Rape Gang Enquiry First Public Hearing

Just sharing the link to Julie's interview with Winston Marshall.
https://x.com/i/status/2023523017985585457

“We sacrificed 100,000+ girls in the name of multiculturalism”

Investigative journalist Julie Bindel (@bindelj) sits down for a forensic and disturbing conversation on organised child sexual exploitation and institutional failure in Britain.

We discuss the recent r*pe gang inquiry currently taking place, and new details about how these gangs weren’t just operating in Britain but were trafficking internationally…

Podcast out now on all platforms | Links in replies
https://x.com/i/status/2023523015464538503

Julie Bindel is a legend and a true feminist.

No true feminist turns their back on these women.

Also, she's a seasoned and highly successful journalist so if she's not worried about the 'legal implications' of letting survivors of grooming gangs speak, nor the Telegraph legal team who published an article of hers from a few days ago, I'm going to assume it's the same cover up bullshit as usual when people say this.

I mean a KC is involved in the inquiry - you don't get to be a KC easily. Pretty sure he'll have a better idea of the legalities than any journalist.

The problem we have, and the reason people are so angry, is that the criminals are in charge and it's the criminals who are covering this up. Bring on the prosecutions.

Good on Julie.

I've seen Julie Bindel retweeting Rupert Lowe along with clips of rape gang survivors speaking at the inquiry. That's in addition to the podcast she made with Fiona Goddard.

I'm going to take a wild punt that Julie doesn't share Rupert Lowe's political leanings but that she believes this is bigger and more important. I'm inclined to agree.

This is exactly how I feel. Well said.

I agree Julie Bindel is great. I know her fairly well. She has spent her entire career talking about this stuff… in the mainstream media.
She struggled to get anything published on the topic for several years. She took it to the Guardian who told her 'Oh, no, we can't - it would be racist'.

How do I know? Because about 10 minutes ago I finished listening to her podcast discussion on this issue with Winston Marshall which lasted over an hour. If they can talk about it for an hour, the bloody BBC can run a 3 minute story.

I said, on repeat, for years, that the mainstream parties etc etc NOT dealing with issues like this would ultimately be an absolute gift for right wingers, anti-immigrant groups etc etc. And oh look, that is just what has happened...

And we've STILL got people saying, 'Oh, this inquiry is questionable, it's all political posturing, ooh Rupert Lowe, he's a racist!'
FML.
What are people in working class communities - or indeed any communities - which been vulnerable to issues like this - now going to think? 'Oh, so dealing with Pakistani rape gangs makes him a racist? Well, I no longer give a fuck, because nobody else had the bottle to do this.'

Well played, liberal Britain. Well fucking played.

NB Lowe is all over FB. I see it, because I'm not a political snob and I don't live on a little social island with people just like me, and I know a bloke who is probably a Reform or Restore Britain voter who gets very exercised about all of this. So the algorithm sees me read his posts, and pushes Rupert Lowe at me. If I'm seeing it, lots and lots and lots of other people will be seeing it, MSM reporting it or not.

And if I sound ragingly angry, that would be because I am. How angry the people must feel who have suffered because of this, I cannot begin to imagine.

Even if they do agree with his politics, it doesn’t detract from the awfulness of their experiences or the massive wrongs that have happened. Many people in the country share those views after all. Justice isn’t only for Guardian readers, as some people appear to think.

Agree with this. It would be nice at least if when ignoring it people could put their politics aside and not be so fucking dismissive of the bravery of these women.

Julie Bindel's reporting in the telegraph recently (on her podcast with Fiona Goddard) corroborating reports of one of the main findings of the rape gang inquiry - the trafficking of UK children to Pakistan.

I doubt she has anything much in common politically with Lowe but doesn't let that divert her humanity and ability to focus on what's important.

If you know Julie Bindel why do you think as a journalist she is involved with the Inquiry if it's such a hot potato?

No one has been identified in these hearings I think the lawyers involved know the law.
It's interesting to see your complete lack of interest in the victims testimony.

There is nothing in the Indian news report that could lead to an individual being named.

It is snobbish to suggest women who've freely agreed to speak are being exploited by Lowe, it places them as lesser, unable to make up their own minds. Easily manipulated. How condescending. You can see the full picture and that Lowe's manipulating them but they can't? Why not, because they're stupider? Why can you see it and they can't?

Just because they're speaking up doesn't mean they agree with his politics, maybe this is the only option available right now and something is better than the nothing they've got until now.

And they are being let down. There is literally no reason msm can't cover the MPs and expert witnesses attending, give an outline of what's being covered and next steps AND contrast with Government foot dragging. None of that gets within a mile of naming any individual.

Maybe a profile on the KC involved.

I can think of about 20 angles for reporting that are in the public interest but don't go into details at all.

You have zero knowledge of how defamation works. Nobody has to be named for a successful defamation claim. They just have to be able to be identified by one other person as the person being accused. Just one.

Foreign media are reporting it because they are outside the jurisdiction of UK courts.

I agree Julie Bindel is great. I know her fairly well. She has spent her entire career talking about this stuff… in the mainstream media.

Calling me snobbish is a complete joke. I grew up in a chaotic household in absolute poverty and have scrapped my way to where I am now. I was sexually assaulted as a child on multiple occasions. So you can absolutely fuck off with your assumptions about my
viewpoint on this.

No-one has been named. Lawyers have been present every day.

You're talking bollocks.

The things that have been discussed are general e.g. that victims were trafficked to Pakistan. There is a letter from an MP to the Home secretary that could be reported on.

No-one else is reporting it in our cosy cover up club of people who don't care about thousands of raped children is not a great argument.

Indian news is reporting it I suggest you look at the video up thread because you might learn something. No-one's named, footage of House of Commons discussion, reporter asks pointed questions about the mystical Government enquiry.

Your words are incredibly snobbish, you care about these women being 'exploited by Lowe' but you don't care enough about their being raped and tortured as children to report on the inquiry. Doesn't really stack up does it? Unless you literally think having right-wing politics is worse than being a paedophile.

Bindel has been great on reporting these stories over the years but she herself has called out the mainstream media silence.

10 year olds labelled as child prostitutes In their social services files.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg87yvq529o

Extract - The woman said she was repeatedly sexually abused from the age of 13, that "everybody knew what was going on", and the description of her as a prostitute was "vile".

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-worst-ever-child-grooming-12165527

This details the fact it appears to have gone on for 40 years in Telford. That is a lot of ‘authorities’ and rapists and rapists families who would be happy for it to disappear out of the public domain.

Again, if you are unfamiliar with the detail, this mirror article is worth reading.

@JaniceBattersby

Charlie Peters at GB News did a vast amount of work on rape gangs.

One quick Google brings up

https://www.gbnews.com/news/grooming-gang-inquiry-rupert-lowe-eid-rapes

Patrick Christys covered it on GB.

We are a global disgrace - not only do we not protect our children from rapists but leaders don’t even want to investigate it and so many criticise a privately funded inquiry rather than the politician, police, social workers, teachers who have failed to act.

More bothered about being called racist than the rape and torture of minors.

I recommend (if that’s the right word) Julie Bindel’s interviews with Fiona Goddard (one of the inquiry witnesses). Both Julie and Fiona have links on their Twitter pages or, if you’re not in Twitter, you can access them through the Open Justice website.

Julie has of course been writing about this for years.

A stunt by reform? Rupert Lowe is not in reform. Reform have barely spoken about the privately fund raised enquiry. One attended last week. Why mention Reform? They have been as silent as the greens, Labour and the Lib Dem’s. Why are they all silent? Lots of court cases they could discuss without fear of libel.

The fact these rapes are barely mentioned in mainstream news, on Mumsnet or by most politicians is grim. MN is a parenting site - I was shocked at how little it is mentioned here. Well I was shocked until someone pointed out the following.

So many teachers, medics, social workers, councillors, counsellors, MPs, families of rapists, religious leaders, authorities knew these girls were raped and did fuck all about it. So many people will want this covering up and being forgotten about (and not just the rapists). Hence the whatsboutery, far right, racist accusations.

Rupert Lowe is talking about private prosecutions. I hope this happens and I hope the girls gain justice this way. I believe people can still donate to the private fundraiser. A worthy cause that will hopefully make a difference to some of the thousands of victims.

Here are some court transcripts.

https://transcripts.openjusticeuk.org/

I read them and they are awful. These girls/women deserve justice. So many people seem to want it all to disappear.

Giving prominence to the inquiry run by a man who does not have these women’s best interest at heart goes against a journalistic ethics.
It is also highly politically-motivated because Lowe is a racist (not because of this enquiry, but because of multiple previous statements he's made) and sadly (and understandably) Sammy Woodhouse also appears to have come under the clutches of Tommy Robinson
Calling people racist is potentionally libellous. I'm underwhelmed by these journalistic ethics.

No perpetrators have been named.
The intention is to pursue private prosecutions when all the evidence has been collated and assessed.

Libel law is fairly complicated but in basic terms, the allegations are so serious that if they are you cannot prove them then and defame somebody, they are incredibly likely to sue you and win a lot of money. The thought of giving a child rapist money is unthinkable.

Reporting on the Brooklyn Beckham allegations is different because the allegations are not as serious, most of them were already in the public domain, and had therefore been fact-checked previously. The Beckhams are unlikely to be able to prove financial loss or serious harm because Victoria did a slightly sexy dance with her son on his wedding day. They are also already people who are in the public domain and who have chosen the limelight. There is therefore a much less likely chance of success for them in the civil courts.

I have not decided that the women here do not have agency. I’m sure many of them do and I’m glad that they have found a place to be able to speak in public. That does not persuade me, though, that these incredibly vulnerable women, alongside from having their say, are not being exploited by Lowe. He is not a good man. He has zero interest in the victims of the many thousands if women who are raped by white men every year. In fact, he ignores those cases.

The media acts with extreme caution when reporting on abuse so as to not re-traumatise or re-exploit these women. They do this with all women, not just those who are part of this inquiry. There have been several stories I’ve been unable to publish even though the women have consented because I knew that when social media started on them it would destroy them. Giving prominence to the inquiry run by a man who does not have these women’s best interest at heart goes against a journalistic ethics.

If you genuinely believe that journalists are trying to cover up child abuse then how do you explain the thousands of stories they write each year and the many investigations they have done into child abuse? It’s absolutely nonsensical to say that the non-coverage of this ‘enquiry’ is covering up abuse. When even the Daily Mail and the Telegraph aren’t covering it, and GB News is giving it halfhearted airtime, isn’t it worth pausing and thinking that it may be more about caution over the exploitation of survivors than covering it up?

There is nothing to stop the BBC reporting that this enquiry is happening, and giving the broad shape of the story.

And yes, I'n sue Rupert Lowe is politically motivated. But when you have a situation where the government refuses to deal with an issue like this, how the hell else is it going to hit the mainstream?

I am so sick of acusations of political motivations. It's pathetically transparent.

And I don't actually see that what the survivors are reporting is any more 'fact checkable' than multiple things that other people say.

The media routinely reports on 'what people have said' - why aren't they worried about legal privilege when reporting on the Beckham's social media statements then?

FFS. Always an excuse to cover up child abuse.

Lowe's letter to the Home Secretary could be reported on - no need to fact check, just report the content of the letter, all in the public domain. Yet utter silence. Rape apologists enablers the lot of them.

It has become abundantly clear over last few years that many people value their beliefs/world view more than anything else. Anything that challenges this is either dismissed, ignored, policing the words use or tarnishing reputations of those speaking out. Those people are sinister and it’s high time their claim to the moral high ground is challenged.The message is clear some people in Britain don’t matter and can be sacrificed to protect the sacred beliefs.
The scale of this is horrific the consequences are far reaching
and will be felt for years.

Sorry, this is BS.

Why can't other media report on the inquiry happening at least? They don't have to say what is said, just it's happening. In fact it would be a great lever to ask what is happening with the 'official' enquiry.

They can report on the fact that the intention is to bring civil prosecutions, and point out that no police officer or social worker has lost their job for failures to protect these children.

International news outlets are reporting on it.

And it is incredibly patronising to say that the survivors are being used. Who are you to decide that? They walked away from the government enquiry because they felt like they were being used. They have willingly participated here. It is breathtakingly cruel to say that they cannot possibly have the agency to decide when they are and are not being used. It is the attitude of their rapists - that they're somehow doomed to forever be victims and 'used'.

I work as a journalist (not for the BBC)

The reporting of this ‘inquiry’ is almost impossible for the legitimate media.

The main reason is because it is not an official public inquiry and so does not afford journalists legal privilege. This means that every single claim made by the victims about every single perpetrator must be checked and proven to have happened to avoid defamation claims. This is almost impossible to do, all these years later.

Secondly, the mainstream media has covered the stories of most of these women extensively over many years. Their stories have been told may times. This does not diminish the re-telling but it is also not accurate to suggest that the media is in some way not willing to tackle these issues. I covered one of these cases 15 years ago. It was reported in my newspaper, as were other ones, and the response from the public was incredibly muted. Let’s also not forget that the issue was given new prominence by an ITV drama.

Thirdly, this enquiry is not independent, has no understandable parameters and is being held at the behest of one MP. It is also highly politically-motivated because Lowe is a racist (not because of this enquiry, but because of multiple previous statements he's made) and sadly (and understandably) Sammy Woodhouse also appears to have come under the clutches of Tommy Robinson. How then, can anyone really know how much of this enquiry is in the interests of the victims, rather than in the interests of Lowe? There’s a genuine horror among reporters that these women are being exploited all over again by Lowe, so they’re uncomfortable with giving the whole thing airtime.

It is untrue and unfair to suggest that reporters don’t care about the experiences of these women. We have told their stories many many times and until recent years were frustrated that there was only a half-hearted response from the public. The issue is only now being given due prominence because it has been politicised (which brings with it positives and negatives)