1. In the space of 24 hours, four women survivors of grooming gangs resign from the Victims Panel because of concerns that its focus is being diluted. (The Panel was set up as part of the public inquiry announced in June into grooming gangs following the Casey audit).

2. One of those resigning accuses the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, Jess Phillips, of lying about this in her statement to the Commons. She publishes the information supporting her accusation. Ms Phillips certainly looked like a Minister under stress when speaking in the Commons. Those four will only rejoin if Ms Phillips is no longer involved. Another four have apparently said they want her to stay (though it seems they are not victims of grooming gangs but other forms of CSA). It’s remarkable quite how politicians have mishandled this so that female victims risk being blamed for the inquiry’s problems, ironically and darkly echoing how they were often blamed for their own abuse.

3. The Home Secretary issues a statement assuring everyone that the focus will not be diluted and the truth will be uncovered. This is repeated by the PM during PMQs. 

4. 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. It also means that evidence which might support prosecutions will not be available. There is every reason to suppose that those with an interest in avoiding accountability and/or prosecution will take advantage of this lapse.

5. Both of the candidates for Chair have withdrawn. The toxic nature of the topic, lack of confidence and political point scoring have been cited as reasons. Being its Chair is probably the equivalent of jumping naked into a bed of nettles. But in truth neither candidate was suitable – not because of their personal character – but because both had actual or potential conflicts of interest by virtue of their professions.  Annie Hudson was an experienced social worker, though her time as Strategic Director, Children’s Services at Lambeth Council from 2016 might have proved a problem given the IICSA report on that council. Jim Gamble is an experienced police officer and former Head of CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection). 

6. How can a social worker or police officer head this inquiry?
   1. Ms Phillips admitted in the Commons on 2 September that she knew that the police had been involved – “I would be lying if I said that over the years, I have not met girls who talk to me about how police were part of the perpetration, not just the cover up, and we need to make sure the victims can come and give that testimony.”
   2. The 2004 Bichard Inquiry Report (into police failings prior to Ian Huntley’s murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman) set out the Chair’s concerns that “the issue of underage sex may not be taken sufficiently seriously by the police or social services generally” and that “what causes most concern is when one of the parties is noticeably older, or has been ‘grooming’ the other, younger, party in some way. I note that this concern is reflected in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, now in force.” The Report made a number of serious recommendations about what should be done when under-age children were involved in sexual activity; see pages 146-7 of the Report. This was in 2004. Concerns were already being raised then about grooming gangs, notably, by Ann Cryer, Labour MP. The responses to her concerns, particularly by the police and social services are precisely what the inquiry will need to look at. The Chair’s impartiality and lack of bias — without even the remotest suggestion of actual or potential conflict of interest — are essential if the inquiry’s findings are to have any chance of acceptance and action. 

7. The search continues. The Home Office has issued a statement of the bleeding obvious: “This is an extremely sensitive topic and we have to take the time to appoint the best person suitable for the role.” (This will not be a judge, says the PM. His explanation for why not makes no sense. Presumably all the retired judges are busy with other inquiries, or washing their hair for the next few years.)

8. Separately, concerns have been raised about grooming gangs operating in London, how this is being tackled by the Met and what the Mayor, also the Police Commissioner, knows about it.

9. Baroness Casey has been silent on the topic since issuing her audit and the announcement of the public inquiry. Whether that silence is related to the rumours that she may be appointed Cabinet Secretary replacing Chris Wormald, who can say. If the rumours are true, she might want to look at the unhappy experience of Sue Gray before making her decision. The PM has said she will continue to have oversight of the inquiry, though how she can do that and lead the independent review into adult social care (announced in July 2025) let alone anything else is left unexplained.

10. Much of the discussion on this generates much heat and little light. Politicians are worried that uncovering what went on and why will (a) upset certain voters in particular constituencies and (b) be used by their opponents to attack them. The latter is politics. The former is cowardice. It does no community, no institution any good at all to deny what goes wrong within it. If politicians want an excellent example of what persistent denial leads to, they should point to what happened to the Irish Catholic Church. Decades of being treated as an unchallengeable sacred caste led to abuse of power. When the widespread horrific abuse carried out under cover of this de facto impunity came to light, together with the hierarchy’s hopelessly inadequate reaction — cover up, denial and inadequate action far too late — the institution was largely discredited. It is no answer to say that this is unfair to those within it who did not misbehave. It is precisely because a failure to address systemic problems is unfair to the blameless, as well as the victims, that honesty about those problems and effective action are needed. Politicians should have the courage to say this, even to those whose votes they seek.  

11. Still, there is always Prince Andrew to provide a distraction. Let’s not mention Jes Staley, the former Barclays CEO, who was recently banned from holding senior management roles in financial services for misleading the Barclays Board and the financial regulator about the extent of his relationship with Epstein, one which went back many years and was far closer than he claimed. Unlike the prince, he is a highly intelligent and experienced individual who had a key role in charge of a major bank and with legal/regulatory obligations on his conduct. Like the prince he is arrogant, showed dreadful judgment and sought to mislead. During his appeal against his banning, it emerged that he had had sex with an Epstein employee, a fact he complained about because it had caused difficulties with his wife. The issues were about his honesty and transparency. There were no allegations about his involvement in Epstein’s non-financial activities. But when someone as apparently intelligent as him and others (hello, Lord Mandelson) can work so closely or be friendly with an Epstein, it is hardly surprising that someone as entitled and stupid as Andrew sees nothing wrong in doing so (though quite what palace courtiers whose job, presumably, is to save the royals from themselves thought they were doing letting him continue is unexplained). Plenty of people knew about Epstein, his activities and connections (he was introduced to Ghislaine Maxwell by her father, Robert) or could have found out by making some inquiries. No-one did – apparently – or if they did and knew, they did not care. Plenty of people were willing to turn a blind eye.

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. At which point, the authorities start saying that they do care very much indeed about the appalling stench caused by all the blind eye turning, though this is usually couched as concern about the victims. Some of the victims are understandably cynical about the sincerity of this concern. 

Which brings us back to where this header started. But no further forward.

In April 2024 I wrote this about our many scandals –

“This failure to do so and the accompanying lies – by so many bodies from government down – has degraded trust in our public and private institutions. There is still far too much resistance and denial by those responsible for the problems. It will be quite the effort to rebuild that trust. There is little sign that the scale of the task or its overriding necessity are fully understood.”

The shenanigans around this inquiry suggest that this still holds true.

Cyclefree