Child sexual abuse victim criticises ‘smug' Badenoch over grooming inquiry
A victim of child sexual abuse has hit out at 'smug' Kemi Badenoch as he accused the Conservative leader of politicising the grooming gangs scandal.
Liberal Democrat MP Josh Babarinde said he was 'really let down and disgusted' by Mrs Badenoch's party political response to the national inquiry.
Labour's Dan Aldridge also spoke of his experience of 'sexual and psychological abuse' as a result of grooming, during the Home Secretary's statement in the Commons.
The MP for Weston-super-Mare said he 'found it galling' to listen to Tory and Reform MPs 'who never once lifted a finger'.
Mrs Badenoch earlier said it was left to the Conservatives to 'force' action on grooming gangs 'time and time again'.
The Opposition leader said: 'They accused those of us demanding justice for the victims of this scandal as and I quote 'jumping on a far right bandwagon', a claim the Prime Minister's official spokesman restated this weekend, shameful. It has been left to Conservatives time and time again to force this issue.'
She added: 'We went further than those recommendations. It was the Conservatives who established the grooming gangs taskforce, which supported police forces to make 807 arrests for group-based child sexual exploitation last year. So don't tell me we did nothing.
'There are legitimate concerns about institutions investigating themselves, especially as some of the most egregious cases of institutional failure occurred in Labour-controlled authorities. They can moan as much as they like but the people out there believe that is why nothing has happened yet.'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said Baroness Casey's report 'sets out a timeline of failure from 2009 to 2025'.
She added: 'Repeated reports and recommendations that were not acted on, on child protection, on police investigations, on ethnicity data, on data sharing, on support for victims.
'For 14 of those 16 years, her party was in government, including years when she was the minister for children and families, then the minister for equalities, covering race and ethnicity issues and violence against women and girls, and I did not hear her raise any of these issues until January of this year.'
Speaking of his own experiences of abuse, Mr Babarinde said 'the horror, the trauma, the guilt never leaves you'.
The MP for Eastbourne said: 'As a survivor of child sexual abuse myself, I stand in solidarity with the many victims and survivors that the system has failed over many, many years.
'And I can say that the horror, the trauma, the guilt never leaves you, and I so hope that every survivor who is identified here receives the mental health support and otherwise they deserve to rebuild their lives.
'Survivors have witnessed very many promises, 20 recommendations, and the call of 'never again', time and again. What will the Home Secretary do and how will she reassure them that this won't be another one of those examples?'
He continued: 'I am really let down and disgusted that the leader of the Opposition began her remarks with a party political assault on her opponents like this. Victims and survivors deserve more than a smug 'I told you so', diatribe. Victims and survivors deserve action.'
In her reply, Ms Cooper said his speaking out would help other victims and confirmed the Government wants to extend therapy available for victims.
Later in the session, Mr Aldridge said: 'I want to pay tribute to victims, survivors and campaigners. I am 40 years old, and it has taken me to be 40 to be able to talk about some of the abuse that happened when I was a child.
'As one of the countless victims living with the impacts of grooming, sexual and psychological abuse, I found it galling to watch Tory and Reform members who never once lifted a finger.'
In response to groans from the Opposition benches, he added: 'No, you didn't. You didn't.'
Mr Aldridge accused opposition parties of 'appointing themselves as defenders of abuse for political gain', adding: 'Does the minister agree with me that neither history nor the British people will be kind to the sickening political opportunism we have seen from the parties opposite?'
Ms Cooper thanked Mr Aldridge for 'speaking out about his experiences, because to speak out as a victim of child abuse in this way is immensely difficult, and I think everyone should listen to what victims and survivors have to say'.
She added: 'He is right that this should be something that everyone can agree on, because it's about the protection of children, it's about the tackling of serious crime, and I would hope that is something that all of us can do with respect and together.'
Elsewhere in the session, Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, said blaming 'entire communities' does 'nothing to protect innocent victims'.
She said: 'British Muslims stand on the side of victims and support the full force of the law against all perpetrators of abuse.
'But would the Home Secretary agree with me that those that display selected outrage or fan the flames to blame entire communities do nothing to protect innocent victims or further the cause of victims?'
In her reply, Ms Cooper said 'the horror at crimes committed against children and particularly against young girls' is 'shared right across communities'.
'It is in the interests of those children and of those victim survivors that we have reforms now,' she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Newsom's stock rises after clash with Trump
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is seeing his name rise toward the top of potential 2028 contenders following his fight with President Trump over the unrest in Los Angeles. In the wake of immigration protests that roiled the city and prompted Trump to send in the National Guard without Newsom's approval, the governor has framed himself as the face of resistance to Trump's second-term moves, energizing Democrats and upping his 2028 primary chances in a recent Morning Consult poll. But Democrats also acknowledge Newsom faces an uphill climb as he handles the end of his tenure as governor and navigates the nation's polarized political climate. 'He's doing really well among Democrats, both in California and throughout the nation. He's getting a boost in 2025,' said John Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. 'Unfortunately for him, a presidential nomination won't happen until 2028.' Newsom, who emerged during Trump's first administration as a leader of the Democratic resistance, started the year with what appeared to be a friendlier approach to the administration and a GOP-controlled Washington. He struck a conciliatory tone as he lobbied Trump for aid after catastrophic wildfires ravaged California in the winter, and then he made headlines with the launch of a podcast hosting prominent Trump supporters. The moves were a pivot toward the center amid speculation about whether he would launch a 2028 bid. But when Trump responded to protests this month over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids by sending in hundreds of National Guard troops against Newsom's objections, the governor embraced the face-off. In fiery speeches, TV appearances and social media posts, Newsom has cast Trump's moves in California as executive overreach and warned of an existential fight for democracy, drawing ire from the right. He dared Trump's border czar Tom Homan to arrest him, which Trump later said he'd support. 'Trump is trying to destroy Democracy. Do not let him,' Newsom wrote in his first post on a new Substack page this week. The protests and the clash between the leaders have carried political risks for both sides of the aisle, but they've also intensified the spotlight on the term-limited governor long suspected of having national ambitions. Polling on 2028 is sparse. But in a Morning Consult survey taken June 13-15, as the LA protests were dying down, 11 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said they would back Newsom in a 2028 primary, up from 5 percent who said the same in March. Former Vice President Kamala Harris was still the clear front-runner, with 34 percent support, but her backing ticked down 2 points from March — while Newsom overtook both former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Newsom has so far stayed quiet about the speculation and his future plans. But he has signaled the door is open to a potential presidential run. 'I'm not thinking about running, but it's a path that I could see unfold,' he told The Wall Street Journal amid his latest feuding with Trump. Pressed on the question by guest Dr. Phil on the 'This is Gavin Newsom' podcast earlier this month, the governor said 'fate will determine that' and noted that he's got his 'hands full' for the next couple years. Democratic strategist Maria Cardona stressed that Newsom's resistance to GOP policies is part of the job description as governor of a big blue state like California — and not necessarily an 'auditioning' for higher office. Still, she said his public sparring with Trump about the protests 'certainly doesn't hurt' his future prospects. 'It highlights and it gives faith to the base of the Democratic Party, independents, frankly, also to common-sense Republicans … that there is fight in the opposition, that there are people willing to confront Trump and go toe to toe with him,' Cardona said. Newsom's high-profile resistance also comes at a key point for the party, as Democrats regroup after a devastating election last year, noted California Democratic strategist Steven Maviglio. 'Democrats are desperate for a leader, and I think he's had his 15 minutes, and that helped him rocket to the top of the latest polls,' Maviglio said. But a swell of energy three years before an election would be hard for any prospective candidate to maintain, experts noted, and Newsom faces some unique hurdles if he ends up pursuing the presidency. For one, California has increasingly become a target of the right, and the protests have given Republicans scenes of chaos to point to as they argue that Democrats are soft on crime and immigration. 'It's both a strength and a weakness … California is 20 percent of the country, so he's got a lot of name ID. He's a major national figure, just by virtue of the fact that he's the governor of a huge state,' said Matt Bennett, Democratic strategist and co-founder of centrist think tank Third Way. 'It's a weakness because California is perceived, fairly or not, as being very blue, very liberal. And he was mayor of San Francisco, which is even more blue and more liberal. So I do think he's got things in his past that are going to make it difficult for him to escape the stereotypical view of Democrats,' Bennett said. The protests are also unlikely to be Newsom's last brush with Trump, and the governor may need to further tweak his approach to help his state get what it needs, noted Pitney, the professor at Claremont McKenna College. 'Whether it's another set of wildfires, an earthquake, mudslides, something bad is going to happen. We know that that is part of living in California. And when that happens, we're going to need federal help, and at that point, he's going to have to turn on the mute button,' Pitney said. To that point, though, some are also questioning whether Newsom's effort to shift gears between conciliatory and confrontational with Trump could be a political liability moving forward. 'His weakness is that he's been all over the map in terms of his relationship with Trump,' Maviglio said. 'He tried to be the accommodating moderate for a few months, and that wasn't working. So now he's become the anti-Trump, and he gained steam from that. But this is precisely why he's not trusted by the progressive wing of the party or the moderate wing, because he's all over the map, and it's been inconsistent.' Bennett, on the other hand, shrugged off concerns about the shift in tone, arguing that Trump is so 'mercurial' in his own right that those engaging with him are 'going to be [as] all over the map as he is.' 'I think that Newsom's fight with Trump is good for him and his standing with the party. He has been resolute and tough, and I think that's probably helping him,' Bennett said. Yet another complication, though, is that Trump won't be on the ballot in 2028 — and opposition to him may not end up as a defining issue. If Newsom does decide to run, he'd have to navigate that new territory, while also dealing with a potentially tricky gap between his exit from the governor's mansion and the election. 'It's always a tough balancing act for governors and others, especially governors who tend to be term limited … to figure out what to do with that awkward year between them leaving office and running for president, and how do you stay relevant?' Bennett said. 'That is a challenge for anyone who's out of office when they go to try to run for president, and it's tough to do.'
3 hours ago
North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes his first bills. They are on concealed carry and immigration
RALEIGH, N.C. -- North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein vetoed his first bills on Friday, blocking for now Republican legislation that would let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit and make state agencies and local sheriffs more active in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Stein, who took office in January, issued his formal objections to three measures backed by the GOP-controlled General Assembly presented to him last week. The former attorney general also had the option to sign any of them into law, or let them become law if he hadn't acted on the legislation soon. The vetoed measures now return to the legislature, where Republicans are one House seat shy of holding a veto-proof majority. Its leaders will decide whether to attempt overrides as early as next week. Voting so far followed party lines for one of the immigration measures, which in part would direct heads of several state law enforcement agencies, like the State Highway Patrol and State Bureau of Investigation, to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But one House Democrat ended up voting for the other immigration bill that Stein vetoed. It toughens a 2024 law that required sheriffs to help federal agents seeking criminal defendants. GOP prospects for enacting the permitless concealed gun measure, a longtime aspiration for gun-rights advocates, appear dimmer, because two House Republicans voted against the bill and 10 others were absent. In one veto message, Stein said the gun legislation, which would allow eligible people at least 18 years old to carry a concealed handgun, "makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership." Democratic lawmakers argued the same during legislative debate. Current law requires a concealed weapons holder to be at least 21 to obtain a permit. The person must submit an application to the local sheriff, pass a firearms safety training course and cannot 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun" to obtain the permit. No safety training would be required if getting a permit is no longer necessary. 'Authorizing teenagers to carry a concealed weapon with no training whatsoever is dangerous,' Stein wrote. Gun-control groups praised the veto. Conservative advocates for the bill say removing the permit requirement would strengthen the safety of law-abiding citizens. 'Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn't have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights," Senate leader Phil Berger said in a press release criticizing the veto and planning for an override vote in his chamber. Permitless carry is already lawful in 29 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. One vetoed immigration bill would require four state law enforcement agencies to officially participate in the 287(g) program, which trains officers to interrogate defendants and determine their immigration status. An executive order by President Donald Trump urged his administration to maximize the use of 287(g) agreements. Stein wrote Friday the bill takes officers away from existing state duties at a time when law enforcement is already stretched thin. The measure also would direct state agencies to ensure noncitizens don't access certain state-funded benefits. But Stein said that people without lawful immigration status already can't receive them. The other vetoed bill attempts to expand a 2024 law — enacted over then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto — that directed jails to hold temporarily certain defendants whom ICE believe are in the country illegally, allowing time for immigration agents to pick them up. The vetoed bill would expand the list of crimes that a defendant is charged with that would require the jail administrator to attempt to determine the defendant's legal status. A jail also would have to tell ICE promptly that it is holding someone and essentially extends the time agents have to pick up the person. Stein said Friday while he supports sheriffs contacting federal immigration agents about defendants charged with dangerous crimes that they are holding, the law is unconstitutional because it directs sheriffs to keep defendants behind bars 48 hours beyond when they otherwise could be released for a suspected immigration violation. With the veto of this bill, House Speaker Destin Hall said, Stein sided with the 'most radical elements of his party's base over the safety and security of North Carolinians.' Latino advocates and other bill opponents had urged Stein to veto both immigration measures. They say the legislation would cause Hispanic residents to feel intimidated and fear law enforcement. Stein's vetoes help 'ensure North Carolina remains a safe state for everyone, including immigrants, who deserve equal treatment under the law," the group El Pueblo said in a news release.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who said in a post on the social platform X on Friday evening that he plans to sign the bill into law. If that happens, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Advertisement 3 Rhode Island's state House approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons. AP Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. Advertisement The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Advertisement Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. 3 Two men inspected AR-10s for sale at the Belle-Clair Fairgrounds & Expo Center Gun Show in Belleville, Ill. REUTERS Democratic Rep. Rebecca Kislak described the bill during floor debates Friday as an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states. 'I am gravely disappointed we are not doing more, and we should do more,' she said. 'And given the opportunity to do this or nothing, I am voting to do something.' Advertisement Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. Republican Rep. Michael Chippendale, House minority leader, predicted that if the legislation were to become law, the US. Supreme Court would eventually deem it unconstitutional. 'We are throwing away money on this,' he said. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. 3 A crowd of gun-rights advocates filled the State House rotunda in Rhode Island in March to protest a proposed ban on the manufacture and sale of assault-style weapons. David DelPoio/The Providence Journal / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images Advertisement Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. Advertisement The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.'
