McMahon's Privilege and Abrahams Lies

Labour's Campaign to Cover Up Rape Gang Truth

Oldham MP, Jim McMahon, was desperate. For six years, I had been systematically exposing the political cover up of the Pakistani Rape Gangs in Oldham. The consequences were devastating for the Labour Party. We were taking out their politicians at the ballot box.

Neither death threats, malicious arrests, nor years of character assassination had stopped what I was doing. McMahon was watching his political career disintegrate. He needed to show I was a liar and destroy my credibility forever.

Their answer was Andy Burnham's Assurance Review. A whitewash designed to declare "no cover up" and close the case forever.

But we had exposed Burnham's review as a sham. No power to compel evidence. No misconduct findings. No prosecutions. At packed council meetings, Burnham faced hostile crowds who had seen through his lies. Legacy media struggled to sell the "no cover up" narrative. The whitewash was failing.

McMahon needed to intervene. He recruited fellow Oldham MPs Debbie Abrahams and Angela Rayner to issue a joint statement. The key line revealed everything: "This independent review also addressed head on the false and often politically motivated conspiracy theories that claimed grooming gangs were operating under the protection of senior politicians. The review was clear that there is no basis for these accusations, and we are pleased that the report draws a line under this."

Six years of documented evidence dismissed as "false conspiracy theories." They were using Burnham's whitewash to declare themselves innocent and the matter closed forever.

But statements weren't enough. McMahon called a parliamentary debate where he and Debbie Abrahams would destroy my reputation and complete the cover up.

The stakes were existential. A real public inquiry would reveal the systematic nature of failure across multiple Labour authorities. The missing files, dropped investigations, and protection of perpetrators would come out under statutory powers. Oldham wasn't isolated. Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, Huddersfield - the same pattern. Labour councils, Labour MPs, Labour police commissioners overseeing protection of rape gangs while attacking anyone who spoke out.

The Labour Party would be revealed as the party that sold children to rapists for Muslim votes. The whole edifice would collapse.

So McMahon reached for the coward's option. Parliamentary privilege. He could make malicious allegations without consequence, slander without evidence, destroy reputations without legal retaliation. He would hide behind centuries of democratic protection designed to enable courage, and use it to commit pure cowardice.

Seven days after Burnham's whitewash was published, McMahon held his Commons debate. Not to seek truth, but to annihilate the man seeking it.

On 30 June 2022, he turned Parliament into a weapon against me.

Seven Days

This is where the coordination becomes obvious.

Burnham's review was designed to prevent national inquiry. A non-statutory "assurance review" with no power to compel witnesses, no access to missing files, no ability to prosecute anyone responsible.

Tuesday, 23 June: The review concluded. Thursday, 25 June: McMahon called for his parliamentary debate. Thursday, 30 June: The debate took place.

Seven days from conclusion to execution.

Burnham delivered the whitewash. Within two days, McMahon organised the joint statement with Abrahams and Rayner and called for his parliamentary debate. Legacy media pushed the "no cover up" narrative. Seven days after the review's publication, McMahon's debate took place.

The timing wasn't coincidence. It was panic.

At the time, I was on police bail, accused of crimes I did not commit fabricated by leaders of the Labour Party, my mother was undergoing treatment for stage 4 cancer, and even the Sunday Times had been mobilised to smear me. The entire establishment had aligned against one man and a small team of campaigners from a Northern mill town. They thought they had broken me. They thought it was over.

But we held the line. That's what terrified McMahon. Despite everything they had thrown at me, I was still standing. Still digging. Still publishing. Still threatening to expose them all. So he reached for Parliament itself as his final weapon.

My work is free because the truth must circulate. But truth without numbers is easy to crush. The government does not fear facts. It fears scale. Every subscriber is a number they can't erase. Every reader widens the circle they can't control.

The Parliamentary Hit

This is where Parliament stopped asking questions and started silencing them.

McMahon's strategy was threefold:

Position Burnham's whitewash as definitive final authority.
Ensure Parliament would debate conclusions rather than question adequacy.
Completely avoid substantive engagement with evidence about institutional failures.

The goal was closure through authority rather than inquiry through evidence.

McMahon's First Move: Legitimising the Lie

McMahon's opening establishes Burnham's review as comprehensive examination rather than limited exercise with no powers.

"Last week, the independent assurance review into historic child sexual exploitation in Oldham was published. It is important the House has an opportunity to debate it."

Notice the language. "Independent assurance review" - not "limited non-statutory exercise." Parliament's role is to debate, not question or test adequacy.

McMahon reinforces this by quoting the review directly:

"We found that throughout this period, especially services tackling child sexual exploitation provided by Oldham Council and Greater Manchester police were strategically ahead of those available in many of the local authorities at the time."

"Strategically ahead" becomes parliamentary fact. Not "systematically failing while children were raped."

By opening this way, McMahon establishes the parameters. The review is authoritative. Its findings are factual. Parliament's role is to accept and discuss.

McMahon's Second Move: Controlling the Debate

This is where McMahon ensures Parliament never asks the real questions.

Parliament would debate the review's conclusions, not question whether the review was adequate. McMahon made no call for statutory powers. He offered no discussion of compelled witnesses. He gave no acknowledgement that the review covered three years when allegations span decades.

No number of how many children in Oldham were dragged off the streets and gang raped. No data on current safeguarding failures still putting children at risk. No mention of missing case files that disappeared when they were most needed. No explanation of dropped police investigations that let rapists walk free.

No account of which officials would be held responsible for decades of failure. No timeline of when specific institutional betrayals occurred. No discussion of how many perpetrators were never prosecuted because authorities chose to protect them. No acknowledgement of survivors still seeking justice while their abusers remained untouchable.

Parliament would destroy the man demanding answers instead. That was the plan.

McMahon uses the review's language to present institutional failure as technical rather than cultural:

"Services tackling child sexual exploitation provided by Oldham Council and Greater Manchester police were strategically ahead of those available in many of the local authorities at the time. However, these did not always translate at an operational level."

Strategically ahead while children were being gang raped on an industrial scale. The language is obscene.

McMahon transforms systematic institutional failure into minor implementation issue.

McMahon's Final Move: Character Assassination

This is the moment scrutiny became extremism.

The Far-Right Contamination

McMahon pivots to neutralise ongoing criticism:

"I will touch on the disinformation campaign surrounding that."

Criticism of Burnham's whitewash becomes organised threat rather than legitimate accountability.

McMahon deploys the kill shot:

"My town has seen that before, with far-right protests taking to the streets, smearing whole communities and setting out to divide. That has increased significantly with the rise of social media and conspiracy theorists' platforms such as Recusant Nine, led by Raja Miah..."

No evidential connection exists between far-right street protests and accountability journalism. None is offered because none exists.

The linkage comes through proximity rather than proof. This is deliberate contamination.

McMahon calculated every word. Any MP, journalist, or campaigner who engages seriously with evidence about Oldham now risks being tarred with extremism. They don't need to answer the evidence. They just need to make anyone who might listen to it politically toxic.

This is how democratic accountability dies. Not through censorship, but through contamination.

Character Assassination Under Privilege

McMahon deploys parliamentary immunity to make allegations he could never make outside the chamber:

"...led by Raja Miah, who seeks to make financial and political gain by spreading hate, racism and disinformation."

Spreading racial hatred. Conspiracy promotion. Financial exploitation of victims. Outside Parliament, making such allegations without evidence would destroy McMahon legally. Inside Parliament, he enjoys total immunity.

He can lie with impunity.

McMahon provides no quotes demonstrating "disinformation." No examples of "spreading hate." No instances of "racism." No evidence of "financial gain." No substantiation for any allegation.

Parliamentary privilege exists to enable fearless scrutiny of power. McMahon has weaponised that immunity to protect power from scrutiny through character assassination.

Unable to answer evidence about missing files and dropped investigations, McMahon changes the subject:

"Because as chief executive of the Collective Spirit Free School, he presided over a catalogue of serious safeguarding incidents..."

This is forum-shifting of the most cowardly kind.

McMahon knew the truth. Every one of his attempts to prosecute me had failed. He'd gone to the Department for Education repeatedly - they found no substance to any of his fabricated allegations. He'd gone to the National Crime Agency - they found no crimes committed by me. Every proper investigation with actual powers had cleared me completely.

Yet here he was, using parliamentary privilege to make the same discredited allegations he couldn't prove anywhere else.

This wasn't justice. This was a desperate politician, neck deep in cover up of gang rape, using ultimate democratic protection to spread lies he knew were false.

McMahon becomes his personal slander machine, protected by privilege and immune from challenge. Now anyone googling my name will find these parliamentary lies alongside legitimate journalism.

McMahon has changed the game completely. Nobody talks about missing files anymore. Nobody asks about dropped investigations. Nobody demands to know why rapists walked free. Instead they ask whether I'm pure enough to make these allegations.

That was always the plan. Destroy the messenger. Ignore the message.

The Silencing Consensus

Debbie Abrahams seals the parliamentary hit job:

"The malicious statements that have been made by this person and the misinformation that has been spread have contributed to division and hatred. If it is not tackled, it will spread beyond Oldham. It must be tackled."

"It must be tackled." The language of enforcers discussing a problem that needs eliminating.

No evidence has been tested. No institutional failures addressed. No missing files explained. Parliament manufactures consensus around neutralising accountability demands rather than meeting them.

By associating criticism of CSE failures with extremism, McMahon makes such criticism politically toxic for a generation. Future campaigners, journalists, or survivors who question institutional conduct risk identical destruction.

The message is clear: challenge us and we will destroy you using the very institutions you're trying to hold accountable.

The Protection Racket Exposed

McMahon called this debate. He structured it. He used parliamentary immunity to destroy reputations while avoiding every substantive allegation about institutional failure.

The coordination with Burnham is obvious. Burnham's neutered review was always vulnerable to criticism about its limitations. McMahon's parliamentary intervention made such criticism politically impossible through character destruction and extremism contamination.

Burnham provided procedural protection through his whitewash. Abrahams and future deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner provided political legitimacy through the joint Commons statement. Legacy media provided narrative saturation with "no cover up" coverage. When all that failed, McMahon escalated to political elimination through parliamentary immunity.

Their purpose was to prevent the national inquiry that would expose not just local failure but systematic Labour Party protection of rape gangs for electoral advantage.

Parliament was used not to test truth but to annihilate those pursuing it. Democracy was perverted to protect those who sold children to rapists.

The stakes were always this high. A real public inquiry wouldn't just expose missing files and dropped investigations in Oldham. It would reveal the deliberate pattern of institutional protection that enabled industrial-scale child rape across multiple Labour authorities. It would show how politicians prioritised Muslim votes over children's safety.

Parliament becomes their personal protection racket. Character assassination rather than evidence.

The question becomes obvious. What were they so desperate to hide that they would corrupt the mother of parliaments itself?

Parliamentary privilege gets weaponised against democratic accountability. McMahon has turned Parliament into a tool for covering up institutional failure on an industrial scale.

The corruption is permanent. The stain on British democracy is indelible. And the children they failed to protect remain betrayed by the very institutions that should have saved them.

I'm Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs. Before that, I spent over a decade safeguarding children and protecting communities from extremists.

If my words have ever helped you make sense of a broken system, if they’ve ever made you feel seen, heard, or hopeful, please don’t scroll past.

🔴 Support the work. This fight is far from over.

There are NO paywalls to access any of my work. I share ALL of my content for free.

I ask, for those that can afford to do so, to support me with £3/month or £30/year. That’s 75p a week. Pennies to most - everything to help keep me going.

🔴 Prefer a one-off contribution?
👉 http://BuyMeACoffee.com/recusantnine
👉 http://paypal.me/RecusantNine

Politicians did not wake up one day and decide to do the right thing. Journalists did not suddenly decide this is newsworthy. We are not where we are because of them. We will not get where we need to be if we leave it to the very same people that were part of the cover up to deliver justice. Stand with me.

Raja 🙏