Fiona Goddard, a victim of the grooming gang, has resigned from enquiry panel

[GoldThumb]

https://x.com/fionagoddarduk/status/1980169972413607999?s=46&t=ALGAiHxwK3XXeRoDQylnWA

Sounds like the enquiry is going well 🙄

Not all survivors were grooming gang survivors, some were victims/survivors of other CSE apparently there at Jess’s request, and were asking for the inquiry to be widened. If that is true then it isn’t surprising they don’t want her to resign.

”“When asked directly in the feedback session, Jess was clear that the focus would be on grooming gangs, however survivors in the group explained that they would be excluded for not fitting the generalised stereotype of what that is and should focus on CSE [child sexual exploitation].”

Hmmm…

There was already that with IICSA

Yeah it’s basically laziness on their part. I got accused of not liking Khan because he’s a muslim. Really annoying as an ethnic minority myself, I can dislike someone for being a twat.

Completely agree with you, to me he’s basically the same as any male Labour politician. I saw a picture of him once with his family, his daughters were wearing short skirts, no islamist would be letting that slide. It’s bollocks really.

Why were they included? I think all types of CSE are important but if this was supposed to be an enquiry i to grooming gangs then it doesn’t make sense to include non grooming CSE victims.

Fiona mentioned them in her response to JP (3rd paragraph)

https://x.com/fionagoddarduk/status/1980640890810167362

I think a lot of this speculation is pointless.

I posted earlier about what was said to be the Government's intention and that a charity would oversee how it was set up so as to make sure survivors had a voice.

Why doesn't someone contact the charity and ask them what they thought they had taken on.

As it is we now have 2 different groups of survivors saying different things.

And it could be as much to do with them hearing what they wanted to hear, not was actually intended.

Thanks, I saw her letter of resignation but haven’t had a chance to read this yet.

God Jess Phillips is awful, this looks suspiciously like sabotage.

I completely understand why victims of CSE would want an enquiry that includes them too, they have suffered and are just as entitled to justice. But that probably requires a separate enquiry so justice can be served to both sets of victims. Also wondering what kind of shitshow Bradford is going to turn out to be. It doesn’t bare thinking about, god it makes me feel so miserable how many people will just ignore child rape if it’s not convenient.

Jess Phillips is going to lose her seat anyway, she may as well just to the right thing and leave with her head held high that she didn’t help cover up crimes against children. I literally couldn’t live with myself if I allowed this. But no, looks like from the start she’s tried to make sure she disrupts the purpose of the enquiry.

She needs to go, after reading that it is extremely clear that she’s not the person to lead this.

Fiona is doing entirely the right thing and good for her for not taking this shit sandwich from Phillips. I hope she knows how many of us stand behind her on this.

Also this;

One of the group, Samantha Walker-Roberts, who was abused in Oldham from the age of 12, has chosen to waive her right to anonymity. The other five have used pseudonyms and call themselves “Scarlett”, “Caitlin”, “Claire” and “Katie”.

Scarlett is the name of one of the grooming gangs survivors on the group who waived her right to anonymity. She is not the same as the person who apparently entirely randomly picked a pseudonym identical to her name. Scarlett (the grooming gang survivor) wants JP to resign.

As it is we now have 2 different groups of survivors saying different things.

We have a group of grooming gang survivors saying JP was trying to widen the scope and who have resigned.

We have a group of non-grooming gang survivors on the inquiry survivors panel saying they were lobbying for the scope to be widened.

what were the second group even doing on the panel if the inquiry was never going to be widened (which JP accused the first group of being misinformation)

'Jess Phillips is going to lose her seat anyway, she may as well just to the right thing and leave with her head held high that she didn’t help cover up crimes against children'

I agree she is extremely unlikely to survive the next election. Maybe she's being pressurised to sabotage this enquiry. Who knows? It's a really dreadful mess, whatever is going on

She’s a campaigner against VAWG when it doesn’t cost her anything. When she needs to speak out for single sex spaces, against rapists being housed in women’s prisons or to name the issue with child rape gangs, she is silent.

women and girls are useful props to her, nothing else.

I actually despise her for this. For something like this I would think “fuck it, I’m going to blow the doors off this”. I wouldn’t care if I lost my seat for it, couldn’t care less, we all have to live with ourselves and I honestly think only someone with zero conscious and no moral compass could conceive of doing something so clearly awful.

How the hell do some of these people sleep at night.

Exactly.

Again this has nothing to do with Jess Phillips.

C4 News was meant to interview one of the women who doesn't want her to resign, but they couldn't get the video link to work. (What's wrong with picking up the phone and broadcasting the converstaion.)

But from the introduction to what was meant to be the interview it was said that in trying to agree the terms of reference there was an issue of whether "grooming gangs" also included women who have been abused by "groups" rather than gangs.

This came up because some of the survivors already invited onto the panel said that if the phrase "grooming gangs" didn't include group abuse then they would have to step down.

So the charity circulated an email saying this had come up as an issue and what did everyone feel.

So nobody was imposing anything.

But some women obviously felt strongly that it should be a very strict definition of "grooming gangs".

So these threats of resignation either way are about some sad conflict between survivors and maybe a niave charity thinking why dont we just ask what everyone thinks.

So nothing to do with Jess Phillips, but a genuine disagreement between survivors, which it seems some news outlets and politcians are weaponingising.

So the issue isn't Jess Phillips, but if it were you how would you resolve the fact that the survivors themselves dont agree?

Jess Phillips must have given the Charity instructions. How was it chosen? Does anyone know who the Charity is?

So the charity, which represents more than just grooming gang survivors, circulated an email to members who were not grooming gang survivors asking them if they felt the grooming gang inquiry should be expanded to the issue that concerned them most? And you think this doesn’t count as imposing anything on grooming gang survivors?

and then JP puts out a statement saying the grooming gang survivors were lying for suggesting there were moves to widen the inquiry?

I have now posted about them 3 times.

But yes there is a question as to how or who selected which survivors to be on the panel.

But is is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not this is about actual survivors not all having the same opinion.

If you want to go on about Jess Phillips why not start a thread about her.

Surely the priority here is the survivors themselves.

Even if the charity had asked each on in turn and the result still was that the survivors had different opinions what would you do?

Useful background here: Grooming gangs inquiry divided over the question of widening its focus | Grooming gangs inquiry | The Guardian

It looks like a complete shitshow. The grooming gang survivors had been promised a focus on grooming gangs, then it turned out the panel had lots of survivors of non-gang based abuse, who naturally felt the inquiry should include their areas of interest, and... I hate to be cynical, but it looks very much like Jess Phillips has been telling everyone what they wanted to hear.

And it seems obvious to me that there's been a covert effort to broaden and therefore dilute the inquiry.

You keep repeating it but the fact still remains non-grooming gang survivors should not be involved in a panel advising an inquiry into grooming gangs.

There are lots of survivors of all sorts of horrific crimes but their voices are not relevant to this inquiry. This mess is caused by Jess Phillips so it is on her.

It was not just these specific grooming gang survivors that had been promised it either. The country has been.

So is this the right charity.

https://nwgnetwork.org/about-us/
The NWG Network is a charitable organisation formed as a UK network of over 20,000 practitioners who disseminate our information through their services, to professionals working on the issue of child exploitation (CE) and trafficking within the UK.

They should have been given the remit of a laser like focus on grooming gangs. The victims panel should have been just victims of grooming gangs.
This really is on Jess Phillips shoulders.

Well of course such a network would want to broaden the inquiry. They will all be looking for funding for their services.

Even if NWG might have had an incentive to broaden things out, they were contracted by the Home Office to do a job which the Minister for Safeguarding has asked them to do.

It is the Minister's job to approve the remit. If the remit was vaguely worded, or there was some nod and wink tipped about broadening the remit, that's not NWG's fault. That's on Jess. She's the Minister. It's up to her to read the submissions and make the decisions.

Of course it would also be possible for the Home Secretary to say (in Shabana Mahmood speak) "fuck this for a game of soldiers, I'm taking responsibility for this fucker myself". Because the Home Sec has ultimate responsibility and doesn't have to delegate a particular issue to a junior minister. But, if Shabana were to do that, Jess Phillips would be a complete lame duck as safeguarding minister.