Thanks to @BIossomtoes and @DuncinToffee for linking to the Andrew Norfolk article. The piece saying he's not a good journalist seems to be a little biased. There was nothing in the article he wrote about the man being invited to have contact with his child that was incorrect. Maybe he should have highlighted more that this was standard, but it did suggest that no one concerned on the council or social services was opposing it, which was really the point.
My biggest problem with the call for a new inquiry is that it's because most people see it as a way to get justice in terms of prosecutions and imprisonment for those in the various institutions who failed these girls. Personal blame is not something a public inquiry can do, and the Jay report has already shone a light on the systemic institutional prejudices which caused them to fail these girls so horrifically. So what will another public inquiry do? Surely implementing the 22 recommendations of the Jay report is a better way forward.
Individual councils will be supported if they want to have an inquiry and they may be better placed to establish blame and prosecutions.
As for the no one took any notice before Musk- as has been highlighted numerous journalists wrote about it-Andrew Norfolk said The Times had him working exclusively on that topic for 4 years! The BBC did a drama about Rotherham, but didn't have the same effect as the Post Office drama because the public inquiry can do General didn't want to know.
Grooming and kidnap in CSE is predominantly Pakistani men. Online grooming is predominantly white British men. Can you see a reason why Musk, at a time when online harms is becoming an issue, would want to deflect and move attention away from X rather than implement safeguards and possibly reduce revenue?
Also, all of the political turmoil on X just increases his income.