Well said Pete - and as for anyone shouting "what have you done?" or "have you got any better ideas?" I'll be polite and point out that completely misses the point. You don't have to do something yourself to point out the obvious and clear logical holes in what Rupert Lowe has done here. Like you I 'smiled' at the timing of the release, although the work had been done a couple of weeks back.
I may have fallen out with somebody over this (hopefully not) because I pointed them to the account of 'Sally' on page 41. That can only be the mother of Elanor Williams, a woman convicted of perverting the course across NINE separate false accusations, which ruined lives and caused people's businesses to collapse. Also wasted thousands of hours of police time following up 'lines of inquiry' and interviewing the alleged perps, some of whom spent days inside for nothing.
If this 'inquiry' has actually allowed nonsense related to a proven/convicted habitual liar in as evidence then that confirms everything a sane, rational person needs to know. Elanor Williams was caught on CCTV in places 'other than' when she claimed to be in the event of being trafficked, snatched etc. She claimed to have been 'got at' in a hotel/safehouse which would open up all sorts of questions around rogue police officers etc. She was found on CCTV, in the hotel shop, buying things that people buy. She wasn't trafficked or groomed. Bang to rights.
I did wonder how many 'fake victims' are going to come forward in amongst the real ones - look, if you give people an audience and perhaps the prospect of compensation via a private prosecution then chancers are gonna see the proverbial coconut and have a shy at it. There were fake Yewtree, Grenfell victims etc so who's surprised? They're probably amongst the people who walked away from a 'proper' enquiry, which would have cross examined and tested their evidence.
The truth about this problem is we'll never know the true scale of it, plus exactly what was ignored by the police and other public officials. It could have been compelling evidence, pub talk or somewhere in between and in many cases we're genuinely not going to find out.
Kudos to Pete for not being afraid to take on 'his own side' here. Articulated the concerns quite a few of us had, myself included.
The fucking idiots have re-toxified and politicised the issue to make it more of a culture wars lodestone than it already was. (Slow hand clap).
The one chance anyone had with this was to make an issue of class, misogyny, and failure of the state in safeguarding. Grasping that nettle and making changes to ensure swift colourblind justice if this happens in the future. Make it so that the police can be trusted on this in the future.
Instead anger and hatred have overwhelmed the issue and it’s been used by fucking knuckle dragging idiots who just want to deport darkies.
The best that could and should have been done was to commission a proper academic study. This would have involved hard graft, looking at court records and statistics. This would have allowed for witness evidence, analysis of how and why, and recommendations. A team of academics, lawyers and investigative journalists could have achieved something of value that may have shamed government and media into taking the subject seriously.
Which is EXACTLY what I've been trying to achieve with The Survivors. We have made something of a start, by setting out what we believe a Grooming Gang to be: https://www.thesurvivors.org.uk/post/what-is-a-grooming-gang, but it's slow going as we have no funding.
It's sad as there is a real problem and so many victims have been let down so badly. As you write, there needs to be a proper study and one that leads to real action.
I don’t think there’s been any serious study of the subject. This would have been a golden opportunity to produce a credible piece of research that could not be avoided.
‘A real enquiry’ - now there lies the crux of the matter.
Thirty or more years after the term ‘mass’ could be applied to Pakistani rape gangs and here we are still with no enquiry and a promise from a government that has blood on its hands.
Peter prejudges Rupert’s actions.
Why?
Is he really concerned in rubbishing Ruperts report - for altruistic reasons or for political reasons - the same accusation he applies to Rupert?
Both Labour and Tory’s have history on this disgusting abomination and I suspect Peters affiliation with Tory ethos leaves one wandering about his motives.
I think the same accusation of cynical manipulation can be applied to the originator.
We didn’t ask you. You volunteered and pontificated on it which in itself is fair enough. Other than continual sniping at Lowe and Restore what positive contribution to the debate does this hit piece add? I’m all for holding people to account and I expect you to do that. This piece however demonstrates your own contemptuous approach to those who actually try to address a serious problem in our country that has been ignored by the establishment for decades! It’s easy to tear something apart! How about some articles that contribute to making our country a better and safer place?
Answer me this. Am I wrong about this? Do you think this has been conducted with the necessary professionalism and sincerity necessary to hold its own as a piece of investigative work that put the interests of the victims first?
Hi Pete thanks for coming back. Are you wrong? That depends on what your intentions were/are for the post! I believe the intention for Rupert/Restore with the Report was to raise the profile of this scandal so that firstly it can no longer be ignored and secondly address what can be done instead of brushing it under the carpet. How else do we address and deal with this intolerable horror? Rupert has said private prosecutions will follow. Let’s hope that happens and if not we can hold them to account on that! On another point your work on policy is second to none and Restore Britain would do well to pay attention to it going forward! I for one hope they do because any party that doesn’t get that right will ultimately fail! Keep going! 👍
Not a cynical sham. Why don't you do something yourself if you can do better?
I, for one, am glad Rupert Lowe has taken up this issue, despite the flaws. It has raised awareness and shone light where darkness has ruled for too long.
Lowe was able to crowd fund the enquiry because many people were fed up with Labour trying to avoid one then dragging its feet over the official enquiry. In providing the enquiry so many people wanted he was not being cynical. At least, one should refrain from mind reminding and imputing motives for which evidence is lacking. He may, in part, have wanted to get one over Farage and Yusuf and in proportion to their rather nasty attempts to get one over him.
If private prosecutions are planned then presenting the case against named individuals in the report would open Restore to a series of defamation claims and tie it up in legal proceedings. The omission was not the flaw claimed.
Victims have walked away from the official enquiry, not Lowe's. Tells you something.
One can critique Lowe's report without trying to discredit it.
I accept your analysis but having met Rupert Lowe i don't think he would have set out with the intent of producing a sham enquiry but he is a man in a hurry and believes he can win the next election and become PM so he doesn't have time to do the essential detail needed.
He is I believe gravely mistaken and the best he might be able to do is expose Farage for the charlatan he is for after all with Yusuf he tried to get Lowe locked up by telling the police he had threatened to kill Yusuf and in the process his 13 guns and rifles were confiscated by the police. After an investigation no charges were brought and the case was dropped.
If I'm being generous this inquiry has served a purpose in showing up the Labour government's disgraceful refusal to have a proper, official one. But as with everything with the new, allegedly right wing parties it's all about the headline grabbing with no detail. I'm still more disgusted by Labour though.
I have been struck on social media by the number of people who are ignorant of the law in the UK when they presume that criminal proceedings will result from the outcome of this enquiry. Few seem to grasp that the best anyone can hope for would be civil proceedings which, of themselves, may be useful but most culprits will escape.
But we all know about the grooming gangs - more prosecutions and jail sentences are in our media every week. What Rupert would be better off doing is putting unremitting pressure on the government to get on with the national enquiry and make sure it includes testimony from those poor girls/women who participated in his. Each government, Tory & Labour, has kicked it into the long grass because of the muslim vote. It is appalling for that alone.
There appears to be quite a few people on X who don’t understand that criticism of the methodology or lack of isn’t the same as being dismissive and insensitive towards the hell those young girls went through.
The biggest problem with the report is that prior to it starting both Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe had been talking about private inquiries. Maggie Oliver asked them both not to do it. Farage stopped, Lowe didn't. So he's done this directly against Maggie Oliver's request. We all want proper justice for the survivors, not a kangaroo court which Lowe is intending in doing as he is intending to name the culprits involved in the coverups using parliamentary privilege.
So it's not that no-one wants to talk about it, it's that we should be acting in the interests of the survivors for them to get justice.
I have read the report and the details are harrowing. But, despite this, it has been politicised by Lowe so I question his intentions. First he announced the creation of his new political party on the last day of the inquiry and then he produced the report 2 days before the Makerfield by-election. That's pure grandstanding and the very definition of politicising an issue.
No wonder more people aren't supporting it.
Not because we don't want to talk about the rape gangs and the awfulness surrounding it. But because we don't want any further scandal attached to it that would draw attention away from the survivors and their justice.
"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"
Yes. It's definitely not rigorous enough. But I'm not sure this issue historically ever had enough exposure for the same reasons various authorities covered up the crimes to begin with. (And despite a couple of earlier reports being published.)
It's still a high risk strategy. Getting this information (or at least the testimonies) into wider circulation may increase the pressure for some kind of 'proper' inquiry - although the government would have no credibility at all in arranging one, since they are, in part, the defendants here.
And, of course, there's the risk that people who wish to continue to evade responsibility would simply say, "Well, Lowe did the inquiry. There's no need for another."
I don't know. I think it was a waste in many ways, as you have suggested. But I also do think it needed to be done for the public airing utility - for people who do not have their fingers on the political pulse, and might not have known any of the details of this dark and presumably ongoing chapter.
Well said Pete - and as for anyone shouting "what have you done?" or "have you got any better ideas?" I'll be polite and point out that completely misses the point. You don't have to do something yourself to point out the obvious and clear logical holes in what Rupert Lowe has done here. Like you I 'smiled' at the timing of the release, although the work had been done a couple of weeks back.
I may have fallen out with somebody over this (hopefully not) because I pointed them to the account of 'Sally' on page 41. That can only be the mother of Elanor Williams, a woman convicted of perverting the course across NINE separate false accusations, which ruined lives and caused people's businesses to collapse. Also wasted thousands of hours of police time following up 'lines of inquiry' and interviewing the alleged perps, some of whom spent days inside for nothing.
If this 'inquiry' has actually allowed nonsense related to a proven/convicted habitual liar in as evidence then that confirms everything a sane, rational person needs to know. Elanor Williams was caught on CCTV in places 'other than' when she claimed to be in the event of being trafficked, snatched etc. She claimed to have been 'got at' in a hotel/safehouse which would open up all sorts of questions around rogue police officers etc. She was found on CCTV, in the hotel shop, buying things that people buy. She wasn't trafficked or groomed. Bang to rights.
I did wonder how many 'fake victims' are going to come forward in amongst the real ones - look, if you give people an audience and perhaps the prospect of compensation via a private prosecution then chancers are gonna see the proverbial coconut and have a shy at it. There were fake Yewtree, Grenfell victims etc so who's surprised? They're probably amongst the people who walked away from a 'proper' enquiry, which would have cross examined and tested their evidence.
The truth about this problem is we'll never know the true scale of it, plus exactly what was ignored by the police and other public officials. It could have been compelling evidence, pub talk or somewhere in between and in many cases we're genuinely not going to find out.
Kudos to Pete for not being afraid to take on 'his own side' here. Articulated the concerns quite a few of us had, myself included.
They don't even realise that the value of a methodology is to insulate yourself from this very opportunism.
Fully agree. Halal Rupert is a user. He used the victims for his own benefit.
Absolutely agree.
The fucking idiots have re-toxified and politicised the issue to make it more of a culture wars lodestone than it already was. (Slow hand clap).
The one chance anyone had with this was to make an issue of class, misogyny, and failure of the state in safeguarding. Grasping that nettle and making changes to ensure swift colourblind justice if this happens in the future. Make it so that the police can be trusted on this in the future.
Instead anger and hatred have overwhelmed the issue and it’s been used by fucking knuckle dragging idiots who just want to deport darkies.
Yeah, well, I'd like to deport darkies. Next.
Idiot.
The best that could and should have been done was to commission a proper academic study. This would have involved hard graft, looking at court records and statistics. This would have allowed for witness evidence, analysis of how and why, and recommendations. A team of academics, lawyers and investigative journalists could have achieved something of value that may have shamed government and media into taking the subject seriously.
Which is EXACTLY what I've been trying to achieve with The Survivors. We have made something of a start, by setting out what we believe a Grooming Gang to be: https://www.thesurvivors.org.uk/post/what-is-a-grooming-gang, but it's slow going as we have no funding.
It's sad as there is a real problem and so many victims have been let down so badly. As you write, there needs to be a proper study and one that leads to real action.
I don’t think there’s been any serious study of the subject. This would have been a golden opportunity to produce a credible piece of research that could not be avoided.
‘A real enquiry’ - now there lies the crux of the matter.
Thirty or more years after the term ‘mass’ could be applied to Pakistani rape gangs and here we are still with no enquiry and a promise from a government that has blood on its hands.
Peter prejudges Rupert’s actions.
Why?
Is he really concerned in rubbishing Ruperts report - for altruistic reasons or for political reasons - the same accusation he applies to Rupert?
Both Labour and Tory’s have history on this disgusting abomination and I suspect Peters affiliation with Tory ethos leaves one wandering about his motives.
I think the same accusation of cynical manipulation can be applied to the originator.
We didn’t ask you. You volunteered and pontificated on it which in itself is fair enough. Other than continual sniping at Lowe and Restore what positive contribution to the debate does this hit piece add? I’m all for holding people to account and I expect you to do that. This piece however demonstrates your own contemptuous approach to those who actually try to address a serious problem in our country that has been ignored by the establishment for decades! It’s easy to tear something apart! How about some articles that contribute to making our country a better and safer place?
Answer me this. Am I wrong about this? Do you think this has been conducted with the necessary professionalism and sincerity necessary to hold its own as a piece of investigative work that put the interests of the victims first?
Hi Pete thanks for coming back. Are you wrong? That depends on what your intentions were/are for the post! I believe the intention for Rupert/Restore with the Report was to raise the profile of this scandal so that firstly it can no longer be ignored and secondly address what can be done instead of brushing it under the carpet. How else do we address and deal with this intolerable horror? Rupert has said private prosecutions will follow. Let’s hope that happens and if not we can hold them to account on that! On another point your work on policy is second to none and Restore Britain would do well to pay attention to it going forward! I for one hope they do because any party that doesn’t get that right will ultimately fail! Keep going! 👍
Not a cynical sham. Why don't you do something yourself if you can do better?
I, for one, am glad Rupert Lowe has taken up this issue, despite the flaws. It has raised awareness and shone light where darkness has ruled for too long.
Lowe was able to crowd fund the enquiry because many people were fed up with Labour trying to avoid one then dragging its feet over the official enquiry. In providing the enquiry so many people wanted he was not being cynical. At least, one should refrain from mind reminding and imputing motives for which evidence is lacking. He may, in part, have wanted to get one over Farage and Yusuf and in proportion to their rather nasty attempts to get one over him.
If private prosecutions are planned then presenting the case against named individuals in the report would open Restore to a series of defamation claims and tie it up in legal proceedings. The omission was not the flaw claimed.
Victims have walked away from the official enquiry, not Lowe's. Tells you something.
One can critique Lowe's report without trying to discredit it.
its slop.
I accept your analysis but having met Rupert Lowe i don't think he would have set out with the intent of producing a sham enquiry but he is a man in a hurry and believes he can win the next election and become PM so he doesn't have time to do the essential detail needed.
He is I believe gravely mistaken and the best he might be able to do is expose Farage for the charlatan he is for after all with Yusuf he tried to get Lowe locked up by telling the police he had threatened to kill Yusuf and in the process his 13 guns and rifles were confiscated by the police. After an investigation no charges were brought and the case was dropped.
Lowe clearly doesn't do forgiveness!
His chances of becoming PM are just above zero but then anything can happen between now and 2029.
Except Lowe becoming our PM!!
I say again "anything"!!! But you are probably right.
If I'm being generous this inquiry has served a purpose in showing up the Labour government's disgraceful refusal to have a proper, official one. But as with everything with the new, allegedly right wing parties it's all about the headline grabbing with no detail. I'm still more disgusted by Labour though.
I have been struck on social media by the number of people who are ignorant of the law in the UK when they presume that criminal proceedings will result from the outcome of this enquiry. Few seem to grasp that the best anyone can hope for would be civil proceedings which, of themselves, may be useful but most culprits will escape.
But we all know about the grooming gangs - more prosecutions and jail sentences are in our media every week. What Rupert would be better off doing is putting unremitting pressure on the government to get on with the national enquiry and make sure it includes testimony from those poor girls/women who participated in his. Each government, Tory & Labour, has kicked it into the long grass because of the muslim vote. It is appalling for that alone.
No sh*t Sherlock. All this bloody time you've been supporting this and FINALLY you get it.
There appears to be quite a few people on X who don’t understand that criticism of the methodology or lack of isn’t the same as being dismissive and insensitive towards the hell those young girls went through.
The biggest problem with the report is that prior to it starting both Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe had been talking about private inquiries. Maggie Oliver asked them both not to do it. Farage stopped, Lowe didn't. So he's done this directly against Maggie Oliver's request. We all want proper justice for the survivors, not a kangaroo court which Lowe is intending in doing as he is intending to name the culprits involved in the coverups using parliamentary privilege.
https://x.com/i/status/2067118476745973913
So it's not that no-one wants to talk about it, it's that we should be acting in the interests of the survivors for them to get justice.
I have read the report and the details are harrowing. But, despite this, it has been politicised by Lowe so I question his intentions. First he announced the creation of his new political party on the last day of the inquiry and then he produced the report 2 days before the Makerfield by-election. That's pure grandstanding and the very definition of politicising an issue.
No wonder more people aren't supporting it.
Not because we don't want to talk about the rape gangs and the awfulness surrounding it. But because we don't want any further scandal attached to it that would draw attention away from the survivors and their justice.
"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"
Yes. It's definitely not rigorous enough. But I'm not sure this issue historically ever had enough exposure for the same reasons various authorities covered up the crimes to begin with. (And despite a couple of earlier reports being published.)
It's still a high risk strategy. Getting this information (or at least the testimonies) into wider circulation may increase the pressure for some kind of 'proper' inquiry - although the government would have no credibility at all in arranging one, since they are, in part, the defendants here.
And, of course, there's the risk that people who wish to continue to evade responsibility would simply say, "Well, Lowe did the inquiry. There's no need for another."
I don't know. I think it was a waste in many ways, as you have suggested. But I also do think it needed to be done for the public airing utility - for people who do not have their fingers on the political pulse, and might not have known any of the details of this dark and presumably ongoing chapter.