Going Round in Circles – politicalbetting.com
Going Round in Circles – politicalbetting.com
Perhaps the girls were simply invisible to them. Perhaps they believed that money has no smell. Well for a time it doesn’t. But eventually how you make money, the “services” it allows you to enjoy and who you associate with in order to make more money does smell. Badly.
3
Comments
Please do not disrespect Cyclefree or OGH by posting things that could get the site into trouble.
If in doubt, please err on the side of caution.
If people are unable to adhere to this then interventions will be made.
This whole disgraceful episode is caused by people not wanting to be seen agreeing with people they usually disagree with, nor being prepared to upset those they have taken sides with by speaking truth to them. Moral cowardice in the extreme, and something I thought we were all taught at an early age not to do via Nursery tales and fables.
It’s also people not being willing to admit, or even consider, they’ve made a mistake; what if multiculturalism was just a bad idea?
Let's be clear; these are organised gangs of child rapists, the vast majority of whom are of Pakistani heritage.
Sadly, some on the left don't even want to acknowledge that simple fact.
Jim Gamble was in charge of Operation Ore
For those who don’t know, this was based on credit card and other data provided by the American authorities relating to sexual abuse material being bought and sold on websites.
Despite the Americans telling the UK police, repeatedly, that this was primary evidence, and that stolen credit cards and falsified IP addresses were common in this kind of crime, the UK police acted without discretion or thought. And tried to arrest their way through the lists.
Because checking first would be “too difficult”. So prosecute them all, and God will know his own.
Numerous trials and proceedings collapsed.
In the end, the police were complaining that CPS was “loathe to proceed” without further evidence
But lessons were learned.*
Not exactly ideal to lead an enquiry?
*Lessons not included. Does not include learning. Does not include “were”. Does not include “But”. Presence or absence of a “.” Is subject to a Judge led enquiry that will report in 2032.
It shows a few different things that are relevant here. Firstly, these things are a nightmare to chair. Any concept of a judge merely being fair, impartial and an intelligent inquirer has almost died. Their management has become political. Secondly, we have an ever increasing concept of victors justice. Only those who are deemed to be "onside" are allowed to judge. If I wanted to cause trouble I might mention Hillsborough in this context. This was also the problem with the 2 proposed chairs of the gangs inquiry even although both had a considerable amount of relevant experience. Thirdly, with the greatest of respect to the many victims of these horrors, we seem to be allowing them too much say in the process rather than merely the result. This is unhelpful. Fourthly, we are also allowing too many rights and considerations to those who might be criticised slowing down such inquiries to the point they simply come too late. In the Bayoh case it was objections by the Police Federation that resulted in Lord Bracadale standing down.
The header refers to this, but I'm unsure what to make of it.
Five grooming gang survivors tell PM they will stay on panel only if Jess Phillips remains in post
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/23/five-grooming-gang-survivors-tell-pm-they-will-stay-on-panel-only-if-jess-phillips-remains-in-post
They are too slow, too expensive, politicians meddle with them and they fail to provoke the improvement action we would hope for.
I think that if I were unfortunate enough to be in the position of the victims in this example, for whatever cause, and it was suggested to me that there should be an inquiry, my response would be, "no, I want to know what went wrong and how to stop it happening again, not a fecking inquiry."
Certain ethnic groups are over represented among offenders, compared to their (minority) numbers in the general population.
She doesn't want race or religion mentioned in the inquiry because it might help Reform
I take objection with "the left". It's been conveniently ignored by politicians of all stripes - the first HoC report was in 2013, 11 years before Labour came in, and labour politicians like Sarah Champion were ignored.
The one thing which is clear here is that complete openness is the only correct course to take. The government has already made it quite clear that those things should also form part of the analysis of whatever evidence can be uncovered.
The strongest point of the header seems to me to be this:
..Baroness Casey made an explicit recommendation in her audit that local authorities, police forces and related agencies “should be required not to delete evidence.” Self-evident you might think. But the recommendation was made because in her audit she had found names, dates and locations physically Tipp-Ex’d out of official documents relating to grooming cases. As no Chair has been appointed, it appears that no formal notice requiring the retention of all relevant evidence and for none of it to be destroyed (other than what has almost certainly been destroyed or “lost” already) has been issued. Do not be surprised to find in due course that relevant material is not “available” and that this will be described as “regrettable”. The longer it takes to establish the inquiry formally the more opportunities there are for those with something to hide...,/I>
Surely it ought to be possible to impose a legal duty to retain, and not to destroy records long before any chair is appointed ?
It's not at all unusual, in the controversial enquiries I can recall, for such appointments to take many months, and it's absurd that records might be permitted to be destroyed in the meantime.
Tipperary man offers up home as local polling station
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2025/1024/1540394-tipperary-polling-station/
It would be even more terrifying if it wasn’t so
But there haven’t been Gangs of White British men taking it in turns to rape under age non white British girls on an industrial scale and, if there had, I don’t think in the 21st century it would have been covered up for fear of upsetting white British people.
The grooming gangs horror shows that multiculturalism doesn’t work on two levels; firstly that victims are chosen on a religious or racial basis means it doesn’t work on the streets, and secondly that supporters of multiculturalism look the other way when it’s proven to cause harm shows it doesn’t work within the authorities
There’s too much history of people from various organisations, investigating their organisation and failing to find… much
See all the internal enquiries in the Police, for example.
And cases going back decades, in Scotland, are going to involve which ethnicities?
It was *all* being covered up and ignored.
I am sure that victims of CSA that are not victims of Rotherham style gangs etc want their voices heard. But their issue is not where the political challenge lies. Its this interface of race, culture, political alliegance that has generated so much anger.
Most people understand that most people do not do this kind of thing. But if it is shown that multiculturalism and avoiding aggravating racial tension has allowed CSA to run unchecked then the country needs a long, hard look at itself.
What goes wrong is when we allow sentimentality to distract from this and I think something like this has happened here. It is understandable because these girls have been appallingly let down by pretty much everyone. But the answer to that is to have a proper inquiry not burden them with making the decisions about how it is to be conducted. They will have views and they should be listened to but they are witnesses - not investigators and, brutal as it is to say this, they too have a conflict. They cannot and should not be the decision makers. Any more than, say, whistleblowers should be determining how an investigation into a whistleblowing allegation should be run. It is easy to see why this has happened because the endless refusal to look into this properly has infuriated them and everyone else. And so there is this over-correction. But it is not the right way to go about things. And it is not right above all for the victims because only a properly run investigation can do that.
This would have been avoided if the politicians had (a) a proper group which knew how to run investigations (b) had thought about how this one should be run from the start (c) had not made false or over-promises to the victims in order to win PR points and (d) were not acting like cowards or panicking or worrying about Ministers' egos and doing everything at the last minute to get the story off the front pages. They are, as is all too common working backwards from what they would like the result to be and finding a way to get there.
I mentioned Epstein because it is currently topical.
How about the Roman Catholic Church, The CofE ( the ABofC had to throw in the towel because of cover up) the culture of boarding schools, Jimmy Savile, childrens homes, Kincora, the Ivy Guest House?
Livermore asked "how many white rape gangs' crimes are covered up to avoid cultural offence, or whatever"
You might argue the cover up was not related to cultural or ethnic issues, but a cover up is a cover up.
"If the next election is a referendum on Starmer, that could be bad news for Labour. If it is a referendum on Nigel Farage, that could play into Starmer’s hands."
I have very little more to say on the topic, other than our institutions must do so much better. Which seems a very pithy conclusion for such a heavy subject.
Plenty of people will be sidling up to the eventual chair at social events or luncheons, to give them vague warnings of how the "wrong" findings or even evidence will affect their (the chair's) chances of jobs, a knighthood, having a grass roots campaign launched against them...
I recall the methodical, "quiet little chats" that were used against journalists and editors carrying the original story.
The people behind that are still around.
People have preferred to blame political correctness/woke rather than misogyny and classism.
Now, 25 years later, I am an Advocate Depute. More than 80% of all cases in the HC are sexual with the vast majority of them involving rapes. It is an incredible change. Part of this is because complaints of such behaviour are taken far more seriously than they have ever been. More resources have been thrown at these cases including the routine use of DNA evidence. The law has been changed to allow corroboration to be much more easily established by distress and recent statements. Police, where certain indicators are present, have gone looking for former partners of the accused who have never come forward, often disclosing a catalogue of shocking crimes that go back decades. So many men who have got away with disgusting, violent and selfish behaviour for decades now find themselves being belatedly held to account.
This is undoubtedly a good thing. There are mutterings now that the pendulum has arguably swung too far. Decisions of the Supreme Court are awaited on that. It is essential that trials are fair. But it is equally essential that it is made clear to these men that their behaviour and attitudes are repugnant and that they will be severely punished for their crimes.
I recall, when Rotherham first "broke", some tried to claim it wasn't really covered up or a conspiracy, because the location, the victims, perpetrators and the the people doing the coverup weren't what they thought of as a "grooming gang conspiracy"
Part of the problem with enquiries like this is that many want the conclusions written before the evidence is considered. That applies to Yaxley-Lennon as well as Rotherham Childrens sevices.
The men that Kemi and Jimmy are desperately trying to bring to justice are disgusting and many have been convicted for their crimes. There clearly is a cultural element to the criminality, but people like yourself isolate that criminality to a specific ethnic group. I am merely countering your point by suggesting one doesn't have to be South Asian to be a depraved bastard. And of course not all South Asians should be considered guilty by dint of their ethnicity, just the bad ones. You will then point to the cover up, and I am suggesting the cover up is equally disgusting if it is planned to save the blushes of a particular ethnic group, a religious order, or a group of national entertainment treasures. Not all clergyman and national entertainment treasures are guilty because of their profession or colour either.
You focus exclusively on the ethnicity angle.
2) public apologies to each and every victim.
3) prosecutions for misconduct in a public office for those who covered it and especially those who destroyed evidence.
4) compensation paid out of the pensions of those convicted under 3)
*Since Mrs May, each time the Home Sec has changed, "discussions" have occurred in the Home Office about the "wisdom of the policy of prosecuting all offenders"
Second, they are apparently victims of familial child sex abuse not grooming gangs. It is alleged that they were known personally to Jess Phillips and were put on the panel by her. They were asked about the scope of the inquiry and this is why there are concerns that they have been included in order to dilute the inquiry's focus. Remember IICSA looked into other forms of CSA.
Third, the Minister is the least important person here. She is there to receive the report not get involved in the details like this. It really ought to be the investigator - the Chair - who should be dealing with stuff like this. See my more detailed response to @DavidL.
2027-2028 look like decent bets to me.
I think he'll probably survive the drubbing in 2026 because of Labour's general reluctance to depose their leaders (but there might be resignations/calls for him to go).
If however another year goes by and there's no improvement then Labour will be starting down the barrel at a historic defeat. I suspect at that point, after around 4 years in the job, Starmer might retire of his own volition.
The key section -
This was the conclusion of a House of Lords Report on Public Inquiries and how to make them more effective – “Public Inquiries: Enhancing Public Trust,” published on 16 September 2024. It makes the blindingly obvious point that there is little point to these inquiries (as well as being a colossal waste of time and money) if their recommendations are ignored and if, every time a disaster or scandal happens, a new inquiry has to “reinvent the wheel”.
A decade earlier, there was a previous Lords Select Committee Report on how public inquiries operated. It made 33 recommendations. 19 were accepted. Of these, zero, yes, zero (are you really surprised?) were implemented. So this latest Report has endorsed those earlier recommendations, is recommending them again and hopes that this time they will be implemented. What are the chances?
The Report also looks at implementation monitoring and reveals that it is informal and ad hoc. Paragraph 82 is worth quoting in full:
“We heard that if the recommendations from the inquiry into deaths at the Bristol Royal Infirmary had been comprehensively implemented, then the events investigated by the Mid-Staffordshire Hospitals Inquiry may have been less likely to have occurred,……. A lack of implementation is not just a problem for statutory inquiries. ..... She gave the example of inquiries into healthcare where “almost every inquiry” makes “recommendations on the patient voice and blame culture. You see the same recommendations again and again.” This can come at a tragic cost to human lives and the suffering of the victims and survivors, and with a needless repetition of public inquiries.”
It went on:
“Witnesses told the present Committee that public inquiries often make recommendations which are common to other inquiries. Public policy failings rarely happen in isolation and there are often common themes which can only be identified by conducting meta-analyses of multiple inquiries. This function is currently missing from the governance structure for public inquiries and is not undertaken by the Inquiries Unit.”
Its recommendation is to establish a new joint Parliamentary Select Committee: the Public Inquiries Committee to monitor implementation and “compare and analyse multiple inquiry reports to identify common failures, which amount to more than the sum of individual public inquiry recommendations”.
This is all good stuff, even if it is depressing to read of the same fundamental issues arising here as elsewhere – the failure to learn from what has happened, the failure to join dots and spot patterns, the failure to implement any changes, the failure to share expertise, good practice, what not to do and so on.
What will happen to this Report? The government has said that it will respond within six months. March 2025 – mark it in your calendars. And then ……. ? "
I take it Leon is still in the sin bin. Thank Heavens for small mercies.
The China Spy case was prosecuted under the 1911 OSA - https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-authorises-charges-against-two-men-alleged-have-breached-official-secrets-act-behalf
Section 1 (1) c to be specific
1Penalties for spying
(1)
.....
(c) obtains or communicates to any other person any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy ;
My bold.
I am not a lawyer but that doesn't seem mean the person you communicate the information to has to be an enemy for this to apply?
It reads to me that communicating secrets to *anyone* is covered, if the secrets would be useful to an enemy of the country. So even if the Chinese are our besties, they might pass the information on to someone who is the enemy. The French, for example.
Not a panacea, but a possible step.
So it is not at all surprising, on reflection, to see this proposed for dealing with sicknesses of the body public.
Watching Jess Phillips lose it at the dispatch box was probably the most upsetting spectacle for the victims and was frankly unacceptable in tone and approach
It is clear from the victims who are seeking her resignation that they have lost faith in her, and Phillips only has herself to blame if she can even act like that in public
Starmer needs to urgently appoint a retired judge or similar to conduct the enquiry as he has promised, and end this unedyfing spectacle and to put these women front and centre as the real victims of unspeakable crimes against them
"On a prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State ; and if any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, or information relating to or used in any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act, or anything in such a place, is made, obtained, or communicated by any person other than a person acting under lawful authority, it shall be deemed to have been made, obtained, or communicated for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State unless the contrary is proved."
In other words wrongful possession of relevant material created a statutory presumption that it was "prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State unless the contrary is proved." That may not have been the case in the version in force at the time of these alleged offences but the focus on "enemy" seems quite odd to me.
I also think it is unfortunate that politicians particularly of the Reform variety see this as an opportunity to tar all South Asian people with the same brush.
"In this short column at The Oldie, Dalrymple warns that the ubiquitous use of earphones is setting the stage for a future wave of hearing loss among the young:"
https://www.skepticaldoctor.com/
Of course protecting the institution is almost always part of the reason behind such coverups, and that's likely to continue to be the case.
There is - and continues to be - a massive problem of abuse in the care system. It is an extremely lucky girl in care who gets to 18 without being sexually abused. I also highly doubt that the rate of rape and abuse of girld in care in much reduced.
These are children from broken homes and histories of abuse, who often have majoe susbtance issues. They are absoltuely ripe for being preyed upon, and there is little doubt that preying continues to this day.
On the other hand, the authorities decided not to act when there were credible allegations, and therefore allowed this specific, systemetized abuse to continue for far longer than it should have done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9MS2y2YU_o&t=125s
But different generations. The current generation is fresh meat, so to speak.
As for the chance to talk to journalists and share stories, well ........
How about something like this (but larger, obviously)?
Still, I'm going to Edinburgh next week to see the Andy Galsworthy exhibition, staying at the New Club which I'm told is very lovely and having some lovely lunches with friends. I've lost 16 kgs in recent months so have treated myself to new clothes which I can show off. An ill wind etc.,.
Otherwise...
My view is that tying this altogether isn't wise. There was clearly criminal activity - people should be locked up, and have been (I presume). There were clearly failures in the system - people have been dismissed (I presume).
Otherwise it is of course a general horror story, but all we'll ever learn is that these systems are very fallible.
EDIT: One of the people doing the earliest enquiries in Rotherham has recounted how material was stolen from her office. And how people boasted in front of her that since they destroyed documents, holding anyone to account was impossible.
That if we can't prosecute those who covered up, the Home Sec has the power to put people on the various offender registers by fiat. So put them on the Sex Offenders register as a danger to children.
Michael Mansfield, Helena Kennedy, Gareth Peirce, Jason Beer, Sarah Leigh, Martyn Day.
Starmer has repeatedly told the Commons that Matt Collins, the Deputy National Security Adviser, declined to describe China as an enemy because it was not the **'policy position'** of the Tories
He's pointed to public statements by James Cleverly, the then foreign secretary, along with the integrated review of 2021 and the refresh of 2023
'What was on issue in the trial is not the position of the current Government, but the position of the last Government'
But the DPP says today that is categorically not the case.
He says prosecutors were asking 'not what the then Government was prepared to do, or did, say in public about China (whether framed as its policy or otherwise, and whether as a matter of fact true or not), but rather whether China was - as a matter of fact - an active threat to national security'
It's hard to read this as anything other than an explicit rebuke to Starmer. He's saying it wasn't about the public policy position, Cleverly speeches etc - it was about the single, basic fact of whether China was deemed a threat to national security
https://x.com/steven_swinford/status/1981748229357047911?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Also it's not systems which are fallible. But people. How could any adult have ever thought it was ok for an under-age child to be having sex with men who were twice, three, four times her age? You don't need a process to tell you that's wrong, for crying out loud!
Simply…no words.
"Conspiracy against rights is a federal offense in the United States of America under 18 U.S.C. § 241"
"In Screws v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a conviction under a related statute, 18 U.S.C. §242, required proof of the defendant's specific intent to deprive the victim of a constitutional right. In United States v. Guest, the Supreme Court read this same requirement into §241, the conspiracy statute.[17]"
wikipedia
Epping migrant sex offender accidentally released from prison
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/24/epping-migrant-sex-offender-accidentally-released-prison/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15224639/Manhunt-Epping-hotel-migrant-sex-attacker-accidentally-freed-prison.html
They are going to need months of listening circles....not for the fuck up, no all the hurty words from the media about how shit they are.
Home Office not fit for purpose....
Re-inventing the wheel is a time-consuming and frequently pointless, activity.
Those discussions opened my eyes to the ways in which well meaning people can excuse wrong doing by simply refusing to acknowledge that it exists. “They have a difficult job” is not an excuse for failing these children over & over again. It might be a reason, but it’s not an excuse.
And, if I'm not mistaken, sone newly recruited prison officer is going to lose his or her job over this. Not the person who instructed or managed them.