“Give me a f****** pistol, and I’ll walk behind them and go ‘boom, boom, boom’… I would do that without f****** thinking for a second about it, and I’d go up and have my coffee,” he is said to have admitted.

David Kerr, a Reform councillor in the same London borough, is said to have agreed with Mr Parkins, saying he could reduce offending rates if he could “line up a few thousand grooming gang perpetrators and machine gun them down”.

It was previously understood that both councillors were under investigation following the undercover operation.

However, a Reform spokesman has now confirmed to GB News that “no further action will be taken” against the pair.

“Where members, activists and councillors have clearly behaved inappropriately, investigations have commenced,” the spokesman said.

“In some cases, there have been suspensions and due process must be followed.

“Cllrs Parkins and Kerr were giving their own personal opinions on the death penalty for members of child rape gangs in what they believed was a private conversation.

“We will not be taking further action against them.”

The revelations come just days after Nigel Farage’s party said they have “no room for racism” following further allegations that Reform members were making graphic threats of extreme violence and expressing racist and misogynistic views.

In the outlet’s latest revelations, party activist Jason Powell reportedly said “you cannot be a Muslim and British”, describing it as “like oil and water”.

And, speaking at a party event organised to thank volunteers who helped Mr Farage secure his Clacton seat, Mr Powell expressed his backing for migration concentration camps.

“Anyone who comes across on a boat, as an example, in the first week of election, build concentration camps, and everyone who comes across on the channel, you’re in there,” he said.

“They just need to be rounded up, every single last one of them, and sent to those concentration camps, and then be given an ultimatum. Where are you from? Because you’re going back there. If you don’t tell us, you’re staying here for the rest of your life.”

Mr Powell has since been suspended from party membership while Reform carries out an internal investigation. He posted a 45-minute long YouTube video explaining his views, posting on Facebook: “Damn your eyes if you think I’m bigoted or extremist”.

Gawain Towler, a senior member of Reform, is said to have admitted to the broadcaster that he was “racist every single day” at school.

The comments came when asked about allegations of Mr Farage’s behaviour while attending Dulwich College.

More than a dozen former pupils who shared an education with the Reform leader between the late 1970s and early 1980s have accused him of racist behaviour.

Mr Farage told GB News at the time that he “categorically denies saying those things”, but later said to the BBC it would be a “pity” if he upset anyone with his behaviour, adding: “I’m sorry, but never, ever did I intend to hurt anybody”.

Mr Towler, who has known Mr Farage for around two decades, told ITV he was appalled by his views as a child and admitted he had no knowledge of the alleged remarks by the Reform leader.

The 90-minute ITV Exposure documentary, titled Undercover: A Year in Reform, airs tonight at 10:20pm.

Three councillors have already resigned this week following the report’s findings, while two individuals have left the party entirely.

Reform Councillors Face ‘No Further Action’ After Calls for Grooming Gang Executions

The controversy surrounding Reform UK has intensified after two of its councillors were reportedly filmed making comments advocating executions for people responsible for grooming gang offences. The remarks, revealed through an undercover ITV investigation, have prompted questions about political accountability, the limits of acceptable public debate and the way parties vet and discipline their representatives.

The headline claim that the councillors face “no further action” requires careful distinction. Reports about the footage say Reform councillors Adam Parkins and David Kerr, from Hounslow in west London, were recorded making violent statements about perpetrators of grooming gang crimes. The reporting also indicated that the party had opened an internal investigation, while the councillors were not facing the same immediate disciplinary outcome as some other individuals exposed by the documentary. <Cite refs={[“turn592177news10″,”turn592177search2”]}/>

The episode has brought two important issues into focus: the need to respond seriously to child sexual exploitation and the responsibility of elected representatives to discuss criminal justice within the boundaries of the law and democratic accountability.

What the Undercover Investigation Revealed

The footage formed part of ITV’s Undercover: A Year in Reform, a year-long investigation examining the behaviour and views of people associated with Nigel Farage’s party.

According to reports about the documentary, Parkins said he would carry out executions of grooming gang offenders in the Downing Street Rose Garden if he were prime minister. Kerr was also reported to have advocated shooting perpetrators. The comments were presented as part of a broader investigation into offensive, racist and violent statements made by some Reform candidates, councillors and activists. <Cite refs={[“turn592177news10″,”turn592177search0”]}/>

The comments generated criticism because they appeared to describe extrajudicial violence as a response to serious crimes. In a democratic legal system, criminal suspects must be investigated and prosecuted through established procedures, and punishments must be imposed by courts under the law.

The seriousness of grooming gang offences does not remove the need for due process. Child sexual exploitation can cause profound and lasting harm, and victims and survivors deserve justice, protection and meaningful support. But political leaders are also expected to distinguish between demanding tougher lawful sentences and suggesting that officials should personally carry out executions outside the judicial system.

That distinction lies at the heart of the controversy.

Why Is Reform Taking No Further Disciplinary Action?

The decision reportedly not to pursue further disciplinary action against Parkins and Kerr has become a central point of the controversy. According to reporting published on 18 October, Reform UK’s board member Gawain Towler described some of the recorded comments as “grim”, while defending the party’s vetting procedures. <Cite refs={[“turn396122search5″,”turn396122news6”]}/>

The reported decision raises questions about the standards political parties apply to their elected representatives. Parties have a legitimate responsibility to investigate the circumstances of controversial remarks, consider the individuals’ explanations and apply their rules consistently. But voters may reasonably expect clear explanations when conduct that has attracted widespread criticism does not lead to disciplinary action.

There is also a distinction between a party’s internal decision and a councillor’s legal responsibilities. A party can decide whether someone remains a member or representative, while local authorities have separate procedures for considering complaints about councillor conduct. Neither process should be confused with a criminal investigation.

The available reports do not establish that the two councillors have been found to have committed a criminal offence. The controversy concerns their recorded statements and the political response to them, rather than a reported court judgment.

For Reform, the challenge is to explain why it believes no further disciplinary action is warranted and how that decision fits with its stated standards for those representing the party.

Nigel Farage Faces Questions About Vetting

The controversy has also placed Nigel Farage under pressure to explain how Reform selects and supervises its candidates.

Farage has argued that political parties cannot predict every comment a member might make in the future. Reform has also said it has improved its vetting procedures and that inappropriate behaviour can lead to investigations, suspensions or removals. <Cite refs={[“turn396122search0″,”turn396122news7”]}/>

Those arguments raise a wider organisational question. Background checks can identify some risks, but they cannot guarantee that every candidate will behave appropriately once elected. Political parties therefore need both effective selection processes and credible procedures for responding to conduct that comes to light later.

Consistency is particularly important. If one member is suspended over offensive remarks while another remains in position after making similarly serious statements, the party needs to explain the relevant differences in the cases.

That does not mean every controversy must result in an identical sanction. Context, evidence, the individual’s response and the party’s formal rules may all be relevant. However, unexplained differences can undermine confidence in disciplinary procedures.

For Reform, whose political profile has grown significantly, the issue is not limited to two councillors. It concerns how the party intends to maintain standards across a large and expanding network of elected representatives.

Justice for Grooming Gang Survivors Must Remain Central

The debate should not obscure the experiences of victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation.

Grooming gang offences involve serious abuse, and investigations into historic failures have raised questions about how institutions responded to victims, whether warning signs were ignored and whether perpetrators were brought to justice. Survivors deserve to be heard, treated with dignity and supported throughout the criminal justice process.

Demanding accountability for these crimes is entirely compatible with insisting that punishments are determined through lawful procedures. Calls for effective investigations, appropriate sentencing and protection for children can be pursued without endorsing executions outside the courts.

The death penalty is not part of the current sentencing system in England and Wales. Any proposal to change the law would require a fundamental legal and political debate; elected officials cannot simply substitute personal action for judicial authority.

A serious response to child sexual exploitation should focus on protecting potential victims, investigating allegations thoroughly, prosecuting offenders where the evidence supports it, and learning from past institutional failures.

That approach also requires care when discussing the background of offenders. Individual crimes should be investigated on the evidence, and responsibility should rest with those who commit or facilitate them rather than being extended to an entire ethnic, religious or national community.

Accountability and Public Confidence

The controversy ultimately concerns the standards expected of people who hold public office.

Councillors represent local residents, take part in decisions affecting their communities and are expected to act within the law. Their statements can influence public confidence, particularly when they concern violence, criminal justice or vulnerable groups.

Reform’s reported decision not to take further disciplinary action may satisfy its internal assessment, but it is unlikely to end public discussion of the footage. Residents may continue to ask whether the councillors’ comments are compatible with the responsibilities of elected office and whether the party’s response is sufficiently transparent.

The wider lesson applies across political parties: vetting is important, but accountability after election matters just as much. Clear standards, fair procedures and reasoned explanations can help distinguish legitimate political disagreement from conduct that raises serious concerns.

For now, the case remains a political controversy rather than a judicial determination. The reported remarks, the party’s response and the distinction between internal discipline and legal accountability should all be considered separately.

The central question is whether Reform can explain its decision convincingly while maintaining public confidence in its standards. Whatever the outcome, the debate should keep the needs of grooming gang survivors at its centre and uphold the principle that serious crimes must be addressed through effective investigations, fair trials and lawful punishment.