Cinque sopravvissuti alla banda di adescatori dicono al Primo Ministro che rimarranno nel pannello solo se Jess Phillips rimarrà al suo posto
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/23/five-grooming-gang-survivors-tell-pm-they-will-stay-on-panel-only-if-jess-phillips-remains-in-post
di Necessary-Product361
6 commenti
So there are 5 who say they will leave if Phillips remains and 5 who say they will leave if Phillips goes?
This whole thing is so fucked. Why are they making everything so difficult.
This all seems like it’s becoming worryingly politicised, especially now that one of the victims who quit has announced they’re launching a political career with Reform and another was making statements standing alongside Kemi Badenoch.
It all feels like it’s being poisoned by our toxic political and media sphere. Victims who take one position are being platformed by our press and some of our political parties, while others are largely being ignored or sidelined. Of the 30 victims involved, I’ve heard a lot more about the 4 victims who have quit over their criticisms compared to the 26 who are still working within the process. You can’t have an objective inquiry in this environment.
>The women say they want the inquiry to cover all types of sexual exploitation, including grooming gangs, and that “anyone who believes their evidence should be included” should have the chance to participate.
> They say they believe Phillips has “remained impartial” and they want her to “remain in position for the duration of the process for consistency”.
> They say: “She has offered some of us support prior to this process, helped survivors access services and help they would not have had without her. In consultation, we have asked for the scope to be larger than just grooming gangs, that was our right to input our opinions, which is the purpose of the panel.
Yep, so victims of all CSE were put on the grooming gangs inquiry panel and then consulted on whether to widen the scope of the inquiry to all CSE. So the complaints of the others who stepped down were completely valid then.
We’ve moved in 24 hours from saying it was misinformation and untrue to say that there are attempts to widen the scope of the enquiry, to public calls for the inquiry to be widened.
We’ve already had a separate inquiry into CSE in general, it returned its results a few years ago. Widening the scope of this inquiry will dilute it which of course was the intention of structuring the panel and the consultation in this way, the desire to dilute and divert the focus is obvious both in politics and in the comments people make here on reddit.
The bbc news piece on this gives more detail it’s actually the opposite, a charity was asked to draft some questions to send to the victims on the advisory panel. One of said questions was if there were happy with the scope or if anything was missing. One of said 5 text Jess Philips and accused her of trying to broaden it, Jess’s reply is in her view it should be limited to grooming gangs but it’s not for her to decide it’s for the panel to decide.
>The women said there should be “no re-entry” for those who have “forfeited” their position on the panel and for an independent whistleblowing procedure to be set up and urged everyone involved to display “respect and compassion”.
Uh, what?