THE STATE PAID £353 MILLION TO PUT 669 CHILDREN IN ILLEGAL HOMES. THIS IS WHERE THE RAPE GANGS FIND THEM.

The Rape Gangs Did Not Stop.

Part One: The Supply

People ask me one question more than any other. Is it over. It is not over. Little White girls are being gang raped and sold in this country, and the men doing it are not only Pakistani. Other ethnic gangs have moved into our towns, watched how the Pakistani gangs got away with it, and started their own.

In November 2025 Avon and Somerset Police charged seven men with more than forty sexual offences against eleven teenage girls in Bristol. The offending ran from 2022 to 2025. Four of the seven told the police they were Iranian, Syrian or Arab.

Seven men charged in Bristol child sexual exploitation investigation

Men appear in court accused of more than 40 offences against teenage girls between 2022 and 2025

The GuardianSteven Morris

In September 2026 four men and a woman were sentenced at Caernarfon Crown Court for the rape and trafficking of three teenage girls in Rhyl. It started in 2022. A 61-year-old drove the girls from one rapist to the next and then drove one of them to London.

Anyone who tells you this is history is lying to you. It did not end because a few men went to prison. A child is sold like anything else is sold. One lot groom her, another lot move her, and the men at the end hand over the money and use her.

The man who ran the police in Greater Manchester while this was being done to children in Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale is the Prime Minister. Every power in this series of articles is Andy Burnham's, should he want to stop the gang rape and trafficking of little girls. Every issue I raise is one that any opposition leader could raise. None has. Why?

THE CHILDREN'S HOMES BECAME CHILD BROTHELS

In Oldham the children's homes became child brothels. That is what they were. Girls in the care of the state were collected from the front door by men the staff had seen before. The staff wrote "missing" in the log and waited for the taxi to bring them back. Those who tried to do more were punished. The same pattern ran through Rochdale and Rotherham, and the same thing is happening in other towns and cities. Except it is worse.

Children's homes are no longer run by the local council like they once were. Private companies run nearly nine out of ten of them in England. They open them wherever houses are cheap, which is why they open them in towns like mine.

A girl from a London borough can be dropped in a terraced house in Oldham, far from home. Here nobody knows her and nobody is looking out for her. The only people who take an interest are the men in the car at the end of the street, and they take a great deal of interest.

NOBODY KNOWS WHO OWNS THE HOMES

Ask who owns that house and you will not get an answer. Ofsted checks the manager and one person the company nominates as "responsible". That is the end of the checking. Nobody checks the shareholders, who owns the building or who lent the money. The ownership can run through a chain of shell companies and end offshore, which is a strange place for a children's home to be owned from.

Underneath that is a second trade in homes that are not registered at all. Running one is a criminal offence. Councils put children in them anyway, and the law does not make the council officer who signed the placement a criminal.

669 CHILDREN IN HOMES THAT ARE ILLEGAL

In January 2026 the Children's Commissioner revealed that on a single day in September 2025, 669 children were living in these illegal homes. Over the previous twelve months councils had spent an estimated £353 million putting children in them. The average cost was £10,500 a week for each child. Some were living in caravans, holiday lets and Airbnbs. Some were miles from their families. These were children the state had taken responsibility for protecting.

Nearly a third of those 669 children went missing at least once while they were living in an illegal placement. The state did not know who was running the house. It did not know who was collecting the child from it.

Ofsted does not routinely inspect these homes. Nobody at Ofsted has approved the people running them, so nobody can say whether the staff looking after the children are safe. In 2025 to 2026 it investigated 850 potentially unregistered settings and found that 710 should have been registered.

Nobody can say how many illegal homes are operating, because councils are not required to report every placement to Ofsted. The taxpayer is handing hundreds of millions of pounds to providers operating outside the law, while the children supposedly being protected are left without the safeguards Parliament required.

Ofsted's own figures for 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 show 710 illegal children's homes identified, five criminal investigations and two prosecutions. Most of the rest were sent a warning letter. The person running an illegal home is rarely prosecuted. The council officer who knowingly sends a child there does not even face the same offence. How can this be right?

THE CRIMINALS ARE IN THE HOMES

In July 2026 Ofsted publicly admitted receiving allegations that organised criminals were setting up illegal children's homes to facilitate criminal operations. It warned of links to drug smuggling, money laundering and county lines gangs.

Ofsted went further. It raised allegations that criminals were financing registered children's homes while putting respectable-looking managers in front of them. Read that last sentence again. The very people the state is supposed to be protecting children from may be taking money from the state to look after those children.

People who would know keep telling me that privatised children's homes are owned by the gangs themselves. Nobody in government can tell me that is untrue, because nobody in government dares look.

A Merseyside outfit called SafeSpace4U takes children from councils across the country. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that it received at least £1.3 million from illegal children's home placements over two years, operated at least 19 unregistered homes, and had its registered headquarters in a property owned by a convicted drug dealer with organised crime links. It was under criminal investigation by Ofsted while it was still taking children. The company denied that the owner of the property was involved in its operations. It did not deny who he was.

SafeSpace4U: the company running an illegal children’s homes empire

SafeSpace4U employs a manager who has been accused of rape and its HQ is owned by a convicted drug dealer

TBIJTom Wall

THE STATE HAS TO KNOW WHO OWNS THE HOMES

The state runs a fit and proper person test on every director of every old people's home in England. It runs no such test on the directors of a children's home. By law every dog in this country is microchipped to a named owner. The state knows who owns the dog. It does not know who owns the house it puts children in.

The law has to change, and this is what it has to say.

1. Every person behind a children's home is named to Ofsted before a child is placed there. That means the owner, the directors, the shareholders, the landlord and whoever lent the money to buy the building. Each of those people goes through the same fit and proper person test the state already runs on the directors of an old people's home. The test is an enhanced DBS check, a search of what the police hold on that person, and a check on where that person's money came from. If any one of them fails the test, or if the ownership runs offshore or stops at a nominee, Ofsted refuses to register the home.
2. Ofsted has admitted that criminals are financing registered homes and putting a respectable manager in front of them. So the money is checked as well as the people. Every loan and every investment in a children's home is declared to Ofsted with the name of the person who provided it, the same way a bank has to know where a deposit came from. A home that cannot show where its money came from is refused registration. A registered home that takes money it has not declared has its registration cancelled. The children in it are moved.
3. Every placement is reported to Ofsted on the day the child moves in. Ofsted keeps a national register of where every child in care is living, by address. A placement that is not on that register is an unlawful placement. The director of children's services who made it answers for it in person. At the moment councils are not required to tell anyone where they have put a child. That is how 669 children ended up in caravans and Airbnbs. It is also why nobody in government could say how many illegal homes there were.
4. Not a penny of public money goes to a home that is not registered. A council cannot pay an unregistered home. A council officer who approves a payment to one, or who signs a child into one, has committed the same criminal offence as the people running it. He stands in the dock next to them. At the moment the company gets a fine and the council walks away. Councils spent £353 million in a single year putting children into illegal homes. Once a council cannot pay an unregistered home, that money cannot be spent. The illegal trade has no customer.
5. An illegal home is shut the day it is found. Ofsted gets the power to close a home on the spot, the way environmental health can close a kitchen. It gets a duty to prosecute everyone running it. Ofsted identified 710 illegal homes in a year and prosecuted two. The rest got a warning letter. A warning letter to a man running a criminal operation out of a children's home is an invitation to carry on. The warning letters end. The council that placed the children moves them the same day the home is closed.
6. No council places a child with a company that Ofsted is investigating. Ofsted publishes the name of every provider under investigation. Councils are barred from placing children with any of them until the investigation closes. SafeSpace4U was taking children from councils across the country while Ofsted was investigating it. The moment an investigation opens, the placements stop. The children already in that company's homes are moved.

NO CHILD IS SENT A HUNDRED MILES FROM HOME

7. No child is sent a hundred miles from home because the house is cheaper there. A council that wants to place a child outside its own area has to set out in writing why there is nowhere closer. A family court judge has to sign that document before the child moves.

If the judge signs it, the child does not just vanish into another town. The council that sent her keeps her social worker. That social worker sees her in person every week, in the home, not on a video call. The police force where she is placed is told her name, her age and her address on the day she arrives. The council she has been sent to is told the same.

8. Before any placement is signed off, the police in that area have to say in writing whether they hold intelligence on child sexual exploitation around that home. If they do, she does not go there. If a home has had a child go missing more than three times in a year, no council can place another child in it until Ofsted has been in and said why.
9. The first time she goes missing, both police forces treat it as a child at risk from the first hour. Nobody waits for her to turn up. The home calls it in the moment she is not where she should be. In Oldham the girls were logged missing and the log was filed. That ends. Every home keeps a log of every vehicle that collects a child. The log records the registration and, if the vehicle is a taxi, the driver's badge number. If the same vehicle comes three times, the home reports it to the police. The police check the plate and the driver against the licensing register. The homes in Oldham knew the cars. The law makes them write the cars down.
10. A worker who reports what is being done to a child in her care gets the same legal protection as a whistleblower in the NHS. She cannot be sacked or disciplined for reporting it. A worker who logs a child missing night after night and does nothing else is reported to the Disclosure and Barring Service. She is barred from working with children. In Oldham the staff who tried to do something were punished and the staff who waited for the taxi were not. The law reverses that.

THEY HAVE ALL BEEN TOLD WHAT WOULD STOP IT

Lucy Powell and the Labour government could put all of that on the statute book in a single session of Parliament. Any politician who is serious about stopping the gang rape of children would be doing it.

I have my own views on why they are not doing any of this.

They are not doing it because, as with the rape gangs themselves, little White girls from working class families do not matter to the Labour Party. The opposition parties are not doing it because there are more votes in shouting about the rape gangs than there are in doing something specific to stop them.

This is where I call out more than Labour. Labour covered it up. The Conservatives, Reform and Restore have made political gain from the gang rape and trafficking of children without putting forward one thing that would stop it.

They all know about the care home scandal I have just shared with you. Instead o f demanding specific legislative change brought in now, all of them are choosing to grandstand.

And before anyone complains to me, I don't care if I've said something that criticises your political party. I'm not here to promote any one political party. I'm here to protect children from gang rape.

The Supply is the first of five parts. The home is where the girls are found. Shut the door on who owns the homes and the men who buy children have to go looking somewhere else.

The second part is how the girls get from the home to the men. In Oldham, Rochdale and Rotherham that was the taxi, licensed by the council, driven by men the council had passed as fit and proper. The next article is about the badge, who hands it out, and why a DBS check could not stop them.

Raja Miah MBE

You know what we are up against. The mainstream media will not touch my work. Institutions I investigate do not volunteer their records. Politicians do not suddenly decide to hold themselves to account. And yet, despite all of that, we forced the national inquiry. We did that because enough ordinary people refused to go away.

But getting the inquiry was never the end of this campaign. In many ways it was only the beginning. Now we have to watch where it goes, what it investigates, which places it avoids, which witnesses it calls, which records it obtains and whether the same institutions that failed these children are allowed to control the story again.

Nobody else is going to do that work for us. And I cannot do it indefinitely working on my own. That is why I keep talking about 50,000 committed subscribers.

It is not a vanity number. I did not pluck it out of the air. With fifty thousand people with me means when we uncover something important, it does not depend on a newspaper editor, a television producer or an algorithm deciding whether you are allowed to see it.

It gives us reach they cannot easily shut down.

But there is another reason. I need to build a proper backroom operation around this work. At the moment I am investigating, researching, writing, publishing, producing the videos, running the newsletter, dealing with the technology and then starting again. It is unsustainable.

I need people behind me who can take care of the technical and production work so that I can spend my time doing the thing I do best. That is why we have been pushing so hard for new paid subscribers.

If you read my work and want it to continue, I need your help. Sign up for free. There are no paywalls to access any of my work. If you can afford the £3 a month or £30 for the year, please become a paid subscriber.

We forced the inquiry. Now we need the numbers to make sure they cannot control what happens next.

Unfortunately, we are reaching the end of the road where I can continue working this way. The paid subscriptions have stalled. Worse, tens of thousands of people are now reading these articles without even joining the free mailing list. The audience is growing, but the number of people actually standing behind the work is not growing with it.

Over a million people engaged in my content this weekend. Only a small fraction followed up with a subscription to my newsletter This is becoming impossible to sustain.

My name is Raja Miah MBE. For eight years I have exposed how politicians, police and public bodies failed working class White girls who were systematically raped by Pakistani grooming gangs. Together, with the support of the people of Oldham, we forced the Government to concede a National Statutory Inquiry after years of resistance.

Children gang raped, communities betrayed, politicians and police officers involved protected, and you expected to shake your head and carry on as if nothing more can be done because lessons have been learned.

For eight years, I have refused. The police repeatedly dawn raided my home and falsified evidence to try and silence me. The newspapers smeared me. And Pakistani gangsters, under the protection of Labour politicians, followed me home. Islamists openly incited my murder.

Blacklisted by the mainstream media, only your support makes it possible for me to keep exposing the truth those in power want buried.

They sold children for votes and sacrificed entire towns and cities at their altar of multiculturalism. I help you make sense of it. And I help you fight back.

If you can’t commit to a regular subscription, a one-off contribution genuinely helps keep this alive. You can support me using one of these links;

👉 https://BuyMeACoffee.com/recusantnine
👉 https://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 Miah MBE