Tom Crowther KC was asked by the Home Office to help establish local rape gang inquiries. Three months later, why has he heard nothing about their progress? Conservative MP Katie Lam put the question to Jess Phillips in the Commons today. Here is what Lam said.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
In January, the Home Secretary said that the Government would conduct five local inquiries into the rape gangs who have terrorised so many innocent children. More than three months since the Government announced those local inquiries, Tom Crowther KC, a barrister invited by the Home Office to help establish them, knows almost nothing about their progress, and neither do we. Why is the framework for local inquiries now being led by Ministers, rather than by independent voices such as Tom Crowther? Why is the £5 million set aside for inquiries no longer being allocated, but instead delivered on an ‘opt-in’ basis? What does the Government intend to do about local leaders who say there is no need for an independent inquiry, as they do in Bradford and in Wales?
The girls we are talking about are predominantly white. The men who preyed on them were predominantly Muslim, generally either from Pakistan or of Pakistani heritage. One of the victims from Dewsbury was told by her rapist: “We’re here to fuck all the white girls and fuck the Government.”
Does the Minister accept that in many cases these crimes were racially and religiously aggravated? How, without a national inquiry, can we understand what part those factors played?
There is no question but that the state has failed these children time and again. Take the case of ‘Anna’ from Bradford. Vulnerable and in residential care, at the age of 14 she made repeated reports of rape and abuse to social workers who were responsible for her. Just the following year, aged 15, she ‘married’ her abuser in a traditional Islamic wedding ceremony. Far from stepping in to stop it, her social worker was a guest. The authorities then arranged for her to be fostered by her abuser’s parents. The ringleader of the Rochdale rape gang, Shabir Ahmed, was employed as a welfare rights officer by Oldham council. Yet not one person — not one — has been convicted for covering up these institutionalised rapes. Why have Ministers refused to establish a dedicated unit in the National Crime Agency to investigate councillors and officials accused of collusion and corruption?
I am sorry to say that that unit must also investigate police officers. In one case, the father of an abuse victim in Rotherham was arrested by South Yorkshire police when he attempted to rescue his daughter from her abusers. He was detained twice in one night, while on the very same evening, his daughter was repeatedly assaulted and abused by a gang of men. It is clear that these criminals were unafraid of law enforcement. In Kirklees, Judge Marson said: “You were seen with your victim on at least three occasions by the police… none of that deterred you, and you continued to rape her.”
How, without a national inquiry, can we know how and why these monsters enjoyed effective immunity for so long, and how can we be sure that it will not happen again?
Conservative Members have voted for a national inquiry, and tabled amendments that would guarantee the publication of ethnicity data on a quarterly basis, terminate the parental rights of convicted sex offenders and make membership of a grooming gang an aggravating factor during sentencing, so that offenders get the longer, harsher sentences that they deserve. Will the Minister commit to accepting those amendments to protect our children?
Finally, I would like to read to the House one particular ordeal — just one example of what these children have suffered. I must warn colleagues, and especially those in the Gallery, that this is extremely graphic, but we must not look away or sanitise this evil. Sentencing Mohammed Karrar of Oxford to life in prison, Judge Peter Rook said: “You prepared her” — that is his victim, a 13-year-old girl —
for gang anal rape by using a pump to expand her anal passage. You subjected her to gang rape by five or six men. At one point she had four men inside her. A red ball was placed in her mouth to keep her quiet. … When she was 12, after raping her, she threatened you with your lock knife. Your reaction was to pick up a baseball bat with a silver metal handle, strike her on the head with it, and then insert the baseball bat inside her vagina.
This is not about me, the Minister, the Home Secretary or any Hon. Members in the Chamber; it is about the little girls, up and down our country, whose brutal and repeated rapes were permitted and hidden by those in the British state whose jobs were to protect them. They deserve justice. In five towns, those children and their families may get partial answers, but I have mentioned five towns in the past few minutes alone, and there are at least 45 more. In those places, children and their families will get no answers at all, so what does the Minister have to say to them? The British people deserve to know the truth. What darker truths does the suffering of those girls reveal about this country — and why will the Government not find out?
Phillips replied that she thought “it is a shame that she referred to only one sort of child abuse victim, when the statement is clearly about all child abuse victims”. They still don’t get it, do they?
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Perhaps if these moronic complainants had bombs dropping on their heads, or were trying to work out where their next meal was going to come from, they’d not be so concerned with being offended by someone’s words. Part of the reason we are where we are is that nobody has to endure hardship anymore, so they invent it. Put these tw*ts on the frontline somewhere and see if they’re still so preoccupied with being ‘misgendered’ as bullets whistle round their head.
They are not hurt by the words. They are weaponising them with their own hate
It isn’t a crime to hate something. Or it shouldn’t be anyway. Hatered is what you feel about something. If we start outlawing what we feel we are in real trouble.
But once again the population has been bamboozled and everyone speaks about “hate” as if it was the worst thing in the world and needs to be stopped.
It’s really very difficult sometimes to live in a world of lemmings.
Police Scotland agree that it’s not a crime, but nevertheless have recorded it as a ‘hate incident (non-crime)’
Why are the police recording things that aren’t crimes?
Because they’re utterly useless at dealing with real crimes.
They have nothing better to do.
I don’t think this a decision by Police Scotland. They are following instructions by the Government who wants to use this list in future to identify political enemies.
In that specific case. But there will be others where someone’s says or writes something which is considered a hate crime.
The term is what is especially dangerous. They’ve used a word that is about what you feel and stretched it to define certain types of actions derived from certain types thoughts. So they’ve blurred the between thought and action. Which opens the door to criminalising thought without any associated action. It’s just a question of time.
For anyone who doesn’t get it, you just replace ‘hate” with ‘thought’, as in ‘hate crime’ or “thought crime’ because hating something is just a certain type of thought.
Exactomundo, Stewart. Nail on head. You can’t legislate against being human and humans have feelings and not all of them are loving ones.
Marmite could well trigger a lot of hate crime.
There is no criminal offence of hatred in English law currently. However if a person is guilty of a criminal offence and the prosecution can prove there is an aspect of hatred on various grounds, the sentence can be enhanced.
My latest hit (with apologies to Free)
There she stood, in the street
Singing gospel music so sweet
I said, “Hey, what is this?
A free concert that I don’t want to miss!”
Just then arrived a gang of cops
Telling her that she had to stop.
There’s been complaints, dragged her away,
And banged her up in jail till the next day.
Far Right now, everybody’s Far Right now.
Far Right now, everybody’s Far Right Now.
I hurried home to my place
Told my wife it was a disgrace.
She said “Egad! Dad, that’s pretty bad –
She’d be better off proclaiming jihad.”
Just then the Law broke down the door,
And pinned the wife and me down on the floor.
“You’ll get a fine! Or maybe time!
You know Islamophobia’s a crime!”
Far Right now, everybody’s Far Right now.
(We’re all fascists together…)
Far Right now, Toby, Toby, Toby we’re Far Right!
Yep very funny. ——And Ironically by a group called FREE.
“All White Now”?
I well remember ‘boogieing’ to the original in 1970, Andy Fraser, co-founder of Free as a 15yr old in ’68 co-wrote ‘Alright Now’. An instant classic. Those were the days of sanity.
I don’t think people “boogied” in those days? ——-Wasn’t it not till disco that we “boogied”? I remember having purple bell bottoms and platforms, a Lilac shirt and flowery clip on tie,,,,,,my god I must have looked horrendous, but probably we all did back then.
Is it a hate crime to baselessly accuse someone of a hate crime?
Couldn’t this non-law be used against these people who use this to try to win an argument that they can’t otherwise succeed with.
This springs to mind:
Wasting police time is a criminal offence as outlined under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Knowingly making false reports to the police is an offence, including verbal or written statements that:
True, however there is a pleasing irony in using their “law” against them.
I’ve already done that at work. A Muslim patient in an abaya made a complaint against me. She had wanted a Muslim doctor and became quite angry when she found it was me she was due to see.
In my response I used the phrase ‘perceived recism’, which I felt had been directed at me.
It went quiet after that.
As the song said “There may be trouble ahead”. —-When you give more and more power to government this is where you end up. I have for years listened to an endless stream of politicians decare how “Progressive” they are. And who could possibly have a problem with that, after all isn’t “progressive” a really good thing? Who could object to “progress? ————–Except when it comes to politics “progressive” means progressing bit by bit to more power in the hands of government, and we all should know by now that the bigger the government the less the freedom. I urge all Scots (and I am one) to seriously have a think to themselves that the proper role of government is not to be some kind of morality police that decides what opinions we are all allowed to have. Or as C.S Lewis put it———“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
‘Cancer is progressive,’ is my usual response to that.
I think we can foresee a predictable trend come April Fools ( how apt ) that there’ll be a significant hike in complaints from Transtifa and the Islamists ( sounds like a pub quiz team ), due to these two camps enjoying perma-victim status in society nowadays.
Shall we wait and see how long the queues get outside Ann Summers, Home Bargains, or wherever else has been registered as your ‘One stop grassing shop’ in Scotland, as snitches line up to whinge about being victims of ‘microaggressions’ or bent out of shape because a bloke in a dress was called “mister”.🤦♀️🙈
Well we can be absolutely sure that plod will no longer have the
resourcespeople to deal with real crimes so that’s alright then.Note the MSM headlines today re “trolling” and the Royals, also blaming China and Russia, its always useful to bring “the enemy” in too. We must see this for what it is, Our Rulers want to bring in Censorship and woke blasphemy laws in the same vein as Canada, thus shutting down voices of dissent and of course the alternative media. The MSM are fully on board as theybelieve their power will be returned as the only voices of truth along with the edicts of our leaders.
Do not be fooled, recall the focus of the Billionaire boys club at DAVOS this year, and the biggest threat to humanity, not war, but disin/mal information as blabbed by Vond der Layen, Schwab etc. This is their play using the Royals, in a “look at these people they are kicking a Kitten, we must stop them” play. Do not be fooled resist and see it for what it is, the elites through the puppet politicians and secretarial MSM shutting up the proles.
The concept of “hate crimes” is nonsensical. The concept of a “non-crime hate incident” is off-the-scale bonkers.
We’re not just living in Clownworld, it’s the Stephen King version but with Brownshirts and Maoists.
Who determines if something is a ‘hate incident (non-crime)’ or not?
The complainant.
Humza is carrying out the same destructive policy’s as his ROP mucker Khant in Old London Town !
Also is Murdo related to Michael Portillo 😉