The Rape Gang Inquiry (the Lowe inquiry)
In June 2026, Rupert Lowe MP published a crowdfunded, non-statutory inquiry report into grooming gangs. It is the source of some of the most-shared figures in this debate. This page separates what is confirmed about it from what it alleges — using the same evidence tiers as the rest of this site.
Confirmed
- It exists and what it is. "The Rape Gang Inquiry Report" is a 219-page report published in June 2026, chaired by Rupert Lowe MP with an inquiry panel, funded by public donations through a crowdfunding campaign. Source: the inquiry's own site and the report itself.
- It is non-statutory. It was not established under the Inquiries Act 2005, had no legal power to compel documents or testimony, and its evidence came from witnesses who chose to come forward. This distinguishes it from the statutory Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs (Baroness Longfield), which has those powers. Context: House of Commons Library briefing.
- It heard survivor testimony. The report presents accounts from survivors and family members across many towns TESTIMONY. Testimony given to a non-statutory body is still testimony — it is evidence of individual experience, taken untested by cross-examination or corroborating disclosure.
- It reached Parliament. Early Day Motion 380 (tabled 16 June 2026) notes the report's publication and calls for action on its recommendations: EDM 380. Its chair has said he intends to use parliamentary privilege to name alleged perpetrators; this site will not repeat names unless and until they are established by a court.
- Where its headline number comes from. The report states that its national victim figure "originates directly from" a question asked in the House of Lords by Lord Pearson of Rannoch in May 2019, extrapolating from the Rotherham, Telford and Oxford findings — and the report itself concedes the figure "is not a precise count. No such count exists". Source: the report, pp. 12 and 113.
Alleged — and how to read it
- The national victim total. The report's claim of at least 250,000 victims UNVERIFIED Rape Gang Inquiry report is an extrapolation, not a count — scaling local inquiry estimates to the whole country. No official dataset supports a precise national figure; the Casey Audit found national prevalence data inadequate to produce one. Unverified cuts both ways: the true number is unknown, not proven lower.
- The geographic claim. Its appendix names 149 local authority districts UNVERIFIED Rape Gang Inquiry report as affected. The list mixes places with concluded convictions (Rotherham, Telford, Oxford) with places where the basis is witness contact with the inquiry. It does not publish a per-district evidence threshold, so the list as a whole cannot be independently checked. See it plotted honestly — split from the documented record — on our map.
- The perpetrator-profile claims. The report attributes offending overwhelmingly to one ethnic and religious profile, relying in part on a 2017 think-tank analysis CONTESTED. The Home Office's 2020 review concluded existing studies could not support reliable national conclusions on offender ethnicity, and the Casey Audit found ethnicity data missing from most police records — while criticising institutions for avoiding the question. The statutory inquiry's terms of reference now explicitly require it to examine the role of ethnicity, religion and culture. That is where a tested answer will come from.
Why we cover it this way
A non-statutory report is not nothing: survivor testimony matters, and this report demonstrably moved Parliament and public attention. But it is also not a statutory finding: nothing in it has been tested by compelled evidence or cross-examination. Treating its claims as established would repeat — in the opposite direction — the mistake this scandal is defined by: preferring a convenient story to a checkable one. We record what it says, grade what can be verified, and track the statutory processes that can actually settle the questions it raises: the Longfield inquiry and Operation Beaconport.
Think our grading of any claim here is wrong? Challenge it with a source via corrections — in either direction.