Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.
I'd like to think that my message to the Telegraph yesterday was the straw that broke the camel's back:
Infuriated by this from the first line of this article:
"Seven Asian men have been convicted of the sexual exploitation of two white teenage schoolgirls in Rochdale."
Gosh. I'm so old that I remember the remarks of Labour minister Lucy Powell, who was asked a question--just a little over a month ago--in a debate about a recently-aired Channel 4 grooming gangs documentary. The commentator asked if Powell had seen the program about "rape gangs." Powell's response was, “Oh, we want to blow that little trumpet now, do we? Yeah, OK, let’s get that dog whistle out.”
Unlike with Lucy Connelly, those in power closed ranks around Powell--who suffered no consequences for her remark--with Secretary for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, saying that "she made a genuine mistake, she's owned up to it, she said sorry and "we’ll move on.”
Two-Tier, indeed. Cowards, the bloody lot of them. Including the Telegraph, who didn't even have the guts to leave this article open for comments.”
But I really doubt I had much to do with it. As is his wont, I think Starmer caved to pressure, rather than principle.
If anyone deserves a metaphorical victory lap in this long-overdue climbdown by the UK government over an incredibly ugly case, it's Mark Steyn, a man who has suffered many undeserved and unpleasant consequences for speaking the truth over the years.
What an absolute disgrace for Britain.
This past Thursday, Dominic Cummings, an often reviled but very smart former chief advisor to Boris Johnson—someone I equate informally, in my own mind, with Stephen Miller, an equally smart and often reviled chief advisor to Donald Trump—decided to get down and dirty on this topic. I think it's inadvisable to get into a shouting match with either Cummings or Miller, since I've noticed that when they decide to take a stand on something, they both generally bring the receipts with them.
Dominic Cummings has exposed what he describes as systematic cover-ups within Whitehall regarding child abuse cases, revealing why the system is "absolutely desperate" not to have an inquiry into grooming gangs.
Speaking to GB News reporter Steven Edginton, the former Chief Adviser to Boris Johnson said: "There was mass cover-ups of the whole thing in Whitehall."
He explained that whilst the typical Whitehall cliche of "it's a cock-up, not a conspiracy" usually holds true, child abuse represents a significant exception.
"The one big exception I would say is regarding child abuse, where there are actually multiple conspiracies constantly and largely successful," Cummings stated.
It's indeed true that Lucy Powell, a member of Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer's cabinet, referred to a question from a reporter about the grooming gangs last month as trumpet-blowing and a "dog whistle." And that Lucy Connelly, the wife of a man who served as a Conservative County Councilor, made an ill-advised Tweet following the Southport murders of three young girls at a Taylor Swift-inspired dance event last year.
Lucy Powell was given a free pass and suffered no consequences for saying "sorry." Lucy Connelly, who swiftly deleted her objectionable Tweet, who has expressed remorse for it times without number and who has been supported, without exception, by the multi-national, multi-racial, and diverse community whose children she was caring for in her child-minding business ("the kindest British person I know" was just one of the encomia), was sentenced to 31 months in jail and has been denied a shorter sentence or even the ability to see her own daughter, because someone has deemed she is a "danger to society."
I don't know what will come of this. Probably a multi-year investigation like that of the British inquiry into the Covid response, which is expected to hold its final public hearings in February of 2026. I suppose that's the point at which the committee will start assembling the findings. God knows how many more years that may take: As far as I'm aware, that date hasn't been announced yet.
I doubt the "National Grooming Gangs Inquiry" will move at anything other than the same glacial pace.
Meanwhile, the indignities continue. God help the young women of Great Britain.
Recommended by MembersThis post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (38)
CONTRIBUTOR • CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Only a writer of remarkable self-discipline can express indignant anger with such diamond-like hardness and precision! Thanks for this powerful post. I hope, in turn, that some of the Powerful see the light, or feel the heat.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Thanks, Gary. I might have honed my skills on this:
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
My cynical view is he is doing this just as a way to bury the problem. The inquiry will take 6 months to complete and then be inconclusive.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I don't disagree. In fact, I think that's pretty much what I expressed in the post. Except that I think--like the Covid inquiry--the inquiry will take four or five years to get to the end of the testimony, before it even begins to consider what the final report might be.
You're seeing five of 38 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.