Don't Vote Labour Again (Part 23)

The Grooming Gangs: A Deep Dive (IV)

Cultural and structural reasons for failure

Alongside political reasons for the reluctance to investigate the gangs, we have cultural reasons within institutions. There were less enlightened attitudes about rape and rape victims, even 20 years ago. The 'she was asking for it' or 'she's just making it up' approach held more sway. Crowther writes: "there was a general societal attitude in the 1990s that children were less likely to be believed, certainly over adults".

In the Casey report, there are plenty of accusations Rotherham council had a bullying culture and some of the men were sexist.

Inspectors heard evidence of sexist, bullying or intimidating behaviour, attributed to some of those holding leadership or senior roles. Key figures were often talked about in interviews... [quotes a witness] "One Mayor said that in his year of mayoral office it was his right to kiss all the pretty ladies in the office – I remember thinking, ‘this is so Rotherham’

There was also classism in the equation. 'Chavs' were the social bogeyman of the day, perceived to have loose morals and no self respect, made the butt of the joke by comedy characters such as Waynetta Slob or Vicky Pollard. Perhaps police and social workers were less inclined to help these members of the 'underclass', believing they were beyond saving. Indeed, some of the victims may not have been seeking help themselves, and it was up to a professional adult to realise what was going on and intervene. Because of class bigotry against these girls, perhaps the professionals either didn't notice or chose not to step in. Such girls may well have been frustrating and hard to get through to - but when a child is potentially being abused, you have to make every effort. It seems it was not made.

Before the Jimmy Savile scandal broke in 2013, there was perhaps not an appreciation of how serious a problem paedophilia was - how organised and institutionally enabled it could be. 'Me Too' also drew attention to sexual assault as a social issue. It is not a coincidence that many investigations and convictions of rape gangs happened at around the same time. Indeed, after Savile, 'Operation Hydrant' was set up to coordinate police investigations into child sexual abuse.

Lastly, we have procedural and structural incompetence. It's a common stereotype of the public sector that it's full of clock-watchers and middle managers that are not exactly dedicated to the fundamentals of their jobs. Some involved in the cases may have been tireless and diligent workers, of course, but there is a suspicion many were not. Diligent workers do not let such crises flourish. Coordination between different agencies is also notoriously poor. The police perhaps do not have much time for social workers. Council officers may not be bothered with elected councillors and vice versa. There can be various different layers of local authorities and it can take so long to make decisions. Alexis Jay supported this view:

There are some people who can only see it as being one massive conspiracy with a single person at the centre of it. That’s not the case... It’s not possible, because these organisations and people were too disconnected. They were connected at a professional level, but they had different agendas

When incompetence occurs, often it is covered up within departments to prevent embarrassment or repercussions for careers. Quite possibly this happened with safeguarding and the rape gangs. In the case of Telford there seems to have been confusion about the law where personal information was concerned. Professionals were not passing on information because they thought they might get into trouble, when really they had an obligation to. The report quotes one saying:

I think back in 2000 there was a fear of the disclosures, so if a child told me something I wouldn’t have been able to tell anyone else outside.

With regards all of these reasons - political, cultural or structural - I cannot be certain about any of them. The various local inquiries do suggest - even confidently state - such things did happen to some extent. However, we need a proper legally binding national inquiry into the whole thing. There have been numerous previous inquiries, but these have not been satisfactory or wide-ranging enough, carrying no legal clout. Every detail about every council department, case officer, doctor's surgery and police station needs to be scrutinised so such a thing does not happen again. And if necessary people must be fired or prosecuted because of what is unearthed.

Musk’s intervention

The issue finally got the prominence in the first week of 2025. There was a verdict in the latest rape gang trial, leading commentators to share details about the topic in general. This was happened upon by Elon Musk, who was already being highly critical of Starmer's Labour government and becoming steeped in populist subjects. That's not to dismiss the subject. It has become a populist issue because of the popular demand for it to be investigated and dealt with, which it hasn't been by the authorities or mainstream media. Musk started posting about it on New Year's Day. The billionaire had also been consuming material from Tommy Robinson, and had come out in support of him. Robinson, of course, came to prominence for opposing radical Islam in the UK, and the rape gangs issue has been a key part of this.

With Musk's huge platform, vast levels of attention were suddenly drawn to the scandal. International eyes who may not have heard of the 'grooming gangs' were shocked by it, and understandably so. Many of us had already experienced that shock ten years ago, and it has now become a dull recurring pain instead. Musk's posts on X were relentless. Between Jan 1st and Jan 8th, he wrote at least 117 posts about it, not including replies and reposts of others. At the moment he zeroed in on the subject, there was no going back. The establishment could no longer pass it off as some fringe concern or just a series of isolated 'mistakes' that were made. People found courage to finally say what they thought about it, having held their tongues for years. The genie had come out of the bottle.

Musk being Musk, he did go a bit far, and continues to. He had fallen out with nationalists thanks to his support of a controversial US visa scheme, which benefits his business operations. Discussing this issue was a way to get back in their good books. That's assuming there is any method to Musk, of course... His autism showed in the obsessive manner in which he pursued the topic and the Labour Party figures he believed were to blame. Starmer and Jess Phillips - the ironically titled 'Minister for Safeguarding' - received the most focus.

GB News ran a story that Oldham Council had written to Phillips asking for a government inquiry into Oldham's rape gang problem. There had been convictions of abusers from Oldham and nearby Rochdale in 2012, with the crimes beginning years beforehand. In 2022 Andy Burnham commissioned the Greater Manchester Combined Authority to investigate the Oldham case. Oldham Council had recently become a council of no overall control, and independents had been pushing for a larger inquiry - perhaps to try and weaken Labour further. Four months later, Phillips wrote back, rejecting the calls for a government inquiry, presumably with agreement from Starmer:

I believe it is for Oldham Council alone to decide to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the Government to intervene

It should be said that the Tory government also did the same when they received a similar letter. On January 6th, Number 10 backtracked to say there could be an inquiry 'if the victims wanted it'. Andy Burnham and Sarah Champion later broke ranks to call for one, as did MPs Paul Waugh (Rochdale) and Dan Carden. There was also a rush to bring forward some child safeguarding legislation on January 8th. This had barely any connection to the specific issue of 'grooming gangs' and was concerned with such aspects as children missing school and the regulation of home-schooling. The Tories attached an amendment calling for an inquiry, and because Labour whipped against this it was defeated.

On January 16th, bowing somewhat to pressure, Yvette Cooper announced a disappointing half-way house policy. The government will now hold 5 local inquiries and do a 'review'. These however will not be 'statutory inquiries'. They will not be able to mandate witnesses to give evidence under oath, as was the case with all the previous local inquiries. This makes Labour's 'compromise' completely toothless.

All of this only happened after the outrage generated by Musk. If Labour were serious they would have done it before, and would not have whipped against an inquiry on the 8th. They would be proposing a proper inquiry now.

The rejection of an inquiry, then, definitely happened; despite attempts by Starmtroopers to pass it off as 'fake news'. Phillips and Starmer could have chosen to have a government inquiry, but they chose not to. It was inevitable, in such an emotional case, that people would ask why. If we're being charitable, they might not have wanted to spend money on it. However, it's also more than possible they wanted a smaller, lower key inquiry in order to keep its findings more manageable or deniable. The fact the rape gangs did happen under Labour councils, sometimes with councillors allegedly implicated, only increases that suspicion.

Labour are so weak now, that this issue could be the end of them. Elon Musk saw the story, and like the rest of us he formed opinions from it. They were views not everyone will share, stretches sometimes. They were distasteful to many, but nowhere was there an outright lie. You could argue there was a basis for saying them.

So what did Musk say exactly?

Jess Phillips

Jan 1: "Shameful conduct by Jess Phillips. Throw her out" (after Phillips opposed a national inquiry)

Jan 2: "Who is the boss of Jess Phillips right now? Keir Stamer [sic]. The real reason she's refusing to investigate the rape gangs is that it would obviously lead to the blaming of Keir Stamer (head of the CPS at the time)"

Jan 3: "Jess Philips is a rape genocide apologist" (reposting Lord Talbot)

Jan 8: "Jess Philips, whose [sic] job it is to protect women and girls, didn’t even try to speak to a single victim" (reposting GB News, who reported Phillips had not met any rape gang survivors from Oldham)

In replies, Musk also said of her "she should be in prison" and "what a wicked witch she is"

Keir Starmer

Jan 2: "In the UK, serious crimes such as rape require the Crown Prosecution Service's approval for the police to charge suspects. Who was the head of the CPS when rape gangs were allowed to exploit young girls without facing justice? Keir Starmer, 2008 -2013"

Jan 3: "Because he is guilty of complicity" (reacting to Labour rejecting an inquiry into Starmer's role in the matter as DPP)

Jan 3: Reposted a meme of Keir Starmer which read "I facilitate child rape"

Jan 5: "Starmer must go. He is national embarrassment"

Jan 5: “Prepare for some epic cringe" (reacting to Starmer preparing to respond to Musk's comments)

Jan 6: "Starmer is complicit in the crimes"

Jan 6: "Starmer was deeply complicit in the mass rapes in exchange for votes. That’s what the inquiry would show"

Jan 6: “What an insane thing to say! The real reason is that it would show how Starmer repeatedly ignored the pleas of vast numbers of little girls and their parents, in order to secure political support. Starmer is utterly despicable. (reacting to Starmer's comment about calls for an inquiry being a 'far right' bandwagon)

Jan 8: "Now why would Keir Starmtrooper order his own party to block such an inquiry? Because he is hiding terrible things. That is why"

Jan 7: "Starmer is evil" (reposting meme of Starmer which reads "far right: a word used for anyone who wants justice for gang raped children”; the same comment was made on Jan 8 reporting Darren Grimes)

Jan 8: "Unbelievable. Starmer must go" (reposting Samantha Smith)

Jan 8: Posts a popular meme parodying Game of Thrones about an inquiry 'clearing Starmer's name'

As I say, these are all interpretations. I disapprove of the way Musk phrases himself, especially the insults. If you're such a prominent voice deeply involved (as he now is) in politics, I think you should refrain from swearing or name-calling. It should be said Musk uses such language against anyone who disagrees with him, including those on the right who don't like American work visas:

Take a big step back and F*CK YOURSELF in the face. I will go to war on this issue the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend

I also believe you have a responsibility not to use hyperbolic language. The worst posts are "rape genocide apologist" about Phillips and "I facilitate child rape" about Starmer. Even though there is a basis for saying these things, they are very incendiary words in a subject where emotions are already running high. Referring to the rapes as a 'rape genocide' is quite strong, even if it could be argued that is what happened.

Genocide usually means mass killing with the intention of wiping out a distinct group of people. In some definitions this can involve violent acts, rape (and forced impregnation) as well as killing. Musk does specify 'rape genocide'. In other definitions genocide can even mean destruction of a culture without using violence, such as outlawing a language or religious practice. You can argue in some sense genocide is what the perpetrators were attempting - of whites and non-Muslims, of the indigenous British.

How about Phillips being an apologist for such a thing? I wouldn't say apologist as such, but you could argue not wanting to hold an inquiry is an act of covering up the crimes or downplaying them; or indeed covering for anyone else who would be found to be implicated. Phillips herself has made tackling rape and violence against women her particular cause in politics. Quite how active she's been with regards the specific issue of these rape gangs, I'm not sure. She has been seen, on occasion, to side with her Pakistani Muslim constituents. During the July riots she appeared to make excuses for why lots of Muslim youths had turned out in Birmingham to cause trouble. It's very likely she would dismiss any ethnic or cultural factors in the 'grooming gangs' case. Nevertheless, to say she is an apologist for rape is very jarring and seems unfair.

The same could be said about Starmer 'facilitating' the crimes. Blocking an inquiry could be said to be assisting the abusers and those responsible for the safeguarding failures. If he doesn't hold a full inquiry which brings everything out into the sunlight, however embarrassing it might be for the Labour Party or the authorities in general, you could argue he is potentially allowing the same mistakes to be made again. Thus you could say he is facilitating the behaviour, but it's quite a stretch.

When Starmer was head of the CPS between Nov 1st 2008 and Dec 31st 2013, there was at least one instance when a rape gang was not prosecuted. In August 2008 a girl had been arrested while causing a disturbance and criminal damage in the ‘Balti House’ in Heywood (near Rochdale). This scene was recreated at the beginning of the BBC drama ‘Three Girls’. She then told Greater Manchester Police she had done it because a group of men that worked in the takeaway had raped her. The police took evidence, then passed the case to the CPS. In July 2009, nine months after Starmer became DPP, it was reviewed. The CPS decided the witness was not credible, in spite of one of the abuser’s DNA evidence being on her underwear. They failed this girl - it’s cut and dried.

In Starmer’s defence, though, his chief prosecutor Nazi Afzal did reverse the decision in 2011, resulting in convictions the following year. Numerous cases were prosecuted while Starmer was in the top job. He also did try to reform the system in order to more effectively prosecute abusers and protect their victims. The Telford inquiry states: "the first guidance for the CPS which was exclusively focused on prosecuting cases of child abuse was published in 2009". In October 2013, a month before Starmer left, he announced new guidance broadening what child sex abuse involves and how it operates, especially that operated by by organised gangs. The guidance details how to recognise it, and how it should be prosecuted. The Telford inquiry finds no fault with the CPS in the Telford case, noting that prior to 2004, charging was largely in the police's remit.

There may have been other occasions in which the CPS was not charging alleged abusers when they could have been, perhaps especially when it came to Pakistani Muslims; but we can't know without extensive investigation.

There was also a decision not to prosecute Jimmy Savile, who was still alive, owing to a lack of confidence in the evidence presented. As with the current scandal, Starmer insisted if you linked him with this decision you were peddling a 'far-right conspiracy theory' which had 'endangered his life' when Johnson brought it up in Prime Minister's Questions. It would be unfair to completely blame Starmer for Savile escaping justice, but Starmer's CPS did oversee this - whether Starmer personally signed off on it or not. Sir Keir is happy to claim credit for everything good the CPS did, but nothing bad.

Another argument for Musk's claims about Starmer is that regardless of his personal record on child sex abuse, he is the Labour leader. You could argue if Labour's incompetence and client politics helped create the situation, as the current head of that party he does bear some responsibility. He especially bears responsibility if in the here and now he is assisting to prolong a cover-up. Many will ask the question if Labour and Starmer's record is so perfect, why should he prevent a full inquiry? Wouldn't it fully vindicate them?

So Musk's language was strong and ill-advised. However, you could make a case for much of what he said. Musk has not libelled himself (he's not in UK jurisdiction anyway). In a court of law - especially with Musk's lawyers - everything could be argued as justified comment. I would personally have used subtler phrasing, but perhaps that's why I'm not a rocket-building billionaire.

The argument made by Labour and the left is that Musk has directly put the safety of Starmer and Phillips at risk. By that measure where do we draw the line? It was OK, apparently, for the left to call the UK riots 'The Farage Riots'. Farage, claimed, as Jess Phillips did, that his safety was at greater risk because of this. Anything negative we say about public figures could be taken the wrong way by a violent person and used as a justification to do that figure harm. The left routinely call Musk a fascist- does that not put him at greater risk? They did so to Trump and he was almost assassinated. The line must be drawn at direct incitement of violence and outright, unfounded lies. And Musk has not (yet) crossed that line.

It should be noted also that Phillips was already at risk from radical Muslims and Gaza protesters, who intimidated her throughout her election campaign. Phillips likes to make herself a controversial figure in general and to chase publicity, and although she has a perfect right to do so without being threatened, she cannot be surprised if her style brings her some negative attention. It didn't take Elon Musk to make her a villain for the right (or indeed the socialist left) because she already was one. Neither was Starmer the most popular man ever before January 1st...

My last word on Musk is one of warning. He is right to draw attention to the scandal, and ask the pertinent questions, but he should be less emotional and hyperbolic about it. His behaviour risks making the Labour government appear like the 'plucky Brits' being bullied by the megalomaniac foreign billionaire. Labour are already trying to strike that pose. We need to remember also that Musk, although perhaps well-intentioned, is not as well informed as he thinks he is. He doesn't understand the nuances of British politics, or the details of complex cases. He can't grasp the widespread perception of Tommy Robinson as a toxic figure, and doesn't see why Reform can't bring him into the fold. When Farage pushed back on this, Elon tried to oust Farage as the party leader, not realising that for the moment Farage IS Reform. The man is capricious and overindulged. I admire what he's doing to some extent. He sees real problems occuring in the West and like the rest of our side of politics, he is trying to save it; but there is no need for anyone to hitch themselves unquestioningly to his star. We don't know where his whims will lead us next.

Somebody else who could use more responsible language is Keir Starmer himself. On Monday 6th January, when asked about the events on X, Starmer suggested Conservative MPs calling for an inquiry were jumping on a "bandwagon of the far right".

And when politicians - and I mean politicians - who sat in government for many years, are casual about honesty, decency, truth and the rule of law, [and are] calling for inquiries because they want to jump on a bandwagon of the far right, then that effects politics

This was yet another face-palm moment from Starmer. He appears not to have learned how tin-eared he appeared over the riots, when once again 'far right' was wheeled out against ordinary people with ordinary concerns. This latest instance was worse because it directly linked the opposition to the mythical extremists. If he considers other MPs far right, one wonders what he thinks of you and me. Of course the Tories and Reform made hay from this, and Starmer threw away yet another chance to show empathetic leadership. On top of that, he then did a partial climb-down and announced five more inquiries. Is he now 'far right'? Or is it only 'far right' when it has statutory powers?