Maisie: Page 94: the Private Eye Podcast.
Andy: Hello and welcome to another episode of page 94.
My name's
Andrew Hunter Murray, and I'm here in the I studio with
Helen Lewis, Adam Macqueen and Jane Mackenzie.
We're here to discuss all sorts of things that have been
going on.
Been quite a busy news summer so far, haven't entered the
doldrums yet, which is thrilling.
so first of all, I think we should come to one of the big stories and the one which
is on the cover of the latest, issue of the mag.
How could Nigel Farage have possibly seen
this coming, that this might be a problem for him?
Helen: I wanna start off by saying, how could Ian possibly have seen this coming?
that cover went to press on the Monday?
Yes.
And then the story, his big, everyone was wronged me.
Speech was on the Tuesday, I'm running the boat action
Adam: 2:00 PM exactly the same time as the Prince Harry
judgement , which we'll be talking about a bit later on came through, it was just
Andy: like a, news mageddon the day after we went to press.
I did see the Ferra
speech of
him having acei fish and saying, I'm standing down And
I'm, but I'm coming back, and all of this.
And I thought, oh, that's such a shame.
'cause I hadn't seen the cove yet of the mag and I assumed they would've gone
with something else.
Helen: No, but we got some cracking night.
Where's your lolly from, Joe?
It is fake.
Was it fake?
I wanna say if it's fake
ice cream, but that's not a pun on fake news.
Andy: fake
news.
Helen: Fake news.
There we go.
you watch that speech live?
I did, because I've got problems in my life, apparently.
Okay.
But it was fascinating because it seemed to me a genuinely emotional outburst.
he first of all wanted to take on the fact that people said, people
have been saying, I've been looking Ill very recently, I'm fine.
I'm absolutely fine.
And then he seemed genuinely, personally, very upset about the idea that
reporters had been to his daughter's
house, which was later explained was the house he was registered to vote
at the last election, and trying to put the, allegations to him.
But it was a, it was
an extremely personal outburst.
It didn't seem
actually particularly strategic, although everybody immediately tried
to portray it that way.
Adam: He's definitely taken this to heart as there's none of the
sort of bond on me or anything.
It was a couple of days before when he was approached by a sky news reporter at an
airport, and he was absolutely Furious.
He could came back for another go as well and said, do you
keep away from our family?
So they pointed out they hadn't approached any of his family.
None of his family were there at the time.
He was there with the loaded gun reform guys.
But yeah, he does, he's definitely taken this one to heart,
hasn't he?
Andy: but this's the thing, there's a very
angry tone about, or
if I, dunno if I was at the top of the polls and I had been for a year and still
was, I think even after all this, I would try to keep it light.
But it seems like asking questions is gonna get you in
big trouble in Farage's Britain.
Helen: it, immediately after it was announced that none of the other
parties were gonna run against him, which is not without Preston.
The one that people talk about is the David Davies, resigned from Halton
Price and Howden and ran a sort of.
Civil liberties and then everyone went.
Okay, thank You David, we'll let you have your moment to talk about
this, this is for you, not for us.
And one of the ones I was particularly interested is that Restore the much
further right party from Rupert Lowe.
They're not running, even though it would've been a
freebie media hits for them.
They said, this is the Nigel Farra Circus.
So despite a valiant rear guard attempt to say, all the other parties are
looking down on us, it's the uni party.
No one cares.
Actually, pretty much everybody across the political spectrum thought,
let's let Nigel have this one.
Lawrence Fox.
Adam: Fox is in there, isn't it?
He's got it.
He thought I might pick up a few verse as is the guy who dressed up
as a fox, so it'll be a two fox rose.
Oh, great.
Yeah,
Helen: No fox given,
Andy: I think the very funny element of the
move is that Farage clearly thought, we're gonna have a, we're gonna have
a bi-election, they'll all be standing against me or the other parties.
We'll be able to move the conversation on.
There'll be all sorts of things we can bring up, whether it's immigration
or whether it's crime or whatever.
And now finding himself completely alone in the race, he is, managed to
find a magnifying glass on him and the 5 million quid he's been given and
the million pounds from the mother of the convicted rules to George Trell,
Helen: the
Andy: retired stylists who's Yes.
Ti retired stylist.
Yeah.
I now
Helen: investigation from by the police over the source of that donation, unknown
Andy: more regime investigations,
Helen: I thought, he's done this in order to do a kind of like
Trump's second election victory.
Which is to say, look, obviously the voters don't care.
I've, gone to the court of public opinion about my donations and, they don't care.
This is just an establishment stitch up.
however this plays out, I think he's been deprived of that ability to say, this is a
ringing endorsement that they like me, not you, because the choice isn't really there
Andy: because they're like me or BIM face.
Helen: yeah.
Being
Adam: liked more than Lawrence Fox.
It's not that much of achievement.
Andy: we should come on to BIM face.
So Declaration of Interest, I've, certainly met several
times with Ben on and off.
Helen: I see what you've done there.
I've been on Camp Bi Faces podcast.
Andy: Have you?
Helen: Yes.
Andy: Wow.
Helen: Which is quite difficult because I, to be honest with you, I went on
it without having researched the law.
So he started going on about which planet he was from and
I was like, I'm sorry, what?
Oh,
Andy: the law.
The
Helen: law Don't, Lord the Rings law, there's a whole very well
filled out backstory for Ben Face.
Okay.
I think that regardless of your feelings about joke candidates,
and I'm generally pro them 'cause they're to the gaity of the Nation.
It was very funny to see that all the people in reform have
basically only one setting, which is the establishment is against us.
And seeing whichever one it was who said who funds you was,
this like a with a deep state
Andy: hate for you paid for this bin here.
Yeah.
Helen: And then I think the, ability to, it's as you say that one of the
things that's been difficult for Farage here is that he's usually coasted by,
on this series of not taking things too seriously is a happy warrior.
Things don't get to him.
And when you're suddenly Furious about a joke candidate, that looks petty and
small, whereas also been faced in the, maker field by election, and guess what?
Andy Burnham just shrugged it off, took it, which is the
way that you should play it.
just diffuse the joke by saying what a good joke rather than who funds you
pin base if that is your real name.
Jane: it's rubbish for the people of Claton that, Farage is willing to just
stop being their MP to get himself out of, bother they're one of the country's most.
Poor areas because of having Far Farage as their MP has been the butt of a
joke for a couple of years, rather than anybody trying to say, actually what
can we do for the people of, Clacton?
There's a large area of Clacton, which is doomed by, sea flooding really.
And nothing's being spent on the fact that these homes are worth nothing.
Nobody will invest in it because it's going underwater really soon.
And yeah, it's really hard to, be the people of Clacton 'cause
the MP is useless for them.
Yeah,
Helen: He's not held a huge amount of constituency surgeries.
He's not seemed overly interested in them as a 'cause.
This was one of the things was like, actually I know that the prospect of Bin
Face winning is extremely remote, but I thought you could parachute in any random
person to have a crack at, being their mp.
And I don't think they would necessarily do worse as a
constituent MP just on averager.
Jane: A small amount of constituency casework, and they're already ahead.
Helen: Yeah,
Andy: there are.
a lot of, reforms Heartland, as it were is coastal and often quite deprived
constituents, isn't it, Richard?
T the party's deputy leader is, Boston and Ness, I believe.
And so there's a, lot of that.
And Claton is where, Douglas Carswell of Kopp, yes.
defected from the conservatives, what about a decade ago.
and had a byelection for it, but that was 'cause it was a change of party and
Adam: had a horrible fallout with, with Nigel Farage.
Then later the
Andy: of Uch Kipp, who no, who was extremely graceless
and cross about that one too.
Jane: there are reasons why people there feel left behind by every other party
because it's, it's got real deep problems.
Andy: Yeah.
Are there early indications of what people in Claton think about the kind
of circus that's about to descent or the fact that it's been, that Farra
has forced this on them as it were?
Jane: I think that the people have claton are more invisible
than anybody thinks they are.
They're, because it's such a, poor area.
They're the sort of most offline people in the UK that, aren't getting
their voice heard or out there.
Helen: he won a really resounding, majority of the 2024 election.
He won more than the second and third place, which was Labour
and Conservatives combined.
So there is also, we should acknowledge the fact that Conservatives
didn't run in the seat 'cause they think they would lose to him.
And also Restore didn't run in the seat.
'cause they think they would lose to him.
Like I, everything was says that he, you'd expect a very low turnout
in a by-election anyway, even if there were other candidates.
In that case it's gonna play out, I would say in a very straightforward way.
All the indications are Yeah.
But you are right to say about the polling because actually the headline
polling nationally is that the majority of people do think the donations are wiffy.
It's not a situation in which it's only two Oxford graduates sitting
in the BBC who were upset about this or whoever the establishment.
we're gonna talk about who the establishment is, maybe
in the Prince Harry Case.
'cause it's not Prince Harry, literal Prince Harry.
but this is actually something that genuinely, people are very sensitive.
Corruption.
They were very sensitive to.
Keir Starmer's freebie glasses.
They don't like it when politicians seem to be on the take.
Andy: I think it is.
Anything which has a concrete noun is much easier to… make real in people's minds.
So free glasses and suits is a perfect example of that when it's just finance.
I think it is harder because people know that there are political donations
and they know that there's a bit of access for money trading going on.
But the thing is about a 5 million quid paid into your
personal bank account, it's the
Adam: sheer amount, isn't it?
Yeah.
you
Andy: look
Adam: back to the last sort of like really big, bout of outrage about,
about, about this kind of thing and it's MP's expenses back in 2009,
Andy: right?
Adam: And none of these sums that were involved in that ever approached 5
million pounds being claimed by anyone.
Yeah.
by single mp.
And then to be he does not have a leg to stand on.
Absolutely.
However you look at the rules that money needed to be declared just
on a sort of moral and ethical way.
it obviously was something that people deserved to know about.
The people of Clacton has been talking about deserve to know that their,
that, that their MP was personally in hock to, to, to Christopher
Harboe for that amount of money.
it's just extraordinary to try and blast it through and say none of
this matters and none of the stuff about, Georgia Cultural who is been
convicted of crimes in America.
What, and wrote a book called How to Lau Launder Money, I believe
Andy: was picked up in America at an airport with Farage, when
he was picked up and arrested to be banged up in the first place.
Nigel was there at the scene.
Helen: But I think America is a big part of this story because the
other thing that Farage said in that speech is, I don't have to be here.
I don't have to do this.
I could be earning some real money.
I could go to America.
And that was both an ill-advised thing to say in my view, and also extremely
true if he was, he could be doing that conference circuit of CPAC where he was
like, Mr. Brexit and all of those, to my mind, slightly ghastly conferences
where people sit in a room and listen to various has beens going on about
their rightwing populist triumphs.
Victor Orban presumably joining that circuit quite soon.
But, that, that came to me is that he must be looking at the money that
Trump is making, Trump's getting his own Air Force one, from the Qatari or
Trump's sons have made these millions from crypto and he's got measly 5
million quid from some crypto guy.
In his mind that is not very much money, but as you say, in the minds
of the average British working person, that's quite a big money
for someone to, to give you just as a lovely present for no reason.
Jane: Yes.
A lot of the stories we've covered in private eye about politicians getting,
payouts for lobbying stuff are really small amounts of money and people are
still cross about those sort of 20,000 pounds here and there for representing,
corporate interests in, Parliament.
And we're always outraged about those.
And people generally think mps shouldn't be doing that.
Adam: But also these are the ones we know about as well, aren't they?
the, we had the 5 million from Harbo was broken by the Guardian sort of
a month, six weeks ago, and then the Sunday Times revelations about all of
the cash and stuff coming in from George cotterall is an entirely new thing for us.
It's only defensive.
This is, it's none of your business, none of you need to know about this.
For all we know, there are millions more coming in from all sorts
of other people, but that's why this stuff needs to be declared.
there is, a reason for transparency in politics,
Andy: but there's a really well established thing that Nigel likes money.
I mean his expenses when he was an MEP, his pension, I think from the, European
Parliament, these have all been gone into in quite a lot of detail before
he became an MP of the 2024 election.
There was loads of stuff about how he'd done his, It's not
an Only Fans, it's a Cameo.
Sorry, I was gonna say came Cameo.
It's so hard to get those cleared up,
Helen: Yeah.
But anybody who will take essentially to walk to him is
pocket change to do, hello, Mr.
And Mrs. Shipman.
I, I hear on the site your, son Harold's birthday.
Like all those joke things that you've been doing on, Cameo, that's
somebody who was thirsty for cash.
Andy: I'm a, I should declare another interest here, which is
that I'm a donor 'cause I, make that Radio four show the naked week.
And we, paid Nigel 75 quid to read out the credits one week.
He didn't know he was doing it, but we were saying thank you
to, Jason and Katie and John.
Anyway, I'm up to, it's also
Adam: then try and use the defence.
I can't be bought by anyone when you've literally been flocking
cameos for 85 quid a pop.
Andy: This is the thing.
It
Adam: just doesn't wash.
Andy: This is the cultural trope of rich people don't like money.
Yes, they do.
That's how they got rich.
That's why they're rich.
And I should say the, rules are pretty lax in my opinion.
As in you can take 5 million quid from someone all you have to do is declare it.
You just have to say you've done it.
That's all.
And then someone else can say, you did take this money
from this person, didn't you?
And you have to say yes.
Even then you may well get away with it 'cause it won't
be made a big enough story.
Helen: But that's what stuffed him.
Because I was just trying to think back to like things like cash for
questions and stuff like that.
Essentially we do have this unwritten way that actually public shame is
what makes you not to do these things.
I sense that may be like a losing tactic when it comes to Raj.
but the idea of sanctioned by the parliamentary standards
commissioner does exist.
He has now by which comes back to what you were saying last time about the
fact that maybe becoming an MP has been an, has been a tricky thing for him.
It has moved him into the legitimacy of saying, I'm gonna compete and
I'm gonna try and be Prime minister.
Yeah.
And it has exposed him to a huge amount of nag rule makers that he
does not feel I legitimate, but do nonetheless have power over him.
And then to go back to Trump, this is exactly, we'll see this play out again,
which is either he has to accept the sanctions, or more likely he has to try
and turn over the entire table and destroy this whole regime, destroy the idea.
You have to declare anything.
That's the only way he can bulldoze through to power.
Which in my view now, that was exactly what Trump did.
Trump said, go on, enforce all these rules.
Oh no, you can't.
They don't functionally exist anymore.
Andy: And people, I think people don't really care about the, if there was
a judgement and he was banned from Parliament for three days or whatever,
suspended from Commons for three days, that's a story which I think doesn't quite
catch enough interest to make it a serious and lasting block of damage to him.
But this, because it's It's so big and it's so public.
I think it does make a lot of people who were thinking, yeah,
okay, reform that seems reasonable.
We've got a lot of problems.
The other two parties haven't sorted it.
There are plenty of people who were thinking like that, who are
beyond the reform base, but who reform do need to win an election.
I think those people are the ones who will be looking at this and
thinking, this is embarrassing.
Helen: I'm gonna interject my normal note here, which is to say that reform are
nonetheless still the top polling party.
Yeah.
Labour have had a bit of a bounce.
The, Burnham Bounce, which I suspect will be about as long lasting as an ice cream.
But, but you know that it is entirely possible that Nigel Farage will
stay the leader and will contest the next section and we'll make
huge electoral gains nonetheless.
Which is why I think we have to keep talking about this because unless you've
enforce and patrol these boundaries, they, degrade and it will not be good for
British politics if it becomes more like American politics in which eye watering
sums of money are chucked to politicians to get them to serve corporate interests.
Can I talk about a little bit about Restore?
Andy: Yeah.
Helen: So one of the things I also think has been a genuine problem for
by, for Farage is that the right wing media online ecosystem, the kind of
fascist boomer fa Facebook pipeline, if you will, has been, he's been severely
challenged by Rupert Lowe and Restore.
And a couple of really key players in this who are Americans who get
dabble in British politics ha, are now much more enthused about what
they see as the kind of full fat Coke version of this, which is Rupert Lowe.
So he was on Joe Rogan's podcast, now one of the top for
hauling podcasts in the world.
Rupert Lowe and Joe Rogan started off by saying, I'd like to
say a thank you to Elon Musk.
Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein, former member of the Intellectual
Dark Web for setting this up.
Andy: Sorry, I did, it's an actual dark web.
Bless him.
I did need, that glossing, I'm afraid.
Helen: but Rupert Low went on Joe Rogan.
And it was a fa it was fascinating for two reasons.
As someone who watches all this stuff, first of all, you've got all of these
memes, a few of which were so dank, I didn't even know them and had to look
them up, but I imagine are completely common currency in this world.
And the other thing is how that podcast format is the enemy of, fact checking.
So the one that he got into trouble for was saying handguns were banned in
Britain after one murder in Dunblane.
So you had lots of Scottish mps saying, actually it was more than
a dozen children and their teacher.
It was, there, there was a reason also, the other thing is, I don't think there is
any massive pro-gun lobby in Britain No.
That sees this as a terrible injustice, actually.
And then he said my father could had to get give up his shooting
pistols, which he shot at Oxford.
Very man, other people.
and said it's very, hard to get guns.
And I thought it's actually, I've got a relative who, owns several shotguns.
If you've got no criminal record, it's, quite, they're quite, they're not.
Adam: see, he hasn't had a problem 'cause, and famously he got his assistant
to shoot his own dog, didn't he?
Rather than I'm vet this was Nadine Doris's great argument in maker field was,
the, that Rupert Lowe had, had his own dog shot and got an assistance to do it.
the dog would've had to been put down by the vet, but he does know now shotgun out.
And, he said now we're saying about no challenge.
I'm taking this directly from Nadine, Doris in the Daily Mail.
So I'm make
Helen: that's you get all your news.
You love that column.
But no, but he said he essentially, someone made a fake accusation that he
was, he threatens the yusef of, reform and then they, people came around and
interviewed him about his guns and this was an imposition on his liberty.
I'm in favour in a world in which someone's accused of, wanting,
perpetrator violence and someone and the police go round and
check their firearms are secured.
That's okay with me.
But anyway, so let me, would you like a short list of the people that Rupert
Lowe believes have ruined Britain?
Adam: Oh, yes.
Okay.
Helen: Some of these, you're gonna expect, some of these you're really not.
Okay.
The police.
Two work the band
Sting
personally and who, whoever the other people in the police
turned out to be, the judiciary.
'cause they're trying to scrap jury trials so that they can rig trials.
The World Economic Forum Classic.
You were expecting that, weren't you?
The Builder Burgers wreck?
I haven't
Adam: heard about them for a while.
Yeah.
Helen: The Fabian Society.
Adam: Okay.
Helen: Yes, Jane.
The correct Look, the Fabian Society.
This is
Adam: not the fans of the model.
Fabio
Helen: what?
Slack actors.
They're always getting
Adam: each other's post.
It's a nightmare.
Andy: Can you just remind our, listeners who the
Helen: Fabian Society Yeah.
Labour, think Tank.
he says every labour, MP is a member.
It's actually about a quarter of them.
Stan is a member, but it's essentially, it's like, it's a labour thing.
Technique.
He says their, their logo is a w wolf in sheep's clothing, which
it's true, it's from the 1920s.
They also thought it was kind awesome.
But he presents this as being incredibly sinister.
Adam: I love a conspiracy theory.
That's like a hiding in plain sight.
They put something evil there and only I have spotted it.
Yeah, you wouldn't, would you?
Helen: No, it's baby.
Adam: You wouldn't have the wolf in sheep's clothing if you
were trying to do either way.
Just like you'd have a fluffy bunny.
you have,
Andy: you'd
Adam: have
Andy: a sheep.
Adam: yeah, No wolf still
Helen: just the sheep.
Okay.
the Nudge unit.
Andy: Oh yes.
Oh yeah.
No, that was, this is a Cameroonian thing, isn't it?
Cameroon era.
And it was designed to encourage people on things like was it diet and exercise.
And it was encouraging healthier.
Why not try eating
Adam: apples?
Helen: Some of these were more elevated policy propositions than that one.
I'll Beit useful, but his theory was that the COVID, they, sinlessly nudged
people towards getting the COVID jab.
Which Rupert Low didn't have because he is quote, a pure blood.
Adam: Okay.
Helen: Yeah, I was like, I pro after having a long riff on immigration,
I probably wouldn't have described myself as a pure bug, but you do you?
Baby boomers based agreed with 'em on that one.
Rory Stewart's wife.
Andy: Okay.
Helen: Because the charity that she works for took money from usaid,
which is obviously, as we all know, a huge funnel for, money CF Elon Musk.
I put it in the wood chipper.
Okay.
But good to see some accountability.
Andy: Just Rory Stewart's wife, not Rory Stewart.
Helen: No.
For once he got away, Scott
Andy: is thinking, I suppose he's angling for an appearance on the rest is politics.
I sure.
Helen: Oh,
we all,
Andy: yeah.
Helen: Tony Blair, because quotes, he looks like Belzebub with his white
hair now and his piercing blue eyes.
Is that what Beba looks like?
Canonically, please write in, the public sector.
There's too many of them are sapping our society and here we go.
Here's one I'd never heard about before.
Have you ever heard of a conspiracy theory about the holding
society of socialist lawyers?
No.
It's a socialist.
I want
Adam: to,
Helen: it's a socialist law society, which, Keir Starmer belongs to, given
that he was both a lawyer and socialist.
he calls them Rupert Low calls them.
The Fabian Pablo is Halane Society with, which has a malign philosophy.
Do you know what Pablo were type oft.
It's what
Adam: Starmer wasn't
Helen: it?
Yeah.
Adam: Briefly As a young man, that's
Andy: what sort type
Adam: of,
Helen: it's a type of Trotskyist.
Yeah.
but I was like, this is some deep cuts from Rupert Low here is just like I had,
I he's, heard of conspiracy theories about the deep state you haven't
even heard of, like the early albums.
Andy: It'd be exhausting holding this many villains in your head at one time.
Helen: it's also really interesting 'cause he was really there to talk about his
rape gang inquiry report, which I've read it runs through some really disturbing
testimony, but most of it, anonymous or pseudonymous, no attempt to corroborate
it some incredibly, over the, I think I'm actually gonna say, I think over
the top exaggerations of the type that if someone came to you and, any of you
were doing the story on them, you would go, this is an extraordinary allegation.
I'm gonna need extraordinary evidence.
Like people being raped by dogs, someone opening a Van and there
being 15 women in cages in the back.
Adam: It's like Carl Beach all over again, isn't it?
Helen: this is the thing.
I'm sure there are real allegations in there and really disturbing stuff,
but it, one of the hardest things about doing those allegations is
separating out the things that you can actually prove and then only
printing the things you can prove, which people are really unhappy with
when it turns out there was a scandal.
But if you go too far, like Car Beach and you just say, anything anyone says to
me, I'm gonna, I'm gonna write it down.
That's equally problematic.
Adam: funny, isn't it?
Rupert Low comes across letters a, as a mainstream politician, which you'd
probably be glad to hear, is just a man who's got a very specific set of
interests, which don't necessarily, some of them happen to have coincided
with kind of, public views on immigration and things at the moment.
And not on, on, grooming gangs.
But like you said, the, the gun law one is a really weird one that's
not, that's for an American audience.
It works, but people in Britain aren't, that was, that's not
been generally held to be one of the massive successes wasn't it?
Was, the, but it's all
Helen: libertarian.
It's all, libertarian in a very American way, which is I don't
want people telling me what to do.
But it is all of a piece.
It's no one can tell me to get a COVID jab, even though it'll help other people.
No one can tell me to put my guns away, even though it'll
stop schoolchildren getting shot.
Nobody can tell me what to tweet and what not to tweet.
that's the kind of connecting thread through all of these things,
and that's part of the worldview.
But you are right.
His affect is really interesting because it is very British.
Like he, he reeks of like guy at the end of the bar and the golf club having
a martini and telling you some stuff.
Like it's, it is not Tommy Robinson sort of street thug.
And actually Tommy Robinson has done things like the Jordan Peterson podcast,
and on a class basis, he's gonna find it harder to get a hearing in those American
podcasts where they love what they see as a kind of British tof, essentially.
so Rupert Lowe has been doing the, he's been working the circuit.
And again, like Ni Nigel Farage, he might decide that actually that to
him is a more receptive and congenial audience than British electoral politics.
Adam: what for us doesn't like is having to take the responsibility
and the accountability, isn't it?
it's much, much easier if you can't just go on podcasts
and we do just talk nonsense.
Helen: I hear.
I, okay.
That's very popular.
Andy: Jane, you have be writing a little bit about defence and procurement.
Jane: yes.
For many years.
Yes.
Yeah.
so it's obviously been in the news recently because the latest, defence
investment plan was, announced, which in theory we're going to spend some more.
it's an interesting question, spending more in defence because whatever
we pledge to spend in defence, particularly on equipment, we always
seem to end up spending a lot more because we're so poor at buying things.
Andy: Yes.
it's a really, there are all these weird things going on when you think
about defence expenditure, which is.
We seem to be spending these huge amounts.
We seem to have fewer troops, ships, planes, all of that than we've
had at any point in our history, that it doesn't quite match up.
Yeah.
And sure.
Does the overspending count towards our NATO commitment?
Can we say?
actually we've,
Jane: we went
Andy: massively overspent on this.
Jane: Yes.
We went massively over budget on this project, but what it does help with is
that it adds to the percentage of our GDP that we're spending to help us with nato.
But yes,
Andy: so yeah.
So that's not helpful in a way.
Jane: We, have entire projects where, they make such a, cock up of buying
things that we manage to spend going on a billion pounds on something and,
not really get it or get to use it.
Andy: Yeah.
So
Jane: there were Projects like watchkeeper where it ended up, I think 14 years late.
This was a sort of older generation of, drone, autonomous flying, craft.
yeah.
It went so many years over schedule and massively over budget that by the time
that we had them, they were out of date.
Helen: wasn't there a vehicle that rattled so much that it
really affected people's hearing?
It was dangerous to use
Jane: that.
That's right.
The Ajax vehicles, which yes, a couple of times now we've come close
to saying, let's cut our losses.
And although we've spent hundreds of millions on them already, let's just
not because they're injuring people without anybody having to go to war.
Just the testing phase is causing really quite serious injury to people.
Extremely
Andy: lethal vehicles.
But unfortunately, only if you're in to our side.
Yeah, that's right.
I wanted to actually quote a letter that we had, and this was
off the back of a defence story.
'cause I think the really interesting thing that you write about Jane, is
that there's a lot of debate about percentages and 3.5% versus 3% and
2.65 versus 2.66 and all of this.
But you often write about the actual things that are being bought and
where the money is being spent.
This is from a correspondent and subscriber, I hope, Julian
Page, who wrote about the new class of Dreadnought submarines.
And they, the process started in 2016.
The first ones won't enter service until 20 in the 2030s.
And the last of the, I think it's four that have been bought, won't
enter service until the 2040s.
And Julian Page wrote, this is equivalent to starting to build a
class of four ships during the first World War and not seeing them all in
service until the second World War.
Wow.
What is going on?
Jane: Yeah.
Yeah.
Andy: I think that's the,
Jane: yes.
Andy: That's what you have insight into.
What is going on?
Jane: an interesting thing because in, in some ways some of our,
greatest military successes have been by people with a map and a pair
of scissors and no budget at all.
look at things like the early SAS, they were stealing their
equipment, so that was very cheap.
the kind of small drones that we're working with Ukraine with like
cheap and cheerful, and, great.
But when it comes to very big spend, , everything gets caught up in a sort of
defence procurement, lovely dinners.
There's, there's a great deal of the budget I think goes into the defence
sector, whining and dining, the people who are, buying the things.
So obviously some of the money has to go there.
Every quarter there is a, hospitality register showing what people who are two
star and above within the military have, had, and, every time there's a great,
many agreeable dinners on the list.
Okay.
Wait,
Andy: but this is being paid for by the defence firms?
Jane: Yes.
Andy: Oh, I see.
Jane: But we are
Adam: out of
Jane: them.
We are giving them all that money.
We're paying them to build.
And
Adam: there's also quite a lot of the other guests on the other side of that,
our ex-military people themselves.
we're constantly doing stuff about revolving doors.
So presumably quite a lot of it goes to salaries for these cases as well?
Jane: Yes, defence ministers don't tend to take the agreeable dinners,
but they do after they leave working for, the, government quite often
take agreeable jobs in, in defence.
So It's not always dinners.
in this, the most recent, quarters, list of hospitality, one person from
the Air Force who's just received what the list just says, pastries from,
Saab who are currently bidding to build the new, advanced jet trainers.
Helen: What's the amount that it has to exceed for it to be clearable?
Is it like you have one Quaye on, does that trip a wire or is this guy being
like, someone's loading up a truck full
Jane: of repairs?
I think it's, gotta be a fair few pastries to make the list.
Helen: I respect that.
It's
Adam: an entire branch of Greg's.
Jane: so another of the issues tends to be constantly changing and buying
very bespoke things, but then changing your mind about exactly how bespoke
Helen: the thing.
But that's so interesting because that then sounds a bit like what's
been the problem with HS two.
Exactly.
Which is we could have built just really cheap railway, like in the way that
other countries have done, but no, we must not only must we respect the bat
and the newt, but we must also have the most amazing new bespoke stuff.
Yes.
So this
11-MIX-260713_1406: is
Andy: put it in the tunnel for the first 50 miles, but the tunnel has to be a, one
of a kind tunnel we've never built before.
Helen: Made of bats only.
but that's interesting that's the same disease, that procurement
disease that sort of played our military procurement too.
Jane: So it's, possible a lesson has been learned because we had a story
in the current eye, which we in fact headlined with positive defence story
shock because, they could still go wrong, but at the moment, the Army has
bought 200 odd, Toyota Hilux, vehicles off the shelf and they'll make some
modifications to them, but they're actually just have gone shopping and
found a vehicle that works for once.
So
Andy: this is is this like the pickup truck style?
Yes.
Yeah.
And so you can put a couple of tonnes of stuff probably in the back.
The big heavy things.
Jane: they're used globally by, unofficial militia.
And the one of this is that's
Helen: like the AK47 The notoriously, the thing that was amazing about the AK47 was
that it, we only had a couple of moving parts and therefore the choice of jihadis
and people who couldn't do like expensive machine servicing everywhere 'cause
it was just hard for it to go wrong.
And like I, the Toyota Helix is a very robust
Jane: Yeah.
Notoriously one of the most unstoppable vehicles.
And, also because it's so global, there's spare parts everywhere.
So if yours breaks down, you can just Fight some militia
and, get the parts off them.
Andy: but you're saying this is genuinely a good idea.
It's not that we are retreating to the state of militia power.
Jane: it's unlikely to quadruple in budget is, Because there's a price
for a, an off the shelf vehicle.
Yeah.
so hopefully it won't 10 years time be going, oh, they were never delivered
and they only had three wheels.
And
Andy: in preparation for this episode, I listened back to an interview,
that we did with, Squarebasher, Vickers, This was nine years ago.
Jane: Yes, it would be.
Andy: And all the same problems were there.
back then it was the Type 45 destroyers.
Yes.
Which had been built even then.
And I think Britain has six of those, HMS Dragon and so on.
And they, at the time were known, it was known that they couldn't
go very well in warm water.
They struggled a bit when the water was too warm.
So that might make deployment to say the Middle East tricky low cold
wall at the moment, or cold wall.
And lo and behold, nine years later, we have the war run breakout and they're all
being repaired and refitted and things.
And it takes nine days to get one of 'em out of Portsmouth.
Yes.
So the problems, they, go way back.
Jane: Yes.
and mine hunting mothership that we can send is, not specially built
after a massive procurement exercise.
It's a secondhand ship that we bought from an offshore, oil
and gas exploration company.
Producer: Wow.
Jane: HMS, Sterling Castle.
Andy: And I believe there's been an, announcement of a bit
more money for drones and seeing what's happening in Ukraine.
They just, the unbelievable speed at which the Ukrainian military get their drones
into service, into testing into the field.
They try them quickly.
If it doesn't work, they change it.
Is there anything Yeah.
That we can learn here?
It feels like we must be able
Jane: to,
Partly because we're doing work with the Ukrainians for this.
There's for instance the new, brake stop drones, which are partly designed by
the company that designs Formula e Ecar.
So it's not a conventional defence company, it's a tech engineering company.
but yes, they're again, relatively cheap and cheerful that, want to turn
out hundreds of them for Ukraine.
But the, tech will be available for the UK military.
Andy: If you were put in charge of procurement or if you were
made defence secretary, and we'll probably all get a go,
Jane: I'd
Andy: be buying a lot
Jane: of maps and scissors,
Andy: but do you think procurement just needs to change completely?
it sounds like it is just so bedevilled and it has been for so long.
Jane: Yeah.
I think they need to, seriously consider who, we buy from and why.
there's a lot of decisions that are about, if we can give this company
a 200 million pound contract, then they'll build a factory in Wales
but not quite pining that down.
So factory in Wales doesn't necessarily even happen, but we spend a lot of
money on courting these very big defence and engineering companies.
Andy: is that because so much defence has to be in country for
obvious reasons, that you don't want to just, you can't outsource
it to the other side of the world.
It's a national security thing, so you have to have it here.
Jane: you would think, but then when you look at just how much,
we spend with the US and how badly some of that's worked around things
like the, fighter jets and so on.
obviously we have to really spend with our allies, but
Andy: yeah,
Jane: not so much the case that we do all our defence spending within the uk.
Andy: I guess just supply chains are much more global and it's, very hard to have
a completely in-country supply chain.
Of course.
Jane: Yeah.
there's a sort of early idea goes into it that, if, us and the Italians
and the Japanese, for instance, all club together to buy a thing
Andy: Yeah.
Jane: then it'll be cheaper.
But then it works out that you've constantly got to deal with the competing
wishes of three different governments, all of who want to change the spec slightly.
Andy: that's interesting because one of these new drone programmes has been
announced this week, and it's giving three suppliers a grand total of 3 million
quid better, smaller, to develop low cost interceptors to shoot down drones.
But I think that is a five country thing, but it feels like quite a small thing.
Yes.
Yeah.
Which again, feels like a step in the right direction.
Jane: We seem to be better at doing innovation on a small scale, but as
soon as the resources get very big.
Andy: Yeah.
Jane: Then this is your
Helen: map fetish again, isn't it?
all you need is a pair of ladies bloomers with a,
Andy: it sounds like we need to c
Helen: zone in them.
Andy: It sounds like scrap Hep challeng is basically the model going
forward for the British Armed Forces.
Jane: if you look at what's happening in Ukraine, scrap heap
challenges, things that you can repair are very important, right?
yes.
Andy: regular listeners may know that Adam specialises in audiology,
graphy, and the Daily Mail, I never
Adam: meant to, I just got dragged in.
Helen: It's that on the sale of the Telegraph, which finally has concluded.
Adam: yeah.
Andy: It's a huge week for you all over.
Yeah.
So the Harry trial, Harry, sorry, ET al trial against the Daily Mail Group has
come to a conclusion for any readers who might have not been paying attention.
How'd it go?
Adam: not good for Harry and the others.
it's officially, Lawrence and others versus associated newspapers.
Lawrence in question being of course, bar s Lawrence, mother of, murdered
Steven Lawrence, who was pulled into this, case by Harry specifically.
He sent her a text at the suggestion of, the lawyer, David Sherborne,
who he had met on holiday at Elton John and, David Fur's house.
they're also in this case as well.
Gosh.
so it's got all human life is here.
yeah, I have plough through all 436 pages of, Mr. Justice Nicklins, judgement
, which came out last week, desperately combing for a single crumb in there that
might have given some comfort to Prince Harry and his, and his fellow litigants.
There really isn't one.
It is the most comprehensive dismissal of all of their claims.
Wow.
I've ever seen, I think in a, in, a legal judgement
. Andy: So they were claiming in their lawsuit that, all of these stories
in the mail over a very long period of time had been based on illegally
acquired information, whether that was phone hacking or other methods.
it was improperly acquired,
Adam: unlawful information gathering is the phrase that they used.
So it covered a bit of phone hacking, voicemails.
at the start of the trial when it was first announced, or the start of the case
when it was first announced back in 2022, there were allegations of burglaries
to order of, recording of landline phone calls, of microphones being stuck
to people's windows to eavesdrop on.
All of that dropped away in the course of this trial.
It's extraordinary.
What they were left with essentially was testimony, witness statements from
a load of supposedly repentant phone hackers and, private eyes who had
done, very dodgy things on behalf of other newspaper groups, or possibly.
It then turned out when they changed their stories partway through the
litigation hadn't been at all.
a lot of it depended on the testimony of a guy called Gavin Burrows, a
witness statement appeared at an early stage in the litigation, in which
he said he'd been doing all sorts of work for the, the Daily Mail and the
mail on Sunday, all sorts of the dodgy stuff that we've heard about from the
news of the world and, from Mirror Group before he then turned tail on.
That said, absolutely he'd never worked for the Daily Mail and
Mail on Sunday ever in his life.
and that witness statement was actually a forgery, which had been made by a
couple of the paralegal or one of the paralegals who was working on the case.
A guy called Graham Johnson, who is one of these repentant phone hackers.
Andy: So what he turned from a prosecution witness to a defence witness?
Adam: in the end, neither of them wanted him at all.
Okay?
Because he turned out to be, such a liability in court.
There was a lot of debate, which I wrote, about in private at the
time, over, over whether he was gonna be allowed into court at all.
there was an application partway through to turn him into a, a hostile witness.
and he would be treated as that.
and what Mr. Justice concluded in the end was that his credibility
was comprehensively undermined.
His evidence was' argumentative, evasive, internally inconsistent,
and at times extraordinary'.
And it was, there were claims of, he darkly hinted at working for MI six
and the Oh no, the secret services.
Oh, no.
And all sorts of things.
can, and can, I just say Gavin Burrows is an unbelievably good
name for an investigative hack?
Yeah.
I don't think we've ever made that point before.
Helen: Hasn't.
It's like a full sentence.
Andy: He's a sentence person.
Helen: Yeah.
Adam: Yeah.
He was a private investigator rather than a journalist, and Yeah, yeah.
This was part of the problem.
But this is just what ended up, what really comes through in the judgement , is
that essentially these people started off with a sense that their privacy
had been horribly invaded, which in some cases it actually had been.
there were lots of stories.
I felt very sympathetic reading through it to Sadie Frost, who you remember,
was part of that Primrose Hill set.
She was married to Jude Law and there were all sorts of shenanigans and, a breakup
of a marriage and messiness around that.
She was friends with Kate Moss and all these kind of people, and there
was some really intrusive reporting.
I, I think everyone would have to say her life at the time.
Interestingly, even at the time, the most intrusive story was about
her suffering an ectopic pregnancy and being fronted up about that, by
a journalist called Katie Nichol,
Andy: fronted up.
Adam: Fronted up as in, contacted and asked her, asked to comment on it.
Yeah.
this story was, felt to be too intrusive, never actually appeared at all.
And, none of us would be any, the wiser about it had this litigation
not occurred kind of 20 years later.
but then in other cases, the allegations on which claims of unlawful information
gathering were based, seemed so slight as to be almost non-existent.
And one of Baroness Lawrence's, cases turned on two words, literally.
So this was a report of there was gonna be a full public inquiry
into the murder of Steven Lawrence.
a story which turned out to have been given to Paul Dacre, then editor of
the Daily Mail on very good sourcing.
it was the home secretary Jack Straw told him privately, they
were all mates from university.
He told him that.
But there was a line in it, which said, "the family will decide soon whether
to bring a second private prosecution for murder." And the claiming court
was that the words "decide soon" meant that they must have had a, a voicemail
interception or something in order that they, knew this was gonna happen.
Now, the judge said, it couldn't be the result of blagging or very
unlikely to be the result of Blagging.
He said "there was a perfectly reasonable assumed timescale from
inference and prior reporting".
Essentially there'd been other reporting saying they were considering this
and 'decide soon' is one of those.
it's those phrases we use like 'recently', which can cover
a multitude of sin, isn't it?
it's just, it's a likely thing to happen.
Jane: Yeah.
Say we don't have a timescale for this, but they'll have to decide
soon or they'll run outta time.
Helen: Can I ask about the cost?
Because I think one of the things that came out was that, in the kind of
custody, essentially the male and Harry have got one of the Lawrences each.
Steven Lawrence's dad wrote a piece for the male saying they
stuck by us, been staunch.
Obviously the way that the male sees it is that kind of Doreen Lawrence was
recruited by Harry to be essentially a sim a much more sympathetic claimant than him.
And this wasn't celebrity Tittle tattle, this was the mother of a murdered son.
Is she on the hook for, costs?
Because there was a suggestion that the judge's ruling was so critical of Harry
Etal that their liable insurance or their, court insurance wasn't gonna cover them.
And they were actually on the hook for essentially punitive costs, which
the mail said about like 50 million.
Adam: It's not quite punitive.
the next stage of this, 'cause it ain't over yet, is a cost
hearing, which is going over two days at the end of the month.
, that is gonna involve not punitive damages, but I rather, I love
this Mr. Justice can describe it's not as the cost hearing, but the
consequentials hearing just real, like there will be consequences.
Helen: Yeah.
It does sound a bit from what you were saying, that Justice Nicklin does not,
was not impressed with Harry's legal team.
Harry's advisors hacked off, or
Adam: he was absolutely not impressed with him.
I spent a couple of days in court covering this and he was, the, the attitude
was David Sherborne, who was the, the barrister who was leading, leading
the, the celebrities, we'll call them.
That's case.
and miss, it was very, spiky.
He was openly critical of it.
And he, you essentially, and this wasn't Trevor jury?
No.
This was this was the judge sitting on his own.
he's incredibly critical of the way that, they prosecuted.
He said essentially it started off that, The accusation was that all
of these private detectives working at arm length for the male group
had been doing the unlawful stuff.
they had various ledgers which had been acquired by Graham Johnson.
One of the paralegals involved in the case also runs his own investigative
website and wrote a lot of this stuff, a lot of which was paid for with
money that came from people like Max Mosley, which was an issue in the case
obviously, that, that, came up and the judge ruled that actually there was no
distinction between effectively gathering evidence for the trial and gathering
journalistic material for his website.
So when we talked about this before, you were saying you're
not allowed to pay witnesses.
And they were, the argument by the claimants was they weren't paying for the
witness statements, they were just paying for these accounts in various books and
articles for the, for this internet site.
But just happened to coincide exactly with what they then said in their witness
statements before, in some cases they said, no, we never, ever said that at all.
And it's a forgery.
Helen: But Right.
But then the thing is that he was so unimpressed with them that he could then
essentially say, you should never have brought this, not like your vexatious
litigants entirely, but you've taken the piss essentially, and I'm going to make
you pay a lot of money to the Daily Mail beyond what your insurance will cover.
Adam: You've taken the piss essentially is, in slightly
more legalese or what, he said.
he, said that eventually when all of that fell away, there was a case
when journalists were actually on the witness stand talking about how they'd
acquired these stories, where they were Sherborne put direct accusations to
them that they had been involved in, in, phone tapping or, voicemail hacking.
and he said that this was "serious allegations not supported by a
properly pleaded case or evidence capable of sustaining them".
Now that is, I think judge speak for 'you are taking the piss'.
Yeah.
Essentially, and this will come back to bite them in terms of, the, costs now,
because the mail are briefing that they've spent about, that the total cost for
this case are around 50 million pounds.
this is money that will make Nigel Farage's buy, buy up, isn't it?
they are also now applying for… not punitive damages, but an
indemnity order, which essentially says there isn't a cap on the costs.
They can charge to the other side 'cause it's such a comprehensive loss.
This is just a straightforward rule in the, in, in the British legal system
that the losing side pays the costs of the other side as well as their own.
what that means in indemnity audit will allow, allow them to secure compensation
"to as full an extent as possible for the outlay and trouble of litigation".
And that was enormous.
it essentially, there were several members of staff at the senior members of staff at
the Mail who carried on in their jobs just to deal with this litigation, including
their head of legal, Liz Hartley, and Paul Dacre as well, who is up in a ey
somewhere at the top of the Daily Mail
. Very, very happy at the moment.
I
Helen: recorded a video in which he took the opportunity to personally
slag off Max Mosley now that he's dead.
Yeah.
Which I, could really tell that this again, like this, much like Raja and
his daughter, this one was very personal for Paul Dacre, who as I've said
before, had the murderers front page on the wall of his office for years.
That to him was a sign that, people said all these things about the Daily
Mail being racist, but here they'd gone to bat for a young, , murdered
black guy killed by white thugs.
And he was so proud of that.
Yeah.
I think that's part of the reason that they fought it so hard
Adam: and it was genuinely that and the reporting by Steven Wright, the,
Crime Editor on, on, on the Lawrence, case all the way through, it lasted
years before there were eventually a couple of successful prosecutions.
he was then directly accused and he spoke actually quite movingly on the stand about
how, awful it was to be accused of this.
the allegation was put to him that it, came from racism.
he pointed out that he has a black wife and mixed race kids, and he
found this completely abhorrent and that, that, is certainly the feeling.
This was genuine emotion, if you can imagine such a thing
within Daily Mail towers.
Helen: I can imagine.
Justice, Nick at that point is more like, could this, is just are you
still beating your wife level kind of questions being put to people.
I this feels like a very, should we say Ill-advised litigation strategy?
You
Andy: mean accusing the hacks themselves of the, ill unlawful activity.
You
Helen: can't really go into court and say, but you did
some phone hacking, didn't you?
That's how you got this story.
Without being able to then say, and here's the notebook that has your number in it.
Here's the whatever, which is what happened in some of those
news of the world cases, right?
They'd got, some hard evidence behind it, their theory seems to have been, it's the
kind of thing that people like you did, would've done, so you must have done it.
Adam: And in some cases, there were actually, the names came up of, freelance
journalists doing bits for the, for the Mail and being source the sources
of some of these stories who have been mentioned in previous successful,
phone hacking litigation, and the suggestion being that they must have
been doing it for the Mail as well.
judge was extremely clear that you actually, for every single accusation
that was made, the claimants had to argue a specific payment
and have actual evidence of it.
Nothing could be done by, by, by inference or what he called propensity.
That, that, which is essentially that argument of, that we're
all up to this sort of thing.
Andy: Does this change anything about the way journalism is gonna
be done or maybe the way that lawsuits are gonna be waged by this?
'cause this has been such a long process, from when the phone hacking was happening.
now the, this is the long tail of legal action
Adam: strategy.
It really, is.
Yeah, the answer to that is no, but because it's changed already, essentially.
none of this stuff, I, there's a saying there's stories about Sadie Frost
and are that very intrusive stuff.
It doesn't really happen anymore.
celebrities work in a different way.
They're putting their own stories and curating their own lives out
on Instagram, and it's much, much easier and cheaper for, newspapers
just to report things that way.
There isn't that sort of, none of these stories were recent ones.
this is going back to that sort of classic period of slightly wild West pre levison,
Helen: right?
You've got a class now of celebrities who are influencers, who essentially
following more like the Katie Price model, know that everything that they
do is for sale and that they, the only reason they'd be annoyed with the tabs
is if they jumped the gun and meant that they couldn't announce things themselves.
Adam: Yeah,
Helen: So do you think this is
Adam: unlawful I would be, very surprised if any lawyer is prepared
to work on a conditional fee agreement on any further cases like this.
And essentially there's no one else to go after now.
we, had the, mirror litigation.
We had the litigation against the News of the World.
We've had further litigation against The Sun where we've had these bizarre
settlements where Rupert Murdoch has just handed over enormous amounts of money
for people who claim that they had, that their phones hacked by The Sun, but said
there's no admission of any guilt in this.
I just like giving money away.
Another person who should contact, Nigel Frog.
this was essentially the la the last of those big newspaper groups
who, were likely to have, be, accused of these sorts of things.
And they have been comprehensively cleared by this.
Helen: Can I ask whether or not there is anything in the judgement about
Some people will remember the private eye players and our dramatic reading of
the Facebook messages between Harry and Charlotte Griffiths in the Mail on Sunday.
Adam: Oh, Griffiths in the male on Sunday
Helen: age form.
does, it's
Adam: like she's in the room again.
She's come back,
Helen: which is, I have to say, which was the moment I thought, I don't think this
is going very well for Harry, actually.
But did that come up at all?
Adam: Amazingly it doesn't because those Facebook messages between
Sherlock Griffith and Prince Harry were not actually cited in court.
They were put in as evidence, but never actually we provided
Dramatic reading of them, which was so, absent from that length.
Lengthy book I
Helen: might put him for a costume to
Adam: has had.
but we have, I would say in the, in the Daily Mail on the, I think it was the day
after the judgement came through, we have had Charlotte Griff's own account of her
Knights of Cuddles and Film Nights, which actually kicked off with a detail that
wasn't in those face messages, which when she first met Prince Harry, he gave her a
small white pill and put it on her tongue and said, now I know I can trust you.
Which she claimed probably paracetamol.
She took it straight out again and hid it in a napkin.
Helen: That is in the greatest tradition of, and then I made
more excuses and left, isn't it?
And I'm absolutely sure it was Paracetamal.
Yeah, probably.
Adam: So I think that gives you a sign of the sort of treatment which, Prince
Harry and I have to say, a lot of the other, litigants in this case can expect
from the Daily Mail titles in future.
Andy: you'll be hearing about it on page 94.
Thank you very much, Adam.
thanks too to Helen and Jane, thank you to you for listening.
if you would like to get a copy of Private Eye with many stories
about Toyota Hiluxes, about Type 45 destroyers, about Prince Harry, about
Rupert Low, about many, more things.
All the things our colleagues, brilliantly write about.
It is available in shops.
It's also available@privatehy.co.uk where subscriptions are even
more reasonably priced than a single issue of the magazine.
that's it for now.
The only person who remaining to thank is Matt Hill of Rethink Audio for producing.
Thank you to Matt, and bye for now.
Helen: They're so cheap.
You could also afford to pay to have Nigel Far read it out to you on cameo.