The grooming-gangs scandal is a stain on the British state
MOHAMMED ZAHID ran a clothes stall in Rochdale market, and a grooming gang. He employed vulnerable girls, offering them gifts of alcohol and underwear, and targeted others when they came to buy tights for school. Along with his friends, who included other Pakistan-born stallholders and taxi drivers, Mr Zahid then treated the children as sex slaves, raping and abusing them in shops, warehouses and on nearby moors. Among his victims were two 13-year-old girls. One was in care; both were known to social services and the police. On June 13th, almost 25 years after the abuse began, Mr Zahid and six others were convicted of 30 counts of rape.
Britain's grooming-gangs scandal, the long-ignored group-based sexual abuse of children, has been a stain on the country for decades. Yet justice for victims and action to tackle failures have been painfully slow. On June 16th the government published an audit, which pinned the blame on authorities failing to see 'girls as girls' and having 'shied away from' looking into crimes committed by minorities—in this case often men of Asian or Muslim (especially Pakistani) heritage. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, announced a raft of measures including new criminal investigations. At last, the government is getting to grips with a scandal that should remain a case study of institutional failure.
The latest report follows a succession of probes stretching back over a decade. Those include two long public inquiries, one completed in 2015 into gangs in Rotherham, another in 2022 into child-sexual exploitation more broadly. Despite taking just four months, this audit provided new valuable insights for two reasons. It was the first to look solely at grooming gangs nationally. And it was led by Louise Casey, a cross-bench peer and social-policy fixer with a reputation for plain speaking.
Lady Casey begins by observing that, even now, it is impossible to know the scale of this problem. That is in part because these are horribly complex cases, victims fear coming forward and investigations were badly botched. Police forces failed to collect data. Grooming gangs have been identified in dozens of towns and cities. In Rotherham alone, thanks to an unusually thorough police investigation led by the National Crime Agency (NCA), 1,100 victims were identified. Our rough calculation suggests that tens of thousands of victims could be awaiting justice.
Lady Casey's most significant contribution is on the role of ethnicity. It was known that some police forces failed to look into reports of Asian grooming gangs out of a fear of appearing racist or upsetting community relations. She goes beyond this, strongly criticising a Home Office report from 2020, which claimed in spite of very poor data that levels of group-based child-sexual exploitation were likely to be in line with the general population, with 'the majority of offenders being White'. No such conclusions can be drawn, she says. Instead she cites new, more solid data, unearthed from three police forces, showing that suspects were disproportionately of Asian heritage; in Greater Manchester, more than half were.
Will this time be different?
There is no evidence to support the idea, found on the right, that Asian men are more likely to commit sexual or child-sexual abuse in general. Yet the refusal of some on the left to grapple with the role of culture and ethnicity in group-based abuse was inexcusable. What marks these crimes out, says Sunder Katwala of British Future, a think-tank, is precisely that perpetrators become disinhibited from moral norms as a group. Asian men appeared to target white girls because they were from another community. Cultural over-sensitivity may also have blinded the police to obvious patterns, like the role of (disproportionately Asian) taxi drivers employed by councils to ferry vulnerable children.
Lady Casey also shines a light on sexism and classism running through the state. Presented with evidence of predatory gangs, the police's reaction was often to treat victims as 'wayward teenagers' or adults who had made bad choices. Many were not believed—some were even criminalised as child prostitutes. Ms Cooper will change the law to prevent rapists getting away with lesser charges by claiming that 13-15 year-olds had 'consented' to sex.
The home secretary also, sensibly, announced that the NCA would take over hundreds of cold cases. Attention, however, focused on her reversal in calling another public inquiry. Such inquiries have become something of a national addiction, often less fact-finding probes than expensive and cumbersome attempts at catharsis. In this case one seems warranted: earlier inquiries have left basic gaps, and statutory powers could be used to compel local police forces and councils to release documents, as happened in Rotherham.
Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader who had called for such a U-turn, reacted gleefully, accusing the government of having attempted a cover-up. That trivialises the depth and breadth of the failure, which successive politicians in Westminster have overlooked (the home secretary at the time of the 2020 report was Priti Patel, a Conservative). But many recommendations from previous inquiries covering issues from data sharing to victim support have not been implemented, owing to a lack of political interest and bureaucratic inertia. This time, the hope must be that attention is sustained, and many more predators like Mr Zahid end up behind bars.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
27 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Could Trump win a Nobel Peace Prize on Pak General Asim Munir's nomination?
US President Donald Trump's lunch with Pakistan's military chief, General Asim Munir, at the White House on Wednesday has sparked a debate, not only for its diplomatic undertones alone but also due to a startling development: Munir reportedly calling for Trump to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly confirmed that the meeting took place after General Munir proposed nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, crediting him with helping avert a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan. 'This man [Munir] was extremely influential in stopping it from the Pakistan side,' Trump told reporters after the meeting. 'Modi, from the Indian side, and others. They were going at it, and they're both nuclear countries. I got it stopped.' While Trump framed the encounter as a diplomatic breakthrough, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other Indian officials have repeatedly rejected this narrative. In a 35-minute call the same day, PM Modi clarified that India had not entered into any trade discussions related to Operation Sindoor and reiterated that India firmly rejects all forms of third-party mediation when it comes to Pakistan. Can Asim Munir nominate Donald Trump? While General Munir's gesture has captured headlines, it raises a critical question: Is he even eligible to nominate someone for the Nobel Peace Prize? Under the guidelines set by the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is valid only if it comes from individuals belonging to specific categories. These include current heads of state and national government officials, members of national assemblies, university professors in relevant disciplines, and past recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, among others. As a serving military officer, Munir does not meet these criteria. His nomination, therefore, would not be recognised by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Army chiefs of any country are not eligible to nominate someone for the Nobel Peace Prize unless they also happen to hold another qualifying role under the Nobel Foundation's official rules. However, Trump could be nominated by a Pakistani official who does qualify. Additionally, the Nobel Committee does not confirm the identity of nominees or nominators, and all nomination records are kept confidential for 50 years. A public statement or media report of a nomination carries no official standing unless verified after that period. Steps of the Nobel Peace Prize nomination Nominations are submitted by eligible nominators (like, academics, politicians, past laureates) The deadline for nominations typically falls at the end of January each year Once nominations close, shortlisted nominees are then scrutinised by advisers from the Norwegian Nobel Institute Norwegian Nobel Committee is made up of five members appointed by the Norwegian Parliament A shortlist of approximately 20 to 30 candidates is created from the pool of nominees Shortlisted nominees are scrutinised by Nobel Institute advisers, including academics and foreign affairs experts A final decision is made in early October Although unanimity is preferred, a simple majority vote is used if consensus cannot be achieved. Nominations for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize closed on January 31 this year. So any nomination will have to wait until next year. A total of 338 candidates have been nominated this year, including 244 individuals and 94 organisations. This marks a sharp increase from 286 in 2024 but still falls short of the record 376 nominations received in 2016. Donald Trump's Nobel Prize ambitions Trump's desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing new. Since his first term, he has often voiced frustration about not receiving the accolade. In a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February, he remarked, 'They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize… I deserve it, but they will never give it to me.' Despite criticism over his foreign policy stances, particularly his perceived alignment with Russia during the Ukraine conflict, Trump has continued to pitch himself as a peacemaker, pointing to diplomatic efforts in West Asia and Korea as evidence of his eligibility. Four US Presidents have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in the past: Theodore Roosevelt (1906) Woodrow Wilson (1919) Jimmy Carter (2002) Barack Obama (2009) In his acceptance speech, Obama himself acknowledged that his achievements were modest compared to previous laureates. Whether Trump can join that list remains uncertain, not least because his latest nomination does not appear to be procedurally valid.
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
40 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Another 'anti-national' held in Assam, total 94 since Pahalgam attack
The police have launched action against those people who were allegedly indulging in 'anti-India and pro-Pakistan activities' Press Trust of India Guwahati


Time of India
43 minutes ago
- Time of India
Huge blow to Indian diplomacy: Congress on Trump-Munir lunch
The Congress on Thursday attacked the government after US President Donald Trump hosted Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir for lunch, saying it is a "huge blow" to Indian diplomacy . Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh said Field Marshal Asim Munir is not the Head of State or Head of government of Pakistan and is the Chief of Army Staff, yet he gets invited by Trump for lunch and receives much praise. "This is the same man whose atrocious and inflammatory remarks formed the immediate backdrop to the brutal Pahalgam terror attacks orchestrated by the establishment over which he presides," Ramesh said on X. "It is a huge blow to Indian diplomacy (and huglomacy too)," he said, taking a swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Congress has been taking swipes at Modi, giving "hugs" to foreign heads of state during his meetings with them at international or bilateral engagements, using the term "huglomacy" for it. Live Events Meanwhile, Trump has said the two very smart leaders of India and Pakistan decided not to continue a war that could have turned nuclear, a first in weeks, he did not claim credit for stopping hostilities between the two neighbouring nations. Trump made the remarks while speaking to the media in the Oval Office after hosting Munir for lunch at the White House on Wednesday. Trump also said he was honoured to meet Munir. When asked if Iran was discussed in his meeting with Munir, Trump said: Well, they know Iran very well, better than most, and they're not happy about anything. It's not that they're bad with Israel. They know them both, actually, but they probably, maybe they know Iran better, but they see what's going on, and he agreed with me. "The reason I had him here, I want to thank him for not going into the war, ending the war. And I want to thank, as you know, Prime Minister Modi just left a little while ago, and we're working on a trade deal with India. We're working on a trade deal with Pakistan," the president said. "They were both here, but I was with Modi a few weeks ago. He was here actually, but now we speak to him. And I'm so happy that two smart people, plus you know, people on their staff too, but two smart people, two very smart people decided not to keep going with that war. That could have been a nuclear war. Those are two nuclear powers, big ones, big, big nuclear powers, and they decided that," he said. This is the first time in weeks that Trump did not take credit for stopping the military conflict after India launched Operation Sindoor and destroyed terror infrastructure in Pakistan-controlled areas following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives. Since May 10, when India and Pakistan decided to stop the military conflict, Trump has repeatedly claimed on multiple occasions that he helped settle tensions between the two countries and that he told the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours that America would do a lot of trade with them if they stopped the conflict. Earlier on Thursday, with Trump repeating his persistent claim that he stopped a war between India and Pakistan, hours after speaking with PM Modi and before meeting Munir, the Congress claimed that he has deflated the hype created by Modi's "PR machinery" and said the prime minister must refute the claims made by the American leader publicly. Congress' media and publicity department head, Pawan Khera, asked whether the word of the Prime Minister and the Ministry of External Affairs is now so weak that they can't even clearly present India's position in a half-hour call with the US President. Khera's remarks came after Modi spoke with Trump and set the record straight that India had paused strikes on Pakistan during Operation Sindoor following a request from Islamabad and not due to mediation or a trade deal offer by the US. In his 35-minute phone call with Trump on Tuesday, Modi briefed the US President on Operation Sindoor and made it clear that it has never accepted any third-party mediation and will never accept it in the future, according to Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. Hours after his phone conversation with Modi, Trump repeated his claim that he stopped a war between India and Pakistan. In a post on X, Khera quoted Trump - "I stopped the war. I spoke to Prime Minister Modi last night. We're going to sign a trade deal very soon." "Once again, Donald Trump has deflated the hype created by Modi ji's PR machinery. What we were told through the Foreign Secretary about the contents of a telephone conversation has been publicly contradicted by Trump," the Congress leader said. Is the word of Modi and the Ministry of External Affairs now so weak that they can't even clearly present India's position in a half-hour call with the US President? he asked. "When Trump hyphenated India and Pakistan, the government stayed silent. It was the opposition that objected," Khera said. "Now, Trump has hyphenated Modi and (Pakistan Army chief Asim) Munir - and again, the government remains mute. But the opposition will never accept this insult to the office of India's prime minister," he said. Trump is making these claims himself, neither through officials, nor in private phone calls - he's making them repeatedly, publicly, Khera pointed out. "It is the prime minister who must refute these claims, and he must do so publicly," he asserted.