FeaturedPolitics

POLL: Should Sadiq Khan resign over grooming gang scandal? | Politics | News

Sadiq Khan is facing calls to resign after a bombshell investigation suggested he personally reviewed reports detailing child grooming horrors – yet publicly insisted no such gangs operated in the capital. The Daily Express and MyLondon probe uncovered six victim cases in official Inspectorate reports from 2016 to 2025, describing girls as young as 13 plied with drugs, gang-raped in hotels, and threatened with death.

Whistleblower Maggie Oliver, who exposed Rochdale’s scandal, slammed the “red flags” as identical patterns of cover-up, declaring three cases clear grooming gang abuses. The scandal erupted as GB News reported Mr Khan’s “untrustworthy” denials, with ex-detective Jon Wedger alleging organised child prostitution thrives under his watch. WION highlighted claims of a Met Police whistleblower accusing the Mayor of burying evidence, even as Sharia law fears swirl in affected communities.

Should Sadiq Khan resign over grooming gang scandal? What do you think? Vote in our poll and join the debate in the comments section. Can’t see the poll below? Click here

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp blasted Khan for “facilitating a cover-up,” demanding accountability to prevent Rotherham-style failures. Reform UK’s Lee Anderson fumed: “Serious questions to answer – survivors deserve justice, not blindness.”

In a dramatic shift, Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley admitted a “steady flow” of multi-offender probes post-inquiry, with hundreds of cases flagged for review under the Home Office’s Operation Beaconport. Euronews notes the row’s resurgence, fuelled by far-right voices like Elon Musk amplifying survivor pleas.

An anonymous victim accused Khan of “gaslighting” survivors: “Two of London’s most powerful men denying our trauma? Shameful.” Khan’s office insists child safety is paramount, touting £15.6m in anti-exploitation funding.

With protests brewing and opposition baying for blood, can Khan survive? Do you want him gone?

Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 95