logo
Grooming gangs inquiry must root out racists who turned blind eye to rape of young white girls – they MUST face justice

Grooming gangs inquiry must root out racists who turned blind eye to rape of young white girls – they MUST face justice

The Sun5 hours ago

IF there ever was a justification for holding a public inquiry it is surely the mass rape of under-age girls by gangs of men.
Also, the failure for many years of police, social workers and other agencies to take the issue seriously.
5
5
5
The scale of the offending is extraordinary. A report by Professor Alexis Jay concluded that 1400 girls were abused in Rotherham alone between 1997 and 2013, yet the girls themselves were ignored -- or even blamed for their own abuse.
That we are finally getting an inquiry is of little credit to this government, which for months until Keir Starmer's U-turn at the weekend had tried to belittle the scandal and, even worse, make out that those who called for an inquiry were pandering to extremists or as he put it: 'jumping on the bandwagon of the far right'.
The Prime Minister himself made this claim back in January, accusing Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch of 'amplifying' the words of the Far Right and making unfounded claims that critics such as Elon Musk were 'spreading lies and misinformation '.
'Stain on our society'
Lucy Powell, Leader of the House of Commons, went on to describe it as a 'dog whistle' even to mention the abuse scandal.
Around the same time Starmer insisted: 'This doesn't need more consultation.
"It doesn't need more research. It just needs action.'
He later added the victims 'don't want to see another national inquiry'.
Well he was wrong. Many of these women treated so appallingly DID want an inquiry.
And they are getting one now because Louise Casey, whom the government engaged in January to carry out a rapid review in the hope of batting away the issue, has come down in favour of one.
Home secretary Yvette Cooper told us that the scandal was 'a stain on our society'.
I was locked up & raped in dingy flat for days by grooming gangs - only to find out one sicko was a POLICE officer who's never seen justice
So it is. But why couldn't she and the rest of the Government bring themselves to admit that back in January when they were trying to tell us that it was all sorted out, in the past, and that there was nothing more to say on the matter?
Officials, she added, often avoided the topic for fear of being labelled racist.
So they do, but the same applies to most of the Cabinet.
The perpetrators were, inconveniently to many of them, heavily concentrated in one section of the UK population: they were men of Pakistani heritage.
There is of course a glaring reason why the abuse scandal was ignored by so many individuals and organisations who were in a position to stop it.
The perpetrators were, inconveniently to many of them, heavily concentrated in one section of the UK population: they were men of Pakistani heritage.
Cooper still can't quite bring herself to admit the truth, telling the Commons that 'Asians' had been found to be 'over-represented' among the suspects in abuse by gangs.
For some reason she couldn't bring herself to be more specific than that.
It is true that there are some on the Far Right who would love to make an issue of the grooming gangs scandal for their own ends.
But they are somewhat outnumbered by those on the liberal-left who for years balked at the idea that an ethnic minority could be disproportionately involved in a serious form of crime.
It is the latter who are far more influential in the legal justice system.
Sadly, these people, who tend to dominate police constabularies, council social services departments and the judiciary, lack the insight to see that they are equally guilty of racism and prejudice as are the Far Right.
For years, they were making decisions on whether or not to investigate sex offences or prosecute rapists on the basis of the colour and religion of the offenders.
Bizarrely, people who bleat endlessly about the gender gap in company boardrooms, and other supposed injustices against well-paid professional women, turned out to be blatant misogynists when faced with the mass abuse of white working class girls.
They treated them as worthless, whose welfare was to be cast aside in the cause of promoting racial and religious equality.
Most Britons, needless to say, want justice to be meted out to offenders equally, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
They reject utterly the notion that some groups of the population should, to borrow George Orwell's phrase, be more equal than others.
They want the criminal justice system to deal with what is happening now, not be used as a tool to try to right injustices in the distant past through treating some groups more leniently than others.
In spite of the child abuse scandal the Prime Minister, and many others on the Left, simply cannot stop themselves.
The same attitude which prevailed in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and many other towns was there to be seen again during last summer's riots.
Starmer, who had had little to say about riots in Leeds, sparked when Roma children were taken into care, or a machete fight on Southend seafront, lost no time in condemning anyone he thought he could blame for encouraging the riots which followed the Southport murders.
Police withheld important information about the suspect behind the attacks, apparently out of fear it might encourage the Far Right.
Racial tensions
But if you want to encourage the Far Right there is no better way of doing so than to brush serious acts of crime under the carpet.
For years the only people who were talking about the mass rape of white girls by men of Pakistani heritage were the British National Party.
Indeed, the first I heard about it was in a BBC documentary filmed covertly to expose the BNP.
It is vital that the racist attitudes of those who tried to excuse serious criminal activity are rooted out for good.
I have to say that, like most viewers I suspect, I thought that rape gang allegations which featured in the programme were just a tall story made up to ramp up racial tensions.
But they weren't. Much as I despise the BNP, the efforts of others to cover up the mass rape scandal handed the party the initiative.
That is why we need an inquiry into the rape scandal, and why it must focus absolutely on the most important question: Why was there such a conspiracy of silence, and why did so many 'enlightened' people think it acceptable to turn a blind eye to gang rape.
It is vital that the racist attitudes of those who tried to excuse serious criminal activity are rooted out for good.
5
5

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Church of England admits failure over 'sadistic' abuse of sisters
Church of England admits failure over 'sadistic' abuse of sisters

BBC News

time14 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Church of England admits failure over 'sadistic' abuse of sisters

The Church of England has apologised to three sisters who say they were "fobbed off" after reporting historical child sex abuse Wendy and Christina Read said they were "frequently" abused as young children by their father, a female church warden and a male curate in night-time "sadistic rituals" at a north-east England independent review commissioned by the Church found the institution's failure to take action "compounded" the women's trauma, while Cleveland Police "missed opportunities" to investigate for which the force Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury when two of the reports were made, said he regretted how he handled the allegations. This report contains distressing detailsThe sisters, who have waived their right to anonymity, said they reported the abuse three times to the Church and police years later but inadequate action was Church, which never investigated, acknowledged its response "fell short of today's standards".Meanwhile the police agreed they missed opportunities in their investigations, but said they would reinvestigate if new evidence came to light. The women's father died in 1996, while church warden and family friend Mary Wairing died in 2015. The BBC is not naming the curate or the sisters' father for legal said she was raped by her father and the curate and then forced "to watch when they did the same thing to my sisters".Jenny said her memories were of violence while Christina recalled being subjected to physical, emotional and spiritual abuse by Ms you have been affected by any issues raised in this report, help and advice is available on the BBC Action LineAll three sisters have been diagnosed with several mental health conditions linked to childhood sexual have also shown the BBC hundreds of documents detailing their correspondence with the Church of England since the early 1990s and said their attempt to get evidence of what action the Church took had been a "horrendous" experience. 'Dismissed and trivialised' The sisters reported the allegations to three Bishops in the Church of England – in 1993, 2003 and curate and Ms Wairing still had active roles in the Church at the time of those disclosures. In 1993 Wendy had sought the informal advice of the then-Bishop of Monmouth Rowan Williams, who she knew from said he told her he had spoken to the relevant bishop "to support Wendy's approach and urge him to respond".Dr Williams told the BBC he also took steps to confirm the identity of the curate at the 2003, a year after becoming Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Williams was formally informed in writing of the allegations when Wendy reported the claim to the Bishop of Whitby Robert said Bishop Ladds left her feeling "dismissed and trivialised" when he "questioned the reliability of childhood memories".Bishop Ladds recommended at the time she contact the police, but she felt she had "been there and done that" after a criminal investigation 10 years earlier brought no charges."It felt like he wanted nothing to do with it," Wendy Ladds said the Church of England had responded on his behalf, he had cooperated fully throughout and he would be making no further comment. Dr Williams told the BBC that Church structures made it difficult for him to take action."At the time this would have meant in practice that a local bishop would normally assess, with professional advice, whether action should be taken and of what kind," he said."There are some difficulties in overruling such a locally based process."I could not as Archbishop simply have suspended a priest in another diocese on my own authority."After learning Bishop Ladds was not going to investigate, Dr Williams said he "could and should" have pressed the local archbishop to take it up, adding: "I very much regret that I did not follow up in this way."He said he "may have misjudged what needed to be done".Wendy said the Church's failure to commission a formal investigation was "really disappointing and frustrating".The sisters reported their allegations to the Church again in 2005, but Dr Williams said he was not aware of that report. 'Church truly sorry' An independent report commissioned by the Church – known as a Learning Lessons Review (LLR) – concluded the sisters "had been subjected to abuse based on the consistency of their testimonies, the graphic and detailed re-telling of their abuse, and therapy required".It concluded the "initial disclosures were poorly handled" and the response from the institution in 1993 and 2003 "compounded the harm" for the was shocked to learn the Church had no record of two of the sisters' reports being made."There's fobbing off," she said, adding: "It feels deliberate. I don't think they want to give me answers."They're either incompetent or they're covering up." Jenny also accused the Church of "a lack of transparency" and being "secretive".The Church of England said it "strongly" denies suggestions of a cover up.A spokesman said it was "truly sorry" for the response the sisters received when they made their initial Church said its "response to survivors who come forward today is very different" and it "would always seek" to put them at the centre of its relevant Diocese said it had "worked closely" with the sisters since 2020 and ensured they received "ongoing therapeutic, specialist and financial support".The Church said the case was reviewed by its national child protection lead in 2003, but admitted the pastoral care initially provided "fell short of today's standards".It said it was "committed to listening to survivors and the individual needs of the sisters".The Church's interim leader, the Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell, had met the sisters and offered a "formal apology", the spokesman said. 'Police apologise unreservedly' The LLR concluded the police response meant "opportunities have been missed" and the force's initial investigation appeared "to lack thoroughness".The force has also apologised to the father was arrested in 1992 when they first reported the abuse but neither the curate nor Ms Wairing were complaint was made to police in 2003 but there was no 2020, Cleveland Police investigated the allegations again and the curate was arrested but released due to insufficient said the fact Ms Wairing was never formally investigated by the force was the "the biggest offending misconduct".Cleveland Police Assistant Chief Constable Richard Baker said the force "acknowledges it missed opportunities" in 1993 and 2003, adding: "For this, I apologise unreservedly."He said he was "satisfied" with the force's 2020 investigation and pledged to investigate any new evidence. A Church document showed the institution did not investigate following advice from Cleveland Police in 2003, the same year the force now admits it missed opportunities."It's incomprehensible that the Church takes direction from the police," said Wendy, who was "speechless and "enraged" by the Church of England said, "in 2003 the accepted practice was to follow the advice of statutory services".Jenny thinks "the whole institution [of the Church] is in danger" and nothing less than "a profound reformation" will "solve the problems they've got themselves into".The Church admits it "must build future foundations" to ensure it's "as safe as it can be".Christina is demanding a change in attitude from Church leaders."Too often I've heard 'that was in the past, you need to forget about it'," she said, adding: "That's somebody who doesn't understand the impact of trauma."You can't just forget about it." Follow BBC North East on X and Facebook and BBC Cumbria on X and Facebook and both on Nextdoor and Instagram.

The Documentary Podcast  The Ketamine trail
The Documentary Podcast  The Ketamine trail

BBC News

time15 minutes ago

  • BBC News

The Documentary Podcast The Ketamine trail

Ketamine was designed as an anaesthetic but its use as a recreational drug is growing fast, particularly among young people. In the UK, it's doubled in less than ten years but it can cause serious side effects. The supply chain for the drug starts with pharmaceutical manufacturers in India then involves criminal gangs in Europe who use front companies to legally import vast quantities of the drug before flooding it onto the illegal market in the UK. Paul Kenyon investigates the trade. This episode of The Documentary, comes to you from Assignment, investigations and journeys into the heart of global events.

Trump says US-UK deal ‘done' as steel tariffs still up in air
Trump says US-UK deal ‘done' as steel tariffs still up in air

The Herald Scotland

time18 minutes ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Trump says US-UK deal ‘done' as steel tariffs still up in air

The deal will grant British carmakers a reprieve by the end of June as levies drop from 25% to 10%, while the aerospace sector will face no import taxes. But tariffs for the steel industry, which is of key economic importance to the UK, will stand at 25% for now rather than falling to zero as originally agreed. This is less than the US global rate of 50% for steel and aluminium. The Prime Minister described the pact as a 'sign of strength' in the transatlantic relationship, while Mr Trump praised Sir Keir as a 'friend' who had done a 'great job' securing the deal that eluded leaders before him. Following the hastily arranged meeting, the two leaders posed for pictures outside the G7 venue with the signed documents, which the US president dropped before Sir Keir picked them up. Mr Trump also mistakenly referred to the pact as a 'trade agreement with the European Union.' In an impromptu media spray, the US president was asked whether steel tariffs would be eliminated, to which he replied: 'We're gonna let you have that information in a little while.' Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer picks up UK-US trade deal papers dropped by US President Donald Trump before speaking to the media (Stefan Rousseau/PA) The Department for Business and Trade said the two leaders had pledged to 'make progress towards 0% tariffs on core steel products as agreed'. Asked whether Britain would be shielded from future tariffs, Mr Trump said the UK was protected 'because I like them'. 'The UK is very well protected, you know why? Because I like them. That's their ultimate protection,' he said. The PM told the US President: 'Donald, thank you very much… A really important agreement. And so this is a very good day for both of our countries, a real sign of strength.' The terms of the deal were agreed in May, but neither Washington nor London had yet taken the necessary steps to reduce tariffs. Reports have since suggested the US could also push for the NHS to pay more for American drugs in exchange for softened tariffs, with White House sources telling the Telegraph the service would be expected to pay higher prices. Downing Street insisted the Government will 'only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests' but did not rule out discussing the issue with Washington. The Prime Minister was also insistent that a nuclear submarine deal between the UK, US and Australia, called Aukus, is 'very important' to both the United States and Britain. He said it was proceeding despite Washington launching a review into the pact, which is worth around £176 billion and believed to be aimed at countering China. He said: 'We're proceeding with that, it's a really important deal to both of us. 'I think the president is doing a review, we did a review when we came into government, and that makes good sense to me.' Later on Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on X that Mr Trump would be leaving the summit early due to the situation in the Middle East, following a dinner with heads of state. 'Much was accomplished, but because of what's going on in the Middle East, President Trump will be leaving tonight after dinner with Heads of State,' she said. President Trump had a great day at the G7, even signing a major trade deal with the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Much was accomplished, but because of what's going on in the Middle East, President Trump will be leaving tonight after dinner with Heads of State. — Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) June 16, 2025 Meanwhile, Sir Keir and his fellow world leaders are locked in a week of intense diplomacy amid the spiralling conflict in the Middle East and the war in Ukraine. The Prime Minister joined Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, Mr Carney and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for a glass of wine and informal discussions on Sunday night. Downing Street dismissed suggestions that the get-together had been a 'Trump-handling' exercise to prove the summit against the US president's unpredictability as leaders seek to put on a united front in the face of heightened global instability. Splits had earlier opened up in the response to Russia, which Mr Trump suggested should not have been kicked out of the former G8 following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. The US leader also signalled his reluctance to impose further American sanctions on Moscow despite a European push to heap more pressure on Vladimir Putin as he resists calls for an unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer (left) during a bilateral meeting with the President of France Emmanuel Macron at the G7 summit (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Standing alongside Sir Keir, who had earlier said G7 allies would seek to ratchet up measures against the Kremlin, Mr Trump said sanctions were 'not that easy' and would cost Washington 'a tremendous amount of money'. Asked whether Washington supported European efforts to impose further measures, he told reporters ahead of a bilateral meeting with the UK Prime Minister: 'Well Europe is saying that, but they haven't done it yet. 'Let's see them do it first.' Asked why he wanted to wait to impose sanctions, Mr Trump said: 'Because I'm waiting to see whether or not a deal is done… and don't forget, you know, sanctions cost us a lot of money.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store