These were the propellants for the blaze of rage fanned by the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, via his social media platform X, demanding a national public inquiry.
The announcement from Home Secretary Yvette Cooper does not amount to setting up a national public inquiry, but it is a clear nod to the demands of those who want one.
Prof Jay’s inquiry heard the testimony of 7,000 people and she has argued the focus must now be on action, on delivering changes.
How might the scope and magnitude of what the government does shift once the three-month national audit is done?
In the last few weeks, plenty of critics have said this whole row has amounted to grubbily politicising the victims of the most vile abuse.
“We couldn’t just leave it,” a high-ranking government official told me.
The political reality, in other words, was that demonstrable action was necessary. Ministers realized they had to take action because there had been a loud and furious public debate about child sexual exploitation for weeks.
An overwhelming sense of inertia—a shared perception that the state has failed to address heinous crimes, provide justice, and stop them from happening—is the main source of rage.
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, used his social media platform X to spread the flames of anger and call for a national public investigation.
The government was shaken by the clamor of the outcry, which was made by the Conservatives, Reform UK, and others.
Even though the government’s political rivals presented their arguments in the most direct manner, some Labour members publicly called for the government’s response to be more comprehensive. For example, Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, stated that a “limited” national inquiry should be conducted.
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s announcement is a blatant nod to the demands of those who want a national public inquiry, but it does not amount to establishing one.
Ministers are aware that some prominent voices, including Prof. Alexis Jay, the chair of the previous independent inquiry, contend that another one would be ineffective, but they hope it will at least lessen, if not completely eliminate, those claims of a cover-up.
7,000 people testified in Prof. Jay’s inquiry, and she has maintained that the emphasis now needs to be on taking action and bringing about change.
The government’s new strategy is still the subject of numerous unanswered questions.
Here are two to get you started.
In addition to Oldham, which towns will be chosen to create their own reviews?
How might the completion of the three-month national audit change the extent and size of what the government does?
Many critics have claimed in recent weeks that the entire controversy has amounted to despicably politicizing the people who have endured the most heinous abuse.
It is true that the campaign has been a little opportunistic.
However, the government has responded more quickly than it otherwise would have due to the issue’s sudden rise in prominence.
And one last thing.
For example, one government official texted me earlier with a hint of surprise and a link to a social media post, demonstrating how unconventional, even ridiculous, politics in 2025 has become.
Elon Musk had welcomed the home secretary’s announcement on X with caution.
Indeed, the way this announcement was received by a billionaire from the Pacific Coast thousands of miles away is important.
Given the platform he has given this debate in recent weeks, you can bet it does.