They all use the term ‘grooming gangs’ so what’s wrong with that? Well, the inquiry inquiry terms of reference do not, ever, use either word:
Child sexual abuse and exploitation: Jay Inquiry:
The aim of this inquiry, established under the Inquiries Act 2005, is to make recommendations to better protect children from group-based sexual abuse and exploitation (CSAE) both now and in the future. These will be informed by the experiences of survivors, examining responses, investigating system failures and assessing the extent to which group-based CSAE in Scotland occurred during the period from 1 January 1996 to the setting up date of the inquiry. The inquiry will assess the extent to which state and non-state bodies and relevant institutions failed to protect children from this harm; investigate the prevalence of group-based CSAE to understand the factors which allowed such abuse to happen; and make recommendations that seek to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated.
Why?
Professor Alexis Jay, who chairs the inquiry and previously led the Rotherham investigation and the England & Wales Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, has explicitly said she does not favour the terms “grooming” or “gangs.” In evidence to a Scottish Parliament committee she explained that:
- “Grooming” is often inaccurate because some offending involves crude coercion without any pretence of relationship-building or exchange.
- “Gangs” carries restrictive connotations and does not cover all forms of multi-perpetrator exploitation (e.g., certain institutional or network settings).
- She prefers broader terms such as “networks” because they encompass a wider range of people, settings, and methods without the specific associations of the media shorthand.
Why do the Scottish media prefer ‘grooming gangs?‘
No doubt, they will claim it’s just a common distinction between official inquiry language and journalistic framing and will be shocked if you suggest they have an agenda to make Scotland look just like the rest of the UK.
Is it it’s just a common distinction between official inquiry language and journalistic framing or are they equating two very different things?
Rotherham alone involved at least 1,400 children over many years (Jay report), with large multi-defendant trials and documented institutional failures linked to concerns about racism. Rochdale saw dozens of convictions across investigations.
Scottish authorities (Police Scotland FOI responses and statements, ministers, and the 2026 National Review of Group-Based CSAE) have consistently stated there is no evidence of gangs of comparable scale. Police Scotland has said it has no ongoing or completed investigations into grooming gangs of a similar scale to those in England. https://www.careinspectorate.scot/resources-data/publications-and-statistics/library/national-review-group-based-csae-cce
Discover more from Talking-up Scotland
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If you could expose one person in your life right now without anybody knowing it was you, who would it be and what would you expose? No name will be mentioned, nobody will know it was you, no wahala, no fight, no revenge. Just pure truth coming out. That person that has been pretending to be good, pretending to be innocent, pretending to be your friend, but behind closed doors they are doing evil. That secret they have been hiding, that lie they have been telling everybody, that thing they did to you that nobody believes. If you had the power to expose them today and nobody will trace it back to you, who will you expose and what is that secret you will finally let the world know?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hacks like alliterative terms even if their accuracy is minimal. The story as they want to tell it takes priority over accuracy. Glasgow is ‘No Mean City’ in the minds of UK hacks, ergo every story must be adapted to fit that framing.
No Mean City was about gangs in Glasgow – it is alliterative: GLASGOW GANGS. The term becomes an axiom for the hack.
And the exploitation of young women is rarely ‘grooming’, which implies some persuasive giving of gifts, but is usually coercive and exploitative of young women who, disproportionately, have been in care. But ‘grooming’ is not only alliterative it implies a cynical calculation by Svengali-like figures, ergo ‘foreigners’, which allows them to show photos of men of colour, thereby allowing the media to pursue its racist agenda.
LikeLike