KOGS in the Machine
When Survivor Support Organisations Became a Tool in the Systematic Cover-up of Child Exploitation
In the shadowy realm where power and accountability intersect, there exists a particularly insidious form of institutional deception. One that weaponises the very concept of victim empowerment to shield those responsible for catastrophic failures. Nowhere is this more evident than in the handling of child sexual exploitation cases, where authorities have perfected a system that appears to champion survivors while simultaneously ensuring their own protection.
The Architecture of Controlled Advocacy: Building the Perfect Shield
The greatest magic trick authorities pull when covering up systemic child abuse isn't making evidence disappear - it's making us believe survivors are leading the charge. This sleight of hand begins with a seemingly progressive concept: investigations should be "survivor-led." On its face, this approach sounds not just reasonable but morally imperative. Who better to guide us through the labyrinth of institutional failure than those who suffered its consequences?
Yet beneath this veneer of empowerment lies a sophisticated mechanism of control and containment. By designating investigations as "survivor-led," authorities create a framework where they can selectively amplify certain voices while marginalising others. The result is a carefully orchestrated narrative that gives the appearance of accountability without delivering its substance.
The dark irony is unmistakable: the very principle that should empower survivors becomes the tool that constrains them.
Following the Money Trail: How Funding Creates Compliance
The implementation of this strategy follows a predictable pattern. First, authorities identify and fund organisations that work with survivors. These relationships begin innocuously enough, after all, survivor support services require resources. But over time, these financial ties create dangerous dependencies. Organisations that once operated as independent advocates slowly transform into extensions of the very system they should be scrutinising.
The mathematics of survival is simple: funding equals existence. For many support organisations, particularly in times of austerity and budget cuts, government grants and local authority contracts represent lifelines. This reality creates an unspoken but powerful incentive structure. One that rewards compliance and punishes dissent.
As these organisations become embedded within the institutional framework, their priorities inevitably shift. The imperative to maintain relationships with funders begins to compete with, and sometimes overshadow, their mandate to advocate fearlessly for those they serve. This is not to suggest malice or corruption on the part of these organizations; rather, it reflects the subtle ways in which financial dependency shapes organisational behavior over time.
Selective Amplification: Curating the 'Right Kind' of Survivor Voices
Within this ecosystem, a process of natural selection determines which survivor voices receive platforms and which remain unheard. Those whose testimonies align with institutional narratives, acknowledging failures while stopping short of identifying systemic rot or naming powerful figures, find themselves elevated as representatives of the "survivor perspective."
Meanwhile, survivors who push for deeper accountability, who refuse to accept narrow parameters of investigation, or who insist on examining uncomfortable connections between power structures and abuse, find themselves increasingly isolated. Their perspectives are deemed "too political," "too emotional," or "unrealistic" about the constraints of official processes.
This curation of acceptable survivor voices serves a dual purpose: it creates the impression of survivor inclusion while ensuring that the most challenging questions never make it to the table. The public sees survivors participating and assumes justice is being served. What remains invisible is the careful filtering that has occurred behind the scenes.
The Burden Shift: When Victims Become Responsible for Justice
At the heart of this deception lies a fundamental misrepresentation of what survivors contribute to justice processes. In any properly functioning system, survivors provide critical evidence through their testimonies. Acts requiring immense courage and often undertaken at great personal cost. Their experiences offer invaluable insights into how systems failed and how they might be reformed.
What survivors should not be asked to do, however, is to carry the burden of investigation itself. We would never ask victims of other serious crimes to structure investigations, determine which leads to follow, or decide which powerful figures deserve scrutiny. We understand intuitively that this responsibility belongs to independent investigators, law enforcement agencies, and oversight bodies equipped with the necessary resources and authority.
By shifting these responsibilities onto survivors and their support organisations, authorities engage in a form of abdication masquerading as empowerment. The message is subtle but clear: "We're giving you a voice," when what's really happening is "We're giving you a burden that isn't yours to carry."
The Crowther Connection: Using Survivors as a Shield Against Criticism
Tom Crowther KC's approach to reviewing institutional failures in Oldham exemplifies this sophisticated form of deflection. By frequently invoking survivors and positioning his inquiry as "survivor centred," he creates a protective shield around his methodology. Any criticism of the review's scope, pace, or conclusions can be reframed as an attack on survivors themselves. A rhetorical manoeuvre that effectively silences legitimate questions about the investigation's independence and rigour.
This positioning is particularly effective because it leverages genuine public sympathy for survivors. Who would dare question a process that claims to centre those who have suffered the most? The emotional weight of survivor trauma becomes a tool to deflect scrutiny, turning legitimate questions about institutional accountability into apparent attacks on victim advocacy.
The true measure of an investigation, however, isn't in how frequently it references survivors but in its willingness to follow evidence wherever it leads, even when that path threatens powerful interests. By this standard, many "survivor-led" investigations fall woefully short, carefully navigating around the most damning truths to ensure that key institutions and individuals remain largely unscathed.
Institutional Capture in Action: KOGS as a Case Study in Controlled Advocacy
The relationship between Oldham Council, Greater Manchester Police, and the organisation Keeping Our Girls Safe (KOGS) offers a textbook example of how this system operates in practice. By recruiting and funding an organisation ostensibly dedicated to protecting vulnerable girls, local authorities create the appearance of meaningful action while effectively controlling the narrative.
This relationship raises profound questions about independence and effectiveness. An organisation truly committed to exposing and preventing Pakistani rape gangs in Oldham should, after years of operation, have an extensive record of public advocacy, survivor support, and institutional criticism. The absence of such a record suggests a different function, one more aligned with institutional interests than with uncompromising advocacy. Why else are both Gtr Manchester Police and Oldham Council so keen to fund and promote KOGS?
Questions That Matter: What KOGS Cannot or Will Not Answer
Simple questions reveal the nature of this relationship:
- How many survivors of Pakistani rape gangs has KOGS supported since its inception in 2011?
- What level of funding has it received from the council and police?
- Where are its public statements, reports, or press releases raising awareness about these specific exploitation patterns in Oldham?
The likely paucity of answers to these questions speaks volumes about the true purpose such organisations serve within the larger ecosystem of institutional self-protection.
The True Cost: Justice Denied
The most devastating consequence of this sophisticated shell game is not just that it shields institutions from accountability, it's that it perpetuates the very betrayal that survivors have already experienced. Having been failed once by systems that should have protected them, survivors are failed again by processes that use their pain as currency while denying them genuine justice.
True accountability would mean independent investigations with the power and mandate to expose failures at every level, from frontline services to the highest echelons of institutional leadership. It would mean following evidence without regard for reputational damage or political consequences. Most importantly, it would mean acknowledging that while survivor perspectives are essential, the responsibility for uncovering truth belongs to the system, not to those it has already failed.
What we see instead are carefully managed processes that create the illusion of reckoning while ensuring that the most damaging revelations remain contained. These are not investigations aimed at transformation; they are exercises in damage control.
Beyond Tokenism: What Real Accountability Looks Like
Genuine accountability begins with recognition that survivors deserve both voice and relief. Their perspectives should inform investigations, but the burden of driving those investigations should not fall on their shoulders. It requires truly independent inquiries, free from the influence of the very institutions being scrutinised.
Most critically, it demands a fundamental shift in how we understand institutional responsibility. The question should never be "how can we manage this crisis?" but rather "how did our systems enable this abuse, and what must change to ensure it never happens again?" This means examining not just individual failures but the cultural and structural factors that allowed those failures to occur and persist.
Real accountability also requires consequences, not merely for frontline workers who missed warning signs, but for senior leaders who created or maintained systems where such oversights were possible or even inevitable. Without meaningful consequences, reviews and investigations become performative exercises that change little in the underlying power dynamics.
Breaking the Cogs: Pathways to Genuine Accountability
Breaking this cycle of institutional deception requires vigilance from multiple quarters. Journalists must scrutinise not just the existence of investigations but their structure and limitations. Advocacy organisations must maintain independence, even when it threatens funding relationships. Politicians must prioritise truth over damage limitation. And the public must learn to distinguish between processes that genuinely empower survivors and those that merely use them as shields.
Most importantly, we must recalibrate our understanding of what survivors are owed. They deserve not just acknowledgment and support, but the dignity of a justice process that doesn't place the burden of institutional reform on their shoulders. They deserve investigations that honour their experiences by fearlessly pursuing accountability, regardless of where that pursuit leads.
The current approach, where "survivor-led" becomes a convenient cover for institutional self-protection, represents not just a failure of accountability but a profound ethical breach. It transforms survivors from individuals deserving justice into utilities serving institutional interests. This is not empowerment; it is exploitation wearing the mask of compassion.
From Watchdogs to Lapdogs: The Evolution of Compromised Advocacy
Understanding this sophisticated form of institutional deception is the first step toward dismantling it. When we hear authorities invoke survivors as justification for limited investigations, we must ask who is truly being protected. When we see organisations supposedly advocating for victims while remaining silent about powerful perpetrators, we must question where their loyalties ultimately lie.
True justice doesn't hide behind survivors, it stands beside them, fearlessly pursuing truth no matter where it leads. What we're witnessing in cases like Oldham isn't justice but damage control, another chapter in a long history of institutional betrayal disguised as concern.
The path to genuine accountability begins with recognising this deception for what it is: not a commitment to survivor empowerment, but its strategic simulation. Only when we see through this illusion can we begin to build systems of accountability worthy of those who have suffered and continue to suffer from their absence.
Raja Miah MBE
If you are coming to me new, my name is Raja Miah MBE. I am responsible for leading a six year campaign that blew the lid off how Labour Party politicians were involved in protecting Pakistani Rape Gangs.
You won’t find me on any mainstream news channel nor featured in the legacy press. WITH EVIDENCE, I take this to a place from where there is no coming back for some of the most powerful politicians in the country. My work is free for all. No paywalls. No restrictions. No exclusions of any kind.
We have come a long way on this journey. Nonetheless, we have a long way yet to go. Unfortunately, our numbers aren’t where they need to be. We are up against a powerful machine: legacy media, politicians, police and public officials working together to bury the scale of this cover-up. To fight back, we need to grow.
I have no corporate backers. No political sponsors. No safety net. Just the truth - and the cost of exposing it.
This work survives because ordinary people understand what’s at stake. My April goal: 100 new paid subscribers to finish replacing the supporters I lost when all my content after I removed all my paywalls to access my work.
Just £3 a month, or £30 a year. How many of you will honestly miss the equivalent of 75p a week? Pennies to most, it means everything to me.
Prefer a one-time contribution?
👉 http://BuyMeACoffee.com/recusantnine
👉 http://paypal.me/RecusantNine
If you are one of the many that have taken value from my work. Please help me. Without your help, these people will win and we will go back to where we were.
Raja 🙏