Main Edition
US
FR
January 8, 2025 - 1:00pm
Calls for a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs have been opposed by some on the grounds that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) has already been held. The argument goes that since the flagship report on child sexual abuse was accompanied with a smaller one on child sexual exploitation (CSE) by organised networks, there have been enough inquiries.
Led by Professor Alexis Jay, the IICSA focused on six case study areas for its report on CSE by “organised networks” — Tower Hamlets, Bristol, Durham, Warwickshire, St Helens, and Swansea. The IICSA made the decision not to focus on cities and towns which had “already been the subject of independent investigation” — such as Oxford, Rotherham, Telford, Rochdale, and Oldham (in its core report on child sexual abuse, there is no mention of Telford or Oldham at all). Eight themes were examined in each of the six case study areas, but none specifically examined sociocultural and psychological factors which drive forms of group-localised child sexual exploitation (GLCSE). This includes the prevalence of clannish kinship networks which originate from parts of the world where child sexual exploitation involving “family enterprises” remains a serious problem.
While the IICSA justified the exclusion of towns such as Rotherham and Telford on the basis that they have already been the subject of independent investigation, it is alarming that a 171-page report on CSE perpetrated by organised networks fails to meaningfully engage with the institutional failures surrounding the industrial-scale rape, torture, coercion, and intimidation of children in such towns. A 2018 academic paper found that men of Pakistani-Muslim heritage dominated GLCSE prosecutions, especially those who were part of tight-knit networks in the low-skilled parts of the night-time economy. Yet, cases of this crime being committed by perpetrators of this background barely feature in the IICSA’s work, with no serious analysis of the cultural factors at play and the degree to which such atrocities were racially motivated.
While Jay — who authored the report on group-based CSE in Rotherham published in 2014 — has argued that there is not the need for a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs, the research produced by the IICSA is insufficient in terms of understanding the national phenomenon of group-localised child sexual exploitation. The current research also isn’t able to shed light on public-sector accountability in cases of gross institutional mismanagement. Those referring to the IICSA to dismiss calls to hold a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs are either unaware of the content of its work, or are opportunistically doing so in the hope that further public attention is not paid to industrial-scale cases of GLCSE which are an inconvenience to their multicultural beliefs.
There is an opportunity to hold a truly national public inquiry into GLCSE which provides a voice for unheard victims and strives to determine public-sector accountability — investigating the role of central Government, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), local councils, police forces, social services, safeguarding teams, and the school system. It should also explore the cultural, social, and economic factors behind the development and operations of GLCSE networks across Britain. A hypothetical statutory inquiry into grooming gangs should also incorporate oft-overlooked cases of group-localised CSE within Asian Muslim communities — drawing inspiration from work done by the Muslim Women’s Network UK (MWNUK).
The nationwide scandal surrounding GLCSE should no longer be the British state’s dirty secret. A statutory inquiry into grooming gangs is needed — but it must be one that truly engages with how such horrific acts of depravity were able to take place in modern Britain and why it happened disproportionately among certain ethnic communities. Ultimately, it must hold those who failed in their duty of care accountable and while the recommendations of the Jay report have not yet been implemented — and they should be — there are still too many stones left unturned.
Dr Rakib Ehsan is a researcher specialising in British ethnic minority socio-political attitudes, with a particular focus on the effects of social integration and intergroup relations.
rakibehsan
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Ultimately, it must hold those who failed in their duty of care accountable”.
Unlikely, given how many of these people are currently in senior government positions or sitting in the House of Lords.
I am so cynical about the whole situation. There are too many high-ups with too many well-placed friends to ever be held to account. Lets face it, they can’t even deport the convicted rapists because, lowly scumbags that they are, they can still run rings around the legal system ( simply by renouncing their Pakistani citizenship ). How much less likely are any of the wokerati to ever face meaningful justice?
Honestly, we might as well save the time and expense of an inquiry.
Personally, I’d stuff the House of Lords with 100s of the victims and theirs families, just to rub the noses of the great and the good in what ‘institutional racism’ actually looks like. They can sit next to Doreen Lawrence.
Very good article. Perhaps with enough sensible voices like this Starmer, against his will, might be forced to support a national inquiry into the rape scandal with various officials being held responsible.
It is imperative that the pressure is maintained and that a full inquiry with those responsible for betraying these children while in positions of power and with a duty of care brought to account and if necessary penalised.
It will be interesting to see how many Labour MPs have a moral conscience when they vote tonight.
And what the correlation is between having a moral conscience and representing a constituency with significant Muslim population.
Not a single one.
The problem of a national inquiry is that it depends very much what the terms of reference are and the biases of the individual leading the inquiry. If it is conducted on narrow terms by an individual who prioritises “community relation” and support for multiculturalism it will not produce a report that will help resolve the scandal.
What are the chances of a chairman for such enquiry selected by a Labour administration being someone happy to shine a light on tricky questions of different cultural attitudes to sex and the instinct of Pakistani communities to cover up that which might bring shame or affect relations with non-Pakistanis? Equally would they be happy to examine the whole DEI edifice of rules and regulations that mandate different ethnicities being treated differently? Would they be happy to delve into the whole concept of “two tier” enforcement of justice?
A less shortsighted and feeble administration would be delighted to set up yet another “controlled” inquiry to park the whole issue in for a few more years and produce a series of limited proposals that do not address the underlying issues that might ruffle the feathers of their ethnic and woke followers.
Excellent article. Thank you for referencing the Muslim Women’s Network and the deeply rooted clan (biridari) based systems that have allowed some communities to continue living according to the ways of the villages their families once hailed from unchallenged.
In 2018, the MWN’s chair, Shaista Gohir, lodged an official complaint to the Labour Party claiming male Muslim (they too were mostly of Pakistani heritage) councillors were blocking female Muslims from standing for election because of ‘systematic misogyny’. In a letter to Jeremy Corbyn, Gohir, wrote: “As this is an open secret and has been going on for decades, we can only assume that the Labour party has been complicit at the highest levels……How do men who do not want Muslim women to be empowered or have a voice remain in power unless the Labour party allows it?…..It appears that over decades senior Labour politicians have deliberately turned a blind eye to the treatment of Muslim women because votes have been more important to them than women’s rights.” She said female candidates had been ‘undermined, sabotaged and blocked’ from standing for public office.
I fail to see how any woman can support this appalling party. It has cold bloodedly sold them out for votes and for power.
As a student several moons ago in the UK, I have disturbing personal experience of despicable public behaviour by these ethnic groups. Recall that as a South Asian woman in the company of white male friends, in an open cafe, being repeatedly heckled and spat upon.
These attitudes of extreme misogyny laced with sheer depravity are rooted in a culture which privileges despicable attitudes.
Clearly political correctness needs to be shelved for naming and shaming unacceptable behaviour among Pakistani Muslims of these backgrounds.
These events are magnitudes more racist and serious and institutional than any other racist event that’s ever happened in modern British history.
Think about the McPherson report, how it fundamentally changed policing – society. Again, these rape gang events are magnitudes more serious in their sheer scale and institutional complicity.
The only barrier to change is the religion of the leftist ‘oppressor class’. Which understands that its power rests completely on the narrative that only white people can be racist. It doesn’t matter what their intentions are, their fruits are evil. They have to go.
And also, the girls and their families must deserve massive, massive payouts. Are you a lawyer reading this? Then get to it. Yes, you can be a ‘right wing’ human rights lawyer.
What ‘cultural and social factors’ make this sort of behavior okay? The target of an inquiry should be on the officials who knew what was happening, refused to do much of anything about it, and targeted the people who dared to speak out.
I’ve just watched today’s Prime Minister’s Questions. Both Starmer and Badenoche avoided even mentioning what is at issue.
For twenty minutes neither dared say the phrase ‘Pakistani rape gangs’.
Having done some multiple.source reading I agree with this.conclusion. I have been reflecting on the strength of feeling within the population for the inquiry and the reason why. I believe the sense of a cover up aligned to the zeitgeist of “2 tier” and measured lack of trust in our institutions.plays a part. So too the.Trump “permission to.vent” factor expanding the overton window.. But i believe there may also be projection here. If there was a cover up the British Public acquiesced with it to a large degree. It is easier to project the shame that might accompany the current “scales falling from our eyes” moment, rather than.integrste it. Certainly as a woman I haven’t felt too comfortable looking back at my inaction.
An inquiry should be tasked to: identify the cultural factors underlying rape gangs and recommend how to prevent these factors from influencing future potential offenders. ‘Cultural’ in this does not mean nationality or race, but the behavioural norms and moralities intrinsic to these gangs.
I suspect that the problem lies in the modern belief that all cultures are of equal value. An inquiry into this would be able to reset the moral tone expected of all citizens.
If Beelzebub controlled enough votes Labour would describe him as misunderstood and that we should be sensitive to his different culture and mores and be careful not to upset his community and welcome him as a member of the Party. The Conservative Party would explain why the European Court of Human Rights prevented them from expelling his diabolical hordes and explain that some of them were quite good chaps once you got to know them.
364 – 111.
No Inquiry.
Labour are a spineless lot and without principles.
The Unherd puppet can go on supporting the “noble” Starmer.
It should also explore the cultural, social, and economic factors behind the development and operations of GLCSE networks across Britain.
What cultural and social factor makes this behavior okay? Because I don’t believe every Muslim engages in or condones it, just enough to make the connection unmistakable.
It happened “disproportionately among certain ethnic communities” for the same reason that crime in the US occurs disproportionately among black males – because they are more likely to engage in it than other groups. The why is less relevant than the blase response which, in either case, serves to embolden more of the same.
For the life of me I don’t quite get why Starmer doesn’t want an national inquiry. His party has spent the last few years clamouring for inquiries for everything from cake in an office to poor quality masks.
Apart from anything else he’s not very popular atm and he’s confident he comes out a bit of a hero, as does Jess Phillips and he’s clear the Tories did almost nothing. Leaving the moral case aside (and I think that alone is very strong) surely it’s in his personal interest to have this.
Well plainly it isn’t in his interest, so what other skeletons are they all hiding?
Oh come on. The rape gangs operated in Labour constituencies, and Labour depend on the Muslim vote.
This has been hushed up by Unherd, and other Labour supporting media.
This is one of Musk’s accusations. Unherd won’t even report that.
Unherd by their protection of Starmer are complicit with the ongoing cover-up.
None of the Feminist writers on Unherd has accused Starmer or Labour, as Musk has done. They too are party to the cover-up.
This evening, there was another instance of the increasingly common waving through of Bills at Second Reading once the reasoned amendment had been defeated. Based on Dame Siobhain McDonagh’s denunciation of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the remaining hardcore Blairites from the olden days were presumably intending to vote against it. It would still have passed easily, but Keir Starmer could not have been seen to have had a rebellion on the Right. So there was no Division.
The reasoned amendment would have denied Second Reading due to the absence of provision for an inquiry into the grooming gangs, and this was procedurally the wrong way of going about that. Amendments to that effect could still be tabled at committee and report stages. I remain profoundly sceptical about who would be appointed to that inquiry. In the background, the Conservatives are now angling for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon’s support base, and perhaps also for Elon Musk’s money, in the way that the UUP and the DUP used to vie for the affections of Loyalist paramilitaries, and sometimes still do, or in the way that the Gaullist and non-Gaullist parties of the French Right used to seek to outbid each other for the votes of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s rabble, always vociferously denying that any such bid was being made. And behind that is the lunatic imposition of austerity in response to soaring government bonds due to the absence of economic growth. Yaxley-Lennon was sent down for only 18 months. He will be out in July.