hello. you are through to keith. and he was just cracking us up. i will be at training all day today. we just started writing more and more scenes for him. i he just very quickly became one. of our sort of beloved characters, and also in the audience's eyes as well. _ ewen maclntosh, a performer who could bring uncontrollable laughter with just a perfectly timed scotch egg. all laugh. ricky gervais: that was so good! the actor ewen maclntosh, who's died. time for a look at the weather. here's stav da naos. hello. good evening. temperatures are expected to drop at the end of tomorrow and through friday, saturday and sunday will be much cooler than what we have been used to, a view showers around which could be wintry is well over northern and western hills. that is

certainly what will be notable of the weather for the week but before then, we have a lot more wet weather to move in. already through the night, that wet weather will be pushing into wales and south—west england come into the midlands, may be rolls of thunder with it. cold across scotland and northern ireland tonight, a few showers which will be wintry over the hills. still fairly mild across the south—east. this is the low pressure sitting across iceland, a bit of low pressure will spin across the south of britain as we i am honest to this house, i am true to this house, i believe in all members of this house and i have tried to do what i thought was the right thing for all sides of this house. it is regrettable and i apologise. the public want to know how the suffering in the middle east will end — what our politicians offered in the house of commons this evening was mayhem and chaos.

the angry scenes in the chamber leave the speaker badly undermined and leave plenty of voters looking aghast. nick's been tracking the story. i've been reporting from the commons for 25 years and i've never seen scenes like these. and what about the failure of westminster to send a united message to israel and hamas? does it help hostages still held by hamas or palestinians being killed in gaza? we'll hear from the shadow defence secretary, a former state department adviser and a senior israeli journalist. also tonight, a month after a review into the rochdale grooming scandal

said girls were left at the mercy of paedophile gangs, one of the survivors speaks for the first time tonight since it was published. do you know how many times you were raped? do you know how many times you were ra ed? ~ .,, do you know how many times you were raed? m, ., do you know how many times you were raed? ., �* raped? most of the time i couldn't remember. _ raped? most of the time i couldn't remember, because _ raped? most of the time i couldn't remember, because i— raped? most of the time i couldn't remember, because i would - raped? most of the time i couldn't remember, because i would just l raped? most of the time i couldn'tl remember, because i would just be blackout drunk. i would say possibly a hundred. and has the former chair of the post office turned whistle—blower over something called "uk government investments". all my clients without exception are people _ all my clients without exception are pe0ple who — all my clients without exception are people who are _ all my clients without exception are people who are extremely- all my clients without exception are people who are extremely damaged all my clients without exception are - people who are extremely damaged and seriously— people who are extremely damaged and seriously injured — people who are extremely damaged and seriously injured by— people who are extremely damaged and seriously injured by their— seriously injured by their experiences _ seriously injured by their experiences at _ seriously injured by their experiences at the - seriously injured by their| experiences at the hands seriously injured by their. experiences at the hands of seriously injured by their- experiences at the hands of the seriously injured by their— experiences at the hands of the post office _ it couldn't have been a more grave debate in the house of commons today, one of the most serious issues of our time — how to end the fighting in gaza. according to the hamas—run health ministry, almost 30,000 palestinians have been killed. hamas still hold 134 hostages.

food is scarce in gaza and there's a looming idf invasion of rafah. outside the commons, protesters demanded politicians call for an immediate ceasefire. inside, an emotional speaker of the house, sir lindsay hoyle, was apologising for his handling of what was supposed to be a day where the snp lead the debate, but ended with tory and snp politicians walking out the chamber. there was chaos, confusion, mps describing events as disgraceful and accusations of a stitch—up. so how on earth did all that happen? nick's here. talk us through it. i have been reporting _ talk us through it. i have been reporting in — talk us through it. i have been reporting in parliament - talk us through it. i have been reporting in parliament for - talk us through it. i have been reporting in parliament for 25| talk us through it. i have been - reporting in parliament for 25 years and i have never seen scenes like that. the government was stepping

away and the labour amendment went through. it felt like it was falling apart just after through. it felt like it was falling apartjust after 6 o'clock through. it felt like it was falling apart just after 6 o'clock when penny mordaunt confronted the speaker, although he wasn't in the chair at the speaker, although he wasn't in the chairat the time, speaker, although he wasn't in the chair at the time, saying what you have done to break with precedent on your decision was wrong. his decision, it was an snp debate, so you would be voting on the snp motion and the government amendment and herfury was motion and the government amendment and her fury was clear. it motion and the government amendment and her fury was clear.— and her fury was clear. it appears from the advice _ and her fury was clear. it appears from the advice of _ and her fury was clear. it appears from the advice of his _ and her fury was clear. it appears from the advice of his clerk - and her fury was clear. it appears from the advice of his clerk that l from the advice of his clerk that the decision— from the advice of his clerk that the decision is— from the advice of his clerk that the decision is taken _ from the advice of his clerk that the decision is taken against - from the advice of his clerk that| the decision is taken against the long-standing _ the decision is taken against the long—standing and _ the decision is taken against the long—standing and established l long—standing and established processes— long—standing and established processes and _ long—standing and established processes and procedures - long—standing and established processes and procedures and | long—standing and established - processes and procedures and that the consequences _ processes and procedures and that the consequences may— processes and procedures and that the consequences may be - processes and procedures and that the consequences may be that - the consequences may be that government— the consequences may be that government is— the consequences may be that government is not— the consequences may be that government is not able - the consequences may be that government is not able to - the consequences may be that - government is not able to respond to opposition— government is not able to respond to opposition day— government is not able to respond to opposition day motions _ government is not able to respond to opposition day motions and - government is not able to respond to opposition day motions and as - government is not able to respond to opposition day motions and as such i opposition day motions and as such the government— opposition day motions and as such the government does _ opposition day motions and as such the government does not— opposition day motions and as such the government does not have - the government does not have confidence _ the government does not have confidence that— the government does not have confidence that it _ the government does not have confidence that it will - the government does not have confidence that it will be - the government does not have confidence that it will be able i the government does not have. confidence that it will be able to vote on — confidence that it will be able to vote on its — confidence that it will be able to vote on its own _ confidence that it will be able to vote on its own motion. - confidence that it will be able to vote on its own motion. for- confidence that it will be able toj vote on its own motion. for that reason, — vote on its own motion. for that reason, the _ vote on its own motion. for that reason, the government-

vote on its own motion. for that reason, the government will- vote on its own motion. for that| reason, the government will play vote on its own motion. for that- reason, the government will play no further— reason, the government will play no further part — reason, the government will play no further part in— reason, the government will play no further part in the _ reason, the government will play no further part in the decision - reason, the government will play no further part in the decision this - further part in the decision this house — further part in the decision this house takes _ further part in the decision this house takes on _ further part in the decision this house takes on today's - further part in the decision this - house takes on today's proceedings. now the _ house takes on today's proceedings. now the effect— house takes on today's proceedings. now the effect of— house takes on today's proceedings. now the effect of that _ house takes on today's proceedings. now the effect of that decision - now the effect of that decision basically at that point made labour the largest party in the house of commons and they were guaranteed to knock out the snp motion. they were furious. there were a number of interventions by stephen flynn, the snp leader at westminster. i’m snp leader at westminster. i'm afraid that _ snp leader at westminster. i'm afraid that is _ snp leader at westminster. i'm afraid that is treating myself and my afraid that is treating myself and nry colleagues _ afraid that is treating myself and my colleagues in _ afraid that is treating myself and my colleagues in the _ afraid that is treating myself and my colleagues in the scottish - my colleagues in the scottish national— my colleagues in the scottish national party— my colleagues in the scottish national party with _ my colleagues in the scottish national party with complete | my colleagues in the scottish - national party with complete and utter _ national party with complete and utter contempt. _ national party with complete and utter contempt. and _ national party with complete and utter contempt. and i— national party with complete and utter contempt. and i will- national party with complete and utter contempt. and i will take i utter contempt. and i will take significant _ utter contempt. and i will take significant convincing - utter contempt. and i will take significant convincing that - utter contempt. and i will take significant convincing that your position— significant convincing that your position is— significant convincing that your position is not— significant convincing that your position is not now— significant convincing that your| position is not now intolerable. call yourself a government? you can hear them shouting _ call yourself a government? you can hear them shouting as _ call yourself a government? you can hear them shouting as snp - call yourself a government? you can hear them shouting as snp and - call yourself a government? you can hear them shouting as snp and tory| hear them shouting as snp and tory politicians walk out of chamber. stephen flynn led a walk—out by the

”p stephen flynn led a walk—out by the np contingent and a significant number of conservative mps followed them. they're major political adversaries, but they both thought the speaker had made a terrible decision. he wasn't in the chair and he wasn't meant to come back to the chair, but he did and made an apology and it was clear that he was devastated. i regret how it's ended up. it was not my intention. i wanted all to ensure that they could express their views and all sides of the house could vote. as it was, in particular the snp were ultimately unable to vote on their proposition. i am and i regret, with the deep... shushing. ..with my sadness that it's ended up like that in this position.

that was never my intention for it to end up like this. you could hear how emotional he was. but why did it happen?— but why did it happen? because it kicked off around _ but why did it happen? because it kicked off around about _ but why did it happen? because it kicked off around about lunch - but why did it happen? because it| kicked off around about lunch time when the speaker made the announcement that he was going to break with convention and he was going to on an snp opposition day call the labour amendment. that would have meant that what would have happened is the first vote would have been the labour amendment. that would have fallen. the second vote would have been the snp motion. that would have fallen. then you would have the vote on the government amendment and that should have passed. it came about messily. the speaker was meeting labour figures and there were points of order and it was clear they were stalling for time. the speaker said he did it for two reasons. the first reason was that he felt the three main parties had to be able to have a vote that they felt comfortable.

he said the rules date back to 1979 when it was two parties and there is more now. and then he talked about how he was worried about the security of mps. that means that he is worried there are a number of labour mps who could not vote for the snp motion because it said things like israel is guilty of the collective punishment of the palestinian people and in breach of international law. they couldn't vote for the government amendment because it doesn't go hard enough. he was worried if he had not made that intervention there would be a number of labour mps not recording a vote for a ceasefire and they would he feared be hounded on social media. ~ , ., , . he feared be hounded on social media. ~ , .,, . . ,, media. why does what happened in the commons matter _ media. why does what happened in the commons matter when _ media. why does what happened in the commons matter when he _ media. why does what happened in the commons matter when he look - media. why does what happened in the commons matter when he look at - media. why does what happened in the commons matter when he look at the l commons matter when he look at the big picture? it is commons matter when he look at the bi icture? , ., , , big picture? it is not very edifying when ou big picture? it is not very edifying when you have — big picture? it is not very edifying when you have this _ big picture? it is not very edifying when you have this major- big picture? it is not very edifying when you have this major war, i when you have this major war, conflict in the middle east, and parliament is having a wrangle over

procedure, not good for the reputation of parliament. but it raises questions about three figures. the speaker had lost the confidence of a substantial, maybe a majority of the house of commons. that apology was accepted by penny mordaunt and that suggests for the moment that he is probably 0k. it raises questions about rishi sunak. why did he pull a vote? he has a huge majority and he should have won. there was a suggestion of a conservative rebellion. difficult to believe that he would have lost the vote. and there are questions about keir starmer that go to the heart of shadow cabinet. why is why did you require an snp debate to clarify and get an agreed position on labour's position on the middle east. you get more of these opposition debates, why didn't you do it weeks ago and you could have had a vote, not had to have worried about the decision

by the speaker. the labour view is they think that the snp and the conservatives had a joint interest in denying labour mps the ability to vote for the word ceasefire in a way that they could feel comfortable. thank you. before we came on air, i spoke to labour's shadow defence secretaryjohn healey, and put it to him that labour had effectively brought the speaker to his knees. no, the house of commons has really shown itself in the worst light this afternoon. we could have shown the british parliament at its best, coming together to demand together an end to the fighting now, the hostages released now, more aid into gaza now and a ceasefire that can build into something that lasts and becomes a political process to get a two—state solution. but instead, we've shown the worst of westminster, descending into a row about procedure with a boycott by the conservatives, a walk—out from the snp. and this has done nothing to help

the cause of peace, nothing at all to help the palestinians. the speaker was a man who commanded respect, widespread respect, across the house. and yet you put him, labour put him under such pressure that he made a decision, he told the house tonight, he regretted and he apologised for it. he's now lost the confidence of some mps in the commons. so that is totally untrue that he was put under pressure. that's been rejected by the speaker, it's been rejected by labour. he was trying to ensure, rightly, the widest possible debate. he is there to protect the interests of all mps and what he was trying to do was to ensure that the house of commons had a vote on the three different propositions from the three main parties, and he was doing that because he knew that this matters to parliament, it matters to our communities and it matters to people around the world, what the british parliament and the british government does to try and advance

the cause of peace. surely the reason why we're actually here tonight, in this position, is to do with this central problem of sir keir starmer�*s leadership. he hides. he could have tabled his own opposition day motion on a ceasefire. why did it take the snp doing it for you to get your act together with your own amendment? well, keir starmer and labour have been arguing for a ceasefire for weeks now. we've been arguing for the release... so why have you waited weeks, then? i'm going to answer your question. what has happened in recent days is that the threatened ground offensive by the israelis against rafah have become so serious, we've taken a stance to say that cannot happen. what's happened is that there's been a shift among important allies like new zealand, australia, canada and others, demanding, as we have now,

an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and one that can build into a long—term peace process. so that was the argument we were making today, an end to the fighting now, a ceasefire respected on both sides and one that lasts. and today was an opportunity to debate that, to bring the house together. and i think, as mps, we lost sight of why we're here. we allowed ourselves to descend into the chaos of a row about procedure, with the government boycotting their own vote and the snp walking out on the debate based on their own motion. but perhaps you, labour, have lost sight of the fact that nearly 30,000 people have been killed in gaza. what were you waiting for? i am so concerned and aware of the agonies of the palestinian people. the death toll is 30,000 and mounting, as you say.

hospitals... so what were you waiting for? hospitals have been smashed. families are starving, yet more children are being killed. exactly. at this point, with the threatened ground offensive against rafah, which cannot happen, now is the moment to take a stronger position, to say hamas must release all the hostages, the israelis cannot proceed with their offensive against rafah and the british government should come alongside allies to demand and call for, and work for, as we have been doing, an immediate humanitarian ceasefire that can be respected on all sides and become the process that we need, a political process, a diplomatic process, aimed at securing a long—term peace and security for israel and for the palestinian people. at around 3:00pm this afternoon, our political editor reported that senior labour figures told him that the speaker would need labour votes to be re—elected as speaker after the election,

with strong indications this would not be forthcoming if the speakerfailed to call your labour amendment. and nick interpreted that, nick watt interpreted that to mean that it would be the end of sir lindsay hoyle as the speaker in the next parliament. what do you say to that? well, i have no no idea about nick watt�*s sources, i have no idea about the interpretation he might place on those. but in a sense, you've stated the, what happens, the speaker is elected by all members of the house of commons. he is there to protect the interests of all mps. and part of that and what he was trying to do, which backfired and he apologised for this, but he was trying to ensure the widest possible debate. he is not there to do the government's bidding. are you saying that it is feasible that sir keir starmer or a labour mp or a labour staffer might have said something to sir lindsay hoyle that put a question mark over labour's support for him as speaker in the next parliament?

if someone has said something of that nature to the speaker, that would be unacceptable, wouldn't it? well, trying to pressure the house of commons speaker is a hiding to nothing, i have to tell you. but the speaker this afternoon made decisions about how to conduct the debate, within rules that are outdated, heavily stacked in favour of the government, that do require review, as he said, and he was doing it... i'm really sorry to interrupt you, i'm going to pause you there because it feels like you're evading the question. if someone had said something of that nature to the speaker, about possible support for him in the next parliament, if he did or didn't call the labour amendment, that would be unacceptable, wouldn't it? because that would be blackmail, surely? there were three hypotheticals in your question. if all three were true, that would have been unacceptable. my point is, this afternoon the speaker set the terms of the debate because he wanted

the widest possible debate. he was conscious this matters to parliament. it matters beyond parliament in our communities. and it matters what britain has to say about the process of peace and how to end the fighting in gaza. how do you think, how do you think this looks to voters tonight, across this country and also when it comes to sending a message to both israel and hamas? this is dreadful. they were looking to parliament for a debate that could give people hope that in the long run there can be peace and in the immediate term, there can be a ceasefire. this was the chance to show the british parliament at its best. we've shown westminster today at its worst. thank you very much for talking to newsnight this evening and to our audience. thank you, mr healey. thank you. let's talk to the snp's culture, media and sport spokesman, john nicholson.

for being with us. did snp mps walked out in anger alongside tory mps this evening? i walked out in anger alongside tory mps this evening?— mps this evening? i think the snp mps this evening? i think the snp mps thought _ mps this evening? i think the snp mps thought the _ mps this evening? i think the snp mps thought the whole _ mps this evening? i think the snp mps thought the whole procedure | mps this evening? i think the snp - mps thought the whole procedure was absurd. what snp mps did was they went to the lobby, that is the rooms beside the main parliamentary debating chamber, ready to vote and they were anticipating and expecting there would be a vote and i think snp mps, notjust those but mps across the chamber, wanted the chance to vote unto a number of mps across party said they wanted their constituents to know where they stood on this and the problem with the shenanigans today was that mps were not allowed to express their views in the lobbies and to vote. but they would have been had the government and the snp, your colleagues, not walked out because under the original ruling of the speaker, the labour motion, your

motion, i beg your pardon, would have been voted on to eventually, and it's a complicated... not get into it, the original ruling, your motion would have been voted on. eventually it would but the problem was the government withdrew there's first but the problem with all of this is that it is a smoke screen which has been up to prevent us talking about what really matters, which is the people of gaza and how to stop this slaughter. we have been pursuing these arguments since november and as a journalist, i filmed in palestine for more than 20 years, including for the bbc. i wanted the chance to focus on that today... wanted the chance to focus on that toda ., ., wanted the chance to focus on that toda ., , wanted the chance to focus on that toda... today... nobody has been stopping ou. .. today... nobody has been stopping you- -- lead — today. .. nobody has been stopping youm lead in— today... nobody has been stopping you... lead in your _ today... nobody has been stopping you... lead in your programme - you... lead in your programme toniuht you... lead in your programme tonight is _ you... lead in your programme tonight is not _ you... lead in your programme tonight is not the _ you... lead in your programme tonight is not the substance, i you... lead in your programme tonight is not the substance, it| tonight is not the substance, it isn't gaza, your discussion with your political editor was about the machinations of parliament. it's deeply disappointing. fin machinations of parliament. it's deeply disappointing.— machinations of parliament. it's deeply disappointing. on many other niahts deeply disappointing. on many other ni . hts we deeply disappointing. on many other nights we have _ deeply disappointing. on many other nights we have lead _ deeply disappointing. on many other nights we have lead with _

deeply disappointing. on many other nights we have lead with what - deeply disappointing. on many other nights we have lead with what is - nights we have lead with what is going on in gaza and we will be talking about how to stop the suffering... talking about how to stop the suffering- - -— talking about how to stop the sufferinu... . , ., . suffering... except tonight was a parliamentary — suffering... except tonight was a parliamentary daisy _ suffering... except tonight was a parliamentary daisy debate - suffering... except tonight was a parliamentary daisy debate that l suffering... except tonight was a i parliamentary daisy debate that we chose in the snb does not get many and we wanted to talk about the substantive issues and i did today in parliament. fair substantive issues and i did today in parliament.— in parliament. fair enough. why did our in parliament. fair enough. why did your colleague _ in parliament. fair enough. why did your colleague stuart _ in parliament. fair enough. why did your colleague stuart mcdonald - your colleague stuart mcdonald tweet, why has the speaker done this for labour? parliament and the country deserve an explanation, it looks grubby. that speaker was simply wanting to get as wide options as possible to all mps and what is wrong with that? it options as possible to all mps and what is wrong with that? it directly contradicts what _ what is wrong with that? it directly contradicts what your _ what is wrong with that? it directly contradicts what your own - what is wrong with that? it directly contradicts what your own political| contradicts what your own political editor said earlier, your own political editor said, that you have been speaking to just, said senior labour politicians had said to the speaker, look, either do something completely unprecedented or your days as a speaker are over, and there is also room as he was told that, like his predecessor, he would not get a seat in the house of lords. i lose these shenanigans... you keep saying that... you

lords. i lose these shenanigans... you keep saying that. . .— you keep saying that... you keep askin: you keep saying that... you keep asking questions _ you keep saying that... you keep asking questions about _ you keep saying that... you keep asking questions about them, - you keep saying that... you keep asking questions about them, i l you keep saying that... you keep i asking questions about them, i want to talk about gaza. i asking questions about them, i want to talk about gaza.— to talk about gaza. i want to put to ou, what to talk about gaza. i want to put to you. what you _ to talk about gaza. i want to put to you, what you wanted _ to talk about gaza. i want to put to you, what you wanted was - to talk about gaza. i want to put to you, what you wanted was labour. to talk about gaza. i want to put to l you, what you wanted was labour to only have two options and the speaker wanted house of commons have as wide a range of options as possible. it was a device, some say, for you to embarrass labour. mas possible. it was a device, some say, for you to embarrass labour. was not remotely interested _ for you to embarrass labour. was not remotely interested in _ for you to embarrass labour. was not remotely interested in embarrassing l remotely interested in embarrassing labour, what i wanted them to do was to vote for a ceasefire. label it refused to vote for a ceasefire in november, as you know, 506i think labour mps voted with us. every single mp voted for a ceasefire in november was sacked by sir keir starmer and we have now listened to something orwellian today from david lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, that sir keir starmer and he had always been if favour of a ceasefire and we know that's not the case because we had what they had to say could labour has had multiple opportunities to have this on their own opposition days in the last four

months and if they were so passionate about the arguments they are putting forward today, why did they not propose them in one of their days?— they not propose them in one of their days? they not propose them in one of their da s? . ,, i. , . ., their days? thank you very much for bein: with their days? thank you very much for being with us _ their days? thank you very much for being with us tonight _ their days? thank you very much for being with us tonight and _ their days? thank you very much for being with us tonight and talking - their days? thank you very much for being with us tonight and talking to | being with us tonight and talking to our audience, john nicholson from the snp. it's up for debate whether anything that happened in the commons today will have any great effect on whether israel will stop their offensive or indeed whether hamas will release any more hostages. but when it comes to israeli actions, america's influence is quite different. in the past, presidents have called and, with a single sentence, halted israeli bombs. reagan most famously in the �*80s and most recently, biden himself in 2021. so if the current president is indeed so concerned with the current suffering in gaza, why is it not happening now? laura blumenfeld is a former senior policy adviser in state department's israeli—palestinian negotiating team. anshel pfeffer is a senior correspondent and columnist for the israeli daily haaretz. we will hear from him we will hearfrom him in a moment. good evening to you both. firstly,

laura, does the us have the power to stop this and if they do, why haven't they?— stop this and if they do, why haven't they? stop this and if they do, why haven't the ? . . ., , . haven't they? the magic word is a securi . haven't they? the magic word is a security- in _ haven't they? the magic word is a security. in 2021, _ haven't they? the magic word is a security. in 2021, israel's - security. in 2021, israel's existential security was not at risk. october seven changed everything. i think today israelis and americans feel israel has the right and duty to defend itself put the question is, and secretary of state blinken put this at the very beginning of the conflict, how you do this matters and the us has been pushing all along for israel, yes, to prosecute the war but in a way thatis to prosecute the war but in a way that is morally defensible. {lilia to prosecute the war but in a way that is morally defensible. ok, so is art of that is morally defensible. ok, so is part of it _ that is morally defensible. ok, so is part of it because _ that is morally defensible. ok, so is part of it because it _ that is morally defensible. ok, so is part of it because it is - that is morally defensible. ok, so is part of it because it is election. is part of it because it is election year as well or not? it is is part of it because it is election year as well or not? it is election ear year as well or not? it is election year everywhere. _ year as well or not? it is election year everywhere, in _ year as well or not? it is election year everywhere, in the - year as well or not? it is election year everywhere, in the us - year as well or not? it is election year everywhere, in the us and l year everywhere, in the us and absolutely buy them is getting nipped at his heels, much is super duty so there is a seven march madness but i don't think that is all, i think biden has a real commitment to israeli security and

they feel the safe tape and fort jews has turned into a slaughterhouse. —— safe haven. everything that israel is accomplished over the years has been this sheen of power and if they lose that, rememberthat this sheen of power and if they lose that, remember that before october seven, the united states was shooting for a regional alliance between israel and saudi arabia, and saudi arabia will not want any kind of security pact with israel if they prove themselves to be weak so in the long run i think they see this as an opportunity to create greater peace and regional integration. anshel pfeffer, ifjoe biden said stop and meant it, would israel have to stop? hat stop and meant it, would israel have tosto? ., . ., . , stop and meant it, would israel have tosto? ., ., ., ., , to stop? not automatically, i don't think it would — to stop? not automatically, i don't think it would necessarily - to stop? not automatically, i don't think it would necessarily happen l think it would necessarily happen immediately and we sought just a couple _ immediately and we sought just a couple of— immediately and we sought just a couple of months ago antony blinken, the secretary of state, was here in israel— the secretary of state, was here in israel and — the secretary of state, was here in israel and saying enclosed rooms that the — israel and saying enclosed rooms that the administration expects there _ that the administration expects there to — that the administration expects there to be a ceasefire by the new year and _ there to be a ceasefire by the new year and we there to be a ceasefire by the new yearand we are there to be a ceasefire by the new

year and we are now already in late february _ year and we are now already in late february so — year and we are now already in late february so two months later and it hasn't _ february so two months later and it hasn't happened. yes, there is obviously— hasn't happened. yes, there is obviously a huge amount of influence, the american president has huge — influence, the american president has huge influence here, unlike the house _ has huge influence here, unlike the house of— has huge influence here, unlike the house of commons where, believe me, nobody— house of commons where, believe me, nobody in _ house of commons where, believe me, nobody injerusalem or house of commons where, believe me, nobody in jerusalem or gaza house of commons where, believe me, nobody injerusalem or gaza is waiting — nobody injerusalem or gaza is waiting to _ nobody injerusalem or gaza is waiting to hear whether the speak is going _ waiting to hear whether the speak is going to _ waiting to hear whether the speak is going to resign or not, the idea that anything that will be set in london — that anything that will be set in london is — that anything that will be set in london is going to have any influence _ london is going to have any influence here isjust ridiculous. i had been — influence here isjust ridiculous. i had been watching what people have said on— had been watching what people have said on your programme and it's justm _ said on your programme and it's justm i— said on your programme and it's just... i really don't understand how— just... i really don't understand how they— just... i really don't understand how they think they can have any influence. — how they think they can have any influence, britain really has no influence _ influence, britain really has no influence. the americans certainly do. , , . ., , . do. remember it is election year here as well- _ do. remember it is election year here as well. why _ do. remember it is election year here as well. why do _ do. remember it is election year here as well. why do you - do. remember it is election year here as well. why do you think i do. remember it is election yearl here as well. why do you think mr netanyahu and his cabinet can disregard joe biden when he says things like, they have gone over the top or too many innocent siblings are being killed? b5 top or too many innocent siblings

are being killed?— are being killed? as the other interviewee _ are being killed? as the other interviewee said, _ are being killed? as the other interviewee said, right - are being killed? as the other interviewee said, right now i are being killed? as the otherl interviewee said, right now the americans are not pushing with full force _ americans are not pushing with full force on— americans are not pushing with full force on israel. -- americans are not pushing with full force on israel.— force on israel. -- innocent civilians- — force on israel. -- innocent civilians. they _ force on israel. -- innocent civilians. they have - force on israel. -- innocent civilians. they have various| force on israel. -- innocent - civilians. they have various things they would _ civilians. they have various things they would like _ civilians. they have various things they would like israel _ civilians. they have various things they would like israel to - civilians. they have various things they would like israel to do - they would like israel to do differently but i think they also understand this walk will not end immediately, israel has to continue its war— immediately, israel has to continue its war against hamas and there is obviously— its war against hamas and there is obviously the issue of the hostages and i_ obviously the issue of the hostages and i think— obviously the issue of the hostages and i think what the americans are doing _ and i think what the americans are doing and — and i think what the americans are doing and notjust the americans, is to choose _ doing and notjust the americans, is to choose a — doing and notjust the americans, is to choose a sort of middle course to try to _ to choose a sort of middle course to try to reach — to choose a sort of middle course to try to reach a — to choose a sort of middle course to try to reach a hostage agreement whereby— try to reach a hostage agreement whereby some of the israeli hostages can go— whereby some of the israeli hostages can go free _ whereby some of the israeli hostages can go free after being four and a half months in captivity in gaza, and a _ half months in captivity in gaza, and a temporary ceasefire, for a start, _ and a temporary ceasefire, for a start, will— and a temporary ceasefire, for a start, will be agreed upon for a start, will be agreed upon fora nronth— start, will be agreed upon fora month or— start, will be agreed upon for a month or so over ramadan. and after that month _ month or so over ramadan. and after that month they will see if they can reach _ that month they will see if they can reach another agreement.- reach another agreement. finally, laura blumenfeld, _ reach another agreement. finally, laura blumenfeld, this _ reach another agreement. finally, laura blumenfeld, this us - reach another agreement. finally, i laura blumenfeld, this us temporary ceasefire resolution, is that serious or is it some kind of

diplomatic fudge? it serious or is it some kind of diplomatic fudge?— serious or is it some kind of diplomatic fudge? it is biden on a tiuht diplomatic fudge? it is biden on a tight rope. _ diplomatic fudge? it is biden on a tight rope. he _ diplomatic fudge? it is biden on a tightrope. he is _ diplomatic fudge? it is biden on a tight rope, he is all _ diplomatic fudge? it is biden on a tight rope, he is all about - diplomatic fudge? it is biden on aj tight rope, he is all about balance as your other interviewee said. he is using a lot of double—barrelled language to target two audiences, temporary ceasefire, temporary for israelis and ceasefire for the rest of the world and antony blinken talks about the pathway to two states, partly because for the israelis right now they are deeply traumatised and ready to accept two states and for the rest of the world, including saudi arabia, we need to look toward that horizon there are a lot of leveraged the us can exercise, militarily they can down weapons transfers, the idea is heavily dependent on them and they was a $50 billion bill to rebuild gaza so will they leave the israelis with that or will the saudis come on board and the us can use that levet and say they have to acknowledge two states and so forth. it's a matter of timing point i think we need some emotional intelligence in addition to diplomatic finesse to get to the

right place. to diplomatic finesse to get to the riaht lace. ., ~' ,, to diplomatic finesse to get to the riaht lace. ., ~' , to diplomatic finesse to get to the right place-— to diplomatic finesse to get to the riu-htlace. ., , . ., right place. thank you very much for our right place. thank you very much for your contributions _ right place. thank you very much for your contributions this _ right place. thank you very much for your contributions this evening. - last month, a review into the rochdale grooming scandal reported that girls had been left "at the mercy" of paedophile gangs, after being let down by both the police and local council beween 2004 and 2013. those gangs were men largely of british—pakistani heritage, according to the greater manchester force. the experiences of victims were front and centre of the report, but reading their words in black and white is no substitute for hearing from them. and it's rare to hearfrom them, because they are scared, still, traumatised, still, broken, still. i've been talking to one of those girls, now a young woman. from the age of 12, she was groomed, raped, made pregnant and sexually exploited. and it continued even after she was placed on a child protection plan by social services.

she has been diagnosed with complex ptsd as a result of what happened to her. in her first interview since january's report, "ruby" — not her real name to protect her identity — told me she was raped over 100 times over a period of four years. 100 times. ruby explained how it began. nothing really happened that night. we just had a few drinks and then went home. and it was the same like that for a few weeks. then one day we went in and there was like 30, a0 men sat there waiting for us. 30 to a0 men? yeah. they gave us a litre of vodka with no mixer and ten fags said, "go and sit down in the other room and drink that." then they had another bottle of vodka inside the room.

then we sat and drank, and then it started. then they took one of us, and then they took the other one of us, and then me. and it was like one in, one out. and did you know what was happening was wrong? not at the start, but it was when, when the rape started, then we knew like obviously this was wrong, but it had become like a taboo subject that we wouldn't speak about to each other about how wrong it was. we kind ofjust carried on. why do you think you just carried on? we carried on because there were threats made. and, then after that night, when it came out at the takeaway, and then it was like into the streets. they'd get our numbers, they'd come to the schools, they'd come to near my house, they'd come everywhere and they'd look for us and find us. there was no way out. newscast: they were vulnerable children, some as young - as 13, plied with drink,

raped and driven... were targeted in honeypot - locations, where young people were seen to congregate, i such as outside takeaways. initially, they were - made to feel special... i feel like that obviously the first like five times they affected me a lot. but then i feel like then ijust become numb to it. because obviously like the first few weeks wasn't it wasn't all doom. like it was fun. we had drinks, we had like a little party. we always thought like at some point it was going to go back to that, back to being fun. everybody knew. what do you mean, everybody knew? i wasn't quiet about it, like i told everybody. what did you tell them? i'm hanging around with older men, and i'm getting drunk with older men — like they knew. you told teachers? yeah. and what did they do? lock all.

newscast: children were left at risk and abusers weren't apprehended. i the failings were exposed _ by maggie oliver, a former detective with greater manchester police, who resigned over the force's i handling of the abuse scandal, who now works with survivors. j the authorities were frightened of rattling that racial... ..they were frightened of being accused of being racist. so i think that that made them tiptoe around this issue. i also, though, firmly believe that there was a judgment that these young children, who were often from difficult backgrounds, and that meant that they were the most vulnerable children, that nobody was going to cause a fuss about if the rapes weren't properly investigated. how many years did these rapes go on for? four years. and do you know how many times you were raped?

most of the time i couldn't remember, because i'd just be blackout drunk. i'd say possibly over hundred. because there were men from all of the country. it wasn'tjust men in rochdale. there was men from bradford and nelson and birmingham, blackpool, like we went everywhere. in the summer of 2008, you went to a sexual health clinic. why? we went for a cry for help, because there was nobody else to help us. and obviously we told schools and social services knew what was happening. again, nothing happened. so we went there, but we was given flavored condoms and sent away. are you joking me? no. we'd go in and the staff would be like, "oh, we've got a new flavour condom, this one, strawberry, you need to try this." like, "we're all 12 and 13. why are you doing this?" we told them exactly what was happening and they'd get

excited over condoms. according to the report published last month, a review into the rochdale grooming scandal, you, "told them about older asian boyfriends giving you vodka and sexually abusing you." as a result of that, children's social care did a child protection assessment. and, in october of 2008, you were put on a child protection plan, under the categories of neglect and sexual abuse. did that stop the sexual exploitation? no, it did not stop it. they didn't really do much, to be honest. they didn't even speak about it to me. they never sat down and said, like, "this is sexual abuse, like this is the signs, this is what you need to look out for in all this". they'd come to the house, sit there, have a cup of tea, stand up and leave every week. and then that was it. why was it not taken seriously? why was more not being done to protect you and to catch the abusers? in 2010, i told a social worker,

i gave him a list of around 60 men, phone numbers, i took him to addresses where abuse was happening to notjust me, but all the other victims as well. and again, nothing was done. newscast: these men were described together in court as callous, _ violent and vicious. they'll serve a total of 77 years in prison for the sexual- exploitation of girls as young as 13. - the man who was abusing you was eventually arrested. later, he was charged with sexual activity with a child under the age of 16 years. you were that child. he was not charged with rape. why? do you know why? i don't know why, but i feel like it was because i weren't victim enough. i just feel like it's because i didn't cry and i was very numb and i was very like naive

to the whole interviews and all that. i was very scared, but i didn't really show it in the right way. sexual activity with a child is a much easier charge to prosecute. you didn't have to prove anything. if they had charged him with rape, even though i think it is incredible to even consider this, the prosecution would have had to prove that she didn't consent. so the man who had groomed you into believing that you were his girlfriend, the man who'd got you pregnant at the age of 13, was found guilty of conspiracy and he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for trafficking, for sexual exploitation. but he was out in four. how'd you know he was out in four? i seen him in asda. at first i double—looked, because i didn't really believe what i'd seen.

so then when it hit me, like he's there, i kind of ran. ijust went home and then obviously i didn't leave the house for like three months. but again, he still in rochdale is still out and about, picking up his kids from school and living his best life. newscast: earlier this year, - nine men were jailed for sexually exploiting girls in heywood, which is just on the - outskirts of rochdale. but that was long after one i of the girls had given detailed complaints to the police and social workers. - what i want to ask you, ruby, is, is it still happening? it absolutely is. it's still happening. because of my role now as chairand founder of the maggie oliver foundation, we are dealing with current cases all over the country. i still think that the police and social services are pretending that lessons have been learned,

that things are better, and myjob is to say, "no, they are not". if it's happening to somebody who sees your interview right now, what would you say to that girl? i don't even know. i don't think the police are changed enough to direct them there. i was let down so much, i don't feel like i'd want another child to go through what i went through. i mean, that is damning, isn't it? you're saying because of your experience and the horrific trauma you went through, you actually wouldn't say to a young girl today who's experiencing the same thing, contact the police. i definitely wouldn't. absolutely not. how would you... ..describe the effects of all this on your life? very damaging. very, very damaging. i've got complex ptsd now.

i have a good life like, but sometimes i don't sleep because it goes through my head. there's a lot of questions of why and what happened, why it wasn't dealt with, right, or whatever. the police should have dealt with it, because it wasn't like it was a secret. i told everybody. i didn't hide it from anybody. and ijust feel like i was let down. we asked rochdale council to come on the show tonight but they said no. they gave us a statement. "we are deeply sorry that the people who were at rochdale council during the period 2004 to 2013, like many other areas of the country, did not recognise or acknowledge what was happening and failed to take the necessary action to protect children from abuse. far more rigorous practices are in place today and we are determined to ensure these terrible failures do not happen again." greater manchester police said they continue to be deeply sorry for how they failed victims.

they added... "how we now prevent and respond to cse is vastly different,