Labour "Kills" Local Grooming Gang Inquiries Before They Can Crawl
Broken promises, broken promises.
Back in January, Labour Home Secretary Yvette Cooper promised the country that the government would act on the grooming gang scandal.
They pledged to conduct five local independent inquiries. It wasn’t what certain survivors and commentators hoped for but it was something.
This week we learned they’ve been quietly dismantling such promises.
On January 16th, Cooper announced a national plan to roll out local inquiries into child sexual exploitation across five key areas.
The announcement came with £5 million in funding and the help of Tom Crowther KC—the barrister who led the Telford inquiry, which uncovered the sexual abuse of more than a thousand children over three decades, amid “shocking” failures by local police and councils.
They asked him to help create a national framework for victim-centred, locally led inquiries. He agreed. Days later, Cooper stood up in the Commons and formally announced his involvement.
But from that point on, the cracks began to show—revealing, perhaps, far more about Labour’s true intentions than they ever planned to admit.
The Quiet U-Turn
Ahead of his committee appearance this week, and still unclear on what his role actually was, Crowther sought advice from former Conservative Justice Secretary Robert Buckland who passed him Jess Phillips’ number.
Crowther texted her, asking if she could clarify “what I was likely to be asked to do and when.”
By February 14th—five full weeks Cooper announced his involvement—Crowther still hadn’t received a formal update. He called the Home Office directly and asked: “Do you still want me?”
The official informed him that the framework would now be drafted by ministers and advisers. Crowther’s role was no longer central—he could “comment” on a draft, once written, but that was it.
In short, it was now completely Labour-controlled—decisively not independent.
He asked the official to confirm the exchange in writing and was promised an email that day. Seven days passed. Nothing came.
On February 21st, Crowther followed up again by text:
“A week ago, you told me you would send me an email so we wouldn’t have to conduct this through text. Would still welcome that.”
No reply. Summing up the situation for MPs this week, Crowther admitted:
“Ultimately, in answer to the question ‘how is a national framework being developed?’ I would say, at this stage, I don’t know.”
A meeting with the Home Office has since been reportedly scheduled—only after Crowther went public with his concerns this week.
Note this is the same Jess Phillips—Minister for Safeguarding—who met in February with Marlon West, the father of a grooming gang survivor in Greater Manchester.
During that meeting, West made his position clear: he called for a national inquiry. But something had changed in the official meeting minutes. His words had been altered—“national inquiry” had become “national strategy.”
A quiet substitution with significant implications. The question begged: was this an honest mistake or a calculated move to soften his demand on record and avoid accountability?
It’s an obvious point to make but, on many levels, it seems the government is less concerned with being responsive than looking responsive.
Conflicts of Interest
Then came the money.
Initially, £5 million had been set aside for five local inquiries. But on March 20th, it was revealed that this funding would no longer be allocated directly. Instead, councils would have to bid for it.
Leaving it up to councils to decide whether to “opt in” to a grooming inquiry is not only a vast knock down from what they promised; in certain areas, it’s a glaring conflict of interest.
Some of these same local authorities are alleged to have been complicit—either through denial, incompetence, or outright deception.
Arguably, giving them the power to decide whether to subject themselves to scrutiny is akin to letting suspects choose whether they want to be investigated.
And even if a council does bid, they don’t have to conduct a “full inquiry”.
Conservative MP Robbie Moore discovered in further correspondence with the Home Office that the money can now be used for “options” that fall “short of a full investigation”—such as “victim-survivor engagement”, “scrutiny,” and “follow-up”.
These are the Home Office’s own words—incredibly vague words, some would say deliberately so.
What Comes Next
Meanwhile, the Conservatives—having spent 14 years in government without launching a full, independent inquiry—now says it will *add an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to mandate a statutory investigation.
The move, though no doubt politically-motivated, would force a vote in Parliament and—if passed—compel local authorities to participate in inquiries, regardless of whether they want to or not.
Outside Westminster, Rupert Lowe has launched his own private inquiry into the scandal. But without statutory powers, it can’t compel testimony, demand documents, or force cooperation from councils or police forces.
Still, Lowe remains undeterred. Writing in The Telegraph on Tuesday, he said: “We have to try. I want to be able to say I have done everything within my power to shine a light on the many horrors that still continue today.”
Do you think if things stay the way they are our best days are ahead of us?
Are you going to sit down and watch as our media/government officials push for yet more invasive, authoritarian, censorious policy?
If you want to do something today to change that, supporting citizen journalists like myself could make a genuine difference. In the past year alone, The Stark Naked Brief reached over 90 million people on X (Yep, 90 crazy…) Sometimes, all it takes is one post to wake someone up…
They are afraid all the skeletons will come out of the closet of all the labour councillors and now mps. Trying to put it out to the long grass. Hopefully with Rupert Lowe and the Torys it will get back in the news and all over the place. There should be nowhere to hide for these predators and people who covered for them.
Doesn't this make you wonder if Starmer - who was supposed to do something about the gang-rapes/grooming of young British girls but never did even when it was his direct job - is stonewalling any and all efforts? Would that be because he doesn't want his refusal to act to be proven, or is it that he may have accepted money to look the other way? Or both. Even his own people hate his guts - or lack of them.