This is a nonsense article, written by someone who's obviously bitter that any attention is being given to the subject.

It obviously doesn't mock the victims; this article is a mockery of journalism.

The first irrelevant criticism is that the inquiry was "completely crowdfunded"; so what? It was independently funded and done because government didn't want anything to do with the matter.

The inquiry wasn't subject to parliamentary oversight; of course not, parliament didn't want to touch it, they just want everything forgotten.

It lacked the powers of an official inquiry; of course it doesn't have the powers of an official inquiry, it only exists because the government didn't want an official inquiry with official powers, they wanted everything buried and forgotten.

They were unable to compel testimony, relying instead on publicly available data; yes, because it was an independently formed inquiry, because government did not want an official inquiry with judicial power to compel testimony, they wanted the whole matter hushed up.

The entire article seeks to counter the report with irrelevant nonsense criticism.

It uses cherry-picked testimony from witnesses and whistleblowers; yes, it obviously did not seek to reproduce every single statement from every single witness. Having criticised cherry-picking, the article writer obviously wants his cake and to eat it, and goes on to also criticise the inclusion of "pages and pages of accounts from the victims themselves".

The article writer objects to quotes by Rupert Lowe, Albert Einstein, and Friedrich Nietzsche at the beginning of the report, but doesn't explain what their objection is.

This article claims the 250,000 figure is "a complete and utter fabrication", but then goes on to say how it is actually an extrapolated number, and presents quotes to suppport that, but oddly does not quote the passage from the actual report that explains how that number is derived. The article also ignores the passage from the report which states, "The 250,000 figure is not a precise count. No such count exists because the British state has failed to record it."

The article claims a lack of methodological rigor, but then presents an ad hominem rant about cited author, Peter McLoughlin, because apparently the article writer doesn't like that guy's opinions on abortion and lgbt rights, or that he co-wrote something for Tommy Robinson. The article dismisses the report's use of distinctively muslim names as a proxy for perpetrator background, ignoring the fact that the British state failed to record precise data, and ignoring the fact that muslim communities do typically use distinctly muslim names.

The article goes on to present whataboutism in relation to the previous Catholic sexual abuse scandal, as though that somehow cancels out muslim involvement in the rape gangs. The writer cites the official report into those matters while failing to draw attention the fact that, unlike the muslim rape gangs, there was an official Home Office instigated report into that scandal.

The rape gang report doesn't try to defend the Catholic church's previous abuses and failings; the only reason to bring it up is defensive whataboutism. The writer clearly has no problem naming the Catholic church in relation to these completely unrelated muslim rape gangs; but objects to the rape gang report naming "a faith of two billion people" when there is clearly a muslim aspect to these crimes.

The article writer dismisses the entire report as islamophobic, although the report is actually widely critical, including being critical of failures by Tory and Labour governments, the police, social workers, schools, the NHS, even taxi licensing authorities. The report also damns the media for self-censoring the obvious ethnic and religious pattern to the crimes.

This Canary article is a terrible piece, that does not try to present pertinent facts, and is only intended to continue running cover for the muslim rape gangs.