IT’S EASY to get sucked into the online fight between Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, and the British government – https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/elon-musk-keir-starmer-grooming-gangs-b1203090.html – over the rape gangs scandal. But it risks us losing sight of what really matters: the victims and their needs.

The scandal has been laid out by reports on places like Rotherham, Telford and Rochdale: thousands of girls, mostly white, were raped and abused, often in sadistic ways, by organised networks of abusers, who were disproportionately of Pakistani origin.

The abuse, and the revelations that officials in local government and the police failed to stop it, in many cases out of a fear of looking racist, shame our country.

However, there has been no definitive report looking at the issue on a national level.

So far, the government’s response to demands for such a national inquiry has been to point to the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA) – https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/inquiry/final-report.html – with Labour ministers referring to its 20 recommendations and seven years of work.

But what did IICSA actually say about grooming gangs? Set up in 2014, it burnt rapidly through three chairs before Alexis Jay, who led the first report into the rape gangs in Rotherham – https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/279/independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-exploitation-in-rotherham – was appointed in 2016. She led it until it published its final report in 2022.

During this period, numerous reports were published on specific subjects, such as abuse in the Catholic Church and residential schools. However, there was no new report on grooming gangs, despite this being among the most horrific examples of child abuse in recent British history.

The final IICSA report only mentioned Rotherham once, Rochdale only in relation to abuse there by the politician Cyril Smith, and didn’t reference Telford at all. That’s even though the report in Rotherham estimated there were at least 1,400 victims and the report in Telford estimated 1,000 victims at a minimum. In both towns, earlier reviews found that political correctness about race had chilled investigations – https://www.iitcse.com

IICSA lumped the grooming gangs in with other types of abuse in a report on organised networks. It chose six areas where there were no major reports of rape gangs, claiming that they had already been examined.

That might be true of the biggest cases like Rotherham and Telford, but most of the 50 places where GB News has identifies grooming gangs – https://www.gbnews.com/news/uk/starmer-grooming-gangs-uk-areas -have no such reports and have never received the in-depth investigation they require.

Despite multiple reports and academic papers discussing the over-representation of abusers from Pakistani backgrounds, the report only used the term “Pakistani” once. There was no discussion of the way that political correctness had led the authorities to turn a blind eye to abuse, despite multiple reports having found this.

When it came to the controversial question of ethnicity, the report found that the police failed to record the ethnicity of perpetrators in between 28% and 86% of cases. It said the lack of data meant that they couldn’t conclude whether there was a link between ethnicity and organised child abuse networks.

It seems like this is the only sort of ethnicity data the public sector is unwilling to gather. Despite that, of the six significant prosecutions of organised networks included in the report, four involved Asians and only one involved white abusers.

Whistleblower Maggie Oliver, who exposed the Rochdale scandal, has told GB News that when it came to abuse gangs, IICSA was a “cover up”. She pointed out that it relied on officials rather than the testimony of survivors, despite the failure of officials being a key reason why the rape gang scandals have happened.

Two-thirds of the statement she gave to IICSA was cut out and many survivors weren’t even given a chance to testify, in part due to the inquiry taking place during Covid.

None of the recommendations in the final IICSA report, which I think were far too weak to properly tackle the issue, have ever been adopted. Britain doesn’t need a Children’s Minister, it needs officials held to account for covering-up rampant child abuse.

The government has said that local councils can organise their own inquiries. But these are major political battles. Reports in Telford, Rotherham, Rochdale and Oldham all took years to come to fruition. Survivors had to battle with politicians who sought to block or undermine them. The councillors who were accused of covering up the abuse had the power to vote against investigating it.

Some Labour-controlled councils have voted down attempts to hold inquiries or pressured the government to ignore requests. As the IICSA report noted, many towns don’t want to be labelled as “another Rochdale or Rotherham”. They don’t want the bad press and the spotlight on their actions which an inquiry would bring.

In a town like Oldham, where one abuser was actually employed by the council, there is a conflict of interest. A safeguarding review into Shabir Ahmed, a welfare rights officer in the town, admitted ‘serious failings’ – https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/media/6198/final-oldham-assurance-report-8-june-2022-14-digital-version.pdf – but was partially redacted.

The local review in Oldham was called a “whitewash” by Maggie Oliver and it has failed to satisfy the town, with major questions about who knew what and when left unanswered. The result has been years of local political turmoil, with claims of a cover-up.

There are many views on this issue but so many of the survivors I have spoken to have told me that they have little confidence in the current approach. IICSA wasn’t enough and they don’t want to have to wait years to get local reports that are quickly passed over by the media.

They want a national inquiry, something ambitious which can investigate all of the relevant towns, to uncover everything across the nation in one aggressive review. It should be time-limited, with clear terms of reference, driven by survivors rather than officials, with a strong remit to force police and council employees to reveal everything they know — or face disciplinary action.

That should operate in conjunction with the Grooming Gang Taskforce – https://www.gov.uk/government/news/grooming-gangs-taskforce-arrests-hundreds-in-first-year – set up by Suella Braverman when she was Home Secretary, to bring the guilty to justice.

Rather than letting this drag out further, causing the issue to fester and lending support to the view that the authorities just want this to go away, it would be best for the government to tackle the bull by the horns. Instead of muddying the waters with claims about the far-right and misinformation, Keir Starmer can act to finally end this scandal.

IN DECEMBER we noted that opinions about the future of the House of Lords can be sharply divided.

There are those who’re in awe of its history & uniqueness. They also (quite reasonably) question what would replace it. Others believe that the House of Lords is an anachronism and should be replaced.

Despite these differences, we believe that most people would agree that there needs to be a system of checks & balances available to act as a counterweight to the House of Commons. (This is particularly so when a government has an overwhelming majority & can easily steamroller legislation through.)

With all the above in mind, it’s clear that any decision about the future of the House of Lords shouldn’t be based on kneejerk reactions.  Indeed, any decision requires deep analysis, thought and debate.

To this end, it’d be useful to know what oversight body preceded it (if any) and when & why the House of Lords came into being.

To examine this in forensic detail will require a completely new series of historically-based articles – and we hope to do this soon. However, for the purposes of this series, the following brief history lesson will suffice.

The House of Lords, the upper chamber of the UK Parliament, was formally established in the early 14th century. Its origins can be traced back to the medieval councils and assemblies that advised the monarch.

These assemblies were comprised of nobles, bishops, and other high-ranking officials. The primary role here was to both advise the monarch and provide consent for legislation.

Over time, these gatherings evolved into a more structured body with defined powers. Thus, the main role of the House of Lords was to offer counsel to the king and to act as a judicial authority.

During its early years, the Lords played a crucial role in the legislative process, reviewing and amending bills proposed by the House of Commons. It also served as the highest court of appeal in the land.

The 19th century saw significant reforms which began to shape the House of Lords into its modern form.

It was originally dominated by hereditary peers – nobles who inherited their titles and seats from their ancestors. However, reforms in the 20th and 21st centuries introduced life peers, appointed based on merit, and bishops representing the Church of England.

Also, the Parliament Act of 1911 marked a pivotal point, reducing the power of the Lords to veto legislation, allowing them only to delay bills.

Further reforms in 1958 and 1999 introduced life peers and significantly reduced the number of hereditary peers (although they didn’t eliminate them entirely). These reforms aimed to make the House more reflective of contemporary society while still retaining a connection to its historical roots.

A significant milestone in the history of the House of Lords was the inclusion of women. In 1958, with the passing of the Life Peerages Act. Here women were allowed to become life peers and, thus, members of the House of Lords for the first time. This was a transformative step towards gender equality within the British legislative system, marking the beginning of a more inclusive approach to governance.

The first woman to join the House of Lords was Baroness Irene Curzon in 1958. She was one of the first life peers appointed following the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958, which allowed women to be appointed to the House of Lords.

•  To be continued.

•  THIS ARTICLE should be read in conjunction with The House Of Lords – Should It Stay Or Should It

In their place will be a unitary system.  Here one single authority will cover all local government responsibilities in an area.

Labour have talked for a long time about devolution.  But their proposal is an oxymoron, as it’s the opposite of devolution!

A simple rule of thumb is that as any group or organisation grows larger, it becomes more amorphous and less accountable.

The government reconsiders this policy because if implemented, it could make people feel even more detached from the political system than they do today.

A county like Hertfordshire – with a population of over 1.2 million – provides a perfect example of how daft the government’s scheme is.

It has large towns like Watford (population 100.000 plus) and small villages like Cuffley, with a population of just over 4,000 people.  Large parts of the county are used for agriculture.

How on earth is one single authority cover all local government responsibilities in a county as diverse of Hertfordshire?

A tinpot dictator in waiting may dream of such a gargantuan authority.  However for ordinary people it’ll be an absolute nightmare.

EVERY SO OFTEN a debate about the future of the House of Lords flares up.  Opinion can be sharply divided.

Some believe that the House of Lords is an anachronism and belongs to an earlier age. Allegations of elitism – especially in respect of hereditary peers – are also commonplace.

Others seem to venerate the Lords. They point to its history & the unique nature of the institution.  They also question what would replace it.

National Liberals are committed to free thought & free speech.  Therefore, any debate relating to the future of the Lords is one that interests us.

Like many people, we’re in favour of a body that can effectively act as a check and balance to the House of Commons. This is particularly so when one party has such a majority that it can literally bulldoze legislation through.

We should point out that National Liberals believe that governments need to be able to act decisively. But some form of checks & balances are essential to prevent – what could be termed – even a ‘benign’ form of dictatorship emerging.

(As an aside, we believe that serious questions must also be asked about the UKs version of ‘democracy’.

One question relates to the status of both government & opposition.

Here, the opposition appears to spend all its time & energy deliberately trying to derail what the government has been elected to do. This is irrespective of whether the government’s proposal is in the national interest or not!

We know that this is an age-old political tactic to make the government look weak and inept. However, it ignores the fact that action is urgently needed to solve the many social & economic problems we face.  Many folks are suffering hardships, so is it right that the opposition seems happy enough to play a game of political point scoring.)

Returning to the status of the House of Lords, we think that the whole question of – to paraphrase The Clash – should it stay, or should it go? requires deep analysis, thought and debate.

However, before we even start to think about the future of the House of Lords, we must examine its past.  We need to know what oversight body preceded it, if any, and when & why the House of Lords came into being.

A truly informed debate can only proceed once we know the constitutional & historical context (in respect of the Lords).  These facts will then shape any future debate.

•  To be continued.

YES, it’s that time of year again – Christmas is coming! But in your haste to do the shopping, don’t forget the local shops and businesses in your area. Give them an early Christmas present by shopping locally today.

The National Liberal Party knows that times are hard, and price considerations are obviously very important, but many small shops depend on their Christmas trade to see them through much of the following year.  And this is particularly true of the money they make in the fortnight just before Christmas itself.

Many shopkeepers recall the recession of the late 2000s – which was brought on by ‘casino capitalism’ – a mixture of greed and mistakes made by the politicians, bankers, ‘fat cats’ and speculators.  To add insult to injury, shopkeepers are also hit hard by high interest rates, the criminal bank debt-system, out-of-town outlet centres and on-line shopping.

The shopkeeper, as a self-employed businessman or woman, plays a vital role in the local economy. (And don’t forget that these small shops collectively employ hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the length and breadth of Britain). Local shops are not only important for the elderly and young mothers but are part of the glue that helps to maintain community spirit – a place to bump into friends, neighbours and relatives.

If we don’t support our local shops and businesses today, we may lose them forever. Then people will have no other choice to travel directly into the nearest city or town centre for the smallest of items. This may be ok if you have your own transport and are fit and healthy. However, the elderly or young mothers wouldn’t really look forward to beating a path through the massive Saturday shopping crowds found in our large towns and cities.

The message is clear. For the community spirit to survive and prosper, we must give local shops as much trade as possible. The National Liberal Party says support your local shops, shopkeepers and shop workers. Shop locally this Christmas!

TODAY is a dark day for Britain.

In a historic vote, the House of Commons has turned its back on the sanctity of life. By 330 votes to 275, MPs have approved draft legislation that allows terminally ill adults, expected to die within six months, to seek help to end their lives.

Palliative care consultant Dr Dominic Whitehouse begged MPs – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4srDS0SmSs – to vote with ‘wisdom and courage’. They did not. A 55-vote majority has declared that life is cheap.

Let us be clear: this is not ‘assisted dying’. That phrase belongs to the noble art of palliative care, which cherishes life even in its final moments. This is assisted suicide—a deliberate act to extinguish life. It is a seismic shift that should alarm anyone who values the moral fabric of our society.

History and modern examples alike offer lessons we are too blind or arrogant to heed. Take Oregon, often cited as a exemplary model for assisted suicide due to its so-called ‘Death with Dignity Act’. Oregon’s journey  – https://spcare.bmj.com/content/14/4/455?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email – should give us pause. In 1998, just 16 assisted deaths were recorded; by 2022, that number had soared to 278. Over time, trends emerged that reveal the cost of this policy, not in pounds but in humanity.

Patients’ funding shifted from predominantly private to mostly state-funded healthcare (65% private in 1998; 79.5% government-supported in 2022). More patients reported feeling like a burden or struggling with financial worries as reasons for choosing death. Relationships between doctors and patients became transactional — shrinking from 18 weeks in 2010 to just five weeks in 2022. Psychiatric evaluations, designed to protect those in vulnerable states, remained astonishingly rare, hovering at just 1%.

What is dignified about this conveyor belt to death?

And Oregon has taken things one step further. It is one of the places in the world where people can opt for aquamation, a chemical process that reduces human remains to liquid and bone fragments, marketed as ‘soil transformation’. Once complete, the liquefied remains can be used as fertiliser. Of course, we all become soil in the end. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. But our rituals are sacralised and respectful, they give time not just for the body but for the mourners. This haste is soulless, clinical and dehumanising. And note it is not human transformation but soil transformation. The human is lost — the humanity is lost.

Societies that treat life as disposable are doomed to collapse. We have seen it before. Under the Soviet regime and Mao’s China, life was cheapened to the point of irrelevance. Individuals were sacrificed to ideology; human worth was measured by utility to the state. Millions perished as the machinery of death rolled on.

It is easy to dismiss these as extreme examples, but the seeds of such devaluation are sown when we begin to tamper with the inviolability of life. Legalising assisted suicide in Britain invites us to tread the same path. We assure ourselves it will be different here, that we are more compassionate, more advanced. But compassion twisted into expedience is no longer compassion. It is abandonment.

Today’s vote marks a death knell for civilisation

But the bells have been ringing for decades. Today, they are deafening.

We are a society rotting from within. Girls are told they can become boys, and boys are told they can become girls, as if biological reality is an inconvenience to be rewritten. Pensioners are denied their winter fuel allowance despite knowing that thousands will perish from the cold. In our streets, metropolitan elites wrapped in keffiyas chant for intifada on their own streets while ignoring their own moral hypocrisies. Ours is a culture of contradiction and decay.

We worry about barbarians at the gates, but the real rot is internal. Our civilisation is riddled with maggots. And here’s the uncomfortable truth: we are the maggots, gnawing away at the decaying flesh of our own culture.

‘Assisted dying’ is dressed up in the language of autonomy and choice, but the underlying message is clear: you are not worth saving. Britain is becoming a death cult, which can only happen when life is cheap.

True dignity lies in care, love, and support, even when the path is difficult. True compassion requires us to stand firm in the face of suffering, not to eliminate the sufferer. When we legalise assisted suicide, we do not affirm life — we betray it.

This vote is a tragedy — not just for those who will be affected by the legislation, but for our society as a whole. We are told this is progress, but it is a step into darkness and decay. Legalising assisted suicide doesn’t just end lives; it erodes the very foundations of civilisation.