The MP Who Doctored Evidence to Silence Pakistani Rape Gang Whistleblowing

How Debbie Abrahams spent six years sabotaging scrutiny

When I first exposed the grooming gang scandal in Oldham, Debbie Abrahams MP tried to have me arrested using selectively edited evidence.

In 2020, Abrahams took two of my social media posts to Greater Manchester Police, claiming they breached election law. She cropped both posts, removing crucial context. She omitted my follow-up tweets that clarified what I meant. She left out confirmation from a victim's husband who supported my position. She presented this incomplete evidence to police to get me prosecuted for exposing the Pakistani Rape Gangs in her constituency.

When my solicitor showed the police the complete evidence during interview, he investigating officer, DC Andy Day, admitted that "the vast majority of the post had been omitted from what she had shared with the Police."

The charges collapsed. The CPS dropped the investigation.

Abrahams never apologised. She never explained why she presented doctored evidence. Nobody held her to account for conduct that resulted in eight months of police time spent investigating fabricated charges against someone exposing child abuse.

Fast forward to 2026.

Last week, a number of her constituents asked Abrahams to write a letter to the Chair of the National Grooming Gangs Inquiry. The letter would ask the inquiry to explicitly require the identification by name of individuals whose acts or omissions may meet criminal thresholds, and the referral of such cases to police and prosecutors.

She refused to write it. This is her response.

Her response reveals the sophistication of modern institutional protection. She claims;

1. the inquiry already has sufficient powers under the Inquiries Act 2005.
2. She says it would be inappropriate for her, as an MP, to seek strengthening of the Terms of Reference.
3. She states it would be inappropriate to "attempt to influence the judiciary."

Every argument is designed to sound reasonable while ensuring no consequences for anyone. Every argument is wrong. Abrahams, Chair of the UK Parliament Work and Pensions Select Committee, is either extremely ignorant or attempting to outright deceive the people she represents.

1. While the Inquiries Act confers powers on an inquiry, it's the Terms of Reference that determine how those powers are exercised. Section 5(5) of the Act confines inquiries to their Terms of Reference. Where those Terms don't impose explicit duties, matters like naming individuals or making criminal referrals are left to discretion. That discretion is the gap. In every previous inquiry into organised child sexual abuse, discretion has resulted in institutional findings without individual criminal consequences.
2. The Draft Terms of Reference she defends do not require the inquiry to identify by name individuals whose acts or omissions may meet criminal thresholds. They don't require referral of such cases to police and prosecutors. They don't require the Chair to explain where such referrals aren't made. Abrahams knows this. When she claims the inquiry has sufficient powers, she's conflating the existence of statutory powers with the absence of enforceable duties. When discretion is left to institutions, nothing happens to individuals.
3. Most ignorant, the inquiry is not "the judiciary." It's a public inquiry set up by the Home Office. MPs routinely make representations on the scope and objectives of statutory inquiries. The government's own website encourages MP engagement.

Parliament's own Home Affairs Select Committee identified senior officials who failed in their duty of care to children. No prosecutions followed. Repeated inquiries have produced evidence without individual criminal consequences. She knows what happens when these matters are left to discretion.

Even if what she claimed had any substance, that the powers to name individuals for prosecution already exist, what harm would it have done for an MP, from the town already named as part of the national inquiry, to write to the Chair and reinforce the need to identify those that failed to protect children, and where the criminal threshold had been met, refer them for investigation?

When Abrahams wanted me prosecuted using her selectively edited evidence, she showed no concern about constitutional boundaries. She initiated a police investigation by presenting incomplete and misleading evidence to get criminal charges brought against me for exposing child abuse.

She now discovers constitutional principles only when they might lead to consequences for child abusers and the officials who covered for them.

When Oldham demanded a statutory inquiry into the scandal, she opposed it. When campaigners pushed for investigation, she joined Jim McMahon in publicly branding them as racist or far-right. When Andy Burnham's deliberately limited review was used to shut down scrutiny, she rushed to back it.

Each decision protected institutions at the expense of abused children. Her refusal to write a letter requesting explicit duties for individual naming and criminal referral continues that pattern.

She will initiate police investigations using doctored evidence to silence whistleblowing about child abuse. She won't write a letter requesting that evidence of crimes be referred to prosecutors.

In 2020, she tried to get me arrested using materially misleading evidence without caring about constitutional boundaries. In 2026, she won't write a letter asking for mandatory criminal referrals because she's suddenly discovered constitutional principles.

Now she refuses to write a letter requesting that the grooming gang inquiry be required to name individuals and refer crimes to prosecutors. The refusal is in writing. The pattern spans six years. The choice is deliberate.

Now why would an MP, reliant on the bloc Muslim vote, passionate about the plight of people in Kashmir, not do everything that is humanly possible to deliver justice for little White girls gang raped in the constituency she actually represents?

When the National Inquiry comes, Debbie Abrahams must be called on to explain her actions.

I’m Raja Miah MBE. For seven years, I led a campaign that exposed how senior Labour politicians helped protect Pakistani rape gangs and helped force a national inquiry.

You won’t see me on the BBC. You won’t read my work in the legacy press. That’s not an accident. I take this to a place from where there is no coming back.

I document everything in my newsletter. It’s 100% free to read. If this work matters to you, if you believe it must continue, I need your backing.

My work is free. No paywalls. No gatekeeping. No exclusions. Because the truth shouldn’t belong only to those who can afford it. If you can afford to do so, supporting me costs as little as 75p a week (£30 a year). Sign up here;

If you can’t commit to a regular subscription, a one-off contribution genuinely helps keep this alive:
👉 http://BuyMeACoffee.com/recusantnine
👉 http://paypal.me/RecusantNine

We’re up against a machine, politicians, police, officials, and media, working together to shrink, sanitise, and bury the truth. This work survives because of you.

If you’ve ever shared my posts, learned something, or felt less alone reading them, stand with me. I need your help.

Raja 🙏