A Response to Burnham and his Bullies

Andy Burnham had a choice when rape gang scandals emerged in Manchester, Rochdale and Oldham. Instead of demanding the government launch a public inquiry with statutory powers, he chose a series of toothless exercises incapable of delivering justice, He then defended these findings whilst parents and rape gang survivors screamed at him from the public gallery of a council meeting.

Burnham commissioned reviews without statutory powers, dependent on voluntary cooperation, operating within boundaries designed by the very institutions exposed for their repeated failures to protect little White girls from gang rape by Pakistani men. He then spent years defending this charade while victims waited for accountability that was never going to come.

Burnham has relied on these non-statutory "Assurance Reviews" to respond to public concern about the Pakistani Rape Gangs in Greater Manchester. Those reviews were presented as a serious reckoning. The public was told these were serious investigations. They were not. His hand picked experts did not even interview a single Pakistani Rape Gang survivor.

The distinction between what Buenham's reviews were and what they claimed to be has been repeatedly blurred. What began as a limited process is now being described as if it resolved questions it was never designed to examine. That distortion now undermines future accountability and gives institutions a precedent for avoiding real scrutiny. When flawed processes are defended as adequate, the bar for genuine investigation is lowered permanently.

In recent months, Burnham's office and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority have moved beyond defending the Assurance Reviews and towards discrediting me for challenge them. Public statements have been issued asserting that my criticism of the process is "misleading". Burnham's office now claims the problem lies not with the flawed reviews, but with those exposing their limits.

That claim cannot go unanswered.

My position on these reviews was fixed the day the Oldham report was published in June 2022. It was a cover-up of the cover-up. That was clear immediately, not after reflection or political calculation.

For nearly three years, Burnham promoted these reviews as a serious response, all the time knowing they were never capable of getting to the truth. He did not admit their limitations until January 2025, after external pressure from Elon Musk forced the issue onto the global stage. Only then did the caveats appear. Only then did the admissions surface.

That sequence speaks for itself.

Mine is not a dispute about tone or politics. It is a dispute about the public record. There is now a widening gap between what the Assurance Reviews were capable of doing and what they are being claimed to have done. That gap is being filled by repetition, institutional power, and the weight of a powerful political brand. Left unchallenged, it will harden into accepted history.

Burnham's standing produces consequences. Critics face institutional retaliation. Unresolved questions disappear from public discourse. The documented record gets buried under competing narratives. In that environment, silence does not represent balance. It represents backing down.

I refuse that silence.

What will follow is a series of dispatches that will examine key decision points in Burnham's reviews. Each dispatch will focus on a specific choice made in the commissioning or defence of the Assurance Reviews. It will examine what powers were withheld, who was permitted to refuse scrutiny, what evidence was never secured, and which questions were ruled out before the work even began. Each examination is grounded in the public record and traces how design shaped outcome long before conclusions were published.

Taken together, this work will establish a clear chain of responsibility and show how a sequence of deliberate decisions limited scrutiny, delayed accountability, and shaped what the Assurance Reviews were able to conclude from the outset.

These are not technical disagreements about process. They go to accountability. They go to evidence. They go to whose voices mattered and whose were excluded. They go to the difference between reassurance offered to institutions and truth owed to the public.

The question is not whether Burnham's approach was politically expedient. The question is whether it was adequate to the task. The evidence suggests it was not, and that this inadequacy was not an accident.

What follows will set out the record. I do not fear Andy Burnham or his entourage. Campaigning is still lawful. Quoting the public record is not a crime. Exposing a cover-up does not become defamation simply because it is uncomfortable. The problem here is not reputational damage. The problem is that control of the story was lost, and because we were able to bypass the legacy media, the truth did not stay buried.

Please Help Finish This

If you are coming to me new, my name is Raja Miah MBE. I am responsible for leading a seven year campaign that blew the lid off how Labour Party politicians were involved in protecting Pakistani Rape Gangs.

My work is free for all. No paywalls. No restrictions. No exclusions of any kind.
We are up against a powerful machine: legacy media, politicians, police and public officials working together to bury the scale of this cover-up. You won’t find me on any news channel in the UK nor featured in the legacy press. To fight back, we need to grow.

Through my newsletter, I document everything in detail - the evidence, the investigations, and the fight for justice. 100% free, though if you can afford to subscribe and financially support me, it costs as little as 75p a week or £30 for the year.

If a monthly subscription isn’t possible, a one-off contribution makes a difference. Every penny goes towards keeping this work alive.
👉 http://BuyMeACoffee.com/recusantnine
👉 http://paypal.me/RecusantNine

Please stand with me.
Raja 🙏