
The victims of grooming gangs deserve justice – at long last, they may get it
Whether or not it counts as a U-turn, as it's been called, is somewhat beside the point: the government's announcement of a full statutory national inquiry into the way the grooming scandal was mishandled by the authorities is long overdue and highly welcome.
The prime minister and the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, are showing the kind of determination to secure justice that has been absent for an inexplicable run of time.
Perhaps even more heartening, showing that it is actually possible for ministers to take control of events and not wait for lengthy inquiries, is the news that there will be a nationwide policing operation to bring any known or suspected historic grooming gang members to justice.
Led by the National Crime Agency rather than the local forces sometimes discredited by past behaviour, more than 800 older cases – an astounding figure suggestive of a vast backlog of organised, predatory child cruelty – are being reopened. A new police model of investigating these gangs will help prevent future shortcomings.
Baroness Casey, true to her past record of cutting through bureaucratic inertia, has set out the extent to which the victims of these evil men were let down by the few people they could turn to when they needed help – and thus the assistance and, indeed, justice to which they were entitled.
The government is right to say that the issue has not been completely ignored until now. Certainly, it arose at the start of the year when Elon Musk made false claims that Home Office guidance supposedly issued in 2008 had asked police not to intervene in child grooming cases. There have been prosecutions and convictions, the particular and striking racial dimension to some of the gangs' modus operandi has been well recognised, there has already been one overarching national inquiry by Professor Alexis Jay, and some in-depth local investigations, such as in Rotherham.
Indeed, the press began reporting on the way gangs of men of predominantly Pakistani origin or heritage had been preying upon white girls and young white women as long ago as 2011.
So it was not a case of complete inaction and a scandal erupting even now. But what has also been long apparent is that what has been achieved so far has not been enough – and there is no excuse for the failures and the neglect of many victims. It is unforgivable.
That is the point of the Casey review, which has looked at the facts and the sorry history of the predators in unflinching detail. These were rape gangs, and they engaged in sadistic and life-changing abuse. They acted in concert, and without conscience.
The racial aspect, where there was one, is disturbing. Calls for a proper resolution of the crimes had become irresistible.
It is thus time to find out, on a comprehensive basis, what went wrong and why, and to identify, in as fair and dispassionate a manner as possible, those institutions and those individuals who have questions to answer. The victims – all of them, without exception – deserve nothing less than this.
The cost, once so publicly resented by Boris Johnson when he was prime minister, is immaterial.
For too long, because they were young, because they were girls, because they sometimes were lured from care homes or unhappy lives (but by no means exclusively), or were not from families that had the knowledge and confidence to challenge the system, they were abandoned, left defenceless and even blamed.
Some were pregnant and having to face their abusers as if they were in some sort of romantic relationship. The consequences of those encounters in the streets and chicken shops will remain with them for the rest of their lives. Healing is itself painful. With everything else they were subjected to, the wall of official complacency is unfathomable.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that class, as well as race, played its part in these events – and indubitably so when their perpetrators were predominantly or entirely white. Physical or mental disability was no barrier to being a victim of depravity.
In any case, these were emotionally and physically devastating experiences for children, and have an obscenely, almost Victorian, quality to them. Yet they were committed only a few years ago, almost in plain sight, with something like collusion in parts of local government and the police, and the victims, even now, are still young.
Plainly, the country needs to have an accurate and a balanced accounting for this. The racial and class dimensions have to be faced up to and set in proper perspective. There should be no slide into a toxic Islamophobia. Not all child rapists are men of Pakistani origin and heritage, and, even more important to stress, not all Pakistani men, by origin or heritage, are abusers – indeed, they are as decent and as appalled as anyone else.
The danger – and it is a real one – is that these tragedies do become politicised and abused by those with ulterior, twisted motives, part of a grotesque narrative that sees all migrants, and particularly Muslim people, as sinister sexual predators. This is one reason why the riots last summer in England, and now again in Northern Ireland, have broken out.
The attitude of the far-right extremists is as if no white person had ever conspired to sexually abuse a child, as if Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Fred and Rose West, Ian Huntley, Jimmy Savile, and countless other notorious paedophiles – some so-called VIPs – had never lived. Each and every one of these cases of child sexual abuse is a crime against a vulnerable person, and then too often exacerbated by indifference shown by carers, social workers, police officers, prosecutors and, yes, the media generally, which didn't take the issues seriously enough, early enough.
Whereas in the past, British official inquiries have rightly focused on 'institutional racism', Ms Casey's work suggests that institutional fear of racism – ie, accusations of it – can also be a problem.
If there were 'cover-ups', or else a non-conspiratorial oversensitivity about political correctness, then they should be exposed, the reasons identified, and appropriate reforms implemented. The recommendations of previous reviews have to be enforced.
Whether Sir Keir Starmer, Ms Cooper and their colleagues will ever be given political credit for doing the right thing – identifying the crimes committed by people and organisations in the past, and delivering a measure of justice and restitution – we shall see. But as a nation, Britain is now doing the right thing by the victims. At last.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The lucrative reason Prince Harry and Meghan wrecked any chance of a compromise with the Royal Family during 'Megxit', royal author claims
Prince Harry and Meghan allegedly wrecked any chance of a compromise with the Royal Family during 'Megxit' because they wanted the 'freedom to make money and dip their toes into politics', a royal author has claimed. When Harry and Meghan stepped down as working royals in 2020, hopes were high within the Firm that a compromise could be found. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex claimed their decision to 'step back as senior members' was to become more financially independent and to enjoy privacy from the prying eyes of the media. At the time it seemed plausible that these wishes could be fulfilled alongside an agreement to represent the Crown at a select number of events every year. However, according to royal author Valentine Low, any prospect of a soft 'Megxit' was scuppered by the Sussexes over finances. Writing in his tell-all book Courtiers, Low claims that Meghan's desire to 'earn money for herself' led the couple to abandon their duties entirely. Low revealed that during discussions about how to reach a happy middle ground - which could please the whole family - multiple scenarios were explored. These ranged from Harry and Meghan 'having a month a year to do their own thing' to 'spending most of their time privately but doing a select number of royal activities'. There was apparently a 'positive atmosphere' in the room, with each party believing a deal was close. The one caveat for the Sussexes continuing royal duties - however small or minor - was that they must stick to the 'normal rules about royal behaviour'. Crucially, that would mean Harry and Meghan could not 'act or take decisions in order to gain financially'. Low writes: 'Some suspected that in the end she wanted to make money. And the only way she was going to do that was by leaving her royal life behind and going back to America.' On top of this, the couple wanted the 'freedom to dip their toes into American politics', which would represent a major breach of royal protocol for a family with a long history of being staunchly apolitical. 'There was no way for the two sides to reach an agreement on that point. 'Crucially, it was the Queen who took the view that unless they were prepared to abide by the restrictions that applied to working members of the Royal Family, they could not be allowed to carry out official duties.' Indeed, since 'Megxit' the couple have 'dipped their toes' into US politics. During the 2020 US presidential race, the couple endorsed Joe Biden in all but name in a video address urging voters to 'reject hate speech', while Meghan labelled it the 'most important election of our lifetime'. The duke said at the time: 'This election I am not able to vote in the US. But many of you may not know that I haven't been able to vote in the UK my entire life. As we approach this November, it's vital that we reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity.' While Harry and Meghan did not name their favoured candidate, many viewers thought it 'obvious' they were backing Joe Biden over Donald Trump. As such, the Sussexes were accused of 'violating' the terms of their 'Megxit' deal. In September 2020, Trump said that he was 'no fan' of the duchess after the couple released their video. In the aftermath, Republicans and other critics called on the Royal Family to strip the couple of their titles, calling their interference 'inappropriate'. In last year's election, the couple stayed publicly neutral and instead urged Americans to go out and vote. The statement read: 'Voting is not just a right; it's a fundamental way to influence the fate of our communities. 'At The Archewell Foundation, we recognize that civic engagement, no matter one's political party, is at the heart of a more just and equitable world. 'By participating in initiatives like this, we aim to amplify the message that every voice matters.' Free from the shackles of royal protocol, Meghan appears more ambitious than ever. The former Suits actress reportedly hopes to become a billionaire by launching a career in media and as a entrepreneur. In March 2024, she soft-launched American Riviera Orchard before changing the company's name to As Ever. Announcing the venture, Meghan said: 'This new chapter is an extension of what has always been my love language, beautifully weaving together everything I cherish - food, gardening, entertaining, thoughtful living, and finding joy in the everyday.' The food products sold by the brand include an assortment of teas, edible flower sprinkles and a £20 jar of honey. Speaking on an episode of her podcast, Confessions Of A Female Founder, Meghan revealed she has decided to 'just pause' restocking her As Ever brand after previously selling out of products in less than an hour. Meghan has invested in a number of companies including the vegan coffee brand Clevr Blends and haircare line Highbrow Hippie. She has also invested in asset manager Ethic, which focuses on sustainable investments. Harry and Meghan signed a lucrative £18million deal with Spotify in 2020. However despite appearing to be a joint venture, the only show they produced was hosted by Meghan. In the series, titled Archetypes, Meghan interviewed various celebrities from Serena Williams to Paris Hilton. The deal was 'mutually ended' in June 2023 with sources claiming the music streaming giant did not see enough content to warrant the full payout. Earlier this year, the duchess launched her Confessions Of A Female Founder podcast, which saw her chat with female business owners from an array of successful companies. In a slight career change, Meghan also penned a children's book in 2021 titled The Bench. It follows the relationship of a father and son through the eyes of the mother and received mixed reviews from critics. In their television projects, Harry and Meghan have kept a much more united front, but even so, the couple appear to be working separately more often. Although an official figure was never announced, Harry and Meghan's deal with Netflix was allegedly worth around £80million, and the couple produced multiple shows. In 2022, the first Netflix series about the Sussexes was released aptly named Harry and Meghan. While it holds the record for the biggest debut for a Netflix documentary it received mixed reviews. The pair were also executive producers on the Polo sports documentary series which followed athletes at the US Open Polo Championship. In 2023, Meghan did not join Harry as an executive producer on the Heart Of Invictus series, although the duke and duchess did appear together in the show. Meghan's first major solo television project was her lifestyle programme called With Love, Meghan, which saw her team up with a number of famous guests to cook and create homeware products. Harry was almost entirely absent from the series, aside from a very brief cameo in the last episode. A source from the show has since reported that neither Harry nor their children will appear in the next season. Although The Mail On Sunday revealed in May that Harry is planning to launch his own as-yet-undisclosed commercial venture in the next few months, he remains focused on his charity work. Harry is still involved heavily with the Invictus Games and the foundation which supports the tournament as well as the HALO Trust - a charity working to remove landmines which Princess Diana supported. The duke has also launched other projects in recent years, including an eco-travel campaign through his non-profit Travalyst, aimed at encouraging sustainable travel. And in November 2023, he became the global ambassador for Scotty's Little Soldiers - a charity that cares for children whose parents died while serving in the Armed Forces. Earlier this year, Harry had his most high profile fallout with a charity to date when he and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho resigned from their roles as patrons of Sentebale.


Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Donald Trump's US chip revival is half-assembled
LONDON, June 17 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Donald Trump is hoping to secure American dominance in semiconductors over China. The president wants to bring production of chips back to the U.S., while courting allies. But success will take years and much more capital, while looming tariffs and unclear export rules add cost and confusion. When it comes to stimulating a key industry, the U.S. strategy is falling short. For an example of how to approach state-backed industrial planning, look to China. The People's Republic has already become a powerhouse in making solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles. A decade ago, President Xi Jinping launched his 'Made in China 2025' plan with the intention of reducing the country's reliance on foreign semiconductors from 85% to around 30%. The urgency was clear: chips had overtaken oil as China's largest import. Nearly a decade later, China has not met its goal, but local capacity is ramping up. Of the 51 wafer fabrication plants currently under construction worldwide, 23 are in China, according to an industry expert. It's a direct result of government funding: state-led investment in chips has probably exceeded $150 billion since 2014, according to, opens new tab the Economist Intelligence Unit. Little wonder that the U.S. is worrying about its dominance of advanced chips and artificial intelligence. While Huawei CEO Ren Zhengfei says, opens new tab the Chinese tech giant's chips are still one generation behind U.S. rivals, Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab CEO Jensen Huang has said Huawei's latest processors are approaching parity with the $3.5 trillion company's cutting-edge H200 graphics processors. These are central to training advanced AI models. Chinese players like DeepSeek are also showing signs of catching up. For the Trump administration, maintaining the U.S. lead starts with safeguarding demand for American products. That means ensuring key international customers in Europe and the Middle East don't drift toward Chinese suppliers. It's one reason Trump scrapped his predecessor Joe Biden's 'diffusion rule', which set country-specific quotas for advanced chips. The rule risked restricting previously friendly nations' access to semiconductors, pushing them into Huawei's arms. On the supply side, Trump wants to bring manufacturing back onshore. As most advanced chips are still made in Taiwan, any diversification of supply chains makes sense. The $52.7 billion Biden-era CHIPS and Science Act -- which includes, opens new tab $39 billion in subsidies for domestic chip manufacturing -- is a start, but progress is slow. The bill only releases funds as projects meet staged milestones. Trump has criticised the act, while also using it to force private companies to crank up investment stateside. Taiwanese giant TSMC ( opens new tab, for instance, committed to spending over $100 billion in the U.S. as it finalised state funding of $6.6 billion. GlobalFoundries (GFS.O), opens new tab this month pledged, opens new tab $16 billion alongside a $1.5 billion subsidy. Tariffs are another of Trump's favoured tools. He has asked the Commerce Department to investigate chip supply chains under Section 232, citing national security. But applying levies to semiconductors is fraught. For a start, the U.S. imports relatively few chips, but lots of products which contain them. Semiconductors worth less than $40 billion arrived in the country in 2024, while the U.S. imported electronic goods worth $486 billion, according to the International Trade Centre. Trying to impose tariffs on components inside devices like laptops and iPhones would be tricky. There's no easy way to tell where the chip was made once it's been packaged. Even if the Trump administration can successfully tilt the playing field towards domestic manufacturing, however, resilience still comes at a price. Proposed subsidies would make the cost of building semiconductor fabrication plants in the United States as competitive as in Asia, according to an industry analyst. But running those plants in a high-wage economy is another challenge: McKinsey & Company estimates operating costs are 35% higher in the U.S. than in Taiwan. Buyers of U.S.-made chips for cars or medical machines would have to absorb that premium or pass it on to customers. It also implies that semiconductor firms will need ongoing support in the form of tax breaks or operational subsidies as they shift supply chains. However, Trump has made hostile noises about the costs of the CHIPS Act. One key incentive, a 25% investment tax credit for every dollar chipmakers spend on capital expenditures, is set to expire unless renewed. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has hinted at possibly withholding further subsidies unless paired with broader tax legislation. The administration's stance on immigration, especially from China, is another impediment. Nvidia's Huang reckons around half of global AI researchers are Chinese. Meanwhile, nearly a third of chip companies' design engineers are in mainland China – the same proportion as in the United States, according to BCG data. The administration's policy on export controls also remains in flux. Though it has rolled back the 'diffusion rule', nothing has replaced it. Crafting bespoke export agreements with every partner like the United Arab Emirates will be time-consuming. Other potential measures, such as banning shipments of chip-making equipment made by the likes of ASML ( opens new tab to China, would require cooperation from key allies in Japan and the Netherlands. It would also require U.S. equipment makers like $114 billion Lam Research (LRCX.O), opens new tab to sacrifice revenue which could be as much as 30% of the total top line. Trump's chaotic and go-it-alone instincts on tariffs risk undermining the partnerships he will need to isolate China. China's chip campaign still falls short in several areas, including scale and efficiency. But Beijing's strategic clarity, persistence, and willingness to absorb long-term costs signal its serious intent. By contrast, Trump's U.S. chip revival is at best half-assembled. Follow Karen Kwok on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab.


The Sun
36 minutes ago
- The Sun
Woman ‘repeatedly punched in head before being pushed out of speeding van' as cops launch urgent hunt for driver
A WOMAN was repeatedly punched in the head and pushed out of a moving car by a man, police said. Cops said is only by chance she was not seriously hurt or even killed. 1 The victim was a passenger in a small grey van with a man driving when the ordeal unfolded. Witnesses may have seen it moving "erratically and at high speeds". The woman was left with serious cuts, burns and grazes to her head, face and body. A passing motorist stopped to help her after she was shoved out of the van. The man drove off from the scene following the shocking assault, which happened between 9pm and 9.45pm on Saturday in Tunbridge Wells, Kent. Police said the woman and driver knew each other. Cops are asking drivers to check dashcams and locals to check their CCTV to help with the investigation. Detective Constable Tom Bale of Kent Police, who is investigating the assault, said: 'The victim was pushed from the vehicle at speed and it is only by chance she didn't suffer more serious or even fatal injuries. 'The suspect was driving a small grey van which may also have the appearance of a car. It approached Pembury Road from the direction of the High Street and Grove Hill Road and may have been seen moving erratically and at high speeds. 'The suspect currently remains at large and we are urging anyone who may have information and who has not yet spoken to the police to contact us straight away. 'We are also asking drivers to check for important footage they may have on dash cams, along with residents living on the route the vehicle took to check doorbell or CCTV cameras.'