Dead Man Walking
The Grooming Gang Lie That Could End a Prime Minister
For months, the government has promised that justice for grooming gang victims would finally arrive through a new national inquiry and we would have truth, transparency, and justice at last. But that promise was a lie.
Last week, the Prime Minister stood in Parliament and claimed that Baroness Louise Casey had "decided against" a judge-led inquiry. He said the government was only following her advice. It wasn't true.
When Casey gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, she said she wanted "something slightly different from a seven-year, judge-led inquiry" — a national statutory commission with local hubs, designed to be faster and closer to victims. Her remarks were about structure and scope, not leadership. She never said that a judge should be excluded.
Nowhere in Casey's oral evidence, written report, or correspondence is there any recommendation against a judge-led model. The Prime Minister invented it.
Casey's evidence to the committee was clear and practical. She told MPs she wanted a national inquiry with real powers, but not one that dragged on for years while survivors waited. She said "What I have in my mind is something slightly different from a seven-year, judge-led inquiry. Ideally we would have something that got into local areas."
That was the extent of her reference to judges. It was not a rejection, but a contrast of structure. She was describing a design, not issuing an instruction.
Casey's central concern was urgency and survivor confidence. She wanted an inquiry capable of examining institutional failure, forcing accountability, and making sure survivors' voices were finally heard. She never argued that judicial leadership would prevent that.
Her emphasis was clear. A national statutory commission, equipped with full powers, directing local investigations. Not a committee of civil servants, not a politically managed panel, but an inquiry with authority and reach.
The Prime Minister twisted that into a verdict. He presented her words as if she had ruled out judicial leadership altogether, turning her framework into a shield for political control. If he truly believed Casey had "decided against" a judge-led process, the government should be able to produce the proof. A letter, an email, a line in a transcript. There is none. The claim exists only in the Prime Minister's mouth and Hansard's record of it.
And now, others are beginning to notice.
On Monday afternoon, Nigel Farage held a press conference in London and addressed the same issue directly.
"This inquiry is dead in the water. Nearly five months have gone by and what has happened? Nothing. They can't even agree who the chair is going to be. Starmer tells us that the Baroness Casey Report forbids it from being a judge. If you read the report carefully, you'll realise that simply isn't true — which of course is in common with very many of the things that he says."
Farage's remarks confirm the same truth. The Prime Minister lied.
The leader of Reform had looked at the record. He had reached the same conclusion. The government's justification for excluding a judge is built on a fabrication. The lie is not interpretive or subjective. It is a matter of public record. And once that lie is established, everything built on it becomes compromised. The appointments, the scope, the credibility of the inquiry.
The exclusion of a judge is not a technical issue about who chairs a committee. It is about independence. A judge brings legal authority, procedural discipline and the power to compel witnesses who would otherwise hide behind bureaucracy or party loyalty. Without that independence, the inquiry remains under the control of the same institutions whose failures it is meant to expose.
That is the real reason judicial oversight was blocked. Not because of speed, efficiency, or structure, but because an independent chair could not be controlled. The Prime Minister's claim that Louise Casey herself wanted it that way is not a misunderstanding. It is a cover. It conceals a deliberate political decision behind the authority of someone who never said it. This is not about process. It is about power. About who gets to define what truth looks like, who shapes the narrative, and who is excluded from it.
Despite clear evidence, not one major outlet has reported the contradiction between the Prime Minister's claim and Casey's actual words. It would take a journalist ten minutes to check the Select Committee transcript. They won't touch this story because it exposes them too. Them being the journalists who carried the denials, ignored the evidence, and also helped bury the truth.
The legacy media are not innocent observers in this story. They are participants. They amplify the official line, ignore inconvenient evidence, and call their silence impartiality. But silence in the face of power is complicity.
Farage's confirmation means this now moves to the next stage. The Prime Minister's claim has been proven false, confirmed independently, and ignored by the very institutions meant to hold power to account. The question now is what we do about it. How this lie is challenged, corrected, and confronted in Parliament.
This lie should now be challenged, not through outrage, but through Parliament itself. The mechanisms are there. Here's how Parliament can force the truth back onto the record and shame a Prime Minister.
Written or Oral Question
A Member of Parliament can table a written or oral question asking the Prime Minister to correct the record.
"Will the Prime Minister correct the record regarding his claim that Baroness Casey decided against a judge-led inquiry into grooming gangs, given that no such recommendation appears in her evidence or report?"
This forces an official answer. Ministers cannot simply ignore written questions. They must respond, and their reply is published in the official parliamentary record. If the Prime Minister refuses to correct himself, it turns a possible mistake into a deliberate act of deceit.
An oral question during PMQs or a Home Office session would compel a verbal response in front of the chamber and the cameras. That would become part of Hansard too.
Point of Order
An MP can raise a Point of Order immediately after Prime Minister's Questions, citing both Hansard and Casey's transcript. Once raised, it enters the permanent parliamentary record.
A Point of Order doesn't have to be raised at the exact moment the false statement was made. The guidance is that it should be raised "at the earliest opportunity," and that phrase is flexible.
If new evidence or clarification emerges after the fact, an MP can legitimately raise the matter days or even weeks later. What matters is that the MP can show that their intervention is based on verified information that has come to light since the original exchange.
In this case, the condition is met. The Prime Minister made his claim about Baroness Casey during PMQs. Since then, the public record, including Casey's evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, has been reviewed, and the record itself confirms that she never recommended against a judge-led inquiry. That new evidence justifies raising the issue now.
This week's Prime Minister's Questions would be the right moment for an MP to act. An MP could stand immediately after PMQs and say something like this.
"On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister's Questions last week, the Prime Minister claimed that Baroness Louise Casey had decided against a judge-led inquiry into grooming gangs. Having reviewed the official evidence given by Baroness Casey to the Home Affairs Select Committee, no such recommendation appears in her remarks or report. Can you advise how the Prime Minister may be invited to correct the record?"
That wording cites the false claim directly, references primary evidence, and asks the Speaker to guide on how the Prime Minister can correct the record. The polite but powerful way to demand accountability.
Once raised, it enters the permanent parliamentary record. The Speaker may respond by reminding the House that ministers are responsible for their own accuracy. It may sound procedural, but that line matters. Once it's said, the exchange becomes part of the permanent record. It cannot be deleted or rewritten by government. Future inquiries, journalists, or MPs can cite it as evidence that the Prime Minister's claim was contested in Parliament and left uncorrected.
Referral to the Committee of Privileges
An MP can formally request that the Committee of Privileges investigate whether the Prime Minister misled Parliament. This committee exists to examine breaches of parliamentary privilege, including knowingly misleading the House.
An MP writes to the Speaker with three documents. The Hansard record of the Prime Minister's claim, Baroness Casey's evidence disproving it, and a short summary of the discrepancy.
Once submitted, that material becomes part of the parliamentary record, even if no immediate investigation follows. If the Committee does open an inquiry, it can summon witnesses, compel evidence, and publish a formal finding on whether the Prime Minister's conduct constituted contempt of Parliament.
Even without an inquiry, the referral itself is powerful. It creates a permanent entry showing that the Prime Minister's claim was challenged as misleading.
Recall of Witnesses by the Home Affairs Select Committee
The Home Affairs Select Committee can recall Baroness Casey or Jess Phillips to give oral evidence and clarify what was actually said.
The committee has the transcript of Casey's earlier session. A short follow-up hearing could establish the truth publicly with one question.
"Did you ever recommend against appointing a judge to chair the national inquiry?"
If Casey answers "no," the Prime Minister's defence collapses in real time. The same could be asked of Jess Phillips, who would need to confirm whether her department ever received such advice.
That single confirmation, on record, in Parliament, would make it impossible for the government to keep repeating the lie.
These actions build a chain of accountability. They create a permanent record that the Prime Minister's words were false. And they push the truth closer to the surface.
These actions leave a mark that no government can erase. Lies fade. The record doesn't.
The Prime Minister lied to Parliament. The record of what Baroness Casey actually said proves it. Nigel Farage's comments confirm it. And the silence of the media exposes the system determined to bury it.
If Parliament refuses to correct the record, the cover-up becomes official policy. If the press continues to ignore it, history will once again be written by those who have the most to hide.
That is why this cannot be left to politicians or editors. It belongs to every citizen who still believes that truth matters more than power.
The Prime Minister must be held to account. The record must be corrected. And this time, the cover-up must not stand. The Prime Minister will be exposed as a man who lied to Parliament after his government was caught rigging a national inquiry into the gang rape of children. No spin can wash that away.
When the truth emerges, and it will, Starmer won't be remembered as the man who delivered justice for victims, but as the Prime Minister who tried to prevent it.
The reckoning is coming.
My name is Raja Miah.
I am equally hated by Labour Party politicians, Pakistani gangsters, and their Islamist allies. I’ll let you decide if that makes me someone worth standing alongside.
It’s been seven years since I began exposing how politicians protected the rape gangs. In that time, the police have tried and failed to prosecute me. Politicians have tried and failed to silence me. The mainstream media has smeared me, blacklisted me, and the Pakistani gangsters and Islamists have openly called for my murder.
And yet;
I’m still here.
Still speaking.
Still fighting for the truth.
Everything I publish is shared for free. There are no paywalls. No corporate sponsors. No hidden backers.
If my work has ever helped you make sense of a broken system, if it’s ever made you feel seen, heard, or hopeful, please don’t scroll past.
🔴 Support the work. The fight is far from over.
If you can afford to do so, just £3/month or £30/year. That’s 75p a week. Pennies to most, but everything to help keep this work alive.
Prefer a one-off contribution?
👉 http://BuyMeACoffee.com/recusantnine
👉 http://paypal.me/RecusantNine
– Raja 🙏