Rape Gang Inquiry

Policing & Security
1

This is a sensitive topic, but we are keen to understand the views of our Policy Platform community.

As you may be aware, Rupert Lowe MP is leading a privately-funded campaign for a public inquiry. He has raised more than £400,000 so far.

We would welcome your views on how Britain can develop a better approach to public inquiries. For instance, should there be a mechanism whereby petitioners can force an inquiry to take place, and how many signatures should such a petition require?

Thank you for your participation.

7 Likes
2

My view is that public inquiries such as this one should never have needed the involvement of the public in any form. It should have been carried out as a matter of course by the government and some time ago. That it wasn’t suggests that those who hindered its approval may have something to hide.

As governments are not to be trusted then yes we do need a way of forcing an inquiry. However, to stop public inquiries turning into a major industry, perhaps 500,000 votes should be required. If Rupert Lowe can raise £400,000 then it would be easy enough to get 500,000 signatures for such an important inquiry.

10 Likes
3

In my view the public authorities/government cannot be trusted to conduct reviews into this type of inquiry. There is abundant evidence that public authorities (and government) are the ones who have a conflicted interest in covering up their own illegalities and failings. See for example the cover-ups of abuse in children’s homes (e.g., Lambeth, North Wales, Jersey etc.) which only came to light when those children became adults. The public already know that the government/public authorities disregarded these children for the sake of not offending the favoured minority who were effectively given Carte Blanche immunity to do as they please. There is also the issue of the ‘honesty’ box whereby the abusers paid to avail themselves of the children these gangs ‘groomed’. Who benefitted financially in abusing these children? There have been reports which suggest there is at least one police officer who may have received ‘brown envelopes’. Is there any merit in that report? Are there others?

Therefore I think Mr. Lowe’s inquiry is the only effective means of uncovering the police/public authorities complicity in this injustice to children. There are many journalists, victims, professionals and other people who have evidence and really know such as Maggie Oliver and other good people. They can put on the public record real facts and real evidence of what really happened and why it was allowed to happen. Under Mr. Lowe’s inquiry there is less chance of a public authority/government whitewash or a cover-up.

Therefore, I think the public will have far more trust and confidence in Mr. Lowe’s inquiry more than it would trust a government’s public inquiry.

As to public funding for such an inquiry, I think there should be a mechanism where there is a right of access to public funding for inquiries such as the one Mr. Lowe has initiated. This is direct democracy. The public clearly wants Mr. Lowe to conduct this inquiry. This is a real and true independent inquiry which the public have voted in £450K + that they want. It is an independent enquiry which is fully independent of those with conflicted interests which public authorities/governments could whitewash.

So from a policy perspective, truly independent public inquiries such as Mr. Lowe’s should have a mechanism for access to public funding of such independent public inquiries.

3 Likes
4

That is a very good closing point. It is interesting how we would previously trust an inquiry led by a judge to be impartial and independent, but now even that is questioned (and rightly so). We have seen too many whitewashes and ineffective outcomes.

Lots to ponder.

1 Like
5

I find myself agreeing almost entirely with this sentiment, but also find myself concerned about the lack of statutory powers this inquiry will have. Without the ability to force witnesses to testify, I feel that there is a real risk of it being a damp squib.

1 Like
6

Your concern is a possibility. However, I have confidence that Mr. Lowe’s enquiry will abide by all the principles of natural justice and fairness.
To that end, when the inquiry hears evidence which substantiates impropriety, that evidence will be forwarded to those concerned, such as police officers or public authority employees and they will have an opportunity to respond, correct any inaccuracies etc. If they choose not to respond then that is their choice. They can choose to provide evidence or challenge the inaccuracy of any evidence. They will have an opportunity to be heard. If they don’t want to be heard, that is their choice.

As such, the inquiry will give everyone the opportunity to be heard. The lack of statutory powers will not negate the findings of the inquiry. Everyone who has something to contribute whether to impugn or exonerate, will have an opportunity to be heard including those public authorities and officials or public employees who may wish to defend or explain their decisions, actions, or inactions.

1 Like
7

It isn’t just the potential wrongdoers (although most certainly that is a worry), it is also those who are cowed into not talking. I have no doubt that there are still myriad victims or witnesses who might want to give evidence, but are scared about retribution, potentially even losing their jobs. A statutory trial with follow-up witness protection would help to solve that (though it cannot be solved entirely). However, this might not and it might cause them to miss things. Potentially, many people won’t know it is happening if the media decides to block it out too.

Don’t get me wrong, this is better than nothing and is the best we will get. But I’m saying it could be better.

8

I agree. It could be better. But this inquiry is better than nothing. The rule of law is virtually dead in practice because there is no accountability and no transparency in decisions which police and public authorities make which gravely affect the public (and in this case children). This enquiry is the start of transparency. When the inquiry makes findings, it will make those findings on incontrovertible and verified evidence. Then, with that transparency, there may come some accountability too. There may be evidence that those who turned a blind eye and were complicit, are liable for their actions or inactions. If nothing else, this inquiry puts public authorities and the police on notice that the public are no longer going to put up with their illegalities and failures. There will be transparency at the very least. Accountability may follow. And the upshot may be that public authorities and the police will do their duty, comply with the law and it may organically restore the principle of equality before the law too.

1 Like
9

Hello Mike, one further comment I would like to add is my reference to His Honour Judge Robertshaw (now retired) who used to sit in the family court in Sheffield.

I do not know him personally, but I have read his judgments. From his judgments, I truly believe that his outstanding ability to objectively analyse evidence and draw reasoned and rational conclusions, could be a real asset to Mr. Lowe’s inquiry team. Perhaps he could be put forward as someone who could be approached to take a role in Mr. Lowe’s inquiry team. He certainly has the experience, knowledge and talent for the inquiry team.

1 Like
10

I think there are two separate issues here.

Who calls for an inquiry and who conducts/oversees the inquiry.

And yes, in both cases that should be the public because the government cannot be trusted to do either. If they could, the Conservative government would have opened such an inquiry if only as a means of damaging Labour. That they didn’t suggests they would have been equally damaged.

However, the government should pay for the inquiry.

My only question is how does the public oversee the running of an inquiry? We have no mechanism other than our elected representatives (sic) to do so.

1 Like
11

Hi Patrick,

I think the answer to the first part of your two issues is, that it is always the public who call for an inquiry.

It is always a public outcry on some injustice which bubbles up to a critical mass to a public outcry for answers to an injustice. So when the public have asked (or demanded) the government hold a public enquiry and the government have formally refused the public (as has happened in this case), then there should be a mechanism for the public themselves to hold their own public inquiry.

In this case, it was originally Farage who said Reform UK would organise this public enquiry. He reneged. And so Mr. Lowe has emerged as the natural leader to respond to the public, facilitate and organise this particular public inquiry.

As to the second part of the issue you raise, where a non-government public enquiry is being undertaken, the particular issue being enquired about will have a particular champion who is trying to remedy and injustice. So whoever that champion may be, e.g., an MP, a political party, a charity etc., should be the ‘sponsor’ of such non-government public inquiries (like Mr. Lowe in this case) who facilitates the structure and mechanisms needed for such an inquiry.

As to the issue of who oversees the inquiry - well that is, in the main, the public and the press. Transparency is key to oversight and this is addressed when the inquiry is livestreamed and available on the internet.

And then there is the thorny issue of funding the inquiry. In this instance, the public have put their money where their mouth is. The public demanded the inquiry and the public have stumped up half-a-million for the inquiry they want. In this circumstance, there should be a mechanism for additional public funding for the inquiry which the public demand.

From a policy perspective, where the government have chosen to reject and disregard the public’s concerns and demand for an inquiry into an injustice, then there should be a mechanism for a self-help type public funding for a non-government public inquiry.

12

Hi Charlie,

I have taken your well-considered response in parts.

“I think the answer to the first part of your two issues is, that it is always the public who call for an inquiry.

“It is always a public outcry on some injustice which bubbles up to a critical mass to a public outcry for answers to an injustice. So when the public have asked (or demanded) the government hold a public enquiry and the government have formally refused the public (as has happened in this case), then there should be a mechanism for the public themselves to hold their own public inquiry.”

As is being demonstrated, social media enabled the public, through Rupert Lowe, to be able to hold their own inquiry. Although there is always the strong possibility that the government will take legal action to block this inquiry. So, yes, a legal mechanism that cannot be blocked by the government is imperative.

“In this case, it was originally Farage who said Reform UK would organise this public enquiry. He reneged. And so Mr. Lowe has emerged as the natural leader to respond to the public, facilitate and organise this particular public inquiry.”

Before Farage decided that such an inquiry might damage his chances of taking over the Conservative Party.

“As to the second part of the issue you raise, where a non-government public enquiry is being undertaken, the particular issue being enquired about will have a particular champion who is trying to remedy and injustice. So whoever that champion may be, e.g., an MP, a political party, a charity etc., should be the ‘sponsor’ of such non-government public inquiries (like Mr. Lowe in this case) who facilitates the structure and mechanisms needed for such an inquiry.”

That is understood and something that GB-PAC could undertake. Useful when it came to selecting the inquiry team.

“As to the issue of who oversees the inquiry - well that is, in the main, the public and the press. Transparency is key to oversight and this is addressed when the inquiry is livestreamed and available on the internet.”
That I like. Far too many inquiries seem to drag on for years because they have become a source of income for the participants. Total transparency would keep the focus and offer peace-of-mind that the conclusions were not reached in week one and the rest of the time was just to make it look like a thorough job.

“And then there is the thorny issue of funding the inquiry. In this instance, the public have put their money where their mouth is. The public demanded the inquiry and the public have stumped up half-a-million for the inquiry they want. In this circumstance, there should be a mechanism for additional public funding for the inquiry which the public demand.”

Yes, on this occasion the public have responded. It is an extremely emotive topic and people will pay up, but that might be more difficult as time progresses and – as under this government – money becomes progressively tighter.

“From a policy perspective, where the government have chosen to reject and disregard the public’s concerns and demand for an inquiry into an injustice, then there should be a mechanism for a self-help type public funding for a non-government public inquiry.”

There I disagree. If sufficient numbers of the public want an inquiry, there should be an inquiry, at the government’s expense. It is, after all, our money that they will be using.

1 Like
13

It can only be any worth if it acknowledges the desperate pain and harm violently perpetrated on the now young woman. If there is no justice, if there is no lawful action taken in a court of law, what would the purpose be, what is the goal to be achieved? A national inquiry will not be that helpful if there is no legal requirement for the perpetrators and colluders to attend and give evidence. It is necessary as it’s a collective concealment for many motives, however this inquiry needs teeth, it needs to be able to subpoena people and then bring to justice. It should not take years, as all that does is push it down the line for the next time.

1 Like
14

Agreed. That requires a government working for our best interests, not its own.

Now, wouldn’t that be a thing?

1 Like
15

It certainly would, but I’m not holding my breath. If only people would wake up. IF.

2 Likes
16

I am pleased that the total amount has now been raised, as i also donated. But as mentioned by others it should never have come to this in the first place and it is an absolute disgrace by everyone involved. Racism did not rape those vulnerable girls, men did and they should have been prosecuted at the time.

2 Likes
18

Absolutely agree, but there needs to be a way to counter the argument that, not being statutory, it can not have a great effect, either in ensuring prosecutions of those who were aware, and chose not to act, or decided that they did not want to upset “social cohesion” or other such astonishing comments. A lot of discussion needs to have taken place before the enquiry is finished as to how to get maximum effect, not just press coverage for a few days, then the news cycle moves on. How can it be certain that there can be no hiding of evildoers and those who were aware afterwards? More to the point, How do we ensure that, (and I hate this awful phrase which seems to be trotted out, “lessons have been learned”) actions are subsequently taken to ensure this can never happen again, and police are properly trained simply to go after criminals, no matter their colour, faith, orientation, or how others may feel. This country needs to reclaim it’s confidence in the legal process

3 Likes
19

Britain is among the best in the world at running public enquiries. We have a strong history of success. Look at the Post office scandle. Now lets look at how long it took. The running of public enquiries is one thing and I want to congratulate those involved in performing Rupert Lowes investigation and review.
What decade will this public enquiry finish? I plan to propose a policy that would see the creation of a new police force. One with greater powers to search, seize and to detain than those currently enjoyed by UK Customs and Excise. Their duty would be to investigate all data collected and collated by MI5 Special Branch, the MET and every single police force in the UK. They would also have access to social services and to care homes for children, schools and youth clubs. They would be tasked with investigating and researching systemised child abuse within the UK dating back to the rolf Harris’s, Jimi Saville’s and the Edward Heaths of this world. It would arrest and prosecute all forms of organised child sexual abuse and they would arrest and have their own CPS crown prosecution service. If they have the information on an individual, it would be an arrestable offence not to press charges.

1 Like
20

I’m afraid that, while the motives are positive, I do not trust the system not to over-reach, using such powers. They already have exceedingly wide powers, and this would worry me.

1 Like
21

I agree, which is why I believe Mr. Lowe’s inquiry is unconflicted and truly independent. His inquiry team will uncover the truth. As for the government, public authorities, police etc., being conflicted, see e.g., this Manchester news article which shows that there are corrupt police officers.

See especially where the article ambiguously states, without specifying details of this particular additional conviction for a corrupt practice that, “Beyond this, PC Kadir further abused his authority by sharing confidential images of suspects of crime and personal details of those under investigation for sexual offences.”.

Are we to discern that this was a conviction for the corrupt practice of tipping off? Or maybe some other reason for this particular corrupt practice? Although, it must also be said that credit is due to the Manchester Police’s anti-corruption unit for investigating and prosecuting this corrupt police officer.

Shttps://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/2024/april/serving-police-officer-jailed-after-being-found-guilty-of-corruption-charges/

1 Like