PHILLIPS BETRAYS SURVIVORS. AGAIN

Safeguarding Minister branded grooming gang survivor of lying before the appointment of Labour peer to lead inquiry

Grooming gang survivors spent more than a decade fighting three wars. Against the men who raped and trafficked them, against those tasked with safeguarding them who refused to believe them or said they were making lifestyle choices, and against the politicians and institutions that covered it up.

They survived the rapes. They endured being blamed for their own abuse. They exposed the political cover-ups. After years of relentless campaigning, they finally forced a reluctant government to commit to a national inquiry.

Now, faced with the chance to break this cycle of betrayal, the government has chosen to repeat it.

This week proved they never intended to listen.

Labour peer appointed to chair "independent" inquiry

The government has appointed Anne Longfield to chair the national grooming gangs inquiry. A recently sitting Labour peer who was taking the Labour whip until days before her appointment was announced.

Survivors demanded independence. They asked for a judge with statutory powers, judicial training, and no political loyalties. Someone who could compel evidence from councils, police forces and MPs, especially the Labour-run institutions at the heart of these failures. Someone who could subpoena ministers, not someone who sits alongside them in the House of Lords.

Instead they got a political insider who was taking the Labour whip until days before her appointment was announced.

The conflicts of interest are staggering. Longfield was a Labour peer until days before her appointment. She has worked alongside many of the politicians who will be scrutinised by her inquiry. She has professional relationships with civil servants who oversaw failed responses to grooming gang scandals. She has personal connections to local authority leaders who enabled abuse through inaction.

More damaging still, she lacks experience wielding the powers necessary for the role. While the Inquiries Act gives her statutory authority to compel witness attendance and demand documents, she has no background in using these powers against reluctant institutions. She has no experience overriding legal privilege claims or imposing sanctions for non-cooperation. She is, in effect, an inexperienced appointment likely to be outmanoeuvred by the very institutions she should be scrutinising.

Survivors' panel used as democratic decoration

The betrayal runs deeper than the appointment itself. The government created a survivors' panel supposedly to shape the inquiry. But this wasn't genuine consultation. It was political theatre designed to provide democratic cover for decisions already made.

Survivors on the panel discovered what was happening. They weren't being consulted. They were being handled. Controlled. Kept in the room only so the government could say they'd been there.

The manipulation was systematic. Panel meetings were structured to limit debate about independence criteria. Survivors were given background briefings that omitted crucial information about potential candidates' political backgrounds. When survivors asked to ask questions to the original shortlisted candidates, they were told they had to submit them in writing first.

The entire process collapsed and the government was exposed.

So when it came to trying again to recruit a chair, they cut out their own survivors panel entirely.

Meanwhile, the real decisions were being made elsewhere. Ministers were discussing the role with Labour peers. Civil servants were preparing briefings that assumed Longfield's appointment. The Home Office was coordinating with Downing Street on announcement timing. None of this was disclosed to the survivors' panel.

The betrayal was complete. The appointment was announced on Tuesday in Parliament. Members of the government's own survivors panel learned the name watching parliamentary television. All this time, Jess Phillips and others had claimed the process was survivor led.

Government attacks survivor who exposed the fraud

This pattern of using survivors for legitimacy while ignoring their demands was already established.

Previously, when survivor Fiona Goddard tried to expose this manipulation, the government's response revealed everything about its priorities.

Fiona had resigned from the panel and made public her concerns about attempts to widen the inquiry's scope beyond grooming gangs - extending the remit to dilute the focus and remove the racial and religious dynamics. She had sent personal texts to Phillips outlining what survivors were being asked. Phillips had responded privately acknowledging she knew the questions were being asked, but couldn't make decisions without consultation.

Then Phillips stood up in Parliament and called Fiona's claims "categorically untrue."

As Fiona put it: "So she called me a liar while she knew the truth." Fiona had the texts and emails proving every word.

This established exactly how institutions silence survivors. Attack their credibility. Dismiss their evidence. Brand them as unreliable witnesses. It's the same pattern that enabled grooming gang scandals in the first place.

Phillips' car crash interview exposes the lies

On Channel 4 News, Phillips faced the consequences of her deception. It wasn't just political car crash television. It was a government unravelling live on air with Phillips promising "meaningful consultation" while the evidence of rigging mounted around her.

The interview revealed the systematic dishonesty at the heart of this process. Phillips claimed survivors had been "extensively consulted" on the appointment. She insisted the process was "robust and transparent." She maintained that survivor concerns had been "carefully considered" in the final decision.

Every single one of these claims was demonstrably false.

Phillips' television performance revealed how institutions view survivors. They see them as emotional burdens to be managed rather than moral authorities to be followed. She spoke of survivors as a "snapshot" of opinion, as imperfect representatives who must accept systemic limitations rather than define ethical standards.

When Channel 4 quoted survivor Carly saying "the government has groomed us all over again," Phillips ignored the devastating accuracy of that parallel. She retreated to institutional comfort phrases. Her door is always open, consultation is complex, no single survivor speaks for all survivors. She apologised for how survivors felt, never for what the government had done.

Classic institutional response. Acknowledge the emotion, avoid the accountability.

Pattern of institutional betrayal continues

The pattern is always the same. Institutions prioritise their own protection over child safety. They appoint insiders to conduct reviews that will avoid fundamental criticism. They create processes that appear independent while preserving existing power structures. They manage outcomes rather than pursue truth.

We've all seen this before. Councils failed to act because of ethnic politics and racism fears. Police looked the other way to avoid community tensions. Local authorities minimised abuse to protect reputations. National politicians dismissed accountability calls to shield party colleagues.

Into this documented history, the government drops a Labour insider and expects the public to believe this represents independence.

But stepping aside from the Labour whip is not independence. It is temporary distance designed to create the appearance of neutrality while preserving underlying loyalties. Longfield remains a Labour peer. She will return to the Labour benches when her inquiry concludes. She will sit alongside the ministers and MPs her inquiry should be investigating. These relationships don't disappear because she temporarily steps aside from the whip.

Inquiry compromised before it begins

The national inquiry is fatally compromised before hearing a single witness. Not because of survivor "unreasonableness." Not because of media pressure. Because the government prioritised managing political narratives over pursuing institutional truth.

The damage is already irreversible. Survivors have withdrawn cooperation. Community groups have lost confidence. Opposition politicians are questioning the process. Legal experts are highlighting the absence of a judge. International observers are noting the conflicts of interest. The inquiry has lost credibility before examining a single document.

Inquiries fail when the people designing them care more about controlling conclusions than exposing evidence. This inquiry was designed to fail from the beginning. It was structured to avoid fundamental questions about institutional accountability. It was staffed to ensure comfortable outcomes for political establishments. It was empowered only to the extent that posed no threat to existing power arrangements.

Survivors didn't endure decades of contempt to get a politically sanitised review with predetermined boundaries. They fought for truth that makes institutions accountable. For justice that changes systems. For investigations that ensure no child has to convince adults that rape is real.

They fought for inquiries that would name failures and demand consequences. For processes that would expose cover-ups and punish enablers. For investigations that would prevent future scandals by dismantling the institutional cultures that enable them.

Instead, they're confronting the oldest institutional reflex. The state that promises transformation while preserving existing power structures.

The implications extend beyond this single inquiry. Every grooming gang survivor watching this process understands what it means. Every parent in an affected community recognises the patterns. Every activist who has fought for accountability sees the betrayal. The government has sent a clear message about its priorities. Institutional protection matters more than child safety. Political convenience trumps survivor justice. Managed narratives are preferable to uncomfortable truths.

Time remains to correct this betrayal. But that requires admitting institutional failure, accepting survivor authority, and appointing genuinely independent leadership. These are capacities this government won't demonstrate.

The choice now belongs to the public. Believe survivors or believe ministers. Support genuine independence or accept managed outcomes. Demand real accountability or settle for political theatre.

Survivors have shown their integrity throughout this process. They resigned when co-opted. They exposed manipulation when it happened. They demanded independence when offered complicity. They have proven their credibility through consistent moral action.

The government has shown the opposite. It manipulated consultation. It attacked truth-telling survivors. It appointed political insiders while claiming independence. It has destroyed its own credibility through systematic deception.

The public must choose. And that choice will determine not just this inquiry, but whether institutional accountability is possible in this country.

Jess Phillips and the Labour Party have not yet figured out the consequences of what they have just done. There's no coming back for them now. Not just with this inquiry. For this government.

I am Raja Miah. For seven years, I led a small team that exposed how politicians protected the rape gangs.

I cannot do this on my own. I need you to stand with me and help make sure we can stop the sectarian takeover of the places we call home.

We’re running out of time. Without the numbers, they will win. It’s as simple as that.

🔴 Subscribe to my newsletter – it’s free. Or support the work for just 75p a week (£3/month or £30/year).

Whatever you do, please subscribe;

This is the fight.
This is the moment.
There will not be another.

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

No corporate sponsors. No party machine. Just you and thousands of ordinary people who know what’s at stake. We’ve come this far. Help finish it.

- Raja Miah MBE