The United Kingdom is increasingly being rocked by a string of scandals that expose the alarming breakdown of the state’s basic functions. From the botched handling of COVID-19 contracts to the infected blood scandal and the Grenfell Tower fire, one common thread unites these crises: unelected bureaucrats at their heart. Shielded from accountability by a system designed to protect the status quo, these faceless officials wield immense power with little oversight. Unlike politicians, who can be voted out of office and face public scrutiny, these bureaucrats often escape the consequences of their failures, routinely failing upwards into promotions or being quietly reassigned to equally influential positions.
Consider the ongoing scandal of grooming gangs, better described as organized child rape gangs, which have operated in dozens of towns and cities across the UK. These atrocities unfolded in plain sight, enabled by a system that utterly failed the victims and their families.
Parents who sought to rescue their daughters from traffickers were sometimes arrested themselves, along with the victims, for being “drunk and disorderly”. The police, social workers, and other officials who turned a blind eye to these horrors have faced little to no accountability. Who were the decision-makers who allowed this to happen? Their identities remain largely
unknown.
The scale of this failure is almost incomprehensible, and the lack of accountability is a national disgrace. Public inquiries may provide a veneer of action, but they rarely lead to substantive change. Instead, they serve as lucrative opportunities for lawyers while leaving victims and their families without justice. This culture of impunity sends a clear message: those in power can fail without consequence.
The Post Office scandal is another glaring example of systemic failure. Innocent postmasters were falsely accused of theft due to faulty accounting software, leading to wrongful convictions, financial ruin, and even suicides. It is one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in modern British history. Yet, the architects of this disaster have faced little more than public shaming. Most moved on to other high-profile roles or retired comfortably.
If not for relentless media coverage, the public might never have learned the identities of those responsible. And even with this exposure, how many of them are behind bars today? None.
Instead, they’ve been rewarded with honors and cushy positions elsewhere. Compare this to the United States, where such a scandal would almost certainly result in criminal prosecutions and massive class-action lawsuits. Victims would see perpetrators publicly arrested and forced to answer for their actions in court.
The UK’s reliance on public inquiries as a mechanism for accountability is deeply flawed. These inquiries are lengthy, expensive, and often ineffective. Lawyers pocket millions in fees, but the bureaucrats and officials responsible for catastrophic failures rarely face real consequences. Stripping someone of an MBE or issuing a critical report does little to deter future misconduct.
Without the threat of prison sentences or significant financial penalties, there is no incentive for bureaucrats to act with integrity or competence. This seems to be a unique feature in the UK. In the United States for example, accountability is baked into the system in a way that is almost alien to us. Local district attorneys, who are elected and often harbor political ambitions, are incentivized to pursue high-profile cases. The “perp walk”—parading suspects in handcuffs for the media—is a common sight. Lawsuits against negligent officials and institutions can result in billions of dollars in compensation for victims.
This culture of accountability serves as a powerful deterrent against misconduct.
Had the grooming gang or Post Office scandals occurred in the US, the fallout would have been dramatically different. Police chiefs, social workers, and Post Office executives all would have faced criminal charges, public disgrace and prison time. Victims would have been compensated swiftly and substantially. The system, for all its flaws, would have ensured that justice was done. In the UK, however, the system is designed to protect its own. Unelected bureaucrats operate in a culture of mutual preservation, ensuring that failures are neither punished nor widely
acknowledged. This culture erodes public trust and leaves victims without recourse. It is a system that rewards mediocrity and punishes those who dare to challenge the status quo.
If the UK is to regain the trust of its citizens, it must adopt a more robust approach to accountability. This means criminal prosecutions for gross negligence, substantial financial penalties for institutions that fail in their duties, and systemic reforms to ensure transparency and justice. Without these changes, the UK will remain a country where failure is not just tolerated but rewarded, leaving a trail of victims in its wake.