The grooming gang inquiry has descended into complete disarray after the only remaining candidate to chair the investigation withdrew from consideration, leaving the government with no viable leader for its promised probe into decades of abuse.
Former police officer Jim Gamble has pulled out following the earlier withdrawal of Annie Hudson, a former senior social worker, meaning both shortlisted candidates have now abandoned the process amid fierce criticism from survivors.
The twin departures come after four abuse survivors quit the inquiry’s victims panel in protest over the candidates’ backgrounds and concerns the investigation was being “watered down” – leaving Sir Keir Starmer’s promised inquiry in tatters before it has even formally begun.
“Disappointed Candidates Have Withdrawn”
A Home Office spokesman attempted to put a brave face on the catastrophic setback, stating: “The grooming gang scandal was one of the darkest moments in this country’s history.
“That is why this Government is committed to a full, statutory, national inquiry to uncover the truth. It is the very least that the victims of these hideous crimes deserve.
“We are disappointed that candidates to chair that inquiry have withdrawn,” the spokesman admitted.
“This is an extremely sensitive topic, and we have to take the time to appoint the best person suitable for the role.”
The acknowledgment that both candidates have walked away represents a devastating blow to the inquiry’s credibility before it has even started hearing evidence.
“No Hiding Place”
The spokesman concluded with defiant rhetoric: “The Home Secretary has been clear: there will be no hiding place for those who abused the most vulnerable in our society.”
However, with no chair and four survivors having quit the panel, the inquiry currently has no mechanism to actually uncover anything about who abused whom.
Starmer: “Injustice Will Have No Place to Hide”
Facing questions at Prime Minister’s Questions about the mass resignations, Sir Keir Starmer insisted the inquiry “is not and will never be watered down.
“Its scope will not change,” he declared, despite survivors claiming the opposite based on their direct experiences of consultation processes.
“The inquiry will examine the ethnicity and religion of the offenders and we will find the right person to chair the inquiry,” the Prime Minister promised.
His assurance that ethnicity and religion will be examined represents an attempt to address survivors’ core concern that the inquiry was being broadened to avoid confronting the uncomfortable reality that predominantly Pakistani heritage gangs targeted white working-class girls.
Dame Louise Casey to “Support” Inquiry
In what appears designed as reassuring news, Starmer announced: “I can tell the house today, Mr Speaker, that Dame Louise Casey will now support the work of the inquiry.
“It will get to the truth. Injustice will have no place to hide,” he added.
However, Casey will be “supporting” rather than chairing the inquiry, leaving the fundamental question of leadership unresolved.
Casey’s rapid audit earlier this year found widespread ongoing problems with how the state understands and tackles grooming gang exploitation, providing the foundation for Starmer’s decision to launch the inquiry.
“Door Will Always Be Open”
Addressing the four survivors who quit the panel, Starmer said: “The door will always be open should they wish to return.”
The invitation rings hollow given the survivors resigned specifically because they felt ignored, controlled and manipulated – problems that persist without fundamental changes to how the inquiry operates.
Jessica: Would Rejoin “If Done Right Way”
One survivor who quit the panel, Jessica (not her real name), said she would be open to rejoining if new chairs are proposed and the process is reformed.
“But he’s definitely going to have to be doing the right way with the right people,” she stated.
“It’s going to take a lot to get that trust back. We have such little trust anywhere in these people. And to rejoin the panel is going to take a lot.”
Jessica outlined specific demands: “They need to relook at the potential chairs. And number one, I think they need to allow all survivors to attend all meetings, not just pick and choose who they want in the meetings because of the time frame.”
Her conditions reveal how extensively the government must reform its approach to have any hope of survivors returning.
Gamble and Hudson Both Gone
Jim Gamble’s withdrawal follows Annie Hudson’s departure announced yesterday, meaning both candidates survivors objected to have now walked away.
Gamble, a former deputy chief constable who headed the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, faced opposition because survivors argued police services “contributed most to the cover-up of the national mass rape and trafficking of children.
Hudson, a former director of children’s services, was similarly rejected because social services catastrophically failed grooming gang victims.
Why Both Candidates Withdrew
Both candidates reportedly withdrew citing intense media pressure and the toxic atmosphere created by survivors’ opposition and public scrutiny.
However, their departures vindicate survivors’ core argument: representatives of failed institutions should not investigate those failures.
If Gamble and Hudson couldn’t handle criticism during the selection process, they would have been unlikely to withstand the pressure of leading a years-long inquiry examining institutions they represented.
Back to Square One
With no viable candidates remaining, the government must restart its chair recruitment from scratch.
This means additional months of delay before an inquiry that was announced in June can even formally begin.
Survivors who have waited decades for accountability must now wait even longer whilst the government searches for someone acceptable.
Conservatives Demand Judge
The Conservative opposition has consistently demanded the inquiry be chaired by a senior judge to guarantee impartiality.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp argued that only someone from outside the failed institutions can credibly investigate what went wrong.
With both police and social work candidates having now withdrawn, the arguments for judicial leadership grow stronger.
Phillips Defended
Starmer defended Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips against calls for her resignation over comments disputing allegations the inquiry was being watered down.
“I respect the views of all the survivors, and there are different views, I accept that,” he said.
“But the Safeguarding Minister, I think, has probably more experience than any other person in this House in dealing with violence against women and girls.”
However, Phillips’s experience doesn’t address survivors’ complaints that she called their concerns “misinformation” despite them being based on direct participation in consultation processes.
Fundamental Credibility Crisis
The inquiry now faces a fundamental credibility crisis having lost:
- Both shortlisted chair candidates
- Four survivors from its oversight panel
- Public confidence in its independence
- Months of time that could have been spent investigating
What Happens Next
The government must now:
- Restart the chair recruitment process
- Rebuild trust with survivors who quit
- Address concerns about scope and focus
- Demonstrate the inquiry won’t be a whitewash
Each of these tasks will take months, pushing any actual investigative work further into the future.
Survivors’ Vindication
The collapse of the chair selection process vindicates survivors who warned that Gamble and Hudson were unsuitable choices.
Their willingness to quit the panel rather than legitimise a flawed process has forced the government to restart with candidates survivors find acceptable.
Political Embarrassment
For Starmer, the inquiry’s collapse represents a major political embarrassment.
Labour made grooming gangs a campaign issue, criticising Conservative inaction.
Now in government, they’ve produced an inquiry so flawed that survivors are walking away and candidates are withdrawing.
Trust Destroyed
Most fundamentally, the process has destroyed whatever fragile trust existed between survivors and the government conducting the inquiry.
Rebuilding that trust will require not just new candidates but fundamental reforms to how survivors are consulted and what role they play.
As the inquiry enters limbo with no chair, no active survivor panel, and no clear path forward, the question becomes whether it can be salvaged or whether survivors’ worst fears – that this represents another establishment cover-up – will prove accurate.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
Image Credit:
Jim Gamble being interviewed at the BBC Belfast Studio — photo by Hannahpaul42, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons. (Wikimedia Commons)
