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

I'm not conflating those things, I'm pointing out that police, courts and politicians can act quickly when they want to. So the excuses about it being 'complicated' don't wash.

And they obviously don't want to act quickly when it comes to the rape and torture of little girls. This fact needs to be discussed openly, in public.

You could probably look at other types of crime where sentences are illogically higher than child sex crimes. As a PP has pointed out, there has been a deliberate move to make buying and viewing child rape videos and pictures online something that is barely prosecuted with ridiculously light sentences that do not act as a deterrent- even though we know it's a red flag for future abuse and escalation.

And generally speaking, anyone who tries to make the rape and torture of children a political football and a question of 'left' or 'right' wing is not a good person.

It needs cross party commitment to action, and criminal prosecutions not only for the rapists (with longer sentences) but also those who enabled the abuse.

A trickle of Labour MPs now jumping on the far-right bandwagon. I wonder if it’ll become a flood.

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/13/labour-rotherham-mp-u-turns-and-backs-national-grooming-gang-inquiry/

I agree.

It's fair to comment that the speedy verdicts in the cases coming out of the riots were because of guilty verdicts, but it's also necessary to consider the context. The rioters were looking at either throwing themselves on the mercy of the court with a guilty plea, or pleading not guilty knowing, and this had been made very clear by politicians, that if they were then found guilty, they'd be looking at harsh sentences. I wonder whether there'll attempts to overturn some of these sentences in the years to come.

Signalbox · Today 10:02
A trickle of Labour MPs now jumping on the far-right bandwagon. I wonder if it’ll become a flood

Yes, Starmer has said “the government ‘will be guided and led by the victims and survivors on this”.
What has made him change his opinion from stating those wanting a review were ‘jumping on the far right bandwagon’?

TR es repeatedly warned that these convictions were at risk of he continued. He did it for press coverage and to fuel his own political agenda this is why he was jailed

Hypocrisy and political nonsense

It needs cross party commitment to action, and criminal prosecutions not only for the rapists (with longer sentences) but also those who enabled the abuse.

Yes definitely. Re those who enabled the abuse, I hope there are emails and texts or some sort paper trail so there’s proof. Not holding my breath though.

When the Berlin Wall came down the Stasi quickly burned and shredded as much as they could (though fortunately there was plenty of evidence remaining) and I fear those responsible for the crimes and those who enabled them will have done the same.

This is why speaking about it, the let women speak events, being able to speak out without fear of being branded a 'right wing bigot' is important. Because once people are able to speak out, it creates social pressure on cowards / politicans.

Because one thing I know for sure, there is no majority in favour of the widespread torture and abuse of little girls. The ONLY reason it has gone on as it has is because there has been no sunlight.

On another thread there's discussion of WHY the labour party official twitter account unfollowed Rosie Duffield - one of their own MPs - because she's said men can't become women but someone with child abuse images on his twitter is still followed. You can't explain that away - if they're 'not paying attention' - why are they bothered that RD has sex realist views?

The best defense is 'they're not paying attention to the most dangerous things' but are being distracted by trendy causes. The alternative is it's a deliberate choice. But in the best case that means we need sunlight because I'm betting £100 that if it was put to a public vote, a vast majority would want politicians to focus on prosecuting child rape and torture rather than whether or not some women should be excommunicated for believing men can't change sex.

Re TR, it's worth watching Lauren Southern's documentary for her experience and perspective on him. She worked for him. Pinned to her Twitter last time I looked. Lucy Brown corroborates. x.com/lucymarionbrown/status/1806122119329120436?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

I watched a really good interview by Bari Weiss with Julie Bindel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

There was mostly agreement from both guests on all of it but with different and pertinent perspectives. Hirsi particularly as she's an ex Muslim. She described how Muslim women and girls are also abused.

The area they were completely polarised about was TR; Hirsi stating that in the US he'd have a dedicated statue to him and she couldn't understand why he was in prison. Bindel respectfully disagreed stating that he told a lot of lies.

The wider discussion was really interesting though.

www.thefp.com/p/bari-weiss-uk-grooming-gangs-cowardice-of-the-west

we need sunlight because I'm betting £100 that if it was put to a public vote, a vast majority would want politicians to focus on prosecuting child rape and torture rather than whether or not some women should be excommunicated for believing men can't change sex.

I strongly agree with you.

I've been in despair at how much political energy has been sucked into trans stuff to the detriment of everything else.

I've been saying on MN for years that, important though some trans issues are, the issues we were fighting for before transactivism landed on us haven't just gone away, and it's incredibly important that we keep our eye on the ball.

I do agree with the popular mantra that people can care about two things at once.

It's just that, in practice, there are only so many hours in the day and people end up being spread too thin to do everything. I know I am. I try to stay informed across a broad spread, but I've had to make strategic decisions about where I put most of my doing.

It's fair to comment that the speedy verdicts in the cases coming out of the riots were because of guilty verdicts, but it's also necessary to consider the context. The rioters were looking at either throwing themselves on the mercy of the court with a guilty plea, or pleading not guilty knowing, and this had been made very clear by politicians, that if they were then found guilty, they'd be looking at harsh sentences. I wonder whether there'll attempts to overturn some of these sentences in the years to come.

And also that they would spend months, even a year or more on remand first. I think they were probably persuaded that pleading guilty was in their best interests. They weren't rich people with fancy lawyers.

Yes. Do a few weeks now or wait one or two years for a trial and then get a sentence of a year in prison would concentrate the mind wonderfully.

Also, MN is rammed with sincere posters working extremely hard to deal with trans issues – and in many cases being actually heroic.

But it hasn't escaped my notice that there was also an attempt to establish mantras along the lines, "We can't do any work on women's issues until we define what a woman is."

The posters seeding that managed to get a little bit of take-up as a cute catch-phrase, but fortunately MNers saw through it at an early stage.

It's so overt in using trans issues as an attempt to paralyse our actions on women's rights across all other areas.

Yes I agree with this. But I think it's inaccurate to say that "he tried to prevent the conviction of child sex abusers". I don't believe that preventing the conviction of child sex abusers was his aim although it could have been the outcome of his actions.

But it hasn't escaped my notice that there was also an attempt to establish mantras along the lines, "We can't do any work on women's issues until we define what a woman is."

The posters seeding that managed to get a little bit of take-up as a cute catch-phrase, but fortunately MNers saw through it at an early stage

What do you mean? It's up to individuals as to what they want to prioritise. If they feel the definition is paramount, that's their issue.

You do you. You're allowed.

Meanwhile I'm not going to have my actions practically supporting women and children put on hold for an indefinite period until other people deem it permissible.

I didn't say it was what I thought. Why do you see everything as some sort of dark conspiracy?

What do other posters think of this as a new angle on the rape gangs?

https://archive.ph/E12Z4

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-the-drive-to-end-teen-pregnancies-aided-the-grooming-gangs/

I think it's pertinent but a side issue, although it would be interesting to see how patient confidentiality will interact with mandatory reporting. There's bound to be an overlap. No solutions are offered in the article.

No one can tell you what to do, you're a free agent. I've found your posts recently quite odd.

The posters seeding

People are just having their opinions and talking, not "seeding".

Well, the judge on the first occasion Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon interfered in a trial, in 2017, said:

“This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about the freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly.”

She sentenced Robinson to three months’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence for 18 months, meaning it would not come into effect unless he committed further offences.

“You will now be under no illusions whatsoever as to what you can and cannot do,” the judge told Robinson.

And the judge on the second occasion he interfered in a trial, in 2018, said:
“No one could possibly conclude that that was likely to be anything other than highly prejudicial to the defendants in the present trial … if the jurors in my present trial get to know of this video, I will no doubt be faced with an application to discharge the jury.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-prison-jail-grooming-gangs-huddersfield-leeds-contempt-court-facebook-video-a8592871.html

We know for certain that by the time of the second trial Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon had a full legal team, so he can't pretend he didn't know.

As the Yorkshire Evening Post – which had been reporting on the cases for years – pointed out, Robinson/Yaxley-Lennon could just have done what they did and followed the law, and reported all he wanted to after the final verdicts.

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/crime/yep-says-why-what-tommy-robinson-did-was-put-tommy-first-what-we-did-was-put-the-victims-first-240298

So while one could, at the kindest, assume ignorance at the first trial, him doing it the second time blows it out of the water.

Interesting article.

I don't know what to think of it aside from to comment that some of the second, third+ order effects of policies designed to help women can end up making things worse overall.

I've been quite influenced by the Louise Perry / Mary Harrington school of thought over the last few years that many feminist interventions that on the surface were pro women's freedoms have in many cases simply resulted in more young women available for consequence- and commitment-free sex.

I can see how the steps might work in this case: these young women are being ignored because they're written off as being slags / let's lessen the stigma of being sexually active to help them be more respected / let's actively punish anyone who suggests that underage sex is ever bad / these young women are being ignored because they're simply expressing their sexuality with older boyfriends...