the style guide has the gnomic advice: “Catherine, one of those names that should always be checked: Catharine, Katherine, Katharine, Kathryn, etc, are all possible.” A remninder to check tournament rolls from now on.
Lesser evil
Advertisement
There might have been a case for including “Christian” in our headline, “Malcolm Muggeridge was ‘incontinent groper’, says historian”, but Katy Gray, from Hove, had a different bone to pick. The Catholic convert, media pundit and moral campaigner is alleged to have “groped incontinently” in his days at the BBC.
“When I was at school,” Ms Gray writes, “‘groped incontinently’ would not have been understood as meaning the same as ‘incontinent groper’. I would understand the first as ‘groped incessantly or uncontrollably’ and the second is descriptive of a physical infirmity. Am I wrong?” Probably not, and I’m not sure which spectre is worse.