This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Saturday, 6 September 2014

Gordon Jelley: the SWP's Rotherham social worker on Muslim sex-grooming gangs


rotherham-gordon-jelley
Gordon Jelley


Gordon Jelley was one of the Rotherham social workers – a member of the UK’s Socialist Workers Party (SWP) – who would have been partly responsible for the lack of action on Muslim grooming-gangs in that town.


This social worker is himself guilty.


It would have been Jelley – and people like him – who accused the police, council workers, etc. of being “racist” or “Islamophobic” when they wanted to take action against Muslim groomers.


It was people like him that sent whistle-blowers on “diversity re-education courses” when they brought to light the extent of Muslim grooming-gangs in Rotherham.


This is about what people like Gordon Jelley and other Trotskyists did in Rotherham council.


This is how Leftist ideology had a major and direct impact on the continuing abuse of hundreds of girls.


These social workers, council workers, etc. are guilty. And so is their ideology.



10502520_10204427550956193_4681279028998586991_n
The front page of Socialist Worker, the website publication of the revolutionary Trotskyist group, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).


Gordon Jelley, according to Socialist Worker (in the article Rotherham child abuse – blame cops and the cuts, not political correctness’), “worked as a training officer for social workers in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, between 2005 and 2009”.


What it doesn’t also tell you is that he’s also a member of the SWP. In fact Gordon Jelley writes for Socialist Worker and Socialist Review. (Both are SWP publications. Here is Jelley writing about a book called Radical Social Work Today.) He also wrote for Socialist Worker as a “Rotherham local government officer for Unison”. And here’s his Twitter page (lots of stuff about Palestine and he has some well-known friends).


The Socialist Worker website often interviews people who – seemingly – are bystanders or workers in the field. It fails to mention that they are Trotskyist supporters or workers for the SWP. I doubt that the SWP - being so ideologically narrow and rigid - would ever quote any non-Trotskyist in full.


You could tell straight away that Gordon Jelley was SWP by the way he puts his position. It’s pure Dave Spart. Pure SWP. And then I checked his details. And I was right.


In fact Gordon Jelley is such an hardcore Trot that he doesn’t even blame “the Tories”. He blames New Labour. That is, he blames capitalism.


He writes: “The council was under the cosh from New Labour targets after it failed an inspection.” (Mr Jelley worked as a  “training officer for social workers” in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009.)


Since Islamic sexual slavery – and the mass rape of kuffar females – has been happening for 1,400 years in the Muslim world, it’s strange that the SWP blames capitalism for the existence of Muslim grooming-gangs…. No it’s not! The SWP blames all wrongs on capitalism – quite literally! It blames capitalism for war, racism, sexism, global warming, the buses being late, cancer…. and, now, Muslim grooming-gangs.


The SWP’s position is Manicheanism at its most pure. A Manicheanism in which everything capitalist is bad (evil) and everything non-capitalist is good. (Those good non-capitalist and non-white things include Muslim grooming gangs, Islamic terrorists, Islamic misogynists, brown and black racists, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, Iran, etc.)


Gordon Jelley also says that “[s]ocial workers had high caseloads”. Thus it follows, to him, that “[t]hey can be less likely to want to take on abuse cases because they know that comes with a heap of work they don’t have time for”.


The solution to that would have been very simple.


Social workers should have taken on the Muslim-abuse cases and jettisoned some of the others.


Why did these social workers have time for this other stuff and not for the systematic and widespread abuse of young girls? If Jelley is talking about “paperwork” here, then that may make what he’s saying a little better. But I doubt he’s only talking about paperwork. These other cases and time-consuming activities would have included making sure supporters of Ukip couldn’t adopt children (which happened in Rotherham), “racial awareness classes”, “diversity training”, action against “the far right”, “sensitivity training”, classes in social work (given by Leftist academics like, well, Gordon Jelley), lessons in Urdu and whatnot.


Political Correctness?



Gordon Jelley doesn’t say that he agrees with political correctness. He says that it didn’t so much as exist in Rotherham when he worked there.


Socialist Worker quotes him as saying that “[m]uch of the press—and many politicians—have claimed that ‘political correctness’ stopped the authorities taking action over the abuse”.


However, the SWP goes on to say that there is “no evidence of workers changing their behaviour due to considerations about the ethnicity of suspected abusers”…. Except that many people - including police officers, councillors, MPS, local residents, etc. - have said precisely that. And despite that evidence, this Trotskyist website then quotes Gordon Jelley as saying that “the idea of police worrying about offending Asian people was ‘like turning the world upside down’”.


Well, a political party (the SWP) which believes that political correctness has never gone far enough would say that. And since he mentions the police, members of the police – to repeat – have said that they were worried about “offending Asian people”. And they were worried because people like Gordon Jelley would have accused them of “racism” and “Islamophobia” if they tackled the Muslim grooming-gangs.


You see the Trotskyist permanent revolution hasn’t gone far enough for Gordon Jelley. And that’s why he still doesn’t see any of this as having anything to do with political (Trotskyist) correctness.


Jimmy Savile



Socialist Worker then goes ahead and makes an obscene point that even it must know is flawed to its very core. Like Slavoj Zizek’s recent article in The Guardian (that “Leftist herd of independent minds”), it says:


He [Gordon Jelley] pointed out that there are no demands on white ‘community leaders’ to condemn abuse when Jimmy Savile or other white abusers are discussed.

That’s because Jimmy Savile was a sex-abuser, not a racist. He didn’t single out Muslim or brown-skinned girls to abuse. The Muslim groomers, on the other hand, did single out white girls to abuse – specifically. Nor was Jimmy Savile expressing the traditions and values of his community, as the Pakistani Muslim groomers have done. Not only that: the Savile case has been extensively covered in the press. And that is something which the SWP doesn’t like when the criminals and abusers have brown skins. (Such is the deep-seated racism of the Trotskyist Left.) In addition, there weren’t dozens of gangs of Jimmy Saviles which all belonged to the same communities – brothers, cousins, uncles, mosque friends, next-door-neighbours, etc. – and which systemically abused members of other communities without the authorities doing a thing about it.


Conclusion



Gordon Jelley was a “training officer” for social workers in Rotherham between 2005 and 2009 . Thus it can be argued that he and his type are more guilty than almost anyone else for what happened in that town. After all, the police, councillors, other social workers, etc. would have taken advice from him and from people just like him.

3 comments:

  1. WAS IT WHITE GIRLS TRAFFICKED FROM MUSLIM PIMPS RECRUITED IN ROTHERHAM GIVEN TO SWP THAT SWP THEN RAPED, HENCE WHY THEY KEEP SAYING ITS NOT JUST MUSLIMS WHO ARE GUILTY? JUST ASKING? GETTING MIXED UP HOW THEY GET GIRL RECRUITS, WHY KEEP COVERING UP NONCES AND RAPIST OR IS IT HE IS A SOCIAL WORKER AND HIS TRAINING WAS FIRST HAND FROM PETER RIGHTON, RIGHT AGE GROUP?

    ReplyDelete
  2. bit mixed up do SWP only support muslim peadophiles, or are they into equality support white peados black peado so etc

    ReplyDelete
  3. capitalism for the existence of Muslim grooming-gangs its a embarresement. peter righton peado socialwoker abused boys because of captialist state not paying him enough above his already massive salary.so he was compelled to do it.for lack of money?. or is he losely implying than men oppress women when there is lack of money. or is that always the relevant or just swp, NOW did swp suppress women rape victims in swp because of capitilism? whatever therereason they are flinging racist slur to tarnish victims to opressthem further i believe its women girls children women care role they do not support feminism in any form any women is called feminist if she wants have control over her body mind. poor white working class girls children victim of swp race hate. its socialist version of keeping money male ethnic preference that support ther agenda to include gay males in that priority over women and children maternity maternal role whether socialist or rightwing maternity is a privleged role women exclusive that they cannot replicate it without us its a grudging acceptance by those sort of men, sums up support of those victims its grudgingly given, but not sincere to those girls its obvious they would of covered up indefinately callling them racist to keep them as rape victims muslim males preference in swp.

    ReplyDelete