National indignity

Why is Labour rejecting a national grooming gangs inquiry?

This was originally written for UnHerd in early January

Last week, I wrote in these very pages that the Government has, in the few short months it has taken power, launch a staggering 67 reviews and consultations – as well as ‘ a new quango every week since coming to power’.

But, it seems, there is such a thing as an inquiry too far. Yesterday, Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips formally rejected repeated requests for a Home Office-led inquiry into Oldham’s historic rape gangs scandal, after being requested by the Council.

Philips acknowledged the strong sentiment that a further inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham should be conducted, but said that "it is for Oldham Council alone to decide to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the Government to intervene". A less charitable interpretation might be one of self-protection; despite her vocal hostility to violence against women and girls, Phillips may be worried about opening herself up to allegations of Islamophobia after nearly losing her seat to a Gaza Independent candidate last year; meanwhile Deputy Prime Minister Anegla Rayner’s seat of Ashton under Lyne previously covered part of Oldham, and Jim McMahon, the Local Government Minister, served as a councillor on the authority from 2003, and served as leader between 2011-2016.

Whilst the cause can be disputed, the action alone is reprehensible enough. The case for Government intervention is, frankly, quite clear; whilst this request was for Oldham alone, there has been a rape gang scandal in over 50 of Britain’s towns & cities. This is a staggering scale of atrocity, and most are marked by close resemblances in their systematic nature, the demographics of the rapists (Pakistani men) and their victims (vulnerable and poor white girls), and large-scale cover-ups within ethnic communities and across social services, police and council authorities.

Politicians have taken to passing laws named after victims - Martyn’s Law, Clare’s Law, Harper’s Law to name but a few - to ensure the circumstances of their often appalling and nightmarish circumstances of their deaths never happen again. By contrast, it seems like politicians cannot wait to forget the wretched victims of Britain’s rape gang epidemic. Whilst there have been isolated inquiries, such as the Jay Inquiry and a report by the Home Affairs Committee, these have not provided sufficient answers. Nor will a report solely into Oldham; nor, I would argue, will any report provided by a council reporting on its own conduct – particularly given that many of those involved may still be serving, and have a vested interest in covering up their actions.

Rather than treating each gang as a separate problem, the Government should launch an inquiry that deals with them as a whole. It should treat them as what they are; a national problem, not isolated incidents. It should provide the resources, authority and backing necessary to deal with them as such and tackle the institutional coverups that happened time and time again, regardless of what Council area it took place in.

If politicians want to look us in the face and promise ‘never again’, as they seem so keen to do on so many other issues, the inquiry must identify the exact names and positions of those responsible for cover-ups. Every single one should be named, fired, disbarred from public office and tried, not just pour encourager les autres, but to provide justice to the thousands of vulnerable women who were failed. But that alone is not enough; we must establish RICO-like laws to allow for individual prosecutions of those abetting the gangs and, given the role of multiple police forces already established in coverups, authority should be handed to domestic intelligence agencies.

A stain so large on the soul of our nation requires a national clean up.

Postscript - National Degradation

Whilst I’ve written in favour of an inquiry, there has been significant resistance to one from people on the right side of the debate. On Twitter, chief whistleblower and still-unrewarded former detective Maggie Oliver posted the following, outlining her resistance to them;

ALL THESE ENQUIRIES including @IICSAVSCP Rochdale, Augusta, Oldham have all led absolutely NOWHERE! Nothing changes. Millions wasted. Lawyers getting rich defending the indefensible.

Because those leading these “enquiries” have always wanted to cover up the truth, to hide it. And I’d say it’s become even worse in recent months with those who dare to speak out finding themselves in prison within a couple of DAYS….. when victims wait 6/7/8 years for a trial!! Corrupt and just wrong!

I firmly believe we need totally independent people who will ensure it’s not just another attempt to delay and hide the truth. Radical change and overhaul of all our public bodies. And bring in criminal accountability for all our senior police and public officials who have turned a blind eye.

She is right. Criminal accountability is vitally important; when I advocated for an inquiry, I did not propose the usual Westminster form, a meaningless process that is ‘most celebrated when it has abandoned the pretence of seriousness and has given Westminster what it craves most: Low Namerist gossip.’

What I envisaged was a time-limited, Government-supported inquiry that is tasked with finding and identifying the exact people involved in covering up these scandals. Not just in Rotherham, but each one of the 50 cities and towns they happened in. It looks less like a Westminster Inquiry and more like the épuration légale.

Rebuilding France after World War II, in line with the National Council of the Resistance's program adopted on March 15, 1944, required addressing those who collaborated with the enemy between June 16, 1940, and the liberation. While the 1939 Penal Code provided some legal framework, it did not cover acts such as denunciations or collaboration with the Allies’ enemies (e.g., informants or French members of the Waffen SS).

To address this, the Gaullist government issued the ordinance of August 26, 1944, which introduced new crimes and penalties, including "national indignity" and "national degradation." This ordinance, aligned with public sentiment, declared that anyone who undermined France’s unity or neglected their national duty would face legal consequences.

Those convicted of national degradation faced severe penalties, including the loss of civic, political, civil, and professional rights, effectively stripping them of their ability to participate fully in public and private life. What resulted was a professional, administrative and political purge, with 30,000 employees of large public companies, civil servants, military personnel, magistrates, etc sanctioned.

The RICO-style laws I proposed would provide this legal framework. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a federal law designed to combat organized crime by targeting individuals or groups involved in patterns of illegal activity. To prove a RICO violation, prosecutors must show a "pattern of racketeering activity," which involves committing at least two of 35 specified crimes (e.g., fraud, bribery, extortion, money laundering) within a 10-year period. RICO applies to any "enterprise" affecting interstate or foreign commerce, including businesses, informal groups, and criminal syndicates. Penalties include up to 20 years of imprisonment per count, asset forfeiture, and treble damages in civil cases.

Originally aimed at dismantling the Mafia, RICO has since been used against corporations, corrupt officials, and other entities engaged in systemic wrongdoing, becoming a powerful tool for dismantling criminal networks. High-profile cases include prosecutions of organized crime families, corporate fraud lawsuits, and actions against public corruption. It’s easy to see how all this could be applied in the case of these rape gangs. Alongside this, as Poppy Coburn has suggested, we should ‘make denialism of the atrocities a criminal offence’.

Government supported inquiries and trials placed - as the épuration légale trials were - in the départements in question, would provide immediate justice, whilst providing a time limit would ensure swift judgements. Victims should not have to wait years for justice, and perpetrators cannot be left to walk free for years.

However, there should be some distinctions drawn. The Tom Holland Defence – that authorites have a responsibility to preserve good race relations – is wrong. The first assumption is incorrect, and can be dismissed with the meme below alone. But it is believed, and has become a guiding principle of, many in power; in fact, that is why we are here. The state lied, bullied & committed treason against its own citizens to prevent the truth from being known, all in the name of ‘community relations’.

When race relations are prioritised in cases like this, it introduces two ways of operating. The first is that many - particularly frontline workers - become terrified of constant threats of racism complaints, so keep quiet. Then there were those - usually senior management - who actively cover up to protect relations. Most social workers are phenomenal people who deal, daily, with horrors most of us can’t even contemplate. But if you’re in social work to protect children & your boss threatens you with blacklisting, your collaboration calculation is changed by all the children you won’t be able to help. This is an absolutely repulsive combination; good people forced to put aside their morals in a sin of omission by evil people committing sins of commission, all in service of the greater goal of ‘good race relations’. It is like how a grotesque totalitarian regime operates. Distinction must be drawn between those sins of omission and commission.

But this is not enough.

Sickeningly, this year, Rotherham is the ‘Children’s Capital of Culture.’ A whole festival to, as one councillor put it, ‘help change the perception of Rotherham’. The idea that of ‘come to Rotherham, and bring your kids’ is so fundamentally perverse the event should be cancelled; all the money given out to it should be recouped, and used for a victims’ reparation fund.

I also believe that a monument should be built, ideally by public subscription, to the victims of Rotherham and erected in the town – ideally right outside the headquarters of Rotherham Council, which is conveniently placed across the road from Rotherham police station. Robert Jenrick previously suggested a consultation on this; I disagree. It is too important to be denied.

Central Government should compulsory purchase the land if necessary. Every single person walking into those two buildings – and particularly those working inside – should have to pass it every day. If they were complicit it should drive them insane with guilt; if they were not it should serve as a warning what happens when good people do nothing.

This has been mostly focussed on the institutional cover up of these crimes. I consider this vitally important, because I am convinced that they are still happening and still being covered up. I do not think that, as I argued in the UnHerd piece, councils should be allowed to conduct inquiries into this – not just for the fact that people may still be serving, but for the fact that councils are not able to command attendance, or pass any kind of censure. No one will be held accountable if central government is allowed to pass this off to councils. The perpetrators will be sentenced (too leniently) and the cover-up will continue.

Look at Liam Billington’s experience at Tameside; in 2020, his council held a members development session to give reassurance that Tameside didn’t have the same grooming problems as Oldham. When he asked the Chief Executive if at any point during his meetings, if he met with the press to ask them not to report on Asian grooming gangs the Chief Executive flared up, demanding an apology and threatened to sue Liam if he did not. Given this sole example, it is clear we cannot expect serious investigations to happen at council level – nor serious justice. Without that, and without removing the people responsible, we are increasing the number of young girls who are still exposed to these gangs.

The idea of treating aiders and abettors of rape gangs in this way is not fanciful; I would rather be an extremist in the pursuit of justice then a moderate in the defence of abuse.