Badenoch calls for inquiry into ‘rape gang scandal’ as Oldham probe denied

[Nearly Sane]

While I might support her call, it's a spectacular piece of bandwagon jumping from the Tories.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4xnv02nr0o

[Nearly Sane]

Good reply from Streeting to Musk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxdzng92lno

[Nearly Sane]

Though Musk is doubling (quadrupling? Whattheactualfucking?) down


https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/starmer-urged-to-take-action-as-out-of-control-musk-targets-jess-phillips-387895/

[Aruntraveller]

Incitement. Pure and simple. She now needs protection from all the loons who will take this as a signal.

[Nearly Sane]

Nigel or Tommy, Elon?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tommy-robinson-not-what-we-need-says-reform-uk-leader-nigel-farage/ar-AA1wVtxq

[Steve H]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/03/trolling-the-uk-the-issues-enraging-elon-musk-worlds-richest-pub-bore

[Aruntraveller]

I read this article and wondered why they chose a title that deliberately undercuts the danger they so clearly identify in the article.

[Nearly Sane]

I read this article and wondered why they chose a title that deliberately undercuts the danger they so clearly identify in the article.

It is also complacent to see this purely in terms of Musk's involvement in this.

[ad_orientem]

Apartheid Clyde clearly got a new task from his FSB handler.

[Nearly Sane]

Nigel or Tommy, Elon?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tommy-robinson-not-what-we-need-says-reform-uk-leader-nigel-farage/ar-AA1wVtxq

Not Nigel


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/elon-musk-says-nigel-farage-doesn-t-have-what-it-takes-to-be-reform-uk-leader/ar-AA1wZCFQ

[SqueakyVoice]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/05/farage-refuses-to-condemn-free-speech-hero-musks-remarks-on-jess-phillips

The cry baby X abuser did let NF take $100mn off him but its still not enough.

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/05/farage-refuses-to-condemn-free-speech-hero-musks-remarks-on-jess-phillips

The cry baby X abuser did let NF take $100mn off him but its still not enough.

There was discussion of a donation but it didn't happen. Perhaps it only gets given if Tommy Robinson gets the leadership...

[Nearly Sane]

Jenrick having his bandwagon jumping pointed out to him.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-robert-jenrick-left-squirming-34436230

[Nearly Sane]

That the Tories have proposed an amendment that, it would appear to mean the bill being stopped, is even for the bunch of pricks, utterly disgraceful


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvy4q82l9o

[ProfessorDavey]

Badenoch's shamelessly opportunistic and completely unnecessary call for another inquiry fails.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvy4q82l9o

We've had an inquiry - it took 7 years and the Tories then failed to implement any of its 20 recommendations. A further inquiry would simply kick the can down the road as it would make it impossible to implement any changes while the inquiry was ongoing. Good that the current government have resisted this shameless politicking and hope they will simply get on with implementing recommendations. That is certain what the person who lead the original inquiry wants and from what I've heard what victims want too. Badenoch and Musk ... hmmm ... not so much!!

[Nearly Sane]

Badenoch's shamelessly opportunistic and completely unnecessary call for another inquiry fails.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvy4q82l9o

We've had an inquiry - it took 7 years and the Tories then failed to implement any of its 20 recommendations. A further inquiry would simply kick the can down the road as it would make it impossible to implement any changes while the inquiry was ongoing. Good that the current government have resisted this shameless politicking and hope they will simply get on with implementing recommendations. That is certain what the person who lead the original inquiry wants and from what I've heard what victims want too. Badenoch and Musk ... hmmm ... not so much!!

The amendment would have delayed the bill, and I agree, as I posted yesterday, that the tactics of the Tories are disgraceful. That said, I don't think taking action on the report which wasn't focused on the 'grooming gangs' precludes a more specific inquiry, and I've seen lots of calls for that from victims, as Starmer covered yesterday.

[ProfessorDavey]

The amendment would have delayed the bill, and I agree, as I posted yesterday, that the tactics of the Tories are disgraceful. That said, I don't think taking action on the report which wasn't focused on the 'grooming gangs' precludes a more specific inquiry, and I've seen lots of calls for that from victims, as Starmer covered yesterday.

There were also a series of more specific local inquiries alongside the Jay inquiry, so both have been covered off.

And actually rather than 'chasing the past' we should be focusing on what can be done to prevent future issues and therefore looking at the common elements which allow organised abuse to develop and flourish, whether that be assisted with grooming gangs of Pakistani origin, or within children's care homes, top private schools or the CofE and other religious organisations. There are clearly common elements, that authorities felt fearful of acting (either because of fears of appearing racist of through deference to authority/establishment), that victims weren't believed due to their low status and that institutions priorities institutional reputation (and in the case of CofE etc 'forgiveness') over justice and organisational structures that provide easy access to potential victims and therefore become a 'honey-pot' for abusers.

[Nearly Sane]

There were also a series of more specific local inquiries alongside the Jay inquiry, so both have been covered off.

And actually rather than 'chasing the past' we should be focusing on what can be done to prevent future issues and therefore looking at the common elements which allow organised abuse to develop and flourish, whether that be assisted with grooming gangs of Pakistani origin, or within children's care homes, top private schools or the CofE and other religious organisations. There are clearly common elements, that authorities felt fearful of acting (either because of fears of appearing racist of through deference to authority/establishment), that victims weren't believed due to their low status and that institutions priorities institutional reputation (and in the case of CofE etc 'forgiveness') over justice and organisational structures that provide easy access to potential victims and therefore become a 'honey-pot' for abusers.

Yes there were more specific inquiries but they focus sex specifically on individual areas, again that doesn't preclude an inquiry into the subject of 'grooming gangs' across the country, and many areas where there were such gangs were not subject of any inquiries. As to 'chasing the past' which if you looked at it that way, would mean there was no point in any of the inquiries, since they all did that, it's not clear that it is all in the past.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2050kkpzypo

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes there were more specific inquiries but they focus sex specifically on individual areas, again that doesn't preclude an inquiry into the subject of 'grooming gangs' across the country, and many areas where there were such gangs were not subject of any inquiries. As to 'chasing the past' which if you looked at it that way, would mean there was no point in any of the inquiries, since they all did that, it's not clear that it is all in the past.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2050kkpzypo

The key point about inquiries is that they produce recommendations which are acted upon to reduce the likelihood of the type of thing happening again. There is often a clarion call for 'an inquiry', but if all it will be is a costly and delaying talking shop that doesn't actually make any difference, then what exactly is the point.

In this case what I want to see is actual action, not tens of millions more spent on talking that produces thousands of pages which in 7 years time are placed on a shelf and quietly ignored. And I think that is what the victims want - certainly the ones I've heard interviewed on the radio. Actual victims, not people purporting to 'speak' for the victims.

[Nearly Sane]

The key point about inquiries is that they produce recommendations which are acted upon to reduce the likelihood of the type of thing happening again. There is often a clarion call for 'an inquiry', but if all it will be is a costly and delaying talking shop that doesn't actually make any difference, then what exactly is the point.

In this case what I want to see is actual action, not tens of millions more spent on talking that produces thousands of pages which in 7 years time are placed on a shelf and quietly ignored. And I think that is what the victims want - certainly the ones I've heard interviewed on the radio. Actual victims, not people purporting to 'speak' for the victims.

Again having an inquiry doesn't preclude action being taken. And I've heard victims ask for such an inquiry  as has Starmer, as he made clear yesterday.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again having an inquiry doesn't preclude action being taken.

It really does - or at least it does if the action being taken is within the remit of the inquiry.

And it works both ways around. To take action while an inquiry if considering the recommendations it may make for action pre-empts the outcome of the inquiry. And if action is taken (which is within the remit of the inquiry) it undermines the authority and independence of that inquiry.

You really cannot be taking actions when there is an ongoing inquiry whose remit is to determine what action should be taken.

[Nearly Sane]

The details in the article are clear but the headline "How Elon Musk seized on baseless memo claim to fuel wave of misinformation" seems to me to imply that Musk was aware that the memo claim was incorrect, and yet there is nothing in the article to back that up, indeed it seems to imply it's a perfectly reasonable error to make.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g2g7qgl1eo

[Nearly Sane]

It really does - or at least it does if the action being taken is within the remit of the inquiry.

And it works both ways around. To take action while an inquiry if considering the recommendations it may make for action pre-empts the outcome of the inquiry. And if action is taken (which is within the remit of the inquiry) it undermines the authority and independence of that inquiry.

You really cannot be taking actions when there is an ongoing inquiry whose remit is to determine what action should be taken.

No, you can take actions in this case based on the already carried out inquiry, and the inquiry can take into account the actions taken.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, you can take actions in this case based on the already carried out inquiry,

Then there is no need for a further inquiry - the one you have already commissioned and has reported is sufficient.

... and the inquiry can take into account the actions taken.

Theoretically at some point in the distant future, but it wouldn't really require a statutory inquiry, merely an impact assessment of the actions taken. But it is ludicrous to set up an inquiry to consider the impact of the action, brought forward in legislation, based on the recommendations of an earlier inquiry until ... err ... those actions had been implemented and had been in place for sufficient time to determine their impact.

Setting up a new statutory inquiry to cover the same ground as a previous statutory inquiry whose actions remained to be implemented would critically undermine the whole inquiry process.

[Nearly Sane]

Then there is no need for a further inquiry - the one you have already commissioned and has reported is sufficient.
Theoretically at some point in the distant future, but it wouldn't really require a statutory inquiry, merely an impact assessment of the actions taken. But it is ludicrous to set up an inquiry to consider the impact of the action, brought forward in legislation, based on the recommendations of an earlier inquiry until ... err ... those actions had been implemented and had been in place for sufficient time to determine their impact.

Setting up a new statutory inquiry to cover the same ground as a previous statutory inquiry whose actions remained to be implemented would critically undermine the whole inquiry process.

  Random bloke on Internet asserts no need for further inquiry - so that's settled.

Same random bloke creates straw man of remit of any possible enquiry to back up his assertion.