The Rape Gang Cover Up Now Leads to Downing Street

Here is the undeniable truth. Baroness Louise Casey did not recommend excluding a judge. Appointing a judge would not have delayed the inquiry. The appointment of a judge has no bearing on criminal investigations.

Each of the Prime Minister’s stated reasons collapses under scrutiny.
They are not misunderstandings. They are falsehoods.

Despite clear documentary evidence, not one major news organisation has reported it. Not one.

So you have to ask the question. Why?

Why is not a single broadcaster, newspaper, or journalist challenging a Prime Minister who lied to Parliament on a matter this grave? Why has the media remained silent as survivors are betrayed again, this time not by grooming gangs but by the government that promised to deliver justice?

The answer, though uncomfortable, is obvious. They cannot confront this story because doing so would expose the very institutions they serve. It would mean admitting that the system, political, bureaucratic and journalistic, has protected itself at the expense of truth.

The Promise

For months, survivors of child sexual exploitation were told that justice was finally coming. The government promised a national inquiry that would cut through decades of denial and failure. Ministers stood before cameras and claimed that this time the truth would not be buried.

But when the moment came to decide who would lead the inquiry, the truth was buried all over again. Survivors and campaigners called for a judge to chair the process, someone with independence, credibility and the authority to compel evidence without political interference.

Instead, the government produced a shortlist that included a former police officer and a social worker. No judge. No independence.

And when questions were asked, the Prime Minister stood in Parliament and told the country that the decision had already been made by Baroness Louise Casey, the very person whose review had prompted the inquiry in the first place.

He said Casey had decided against a judge led inquiry. That was false.

What Casey Actually Said

When Baroness Casey gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, she said she envisioned something slightly different from a seven year judge led inquiry. She proposed a national statutory inquiry with full powers, supported by local investigations or hubs. Her emphasis was on structure and scope, not who would lead it. She never ruled out judicial leadership.

She described a hybrid model, a national commission with statutory powers combined with local investigations that could deliver answers more directly to victims.

In other words, Casey’s proposal was about architecture, not authority.

The Prime Minister turned that framework into a verdict. He claimed she had ruled out judges altogether, creating a convenient cover story for a decision that was purely political.

If the government truly possesses evidence that Casey made such a recommendation, it should release it. To date, no such record exists. No minutes. No advice. No correspondence. Just a line from the Prime Minister, spoken in Parliament, unchallenged by a single journalist, and repeated uncritically across the airwaves.

The Lie About Speed

The second claim the Prime Minister made was about speed. He insisted that a judge led inquiry would take too long.

This is demonstrably false.

Two days before he made that statement, his own Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips told Parliament that the inquiry would be time limited to three years.
The timetable had already been set. The issue of speed was settled before the Prime Minister opened his mouth.

“A judge would not have slowed anything down. Removing the option of a judge does not make an inquiry faster.”

Judges have led inquiries far more complex than this one. They have examined decades of evidence, multiple agencies and institutional failures, all within fixed timeframes.

The argument about speed was a fabrication. It was not about efficiency. It was about power. About who controls the process, who defines the questions and who decides when the truth is enough.

The Lie About Investigations

His final claim concerned criminal investigations. He told Parliament that he wanted an inquiry that could run in parallel with ongoing police operations and that this was why a judge could not be appointed.

Again, false.

The ongoing investigations he referred to, the reopening of 1200 historic cases, are part of Operation Beaconport, a separate National Crime Agency operation launched months earlier. It has nothing to do with the inquiry’s structure, leadership or timetable.

By conflating the two, the Prime Minister misled Parliament and the public.
He presented the reopening of cases as evidence of the inquiry’s success when in fact it lies entirely outside its remit.

And his statement carries a darker implication.
By suggesting that those 1200 cases are being handled by police, he has quietly admitted that they fall outside the inquiry’s scope. That means hundreds, perhaps thousands, of victims will never have their experiences examined as evidence of institutional failure, the very issue the inquiry was meant to expose.

The purpose of a national inquiry is not meant to track down offenders. It exists to examine why, how and who in positions of authority ignored warnings, silenced victims and protected reputations instead of children.
It is meant to ask how those failures happened, who allowed them, and how they can be stopped from happening again.

By pretending otherwise, the Prime Minister blurred the line between criminal investigation and institutional accountability. In doing so, he misled the House of Commons and the country about the purpose of the very inquiry his government created.

The Silence

Here is the undeniable truth once more.

1. Baroness Louise Casey did not recommend excluding a judge.
2. Appointing a judge would not have delayed the inquiry.
3. The appointment of a judge has no bearing on criminal investigations.

Each of the Prime Minister’s justifications is false.

And yet, the silence from Britain’s media has been deafening.

Every line in this story can be verified. Every quote is on the public record. Every contradiction is documented in Hansard and the official transcripts of parliamentary evidence.

“Not one broadcaster, not one newspaper, not one major journalist has reported it. Not one.”

Why? Because acknowledging this lie would expose the establishment’s own complicity. It would mean admitting that the grooming gang cover up did not end with local councils or police forces. It now extends to the highest levels of government and to the newsrooms that refuse to challenge them.

This was never about speed. It was never about running investigations in parallel. It was about control. About who writes history and who is silenced in it.

The rape gang cover up continues. And now it leads all the way to Downing Street.

My name is Raja Miah. I am equally hated by Labour Party politicians, Pakistani gangsters and their Islamist bed fellows. I leave it to you to decide if I am worth standing alongside.

It is now seven years since I first started to expose how politicians protected the rape gangs. During this time, the police have attempted and failed to prosecute me, politicians have tried and failed to sue me, the mainstream media has smeared and then blacklisted me and Pakistani gangsters and Islamists have openly encouraged my murder.

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

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.

Just £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

Raja 🙏