Auyub Khan’s contribution to the grooming gangs debate has triggered strong reactions. In a discussion focused on victim testimony, institutional failures, and accountability, Khan used his time to argue that the issue should not be framed around religion or ethnicity, and that white men commit these offences at a significantly higher rate overall.

The speech has been accused of deflecting attention away from the specific patterns of group-based child sexual exploitation that have been documented in multiple towns across England.

What Khan Actually Said

Khan began by rejecting the idea that grooming and abuse are the product of any particular ethnicity, religion, or nationality. He stated that these are crimes “rooted in power, misogyny, coercion and the exploitation of vulnerability.”

He then cited Ministry of Justice data from 2020 showing that more than 88% of prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences with an associated child sexual abuse element were white, while fewer than 6% were Asian.

Khan argued that no serious person would claim white people are “inherently more likely” to commit child sexual abuse because of their ethnicity, and warned against drawing “sweeping conclusions about communities of millions from the crimes of around 16,000.”

He also criticised what he described as selective outrage — pointing out that when perpetrators are from minority backgrounds, identity is often emphasised, but when victims are from minority communities, some of the same voices suddenly argue that “rape is rape” and identity should not be highlighted.

The Fair Points in His Argument

Khan made several points that are difficult to disagree with in principle.

Nobody serious should blame entire communities for the crimes of individuals. Collective punishment or bigotry has no place in any serious discussion of justice. Data on ethnicity should be collected and published transparently, but for the right reasons — to protect children and secure convictions, not to fuel hatred.

These are reasonable positions. Most people would agree that facts and compassion should guide the response, not prejudice.

Why the Speech Felt Like Deflection

The controversy stems from the framing and timing of Khan’s intervention.

The grooming gangs scandal is not primarily a debate about overall rates of child sexual abuse in Britain. It is about specific, documented patterns of group-based exploitation, often involving networks of men from particular backgrounds, and repeated failures by local authorities, police, and social services to act — in some cases allegedly because of fears around racism and community tensions.

The Victims and Institutional Failure

The debate exists because victims and whistleblowers have said they were ignored, dismissed, or actively discouraged from speaking out. Some were threatened. Some were treated as troublemakers. Families begged for help and were let down.

The Double Standard Claim

Khan accused some people of applying double standards: emphasising ethnicity when the perpetrator is from a minority background, but downplaying it when the perpetrator is white.

The Core Question

Auyub Khan made some fair points about avoiding collective blame and the need for facts over prejudice. Those arguments are valid and important.

However, many people felt the speech used those arguments to shift the focus away from the victims and the specific institutional failures at the heart of the grooming gangs scandal. Instead of directly addressing why authorities in multiple towns allegedly failed to protect children, the intervention spent significant time defending minority communities from unfair generalisation.

That distinction matters. When children have been failed on this scale, parliament’s first duty is to the truth — however uncomfortable — not to managing sensitivities.