Sex scandals, like bad takeaway, appear to travel remarkably well. They cross borders, ignore customs checks, and land with equal enthusiasm on both sides of the Atlantic. The only real difference is the accent of the denial and the quality of the lawyer retained to say “nothing to see here.”
In Britain, the far and extreme right have helpfully reduced the complex horror of the Rotherham and Rochdale abuse scandals into a children’s colouring book: Bad Men = Muslim, Pakistani; Victims = White, Young, Vulnerable. Crayons optional, outrage mandatory. Structural failure? Institutional neglect? Police indifference? Social services asleep at the wheel? No, no—far too boring. Much easier to blame a faith, a nationality, and then go home feeling like you’ve solved crime itself.
Across the Atlantic (and occasionally on a private jet with tinted windows), we have the Jeffrey Epstein saga. Same grim ingredients: young, vulnerable girls; powerful abusers; years of silence; institutions that looked the other way. But here, the offenders are white, wealthy, well-heeled, and impeccably networked—Christian by background, Zionist by politics, and allergic to consequences. Suddenly, the loud moral megaphone develops a fault.
Now comes the fun question. If we are to apply the Daily Mail School of Criminology consistently, should we reframe Epstein as a “white Christian Zionist grooming gang”? Should Fox News run rolling banners warning parents about hedge-fund managers near schools? Should airports introduce a special queue marked Billionaires With Islands?
Of course not. That would be absurd. And also accurate—using exactly the same lazy, prejudiced logic previously deployed with such enthusiasm.
Because here’s the boring truth everyone hates: crime does not have a passport, a religion, or a skin tone. What it does have—reliably—is power. Power to silence victims. Power to intimidate institutions. Power to buy time, lawyers, and occasionally a suspiciously lenient plea deal that smells faintly of sulphur.
In Britain, abused girls were ignored because they were poor, working-class, and inconvenient. In America, abused girls were ignored because their abuser was rich, connected, and very useful to know. Different accents, same disgrace.
The ethnicity and hue of offenders are relevant only to those who need a wedge issue to keep the public arguing sideways instead of looking up. Divide and rule works best when people are shouting at each other about skin colour while predators quietly exchange Christmas cards with prosecutors.
So no, the lesson of Epstein is not that white men are inherently monstrous, any more than Rotherham proves that Muslims are. The real lesson—deeply unfashionable, tragically un-retweetable—is that abuse flourishes wherever society decides some victims matter less than some offenders.
But that doesn’t fit on a placard, does it? And it certainly doesn’t get you invited onto GB News.
Centre for Nigeria Progress 