I do understand your point. ‘Asian’ is Brit speak for what might be more accurately termed ‘South Asian’ or would likely have been called ‘Indian’ before 1948. I think many here are comparing the British press’s use of ‘Asian’ to the American press’s use of ‘teen’. Everyone knows what a large group of ‘teens’ rampaging through a mall really is.
Does Britain suffer from a large number Hindu (or Christian Arab) rape gangs?
I understand this is the common usage, but that is no reason not to object.
One can't see they are Asians.
One reason why unknown numbers of Libyans, Bosniaks, Chechens, Pakistanis, etc.--- and that comprises Africans, Europeans, and Asians --- are slipping over the U.S. southwest border and disappearing into the U.S., is that they are Muslims AND that they can't be visually distinguished from Mexicans, Salvadorans, Nicaraguans and Guatemalans. Put on a jacket with Lindo Michoacan embroidered across the back and have him say his name is Flaco, and as Joe Biden would say, "Bienvenidos, hermanos, we're all Amerians here."
These particular people I'm talking about are not Asians and not distinguishable from other immigrants by their appearance. They're coming because they're Muslims and it's a safe bet they want to wreak havoc.
It would be seven kinds of stupid to call them Asians. The relevant detail, what gives them an operative characteristic in common, is that they are Muslims.
You seem to be willfully missing the point that the use of the term “Asian” is a deliberate obfuscation meant to remove the ideology from the information; but it is a cover-up that tars all other Asians with the muslim practice of rape-jihad.