Raja Miah is sharing the evidence of Andy Burnham’s role in the Pakistani Rape gang cover-up on Twitter (now X) in bite sized chinks. The following are the first three parts in his series.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
On Tuesday, Raja Miah posted a video discussing Andy Burnham’s involvement in covering up the appalling crimes of Muslim rape gangs. The description below the video reads:
“Andy Burnham ran away from a doorstep interview last week. Someone filmed it. Someone else posted it on X. Having watched the exchange, I thought it was time to set out, in one place, exactly what his record is and exactly why he will not stand still long enough to answer for it.
“I have challenged him publicly for months. He came out and threatened me on X after I documented what had actually taken place. I used the timeline, the documents and the evidence, not his creative recollection. He then went silent. I am calling him out again. Name the time and the place, Andy. I will be there.
“What follows is not opinion. Every element of it is documented. I invite anyone defending his record to identify a single sentence that is untrue.”
Related: Angela Rayner: When election fraud meets Muslim rape gang cover-up
Starting on Wednesday, Miah has been tweeting a series of articles about Burnham’s involvement in the cover-up of the investigations into the Pakistani/Muslim rape gangs. The following are the first three parts. You can also find a version of the tweets on Miah’s website, Red Wall & the Rabble.
Table of Contents
Part 1: Andy Burnham Knew Better
By Raja Miah, 10 June 2026
Before anything else, understand who this man is.
Andy Burnham was the Shadow Home Secretary from around 2015 to 2017. He would have known everything there was to know about Rotherham. He would have known the Alexis Jay report, which exposed how more than 1,400 children were abused in that town while officials looked away, suppressed evidence, and attacked the people raising the alarm. He would have known Rochdale. He would have known the pattern.
Organised networks of predominantly Pakistani men, children in local authority care, police who chose not to see, councils who chose not to act, a political class that chose silence.
None of it would have been new to him when he walked into the Mayor’s office in 2017.
Go back further. Andy Burnham is the politician whose name is most associated with forcing the truth out of Hillsborough. He has posted a video of himself at Anfield, speaking at the memorial, calling it the moment his politics changed.
He campaigned for years on the argument that institutional cover-ups are broken open by one thing. Statutory powers to compel evidence and a legal duty of candour on public officials. That is his own position. His own words. He has campaigned to write the duty of candour into law. He sat with the Hillsborough families celebrating when they finally got it. He has used those families in his Makerfield campaign literature. He has used them.
He has always known what separates a process capable of extracting the truth from one that merely asks for it. The difference is statutory compulsion, sworn evidence, and a legal obligation to produce documents. Without those three things, you are asking institutions to confess to their own crimes. They will not. That is not cynicism. That is the lesson of every cover-up in modern British public life, and it is the lesson Burnham himself spent years teaching publicly.
His experience as Shadow Home Secretary, his knowledge of Rotherham and Rochdale, his campaigns on Hillsborough, none of this lowered the standard he would be held to. It raised it. He understood the landscape better than almost any politician in this country when he took office. He cannot claim ignorance. He knew what the tools were. He chose not to use them.
When he was given the power and the opportunity as Mayor of Greater Manchester to go after the rape gangs and expose what had been done to children across Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham chose the process that facilitated a cover up.
He did not make an error of judgment. He chose it deliberately, knowing what that choice would produce.
Ask him why he launched a 7-year series of powerless Assurance Reviews instead of demanding a National Inquiry.
Part 2: What Burnham Should Have Done
By Raja Miah, 11 June 2026
The BBC documentary The Betrayed Girls aired in July 2017. Burnham had been Mayor since May. He had been in post for two months when the programme confronted the country with what had been happening to children in Greater Manchester. Maggie Oliver was on that documentary. The evidence was there.
What he should have done was stand up and demand a statutory public inquiry. He could have said he did not have the powers to get to the truth. He could have said the government must come in, must compel the evidence, that he would not allow this to be managed at local level by the organisations responsible for the failure. He knew he did not have the powers to get to the truth.
Instead, he spent seven years commissioning a series of toothless, worthless processes, specifically in Oldham. Called Assurance Reviews, Burnham’s interventions could not compel a single witness, could not compel a single document, could not place anyone under oath, and could not name a single person responsible for the cover-up.
Those processes, across four separate publications failed to name a single person responsible. Burnham failed to hold a single person to account. Not one police officer was exposed, not one politician was identified, not one council official who had looked the other way while children were being raped was named. Worse than this, the people summoned could simply ignore the summons. The vast majority did.
Seven years. Not one person held to account. Yet Burnham celebrates it as an achievement. He uses the word BIGGEST to describe what he did.
The Reviews Were Built to Fail
The Oldham Assurance Review was requested by Oldham Council after their attempt to facilitate their own review collapsed. Shaun Fielding, then Oldham Council leader, ran to Andy Burnham to help. Let that settle. The body under scrutiny asked for its own review and was then allowed to help write the terms of reference under which it would be investigated.
Greater Manchester Police also sent amendments to the terms of reference. Read that again. The police force whose decisions regarding the rape gangs were being examined amended the document that defined what would and would not be examined. The council, the police, and the politicians all shaped the scope of what was supposed to hold them to account.
The subjects of the review then sat on the steering group that oversaw it.
GMCA lawyers shaped the drafting of the review itself. They delayed publication when Oldham Council warned that certain sections, their words, a direct quote from the correspondence, “could open Oldham Council, GMCA and the review team to legal action.“ The institution under scrutiny threatened legal action to sanitise the document examining its conduct, and it worked.
The terms of reference excluded organised crime. We now know these were not groups of men who happened to know each other. They were organised crime networks dealing drugs, trafficking children, operating across town lines and across years. Excluded.
Mosque safeguarding was excluded. The men came from communities with no safeguarding architecture, where the men running the mosques and the community centres were often the same men running the political operations that delivered votes to Labour. Excluded.
Postal vote fraud was excluded. The same network that operated the abuse also operated the vote harvesting. Excluded.
Schools were excluded entirely. Survivors of the Oldham rape gangs have confirmed to me that they were dragged into cars outside school gates. School staff have told me confidentially that they went to retrieve children from rape dens and brought them back in the next morning, from flats with nothing in them but mattresses. The places where children were taken to be gang raped were outside the scope of the review. Excluded.
The review covered only the years 2011 to 2014. Years of abuse before 2011, excluded. Years after 2014, excluded.
Within that limited window, every single case it examined confirmed what I had been saying for years. Every child it looked at had been a victim of the Pakistani rape gangs. Every single one.
The review confirmed taxi drivers were still being licensed despite evidence they had sexually assaulted children in their vehicles. No one could explain why this had been allowed to take place. Burnham’s expert team never stopped to ask.
Children’s homes were confirmed to have functioned as child brothels. Instead of being appalled and demanding answers from those involved, the report described the Council’s actions as placing all the children at risk of gang rape in a home near the traffickers and rapists as ‘innovative‘.
Despite everything, they were forced to admit that Shabir Ahmed, the ringleader of the Rochdale gang, had worked for a council body that gave him access to children. They failed to follow the trail to where and how many children he accessed. Confirming he was a Labour Party member, the review found nine separate occasions on which he should have been arrested and was not. Nobody was asked to explain why.
Selective Note Taking
When it came to taking testimony, the interviewees received questions in advance. They gave unsworn answers. They were then permitted to amend their own records before those records entered the file. The answers they gave were taken in private by Newsam and Ridgway without tape recorders. They made selective notes of what they considered important. Then GMCA lawyers could intervene in the records afterwards.
In the small print of the published report, there is a disclaimer. The review team accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided to it.
They could not compel a single witness to attend. Could not compel a single document to be produced. Placed no one under oath. Then published a disclaimer stating they take no position on whether anything they were told was true.
This is what Burnham called an investigation. Apparently, it was the biggest Britain had ever seen.
Part 3: “No Evidence of a Cover-Up” Is Not a Finding
By Raja Miah, 12 June 2026
When Andy Burnham’s Oldham Assurance Review was published, his expert investigator, Malcolm Newsam, stood up and said they had been “presented with no evidence“ of a cover-up. Not that there was no cover-up. That they had been presented with no evidence of one. Those are not the same statement. They are not even close to the same statement.
“No evidence of a cover-up“ is a finding. “We were presented with no evidence of a cover-up“ is a statement about what was handed to them by the organisations responsible for the cover-up.
The police handed them the evidence they wanted. The council handed them the evidence they needed. The politicians handed them nothing but words that could not be checked for accuracy. Nobody volunteered the evidence of their own wrongdoing. The process had no power to compel them to do so. Worse, Andy Burnham’s Assurance Review was never tasked with looking for a cover-up.
Investigating a cover-up was explicitly outside the terms of reference. Burnham’s experts did not even define what a cover-up would constitute. If you were going to look for something and report that it did not exist, the minimum you would do is define what it was you were looking for. They did not do that.
You cannot find evidence of something you were never commissioned to look for, using a methodology that guaranteed those responsible for the cover-up would never be presented with evidence of their own wrongdoing, then declare that there is no cover-up.
That is not an investigation. That is the Ministry of Truth.
Newsam stood at the front, having published the review with a disclaimer stating the authors took no responsibility for the accuracy of what they had been told, and said it was an amazing piece of work.
Within hours, Jim McMahon, Debbie Abrahams, and Angela Rayner, the Oldham MPs, one of whom would go on to become Deputy Prime Minister, issued a joint statement on parliamentary letterheaded paper.
They called Burnham’s Assurance Review “one of the most comprehensive safeguarding reviews undertaken.“ They declared it had “addressed head-on the false and often politically motivated conspiracy theories that claimed grooming gangs were operating under the protection of senior politicians.“ They stated they were “pleased that the report draws a line under this.”
Consider what I have described about how that review was constructed. The terms of reference were written by the organisations under scrutiny. They excluded schools, excluded organised crime, excluded mosques, excluded postal vote fraud. The interviewees who amended their own records. The disclaimer stated that the authors took no responsibility for the accuracy of what they were told. Ask yourself whether any of that is accurately describable as one of the most comprehensive safeguarding reviews ever undertaken.
The town’s Labour MPs then held an adjournment debate in Parliament. I was named in Parliament – under the protection of parliamentary privilege, which means they cannot be sued for it – as a far-right activist with links to child abuse. Jim McMahon and Debbie Abrahams stood in the House of Commons and did that, using the review Burnham commissioned as their authority.
Burnham commissioned the review that made all of this possible. He knew what was happening around him. He watched the MPs for his territory deploy his review against me in Parliament. He never corrected the misrepresentation. Not once. Not publicly. Not at the time.
If they had succeeded, if the review had held and the conspiracy theorist label had stuck, there would be no national inquiry. None of the national scrutiny that has followed would have taken place. It is only because a small group of campaigners in Oldham refused to accept the line being drawn that the line did not hold. Andy Burnham’s Assurance Review was the instrument of suppression. It very nearly worked.
The passive non-finding, “we were presented with no evidence,” was converted in writing on the day of publication into a positive declaration that the people telling the truth were liars. The man who built the instrument that made it possible said nothing. He now wants to be Prime Minister.
Three years later, in January 2025, forced by everything that had happened and the weight of accumulated evidence that the Manchester Evening News could not reach or manage, Burnham finally admitted his review had limitations.
“There’s a difference at a local level and a statutory public inquiry. There will always be limitations with what you can do with a local review. The review team could not compel someone to speak to them … That is something I couldn’t do at my level,” Andy Burnham said.
Three years. Three years in which he allowed that characterisation to stand. That there had been no cover-up. Three years in which I was on bail, charged, summoned to court, had my home ransacked by police officers, was threatened by Pakistani gangsters. Three years in which he said nothing to correct the record his party had built on the back of his review.
Those three years count. Those three years are evidence of Andy Burnham’s role in what took place. There is no running away from this. No matter how powerful he becomes.
Part 4 to follow.
Featured image: Andy Burnham. Taken from ‘Oldham CSE Report: Greater Manchester Mayor writes open letter to the people of Oldham’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 24 July 2022
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, Latest News, UK News
And yet the thick (and there is no known cure for thick), will vote for Burnham, beyond comprehension.