 The brutal murder of Daniel Morgan in 1987 is one of Britain's most high-profile unsolved crimes. It's inspired attention not just because of its gruesome nature, but because of suspicions as to why it remained unsolved, namely that a number of police of various ranks didn't want it to be. Yesterday, those suspicions were confirmed when an independent panel found the Metropolitan Police's actions surrounding the case to amount to institutional corruption. Tonight, I speak to an expert on the case. Also on the show, I have Dalia Gabriel. Dalia, how are you doing? Have you survived today's heat wave? Hi, I'm good. I mean, heat is normally my complete, like, what I'm in love with. Like, normally this would be the exact temperature I'd like. But first of all, I somehow have managed to get so sucked into work that I didn't even go outside today, which is tragic. But also, it's just like cloying. Like, maybe because it's like before a thunderstorm, but it's just not the kind of bright heat that I like. It's like very kind of like sticky. So I'm kind of dying behind the lights here right now. I mean, I definitely see what you're saying when you say sticky. I feel what you're saying, I suppose, but we will miss it when we have three days of rain coming up. Also on tonight's show, we aren't going to be talking about the weather. We will be talking about the latest revelations from Dominic Cummings, the latest bizarre developments on GB news, and a BBC journalist being harassed by anti lockdown protesters. As always, if you're new to the channel, please do hit the subscribe button. In 1987, private investigator Daniel Morgan was murdered with an axe to the head in a pub car park in South London. 34 years later, no one has been convicted of the crime. Now already in 2011, the Metropolitan Police had admitted that failings in the initial investigation into the murder were hampered by corruption within the local police force. But this week, an independent inquiry found that subsequent investigations into the case were hampered by the desire of the Metropolitan Police to conceal its own failings. Baroness Noella Olone, who chaired the panel, said this amounted to institutional corruption. The family of Daniel Morgan has suffered grievously as a consequence of the failure to bring his murderer or murderers to justice, the unwarranted assurances which they were given, the misinformation which was put into the public domain, and the denial of failings in the investigation, including failings to acknowledge professional incompetence, individuals' venal behaviour, and managerial and organisational failures. We believe that concealing or denying failings for the sake of an organisation's public image is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit. This constitutes a form of institutional corruption. Now, institutional corruption is obviously an incredibly serious charge. Tonight we'll be talking about exactly what it means in this instance. First though, we would be remiss not to highlight how the findings of this magnitude only come as a result of struggle. These aren't the kind of investigations governments bring about of their own accord. Now, in this case, that struggle was led by Daniel Morgan's family. Raj Bhatt is the lawyer representing them, and speaking on their behalf, he welcomed the inquiry's findings and commented on the experience of the family since Daniel Morgan's murder. As Daniel's family, we became aware of the police corruption at the heart of this matter within three weeks of the murder. We said so then, and we have had to say so repeatedly over the decades since the murder. Through those decades, we had to engage in public protests, meetings with police officers at the highest ranks, lobbying of politicians and pleas to the media. At almost every step, we found ourselves lied to, fobbed off, bullied, degraded and let down time and time again. What we were required to endure was nothing less than torture, and that has changed our relationship with this country forever. Now, to discuss the significance of this ruling and what it tells us about the police, both past and present, I'm joined by Peter Dukes. Peter is executive editor at the Byline Times and also the creator of the brilliant podcast series Untold, which tells the story of Daniel Morgan's murder. Thank you so much for joining us this evening, Peter. Now, I know this is an incredibly complex story, and if people want to know that the ins and the outs of the events surrounding this murder, they should check out your podcast, which is excellent. The reviews are incredible. For the purposes of this show, though, could you, I suppose, in as in as short as time as possible, what are the real key issues about this case that make it so important? And especially, I want to focus now on the initial murder and the initial corruption which surrounded that first investigation. Well, one of the ways of understanding what the family went through is those first few days with Alistair Morgan. So Alistair Morgan, brother of Daniel, his older brother, heard about his death and came straight to London. And within a few hours, went to the murder scene, spoke to Daniel's business partner in this detective agency, Southern Investigations, and quite clearly, clearly, quickly realized that Jonathan Reese, his partner, the last person who knew Daniel to see him alive, was a suspect. He then went to the one police officer he knew in the area, in the Catford area, a detective sergeant, Sid Fillory, who he'd met through Jonathan Reese and through Daniel, and told him his suspicions. And immediately, he was run out of town. The next thing that happened was that at the inquest it was revealed from evidence, taped evidence and sworn affidavits of the bookkeeper that Jonathan Reese had planned to kill Daniel, and that Sid Fillory, the detective, would leave Catford police station and take Daniel's place, and by the time the inquest that had happened. Now what the panel have found, they don't see any direct involvement of Catford and Southeast London, by the way, a notorious place for police corruption in the 80s, that actually involved in the murder. But Fillory was the first person to interview Reese. He took papers away from Southern Investigations. As you have that very, within three weeks, Alasdair said, he knew police corruption was involved, and they ignored it. Nothing happened after the inquest. There was a PCA of the police conflict plates authority inquest investigation into the murder, the first murder investigation, no police corruption. So from that three weeks in 1987, it's taken till now to accept there was original police corruption, but that corruption just spread from that one moment. Once Fillory and Reese and Southern Investigations arrested, got off, they became the one stock shop for police corruption, and news of the world and other media organizations to get the fruits of police corruption, so that by the mid 90s, the late 90s, they were described within the panel report as a hub of corruption. Basically 10 police officers were arrested and convicted, all connected with Southern Investigations. And all through that time, the Morgan family were ignored. And when we talked to Alasdair, he knew there were nasty people around Daniel in that world, that sort of twilight world of private investigators. But what shocked him more was the portrayal of the police. From that first moment, the one person he confides in actually takes Daniel's place. I suppose that is, if you need to know one thing about this case, it was someone who was a private investigator whose partner had involvement with the police. The person is then, Daniel Morgan is killed, the prime suspect is then interviewed by one of his best friends who goes on to take Daniel Morgan's job. So it's just all incredibly suspicious from the outset. We'll be going through more of this as the show develops. And I want to bring up now the terms of reference for the panel, because this is really interesting, what this panel was sent away to investigate and to find answers to, essentially. So we can get up this. The purpose and remit of the independent panel is to shine a light on the circumstances of Daniel Morgan's murder, its background, and the handling of the case over the whole period since March, 1987. So the terms of reference set out in 2013. Now the panel will seek to address the questions arising, including those relating to police involvement in the murder, the role played by police corruption in protecting those responsible for the murder from being brought to justice, and the failure to confront that corruption. And the incidents of connections between private investigators, police officers and journalists at the news of the world, and other parts of the media and alleged corruption involved in the linkages between them. Now, Peter, what I want to do is go through these three points one, one by one. As I understand it, the report has sort of focused more on some than others, but it's clearly they would put there as the terms of reference for a reason. So let's begin with police involvement in the murder, which I suppose would have been the most dramatic finding. I mean, they haven't found that police were involved in the murder. But could you, I suppose, first of all, talk a bit about why that even appeared in the terms of reference? Why were people even suspicious that the police could have been involved? And then what has the panel itself found or judged in this instance? Well, there was talk, and there are paper in this paperwork suggesting a management committee had been involved in the planning of the murder, the commissioning of it, if you like. Now, they have not found evidence that there was any in the night in question of police officer wielding an axe or providing communications. The suspects, and you know, it's quite clear if you read the report, who the suspects have always been and never changed really in 34 years. It was more the question, and that was the trial, so the summary was originally prosecuted for perverting the course of justice, not actually involvement in the murder. So then you go on to the second bit, I suppose, and what about is, you know, as I said from that first moment on, the querying of the pitch, the incompetence and maybe deliberate incompetence around the crime scene, around lack of forensics, around missing objects and missing Rolex watch, the interview of re-spifillary, the removal of papers, that they have established quite clearly, but that is in the area of perverting the course of justice. I would say they've done some very strict limitation of what they've looked at, and I'd say one fading of the report, and it's because they're so dependent on disclosure from the Met voluntary disclosure, they have no powers of subpoena, unlike a public inquiry, is they haven't really dug deeper and kind of skirted over. The other detective who died, a police detective, Metropolitan Police Detective, Taffy Holmes, who was associated with the Brinks Mat Squad, and as we understand it, as the evidence we have, did know Daniel. They kind of looked beyond that, and that's one of the things the Met has always wanted to do, is separate Daniel from this other scandal in the summer of 87, which is the apparent suicide of Taffy Holmes, Alan Holmes, who was part of a bigger investigation into police corruption. I mean, we know from Alistair Morgan that Daniel Morgan spoke about police corruption that he knew about and that he was potentially going to tell the press about, and so there is one possible motive that he was taken out essentially to stop stories of police corruption, which potentially involved sort of drug importation or whatever, that being revealed. And so he was taken out essentially to silence him. Now, the panel haven't ruled that out, have they? They just haven't said there isn't sufficient evidence for them to say that's a plausible scenario. Exactly. I mean, they say there is no evidence, firm evidence, the point of conviction really beyond all reasonable doubt, from the witnesses they have that police corruption was the motive for his murder. I mean, it's very difficult to find any out. There are obviously red herrings planted many by the suspects, affairs, what happened in Moulton. And I think that's where there are limiting their inquiries, because you see, they really do not address the well-known corruption, which extended to the Stephen Lawrence murder, only a few miles away, six years later, that was evident in search of Southeast Region Crime Squad, evident connections with major gangsters like Noy and Pyle, the informant handling. And they kind of steered clear of what Daniel was murdered for. So that actually leaves room for more investigation. Their remit was quite limited and the evidence they could gather was quite limited because it was only voluntary. And as we know, they met delayed for years and years, and it took seven years, eight years, rather than the two crimes. So they couldn't go. And there are witnesses around who bear a frisles, who could say and have affirmed and we've counted seven of them. Yes, Daniel was obsessed with a story of police corruption. He was dealing with this detective, Taffy Holmes. He was talking about it to all his friends. He was scared that night. It was the most important meeting in his life when he turned up at the Golden Lion and walked into the car park, parked his car outside the back. He never did that, very remote car park. He always thought his brother never parked out in the back and was asked for that. So we left with this problem. Why? And I mean, it is very notable actually that the introduction to the to the report, the chair of the panel says we couldn't interview everyone we wanted to. I mean, it was voluntary. Anyone they couldn't force anyone to give evidence, but some people didn't because they feared reprisals. So clearly, some people still scared to talk about what actually went on. I want to move on. Yeah, go on quickly. Yep. No, just saying. I mean, that I know the photographer. I knew him who took the photographs of the Golden Lion the night after the murder, the days after the murder. I asked him to talk in the podcast. He said I don't want to put my head above the parapet. People are still scared. Yeah, I mean, that's really telling, isn't it? I mean, it's really, really, I say astonishing. I mean, maybe it's not surprising, but it's terrifying. I want to talk about this institutional corruption. This is what the panel were confident to find, which is, and I suppose there's potentially two layers to this, isn't there? So there's the corruption that surrounded the original investigation, which is more, I mean, what we think about sort of like bog standard police corruption, you know, there were bent coppers who were working on the side, using their position in the police to make profits elsewhere. And that hampered the initial investigation because of all of these conflicts of interest. Then after that, we have more of a situation of just all elements of the Metropolitan Police trying to cover up those initial errors or those initial failings. And is that what you take to mean this institutional corruption? When they're talking about the rest of the Met, they're essentially saying the top hierarchy didn't want to investigate this properly because they found it embarrassing. And that's what institutional corruption means in this instance. I think you're right. And I think it's about, it's not about Cressa Dick, you know, Kirsten Knight, I was just a partner said she was the least worse of all the commissions they've dealt with over these decades. But I think it's shit. You're right. You have that sort of base CME. Obviously, it's got a New York style, you know, CERPICO corruption going on. And there was, you know, the cops were around that were planting drugs on people taking money from drugs, right? It's the classic stuff you said. But then it moves and it shifts into CIB3, the Go Squad trying to do something about there's a hangover from corruption after the 70s and 80s. And the first place they go, by the way, in the mid 90s is Southern Investigations. And it's that limitation that that very deep institutionalized corruption and they've been all solidified. They try to weed it out, but don't want to weed it out completely because it's so embarrassing. Here's the thing. And this is where it compares to the first report from 1999 where the Met accepted or the person said there was institutional racism, racism, you know, there's no scale of evils here. But they could say, well, that doesn't except for people of color affect our prime purpose. But if we are institutionally corrupt, every trial could collapse. And I think they were terrified by that. So it was embarrassment partly. But because they didn't deal with the corruption of the justice system, this kind of permeates and it just became in a way too embarrassing and too big to deal with. Because it went back and affected previous trials. Look what previous commissioners had turned a blind eye. And I think that's where we've got to look at the existential function of the Met. Because it is supposedly like a constabulary to serve the citizens of London. But it's also an arm of the state. It has this kind of other FBI like function. And the government find it useful to have this tool which they can use on counterterrorism, you know, undercover, you know, the spy cops, all that stuff, which is not accountable to us, which is almost like an Imperial police force. I think that's the existential problem with the Met that is always open to this kind of abuse. Let's finally talk about the media. Again, this is something that was dealt with less in the final report, but it was part of the terms of reference. And it is mentioned in the report. And that's the incidence of connections between private investigators, police officers and journalists at the news of the world and other parts of the media and alleged corruption involved in the linkages between them. So that's word for word what was in the terms of reference. What did the panel find when it comes to the relationships between police officers, private investigators, and in particular the news of the world? Well, I mean, I've got a sitting here 1200 pages and I've been exhausted and I haven't caught up. But just two things I will alert you to which I picked up when I was reading yesterday as much as I could in the lock-in before Vanessa Lohan spoke. There was a former cop who left under the shadow of an investigation called John Moss, who was a tipster for news of the world. He was in the instant room and looking at papers, which was new to me, looking at the murder files the night before Philippine Rees was first arrested in 1987. He became a famous tipster for news of the world and news of the world. There's lots of instances of them becoming the hub of corruption. But here's the things people miss. When they put a bug in there in 1999 for five months, they find I think it's 261 media crimes being committed in five months. Of those, I think 70% were with the mirror because what happened is Piers Morgan was edited news of the world while some investigations were about big firms and he took over his crime editor whose name just escaped me. It's the editor of the express now over to the mirror group and they're on tape talking to the crime editor, we say to what we're doing is illegal. 70% of the commissioning of that illegal work went to the mirror group. So Gary Jones has come to me now. Gary Jones, now at the express, working with Piers Morgan within this five month period, 200 media crime, information crimes. So it spreads beyond news of the world. They do deal with the surveillance on Hames and Cook, which is the wife of the leader Beske Dave Cook in 2002 by Mazemar Mood's photographers. We now know he's hacked by Mulcair, lots of terrifying incidents happened to that family and they conclude, yes, it was news, most likely news of the world and Alex Marantrach, the editor of the news editor then, but not quite up to proof to charge them with the course of justice. What they didn't look at and we have evidence of is interference in the fifth murder investigation. So their problem was on the media crimes, they were reliant on cooperation from Murdoch for him giving them materials. Banasoled said they did give them some, they don't know if they got them all, because they didn't have the power subpoena. But even when it comes to criminal trial, as we learned in the phone hacking trial, they were quite good at deleting stuff. So no, we haven't got to the bottom of the media crimes involved here. In some very basically why the media appeared to be, well, implicated is too strong a word, but a relevant to this case is that Southern Investigations, which is the agency where Daniel Morgan worked and where the prime suspect worked, was also working with news of the world who then ended up surveilling it seems, one of the lead investigators into the murder. And this was the lead investigator who at least the Morgan family felt was the only one who was actually doing a good job. So when there was a cop in charge of an investigation who seemed to be getting somewhere, these private investigators and the news of the world tried to find out on them, tried to derail the investigation by other means. Unless I've said something that's incredibly wrong there, Peter, I'm going to move on to some political responses. Was that, was that right? No, no, you've got it. I would say just add one line to that. You know, they obviously, they work with other papers too. I think that's where you see the poison enter the British tabloid crimes. I mean, they're always foul. But here they had the means to hack you. They trained master my mood. Stings, they get police information on you. It's just, the poison from some investigations affects us now. Let's go to some political responses to this. So in parliament yesterday, Pretty Patel described the Daniel Morgan case as one of the most devastating episodes in the history of the Metropolitan Police. We look to the police to protect us. And so they are invested with great power. The overwhelming majority of officers used honorably. But those who use their power for immoral ends do terrible harm as do those who indulge, cover up or ignore police corruption. This is one of the most devastating episodes in the history of the Metropolitan Police. Now, Pretty Patel shares responsibility for the Met Police with London Mayor Sadiq Khan. Khan this morning told Sky News he has full confidence in the Met Commissioner, Cressida Dick, and that the police force now is nothing like it was 34 years ago. I've got full confidence in the commissioner. Londoners should as well. But Londoners should be assured that our 32,000 heroic brave police officers and thousands of police staff find the report appalling. They're going to make sure that we're learning lessons that need to be learned. And the police service today is a million miles from the police service 34 years ago. But there are still lessons we can learn. And if there are, we'll learn them. So, Peter, finally, what I want to know from you is, I suppose this relationship between what the police were like in 1987 and what the police were like now and what the report tells us about this. Obviously, Sadiq Khan is saying, oh, yes, the report's very worrying, but ultimately, the police are very different from how they acted back in the dark days of the 70s and 80s. But as far as I understand, this report has in no way said the police right now are free from corruption. They've said the police now are institutionally corrupt. How should we look at this in terms of the past and the present? Yeah, it's a good point, because she didn't say it stopped. In fact, the delays around the disclosures of the panel were, she sort of said, another form of us covering corruption. I was at the press conference with F Grave, I think, the deputy commissioner who spoke on Cressida Dick's behalf, and I'll be really honest with you. It's just management speak. It's the same bladder. Unfortunately, Sadiq Khan, of course, you and I know there are a lot of good police officers around, but you talk to a person of color. They, you know, what happened, you know, quite recently with various demonstrations with the murder of two sisters in a park in North London is there are bad cops around. And the bladder from senior cops telling us it's all fine. Everything's changed is not reassuring. It's exactly exactly what Alistair faced 34 years ago. I think that it's not good enough. And I don't think it's good enough just getting rid of Cressida Dick. There's something wrong. And I talked to coppers from other constables, they always say, whoa, the Met, there's something institutionally corrupt about the Met. Maybe it's his function. Maybe it's his history. But you can't just sort of do a bit of management blather and say, this is over. It's a appalling reaction, to be honest, from both Sadiq Khan and from Pretty Patel, both of you who do not mention the media implicitly because they're quite reliant, particularly Pretty Patel on, you know, the good faith and favor of those media organizations involved. Peter Jukes, thank you so much for joining us this evening and giving us all your insight and parts of your wealth of knowledge about this case. And I know I've got to let you go because you're going to do a another show on byline TV this evening about this case, which I'm sure will be brilliant. If you want to know more about this, that will be on later tonight. Peter, thank you so much for speaking to us today. If you are enjoying our stream tonight, do hit that like button, as you know, it helps us on the algorithm. Dali, I want to go to you quickly on this just in terms of how you think this case and this finding relates to what we've seen from the Metropolitan Police in all different aspects. Obviously, this panel was about one specific incident, one specific failure of the Metropolitan Police or a bunch of failures, but around a specific case. What do you think this says about the Metropolitan Police as an institution when it comes to the other wrongs we often talk about them committing? Yeah, I mean, that was super fascinating. And I think that Peter is completely right to draw those connections and make and emphasize the systemic issue. You know, we have to remember that in the lifetime of an organization, an institution like the Metropolitan Police, you know, this didn't happen that long ago. And it's really not good enough to kind of shake this off as, oh, you know, that was then and this is now. And you know, obviously, things have naturally changed and that's something that deeply embedded has just sort of gone away, especially without any kind of concerted, you know, or deep accountability or effort to change things or even just to reckon with it. And, you know, I mean, up until recently, if you if you ever said anything to question the integrity of the Metropolitan Police on the media, you looked at as if you were, you know, some kind of conspiratorial maniac. But that's also not to mention that, you know, many of the markers of, you know, this culture and reliance of impunity of the police, which is kind of ingrained, I would say in the form that, you know, of the police as an institution, which is, you know, it's born and Peter kind of like gesture towards this, you know, it's an institution that is designed to strategically deploy violence in protection, you know, as part of the state. And, you know, but many of those markers of that impunity is still very much there, you know, when you look at the the long list of cover ups of sexual assaults by police officers, which, you know, got a lot more attention in the wake of Sarah Everard's murder. When you look at the lack of prosecution or investigation into deaths in police custody, the fact that, you know, Cressida Dick herself led an operation that led to the murder of an innocent man, John John Charleston Manesas. And not only was she not properly held accountable, but she went on to become the, you know, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to, you know, the recent spy cops bill where, you know, which literally legalizes criminal activity by undercover police officers. So given that context, it's not very convincing to hear, you know, like you said, the political response and the response from the Metropolitan Police just just sort of shake it off as, you know, a far gone past when clearly it's anything but and I think that the focus and the attempt to draw this into, you know, there is something systemic in the design of the Metropolitan Police, particularly as, you know, police operates in a global city, you know, and has sort of a particular disciplinary function, that there is something in the design of that institution that means that every so often something like this comes to light and a lot of stuff remains in the dark. I should also say we do have an interview with Alistair Morgan, so the brother of Daniel Morgan, which Ash conducted last week on downstream, really brilliant interview. If you want to hear more about this story, do go check it out. I really recommend listening to that or watching that, however you like to consume it. When Matt Hancock appeared before the Health and Science Select Committee last week, the most helpful statement was made by Greg Clark. He's the committee chair. Clark informed the room that Dominic Cummings, who had spoken to the committee two weeks earlier, had provided no evidence to back up his attacks on the Health Secretary. Dominic Cummings has now responded by uploading screenshots of WhatsApp messages between himself and the Prime Minister in which both privately expressed concerns about Matt Hancock's ability and honesty. Now the screenshots date from March and April last year. We're going to take a look at some of those in one moment. First of all, just to remind you, in his testimony to that Select Committee, Cummings accused Matt Hancock of incompetence when it came to testing and buying PPE and also accused him of lying about both. That's what these screenshots are intended to back up. The first message I want to show you is from Boris Johnson to Dominic Cummings on the 27th of April. Now a note here again. There are two conversations going on here, as is often the case on WhatsApp. So I'm going to read you the ones that are relevant to Matt Hancock. So in this exchange, Boris Johnson says, on PPE, it's a disaster. I can't think of anything except taking Hancock off or putting Gove on. Now in reply to that particular message, Dominic Cummings says, with the Cabinet Office such a total shit show, I'm afraid this would have a severe risk of making it worse, not better. To that, Boris Johnson replies, okay, what the F do we do? Another meeting with Matt and Stevens and Dayton and Co. Now here Stevens is Simon Stevens, head of the NHS. Dayton is Lord Dayton. He was CEO of the Organising Committee of the London Olympics, brought in as a PPE czar. Now in reply to that, Cummings, first of all, talks about problems with the civil service, servants in the Cabinet Office, things we've heard about in talk, a lot about. In the second, he says, with PPE, the real issues aren't about ministers. It's how many people with what expertise are led by who, how are they connected across wide-tool to other networks? What do they do when they hit barriers? How do we create visibility over problems and so on? In our system, only the Cabinet Office can dig into the truth, then move crap people and put in new people. Great people is totally critical and we have almost no power to move duffers and put in good. Only the Cabinet Secretary can do this. Hancock bullshits, but that wouldn't matter much if we actually controlled the Cabinet Office. So again, there you've got this classic Dominic Cummings line, which is essentially the bureaucracy is not letting us work as effectively as we would. The PM replies, Brill, I'm all ears. What's notable there is that within that critique of the civil service, Cummings says, Hancock bullshits. And he says that as if it's common knowledge, there's no pushback from the PM. So that to me does provide some evidence for Dominic Cummings claims in that select committee that essentially, you know, everyone had just stopped believing what Mack Hancock said in those first months of the pandemic. Now that exchange was a little bit convoluted. I thought very interesting. I mean, I'm glad that Dominic Cummings is publishing screenshots of their WhatsApp conversations, his conversations with Boris Johnson, even if I wish he could just use the screenshot from the screen instead of taking a photo, it'd be easier for you to read it. But let's go to an exchange that wasn't quite as convoluted. This one's pretty goddamn clear when it comes to what Boris Johnson thinks about Matt Hancock. This conversation was on the 27th of March. So here, Dominic Cummings says, US has gone from 2,200 tests of fortnight to 27,000 a week ago to 100,000 yesterday. This is what we said we should do. Instead, we are still stuck on about 5k to 7k. And Matt Hancock saying today he's skeptical about getting to 10k by Monday, which he said would definitely happen on Tuesday. This means tens of thousands of NHS staff aren't at work over the next three critical weeks, apart from my earlier point, retesting being integral to escape plan. So he said Matt Hancock is not providing the testing we needed. And also, he said last week we could get this number. Now he's saying it's going to be difficult to do. So classic Matt Hancock. We're lying, essentially. In response, and this is the real headline, Boris Johnson replies, totally effing hopeless. And you can also see there there's free missed calls from Boris Johnson to Dominic Cummings. Cummings explains in the blog that that was Boris Johnson trying to tell him he had tested positive for COVID-19. Dominic Cummings said he wasn't near the phone at that point in time. And we've got one more message, which is a lot like that one. But in this case, referring to ventilators, it's in fact the morning after the one we've just shown you where Boris Johnson calls Matt Hancock totally effing hopeless. Here, Dominic Cummings says they've totally fucked up ventilators. I just heard officials admit we have been turning down ventilator offers because the price has been marked up. In reply, Johnson says it's Hancock. He has been hopeless. It's very, very clear there what Boris Johnson thinks of Matt Hancock. Now, you might say this isn't hard and fast evidence of Matt Hancock being incompetent. This is actually just hard and fast evidence that both Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson thought he was incompetent. Now, that to me does furnish his claims. It's always the case in any sort of evidential session that if you fought the thing at the time you were talking about, that's a stronger piece of evidence than if you're talking about it retrospectively. So I do think that counts for something. Dominic Cummings also, though, pointed to a part of Matt Hancock's testimony, which he thinks essentially proves the health secretary was terrible at his job at this point in time, especially when it comes to PPE procurement. Now, you might remember that Matt Hancock in his testimony suggested that one of the reasons it was difficult to procure PPE was because the Treasury had set rules where if you were charged a certain high price, you weren't supposed to buy it as a sort of method of cost control. Now, there were obviously big shortages of PPE at that period of time. So Matt Hancock needed to spend way above the odds. He was saying there were some rules that slowed that down slightly. Dominic Cummings is saying that was complete bullshit. It doesn't stack up. I want to go to this section of his blog. To MPs last week, Hancock claimed that, A, he decided to change the procurement rules that constrained the Department of Health. I requested the cap was removed, Hancock said. B, he went to the Chancellor about it because there was still a Treasury cap on the 11th of April. Cummings says this is false. This is an accidental admission of uselessness. If you believe Hancock's own account, he did not act on this issue until the 11th of April, weeks after it should have been dealt with. No PM pointed this out. Two, in fact, I and others in number 10 had already acted on this in March because of repeated insane meetings. In April, the Cabinet Secretary checked the paperwork, see below, and confirmed that the cap on the Department of Health had been removed in March as number 10 had insisted. So last week, Hancock was both accidentally admitting being so useless that he did not act until the 11th of April and misleading MPs about what actually happened and blaming the Treasury still for delays in mid-April when the Chancellor had sorted this out weeks earlier. Hancock's story to MPs is a lie that, if true, would show again he was useless. So he's there saying, his account is, I asked for this cap to be removed on the 11th of April. Dominic Cummings is saying, one, I know that not to be true. And two, if that were true, what the hell was he doing for the month and a half before that when it was clear that we would need lots and lots of PPE. Let's look at how Matt Hancock responded to the release of these WhatsApp messages today. Are you hopeless, Mr Hancock? I don't think so. The main focus of this blog was Matt Hancock because it was a response to Matt Hancock's evidence to the Health and Science Select Committee. We did also get some more insight into the conduct of Boris Johnson. That includes this account of a meeting chaired by Dominic Raab. He was standing in at the time for the then hospitalised Prime Minister. On the 20th of April, Hancock faced intense pressure. Under Raab, the meetings were less pleasant for everybody, but much more productive because unlike the PM, Raab can chair meetings properly instead of telling rambling stories and jokes. And B, he let good officials actually question people so we started to get to the truth. Unlike the PM, who as soon as things get a bit embarrassing does the whole, let's take it offline shtick before shouting forward to victory, doing a thumbs up and pegging it out of the room before anyone can disagree. That's a very plausible account of how I can imagine Boris Johnson behaving in important meetings. Again, obviously he hasn't provided concrete evidence for that, but it rings true. One more revelation about Boris Johnson. He suggests the public inquiry into the mistakes made during the COVID pandemic will be delayed so Boris Johnson can avoid dealing with the fallout. Now, in the process of explaining why it will be delayed, he claims or reveals Boris Johnson is already planning his life after Downing Street. The public inquiry cannot fix this. It will not start for years and it is designed to punt the tricky parts until after this PM has gone. Unlike other PMs, this one has a clear plan to leave at the latest a couple of years after the next election. He wants to make money and have fun, not go on and on, so we either live with chronic dysfunction for another circa five years or some force intervenes. Boris Johnson is not a serious guy. He doesn't even want to be a Prime Minister for long because he wants to have some fun and make some money afterwards. Dalia, what do you think about this particular blog post? It's definitely interesting for us journalists to have someone who was at the top of government revealing all of these WhatsApp messages, making all of these claims about the actions of people at the top of the Tory party, people in positions of power. At the same time, this guy clearly has a grudge against Matt Hancock and no one really trusts him. Do you think these WhatsApp screenshots change anything? That's what's so interesting about this. Of course, this very much feels like a really sensational story. We're not used to someone at the top who was at the top spilling all the beans like this on a currently existing government. Also in this very particular form on Twitter, in the form of pictures of screenshots, it's like, please God, someone show him how to, if this is going to go on, someone show him how to take a bloody screenshot because it's like my eyes and my old age just can't deal with it. It's very mean girls. It's very tabloid friendly. It's almost being reported like it's entertainment. But it's also, when you actually get down to it, he's not telling us anything that is, wasn't already quite easy to see. It reminds me of when that news came out about Boris saying, let the bodies pile high and people were sort of got very tied up in questioning the context or whether or not that's exactly what he said. The proof was always in the pudding. I mean, he did let the bodies pile high. So whether or not he said it in those exact terms, that the facts doesn't really change. And similarly here, when you take away the kind of scandal of it, the sensationalized package that it comes in, it tells us something that's kind of always been obvious and should have been obvious to a journalist class whose job it is, or you know, at least should be, to be insightful and to be analytical and critical of the government and, you know, read between the lines of government statements and of government leaks, rather than just sort of regurgitating them as fact, which is sort of the style of political journalism that, you know, particularly at the BBC, we are seeing. And the thing is, is that, you know, it tells us what we already sort of knew, which is that, you know, Matt Hancock, but also the government writ large was, you know, out of their depth. And, you know, we are in a moment where, and, you know, the government was out of depth in a moment where we couldn't afford to have a government that was out of its depth, then out of its depth, then we've lost, you know, thousands of precious members of our community as a result of that. You know, but if Trash Futures could, you know, before the Trash Futures podcast could, before Matt Hancock became health secretary, see that he was, you know, clownishly incompetent, you have to ask yourself why, you know, actual professional political media classes apparently couldn't see that or make that observation or at least weren't were deliberately not honest about it. And, you know, maybe it's because a sort of particular social contract has now developed between the political and, you know, the media class, which exchanges, you know, proximity and scoops for essentially discipline and boundaries that are very much set by the government. And what I think is sort of so depressing is that, you know, this is fatal, you know, and almost deliberate incompetence here that we have seen and that Dominic Cummings is describing here. You know, that story about Boris Johnson, the way that Boris Johnson handles meetings is just like, it's sickening. But why is this only actually, like I said, a lot of this is stuff that we could have gauged without these texts. Why are we only hearing about this? And why is this only being splashed on the front pages of newspapers when it can be done in the form of this sort of Westminster gossip, you know, in this kind of Shakespearean spectacle of, you know, the Prime Minister being betrayed by his closest confidant? You know, why is this the only time that the public are told in black and white that no, this isn't about, you know, apologism, this isn't about, you know, saying, oh, well, there's something of creating this false sense that the death toll was somehow inevitable, that the death toll of particularly people of color was somehow inevitable, or, you know, this kind of cruel negligence just being apologized for and sort of excused away. Why has that been how it has been so far? And then when it can be communicated in the through the medium of Westminster gossip, that suddenly that's when we are sort of seeing it, that the public is seeing this in black and white. And not to mention that, you know, despite the government itself being aware that these deaths were not inevitable, but were a consequence of very bad decisions and bad infrastructure, yet where is the accountability and the change, given that they've known this this whole time? Like to look at that and say, oh, well, he's just fucking useless, you know, or it's a bit embarrassing, you know, that's the kind of language that you employ when like you're doing a school project and someone in your group isn't like pulling their weight. It's not when the public is putting their trust in you to manage during a pandemic. And when people right now have lost loved ones prematurely because you didn't get your act together. But I think like, you know, and I'm going to end this on the obvious point that this isn't just about kind of Boris Johnson, it's not just about Matt Hancock or Cummings, but it's the ways in which our media and political system rewards this kind of politics. It rewards this superficiality. It rewards performance over substance, sound bites over sort of clear vision and, you know, strategic relationships essentially over the truth. Like, why has it come to be the case is it's probably a very long and multifaceted answer that is should be answered by someone with much more tools and knowledge than me. But the fact is that that is the reality that we seem to live in now. And it's like clownish, it's embarrassing to use Boris Johnson's words. No, I mean, I do think nothing that Dominic Cummings is saying is a surprise. And it is a shame that it takes an ex-advisor writing blogs for this to finally be recognized. I want to go to a comment, Ed Graham with $20. Please wish my girlfriend Vanessa a happy birthday for today. We are regular viewers from Canada and big fans of the show. Happy birthday, Vanessa. And thank you so much, Ed, for your kind donation. Next story. With Dan Whutton as a host, we knew that GB News would spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. Now, this has been borne out in its first 48 hours. On Tuesday night, writer and TV personality Lady Colin Campbell appeared on the station to have a dig at the couple. I think she was invited precisely for that reason. However, when Dan Whutton asked Lady Campbell whether or not the public should be more concerned about Prince Andrew than Meghan and Harry, I think he was trying to portray a semblance of balance. The show's producers may have got more than they bargained for. Can you say, though, to Lady C, to all of those folk who say, actually, it's Prince Andrew who has damaged the royal brand far more than Harry and Meghan, with his association with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein? Well, first of all, may I say, paedophile is a medical term, so is heberphal and so is a phebophile. And Jeffrey Epstein was a phebophile because he was a paedophile. No, paedophile is pre-pubescent, heberphal is transitional into adolescence, and post-pubescent is a phebophil. So he was an a phebophil. But Lady C, you must accept he was a bad man, a dodgy character, not someone who Prince Andrew should have been associated with. So what do you say to those people who think, actually, Prince Andrew's behaviour has done far more damage than anything Meghan and Harry could do? Well, I hear what you're saying, and I see where you're coming from with it, and I see where they're coming from with it. But you know, as with these things, everything is layered and measured, and everything should be viewed proportionately. And let's remember that President Bill Clinton, who is a far bigger name and a far heavier hitter on the world stage than Prince Andrew, was a far greater friend and for far longer than Prince Andrew. So, you know, I think just to put things in proportion, the New York Attorney General has been going after Prince Andrew because they are effectively political appointees in America. It's not like here where an attorney general is a legal entity. In there, it's not. And they're playing politics. And Prince Andrew is, to a large extent, a distraction so that Bill Clinton will actually be kept out of the frame. I mean, we've talked about some bad defenders of Prince Andrew on this show before, but that was probably the worst. It was also one of the weirdest. Well, actually, I think I've ever seen on national TV. So the question is it more embarrassing for the royals that Andrew hung out with a paedophile than them having a prince and a princess who moved to Hollywood? The guest says, well, actually, he's not a paedophile. Her argument is the Epstein, I had to look up this word after watching that clip, is an effibophile, which means an adult sexually attracted to adolescence. So she's saying that the medical term paedophile means attracted to prepubescent children. I didn't think I'd have to be explaining the difference between those two things on this show, but there you are. Now, you might say, weird thing to say, but she wasn't defending Epstein. You know, she was just saying point of clarification, a paedophile and a febophile are different things. That would be the wrong response though, because she is obviously making this point to try and downplay the significance of Prince Andrew's relationship to Epstein, his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. And that's because when she follows that point up by saying, oh, the only reason they're coming after Prince Andrew is because of weird political points scoring, because the attorney general in New York wants to distract from Bill Clinton. Well, I'm not sure this is distracting from Bill Clinton. And two, whatever the motivations of the American prosecutors, this is a guy who has admitted visiting Epstein after he was convicted of gruesome, brutal sex crimes against children, right, prepubescent, prepubescent who cares, right? This was sex crimes against children. He was found guilty of it. Prince Andrew went to visit him afterwards. We know he's subject to allegations himself, which he denies. But I mean, Darly, I want to bring you in on this. What did you make of that incredibly bizarre piece of television? I mean, just so much going on there. Like, first of all, why are we nitpicking on, like, what stage of pubescent the girls that a grown man is, like, sexually exploiting? Like, oh, it's, you know, pre-po, you know, or transitional pubescent? Like, how about no pubescence? How about, like, extremely far beyond pubescence, like, by two decades or something, like, just, like, ill, but also, like, proportion? Like, are you serious? Like, this one, I have the unfortunate, you know, due to the due to having to, you know, know something about this woman, I had the unfortunate experience of researching her. This is a woman who, when Meghan Markle named her daughter after the Queen's nickname, i.e., named her daughter after her daughter's grandmother, deeply uncontroversial. This woman, this particular woman, described Meghan Markle as a very disturbing individual. And yet, Jeffrey Epstein, oh, no, no, no, let's not besmirch his reputation. Actually, he was attracted to girls who were, like, leaving pubescent, leaving puberty and into adolescence, like, gross. But it's all, you know, yeah, it's all, like, dulcet tones and technicalities when it comes to, you know, not only, like, allegations against Prince Andrew, which he is refusing to, you know, go before a judge, you know, to deal with. But also, you know, as you say, his very close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, after we knew for a fact that he was engaging in the sexual exploitation of children after that was, you know, a conviction. And it's like, this kind of, like, the sort of nonchalance with which he kind of brushes it off, like, it kind of tells me just the kind of, the, in the how these massive institutions from the monarchy to the church, you know, religious institutions, the media, the state, how kind of, you know, the embeddedness of a culture of sexual exploitation of minors is sort of within our society. And particularly when it's done by people who are very powerful and who are, you know, very protected. And it's important that we don't just keep this to the two, you know, conversations around individuals who are presented as sort of uniquely perverted or abusive. But we have to understand what is the kind of the institution and the network that exists around these individuals that, you know, whether it's the music industry or the media industry, and all of these sort of like very big spaces where, you know, especially after the Me Too movement, we sort of know the scale of harassment and abuse that has, has been ongoing. You know, it's, it's all about actually those institutions of silence and facilitation that occurs around it. That's what's really concerning. And, you know, I think this is how the way that kind of like she, you know, has all of this vim for Meghan Markle doing something non, that's like really a non story, but such nonchalance when it comes to the harm imposed by, you know, someone who she seizes entitled to the amount of power that he has, it kind of like, it kind of makes me think about the brushing off of violence by institutions, particularly when you think about the purpose of GB news, which isn't to sort of persuade outsiders, it's designed to sort of embolden and fortify and strengthen the base that already exists. And it's basically that base needs a way of brushing off the violence that is perpetrated by the institutions it endorses, whether it's, you know, the police, the monarchy, the church, it needs a way of understanding why it cares so much about sexual violence when it's done by particular, particularly, you know, especially racialized communities. And yet has to find a way to accept or minimize the sexual violence of those who they seem themselves as aligned with. It makes me think about, you know, how Donald Trump's first speech when he was announcing his presidency was centered around this figure of, you know, protection against the Mexican rapist, all while knowing that he himself talks about, you know, how he's so powerful and he's so rich that he can grab women by their genitals and, you know, kiss them whenever he wants. And, you know, you might wonder, like, how do those two things coexist? And this segment like really speaks to actually the kind of way that that contradiction is resolved. But what gets lost in all of this conversation is the actual harm that is done to young people, boys and girls, as a result of this culture and as a result of sort of institutionalized misogyny, particularly in these, you know, institutions that are seen as too big to hold to account. And what also gets lost is the essential and urgent conversation that we need to have about how to actually change that culture so that we don't continue to live in a world where this seems to happen so frequently. I mean, I think they're all incredibly important points. I probably should clarify, I'm pretty sure that Prince Andrew is, the prosecutors want to speak to him not because of allegations made against him, but as a witness to other crimes. I just wanted to clarify that, but I think, you know, that broader story of what's going on here and why that was such a disturbing piece of television is absolutely right. Absolutely spot on. We are going to go on to our final story before we do that. If you are already a supporter of Navarro Media, thank you so much. You make all of this possible. You know how much we appreciate all of your support. If not, please do go to navarromedia.com slash support and donate the equivalent of one hour's wage a month so we can keep growing, keep expanding as an organization. We really do appreciate it. Exactly five years ago, a Labour MP was attacked and murdered by a neo-Nazi. However, while liberal and left-wing politicians and journalists continue to receive death threats, few would argue that our political class has come to terms with the dangers posed by the far right in Britain. This week, we had a reminder of the far right's modus operando when they harassed a BBC journalist. The incident took place on Monday as Boris Johnson announced that England's planned escape from coronavirus restrictions would be delayed until July 19. At the time of that announcement, a group of anti-lockdown protesters appeared outside Downing Street. Newsnight's political editor Nick Watt was walking through the area and this is what happened. That was really, really unpleasant to watch, like really, really frightening behaviour, getting right in his face. I mean, they were putting their hands on him. I mean, that looked quite scary and you saw him run away. I mean, a really horrible thing to see done to a journalist. I think Nick Watt's a fine journalist, but whatever you think about someone's journalism, that's a terrible thing to do to them in the street. Now, that footage was from an anti-lockdown YouTube channel called Resistance GB. They branded Nick Watt as BBC's stew. So, they were obviously sharing that in a sort of supportive manner. They're journalists who endorse attacking journalists essentially. The most striking thing from that video, other than the pure aggression from those protesters, I think was the inaction of the police. They didn't seem to do anything at all about what was going on. Now, we're going to discuss that more in one moment. First of all, let's go to a couple of reactions. The BBC director general Tim Davy put out this statement. The safety of journalists is fundamental to any democracy. They must be able to report unhindered, free from abuse. There is absolutely no justification for any journalist to be treated in this way. The Prime Minister, for his part, described the incident as disgraceful. The Home Secretary, Pretty Patel, said it was appalling. And Labour's shadow culture secretary, Joe Stephen, said it was absolutely unacceptable. Now, that's all to be expected. The reaction from the Metropolitan Police was a little bit more worrying though, as I say, as you saw from that clip. They seem to stand by while Nick Watt was being harassed. This is in a context where we know that protesters like that, the far right, can be very, very freckling. The police should be worried about what was going on there. They didn't appear to do anything at all. Now, the Guardian has a write-up of their response. They write, the Met drew further criticism after initially saying officers were not in the immediate vicinity of the incident, a statement which it later said had been drafted after viewing a 45-second clip which had circulated online. On the basis of a longer clip, the force that it was clear the incident began on Whitehall where officers were present. Quote, the behaviour shown in the video is unacceptable. Members of the public of any profession have the right to go about their day without being subjected to verbal harassment or actions that put them in fear for their safety, said the force. The Met went on to say they had identified and were interviewing individuals from the video and finished by saying, we acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about the police response during this incident. We take those concerns seriously and we'll be reviewing our actions with a view to improving the policing of events for all Londoners. Now, you've got to remember this happened. These statements were made on the day that Daniel Morgan Murder Inquiry found the Met to be institutionally corrupt and their big reason for finding that is they're saying the police were fairly willing to lie or to not investigate things properly if it would embarrass them. Now, seeing that video where you've got the police standing by while someone's being harassed and then immediately after the police say, oh, the police went in the vicinity, that does suggest not much, I mean, you might say it's too soon for something to be learned, but not much has changed. Let's say those criticisms which were made of the police still stand. I want to take a look at those who are directly involved in the incident so we know a little bit about the people who were harassing Nick Wall. 57-year-old Martin Hockridge from Hartfordshire, he's been charged with a public order offence on Facebook. He posted, I stand by my actions. It is unacceptable that the BBC lies and spreads fear among the nation, the propaganda pushed out by this man and the insidious organization he works for. Nicholas Watt is a traitor cast from the same mold as Lord Haw-Haw. Now, Lord Haw-Haw was the last person in the UK to ever be executed for treason. His real name was William Joyce. He broadcast Nazi propaganda to the UK from Germany during the Second World War. So, I mean, you can see the grim significance of making that particular comparison, someone who was executed for treason. This is someone who's been charged for public order offences. Haw-Hockridge also says he thinks Nick Wall was hoping to be harassed. So, he said, never expect the truth from the BBC and did the weasel engineer that incident by milling around in a BBC lanyard in a crowd bearing the media is the virus placards. A movement that has and is currently protesting at the BBC. I think he was hoping for that reaction. Now, that's, I mean, it goes about saying, I don't need to say that's a ridiculous thing to say. A journalist hanging out in Westminster walking between Whitehall and BBC offices. That's not someone milling around waiting to be harassed. I doubt any journalist mill around waiting to be harassed in such a manner. But I find, I think the confidence this person feels expressing these kinds of attitudes publicly to be pretty chilling in a way, I suppose. Dali, I want to bring you in here. I mean, the big question here, we know we've discussed about it on the show before, like the far right are a threat, big threat, underestimated threat. What should be done about them? You know, there you've got one element, which is the police standing by. I mean, how else can we stop this sort of threatening behavior happening given we know how it can end? I don't know the answer to that. I think that there's probably much smarter people who kind of specifically analyze and understand and research the particular nature of the far right in this moment, both the political economy of this moment, but also in relation to the kind of technologies that are available at the moment. And I think that, you know, there is obviously an incredibly worrying trend here of deeply embedded conspiracy theories and their conspiracy theories that seem to sort of spread very quickly, but very quietly, very underground. They trot along underground until suddenly they kind of burst onto our screens in these kind of coordinated, what often looks like coordinated or planned acts of violence. So I'm thinking about, you know, pizza gates and, you know, the attempted interaction in the US earlier this year. What I do know is that this is somewhat bolstered. You know, we can kind of blame fringe kind of, you know, oh, like there's a lot of, I think there's a lot of reductivism that happens where it's like, oh, it's just because of social media. And it's like, well, you know, that probably changes the temporality and the way in which, you know, the particular iteration of the far right and the particular way that the far right is gaining power now, you know, the far right predates the internet, like the far right predates social media. So we can't just kind of blame it on that. And not to mention as well that a lot of this thinking is kind of bolstered by, you know, legitimized news outlets, like, you know, talk radio, like GB news, you know, we've had many like conversations on Tiskey about how, you know, the sort of the fermenting of doubt in sort of like the basic science of the pandemic and the efficacy of lockdowns by people like Julia Hartley Brewer, you know, the fact that Dan Wooden used his first monologue on GB news to sort of like, ferment this real distrust against, I think he used the term doomsday scientists and public health officials who are addicted to power and who have taken control. Think about the front page of the Daily Mail when, you know, Theresa May announced that snap election and it called on her to crush the saboteurs, you know, this kind of language of things like traitors, which, you know, we saw in that video, you know, that is very integral to kind of far right lexicon in the murder of the, when the murderer of Joe Cox was turned up to trial. The only thing that he actually said, and when he was asked what his name was, was he said that his name was death to traitors, freedom for Britain or something along those lines. And, you know, Joe Cox's traitorness was seen, was perceived through the lens that, you know, she was unreasonably sympathetic towards refugees. And I think that, so I think, you know, yes, it is this kind of like, in many ways feels like a fringe thing, and that is happening in the dark. But we also have to wonder, you know, about where the kind of like, where a lot of money is being invested in, you know, really irresponsible news media coverage in quite a, you know, in the middle of the day, you know, it's not happening underground, it's happening, you know, with a big weight of, you know, capital and, well, kind of low budget production, to be honest. But, you know, this is the scary thing is that it kind of creates this sort of power base, this sort of silent power base, which then lays the groundwork for a very dangerous figure, you know, like, like a Trump or an Orban to kind of rise to power as the sort of alleged truth teller in that context, when, you know, they are obviously anything but. It's just really horrible seeing people shout traitors at people in the street on the five-year anniversary of the killing of Joe Cox, really horrible to see. Thank you, everyone, for watching tonight. Darlia, it's been an absolute pleasure speaking to you, as always. Thanks for having me. It's been lovely to see you all. And we'll be back on Friday at 7 p.m. So make sure you hit subscribe so you don't miss that. For now, you've been watching Tiskey Sour on Navarra Media. Goodnight.