"20 years ago England tossed women in jail after they got assaulted?
“A British woman, who was the victim of a serious assault that left her hospitalised, is now being convicted of a hate crime because she used the F word, a slur, to describe her attacker,”

20 years ago hundreds of young girls in Rotherham were sexually abused by grooming gangs of predominantly Pakistani men"?

Although I guess Paris had no-go zones (arrondissements) even 20 years ago. France should have walked away from Algeria and shut the door.
"

Yes, I am fairly sure 20 years ago some woman somewhere in England was assaulted. I am also sure 20 years ago some young girls somewhere in Rotherham were sexually abused.

The actual incidents that you discuss indicate very clearly where you get your information from and it is a very poor source. It takes advantage of you and makes you look silly. They like to take isolated incidents and make it look like it is the norm when it comes to immigrants. It is good for scaring the sheeple.

For example, look at the incident of the shooting of the national guard soldiers in Washington. One Afghani (who risked his life for the U.S.) suffers from mental problems (which is not uncommon on those exposed to the horror of combat) and crazily shoots the soldiers. So now your sources of information use it to attack 300,000 plus Afghanis living in the U.S. who have done nothing wrong. It is called painting with a broad brush. Yet oddly enough, when a Caucasian American soldier suffers from mental problems and shoots up someone, the sources of information you regularly use don't use it to paint all Caucasians or all soldiers.

Your sources are very good at feeding on your fears and biases.

Speaking of sexual abuse. There was a Caucasian billionaire who regularly sexually abused women. That means we should worry about all Caucasian billionaires abusing women right?