Table of Contents
As I asked last year, just how high does the cover-up of the UK’s Muslim child-rape gang scandal go? The more we learn about this horrific case, the more we learn just how deep, high and systemic the complicity is. Possibly, all the way to Number 10.
A 2004 report found that authorities failed to properly investigate what were already known to be rampant cases between 2004 and 2013. That period covered UK PM Keir Starmer’s entire career as Britain’s chief prosecutor. But when Elon Musk accused Starmer of being “deeply complicit in the mass rapes in exchange for votes”, Starmer reacted with predictable high dudgeon. He tackled prosecutions ‘head on’, he claimed. Further, he bragged about his actions as chief prosecutor.
The public has for years now been encouraged to think of this Rochdale case as a success story, and Keir Starmer has very publicly associated himself – very proudly associated himself – with this case. It was not merely, according to him, a case that happened on his watch. Not just another prosecution brought by the CPS while he was DPP, but very much more than that. He has repeatedly said that this was evidence of his seriousness, his leadership, and his supposed instinct to do the right thing to protect vulnerable women and girls over the years.
Does that include the absolutely unforgivable treatment of the child-rape victim, ‘Amber’? (Amber is the pseudonym used in official reports and court proceedings.) Her story, detailed in a damning 2024 independent assurance review commissioned by Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, highlights not just the horrors of organised grooming but the subsequent mistreatment by the very institutions tasked with protecting her.
Amber was just 14 when she was targeted by a network of men, predominantly of Pakistani heritage, operating from takeaways, taxis, and private “chill houses” in Rochdale. From a troubled background and already on the child protection register, she was plied with alcohol, drugs, food, and small gifts. She described being “passed around” between dozens of men, trafficked to various locations, and subjected to repeated violent rapes. Threats of violence, including at gunpoint, kept her silent. She estimated being abused by 20 to 30 men over several years and, under extreme duress, was sometimes coerced into introducing other vulnerable girls to the group.
So, what did police do?
In March 2009, at age 16, police arrested Amber at her mother’s home on suspicion of inciting prostitution. Officers reportedly called her a “madam.” She was held without proper support initially and bailed to the address of one of the alleged abusers. No charges followed immediately, but she was treated primarily as an enabler rather than a victim, despite authorities knowing of her long-term exploitation.
By late 2010, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) launched Operation Span. Senior officers and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), then under Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer, recognised Amber as a critical witness. In early 2011, the head of the CPS Complex Case Unit formally agreed she should be designated a victim who “should never have been arrested” in 2009. Detective Constable Maggie Oliver, who later resigned in protest and became a prominent whistleblower, was assigned to rebuild trust with Amber and her family.
Over many months, Amber provided hours of detailed video interviews, identified locations and participated in identification parades. She named abusers, provided vehicle details and phone numbers and cooperated, because, she said, she did not want others to suffer as she had. Her evidence was described as “crucial and compelling”.
The ‘problem’ though, was the sheer volume of her evidence. Police decided that pursuing all the evidence, all the offenders, was just a bit too much work. None of the crimes she reported against herself were properly recorded on the police system at the time.
Then, in September 2011, when Starmer was still its head, the CPS made a shocking ‘tactical’ decision: Amber’s name was added to the indictment as a co-conspirator in the sexual exploitation of other children. This legal manoeuvre was intended to allow the jury to hear her evidence without ‘witness contamination’ risks.
Worse, she was never informed, never re-arrested, never interviewed under caution about the allegation and given no opportunity to defend herself. No steps were taken to anonymise her identity in court or provide support for the risks to her and her family. In court, the prosecution painted her as an ‘active recruiter’. Media coverage, despite reporting restrictions, led to her being dubbed the “Honey Monster”, a nickname that stuck in the community. Abusers threatened her and social services attempted to remove her young children, citing her as a risk. She fought an 18-month legal battle to keep her family together.
This is the prosecution Starmer was bragging about.
Keir Starmer’s own words really matter here. In the video, Keir Starmer is quoted as saying that he oversaw the first grooming gang prosecution, that he was the first prosecutor to bring the first case, and that when this file was brought to his attention, he changed the entire approach to prosecutions. He’s also quoted as saying during the parliamentary select committee that, in light of the ultimately successful prosecution, the CPS had walked through the decision-making process from start to finish. That is not neutral language. That is the language of someone saying that “I was institutionally responsible in a broad sense,” and that is his language of ownership. He’s proud of that decision-making process while he was DPP.
In effect, Starmer was saying that this was my kind of case and this reflected my judgment and this was an example of the CPS under my leadership doing the right thing.
Amber sees it very differently. In interviews, she has said Starmer’s CPS’ actions caused deeper trauma than the original abuse: “What the police and CPS did to me was worse than the abuse… I trusted police… that I would be helped this time.” She still lives with the consequences, occasionally encountering former abusers in Rochdale.
A review of the case was not nearly so glowing, either.
The 2024 independent review by Malcolm Newsam CBE and Gary Ridgway condemned the decision in stark terms. It described the lack of concern for Amber’s welfare as “unacceptable” and labelled the indictment “a deplorable further abuse of a CSE survivor”. The review noted a foreseeable risk to her safety that was ignored. GMP Chief Constable Stephen Watson issued a personal apology to Amber and two other victims in April 2022, accompanied by a compensation settlement. Offences against her were finally recorded under a new investigation. The CPS, however, has defended the move as a legitimate tactical choice and has not apologised.
And Starmer is still bragging about what his office did. By his own words, apparently with his full knowledge and on his orders. Keir Starmer has repeatedly highlighted his role in the Rochdale case. He has spoken of overseeing the decision-making process “from start to finish”.
Well, if he wants to claim the credit, he has to take the responsibility, too.
