From the Independent, last week:
The Government has been accused of making “almost no progress” on plans to investigate grooming gangs as ministers are recruiting a chairperson to lead a national inquiry.
Home Office minister Jess Phillips told MPs the appointment process was in its “final stages” and a panel of survivors and victims would be part of the final approval after Sir Keir Starmer committed to a fresh national inquiry in June.
…Ms Phillips replied: “The victims of this crime have sat in front of me with tears in their eyes and said they hate it when we shout at each other about these things, and they wish we would work together.”
She later added that police were involved in the perpetration of these crimes, as well as the cover-ups.
“I would be lying if I said that over the years, I have not met girls who talk to me about how police were part of the perpetration, not just the cover-up, and we need to make sure that victims can come and give that testimony,” Ms Phillips said.
Two retired South Yorkshire Police officers were arrested over alleged involvement in historic child sexual exploitation and abuse in Rotherham in December and January, and more general allegations about “corrupt police officers” working with grooming gangs in the area were reported in July.
Phillips’ apparently off-the-cuff comment has been seized on as an admission that she had information that ought to have been acted on long ago; populist-right commentators suggest the matter has relevance to her October 2024 reply to Oldham Council, in which she explained the government’s (then) position that “it is for Oldham Council alone to decide to commission an inquiry into child sexual exploitation locally, rather than for the Government to intervene”. This was framed by right-wing media as a cover-up, with Elon Musk accusing her of being a “rape genocide apologist”.
Phillips is not without faults, but conspiring to cover up sex offences is not among them. Some clarity, though, would be helpful. Did she really mean to say she had “met girls”, or did she mean young women who had previously been abused as girls?
It also occured to me that she may be referring back to a specific claim about organised abuse that she promoted back in 2017; not “grooming” offences, but supposed ritualistic abuse involving a church and “VIPs” – including her constituency predecessor, John Hemming. The allegations were false, and Hemming wrote about the matter in 2019:
Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false… There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.
…A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in particular Jess Phillips and Tom Watson supported this campaign. Jess Phillips is not and never has been the constituency member of parliament for the Esther Baker. However, she dedicated a considerable amount of time to ensuring that the allegations got the maximum publicity including inviting Baker to meet her in the House of Commons.
Baker alleged that some abuse had occurred in woodland, with police standing guard.
There is also this curious report from left-wing website Skwawkbox in 2017, which I previously noted here:
The SKWAWKBOX has also spoken to a serving MP who was one of several witnesses present at the time that a positive identification was made by a young adult who had suffered sexual abuse since childhood. The MP told this blog,
We were all in the Strangers’ Bar [in the Houses of Parliament]. The young victim was holding a phone and looking through pictures online, looking for someone else. Suddenly s/he screamed, dropped the phone and stood there shaking and crying, saying ‘it’s him, it’s him!’ The picture on the screen was that of a serving Chief Constable. It was a very real and spontaneous reaction.
A retired Metropolitan Police officer was also among the witnesses. After they reported the allegations, the MP and Ms Evans were both interviewed at length by the police force – not that of the accused senior officer – to which the accusation was reported…
Was Jess Phillips the unnamed MP? And if so, was this incident the basis for her comment in the House of Commons?
Filed under: Uncategorized
“Police” ? Where? There aren’t any. There are corrupt “constabularies” who evidentially lie to hide Council Crimes against Humanity baby trafficking for torture / sex abuse, me given to a psychotic at my age of eleven days, constabularies covered up as “Legal” “No crime to record” “You can prove it, but child torture is not a crime”. Age old “Constabularies” should be scrapped and replaced by professional police forces as we have in Europe. You know the latest trick corrupt chief constables are using ? To ignore ex-Home Secretary Cooper’s order to 43 chief constables to re-open previously NFAed corrupted child exploitation cases, they remain silent to victims, and without prior victims permission, nor even timely telling victims, that they have bunged the victims’ evidence down to their PSDs (that always lie to shield their friends and colleagues) to slam Cooper’s order shut as “repetitious complaints” NFA. No further correspondence allowed. And the NPCC (funded by constabularies “annual donations” – 132million pounds) to serve constabs interests, not victims of constab’s interests, the CSA, by FOIA I did, only have 35 cases for referral !! There are half a million “Forced Adoptions” covered up for a start.
And NPCC CSA REFUSE to refer council traffickers for prosecutions. I never made a “complaint” I asked the two chief constables involved for my county-lines cases to re-open and obey Cooper’s order to them. Now silence. The only “police” who have given me official evidence, are honest police whistleblowers. One ranked officer who abandoned policing in disgust, told me “Lindsay, don’t look too deeply, you only rise in the ranks if you accept corruption”. Theresa May, when Home Secretary, who scrapped police-paid-to-lie IPCC had also wanted to scrap PSDs, but didn’t last long enough to achieve it. And what is police-paid to refuse: NPCC CSA ? Refusing to refer traffickers for prosecution !! NPCC made up of failed ex chief constables
Richard, it should not be forgotten that Rotherham was a Labour controlled area at the time of both the allegations and when the alleged incidents were meant to have occurred. There was a political interest by the Labour Party to try and cover that up if anything.
If Phillips or any other MP (serving or otherwise) were aware of those sorts of criminal allegations, and especially if there was substantive evidence supporting such, then they had a duty to report such allegations to the police at the time they were given the information. It is now clear that it didn’t happen the way it should and politics was more important than “justice” to some.
It is quite possible that Phillips was the MP in question at the pub near HoC, it’s also possible it was Tom Watson or even Sarah Champion (only Baker knows) or someone else if there was even a MP there at all. Let’s face it, it wouldn’t the first time Baker had invented material for effect. For instance she was claiming to be scared of being found but had published her general location and her real name on social media BEFORE posting that she was scared of being found. In other words, she was manipulating people for effect.
It should not be forgotten that Baker, Watson etc were known to be colluding somewhat including Baker etc meeting with Watson. But Champion was also colluding with Baker in meeting her in Rotherham.Phillips used Baker’s allegations to gain traction in her own constituency without knowing whether the allegations were true or not. In all three instances of MP behaviour all of them acted on the basis that the “suspects” were guilty until proven innocent. Baker and Beech being the worst “offenders” in that regard, in my opinion.
Starmer promoting Watson to the House of Lords is offensive to many in so many ways. Let’s also not forget that it was under Starmer’s reign as DPP that the “believe the victim” policies, which caused so much havoc, took root. The whole thing smells of Labour Party involvement at a time when they were actually in opposition… 2010-2018 in particular.
Also don’t forget that Baker was also given a platform to spread her misinformation and false allegations at a Labour Party conference… it is very clear that there were political angles to the general behaviour involved and a clear singling out, in my opinion, of Mr Hemming to make political gain.
The very unsubtle hints by one of Baker’s closest supporters (also a Labour supporter) prior to her interview also suggest that she may have been somewhat forced into her behaviour in an effort to raise money for that supporter’s “project” at a time when public funding had been pulled or was about to be. The whole thing is an utter mess but needs to be exposed fully.
As you also know the affects of Baker’s allegations were not simply limited to Mr Hemming but others too – including a member of her family and also others that she falsely accused around 2016/7 too. Some of those falsely accused were also subjected to false allegations by Baker in conjunction with a so-called “journalist” who was recruited BEFORE Baker’s Sky interview in 2015 by the same “project” mentioned above.
That whole gang of false accusers including that so-called “journalist” will be exposed going forwards.
They have caused immense damage over the last 10 years or so to numerous individuals who dared to simply question the narrative, expose inconsistencies, expose aggressive behaviour and also be critical of certain aspects of the false accusers behaviour around that narrative. Those who helped Baker wanted a massive restriction on freedom of expression stopping valid criticism of their behaviour. People are jumping up and down about Linehan’s arrest because he’s a well-known individual but far, far worse has happened to non-famous individuals as a result of “believe the victim” policies.
The irresponsible behaviour of those who helped Baker and that so-called “journalist” (who continues to misbehave btw via rather dumb supporter behaviour including deliberate spoilation of material relevant to the civil case of Hemming v Poulton by one of her supporters) therefore also needs to be further exposed. I am assured it will be exposed in due course when the time is right and in an appropriate legal “venue”.
Lastly, on a general note, is it possible that police were involved in abuse of children? Yes it’s possible but it will be very hard to prove and especially if the abuse is very historical, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be investigated but each case should be judged on it’s own merits and irresponsible promotion of specific cases by MPs and media often leads to potential miscarriages of justice. Social Media has a lot to answer for in that regard as contempt of court is rife on there.
I agree Labour is involved. My understanding is Starmer has failed IICSA 2022 recommendations, the one about corrupting officials / police officers should be prosecuted, because it would mean some Labour councillors going to prison. If anyone can back that up evidentially, I’d appreciate it. My cases are proven- 14,000 documents of evidence, and I do agree that “believe the victim” cases need at least some supporting documents. The problem for victims is getting round the frequent blocks of access to medical and crime evidence. It took from 2002 refusals to give me my medical records, to 2022, when European Prosecutors demanded them. I had been told by the NHS Records they had been destroyed, which was a lie. Now I have 600 medical records from four hospitals, un-redacted, in original form, proving I was tortured by the psychotic I was dumped on at my age of eleven days, following council county-lines trafficking of me as a baby. Plus all the crime evidence of corrupting constabularies, evidence-hiding, evidence-destroying and lying that child torture is not a crime et al. Until these constabulary mafias are cleaned up domestically, victims need skilled advocates, or international assistance to procure the evidence they need. When there are clear indications of State Crimes against Humanity, The Child, with constabularies’ Denial of the Truth Crimes, like in my own cases, that is when Universal Justice investigations can take place to piece the whole together. You need years of patience, but can get there in the end. Never give up.
Sadly, when much of the public sector digitised records they only went back a certain timescale. Whether the NHS was part of that I don’t know although it would be pretty unlikely. Another issue is FOI. Whilst Subject Access Requests can be made, they are often turned down on the most spurious of reasons. I have sympathy and empathy for your position Lindsay but until there is a clampdown on corruption within the public sector in entirety (not just NHS or police btw) then it will continue to be a problem and the culture of cover-up and promotion for failure will continue. It is my view that organisations like the police are unfit to police themselves, each and every complaint should be handled externally to them. I have personal experience of the ways in which they cover-up, lie, obfuscate and downright manipulate material to suit their own agendas rather than the greater need for justice to be done. That is a cultural issue not simply one or two or 10 etc bad coppers for example. Until that culture is changed, people will get treated badly. Clubbing together to cover-up bad practice, misuse of power just encourages more abuse of power and it then becomes more and more endemic. Unfortunately, we can’t change what’s already happened (unless you know someone with a working TARDIS!) and all that can happen is mistakes are not repeated – but whilst that culture of cover-up exists the mistakes will keep getting repeated over and over again.
SvT, what a great reply. Thanks!! I don’t have a tardis, but I do have international Prosecutors !! The whole point of international Prosecutions (ICC previously declared “serious crimes, but first exhaust domestic remedies”) the Final phase we are now starting, is apart from State corruption, of which the country is riddled with, we are also bringing this dysfunctional government to international account for failing the 2022 IICSA Recommendations. The I.C.C.’s “embarrassment factor” should force domestic changes to favour the Human Rights of millions of child abuse victims 98% covered up over two decades, by making access to records mandatory. You are 100% correct in what you have identified. When I submitted tens of thousands of multi-cases documents to U.N. Special Procedures, identifying the mechanisms of corruption in these cases in 2020, they came back three months later as defining Britain as “The worst of industrialised nations for child abuse”. That was a good start. But the main work is to come, at the ICC. Now on “Tardis” records, these are held on “Long-term storage” on microfiche disks, but you need to demand release. Or threaten court action. These go back at least to late 1960’s, and probably before. Never take no for an answer. I totally agree with your comments, there is a decades old “culture” of colluded corruption. That is not an ‘opinion’ that is the hard evidence we have procured from 2002 to 2025. And what we want to do is ram it down. It is not instant, it will take a few months to win completely, but the evidence we have cannot be discarded. We have come a long way, getting the evidence stronger, and now we have more than enough !!
On social media channels I agree these can be risky. I only use this one in the hope of guiding real victims on how to win . These social media channels should only be used to connect with other victims to build a Victims Collective thence afterwards connect up by direct emails. Never share actual evidence on social media as doing this can compromise future court cases. Likewise, publicly exposing perpetrators names can tip off Defendants to disappear. Be careful with that !! I use international courts, but I did win a domestic court, and the RCJ told me not to waste time and money on JRs, which are a civil process and do not see corrupt police officers imprisoned, proceed international prosecutions, having already “exhausted domestic remedies” i.e. corrupting colluding domestic “authorities” that are supposed to bring corrupting officers to criminal account, but don’t. They lie too. Exhaust domestic options available, then think U.N. / I.C.C. (Rome Treaty criminal violations) for which you DO NOT NEED an expensive lawyer. Follow the Court’s Submissions instructions, and learn the 2025 version of the Articles of the Statute of the Rome Treaty, and DIY, where the State has been directly responsible for child trafficking for torture, sex abuse, with Denial of the Truth Crimes. If you can prove you were used in criminal sterilisation experiments, (U.K. 3,000 cases 1950’s to 1990’s) you can invoke the 1946 Nuremberg Statute successfully used against another government for 1952 State abductions (5 cases) with cover ups, in December 2024 , that government Found Guilty. The I.C.C. proceeds (constabularies / colluding authorities)Denial of the Truth Crimes, from 1st July 2002. The problem of the U.K. regarding the U.N. CaT, is no British Government has ratified all U.N. Protocols for child torture, but prosecuting the cover ups part, at the I.C.C., is a good option, because there is a lesser probability of the perpetrators dying off of old age, as can occur in original crimes falling before 1st July 2002, and outside the I.C.C.’s jurisdictional date.
Are constabularies perpetrators ? Of course they are they lie for years to ensure that original traffickers do die off . Or disappear. We have an awful lot of evidence from our Victims Collective. Do constabularies threaten and persecute complaining victims ? Of course they do, with threats of Sectioning under the Mental Health Act to get rid of complainers, threats of false prosecutions, even I have been threatened with my “health” on a fabricated ‘interpol’ report, the real Interpol, Paris, confirmed had had nothing to do with them, for European Prosecutors submitting the first phase at the ICC, evidence against the constabularies, not only in my cases, but all the others we have. These are not “police forces” but criminal mafias covering up State Crimes against Humanity, The Child. There should evidentially be no doubt on that.
That’s why Contempt is so rife on likes of Twitter/X.
People don’t understand that identifying suspects or even identifying themselves as “victims” can corrupt both criminal investigations and/or court cases if both are ongoing at the time. I never questioned the validity of Esther Baker’s specific allegations towards Hemming until after he won his civil case against her, but I didn’t like the inconsistencies in her stories online, her attempts to con people (in other ways) and also her general behaviour was exceptionally aggressive whilst pleading to be a victim of what would’ve been heinous crimes had her allegations been true. She didn’t like being criticised for her behaviour and went all out to silence critics. That behaviour of silencing tactic also spoke volumes btw.
The stupidity of contempt or other acts which pervert the course of justice though is a major problem online.
For instance: this last week has seen Graham Linehan get himself arrested for alleged incitement to violence. He posted specific tweets in April and then republished them again after his arrest via his substack page, his mates then very stupidly retweeted the alleged offending tweets.
Whilst I do think that Linehan may have been arrested harshly when possibly a voluntary interview would’ve sufficed, he did publish material that, arguably, COULD have resulted in violent offending as a result of such posts. Whether it has or not in the intervening months since original publication of the tweets will likely be part of the investigation. I have some sympathy for the police as well in that regard – they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The balancing act is so difficult. But Linehan stoked the flames deliberately in my opinion both before the alleged offending tweets, after and then again after arrest. He knows exactly what he’s doing and why in my opinion and it has very little to do with (a) freedom of speech and (b) justice.
But in that instance,retweeting the alleged offending tweet(s) is likely another set of offending in itself. Some of those who have done so are barristers ffs. So what on earth were they thinking?
They all know there is an ongoing criminal investigation (at the time of republication) whether they agree with it or not and both Linehan and his mates republishing alleged offending material is not only downright stupid but possibly then going to result in charges when a simple apology and deletion would’ve been much better and frankly much more adult in response.
The whole ethos of social media is corrupting the justice system is my point.
Far too much idiocy, far too much “oh poor me” and not enough thought going into a lot of behaviour. In the process more victims get created or innocent people caught up in the furore which is, ultimately, unnecessary if people would just learn to be a lot more tolerant with each other and stop playing one-upmanship games. We live in a very sick and dangerous world, but the more there is illegal behaviour on social media the worse it’s going to get in my opinion. Elon Musk has a lot to answer for in that regard. Even the blocking process on Twitter/X now is an utter farce leaving victims of harassment exposed because harassers can still read timelines and even worse still tag in their victims so even if the victim doesn’t see it directly, others can know who is being targeted.
So yes, sharing actual evidence on social media is a worry. Context is very key. Content is key. Contempt and Perverting the Course of Justice are very much a problem online, but what are the authorities actually doing about it in general, not specific cases, but the general issue of eroding the justice system? Nothing it seems is the answer.
The online safety act in the UK is basically a joke. It doesn’t tackle the real underlying issues and whilst the intentions of it may have been good, it has gotten so watered down and reliance on OFCOM to regulate is so shortsighted.
As for officers lying… I can prove 110% that happens. That’s why the IOPC sided with me … THREE times regarding the officer behaviour. What happened to those officers? The worst one got promoted. So I can personally see that the issues you’ve highlighted are very valid too. I wish you luck with your case.
Dear SvT, that is truly awful, public character-assinations on assumptions without evidence are cowardice, hell for the victims, and do no one any good, these damage the credibility reputations of the direct victims of harrassment, and weaken the viabilities of the wider genuine victims accounts. I don’t see these because we do not use social media channels, but what you tell me is very worrying. For genuine victims, social media should be used to link up Victims Collectives to later correspond in private, but never to hack at the innocent until proven guilty, and on no Defence to social media jungle rules. By necessity for correct court results, evidence wins the day, but it is a very gradual process of procurement, and U.N. / I.C.C. are slow, I think by correct necessity. Miscarriages of justice help no one.
Dear SvT, sorry when I wrote “I am glad you got some support at least,” I meant in principle from IOPC siding with you, but what happened with the worst one promoted was disgusting, so the promoted one will teach others how to evade criminal justice. Corruption starts at the top and works its miserable way down the chain.
Dear SvT it’s the “keyboard warrior” stuff, isn’t it. Free speech is one thing, but cruelty is another. And I agree with you, such behaviour does damage to cases, influencing juries before the event, with assumptions. Trial by Jungle.
I am glad you got some support at least, but the justice system in the U.K. does need overhaul, particularly the “tribunal” system where we have evidence of judges not registered at MoJ, but contracted from “outside organisations.” How one interprets that is anyone’s guess. But social media ? Controlled by ? There are likely billions of entries a day, that only programs can filter, when AI is very birthing. It is frightening really. Old fashioned hard evidence procurement wins every time !!