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 🙄

It sounds like Jess Phillips was totally aware that irrelevant survivor groups were involved in the panel and trying to influence the scope.

This needs to be a judge led inquiry.

“I hate to be cynical, but it looks very much like Jess Phillips has been telling everyone what they wanted to hear.”

It’s way worse than that. She deliberately brought victims she already knew to be part of the panel who AREN’T grooming gang victims who of course don’t want to just focus on grooming gangs, which is specifically what this enquiry was supposed to be about. She’s doing this so she doesn’t lose her seat to an Independent MP next election.

The 5 victims who are being reported to have written in support of Jess Phillips

A few things the media are getting wrong on this:

• These are allegedly victims of CSE, not Grooming Gangs.
• They write in the letter they want the scope of the inquiry to be larger than just grooming gangs
• This is what Jess Phillips has specifically been criticised for, enlarging the scope and thus blurring this specific issue like past reports have

The point of this inquiry was to address the very specific issue of grooming gangs, mostly Muslim Pakistanis on young white girls.

The Labour Government are using other victims as a political prop to show they are somehow competent when in reality they are failing them too by lumping everything together.

Exactly Jess Phillips has admitted she suggested some names of victims to take part in the Panel.

The Home Office are saying the qustion asked was down to the charity.
https://x.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1981396052084478004?t=NVUt64gr9aU0FKheKI_39g&s=19

https://x.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1981396057214112192?t=XxZOFaq7x3xKiYa47eSoVg&s=19

Sounds to me like the charity was told consult all the victims (some of whom Jess had recommended). This led to asking a question which should never have been asked.

Even if the charity were the ones who suggested the additional victims, Jess Phillips owns this. She knew these women and she full well knew that they weren’t victims of this particular crime.

She’s entirely responsible for this.

I’m a layperson and would have said “yes they are important but we have a specific scope for this enquiry on which we need to focus.”

Posters defending her are basically saying she’s incompetent or stupid, which isn’t much of a defence is it?

Why were there ‘non-gang’ grooming survivors on the grooming gang inquiry advisory panel?

Imagine putting maternity malpractice victims onto the infected blood inquiry and asking them if they want to expand the scope — of course they will say yes.

Its so sneaky that Labour are STILL trying to find ways to cover this up.

Jess Philips won her seat by 693 votes.

45% of the residents in her Birmingham Yardley constituency are Muslim so she might feel that there are reasons for not wanting to focus too much on bringing the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs to justice.

She will lose her seat to a Muslim independent candidate regardless of if she brings them to justice or not.

She most definitely will lose.
If she cared about women at all, this enquiry could have been her chance to organise a proper victim focused investigation.
She will piss off many of her constituents, but knowing she won't be re-elected surely frees her to stop caring about them and do this investigation properly. And salvage some of her reputation.

I’ve just watched Mariella Frostrup berating Nadine Dorries on BBC Question Time for mentioning that the particular rape gangs in the inquiry were Pakistani Muslim.

Mariella appears to be contributing to the difficulties many have experienced in stopping these gangs from operating. She also denied that Jess Phillips lied to the rape survivors about expanding the inquiry, then said that the inquiry needed expanding anyway.

She’s desperately clinging on though, she’s probably too deluded to believe she’ll actually lose it. I hope she does lose after putting her own career above child grooming victims.

Yes, there seem to be quite a few quietly lining up to take vulnerable Labour seats to operate on a Muslim only platform. That is very likely to be detrimental and deny representation to non Muslim constituents.

Fiona on X provided email and text message screenshots to Jess Phillips which proved she was telling the truth and Jess was lying. It’s how I found out about this story as it was retweeted by a lot of prominent people. People like Mariella who care more about getting social status from virtue signalling than victims is why this was allowed to continue for decades. She disgusts me.

I'm trying to understand the story of Samantha who is one of the survivors who supports JP staying in post and wants to broaden the remit.

As I understand it she was raped by a gang of men (of multiple ethnicities?) in Oldham but it was a random attack rather than a "grooming" over a long period of time. She also separately was groomed online by a single person? (I am trying to paste the details from various sources and am not sure, happy to be corrected.)

When Ann Cryer was talking about exploitation of women by "drug dealers" she was absolutely pilloried not least by future minister and MP for Dewsbury Shahid Malik
.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jul/07/uk.race

Well look who's back in the news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3d4y19q9do

There are a lot of people who have suffered terrible crimes. But sympathy for their plight does not mean we should water down an inquiry by broadening it. There is a clear pattern of behaviour with the Pakistani grooming gangs and scale of operation that makes it vital to understand what went on and how it was allowed to be hidden.

JP definitely gets things wrong, but not many MPs read out the names of murdered women in parliament year after year. All politicians are flawed but I don’t think that whoever replaces her in the next election will champion women’s rights. It was a close run campaign last time and she was subjected to horrible abuse so doubtful that she’s deluded. I hope she can hold onto her seat.

The Labour Government are using other victims as a political prop to show they are somehow competent when in reality they are failing them too by lumping everything together.

I think there’s several motives for this and some are more sinister than others. Deliberate blurring of outcomes in order to protect Labour councillors/politicians who at best ignored it and at worst were involved. Also attempts to placate Muslim “Community Leaders”. I think if they really start digging and get right into the murky depths it would destroy the Labour Party for ever and potentially lead to civil unrest. Reform would win the next election in a land slide. Desperation is beaming off Jess Phillips in waves - that disgraceful performance in parliament. They didn’t want this enquiry, they’re now trying to kick it down the road for another decade to try and take the heat out of it and at the same time smear the victims as Reform or Far Right.

Anyone remember the Home Office Report Grooming Report, all anyone ever remembers about that report is that it showed it was mainly white perpetrators, which of course it would be in a majority white country. I still see that report quoted as evidence today that there is no concerning ethnic or cultural component to the Pakistani Child Rape Gangs. The cities/towns selected to be examined had generally not had any kind of Pakistani Child Rape Gang issue so the figures were minimised and fudged - some think that was purposely done…

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-home-office-s-grooming-report-is-an-exercise-in-obfuscation/

I’ve heard a suggestion that a foreign English speaking judge should be brought in to conduct the enquiry. As we seem to have absolutely no one who is willing or capable to conduct this enquiry without trying to protect their mates/job/potential votes here in the UK, this may be what is needed.

Why did she read out a list of murdered women? If it had been to persuade parliament to address crimes against women and girls then it would be laudable. But if that were the case then why did she vote against this inquiry and now look like she is trying to avoid bringing a systematic and very widespread abuse of girls, who were also abused by the institutions and politicians that were meant to protect them, to justice? Was it just a self-promoting gimmick?

Someone does all the research, hands Jess a list and she stands up in parliament, reads it out and gets a ton of attention for it. Yet when the time comes to actually get her hands dirty, she prevaricates, fudges and tries to smear the victims. I saw an interview with one of the victims where she said they could hardly get JP’s attention because she was too busy smirking at her phone.

Unfortunately she also deliberately drew attention away from the women fir her own political reasons and included the name of the young man who was caught up in gender ideology.

She knew it would upset women, and detract from the very powerful message of the list but did it anyway

I agree with this as I think is clear from my multiple posts throughout this thread.

I find her first example interesting though. Let's say she was raped by a gang who would otherwise fit the criteria, but she was not groomed - just opportunistically picked up (from a police station I think so I assume at least somewhat in a vulnerable situation).

I would find this interesting information to know about these gangs, if this was something that happened with any frequency.

Her second example of online grooming by a single person, I think clearly should not be in scope.

I think it's an interesting tension because it speaks to something quite important in terms of what the British public is expecting from the inquiry. There was a lot of talk at the start of the year about how "grooming gang is a euphemism for Pakistani Muslim rape & torture gang".

There are as I understand it some white "grooming gangs". There may be (from this survivor's account) "Pakistani Muslim rape gangs" who don't [always] use grooming as part of their toolkit.

I think this inquiry seems to be about grooming gangs - including the ethnic breakdown of them - but I wonder how many people think it's about PMRTGs? Or would like it to be?

What sets these grooming gangs apart is not the crime but the response to it. The fact that the crimes were ignored, the girls arrested instead of the men, the politicians telling them to keep their mouths shut for the sake of diversity, the environment where it was allowed to happen with impunity to thousand and thousands of girls to avoid upsetting certain communities.

So they are absolutely definitely not trying to widen the scope, but are relying on the support of victims who were not in scope and want to widen the scope, to prove they are not widening the scope?

Got it.

The big problem is that victims don’t all think the same. There are others who don’t agree with her so what about them? This is why victims cannot be the ultimate drivers in decision making. They don’t agree. However the idea that a former police officer or social worker chaired this was ludicrous! They are two failed services! A judge would be better but most will run a mile!

Inquiries are not just about retribution and blame laying. They are also about recommendations for the future and someone chairing needs to bring all points together. The new chair will be so hard to find!