Cars Outside the Care Home: Fiona Goddard’s Bradford Testimony
In an interview with Andrew Gold, Fiona Goddard described how organised abusers found children waiting outside a Bradford care home while police and social services recorded the danger but failed to remove her from it. Some of her latest allegations remain to be proved. The institutional failure at the centre of her case has already been admitted.
On 2 April 2026, Andrew Gold’s Heretics YouTube channel premiered an interview with Fiona Goddard under the title What I Saw At The Top of the UK’s Secret P*phile Network. It began with an allegation which, if supported by the records, would compress much of Britain’s grooming-gang scandal into a single telephone call.
“My mom reported me missing,” Goddard said, “and she described that I’d been getting picked up by Asian men in cars.” According to her account, the call-handler replied that the description was racist and that her mother “should be glad that I was being taught a different culture”.¹
No recording or contemporaneous log of that exchange has yet been placed in the public domain. It remains Goddard’s testimony and must be reported as such. She also told Gold that the mother of another vulnerable girl received a similar rebuke from a police call-handler in 2025 after referring to an older Asian man. The alleged repetition, seventeen years later, makes the claim important enough to investigate rather than simply repeat.
The statutory inquiry should obtain any surviving recordings, missing-person reports, call logs, supervisory records and training materials. It should establish whether these remarks were made, who made them and whether police staff had been encouraged to regard the accurate description of a suspected offender as a form of prejudice.
A mother reporting a missing child is not engaged in a seminar on race relations. She is trying to tell the police whom to look for.
The wider history is no longer a matter of allegation alone. Goddard entered local-authority care at thirteen and was placed in a Bradford children’s home in 2008. She was groomed and sexually exploited by adult men over several years and became pregnant at fifteen. In February 2019, nine men received prison sentences totalling more than 132 years for offences against Goddard and another girl, including rape, sexual assault and inciting child prostitution.²
Documents subsequently obtained by ITV News show that professionals had identified the danger. Supervision records described Goddard as being at a “high level of risk from unknown males” and noted that she was being collected during the early hours by unidentified cars. Yet the home’s policy was not to report the matter to police unless there was a significant change in her behaviour or staff witnessed her being dragged into a car. The agreed action was to record registration numbers.
An independent review found that she went missing “almost on a daily basis”. Police reportedly considered her sufficiently “street-wise” to look after herself. A former care worker said she contacted police and social services so often that she was warned to stop wasting police time.³
This was not a danger which professionals failed to notice. It had been identified, discussed and written down. The failure followed recognition.
The description “street-wise” reveals how responsibility was inverted. The adults waiting outside the home receded into the background. A child’s ability to survive among them became an argument for leaving her there.
Bradford Council has acknowledged serious failings and apologised to Goddard. “All agencies had a duty to protect her,” the council said in 2025, “and it’s clear that didn’t happen.” West Yorkshire Police described her case as “truly appalling”, while pointing to changes made since the exposure of comparable failures elsewhere.³
There is, therefore, no serious dispute over whether Goddard was failed. The outstanding questions concern the nature of that failure, the decisions of particular officials and whether neglect was ever accompanied by obstruction or concealment.
Her interview with Gold contains allegations which earlier reports did not settle. Goddard said that the home had been targeted before she arrived and that staff knew cars waited outside for girls. “They actively from the beginning would blame the girls straight away,” she recalled. “As soon as we ended up in them circles, then they just kind of washed their hands of us.”¹
She described how attention and small gifts first made the men appear preferable to the instability of institutional care. Staff changed shifts; affection was temporary; nobody seemed to belong permanently to the child. The men supplied what looked like attention before turning dependency into control.
“By the time something bad did happen,” she said, “we were already in far too deep to know how to get out.”¹
On her fourteenth birthday, Goddard alleges, she returned to the home after being drugged and suffering a fit. She had vomit in her hair and told staff what had happened. She says she was called a “drama queen” and left in bed for three days without proper medical attention. When staff tried to have her arrested, according to her account, a police officer refused to take her because her condition required treatment.
The interview also raises serious questions about later accommodation decisions. Goddard says that, after several years of being recognised as at risk of child sexual exploitation, she was placed in Bradford hotels owned by relatives of men involved in the networks or regularly used by them.
“They were using the taxpayers’ money then to facilitate me living in a hotel at sixteen year old that was used by rape gangs,” she told Gold.¹
This allegation requires documentary verification. Placement records, ownership details, safeguarding assessments and internal correspondence should show which premises were used, what officials knew about them and whether connections with suspected offenders had been identified.
Goddard says the hotel placements left her without stability or ordinary means of supporting herself. She had no proper cooking facilities and became increasingly reliant upon the men. The state’s answer to a child being exploited through dependency appears, on her account, to have been a placement which deepened that dependency.
After becoming pregnant, she asked to be moved out of Bradford. Goddard alleges that she was told it would be “too much funding to waste on someone like me”. She was placed instead in a mother-and-baby unit on the same road as the care home from which she had been targeted.
Goddard says her daughter was later removed because court documents described the environment as unsafe. “They said in the court documents that I was exposed to a paedophile and it wasn’t a safe environment for a child,” she recalled. “But yet they left me.”¹
The point does not require rhetorical embellishment. If her account and the records agree, the state recognised that the surroundings were unsafe for the baby while leaving the young mother within them.
These decisions must not be dissolved into the phrase “systemic failure”. Systems do not select hotels, reject relocation requests or determine that protection would cost too much. Public officials acting under delegated authority make those choices.
Goddard’s account of the subsequent police investigation is equally troubling. In 2013, officers approached her after finding her name during another inquiry. She says she gave them names, addresses and a detailed account of abuse by numerous men. The intelligence was not submitted for fourteen months.
She told Gold that it was finally entered on the day police received advance notice that BBC Look North would report upon her care records. The officer concerned reportedly said she had forgotten to submit it.
The chronology should be capable of precise verification. Police intelligence systems record dates, users and actions. The inquiry can establish when Goddard was interviewed, when the intelligence was drafted, who retained it, when it was submitted and what communication had been received from the BBC.
Goddard also says access to her files was restricted across local services because investigators told her: “We don’t know how deep this goes.” She believes that people connected with the networks may have occupied positions within public bodies or supplied information to offenders.¹
The available evidence does not establish that conclusion. Restricted access may be a routine means of protecting a sensitive investigation. It may also indicate that investigators feared unauthorised disclosure. The inquiry should identify who ordered the restrictions and why. A suspicion of institutional penetration must not be promoted as fact, but neither should it be left unexamined because the implications are uncomfortable.
The word “grooming” is sometimes criticised for sounding too mild. Goddard nevertheless insists that it remains essential because it describes how the criminal system worked. The men did not rely upon sexual violence alone. They established emotional dependence, introduced drugs, separated children from trustworthy adults and gradually replaced affection with coercion.
“They were adults. We were children,” she said. “There was a power imbalance from the get-go.”¹
Once the victims had become attached, threats and violence kept them in place. Goddard described being shown images of severe violence, being made to clean up after stabbings and living under the threat that she could be killed. Even after recognising the abuse, she remained emotionally connected to some of the perpetrators.
Her compressed description of the networks was memorable: “If a cult and a mafia had a baby, then you’d get the grooming gangs.”¹ The phrase is not a legal definition, but it captures the conjunction of psychological conditioning, organised criminality and collective intimidation.
Baroness Louise Casey’s national audit reached similar conclusions about the general pattern. Gifts, alcohol, drugs, false affection, threats and violence were used to exploit imbalances of power. Children could appear to participate willingly while lacking any meaningful freedom from the adults controlling them.⁴
Casey also examined the “adultification” of victims. Children in care were too often treated as more mature, responsible and resilient than they were. Anger, sexualised behaviour, substance abuse and repeated absences were interpreted as misconduct rather than evidence of exploitation.
In more than two-thirds of the serious case reviews sampled by Casey, children experienced sexual exploitation while in care, and the abuse often began after the state had assumed responsibility for them. The supposed place of safety became the location from which offenders selected victims.⁴
Goddard’s experience is a severe example. Her absences, instability and criminal involvement counted against her credibility when they were consequences of the control exercised over her. The more successfully the men damaged her, the easier it became for professionals to treat her as the problem.
Difficult children remain children. A groomed adolescent may lie, defend an offender, refuse help or return repeatedly to danger. Those behaviours complicate intervention; they do not extinguish the duty to intervene.
The obligation was greater because Goddard was in state care. A local authority which assumes the position of parent cannot retreat when the child becomes troublesome, chaotic or expensive. Her vulnerability was the reason for the duty, not an excuse for failing to discharge it.
The question of ethnicity requires the same discipline applied to the institutional allegations. Goddard says her principal abusers were Pakistani Muslim men and that racial and religious contempt formed part of their treatment of white girls. She recalls being called a “white slag” and being told that girls like her were for sexual use while Pakistani women were reserved for marriage.
She believes the abuse had racial, religious, misogynistic and criminal dimensions. She also told Gold that Muslim girls were targeted, particularly those in care or regarded as dishonourable by their families, as were girls from Eastern European backgrounds. Her testimony does not support the claim that every victim or offender belonged to one ethnic group.¹
Nor can one survivor’s account establish a national demographic pattern. Casey found that ethnicity was still unrecorded for two-thirds of perpetrators in the principal national datasets, making a reliable national conclusion impossible.⁴
More complete local information nevertheless revealed patterns which cannot honestly be dismissed. West Yorkshire Police data covering 2020 to 2024 recorded 35 per cent of identified child-sexual-exploitation suspects as Asian, compared with an Asian share of approximately 16 per cent of the local population. White suspects constituted 34 per cent, against a White population share of approximately 77 per cent. Casey found disproportionate representation of Asian suspects in West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire.⁴
This evidence does not confer collective guilt upon British Muslims or people of Pakistani origin. It does require investigation into why particular networks developed in particular places and why institutions were reluctant to describe them accurately.
Religious doctrine alone cannot settle the cultural question. Islam condemns rape and sexual exploitation. Catholicism condemns the abuse of children. Yet investigations into clerical abuse properly examined clerical culture, institutional loyalty, secrecy and distorted uses of authority. A religion’s formal prohibition of a crime does not make the conduct of its adherents or institutions irrelevant.
Goddard’s own formulation was blunt. “I was sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism,” she told Gold. She nevertheless qualified the point by referring also to misogyny and class: “We were kids in care. We weren’t seen as worth it. We had no one to fight for us.”¹
That combination is more persuasive than a single-cause explanation. Racial anxiety may have discouraged intervention; misogyny made the girls easier to blame; class prejudice reduced their perceived value; institutional self-protection discouraged difficult inquiries. The offenders learnt how much they could do without consequence.
Goddard has asked Muslim communities to stand publicly with survivors and reject convicted offenders rather than quietly restore them to communal respectability. She also acknowledged Muslims who have supported her, sometimes at considerable personal cost.
Her appeal is for visible moral separation from the criminals, not collective confession by the innocent. Denial protects neither Islam nor community relations. It protects offenders and confirms the suspicion that communal reputation matters more than abused children.
The new statutory inquiry has the remit to examine these questions. Its terms of reference include the conduct of individuals and institutions, the treatment of children in care, professional cultures, ethnicity, religion, intentional or unintentional inaction and possible cover-ups. Criminal allegations arising from its evidence are to be referred to Operation Beaconport, overseen by the National Crime Agency.⁵
On 24 June 2026, Bradford and Keighley were named among the inquiry’s first local investigations, alongside Oldham and London. Public accountability hearings are due to examine why more than 800 recommendations from earlier reviews were not consistently implemented.⁵
The number is an indictment in itself. Britain has not lacked inquiries, policies, safeguarding language or promises of reform. It has repeatedly failed to turn knowledge into action when action carried financial, political or reputational cost.
Confidence in the present inquiry had already been damaged before Baroness Anne Longfield was appointed to chair it. Goddard resigned from the Government’s Victims and Survivors Liaison Panel in October 2025, alleging “secretive conduct”, a “toxic, fearful environment” and “condescending and controlling language” towards survivors. She feared that broadening the inquiry would dilute its focus and objected to prospective chairmen drawn from policing and social work. The Home Office denied that the investigation was being weakened.⁶
Nuntiatoria has followed the development of the inquiry, Labour’s initial reluctance, Rupert Lowe’s publicly funded hearings, Maggie Oliver’s legal action over unimplemented reforms, and the unequal treatment of religious and cultural institutions. The political architecture matters, but Goddard’s testimony returns the scandal to its proper measure: an endangered child and the adults who possessed the authority to protect her.⁷
The inquiry must now recover the documents, establish the chronology and identify the decision-makers. It should distinguish error from negligence, cowardice from misconduct, and administrative failure from criminal complicity. Another general finding that “agencies should have worked together more effectively” would add little to the hundreds already gathering dust.
Where evidence discloses professional misconduct, it should be referred to the appropriate regulator. Where it suggests deliberate concealment, falsification, corrupt disclosure or assistance to offenders, it belongs with criminal investigators. Retirement and the passage of time are not forms of accountability.
Catholic moral teaching does not grade the worth of children according to their behaviour. The addicted, angry, apparently promiscuous or criminally exploited child remains a child. Our Lord’s warning concerning those who scandalise “one of these little ones” contains no exemption for officials who had completed a risk assessment or feared causing communal offence.⁸
Near the end of Gold’s interview, Goddard was asked whom she most admired. She named her grandmother.
When Goddard called for help, her grandmother went to the houses of dangerous men and brought her out. She delivered food when the men took Goddard’s money, paid for gas and electricity, and secretly recorded meetings with social services because she feared the official version would not reflect what had occurred.
“She didn’t bow down to the pressure of political correctness or whatever else was manipulating it,” Goddard said. “She fought for me.”¹
Her grandmother had no statutory powers, professional training or multi-agency safeguarding plan. She understood that a child was in danger and went to fetch her.
Bradford’s investigators will examine thousands of pages and hear institutions defended by experienced lawyers. They should remember the woman who possessed fewer resources, less information and no public authority—and who still knew what duty required.
¹ Andrew Gold, interview with Fiona Goddard, “What I Saw At The Top of the UK’s Secret P*phile Network”, Heretics, YouTube, premiered 2 April 2026; working transcript supplied to Nuntiatoria.
² ITV News Calendar, “Nine men, guilty of abusing two girls, jailed for total of 132 years”, 27 February 2019.
³ ITV News Calendar, “Bradford care worker told not to report teen’s abuse ‘unless she is dragged into car’”, 11 September 2025.
⁴ Baroness Louise Casey of Blackstock, National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, Home Office, June 2025; accessible edition updated 15 January 2026.
⁵ Home Office, Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs: Terms of Reference, 31 March 2026; Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs, “Inquiry announces first local investigations and national hearings”, 24 June 2026.
⁶ ITV News Calendar, “Bradford grooming victim resigns from government panel due to ‘toxic’ environment”, 20 October 2025; Rajeev Syal, “Grooming gang victim quits inquiry panel over ‘condescending language towards survivors’”, The Guardian, 20 October 2025.
⁷ Nuntiatoria, “Sadiq Khan’s Equivocation on Grooming Gangs in London Raises Questions of Accountability”, 20 October 2025; “The Reluctant Reckoning: Labour’s Long Shadow over the Grooming Gangs Inquiry”, 22 October 2025; “The Rape Gang Inquiry: A Public-Funded Probe into Decade-Spanning Abuse Failures”, 6 February 2026; “Unequal Reckonings: Clerical Abuse, Grooming Gangs, and the Politics of Religious Accountability”, 13 February 2026; “Seven Years, £200 Million, and Still No Action: Maggie Oliver Takes the Government to Court”, 4 March 2026; “Courts, Citizens, and the Demand for Truth: Three Fronts in Britain’s Grooming Gangs Reckoning”, 5 March 2026.
⁸ St Matthew 18:6, Douay-Rheims.
RELATED ARTICLES
LATEST ARTICLES
- Today’s Mass: October 26 St Evaristus of RomeSt. Evaristus was the son of a Greek Jew, originally from Bethlehem, and was the sixth Pope of the Catholic Church.
- Today’s homily: Christ the KingThe homily reflects on Christ’s kingship as seen in the Gospel narrative. It contrasts earthly authority with divine truth, emphasising that true allegiance to God requires genuine obedience and transformation. Believers are called to examine their personal commitments and respond to Christ’s demands in everyday life, ultimately recognising their identity as bearers of God’s image.
- Sermon for Christ the KingToday marks the celebration of Christ the King and the Twenty Second Sunday after Pentecost, a feast asserting Christ’s sovereignty against totalitarianism. St. Paul emphasised Christ’s supremacy over power and principalities, challenging early Gnostic beliefs. The early Church’s victory over evil is affirmed in Christ’s resurrection, offering hope and unity amidst contemporary struggles.
- Today’s Mass: October 25 SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, SUPREME KINGThe Feast of the Sovereignty of Our Lord Jesus Christ celebrates Christ’s dual kingship by birth and conquest. Established by Pius XI, it aims to deepen faith and counter anti-clericalism. The liturgical observance underscores His authority as King, advocating for societal recognition of His reign to bring peace and harmony.
- TRADITION BEHIND THE FENCEThe Vatican’s prohibition of the traditional Ad Petri Sedem pilgrimage to St Peter’s Basilica has sparked controversy, especially among traditional Catholics. While some cite scheduling conflicts, the broader issue lies in the restrictive policies of Traditionis custodes, which may confine traditional liturgical practices to specific enclaves, risking the transmission and recognition of Catholic Tradition within the wider Church.
Leave a Reply