In January 2025, UK Labour Home Secretary Yvette Cooper made a bold pledge to address the long-standing grooming gang scandal that had plagued the United Kingdom for decades. The issue, involving the systematic sexual exploitation of vulnerable children by organised groups of largely "Asian" migrants, had become a national disgrace, with survivors and commentators demanding accountability and action. Cooper's promise was clear: the government would conduct five local independent inquiries into child sexual exploitation across key areas. For many, this commitment offered a glimmer of hope, a chance to uncover the truth, deliver justice, and implement reforms to protect future generations. However, as the weeks unfolded, it became evident that the government's actions would fall far short of the expectations set by Cooper's initial rhetoric, leading to accusations of a "quiet U-turn" and deepening the sense of betrayal felt by survivors.

On January 16th, Cooper announced a national plan to roll out inquiries into child sexual exploitation in five key areas. The initiative was backed by £5 million in funding and was to be led by a respected figure: Tom Crowther KC, a prominent barrister who had previously chaired the Telford Inquiry. The Telford Inquiry had been a significant milestone, uncovering the sexual abuse of more than a thousand children over three decades and exposing "shocking" failures by local police and councils to protect vulnerable youth. Crowther's involvement in the new national framework lent credibility to Cooper's plan, as his prior work had demonstrated a commitment to thorough investigation and survivor-centred justice. Days after the announcement, Cooper stood in the House of Commons and formally reiterated her intention to involve Crowther in creating a national framework for victim-centred, locally led inquiries. The stage seemed set for meaningful progress.

Yet, the promise of action quickly unravelled. By the following week, reports emerged that the government was quietly dismantling the very inquiries it had pledged to conduct. The £5 million in funding, the involvement of Tom Crowther, and the framework for local inquiries appeared to vanish from the government's agenda. Survivors, advocates, and commentators were left reeling, with many pointing to this reversal as a "quiet U-turn"—a deliberate retreat from a commitment that had been publicly celebrated just days earlier. The decision to backtrack was particularly galling given the scale of the grooming gang scandal, which had seen thousands of children subjected to horrific abuse, often with the complicity or negligence of local authorities. The Telford Inquiry, under Crowther's leadership, had already laid bare the systemic failures that allowed such exploitation to persist; the expectation was that a national framework would build on this work, not abandon it.

Crowther himself sought advice from a trusted ally, former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland, indicating the uncertainty and complexity surrounding his role in the wake of the government's apparent retreat. Buckland, who had passed Crowther Jess Phillips' contact number, likely intended to facilitate communication with another key figure in the Labour government, as Phillips had been vocal on issues of violence against women and girls. However, this behind-the-scenes manoeuvring did little to clarify the government's intentions or restore faith in Cooper's leadership on the issue. For survivors, the quiet dismantling of the inquiries was not just a policy failure—it was a personal betrayal, a signal that their suffering and demands for justice were once again being sidelined by political expediency.

The grooming gang scandal, as highlighted by the Telford Inquiry, is a stark reminder of the human cost of institutional failure. Over decades, vulnerable White children, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, were targeted, groomed, and abused by organised ethnic groups, motivated by racial hate, with local authorities frequently failing to intervene. The inquiry's findings of "shocking" failures by police and councils underscored a culture of denial, inaction, and victim-blaming that allowed perpetrators to operate with impunity. Cooper's initial pledge to conduct five local inquiries was seen as a step toward addressing these systemic issues, offering a chance to hold authorities accountable and implement reforms to prevent future abuse. The decision to abandon this plan, however, raises serious questions about the Labour government's commitment to tackling one of the most pressing social justice issues of our time.

In a broader context, the quiet U-turn reflects a recurring challenge in addressing complex, politically sensitive issues like child sexual exploitation by coloured aggressors in a multicult. The grooming gang scandal has long been mired in controversy, with debates over race, culture, and institutional bias complicating efforts to achieve consensus on solutions. Some critics argue that fear of being labelled racist—given the overrepresentation of certain ethnic groups among perpetrators in high-profile cases—has led authorities to shy away from robust action. Others point to systemic issues like underfunding of social services, inadequate training for police, and a lack of survivor support as the root causes of failure. Still others see this as the Great White Replacement in action and the future for Whites when they become minorities. Cooper's retreat from her initial promise risks reinforcing the perception that the government is unwilling to confront these difficult truths head-on, leaving survivors to bear the burden of inaction. They simply do not want to upset the ethnic group raping the White children, fearing electoral backlash from their multiracial constituents.

In conclusion, Yvette Cooper's handling of the grooming gang scandal encapsulates the tension between political promises and the realities of governance. Her January pledge to conduct five local inquiries, backed by £5 million and led by Tom Crowther KC, offered hope to survivors and advocates who had long fought for justice. Yet, the government's quiet U-turn—evident in the dismantling of these plans within a week—has deepened the sense of betrayal felt by those affected by the scandal. The involvement of a respected figure like Crowther, coupled with the stark findings of the Telford Inquiry, underscored the urgency of the issue, making the government's retreat all the more disappointing.

In short, the Labour government is on the side of ethnic rapists, not the White child victims. And those who are white and speak out face the force of the multicultural fascist UK state. It is the Great White Replacement in action.

https://news.starknakedbrief.co.uk/p/labour-kills-local-grooming-gang

"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 was backed by £5 million in funding and led by a respected figure: Tom Crowther KC, the barrister who chaired 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 Crowther 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, it all began to break down.

The Quiet U-Turn

Ahead of his committee appearance this week, and still unclear on what his role actually was, Crowther sought advice from his friend and former 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.

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 scheduled—only after Crowther went public with his concerns.

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. An honest mistake or a calculated move to soften the demand 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 cop-out; 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 cover-up.

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.

Even if a council does bid, they don't have to conduct a full inquiry.

In further correspondence with the Home Office, Conservative MP Robbie Moore discovered 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 table 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 parallel 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."