The rape gang "inquiry" is a cynical sham
The more I think about Rupert Lowe’s rape gang “inquiry” the more I think it’s all been a cynical sham. That it was rushed out two days before the Makerfield by-election tells its own story. But it’s more than that. It’s taken me a couple of days to put my finger on it.
I’ve already alluded to the lack of a clear purpose and methodology, and the how the final report is disjointed to say the least. In the shape it’s in, I struggle to see the point of it - other than a cynical piece of partisan propaganda.
It stuck me that the “analysis” is almost completely unrelated to the actual testimonies. The testimonies are really just descriptions of the victims respective ordeals. There was no structured approach to the interviews - because they didn’t know what they wanted to get out of them.
If the purpose is to go after the perpetrators, then that requires criminal investigative techniques. If, though, the purpose is to establish how the system failed the victims, it requires a completely different line of interrogation - which is less to do with what they went through and more to do with the interface between the victims and the state.
If it was to add value, as opposed to recycling much of what we already know, it would uncover new failings and have fingers to point at new culprits within the state apparatus. This report doesn’t do any of that. What is offered is largely a collection of heart-breaking stories to be consumed in the same way that women passively watch true crime documentaries. It has parallels with modern war reporting where there is little effort to establish what is happening, in favour of emotive depictions of human suffering.
The report tacks on a bit of speculative pseudo-sociological punditry and some threadbare recommendations, but these recommendations are not made on the basis of testimonies given. Very little in the report relates to what was discerned from victim interviews - victims who had to relive the ordeal.
A real inquiry would have established a structured approach to interviews and evidence-gathering, and identified persons of interest form those testimonies to summon. As we know, this fake inquiry never had any powers to compel witnesses, but it doesn’t identify any specific failings. Nothing came from this that could be passed on to authorities.
As such, the greatest sin of this enterprise is to call itself an inquiry when it’s really just an airing of the issues. That may have utility in its own right, but dressing it up as something it clearly isn’t and then deploying it as a piece of electioneering is a violation of ethics. Were the victims able to give informed consent that their testimonies would essentially become party literature for a party that gives houseroom to neo-Nazis?
Rupert Lowe has stated his intention to pursue civil proceedings on the back of this, but nowhere is it documented as to who or what is in their gunsights. The problem here is that these party-politicised proceedings, conducted without due diligence, will open victims up to the suggestion that they’ve been subject to partisan witness coaching, and have their reliability and integrity questioned in such a way that there is no defence. Given how every corner has been cut, the chances of success are severely reduced.
This all struck me as a pretty shoddy gimmick when it was first mooted by Farage. It was only resurrected by Lowe to get one over on Reform, and as such, the victims have been used for petty point-scoring and steered into something that does not have their best interests at heart. Contemptible, if you ask me.