An opinion piece in The Telegraph on 23 October 2025 by Hardeep Singh claimed that offenders in grooming gangs in Britain are "mainly Pakistani Muslim men" and that this "truth" has been suppressed by political correctness. Yet, the weight of independent, official analysis shows this claim cannot be supported by the available evidence-and worse, it risks turning a grave safeguarding crisis into a mirror for racial scapegoating.

Most critically, data on the ethnicity of perpetrators committing group-based CSE is deeply incomplete at a national level. Indeed, as recently as June 2025, it was learned through the national audit led by Baroness Louise Casey that for two-thirds of the perpetrators, ethnicity is simply not recorded. The same point has been conceded by the Home Secretary in Parliament: "with 66% missing ethnicity data or any statements about offender ethnicity cannot be responsibly made." That fact alone undermines any claim that a specific ethnic or religious group "dominates" grooming-gang offending.

When we look at the more reliable data, however, it does not support Singh's headline. The NPCC reported in January 2025 that, of group-based child abuse offences where ethnicity was identified, around 85% of suspects were white men in the first nine months of 2024. A Home Office literature review of about 4,000 offenders, published in 2020, gave the following figures: 42% White or White British; 17% Black or Black British; 14% Asian or Asian British; and 22% no recorded ethnicity. The Home Office noted that because of limitations to the data, "it is difficult to draw conclusions about the ethnicity of offenders".

What does seem to be the case, however, is that high-profile local clusters-for example, in Rotherham and Rochdale, and other parts of Yorkshire and the North West-implicated men of South Asian origin, and more specifically, Pakistani heritage. But local clusters are not national trends. The Casey audit itself warns, "We cannot use local force data for three forces to assert a national profile of offenders." The decision to narrow the issue down from "Asian grooming gangs" to "Pakistani Muslim men" is a striking rhetorical shift-one that places nationality and religion at the heart of the analysis rather than structural failure. That narrowing finds no support in national data. Indeed, emphasizing Pakistani Muslim identity overlooks how many offenders are British-born and shares the risk of stigmatizing an entire community.

The danger is real: by shifting the frame from institutional failure to communal blame, reporting like Singh's diverts public anger over failures of policing, data systems, and victim support onto a minority group. Experts like Ella Cockbain, a criminologist at University College London, say an over-focus on ethnicity distorts policy, weakens prevention efforts, alienates victims, and undermines co-operation with the affected communities. The wider picture is this: group-based CSE accounts for only about 5% of all child sexual abuse offenses. The vast bulk of child sexual abuse in the UK stems from family members, institutions, or individual perpetrators, overwhelmingly white and often with poor or non-existent ethnicity data. Public discussion that treats the operation of grooming gangs as a "Pakistani Muslim" crisis distorts reality. But there is also a principled question of fairness and social cohesion at play.

British citizens of Pakistani heritage are a small proportion of the population, yet bear the weight of this debate disproportionately. Painting grooming crime as essentially some sort of "Pakistani Muslim crisis" risks fueling Islamophobia, deepening alienation, and discouraging victim reporting amongst minority communities. It converts legitimate safeguarding into a culture war. Yet, the focus on ethnicity obscures what truly matters: institutional failure. The Casey audit describes a decades-long culture of "blindness, ignorance, defensiveness even good but misdirected intentions" that allowed abuse to persist. Poor data collection, inconsistent policing responses, and failure to join up victim support networks are repeatedly cited as the real crisis behind grooming gangs. Not the religion or ethnicity of the offender.

The media, opinion columns, in particular, have a responsibility here. Sensationalist narratives build clicks but they also build public perception and policy. A narrow headline in the Telegraph might fire up a debate, but if it is not grounded in certified evidence, it risks misleading the public and fanning the flames of division. Urgency and accuracy ought to balance in the duty of the press: report on victims and institutions, not scapegoats. In conclusion, the United Kingdom faces a serious safeguarding challenge. That challenge demands transparency, reliable data, and reform. But it also demands that we do not substitute fact with ideology. The data just cannot support the claim that most grooming-gang offenders are Pakistani Muslim men. And until we have accurate and complete national statistics, including ethnicity and religious background-, making sweeping statements about any community is not only irresponsible but also undermines the fight against child exploitation. If we are serious about child protection, the way ahead lies through stringent institutional reform, victim-centered policing, and sensitive public debate-not in naming whole communities as the problem. The story of grooming gangs is too serious for simplistic narratives.

Ali Mehar is a student of BS International Relations at Quaid e Azam University. He can be reached at @ alimeharmail50@gmail.com