Adam Fleming (2:12)

I've only just arrived, but already I can feel there's a real buzz around Washington right now. You can sense that there's a new leader in town, that he's a true one off, a pioneer in business and in politics. Many people love him, others love to hate him, but to us he's just Peter.

Chris Mason (2:43)

It is so interesting, Adam hearing that again. So actually it was another example of sleep deprivation and jet lag because we flew out to Washington, the Prime Minister was meeting Donald Trump the day after and we got there, it was about 2 or 3 in the morning UK time by this point, but it was mid evening in Washington. We went straight to the British Embassy and there was the Prime Minister in the company, in a ballroom in the company of a couple of hundred supporters of President Trump, members of his administration. And I thought that was both a well written and well delivered gag. But my goodness. And how different it feels hearing it right now. Really does feel different, doesn't it? Because there was a Prime Minister who had made a rare political appointment to a the most senior ambassadorial role. Normally it's a career diplomat, a career civil servant making a joke at his expense, acknowledging that here is someone who was controversial and had been sacked before and resigned before from high political office, but was seen to be effective in Washington. That was the view at the time as he was beginning his term out there, which was to turn out to be pretty short and which plenty of government acknowledge was pretty successful for the time he was there. But my goodness, what a backwash it's provoked since. And I think in many senses, and we get into this, don't we? In this latest episode you have two Prime Ministers, the current one and a previous one in Gordon Brown, who would have had previous reservations about Peter Mandelson's character but believed he was so politically valuable they brought him in to a significant office. Gordon Brown as First Secretary of State, Keir Starmer as Ambassador to Washington, and both of them now feeling very, very bruised and hurt by that decision.

Adam Fleming (4:42)

All the subject of this episode of.

Daniela Ralph (4:43)

Newscast, Newscast, Newscast from the BBC.

Adam Fleming (4:46)

Fat Boy Slim and me in the.

Chris Mason (4:48)

Classroom doing our violin lessons.

Adam Fleming (4:49)

I was the tattletale in the class. Can I have an apology, please?

Chris Mason (4:52)

I trust almost nobody that daddy has to sometimes use strong language next time in mosque.

Helena Merriman (4:58)

I feel Delulu with no Salulu.

Chris Mason (5:00)

Take me down to Downing Street.

Adam Fleming (5:02)

Let's go have a tour.

Chris Mason (5:03)

Blimey.

Adam Fleming (5:04)

Hello, it's Adam in the newscast studio.

Daniela Ralph (5:06)

And it's Daniela also in the newscast studio.

Dominic Casciani (5:09)

And it's Dominic in newscast studio as well.

Chris Mason (5:12)

Oh my. Meant to say something now.

Adam Fleming (5:14)

Yes, Chris.

Chris Mason (5:14)

I should be used to this after all these years. It's Chris at Westminster. Hello. Like a cold spring here.

Adam Fleming (5:20)

Right, we're recording this episode of newscast at 6:26 on Tuesday. The 3rd of February, that's 6:26 in the evening. And Dom, you've just been on the 6 o' clock news, sort of alongside Chris, although he was down at Westminster, and there was some breaking news related to the Jeffrey Epstein Peter Mandelson story. Do you want to just sort of break that to us again?

Dominic Casciani (5:37)

Yeah, yeah. So the Metropolitan Police is set to launch a criminal investigation into Lord Mandelson. That's what we understand. We expect that announcement to be formally made sometime between now and the end of the footy tonight. So I think we'll have the full wording of that by 10 o'clock tonight.

Adam Fleming (5:57)

Give us some kind of guidance for how we should interpret that statement when it comes.

Dominic Casciani (6:01)

So what we knew of as of yesterday was the Metropolitan Police was effectively reviewing whether or not there was a case to investigate. It's sometimes called scoping exercise, where they look at reports, they effectively kick the tires of it and sit there and think, is this something which is worth spending time on? Now, depending on the type of allegation, some things are pretty easy to make an instant decision on whether there should be a criminal investigation. Other things are more complicated. Things like allegations of misconduct in public office are very complicated because you're looking at particular elements of alleged behaviour, whether somebody benefits from something or not. And then you're probably going to have to take some specialist legal advice. Quite often these situations behind the scenes, you'll have a senior detective whose work works in specialist crime, they'll have a chat with a lawyer at the Crown Prosecution Service and say, look, on the face of this, what do you think? And clearly this is before anyone's potentially spoken to the person who's alleged to have done something wrong. So it's effectively just the provisional stages and once they've done that, they then basically press the investigation button and say, yeah, we're going to investigate. Now that's important because it's at that point that the police will contact the, the person who's alleged to have done something wrong and ask them for their side of the story. They'll basically seek to gather evidence that may include searches, seizure of devices, phones, computers, whatever. I mean, it's how the whole thing basically starts. So there's effectively a two stage process. So I think there was a lot of excitement last night that people that the police were saying, we're going to review what we've learned so far, but the real moment is actually when they said they're going to investigate.

Adam Fleming (7:40)

And in terms of the potential crime that is being investigated here Misconduct and public office. I'm sure you could write a whole book about what that is and the origins of it. Well, I'll be reading it this week. Give us the shorter version.

Dominic Casciani (7:52)

Yeah. So misconduct in public office is really complicated, and it's complicated for two reasons. One, it's ancient and it's never been codified by Parliament. And secondly, because it's really, really complicated and the wording has been argued over since 1783. So I'm going to take you back into the midst of time here. We'll do a bit of a lecture. Lord Mansfield, he was the then Chief justice in 1783 and he had to decide whether a particular government accountant who worked in the military had cooked the books. And this accountant was saying, well, what crime have I committed? Yeah, there's no evidence here against me. And Lord Mansfield, when he reviewed it, the Court of Appeal said, well, look, you have cooked the books. You know, you've cooked the books, you're a public servant, you've abused the public's trust. That's the key phrase, abuse of the public trust. Therefore, it has to be a crime. So that's what's called a common law offence, where effectively, the courts step in to say something is a crime that Parliament hasn't actually thought about already and codified. And because of the weird way that English law works, that just exists as a crime, everybody accepts it's a crime until Parliament says otherwise. And it went that way for 220 years.

Adam Fleming (8:55)

So even though it's not written down in a piece of legislation that was voted on by MPs or whatever we had at the point.

Dominic Casciani (9:00)

Yeah, exactly. That's exactly the situation. Now, 220 years later, in 2003, Lord Mansfield's successors at the Court of Appeal decided to have a go at trying to get some more clarity over what this meant. And they came up with a series of tests. They said, a public official. I'm going to read this because it's complicated. Public official commits the crime of misconduct in the public office if they willfully neglect to perform their duty or willfully misconduct themselves to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder and without reasonable excuse or justification. Now, to be frank, I'm still sitting there thinking, what does that really mean? Because it's quite vague and it's open to interpretation. What does it say about motive? It doesn't say something along the lines of for financial gain. The wording was left vague because the Court of Appeal thought, basically, if we're going to have this offence and it's going to be specific. It's really going to be for Parliament to decide what to do about this. But as a result of this ruling, this actually clarified the law and opened the door post 2011, when the news of the World closed down to the arrest of 90 journalists, prison officers, police officers, other officials, who were all accused of payments for exclusives in newspapers. And the interesting thing about those 90 arrests is only 34 of them actually ended up in convictions, which just shows it's very complicated. And in a lot of those cases, the individuals who were either investigated by the police or went to court said, I've done nothing wrong here. I passed on a piece of tittle tattle. You know, this wasn't really serious information, which was really sensitive or anything. So these are the kind of things the police have got to take into account. If they're going to investigate Peter Mendelsohn, they're going to have to think about what his motive was, what did he do that was wrong, did he know it was wrong and was it wrong to such an extent that the public would be quite simply outraged by that fact? And all of that, because it's complicated, also means it's a test for a jury. It can't be dealt with in the lower courts. It's got to go before a jury. It's really their judgment at the end of the day.

Adam Fleming (11:13)

And of course, that would only be in the case of the police deciding to actually charge Lord Mandelson and prosecute him.

Dominic Casciani (11:19)

Absolutely.

Adam Fleming (11:20)

Chris, I know you were having to respond to this live on the news, so I don't want to put you on the spot and I'll give you plenty of chance to talk about the politics of today, because there's been a lot of it. But what's the kind of the political implications of. Of what Dom was just talking about there?

Chris Mason (11:33)

Well, I think, in essence, at least, where we are right now, and this is clearly still emerging, emerging from Domini on the six o' clock news. And every sense that things will continue to emerge from here on as people trawl through the documents, is that, you know, let's take a couple of steps back. Today, we have had the government passing information on and assessments on to the police. And we've had a former Prime Minister in Gordon Brown, communicating with the police. And what we have emerging here involving a single individual individual is one of the biggest potential political scandals of a generation, I think. Yes, of course, rewind 10, 15 years. There was the expenses Scandal at Westminster involving lots of different, lots of different, lots of different members of parliament, etc. Etc. But involving an individual. And the reason I say that is this. Of course you would expect in an instance like this, opposition parties to kind of scrutinize and capitalize. That's kind of their duty and it would also be their, be their instinct. But the source of the greatest anger around all of this right now is people on the Labour side, people who feel betrayed, who feel phenomenally let down by someone who they might have looked up to or respected or been friends with or at least worked alongside for those who were around when Labour was last in government, when Peter Mandelson was first Secretary of State, effectively Deputy Prime Minister to Gordon Brown in the latter years of the last time that Labour was in government. And such, such as the volume of the revelations, albeit snapshots in these emails, in the files that are released, there are so, so many questions that are being put to Lord Mandelson in the interest of fairness, we should be clear, we're approaching Lord Mandelson frequently to offer him any opportunity to respond either in general or indeed to the specifics. He has not responded publicly today. My understanding is that it is his view that he has not acted criminally, that he has never act for personal gain. And on the specifics, which is where some of the sharper end of this gets to, which is the extent to which he was sharing market sensitive information when he was first Secretary of State, my understanding is that it is his view that he was dealing with someone in Jeffrey Epstein who was steeped in that world of banking and connections with significant players in the United States. And therefore, to use that phrase, friendship was in the national interest. It is also worth reflecting in the round in the, on the grounds of fairness that I have not encountered a single individual at Westminster who thinks that argument flies.

Adam Fleming (14:18)

And that criticism of Lord Mandelson was made at the Cabinet meeting today in Downing street by the Prime Minister. And we were told about it in quite some detail by Downing Street.

Chris Mason (14:27)

Indeed. Yeah. So, I mean, Downing street today have been going out of their way to try and stay on the front foot or not be accused of being behind the curve in responding to this. We were told that at the Cabinet meeting this morning, the Prime Minister said he was appalled. We were also told that the Government is seeking as soon as possible to find a mechanism to remove Lord Mandelson's title. So he has said today, Lord Mandelson or communicated to the House of Lords that he is retiring from that Chamber. But that's not the same as losing his peerage, losing the entitlement to be called Lord Mandelson, as opposed to Peter Mandelson. The government is emphasizing today, with the degree of speed in the language that they are using that wasn't there to the same extent yesterday that they're exploring all options. Yesterday they were saying, let's work cross party to try and find a mechanism that would allow people that Parliament concludes should no longer be able to sit in the House of Lords to be kicked out. There is now a bit more of an emphasis on. While seeking to do that. That could take some time. There is also a mechanism where, frankly, the government could pass a law that says it is removing Lord Mandelson's peerage. And the view is that that would sweep through Parliament pretty quickly. The government's emphasizing that it'll act as quickly as it can. They're also saying, I was mentioning a few minutes ago that officials were in touch with the police this morning with a view, an assessment from folk in government as to the sensitivity of the information that these emails suggest Lord Mundson was sharing.

Adam Fleming (16:06)

And, Chris, we'll talk in a minute about what's going to happen on Wednesday and where this could go in Parliament, because there's lots to unpick there. But Daniela, the Royal Angles today, and there are a few. We actually heard a serving member of the Royal Family sort of referring to this.

Daniela Ralph (16:21)

Definitely referring to it, yeah.

Adam Fleming (16:23)

Prince Edward, just not very explicitly.

Daniela Ralph (16:25)

No, it was, yeah, slightly round the Houses, I suppose, slightly. But yeah, Prince Edward, the younger brother of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. He's now the Duke of Edinburgh as well, is his other title. He was in Dubai at a education center summit, effectively, and he was being interviewed at the summit and he was asked how he was coping, was the question that was put to him, about everything that's been happening over the past few days with the latest drop of Epstein files. And he replied, saying, you know, he initially actually said, I don't know if anyone here would be really that interested. I'm sure everyone's here to talk about education.

Prince Edward (16:59)

Well, with the best world in the world, I'm not sure this is the audience that is probably the least bit interested in that. So they all came here to listen to my education, Solving the Future and. But no, I think it's really important always to remember the victims and who are the victims in all this.

Daniela Ralph (17:14)

But then he said, we've got to remember who the victims are in all of this, and there are a lot of victims. So Interesting, because we've not heard anyone really directly from the Royal family deal with this in any way whatsoever. So to hear him actually not completely shut it down and actually say something and focus on the victims was interesting.

Adam Fleming (17:32)

And it's also worth remembering that in previous statements from the Royal family about this, there wasn't much mention of the victims. And the first sign that there was a real rupture between the King and Andrew was when there was a statement from Buckingham palace that put the victims front and center in the words from the royal family. That was when we knew, all right, this relationship is breaking down between the two of them.

Daniela Ralph (17:54)

That's right. Do you remember that back in October, that initial statement when Andrew was given the privilege of saying it in his own words, I'm going to give up being a Knight of the Garter. I'm gonna give this up and this title up. And in that statement, there was no mention at all of victims. So it was in his own words. He denied the allegations against him and said, this is how I see it. I mean, there was a bit of an outcry, an enormous amount of criticism of the Royal family in terms of how can you allow him to frame it like that? You know, it's a real privilege to be able to come and speak publicly and have your words heard out loud. Two weeks later, that had changed completely. That was the message that came from the King that said, he's being stripped of everything. You know, his royal life is over, he's being cut off. And there was a very, very clear couple of sentences about thought and sympathy from the King and Queen towards the victims.

Adam Fleming (18:40)

And in the last episode of Newscast, a lot of our focus was on Sarah Ferguson, Andrew's ex wife, although we know they're still very, very close and spend a lot of time together. More revelations from the cache of Epstein emails about her communications with him.

Daniela Ralph (18:54)

Yeah, that's right. For me, it's been very much a Sarah Ferguson day. Actually. It sort of shifted across today in terms of what we're seeing and what we found in the documents. And there are just a whole lot of series of emails from her to Epstein and a couple from Epstein back to her. And there is, to be honest, just a real desperation in the words and the content of what she's saying. If I just read you a few of them now, these are going back to 2009, 2010. She's saying things like, I have been so sad, I'm very, very sorry. And she's obviously trying to make contact with Epstein. He's obviously not responding that well. Have you died on me? But you don't. Please, you are my pillar. I'm feeling very traumatized and alone. And then he responds, and she replies saying, phew, you still love me. I thought you had disowned me. And. And she also says, so you haven't forgotten about me. I do know that my handsome prince is a saint and you worship him. But then I did marry him and I still love him. So, you know, there is. There is that sort of fawning tone. She sounds quite desperate for Epstein's attention, but no response at all from any of her representatives or Buckingham palace today.

Adam Fleming (19:59)

And also some of the things that Jeffrey Epstein asks her for are almost like things you might ask an assistant to do. It's like logistical stuff, organising stuff.

Daniela Ralph (20:07)

Yeah, it's that thing again, is it? We talked about it yesterday. The sort of power play that you're seeing in these exchanges, which I'm really fascinated by. And yet again, he seems to be Epstein, the one holding the cards and everyone is trying to please him. So one of the things that comes up is him asking for access to royal palaces. And there's one where Epstein writes from 2010. Sarah, could you. Or one of your daughter's show a redacted name, Buckingham. Thanks. I mean, they're so short and sweet, these messages from. They're also really poorly, poorly spelled. The grammar's terrible. They're quite hard to understand sometimes, but he is very direct, just asking what he wants. But the responses to him, it seems, from everyone else are very fawning and telling him how great he is and how much they love him.

Adam Fleming (20:49)

Although it is interesting the tone of what Sarah Ferguson says. You use the D word, desperation. I'm just remembering interviews I read with her and watched with her. Like, she is a quite unusual character, especially when you think she was in the royal family by marriage, not by birth. Actually, if you were gonna get emailed by Sarah Ferguson, you think they would be probably a bit mad.

Daniela Ralph (21:10)

Yeah, maybe. I think that in the nicest possible way that's fair. She is someone who is quite exuberant in the way she talks to you. I've interviewed her a couple of times over the years. She is very. She'll ask you all sorts, you know, she's quite touchy feely, she is. She'll ask you all sorts of personal stuff about your family and yourself and all sorts. So, yeah, I suppose the style of them is quite fitting to the person we know as Sarah Ferguson.

Adam Fleming (21:34)

And have we heard anything Yet. From Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor. We talked yesterday about the picture of him going out on horseback. Anything official?

Daniela Ralph (21:41)

No, nothing today. He's not been out and about in Windsor, as far as we can see, and absolutely nothing from any representative of him or lawyer. It's actually quite hard to reach him officially now as well, because, of course, he's not represented by Buckingham palace or anyone in the Royal household officially. So you're going slightly around the Houses sometimes to try and get him, but absolutely nothing on the record today.

Adam Fleming (22:01)

Chris, let's turn our gaze to what's going to happen in Westminster on Wednesday, then. And we have this thing, which is a regular thing at Westminster called an Opposition day debate, where one of the opposition parties gets a couple of hours to decide what is debated and voted on in Parliament, and it's going to be the Conservatives on Wednesday, and they've chosen this as their debate and their vote. What are they trying to achieve here and what sort of parliamentary techniques are they going to be deploying?

Chris Mason (22:26)

So the Conservatives have struck lucky in their timing on Wednesday, having this opposition day debate, this bit of time in the parliamentary timetable, but they've spent much of Tuesday trying to make sure they nail it as far as how things might turn out. So they're going to use this procedure called a humble address. Now, what that means is it is a mechanism for requesting papers, documents from a government department. Now, they have spent ages trying to get the wording right in two directions, and arguably, directions that could prove to be pushing against each other. So, firstly, in order to get any papers, they've got to win the vote. Well, they're not in government, they don't have many MPs. In other words, they need to write an address, an idea that Labour MPs don't want to vote down and arguably, ideally, from their perspective, would vote for, or at least not vote for at all. In other words, abstain. So can they write something that Labour MPs don't feel they can vote down? Because Labour really don't want to feel like they're on the back foot on all of this. And secondly, can it be worded in a sufficiently narrow way that they get the documents that they want if they win the vote? What documents do they want? They want to find out about the vetting procedures around Lord Mandelson's appointment to be the ambassador in the United States that took place, of course, in the last 18 months or so prior to his appointment in Washington about a year ago. So what was the vetting procedure? What did Downing street know beforehand what questions were asked. So that's what they're going to seek to do tomorrow afternoon. And before that, Prime Minister's questions. Prime Minister back in the country after his trip to Asia last week. It could be quite a thing at lunchtime. Before that with the Prime Minister, Kemi Badenoch and others, no doubt with Lord Mandelson featuring in the conversation.

Adam Fleming (24:25)

And also, Chris, forgetting the politics and the difficulty about Prime Ministerial judgment in all of this, actually, just on a practical basis, the process they're talking about here is called developed vetting. And it's where quite often former members of the intelligence agencies go and interview somebody and their family members about their deepest, darkest secrets before deciding whether they can get a high profile job with access to secret stuff like being ambassador to Washington. So releasing stuff that's related to that is presumably a total minefield.

Chris Mason (24:56)

Well, yeah, exactly that. And then, and then there's the argument that you'll hear articulated either directly or indirectly from both sides on all of this, if you like. And by that I mean the government and Lord Mandelson. So the argument we've heard for a while from folk in government around Lord Mandelson's appointment is that, you know, you can do as much vetting as you like, but if the person at the heart of it is not telling you the whole truth, then there's, there's a chance you don't get to that whole truth if elements of that whole truth are held by folk who are not going to disclose it at that time. And the argument we've heard from Lord Mandelson in the past around all of this is that a lot of this email testimony that has since been published were not emails that he could recall nor had access to. Now, whether or not there could have been an expectation of greater candor even without that evidence from Lord Mandelson, I guess gets to the, the crux of all of this, and that's certainly a key part of the Downing street argument when it is put to him by Kemi Badenoch and others to the Prime Minister. Well, hang on a minute. Given Lord Mandelson's friendship and association with Jeffrey Epstein was long known prior to his appointment to Washington, why did you conclude that this was a good idea, given that this was a time bomb that could, well, that could well go off.

Adam Fleming (26:11)

And Dominic, while Chris was talking there, you got the statement from the Met Police that we were expecting. Do you want to tell us about it?

Dominic Casciani (26:16)

Yeah, yeah.

Adam Fleming (26:17)

Hot off.

Dominic Casciani (26:18)

The press statement from Commander Ella Marriott of the Metropolitan Police. Investigation launched into alleged misconduct in public office. Following the further release of millions of court documents in relation to Jeffrey EPSTEIN by the U.S. department of justice, the Metropolitan Police received a number of reports into alleged misconduct in public office, including a referral from the UK government. I can confirm that the Met has now launched an investigation into a 72 year old man, a former government minister, for misconduct, I should say, for alleged misconduct in public office offences. The Met will continue to assess all relevant information brought to our attention as part of this investigation and won't be commenting any further at this time. So, yeah, there you have it. You have effectively the confirmation of an investigation. Met pro scholars, they do not name people they're investigating, but we have the description there of a 72 year old man, a former government minister, we understand that to be Peter Mandelson. They've now gone into effectively their version of purder where they will not say anything. Not saying anything. And I think politically this actually potentially poses a problem for the Opposition Day tomorrow, because if the Conservatives have have a plan to put the government on a bit of a skewer, if that's not mixing some metaphors there in relation to this, I wouldn't be surprised to hear the reply from the government being, well, there's a live criminal investigation now, we can't go there.

Adam Fleming (27:53)

Although no one has been charged.

Dominic Casciani (27:55)

No, no, but I think it's just. I'm just thinking through how this might work in practice.

Adam Fleming (27:59)

And there's parliamentary privilege. You can say stuff in Parliament you wouldn't, you wouldn't be allowed to say on BBC1 at 6 o'. Clock.

Dominic Casciani (28:05)

You can, but there is a con that you just don't go into sort of live criminal matters in Parliament.

Chris Mason (28:11)

Yeah. And often the speaker or Deputy speaker, whoever's in the chair, will remind MPs prior to such a debate that there is a police investigation underway, for instance.

Dominic Casciani (28:21)

And I think the thing about developed vetting, just picking up on Chris's point about the sensitivity around that if the Opposition are going to ask for documents in relation to the developed vetting of Lord Mandelson, an incredibly sensitive and personal process that somebody has to go through to be appointed to these top roles, it is possible, hypothetically speaking, that the Met would be saying to Downing street or the Cabinet Office, rather tonight or tomorrow, we want to see what was said in that process. I'm speculating here, but you see, that gives another possible avenue for the Government to say, we're not going to go there. Thank you very much for your humble address application. We're not going there, you know, so.

Adam Fleming (29:06)

But then, Chris, back to your original point when you were telling us about this, that the Conservative Party spent all day trying to finesse this so that they can get maximum disclosure from the Government, minimum chance of it being knocked back. So presumably they will, I'm completely guessing, be working on how to get around this now, because they want the information.

Chris Mason (29:26)

They do. I mean, they were aware, certainly in the conversation I was having a couple of hours ago, that things were moving very quickly, that the outcome that we're reflecting on now in terms of the Metropolitan Police was possible, but certainly not certain by that point, and that they were attempting to go through what is quite a complicated parliamentary drafting process for something that is under 24 hours down the track, but where the landscape around the story might have changed radically by that time, by which time it might be too late to do much tweaking to what they're seeking to do. I think, as Dom reflects, there is every likelihood that the Government says, in the light of what the Metropolitan Police are saying, that there might be a limit to what they can say or do. That that does tend to be a sort of an agent of slowing things down in terms of public debate around these issues when there's a police investigation. But clearly the Conservatives think that there is. You know, what makes this politically salient now, over and over and above that, it is yet again a another thing that means Keir Starmer can't talk about what he'd like to be talking about, cost of living and his domestic agenda is that obviously it relates to him because of this recent appointment, as opposed to it being something that might be deeply serious politically and the involvement of the police, et cetera, et cetera, but politically could be described as something a decade and a half back, more than that in some instances, but clearly it's not, because it does come down to a Prime Minister, the Prime Ministerial judgment in the last 18 months.

Adam Fleming (31:00)

And, Chris, I'm just going to slightly out scoop you now, because as you were talking, Kemi Badenok, the Tory leader, was doing a live interview on Sky. One of my colleagues was watching it and they've just texted me to say her main message was it's important to not allow the Prime Minister to be allowed off the hook. So back to that point about that we were talking about a second ago, that sounds like the Conservatives will push ahead with this and try.

Chris Mason (31:20)

I mean, my off the top of my head reflection on that is that both of those things can be true, that she can say that and make that up argument. And no doubt she will. And ministers could still say, particularly a Prime Minister, like the Prime Minister, former Director of Public Prosecutions, etc, etc. Well, hang on a minute. We, you know, we all believe that the police should be able to get on with their work, et cetera, et cetera. All words to that effect, as Don was reflecting.

Adam Fleming (31:45)

And I suppose we will find out about lunchtime on Wednesday. Right, Daniela, last word to you. The Norwegian royal family has been enveloped by all of this as well. Just explain what's going on there.

Daniela Ralph (31:56)

Yeah. You think it's bad for our royal family? I think it's probably worse a little bit in some ways for the Norwegian royal family. The latest batch of Epstein files have shown a whole series of exchanges between 2011 and 2014 between Jeffrey Epstein and Crown Princess Metta Merritt, who is actually the future Queen of Norway. She married the heir to the throne there, so at some point they will be King and Queen. She has a whole series of exchanges with Geoffrey Epstein, many of them in a similar vein to the Sarah Ferguson ones. They've obviously built up a friendship. They're informal, they're quite warm, they're friendly, they talk about meeting up and recommending places. I mean, there's a sort of a discomfort to it at times as well as with all of these emails with Epstein. She has since apologized for her own poor judgment and regrets having any contact with him at all. Says it's embarrassing. And again, her deep sympathy and solidarity is with the victims of the abuses committed by Jeffrey Epstein. She also has an additional problem that her son from her first marriage is currently on trial for rape. So there are these two very, very difficult, tricky situations that the Norwegian royal family are currently handling.

Adam Fleming (33:06)

And I know I said that was gonna be the last word, but actually, let's give you all the last word and kind of zoom out a bit here because we're now at the phase of this story where. Where newspaper columnists and big thinkers write pieces about what this tells us about Britain and where we've come to as a country and what our country was like in the noughties and what power is when it meets politics and what is privacy and what is exploitation. All those things. Have you, any of you, managed to get your head around kind of what you think this whole thing reveals about us as a country or the media or politics or power? And I'm leaving it as vague as that.

Dominic Casciani (33:43)

No, I mean, that's a big one.

Adam Fleming (33:46)

Not to treat this like a job interview. This is like a BBC job interview.

Dominic Casciani (33:50)

I've been covering the home affairs, criminal justice, law beat for almost all of my career, you know, almost 25 years. And one of the things which constantly happens in our field is something which you thought was put to bed as a story years ago comes back up, because something comes out and then there are new questions asked. And it's remarkable to think that a story as old in many respects as the Epstein story has come back in this form.

Adam Fleming (34:22)

Because he first went to jail in 2008.

Dominic Casciani (34:24)

Indeed. And we're now talking about the circumstances of the financial crash and how the government was responding to it, and whether or not the government minister allegedly wrongfully leaked information about the government's plans to a financier on the other side of the world. So in some respects, this says something about whether or not we operate in a system which is fully transparent at all times, to a level which is appropriate. And one of Keir Starmer's kind of, like, underlying aims as he came into power was a lesson he learned from being a prosecutor and a lawyer that we have to sharpen up the powers we have to take on allegations of abuse. The Hillsborough Law, which you've covered an awful lot, and interesting relation to this misconduct in public office. He's committed very, very clearly to modernizing that offence to make it easier to prosecute and clearer to prosecute. And that offence is currently before Parliament at the moment. It's been winding its way through the Commons. It was going to go to the laws. I'm sure it will do. And that's the funny thing, because he's now under huge pressure over this. Yes. Actually, politically, he's already actually taken the step that he believes is appropriate to make the world a better place in that particular element. I just think it's fascinating, really.

Adam Fleming (35:44)

Who wants to go next?

Daniela Ralph (35:46)

I'll go next.

Adam Fleming (35:47)

And your phone's been buzzing.

Daniela Ralph (35:48)

Sorry.

Chris Mason (35:49)

No, I'm not complaining.

Adam Fleming (35:51)

I'm worried about your time.

Daniela Ralph (35:52)

No, no. I suppose what struck me is a kind of intolerance for secrecy that I think we now have, perhaps in public office. And also that sense around the Royal Family that. That, you know, all that stuff you've had in the past about the magic of it and keeping stuff behind the curtain, and that's why we, like the world not knowing is good, because keeping them at arm's length is what it's all about. I mean, I. I don't think that is the case anymore. Yeah, of course, there was a bit of pomp and ceremony that people like, but I think people want to know what's going on. Now, I think the idea that, you know, that the Royal Family, Buckingham palace should be saying nothing, it's better to keep their silence. I'm not sure that holds very well either. Now, I think people want to know, they want answers, and they want them to be accountable.

Adam Fleming (36:34)

Chris.

Chris Mason (36:35)

Well, I'm just gonna bring you a little newsline instead, which is a glorious way of copping out of a big thought, which I should have and I'll probably do somewhere, but I've been too busy trying to judge out this government.

Adam Fleming (36:44)

I've got plenty more days for that.

Chris Mason (36:44)

Don't we know? Exactly. So just as the latest case study in how the government is desperate to be seen to be constantly on the front foot and not playing catch up, a government spokesman just saying in response to the statement from the Met, this has been like a live newscast of news, isn't it? Today the government stands ready to provide whatever support and assistance the police need. Now, I know that might read to a newscaster as being pretty bland. Sometimes trying to dredge out even a background view from the government in response to things can be painful. Here is something that has been proactively sent to us on the record, 10 minutes ish after the publication of a statement from the Met. It tells you how conscious the government is about how potentially damaging this is to them and how desperate they are seen. They are keen to be seen to be out there making the argument and putting as much distance as they possibly can, like a bigger distance than the width of the Atlantic, even though Peter Madison's no longer on the other side of it between them and him.

Adam Fleming (37:51)

And I'm gonna have two final thoughts, if I may. It is my podcast, after all. I think, having witnessed previous examples, and this is not to prejudge what's happening here or is going to happen here. When the police and politics and number 10 Downing street get close to each other, it becomes a bit all consuming. And I mean close to each other as in proximity. Because of what's happening, it becomes all consuming. And the second thing is like, yeah, it's back to your point, Daniela. Politics in Britain is very transparent and very accountable compared to other things like the monarchy or business and banking, that transparency and that accountability is now applying everywhere in real time. And as we see from politics, the existence of that means that big things that were impossible yesterday can become very possible very quickly compared to how they used to be. And I think that's now happening with everyone's areas that they report on. Right, Chris, thank you very much. Tara, Daniela, thanks to you.

Daniela Ralph (38:48)

Thanks, Adam.

Adam Fleming (38:48)

And Dominic, thanks to you too.

Dominic Casciani (38:49)

Thank you. Thank you.

Adam Fleming (38:55)

And that's all for this episode of Newscast. A little preview of what's coming your way in the next episode, though, a little midweek treat, a conversation with Laura Kay because she has got a new documentary out on BBC2 and on iPlayer, which is about Reform UK and it's definitely worth watching and it will definitely be worth talking about on the next episode of Newscast. Bye bye.

Daniela Ralph (39:17)

Newscast, Newscast from the BBC, from one.

Newscast Outro Announcer (39:20)

Newscaster to another, thank you so much for making it to the end of this episode. You clearly do, in the words of Chris Mason, ooze stamina. Can I also gently encourage you to subscribe to us on BBC Sounds? Tell everyone you know. And don't forget, you can email us anytime@newscastbc.co.uk or or if you're that way inclined, send us a WhatsApp on 033-01-2390. Be assured, I promise, we listen to everyone.

Helena Merriman (40:04)

If journalism is the first draft of history, what happens if that draft is flawed? In 1999, four Russian apartment buildings were bombed, hundreds killed. But even now, we still don't know for sure who did it. It's a mystery that sparked chilling theories. I'm Helena Merryman, and in a new BBC series, I'm talking to the reporters who first covered this story. What did they miss the first time the history built bureau, Putin and the apartment bombs. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.