Britain's Two-Tier Justice System: Grooming Gangs Escape Hate Crime Charges While Tweet Reposters Face Swift Jail Time, By Mrs. Brittany Miller (London)
The latest from the Daily Sceptic hits like a thunderclap in Britain's already stormy political landscape. The February 9, 2026, article by Laurie Wastell, titled "Why Haven't Grooming Gang Members Been Charged with Racist Hate Crimes?", lays bare a glaring hypocrisy in the UK's justice system. It argues that despite overwhelming evidence of racial animus in the infamous grooming gang scandals – where predominantly Pakistani-heritage men targeted vulnerable white girls with racial slurs – prosecutors have systematically ignored hate crime enhancements. Contrast this with Prime Minister Keir Starmer's lightning-fast crackdowns on white Brits for merely reposting inflammatory tweets during riots. If this isn't two-tier justice, favouring certain groups while hammering others, what is?
The Grooming Gang Scandal: Racism Ignored in Plain Sight
For those needing a refresher, the UK's grooming gang horrors unfolded over decades in towns like Rotherham, Rochdale, and Oldham, involving organised sexual exploitation of thousands of young girls – mostly white and working-class – by groups of men, often of Pakistani Muslim heritage. Reports like the 2025 Casey audit (commissioned by the Home Office) confirmed "disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds" among suspects in key areas like Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire. Yet, as Wastell points out, none of these cases have been prosecuted as racially aggravated offenses, despite clear evidence of hate.
Wastell quotes her own prior piece: "In today's institutionally antiracist state, the mere suggestion of racial animus in something a white person has said – even if in private, even if true – will be treated as a significant aggravating factor... Yet when the boot is on the other foot, racial animus against native British people is persistently and wilfully ignored." Examples abound: In Rotherham alone, an estimated 1,400 girls were abused between 1997 and 2013, with perpetrators using racist slurs and viewing victims as "easy meat" due to their ethnicity. A 2012 academic analysis of the Rochdale gang argued their actions met the criteria for hate crimes under UK law (sections 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and 145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003), where hostility based on race or religion aggravates sentences. But the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has never pursued this angle – when asked by journalists, they couldn't provide a single example.
Why the blind eye? Institutional cowardice, per multiple inquiries. The Casey report slammed a "culture of ignorance" and fears of racism accusations, leading authorities to "shy away" from ethnicity data (missing in two-thirds of cases nationally). Victims like Fiona Goddard feel "betrayed," as prosecutors fail to recognize the racial hatred that fuelled their torment. Even a 2020 Home Office report debunked the "Muslim problem" myth but highlighted over-policing of minorities elsewhere – yet no action on anti-white bias in these crimes.
Starmer's Swift Hammer: Tweets vs. Trauma
Now, flip the script to Starmer's response to the 2024 riots (sparked by the Southport stabbings and misinformation). As PM, he revived his old playbook from the 2011 riots, where as Director of Public Prosecutions, he championed fast-track courts to process cases rapidly. In 2024, this meant "24-hour courts" and swift jail terms for rioters – including those whose "crimes" were online. Jordan Parlour got 20 months for Facebook posts inciting attacks on a migrant hotel. Tyler Kay drew 38 months for stirring racial hatred on X. A 53-year-old woman was imprisoned for 15 months over a post about blowing up a mosque. Even a taxi driver, Andrew McIntyre, copped seven-and-a-half years for encouraging disorder via posts – though context shows it was tied to actual riots, not just words.
Starmer warned social media isn't a "law-free zone," vowing to "throw the full force of the law" at online inciters – even threatening extradition for foreigners like Americans or Elon Musk. Over 400 arrests, with at least 17 charged for posts alone. Critics argue this frames riots as "disinformation" issues to dodge deeper grievances, risking free speech chills.
The Two-Tier Argument: Protection for Some, Persecution for Others?
Here's the rub: If racial slurs and targeted abuse in grooming cases don't warrant hate crime uplifts, why do reposted tweets trigger instant jail? Wastell nails it – the system is "institutionally antiracist" only when it suits, ignoring anti-white animus while amplifying any whiff of white racism. Grooming victims endured years of systemic failure, with police and CPS prioritising "community cohesion" over justice, fearing racism labels. Meanwhile, white working-class rioters (often fuelled by real frustrations over immigration and crime) face the full Starmer blitz.
This isn't equality under the law; it's selective enforcement. As one commentator asked in the Daily Sceptic comments: "Has there ever been even a single arrest... of somebody being racist towards white people?" The answer? Rarely, if ever. Starmer's approach – rapid for riots, glacial for gangs – betrays a bias: Protect minority communities from backlash, but let white victims' racial trauma slide.
Wrapping Up: Time for True Justice, Not Tiered Hypocrisy
The Daily Sceptic piece is a wake-up call: Britain's justice system must apply hate crime laws consistently, or risk eroding public trust. Starmer's quick-draw on tweet reposters while grooming perps evade racial charges screams two-tier policing. This echoes global concerns – when elites pick and choose "hate," justice suffers. Demand better: Charge hate where it exists, regardless of the perpetrator's background. Until then, the scales remain tipped.
We live under a regime of two-tier justice. What we have to remember about this grim state of affairs is this: it is not an accident; the system was designed this way. As I wrote last year: "In today's institutionally antiracist state, the mere suggestion of racial animus in something a white person has said – even if in private, even if true – will be treated as a significant aggravating factor by the authorities and can be used to send them to prison. Yet when the boot is on the other foot, in the absence of any scrutiny from activists, racial animus against native British people is persistently and wilfully ignored."
There are many examples to choose from, but as I noted: "The most glaring example of prosecutors ignoring anti-white animus is, of course, in the decades-long outrage of the rape-gangs scandal. Indeed, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that racism against the 'white sl*g' victims by their predominantly Pakistani heritage abusers was playing a major role in these crimes, none of the rape-gang offences has ever been prosecuted as racially aggravated."
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/islamic-extremism-home-office-silence-adviser-alarm-growing-threat-britainA veteran Government adviser on counter-extremism has accused the Home Office of trying to "silence" him after he criticised ministers' handling of the growing Islamist threat to Britain.
Fiyaz Mughal, founder of Tell Mama, stepped down from his Home Office advisory role at the end of last year, claiming he faced "insidious pressure" to avoid speaking publicly about the threat posed by Islamist ideology.
"I actively made the decision to more robustly challenge Islamist extremism and felt it wasn't possible to continue speaking out about it while working there," he said.
His departure brought to an end more than 20 years advising successive governments on extremism and radicalisation.
The row followed an article Mr Mughal wrote for The Telegraph last February, in which he said he was stunned that Islamist extremism was not mentioned during the first 90 minutes of a Home Office summit on tackling radicalisation.
Instead, civil servants focused on threats described as having "mixed" or "no clear ideology", as well as misogyny, the far-right and incel culture - despite intelligence agencies repeatedly identifying Islamist extremism as the UK's primary terror threat.
The day after the article was published, a senior Home Office official contacted Mr Mughal to discuss his media activity and future work with the Government.
"It was done so insidiously. He's basically saying 'if you come in line, I can help you a bit'," Mr Mughal said.
