Page 4 | Rape Gang Enquiry First Public Hearing

IwantToRetire · 2026-02-03T17:44:34+00:00

I am not posting this to re-start the discussion about motives, suitability etc., of this venture. But have seen notices of this first "public" hearing and clips of speechs. But just cant find where it was held, who took part, etc., etc.. If any one has a link please do share! ^[[https://x.com/rapeganginquiry The Rape Gang Inquiry]] [[https://x.com/rapeganginquiry @rapeganginquiry]]^ ^Our official inquiry hearings will start on February 2nd and cover the following topics: ^ ^Parents and carers. ^ ^Pregnancy/abortion/born of rape. ^ ^Whistleblowers. ^ ^Policing and justice. ^ ^Social care. ^ ^NHS/mental health/sexual health. ^ ^Education. ^ ^Demographics. ^ ^Media/social media ^ ^Politics.^ ^[[https://x.com/rapeganginquiry/highlights https://x.com/rapeganginquiry/highlights]] ^ Some video links here [[https://x.com/officialsammyuk https://x.com/officialsammyuk]]

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 18:31

Lowe is an independent MP. His politics are more on the right but he no more likes Reform than the leftist leftie and the most sneery progressive.

They fell out in a major way. No Reform MPs have been involved nor even attended - although ALL MPs were invited to come and hear the evidence.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 18:33

How can anyone suggest that survivors talking about how they were raped by 600 men is a 'stunt'. Broken fathers talking about how the police failed to follow up on his missing child even when he had credible evidence to think she was a street away from the police station. FFS. For shame.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 18:35

Imnobody4 · 15/02/2026 13:37

I should add there have been 4000 complaints to Ofcom about GB News coverage, which may be the reason other media outlets aren't touching it, common or garden cowardice.
Also named witnesses are getting a lot of grief online, especially Fiona.

It's so awful to live in a society where discussing child rape is a 'stunt' and people complain about it. What is wrong with people?

Some people seem to think the discussion of torture and abuse and trafficking of thousands of Uk children is worse than men actually doing the torture,abuse, trafficking and in some cases murder.

Thankfully thousands and thousands of decent appalled people commenting on facebook and X. This can't be hidden any longer.

And every single person who hears about this and realises the mainstream media has not covered it at all will no longer trust the press. Rightly so.

38thparallel · 15/02/2026 18:38

And maybe there are loads of complaints because there are loads of powerful people in the police, social services, political parties, councils who covered up child rape, torture and trafficking over many years. And they don't want the truth to out.

Will the police and social workers etc be named and shamed in this enquiry? I hope they are.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 18:53

38thparallel · 15/02/2026 18:38

And maybe there are loads of complaints because there are loads of powerful people in the police, social services, political parties, councils who covered up child rape, torture and trafficking over many years. And they don't want the truth to out.

Will the police and social workers etc be named and shamed in this enquiry? I hope they are.

I suspect this is why it hasn't been livestreamed and hasn't all been public. Yes, I think people have been named and shamed and the next step is civil prosecution since the state is doing sweet fuck all to bring these monsters to justice and clearly never intends to.

EdithStourton · 15/02/2026 20:59

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/02/2026 12:55

The idea of the BBC serving its entire audience is thought laughable by most people.

We haven't paid the licence fee for a couple of years. DH said the other day that perhaps we should again - news, documentaries. I said that on the issues that really matter to me the BBC's news reporting is a fucking disaster.

This is another one to add to that list. How can they NOT be reporting on this? It is a massive scandal that's been rumbling along for years, with thousands of girls and young women involved. You'd think the Beeb would be holding the government's feet to the fire over this... but no. Working class young women, who gives a fuck about them, huh? And oh, it's all a bit sensitive, isn't it, so let's just ignore it.

And then a whole tranche of society has the nerve to be shocked, appalled and astonished when another whole tranche of society gives the finger to the established parties and the establishment in general. Rupert Lowe is not part of Reform, but this is highly likely to push more votes in Reform's general direction, as people refuse to vote for mainstream parties which clearly don't give a shit.

And they won't be believing a word the BBC says, either.

It makes me so bloody cross, because I used to love the fact that we had a national broadcaster that managed to piss off both sides in Parliament and produced high quality and reasonably even-handed programming. If the BBC had done its job, public pressure for an enquiry would have been very much greater, and it wouldn't have been left to people like Rupert Lowe and Julie Bindel to get the stories out there.

Sorry, went off on one rather there. I am so angry for those poor young women.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 21:12

EdithStourton · 15/02/2026 20:59

We haven't paid the licence fee for a couple of years. DH said the other day that perhaps we should again - news, documentaries. I said that on the issues that really matter to me the BBC's news reporting is a fucking disaster.

This is another one to add to that list. How can they NOT be reporting on this? It is a massive scandal that's been rumbling along for years, with thousands of girls and young women involved. You'd think the Beeb would be holding the government's feet to the fire over this... but no. Working class young women, who gives a fuck about them, huh? And oh, it's all a bit sensitive, isn't it, so let's just ignore it.

And then a whole tranche of society has the nerve to be shocked, appalled and astonished when another whole tranche of society gives the finger to the established parties and the establishment in general. Rupert Lowe is not part of Reform, but this is highly likely to push more votes in Reform's general direction, as people refuse to vote for mainstream parties which clearly don't give a shit.

And they won't be believing a word the BBC says, either.

It makes me so bloody cross, because I used to love the fact that we had a national broadcaster that managed to piss off both sides in Parliament and produced high quality and reasonably even-handed programming. If the BBC had done its job, public pressure for an enquiry would have been very much greater, and it wouldn't have been left to people like Rupert Lowe and Julie Bindel to get the stories out there.

Sorry, went off on one rather there. I am so angry for those poor young women.

Show quote history

It was fantastic reading this. Thank goodness that you feel the same as me!

It's absolutely astounding to me the extent to which this has been brushed under the carpet at the same time as wanging on endlessly about Epstein (though noticeably less about his victims than about the impact on various famous men).

The BBC could be part of holding rapists and torturers of thousands of girls in the UK to account if they wanted to be. Nothing they say about Epstein will have the slightest impact as it's all US based.

They're making a choice. We see them.

JaniceBattersby · 15/02/2026 21:27

I work as a journalist (not for the BBC)

The reporting of this ‘inquiry’ is almost impossible for the legitimate media.

The main reason is because it is not an official public inquiry and so does not afford journalists legal privilege. This means that every single claim made by the victims about every single perpetrator must be checked and proven to have happened to avoid defamation claims. This is almost impossible to do, all these years later.

Secondly, the mainstream media has covered the stories of most of these women extensively over many years. Their stories have been told may times. This does not diminish the re-telling but it is also not accurate to suggest that the media is in some way not willing to tackle these issues. I covered one of these cases 15 years ago. It was reported in my newspaper, as were other ones, and the response from the public was incredibly muted. Let’s also not forget that the issue was given new prominence by an ITV drama.

Thirdly, this enquiry is not independent, has no understandable parameters and is being held at the behest of one MP. It is also highly politically-motivated because Lowe is a racist (not because of this enquiry, but because of multiple previous statements he's made) and sadly (and understandably) Sammy Woodhouse also appears to have come under the clutches of Tommy Robinson. How then, can anyone really know how much of this enquiry is in the interests of the victims, rather than in the interests of Lowe? There’s a genuine horror among reporters that these women are being exploited all over again by Lowe, so they’re uncomfortable with giving the whole thing airtime.

It is untrue and unfair to suggest that reporters don’t care about the experiences of these women. We have told their stories many many times and until recent years were frustrated that there was only a half-hearted response from the public. The issue is only now being given due prominence because it has been politicised (which brings with it positives and negatives)

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 21:35

JaniceBattersby · 15/02/2026 21:27

I work as a journalist (not for the BBC)

The reporting of this ‘inquiry’ is almost impossible for the legitimate media.

The main reason is because it is not an official public inquiry and so does not afford journalists legal privilege. This means that every single claim made by the victims about every single perpetrator must be checked and proven to have happened to avoid defamation claims. This is almost impossible to do, all these years later.

Secondly, the mainstream media has covered the stories of most of these women extensively over many years. Their stories have been told may times. This does not diminish the re-telling but it is also not accurate to suggest that the media is in some way not willing to tackle these issues. I covered one of these cases 15 years ago. It was reported in my newspaper, as were other ones, and the response from the public was incredibly muted. Let’s also not forget that the issue was given new prominence by an ITV drama.

Thirdly, this enquiry is not independent, has no understandable parameters and is being held at the behest of one MP. It is also highly politically-motivated because Lowe is a racist (not because of this enquiry, but because of multiple previous statements he's made) and sadly (and understandably) Sammy Woodhouse also appears to have come under the clutches of Tommy Robinson. How then, can anyone really know how much of this enquiry is in the interests of the victims, rather than in the interests of Lowe? There’s a genuine horror among reporters that these women are being exploited all over again by Lowe, so they’re uncomfortable with giving the whole thing airtime.

It is untrue and unfair to suggest that reporters don’t care about the experiences of these women. We have told their stories many many times and until recent years were frustrated that there was only a half-hearted response from the public. The issue is only now being given due prominence because it has been politicised (which brings with it positives and negatives)

Sorry, this is BS.

Why can't other media report on the inquiry happening at least? They don't have to say what is said, just it's happening. In fact it would be a great lever to ask what is happening with the 'official' enquiry.

They can report on the fact that the intention is to bring civil prosecutions, and point out that no police officer or social worker has lost their job for failures to protect these children.

International news outlets are reporting on it.

And it is incredibly patronising to say that the survivors are being used. Who are you to decide that? They walked away from the government enquiry because they felt like they were being used. They have willingly participated here. It is breathtakingly cruel to say that they cannot possibly have the agency to decide when they are and are not being used. It is the attitude of their rapists - that they're somehow doomed to forever be victims and 'used'.

Crunchingleaf · 15/02/2026 21:35

It has become abundantly clear over last few years that many people value their beliefs/world view more than anything else. Anything that challenges this is either dismissed, ignored, policing the words use or tarnishing reputations of those speaking out. Those people are sinister and it’s high time their claim to the moral high ground is challenged.The message is clear some people in Britain don’t matter and can be sacrificed to protect the sacred beliefs.
The scale of this is horrific the consequences are far reaching
and will be felt for years.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 21:38

And I don't actually see that what the survivors are reporting is any more 'fact checkable' than multiple things that other people say.

The media routinely reports on 'what people have said' - why aren't they worried about legal privilege when reporting on the Beckham's social media statements then?

FFS. Always an excuse to cover up child abuse.

Lowe's letter to the Home Secretary could be reported on - no need to fact check, just report the content of the letter, all in the public domain. Yet utter silence. Rape apologists enablers the lot of them.

Imnobody4 · 15/02/2026 21:48

I am so sick of acusations of political motivations. It's pathetically transparent.

EdithStourton · 15/02/2026 21:52

There is nothing to stop the BBC reporting that this enquiry is happening, and giving the broad shape of the story.

And yes, I'n sue Rupert Lowe is politically motivated. But when you have a situation where the government refuses to deal with an issue like this, how the hell else is it going to hit the mainstream?

JaniceBattersby · 15/02/2026 21:56

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 21:38

And I don't actually see that what the survivors are reporting is any more 'fact checkable' than multiple things that other people say.

The media routinely reports on 'what people have said' - why aren't they worried about legal privilege when reporting on the Beckham's social media statements then?

FFS. Always an excuse to cover up child abuse.

Lowe's letter to the Home Secretary could be reported on - no need to fact check, just report the content of the letter, all in the public domain. Yet utter silence. Rape apologists enablers the lot of them.

Edited

Libel law is fairly complicated but in basic terms, the allegations are so serious that if they are you cannot prove them then and defame somebody, they are incredibly likely to sue you and win a lot of money. The thought of giving a child rapist money is unthinkable.

Reporting on the Brooklyn Beckham allegations is different because the allegations are not as serious, most of them were already in the public domain, and had therefore been fact-checked previously. The Beckhams are unlikely to be able to prove financial loss or serious harm because Victoria did a slightly sexy dance with her son on his wedding day. They are also already people who are in the public domain and who have chosen the limelight. There is therefore a much less likely chance of success for them in the civil courts.

I have not decided that the women here do not have agency. I’m sure many of them do and I’m glad that they have found a place to be able to speak in public. That does not persuade me, though, that these incredibly vulnerable women, alongside from having their say, are not being exploited by Lowe. He is not a good man. He has zero interest in the victims of the many thousands if women who are raped by white men every year. In fact, he ignores those cases.

The media acts with extreme caution when reporting on abuse so as to not re-traumatise or re-exploit these women. They do this with all women, not just those who are part of this inquiry. There have been several stories I’ve been unable to publish even though the women have consented because I knew that when social media started on them it would destroy them. Giving prominence to the inquiry run by a man who does not have these women’s best interest at heart goes against a journalistic ethics.

If you genuinely believe that journalists are trying to cover up child abuse then how do you explain the thousands of stories they write each year and the many investigations they have done into child abuse? It’s absolutely nonsensical to say that the non-coverage of this ‘enquiry’ is covering up abuse. When even the Daily Mail and the Telegraph aren’t covering it, and GB News is giving it halfhearted airtime, isn’t it worth pausing and thinking that it may be more about caution over the exploitation of survivors than covering it up?

Imnobody4 · 15/02/2026 22:19

Giving prominence to the inquiry run by a man who does not have these women’s best interest at heart goes against a journalistic ethics.
It is also highly politically-motivated because Lowe is a racist (not because of this enquiry, but because of multiple previous statements he's made) and sadly (and understandably) Sammy Woodhouse also appears to have come under the clutches of Tommy Robinson
Calling people racist is potentionally libellous. I'm underwhelmed by these journalistic ethics.

No perpetrators have been named.
The intention is to pursue private prosecutions when all the evidence has been collated and assessed.

Treacling · 15/02/2026 22:33

Dolphinnoises · 15/02/2026 13:24

I said it was a stunt by Reform. For you to say that I am saying it is a stunt by the victims is, to use your turn of phrase, “pretty low”. And looking at some of the posts on here, it is clear some posters are confusing the two, presumably just as Reform are planning.

A stunt by reform? Rupert Lowe is not in reform. Reform have barely spoken about the privately fund raised enquiry. One attended last week. Why mention Reform? They have been as silent as the greens, Labour and the Lib Dem’s. Why are they all silent? Lots of court cases they could discuss without fear of libel.

The fact these rapes are barely mentioned in mainstream news, on Mumsnet or by most politicians is grim. MN is a parenting site - I was shocked at how little it is mentioned here. Well I was shocked until someone pointed out the following.

So many teachers, medics, social workers, councillors, counsellors, MPs, families of rapists, religious leaders, authorities knew these girls were raped and did fuck all about it. So many people will want this covering up and being forgotten about (and not just the rapists). Hence the whatsboutery, far right, racist accusations.

Rupert Lowe is talking about private prosecutions. I hope this happens and I hope the girls gain justice this way. I believe people can still donate to the private fundraiser. A worthy cause that will hopefully make a difference to some of the thousands of victims.

Here are some court transcripts.

https://transcripts.openjusticeuk.org/

I read them and they are awful. These girls/women deserve justice. So many people seem to want it all to disappear.

The Transcripts

Court-issued sentencing remarks with editorial commentary

https://transcripts.openjusticeuk.org

Floisme · 15/02/2026 22:42

I recommend (if that’s the right word) Julie Bindel’s interviews with Fiona Goddard (one of the inquiry witnesses). Both Julie and Fiona have links on their Twitter pages or, if you’re not in Twitter, you can access them through the Open Justice website.

Julie has of course been writing about this for years.

Treacling · 15/02/2026 22:46

@JaniceBattersby

Charlie Peters at GB News did a vast amount of work on rape gangs.

One quick Google brings up

https://www.gbnews.com/news/grooming-gang-inquiry-rupert-lowe-eid-rapes

Patrick Christys covered it on GB.

We are a global disgrace - not only do we not protect our children from rapists but leaders don’t even want to investigate it and so many criticise a privately funded inquiry rather than the politician, police, social workers, teachers who have failed to act.

More bothered about being called racist than the rape and torture of minors.

Rupert Lowe's £600k grooming gang inquiry hears shock claims of 'Eid rapes' and police cover-ups: 'Barbarians!'

The independent Great Yarmouth MP launched the proceedings on Monday after a huge public fundraiser

https://www.gbnews.com/news/grooming-gang-inquiry-rupert-lowe-eid-rapes

Treacling · 15/02/2026 23:20

10 year olds labelled as child prostitutes In their social services files.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg87yvq529o

Extract - The woman said she was repeatedly sexually abused from the age of 13, that "everybody knew what was going on", and the description of her as a prostitute was "vile".

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-worst-ever-child-grooming-12165527

This details the fact it appears to have gone on for 40 years in Telford. That is a lot of ‘authorities’ and rapists and rapists families who would be happy for it to disappear out of the public domain.

Again, if you are unfamiliar with the detail, this mirror article is worth reading.

A general view of Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester, Britain, 22 January 2025.

Rochdale: Child labelled 'prostitute' in council file - trial

The local council's department for looking after children claimed she was selling herself for sex

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg87yvq529o

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 23:22

JaniceBattersby · 15/02/2026 21:56

Libel law is fairly complicated but in basic terms, the allegations are so serious that if they are you cannot prove them then and defame somebody, they are incredibly likely to sue you and win a lot of money. The thought of giving a child rapist money is unthinkable.

Reporting on the Brooklyn Beckham allegations is different because the allegations are not as serious, most of them were already in the public domain, and had therefore been fact-checked previously. The Beckhams are unlikely to be able to prove financial loss or serious harm because Victoria did a slightly sexy dance with her son on his wedding day. They are also already people who are in the public domain and who have chosen the limelight. There is therefore a much less likely chance of success for them in the civil courts.

I have not decided that the women here do not have agency. I’m sure many of them do and I’m glad that they have found a place to be able to speak in public. That does not persuade me, though, that these incredibly vulnerable women, alongside from having their say, are not being exploited by Lowe. He is not a good man. He has zero interest in the victims of the many thousands if women who are raped by white men every year. In fact, he ignores those cases.

The media acts with extreme caution when reporting on abuse so as to not re-traumatise or re-exploit these women. They do this with all women, not just those who are part of this inquiry. There have been several stories I’ve been unable to publish even though the women have consented because I knew that when social media started on them it would destroy them. Giving prominence to the inquiry run by a man who does not have these women’s best interest at heart goes against a journalistic ethics.

If you genuinely believe that journalists are trying to cover up child abuse then how do you explain the thousands of stories they write each year and the many investigations they have done into child abuse? It’s absolutely nonsensical to say that the non-coverage of this ‘enquiry’ is covering up abuse. When even the Daily Mail and the Telegraph aren’t covering it, and GB News is giving it halfhearted airtime, isn’t it worth pausing and thinking that it may be more about caution over the exploitation of survivors than covering it up?

Show quote history

No-one has been named. Lawyers have been present every day.

You're talking bollocks.

The things that have been discussed are general e.g. that victims were trafficked to Pakistan. There is a letter from an MP to the Home secretary that could be reported on.

No-one else is reporting it in our cosy cover up club of people who don't care about thousands of raped children is not a great argument.

Indian news is reporting it I suggest you look at the video up thread because you might learn something. No-one's named, footage of House of Commons discussion, reporter asks pointed questions about the mystical Government enquiry.

Your words are incredibly snobbish, you care about these women being 'exploited by Lowe' but you don't care enough about their being raped and tortured as children to report on the inquiry. Doesn't really stack up does it? Unless you literally think having right-wing politics is worse than being a paedophile.

Bindel has been great on reporting these stories over the years but she herself has called out the mainstream media silence.

JaniceBattersby · 15/02/2026 23:38

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 23:22

No-one has been named. Lawyers have been present every day.

You're talking bollocks.

The things that have been discussed are general e.g. that victims were trafficked to Pakistan. There is a letter from an MP to the Home secretary that could be reported on.

No-one else is reporting it in our cosy cover up club of people who don't care about thousands of raped children is not a great argument.

Indian news is reporting it I suggest you look at the video up thread because you might learn something. No-one's named, footage of House of Commons discussion, reporter asks pointed questions about the mystical Government enquiry.

Your words are incredibly snobbish, you care about these women being 'exploited by Lowe' but you don't care enough about their being raped and tortured as children to report on the inquiry. Doesn't really stack up does it? Unless you literally think having right-wing politics is worse than being a paedophile.

Bindel has been great on reporting these stories over the years but she herself has called out the mainstream media silence.

Show quote history

You have zero knowledge of how defamation works. Nobody has to be named for a successful defamation claim. They just have to be able to be identified by one other person as the person being accused. Just one.

Foreign media are reporting it because they are outside the jurisdiction of UK courts.

I agree Julie Bindel is great. I know her fairly well. She has spent her entire career talking about this stuff… in the mainstream media.

Calling me snobbish is a complete joke. I grew up in a chaotic household in absolute poverty and have scrapped my way to where I am now. I was sexually assaulted as a child on multiple occasions. So you can absolutely fuck off with your assumptions about my
viewpoint on this.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 23:51

There is nothing in the Indian news report that could lead to an individual being named.

It is snobbish to suggest women who've freely agreed to speak are being exploited by Lowe, it places them as lesser, unable to make up their own minds. Easily manipulated. How condescending. You can see the full picture and that Lowe's manipulating them but they can't? Why not, because they're stupider? Why can you see it and they can't?

Just because they're speaking up doesn't mean they agree with his politics, maybe this is the only option available right now and something is better than the nothing they've got until now.

And they are being let down. There is literally no reason msm can't cover the MPs and expert witnesses attending, give an outline of what's being covered and next steps AND contrast with Government foot dragging. None of that gets within a mile of naming any individual.

Maybe a profile on the KC involved.

I can think of about 20 angles for reporting that are in the public interest but don't go into details at all.

Imnobody4 · 15/02/2026 23:51

If you know Julie Bindel why do you think as a journalist she is involved with the Inquiry if it's such a hot potato?

No one has been identified in these hearings I think the lawyers involved know the law.
It's interesting to see your complete lack of interest in the victims testimony.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 16/02/2026 00:54

Julie Bindel's reporting in the telegraph recently (on her podcast with Fiona Goddard) corroborating reports of one of the main findings of the rape gang inquiry - the trafficking of UK children to Pakistan.

I doubt she has anything much in common politically with Lowe but doesn't let that divert her humanity and ability to focus on what's important.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/02/2026 01:09

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 15/02/2026 21:38

And I don't actually see that what the survivors are reporting is any more 'fact checkable' than multiple things that other people say.

The media routinely reports on 'what people have said' - why aren't they worried about legal privilege when reporting on the Beckham's social media statements then?

FFS. Always an excuse to cover up child abuse.

Lowe's letter to the Home Secretary could be reported on - no need to fact check, just report the content of the letter, all in the public domain. Yet utter silence. Rape apologists enablers the lot of them.

Edited

Agree with this. It would be nice at least if when ignoring it people could put their politics aside and not be so fucking dismissive of the bravery of these women.