Labour rejects calls for Oldham grooming gang inquiry

[Signalbox]

Are Labour right to push the responsibility for carrying out a public inquiry back onto Oldham Council?

I don't understand how it is considered acceptable for local authorities to carry out their own inquiries when they are often part of the institutional failure that allowed these crimes to be carried out on such a large scale over decades. Councils, police and social services were/are all implicated in the failure to act (or to actively obstruct) in some way or another.

"Phillips’ letter to Oldham Council, seen by GB News, claims it is for the the local authority ‘alone to decide to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the government to intervene.’ Reports have previously been commissioned and produced in Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford; Oldham now plans to launch its own Telford-style inquiry. Given the strength of feeling – which Phillips acknowledges in her letter – it seems inevitable that there will be questions or debate in the Commons when parliament returns next week."

"Yet for the hundreds of victims and those invested in bringing perpetrators to justice, this will seem pitifully inadequate. In each town where grooming gangs operated, similar patterns emerged: victims were ignored, law enforcement complicit and political officials more concerned about reputational damage than lives affected. Local authorities can hold their own inquiries, of course. But given the scale of these crimes, the fact they took place over decades, in many towns, suggests a level of institutional complicity requiring the attention of central government."

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labour-rejects-calls-for-oldham-grooming-gang-inquiry/

Archive...

https://archive.ph/3greC#selection-1667.0-1759.570

Yup, and I hadn't known that was the case so it's very useful information. It's no wonder so many victims and families don't believe justice has been done.

The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry is an independent public statutory Inquiry and we've a good sample of what it's like when people testify although they can be compelled to attend, to produce documents, and to give evidence on oath.

https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/frequently-asked-questions

The current Thirlwall Inquiry has compelled attendance of very senior NHS figures. They've had to put an enormous amount of effort into collating decades of enquiries, and the many thousands of recommendations, and rationalise them into what is now anachronistic, those that have been implemented, those that haven't been, and those that are relevant.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/help-and-information/faqs/

This is just utterly disgusting. Police officers are paid for from the public purse. It should be part of their job description to take part if ordered to do so. Why on earth can they get away with this? Is providing evidence always optional, or only so when relating to child rape victims? It should literally be criminal and they should be locked up if they don't provide evidence when asked.

It's not surprising people are disgusted.

Every time a fact like this comes to light, the media should then talk about some of the details of the torture and rape experienced by 12 year old girls. So we're clear what the current system allows police officers to opt out of providing evidence about.

How is this not criminal? Denying justice to 12 year old rape victims when you're a police officer and it's literally your job to protect these girls and prosecute those raping and torturing them seems far, far more hateful than whatever Alison Pearson said on twitter. And yet...

Fucks sake, I'm so very, very angry.

Some opinion from America discussing this:

Journalist Charlie Peters discusses his views on this scandal:

Had the Tory Amendment passed the Child protection bill would have failed. The Bill includes a legal requirement to report suspicions of child abuse. There is no such requirement at present.
This talk of another inquiry has nothing to do with the Amendment as far as I can see. The Amendment passes : the Bill fails. The End.
I am indebted to Phil Moorehouse of A Different Bias podcast for explaining this succinctly and clearly. He thinks Hansard should be published online - shorn of legalistic jargon one hopes. But even if it was , would people read it? Or just continue to parrot lies and soundbites from the Tory client media.

Hansard is online: https://hansard.parliament.uk/ so I'm not sure I understand the point?

I agree the party-political grandstanding is a bit cynical, the Tories would have known this would happen.

Arguably it's working though if people are still discussing it and there is more pressure to have the inquiry - the discussion has gone from "there is no need for an inquiry" to "we are not ruling out an inquiry but we're not doing it with this bill".

It's more than a little weird that Keir Starmer can get people saying stuff on twitter locked up quickly when he needs to, but forcing actual police officers to give evidence they've accumulated in their publicly funded jobs? That's 'too complicated' apparently.

Well thank you Abhannmor but posters have actually spent the last few pages discussing the Amendment and the effect it would have had on the Bill had it been passed so I'm not sure what you think you think you've added to the discussion.

The Bill under discussion - on closer inspection - seems straight outta Dentons. They're tacking some sensible stuff on to some very sinister moves. And MSM isn't looking at the depths of the Bill or even questioning what it'll do to education standards.

Some posters here seem to have got to grips with it:

Guest Post: Bridget Phillipson MP: "How new laws are putting you and your families first" www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_posts/5248299-guest-post-bridget-phillipson-mp-how-new-laws-are-putting-you-and-your-families-first

Thank you for posting that thread.

Sadly, it doesn't surprise me one bit to think that there is some Dentons-inspired work at play here. The appointment of Becky Francis to oversee a curriculum overhaul is a huge red flag in itself. It then follows logically that anything that impacts children's safeguarding in relation to education risks taking on a similar helping of Be Kind activism (with Dentons outcomes built in).

The bill would require teachers and other professionals to report suspicion of child abuse. Why do the Tories and Reform want to stop that happening?

I dont know how easy it would be to charge someone for not suspecting abuse?

But this is already the case under existing safeguarding frameworks? How is it different to what we currently have?.

What we currently have is not implemented or enforced, so I'm a bit sceptical about anything changing. What needs to happen is accountability for failures including job losses. Which currently just doesn't happen except for the most extreme cases (and even then only after years and years and usually just a few scapegoats) and I see no evidence of practical solutions from the current government that this will change.

I agree the party-political grandstanding is a bit cynical, the Tories would have known this would happen.

Arguably it's working though if people are still discussing it and there is more pressure to have the inquiry - the discussion has gone from "there is no need for an inquiry" to "we are not ruling out an inquiry but we're not doing it with this bill".

Yes, I agree. And it is cynical, but that's politics I guess. A bit like Labour endorsing the WASPI campaign when they weren't in power and then refusing the ombudsman's recommendations to compensate.

You accuse them of WrongThink and force them to prove that your assessment of their thoughts in their head is incorrect.

James Kirkup’s thoughts on Starmer’s stance on an inquiry:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmers-grooming-gang-stance-might-not-last-the-weekend/

Archive…

https://archive.ph/L11x3

In an ideal world it wouldn’t be either/or. Labour could implement recommendations via legislation AND look into institutional / individual failures via an inquiry. They are currently in power. Why this pretence that if there is an inquiry any other actions will have to be put on hold?

”My money is on the PM folding and agreeing to some sort of new inquiry. In many ways, it’s curious that he has resisted. Such an inquiry is likely to show that his own record on the issue as Director of Public Prosecutions is pretty good – while also noting that, for much of the timeframe involved, the government was led by a succession of Conservative PMs who did not order a full investigation. Take that charmless quote from Boris Johnson: “£60m I saw was being spaffed up a wall on some investigation into historic child abuse and all this kind of thing.”

”If Starmer does change course and order that inquiry, it won’t, directly, be because of things people write online. It will be because of the conversations his MPs have in their constituencies this weekend.”

Why this pretence that if there is an inquiry any other actions will have to be put on hold?

Ssssshhh. We're not supposed to notice that bit.

Thanks for the James Kirkup article @UtopiaPlanitia and @Signalbox. Quite a few things to digest from it but this hit me first:
'Some Labour veterans worry that their younger colleagues have promised constituents too much of their time, with surgeries every week and coffee mornings every month, on top of the huge and relentless electronic mailbag.'

Erm what?!
I take the point that their electronic mail must generate an immense workload but is a surgery every week and coffee mornings every month really regarded by 'party veterans' as too much time to spend with your constituents?

As I remember, James Kirkup is a journalist who gets out and talks to politicians so I'm assuming this is reliable information.

It explains a lot for me, and not only about this issue.

You’re welcome @Floisme. Having read a number of Kirkup’s articles over the years, I rate his analysis highly because, as you say, he is one of the lobby journalists who speaks to politicians in person. He doesn’t rely on TwiX for his info.

I”m also of your opinion that Labour veterans have a shockingly negative attitude towards their younger colleagues’ intention to make themselves available to constituents. I, naively, expect MPs and Councillors to make themselves available to their constituents as much as possible; we didn’t elect them to office for them to ignore us.

Don't think this has been posted. The Times have been following up some of those in charge in Rotherham Council at the time. It very instructive about how failing to safeguard children is no barrier to promotion:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/how-rotherham-bosses-have-reinvented-themselves-since-grooming-scandal-6rl0gpd3m

Archive link:
https://archive.ph/f7GqY

They've also had a look at the promotion of a senior police officer who dismissed the extent of the abuse of girls as "sensationalised" and challenged the figure of 1,000 girls. He's been rewarded with promotion to "director of operational standards at the College of Policing". The comments under the article are scathing:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-chief-defends-sensationalised-grooming-scandal-remarks-0x30pwgdz

Archive link:
https://archive.ph/iYxqR

Why the conflation of this child protection act with some putative inquiry or other? We need to know why the Tories oppose this act. It's all a bit strange. They can support child protection and still campaign for another inquiry surely.

Another poster asks how does one define suspicions of child abuse. Presumably they would have to meet some reasonable threshold. Of course we could always just give up. Why bother ever legislating about anything ? I think Milei wants to try that in Argentina. Let the market decide about drugs , prostitution, surrogacy and so on. End all this silly red tape and pointless regulation which only hurts business. I am being a bit facetious of course.