October 7, 2025 • 43 mins
Adam, Ian and Jane Mackenzie discuss the new Archbishop of Canterbury and what makes her different from all her predecessors over the past 1500 years and the police forces prepared to break the rules to look after their own, while Helen and Andy discuss RFK junior and his very peculiar ideas about Making America Healthy Again
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Page 94, the Private Eye Podcast.
Adam (00:03):
Hello and welcome to another episode of Page 94.
I'm Adam McQueen, and I'm joined inthe Private Eye Office today by Ian
Hislop and Jane McKenzie, but fear not.
Later in the episode, we'll be hearingfrom both of our other regulars, Helen
Lewis and Andrew Hunter Murray, who aregonna be talking about President Trump
and his health secretary, RFK Junior,and they're slightly peculiar ideas
about how to make America healthy again.
But first the three of us aregonna be discussing some of the
(00:24):
stories from the last issue, uh,specifically police bugging of
journalists, both in Northern Irelandand on our tellies courtesy of ITV.
And, um, some of the things that havehappened since our last edition came out
specifically, we finally, after 11 months,have a new Archbishop of Canterbury.
Ian,
Ian (00:39):
I thought you were gonna say finally, after thousands of years,
we have a female Archbishop ofCanterbury, which is is certainly news,
Adam (00:46):
1,428 years since Saint Augustine to go.
Yeah.
The first woman in the role,specifically, she is Sarai Mul,
formerly the Bishop of London.
And before that, in, I mean, by anymeasure, is an impressive LinkedIn
page, chief nurse in the NHS.
That's not bad.
Is it for two positions, Jane?
Jane (01:02):
Also from a, a comprehensive school background, which, uh, I don't think
the latest few, uh, bishops have been,
Adam (01:09):
Uh,
but it is an extraordinaryachievement, isn't it?
I mean, women priests were first ordainedin, uh, the Church of England in 1994.
They could only become bishops from 2014.
Uh, so Mal became Bishop of London,which effectively the third in command
of the Church of England, isn't it?
It's after the archbishopsof Canterbury and York Um,
remind us, Ian, why didJustin Wellbe her predecessor?
Why was he obliged to step down?
Ian (01:29):
Well, he had an unfortunate argument with someone at a drinks party at the
British Museum and he just had to go.
Uh oh.
Jane (01:37):
think
Adam (01:37):
we may be getting the timing slightly wrong on that one.
Ian (01:40):
Oh yes,
that was afterwards.
Uh, no self-regarding nonsense.
He had to leave quite rightly 'cause he'dbeen, , involved in one of the major.
Scandals in, in the Church of England,about, his connection with a, really
horrific serial abuser called,John Smythe, who'd run, uh, various
Christian camps and had had various,connections with Wellbe over the years.
(02:03):
And we'd written about it at somelength, particularly Jane had.
Adam (02:06):
I
should say
for podcast.
Listen, actually, um,
If you do want the full story, um, if yougo back to episode one, uh, 126 of page
94, uh, which we recorded last November,France Ween, uh, joined us to discuss
the John Smythe case in, um, in depth.
Essentially it was John Smith was anevangelical Christian who ran these.
Camps around the country for youngpeople, but also turned out to be
(02:27):
sadistically beating young men ina shed at the end of his garden.
Jane (02:30):
Uh, that's a summary of the, of the beginning of the story.
after, some people found out, um, whatwas was going on, he was, Moved a long,
long way away from, uh, where he couldbe a problem for senior people at the,
the Church of England off, off to, toAfrica So, the fact that he was, he
was just sort of exported to, carry on.
(02:51):
Behaving dreadfully, wasanother big part of the scandal.
Adam (02:54):
was one of the many figures in the church who was found out to have,
um, kind of connived in this, this,this relocation rather than actually
attempting to tackle the problem.
Ian (03:05):
Yes.
And he, he, it turned out he'd senthim a Christmas card and he'd supported
the mission and all of these thingsdidn't quite chime with the, suggestion
that he knew nothing about it.
And, he had no links to,um, this figure previous to.
When he first heard about him.
And so there was a great deal ofargument about, um, safeguarding
(03:25):
in the church, whether the head ofthe C of E could actually continue,
in his posters, head of the Churchof England when the safeguarding
had completely failed, with SM and,
and more and more cases keptturning up of repeated failures
with other priests, with other, uh,lay people in various positions.
And eventually he decided veryreluctantly that he had to go
(03:49):
and he left with no grace at all.
Even after he'd been criticized forbeing graceless, he stood up in the
House of Lords and basically said,well, you know, the main victim in the
whole thing was his diary secretary.
'cause you know, she had to rearrangestuff, which was unbelievably tone
deaf and various, other bishopssat around laughing, but the one
(04:10):
who didn't and covered her facein her hands was Sarai Muli,
Adam (04:14):
who now takes over the job.
Ian (04:16):
and I think.
Maybe as a basic requirement forthe job, finding your predecessor
cringe Work worthy is pretty good.
Adam (04:24):
I mean the, the ongoing safeguarding issues around the church with, there was
an awful lot of them still, still ongoing.
Um, that's presumably part of thereason why it's taken a full 11
months to appoint a successor.
I mean, the, the, the CatholicChurch managed two day
papal conclave, didn't they?
So, um,
Jane (04:37):
That's right.
Um, in order to, uh, appoint an archbishopfor the, um, church of England, uh, the
first thing you have to do is appointthe panel that that does the appointing.
Uh, and they did have a great deal ofdifficulty putting together a panel,
um, because of the number of, um,various sort of bishops and senior
figures who also are sort of dealingwith the fallout from their own
(05:01):
safeguarding scandals, where within.
Various different diocese seas, theyhave also failed to investigate or
sort of, sort of done belated orpoor investigations or coverups.
Um, so there were multiple peoplewho you would've expected to have
been on that panel who, who steppedaside or sort of had to be replaced.
(05:23):
Mulally's
Adam (05:23):
record like on sort of safeguarding issues?
Jane (05:26):
So, um, Malawi certainly has experience of stepping into
the leadership of an organizationthat's in a terrible mess, uh,
safeguarding and leadership wise.
When she first started as Bishopof London, the London Diocese
was in a, a, a shocking state.
in fact.
When she first arrived and started tryingto impose some kind of organization and
(05:49):
governance and appropriate systems, um,there were some significant figures who
quit, such as the head of operationsthere, a man called Martin Sergeant.
Uh, now that's, it's not a good sign whensomebody quits that, uh, because there's
an attempt to sort of clean things up.
It turned out that he had defraudeda Church of England, um, charitable
(06:11):
fund by about 5 million pounds.
Adam (06:14):
pounds.
Wow.
Jane (06:16):
Yes.
Ian (06:16):
he's now in prison.
our readers will know much of thehistory of Mr. Sergeant's, um, uh,
desire to spend the church's moneyon gambling and on holidays and in
living, um, quite a high lifestyle.
So, um.
The fact that he quit, uh, the minutesomeone new came in who wanted to have
a look at things, um, was not a, not agreat sign about the mess that was there.
(06:41):
And then the mess got even worsewhen he on leaving delivered.
, What was called a brain dump ofinformation, which turned out to be a
lot of gossip and a lot of, , secondhandand unfounded rumor about all the
priests and all the people, , inLondon, , who he'd sort of vaguely known.
(07:01):
And the, , Bishop of London whocame in Sarai, Mulally had then
to cope with, what do I do?
With all this information,information in inverted commas.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and there was a, a huge amountof criticism of the way, um, this
was handled, particularly afterone priest committed suicide.
(07:24):
, Jane: So, uh, father Alan Griffin, um, took his own life after being subject to
one of the safeguarding investigationstriggered by the brain dump.
and so it was a dreadful time forquite a lot of other, um, clergy
who, , were included in this sortof roundup of brain dumped gossip.
With sort of very little evidenceof, of any actual, um, abuse
(07:46):
happening in, in these cases.
So, there was an inquest and,investigation into all of this and,
Mulally's, response to, the end ofall of this, uh, was that she gave an
an unreserved apology for her part inhaving not sort of had, processes and
support in place of people quickly.
(08:07):
Once, um, all thesesafeguarding investigations.
Got started.
Well now that is, an interestingcontrast to give an unreserved
apology for, for her party little all,
and I mean it's slightly ironic, that we now have, an Archie
for Canterbury who was accused ofover zealotry in trying to prevent
abuse as opposed to under zealotry.
(08:29):
In trying to prevent abuse.
You, you essentially can'twin in the Church of England.
Um, but uh, she seems to be can't winningin a slightly more positive direction.
Adam (08:38):
It's, I would say it's another positive development after 1,428 years.
Isn't it really?
Ian (08:43):
there are still people who are critical of her for that.
there are a number of other problems.
She's a woman.
As you, you've, I think pointed out,um, and this is still a problem, um,
in the Church of England, there's a,a group who don't, recognize women
bishops, let alone women archbishops.
She has to reconcilethat as point number one.
(09:04):
Um,
Adam (09:05):
I go for a really basic question here?
Because what exactly is the jobof Archbishop of Canterbury?
It's not really one job, is it?
And it's got very little to dowith Canterbury, but it's, it's in
fact several jobs, isn't it, Jake?
Jane (09:14):
is.
And in fact, one of the jobsis to be bishop of Canterbury.
That's why.
The Diocese of Canterbury gets sortof more of a say than any other
diocese in, in the appointment.
Right.
The next tear up is to be theleader of the Church of England,
primate of All England, primate
Adam (09:32):
primate so called Because you are the monkey to God's
organ grinder, presumably.
Ian (09:36):
Yes.
That's
Jane (09:37):
that's my Church of England Church.
I'm here.
Adam (09:40):
week.
Jane (09:42):
Um, but the Church of England is not the, the sort of only part of what's
called the Anglican communion, globally.
So, there are Anglicanchurches all over the world.
Ian (09:54):
and the global Anglican communion is, Very divided by a number of issues,
between the conservative and the moreliberal wings, the evangelicals and
the other wings, uh, a lot of theAfrican churches in particular are
not very keen on, the attitude to samesex couples, the attitude to women,
bishops, and a number of other things.
And there's an organization called Gafcon,which is the global Anglican Fellowship.
(10:20):
And they greeted the appointmentof this archbishop with sorrow.
The Bishop of Rwanda inparticular is, is not happy.
Adam (10:27):
The Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans to give them their,
uh, their, their, their full name.
Yes.
Um, they, they representconservative churches, not just
in Africa but Asia as well.
They said they received thenews from sorrow churches, South
Africa dissented from that.
Interestingly, they, they, theypopped up and said they heartily
welcomed Mulally as archbishop.
But it is, it is a very odd job 'causeas you say, a large part of the global
communion that she's now the head of.
(10:49):
Do not recognize women priestsor women bishops at all, do they?
Jane (10:52):
No.
And in fact, they don't evenrecognize male bishops who've been
ordained by women bishops 'causethey don't accept the ordaining
worked if it was done by a woman.
Ian (11:04):
because it's not in the direct apostolic succession.
Jane (11:07):
That's right.
Ian (11:08):
I just thought I'd throw that in
Adam (11:11):
the direct apostolic de.
You don't get that inevery podcast, do you?
Okay.
Ian (11:16):
Well, I tell you, I was reading the result of who had actually got the
job and um, I was reading it in what hadobviously been a quickly put together
piece and halfway through it stoppedsaying Mulally and it said Beasley.
And I thought, we haven't been told whothe runner up is, but I think you have.
And this is Bishop Beasleywho is Bath and Wells
Adam (11:38):
i'd just say if you were Bishop Bothels, you'd probably wanna stick that.
'cause he's got a lovely palace.
That's the one with a moatwhere the swans come up to ring
a bell when they want feeding.
Ian (11:46):
Right?
Yeah.
Okay.
Jane (11:47):
Well,
Adam (11:47):
country.
Um, legend there.
Ian (11:49):
there.
All
I'm saying is there was a misprintand maybe they knew more than I
Adam (11:53):
Possibly, yes.
Maybe, maybe next time Beasley,maybe you'll get lucky.
We should point out also, there is anotherpart to the job as well, which is that,
uh, the arch of Canterbury, along withI think 26 other bishops also have seats
in this country's parliament, don't they?
In the House of Lords.
Ian (12:06):
they?
do.
Adam (12:06):
That was of course where, well, we made his crass resignation speech.
Uh, uh, uh, joking abouthis diary, diary secretary.
Um, but it's very odd 'causeit is a political role.
I mean, a literallypolitical role in that sense.
But, um, days prior to, uh, Sarai Milan'sappointment, her predecessor, George
Carey, made an extraordinary intervention.
He did an interview with the Telegraphin which he said the archbishop,
uh, the incoming archbishop.
(12:27):
Should maintain a judicious silence onspecific policies, uh, and said that the
church had no more expertise than anyone.
When it comes to the ins and outs ofhow we handle migration, for example,
Ian (12:37):
I think, um, the, the arch of Canterbury is meant to have
views on morality and ethics, thatbeing part of the point of it.
And I think the engagement in politics,it always infuriates politicians.
I mean, they're very keen to invokereligion when it suits them, but when
religious figures get involved inpolitics, even to say, I think this
may be bad or good, may be wrong.
(12:59):
Maybe against conscience, theyget very, very upset by it.
But as we all know, I mean, there,there is no way of escaping politics.
Um, and particularly not at the moment.
And she will have to deal with politics,um, not just internal politics.
And there's gonna be plentyof that in the church.
She'll have to deal,deal with real politics.
I mean, her name was put forwardby the Prime Minister to the king.
(13:23):
I mean, this is politics.
Adam (13:26):
It absolutely is.
Um, George Kerry, I should just sayfor the record, had to resigned as a
priest last December over not just hisreadmitting, a priest who'd been banned
from ministry after being accused ofsection assaults on teenage girls, but
actually actively pushing colleaguesto give that priest a particular job.
So, um, he, he might.
Possibly consider taking hisown advice on judicial silences
along with Justin Welby, I think.
Ian (13:46):
Yeah.
Is there not a silent orderwhere, where all former
archbishops could go for, I dunno.
I'm thinking maybe 10 years aTrappist location somewhere.
Adam (13:57):
I'm saying nothing.
Ian (13:58):
But it's going to be, same sex, couples.
Women, priests, um, and thenassisted dying, which she's
already made her position clear on.
and as a former chief nurse, it was quiteinteresting 'cause she has done this, um,
Adam (14:14):
an educated view, isn't it?
Yes, it's, yeah.
Ian (14:15):
So that is quite interesting on one of those big moral issues.
we have someone who has.
Bit more experience.
So again, that will get her into trouble.
I'm sure that's politics.
I mean, it is actually a bill that'smeant to be going through Parliament,
so there will be more of this to come.
for the sake ofcomprehensiveness, I should say.
There's also, the issue of COVID and theclosing of the churches and they were
(14:38):
closed in London even for private prayer.
And a lot of, um, priests felt thatwas, um, a failure at the one time.
When the church was absolutely needed.
I mean, with any candidatethere's a lot of baggage.
so I just thought I'd mentionas much of it as possible, uh,
uh, and wish her luck obviously.
Adam (14:59):
Now onto another story that Private Eye has been following
for a good long while now.
Uh, the discovery, or rather inthis case, confirmation that the
police service of Northern Irelandwas for many years routinely spying
on journalists in what they calleda defensive security operation.
Uh, the journalist in question, quite afew other people have different opinions
about why it might've been happening.
Jane, you've been following this.
So what's the most recentdevelopment in this story?
Jane (15:21):
Uh, so our last issue, we were, um, reporting on the publication of
the McCulloch review, , so in thecase of, of two journalists who,
transpired, the police had indeedbeen, uh, carrying out surveillance on.
Uh, but in the course of thatcase, lots more, uh, cases of
surveillance came to light.
And so the new chief constable of,police service of Northern Ireland had
(15:44):
had a review carried out by a kc andthat was published, um, last issue.
And lots and lots more, uh, evidenceof, of surveillance came out in that,
including some, some unusual thingssuch as anybody who had been in touch
with the police, press office, uh,journalists who got in touch, uh,
whether they phoned up or emailed in.
(16:05):
But so long as they're.
phone number was available.
It was kept, and then it was washedthrough the phone system to check
whether anybody from any police stationanywhere in Northern Ireland was
speaking to journalists off the record.
So, in a way this was principally spyingon their own staff, but they were doing
(16:26):
it by using, journalists and track,trying to track down journalists sources.
Adam (16:31):
just to unpack this story a bit.
This all kicked off with, um, adocumentary that was made about
the Locking Island massacre,which was, , an attack on a pub
for granted by Catholics in 1994.
Uh, a gun attack by membersof the Oster Volunteer Force.
Um, it's actually during a WorldCup match between Ireland and Italy.
So you can imagine how, how, howcrowded the pub was at the time.
Um, many years later, the policeombudsman for Northern Ireland concluded
(16:53):
that, um, police in what was thenknown as the Royal Ster Constabulary.
Since, since turned into thepolice service in Northern Ireland.
Um, but the ombudsman concluded that,uh, the, the officers had, um, colluded
with the UVF to protect informantsthat they had in that particular
parent paramilitary organization.
so journalists, Barry McAfeeand Trevor Binney made a
documentary about this in 2017.
(17:14):
So we're talking, this was somethingthat amazed me slightly much.
We're not going right back to theheight of the troubles in all of this.
This is, this is a much, much morerecent surveillance efforts, isn't it?
Jane (17:23):
Uh,
Adam (17:24):
and McCafferty had their homes raised, they had documents seized.
uh, a judge later ruled that thesearch warrants that police had used
for that raid were inappropriate.
Um, and in the course of thatinvestigation, they discovered the police
had been running covert surveillanceon them for years, hadn't they?
Jane (17:36):
the police were desperately trying to find out who, Bernie
and McCaffrey's sources were.
They suspected that somebodyat the, police ombudsman.
Was, um, passing information.
So they were also carrying outsurveillance of the people whose
job it is to be the police watchdog.
So they were carrying out surveillance oftheir own watchdog and of these, um, two
(17:59):
journalists to try and find out whetherthey had any contacts between them.
Um, they never uncovered.
The, who, the source of, of theinformation was through all of this.
But yes, they were using things like,um, traffic cameras to, to watch
where these journalists were going.
The, you, they were, youknow, it's a proper like TV
style surveillance operation.
(18:21):
the, the alleged
Adam (18:21):
crime in all of this, which as you say was never proved, was theft
of an official document because theOmbudsman's report to remind ourselves
that was extremely critical of thepolice service of Northern Ireland had,
uh, been leaked to these journalistswho had reported it as something
that's entirely in the public interest.
Jane (18:36):
Yes.
So, so all of this effort and resource andso forth of the police who, who clearly
have no crimes whatsoever to investigatein Northern Ireland, besides this was, was
all about protecting police reputation.
This.
You know, this was all about whowas passed information on about
how badly police had handled theRocking Island murder investigation.
Adam (18:57):
Essentially.
It sounds a lot like the, uh, the,the police put an awful lot of effort
into protecting potential killers whodid tell them things and going after
journalists, who wouldn't tell 'em stuff.
Is that, is that a kind of summary?
Jane (19:08):
Yes.
the, uh, review that was published,a fortnight ago among it's, it
reveals many more journalists, allof whom were investigating things
that like, um, police corruption andpolice collusion and relations with
the UVF and all that kind of thing.
some lawyers who have also sort ofrepresented the other side in cases where,
(19:31):
for instance, victims' families havesued the police and that kind of thing.
So these are all the people whothe, the police were surveilling.
Adam (19:37):
And that seems to be like enormous numbers, doesn't it?
Because one extraordinary detail thatcame out ahead of the case, which the two
journalists brought at the InvestigatoryPowers Tribunal, and I should just, um,
tell listeners exactly what that is.
They, they basically are an independentbody which provides the right of
redress to anyone who believesthey've been the victim of unlawful
action by a public authority usingconvert investigation techniques.
But that includes MIfive, MI six, and GCHQ.
(19:59):
So pretty, sort of wideranging powers there.
There were several other partieswho applied to be part of this
case, uh, including the BBC andthe National Union of Journalists.
Um, and lawyers for MI five and GCHQ atthat point argued that actually they held
so much material on BBC journalists inNorthern Ireland that they simply didn't
have the time or the necessary staff togo through all of that information ahead
(20:20):
of when the tribunal was scheduled for.
Jane (20:22):
Uh, that's right.
So there are more tribunals, coveringthings like BBC journalists coming up,
um, separately and in, in relation to, uh.
BBC journalist, Vincent Kearney, bothpolice and MI five have admitted certainly
that they have his phone records.
Now, not, that's not the contents ofthe conversations, it's it's the who
he called and who called him records.
(20:43):
But that's hugely useful if you're tryingto work out who a journalist sources are.
Adam (20:49):
And as a journalist, this is sort of quite terrifying.
I mean, the idea, I mean, we dotake, um, source protection extremely
seriously, but actually in mostcases, you are not reporting on.
Cases of, uh, violent killers.
I mean, the retribution potentialfor if your sources are given away
to anyone in, in, in stories likethis is, terrifying, isn't it?
Jane (21:10):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, so yeah, so much of these,these cases sort of relate to, um,
the sort of paramilitary and gangviolence in, in Northern Ireland.
These are not people that you want,um, to get on the wrong side of,
Ian (21:25):
And The idea is it's the police who are looking into your sources, but the
police are the people being accused ofcollaborating with the very bad people.
Um, and therefore might wellgive your information to the very
bad people that is, is worrying.
Adam (21:40):
It is all slightly reminiscent of, uh, as we were saying, the, um, ITV
drama, the hack, or at least half ofthe hack, uh, which, um, I understood
ahead of, uh, its transmission wasgonna be the story of how Nick Davies
uncovered, uh, phone hacking at thenews of the world for the Guardian.
In fact, half of it turned out tobe a completely separate program and
really oddly, sort of episode two, Ithought, hang on, I've, I, I, I've,
(22:01):
I've clicked on the wrong thing herebecause it was totally different.
And to be, to tell acompletely different story,
Jane (22:05):
I, I've tuned into a police drama by mistake.
Yeah.
Yes.
Adam (22:08):
it was bizarre.
Um, uh, yeah, so it, it was, uh, infact both halves of the drama, the
hack are kind of stories that the,the, the I has followed on and off
over many, many years, if not decades.
Um, so the, the other half that wasn'tabout, specifically about Nick Davis
and phone hacking, uh, was about themany police investigations into the
murder of private Detective DanielMorgan in South London in 1987.
Uh, and specifically the role ofDave Cook, uh, a police officer who.
(22:32):
I gotta say it came outslightly less heroic in the
eyes coverage in over the years.
Jane, tell us a bit about, uh,about Dave Cook and his involvement
in the Daniel Morgan case.
Jane (22:42):
So, um, he's a detective, chief superintendent, so
quite a senior detective.
so he took on.
The investigation, I think it was thefifth reinvestigation of the case.
Um, so he was sort of brought in tohave another go at trying to, to find
out who had killed private investigatorDaniel Morgan, an ax murder, which
was a number of suspects involvedin, um, sort of organized crime.
(23:06):
his investigation, resulted.
this does, has not, so far in theepisodes I've seen, has, does not come
out at all resulted in both a, a highcourt case and an appeal court case,
um, in which it emerged that he hadcoached witnesses, for their evidence.
And, um.
(23:26):
Essentially this, uh, created a massiverisk of a miscarriage of justice.
And, um, the high court upheld that thiswas, um, misfeasance in public office,
and the appeal court later concludedthat it was, uh, malicious prosecution.
so the, the risks of, um, miscarriagesof justice when police officers do
that kind of thing are very high.
Adam (23:48):
Yeah.
It resulted in the collapse of thetrial that, uh, that they were hoping to
bring in 2011, uh, and as you say, um,and actually a payout for, um, of, of
more than half a million pounds to the,the people who recused of involvement
in the murder of Daniel Morgan.
and the, the case remains even afterthese five police investigations
and a large independent, um,report on it in more recent years.
(24:08):
Unsolved officially.
It is a fascinating case 'cause it doestouch on a whole axis of corruption within
the police, uh, particularly in SouthLondon, which also it has kind of like
tendrils that go into the whole debacleover the Stephen Lawrence murder our
late colleague Paul Foot looked an awfullot into, uh, into what was going on
around various police stations in SouthLondon and their involvement with, uh,
(24:29):
involvement of various officers with, uh,corrupt kind of gang land figures There.
it's also got massive tendrils,which you know, is what the thing
that connected it in the drama,uh, to, uh, fleet Street as well.
What was Fleet Street?
Um, both the news of the world 1 seniorjournalist there, Alex Murran Murch, was
involved in, uh, putting surveillanceon Dave Cook's family that's depicted in
(24:49):
the drama, uh, but also the daily mirror.
As well.
Um, famously, uh, the, a lot of thepolice tapes and police bugs picked up
journalists going in and having a chatwith, uh, Daniel Morgan's associate,
John Reese Southern Investigations,the company he ran, uh, including, um,
Gary Jones, who, uh, went on to becomeuntil quite recently, the daily editor
of The Daily Express, discussing withJonathan Re was sitting, listening to
(25:09):
Jonathan Reese describe how what theywere up to was very, very illegal.
So, um, there are.
It is the most extraordinary case,which so far no one has got entirely
to, to, to the bottom of, the, uh,commissioner of Met Police, I just
say, Mark Riley refused to accept thefinding of the independent panel that
looked into the various investigationsinto the Daniel Morgan murder, that
his force was institutionally corrupt.
(25:31):
Um, just as he did the findings,Louise Casey, who ran an inquiry
following the murder of Sarai Everard.
By a, uh, serving met officer, uh,that the met was institutionally
racist, misogynistic, and homophobic.
All of this, of course, ahead oflast week's panorama, which went into
Charing Cross Police Station with somesecret filming to prove that that does
pretty much appear to be the case.
Ian (25:49):
this applies to so many institutions, it's a default position.
You are criticized, you say Thisinstitution is really important.
The church, the police,the B, BC, the NHS.
It's so important that we continue ourgood work that we must shut up everyone
who says we're not doing good work
Jane (26:07):
now.
Ian (26:08):
You can see people falling into this, and for some reason,
Paula Nels comes straight into mind.
This is the most blatant case of it.
Uh, the post office isvery, very important.
We must defend the brand and the, ifthe police do it, it's really dangerous.
I mean, it's pretty dangerous when anyonedoes it, but for them to devote this much
time to what is essentially, uh, revenge.
(26:31):
Um, for bad publicity, it'snot really lessons learned.
It's not, uh, we must, you know, sortof make sure things are going better.
It's just saying, uh, we don't like this.
We are gonna get our own back.
And that, I mean, you know, doesthe police know good at all?
Jane (26:47):
And of course Paulas was also one of the shortlisted candidates
to be Bishop of London back in, um.
2018 when, um, Sarai Mulally was,uh, eventually selected for the post.
So we could be lookingat Archbishop Paula now.
Adam (27:03):
Wow,
Ian (27:03):
the Daniel Morgan episode in the hack, which was, I mean,
I've, I've read all the pieces.
All of you have written aboutthis for a long time and
understood only some of them.
I mean, it is anunbelievably complex case.
but I felt there, the fact that it wassuddenly the news of the world spying
on a policeman, I know it was thereto demonstrate that they basically
(27:26):
were out of control, the press andspied on everybody and thought they
were above the law, literally abovethe police and above everyone else.
But for me it confused what was thedrift of, Nick Davis investigation,
which was simpler to follow and endedup with various people from the Murdoch
organization going to jail, and Mr.
(27:48):
Murdoch having to sit there and havea custody by friend at him, which
seems to me the big point of thestory, but that, that may be just me.
Adam (27:56):
I mean, it did have extraordinary details which were
taken directly from real life.
I mean, the, the fact that when, um,uh, Dave Cook, uh, went in to talk to
Rebecca Brooks, then editor of the Newsof the World about, the surveillance
that had been put on his family, theexcuse being by the way that they
thought he was having an affair withthe Crime watch presenter, Jackie
Hammes, to whom he had been married for
Jane (28:15):
quite some years by
Adam (28:16):
point, so not the most convincing excuse.
She did go directly from that, escortedby, uh, the Mets head of communication.
And Dick Fedor to a reception withthe Met Commissioner, which does
sort of slightly suggest some fairlycozy relationships there, doesn't it?
Ian (28:29):
That was a fine bit of the drama.
I thought the, the portrayalof Rebecca Brooks as a
misunderstood and innocent woman
Adam (28:37):
absolutely,
Ian (28:37):
I thought was top
Adam (28:39):
How else could you possibly portray it, Ian?
Ian (28:41):
I think it's worth pointing out that the Nick Davis' book,
which he's rewritten, is that right?
Jane (28:46):
He
Adam (28:46):
has, he's added an extra chapter on, uh, new investigations into what he says,
uh, is evidence of corporate hacking.
So specifically by management, uh, at,uh, at News International as it was to
try and interfere with kind of politicaldecisions which were being taken over the
proposed takeover of Sky at that point.
And I think
Ian (29:05):
that stuff is very interesting too, just in terms of a less
confusing narrative and it's, it'sslightly more, it's moved it on.
Adam (29:12):
It's certainly peaking the interest of lawyers at News International who
has revealed a couple of issues back,have been sending out warning letters to
anyone who might think about reviewingthat book or saying anything about it.
Oddly enough, we have saidsomething about that book.
We didn't get the letter, so there you go.
Keep reading private eye.
Now as promised, Helen Lewis is off onher travels in the States, but Andrew
(29:34):
Hunter Murray wasn't having a slack offon her podcast duties just 'cause of that.
So he's caught up with her to talk aboutDonald Trump's recent alarming claims
around autism, paracetamol, or Tylenol asit's known in the US and pregnant women.
Uh, they kicked off by talkingabout one of the offshoots of maga,
the alphabetically adjacent Maha.
Here's Helen.
Here's
Helen (29:52):
Maha is Make America healthy again.
And it's probably gonna turn outto be one of the most consequential
parts of the Trump agenda.
Now, let's be brutal about whatTrump has managed to achieve so
far is a lot of destroying things.
Uh, would I say that was thekind of thing that's the, the
main outcome of Doge, right?
Is that they just cut a lot of programs,particularly in, um, overseas aid.
(30:13):
Whether or not they're good atbuilding new things that they
do, like remains to be seen.
And Maha is a very good example of that.
So, it is currently being led,the Department of Health and Human
Services by Robert f Kennedy Jr.
Now, as the name suggests, he's theson of the original Bobby Kennedy.
Brother of JFK, and then, you know,from a lifelong democratic family,
he's both a lifelong environmentalcampaigner and a lifelong, well, pretty
(30:36):
much lifelong, um, vaccine skeptic.
and, you know, he has a varietyof, I would say pseudo-scientific
views on a number of things.
And in his position.
in control of the Health Departmentof America, he is able to do
things like change the vaccineschedules, change the collection
of data, all of that kind of stuff.
The, you know, I think mighthave very severe consequences for
(30:58):
infectious disease in America.
Andy (31:00):
When you say vaccine schedules, is that who gets it?
How many are dished out?
What is that?
Helen (31:06):
It's a recommendations on basically what childhood vaccines there should be.
You know, he's, he's making the COVIDvaccines harder to get, and now that's,
you know, that's something that'skind of debatable about what this
kind of schedule for those should be.
And, but childhood vaccines are.
know, to the scientific community a muchless, uh, controversial topic, right?
We just simply know that there arechildren alive today who wouldn't
(31:27):
be because they got the MMR vaccine.
Look at the rates of that.
but he is, you know,he's, he's very worried.
Um, he's is deeply steeped in vaccineskepticism and he basically got rid of
the panel at the center of a diseasecontrol, the CDC that is in charge of
the kind of vaccine recommendationsand stuffed it with people who are
much more of his point of view.
Andy (31:46):
It's interesting hearing about this from a British perspective because I think
in the UK a lot of government ministersor cabinet ministers even are people
without a specific ax to grind in thearea that they're given the portfolio for.
Barring maybe the exception of, edMiller Band, who's, you know, like
did climate and energy last timeand is doing it again this time and
(32:06):
has been doing a lot in between.
you know, Heidi Alexander hasn'tbeen banging the drum for better bus
provision for 30 years and has nowfinally been given the transport brief.
So it's quite weird hearing aboutthis from the RFK side of things.
Helen (32:19):
Yeah.
And that's a reflection ofreally the unique way that he
ended up in this administration.
So, uh, you know, the Kennedys arethe, the big democratic Catholic
family, you know, and he raninitially for president as a Democrat.
And so there's this very funny dynamicwhere quite a lot of oppo research
dump came out in, you know, uh,the spring of last year, which was.
(32:40):
You know, designed to kindof, um, tank him essentially.
Because what happened at thatpoint was that he was edging
towards the Republicans.
So the Republicans loved him runningas a Democrat because they thought
the Kennedy name was gonna kind ofdraw support away from Joe Biden.
and then suddenly, hang on a minute.
No, he's edging towards, he didn'tget on the ballot as a Democrat.
He's an independent, uh oh.
Actually.
What do people who hatevaccines normally vote for?
(33:02):
That's us, the Republicans.
This might be a problem.
And then so you start seeingthis mad spate of stories after
hearing lots of stuff about hisgreat environmental, uh, activism.
Suddenly you got to hear a lot of storiesabout, there's this time where he think,
we think he might have eaten a dog.
He says It was a goat, Ishould clarify for the record.
And then, and a further revolutionhappened, at which point Trump
realized how great it would be to beable to have a Kennedy on his ticket.
(33:26):
To say, people say, I'm incrediblyextreme and right wing, look at
me, I'm reaching across the aisle.
I've got a Kennedy.
And you know, somebody said thatto me when I was, um, canvassing in
Pennsylvania for people's opinionsand ahead of the last election.
They said, well, you know,he's, you know, he's got a broad
church, he's got a Kennedy,
Andy (33:43):
You are not a good Kennedy, like
Helen (33:45):
He's got very much one of the,
Andy (33:47):
the
Helen (33:47):
less good Kennedys.
Yeah, I mean.
There's quite a few fairly rogue Kennedys.
but yeah, anyway, but sothis was, this was the point.
He had a great value to, toTrump as a kind of fig leaf.
And actually, you know what, he wasvery popular with that kind of Rogan
sphere, as I often call it, you know,the podcast sphere, because what is
the podcast that bit of the Trumpfriendly podcast sphere funded by?
(34:09):
So crypto, which is, you know, moneywithout regulation and supplements,
which is medicine without regulation.
And so if you want to find, you know,m. Pseudo alternatives to sunscreens,
or you want to hear discussions oflike what, testosterone replacement
therapy, which is something that,um, Kennedy has spoken about.
It's why he says he can still doa pull up at sev, you know, in his
seventies, all of that kind of stuff.
(34:32):
Then he was very friendly withthat kind of Establishment
skeptic, bit of the podcast sphere.
Uh, and some of it is, you know, justtake a few vitamins and eat a bit better.
And, uh, some of it's avoid seedoils, which is kind of neutral.
And some of it's, you know, maybethe MMR vaccine causes autism,
which is debunked and untrue.
So, you know, he, he had, hebrought a great asset to the
Trump team and as a result, hegot the portfolio that he wanted.
(34:53):
Right.
He was, that, he's like, thatwas what he was always gonna get.
His environmental viewswould not have sat very well.
Right.
If he'd been given Ed Milliman'sportfolio, he might've said.
You know, we should stoppolluting the rivers.
And that would've been quitean unpopular thing to say.
But in the, you know, in the, inthe context of the current movement,
his skepticism of traditionalmedicine is, is absolutely on
brand for the Trump administration.
Andy (35:13):
So one point that you've made is that the Trump administration,
the first one for all its legions offaults and corruption and, and goodness
knows what else did actually produceCOVID vaccines, but he was unable
to boast about it because so manyof his supporters don't like jabs.
Helen (35:31):
Yeah, there was a really funny movement in the, um, in the hearing.
So, RFK Jr was in front of a,a senate committee hearing, you
know, being kind of scrutinized.
And Louisiana Republican, bill Cassidy,who provided the, casting, deciding
vote on his confirmation in this role.
Right.
is obviously now feeling thathe's been sold a pup as well.
He might, because RFK
Andy (35:50):
a goat or a
Helen (35:51):
or a goat.
The Boulogne structure is very similar.
you can't tell from the pictureof it barbecued, uh, at all.
Anyway, so, you know, he, he, he,he's obviously shown a bit of buyer's
remorse, and so he asked RFK Junior ifhe thought Donald Trump deserved a Nobel
Prize for operation warp speed, whichis, you said, was the, the government
program to develop a COVID vaccine.
(36:12):
And Rogen went a, you know, absolutely.
And then Cassidy's follow up questionwas, well, how have you just told us that?
The quotes, the COVID vaccine killedmore people than COVID, right?
So the Maha position is now both thatDonald Trump is an absolute legend for
having invented the COVID vaccine, butalso the COVID vaccine killed people,
Andy (36:31):
Yeah, it's quite, it's two quite distant planks to straddle, isn't it?
Helen (36:35):
and he's the man to straddle them because his, as I say, his muscle tone
from man in his seventies is exemplary.
Andy (36:40):
So he is making it harder to get vaccines, not just the COVID ones,
but childhood vaccines, things likevaccinating children against measles.
And I believe that is startingto yield results, isn't it?
Helen (36:51):
this is why there's a real worry about it because I
have already been, um, the first.
Measles deaths in the US for, forquite a long time, for about a decade.
And that happened in aMennonite community, so a very
closed religious community.
And those are, you know, communitiesthat have traditionally been very
skeptical of, of vaccines anyway,um, and traditional medicine.
And, you know, it's too simplistic toattribute that because, you know, they.
(37:13):
The administration had only beenin place for a certain amount of
time, but I think you can certainlysay that the, prominence of vaccine
skepticism on large parts of the rightand bits of the left, what you might
call the kind of crunchy left, right.
There's a lot of kind of peoplewho do yoga who also think
the body can heal itself.
that, you know, it's nota. Purely partisan view.
I'm sure that has contributedto, a culture of suspicion
(37:36):
of medicine essentially.
yeah, and then we always, I, I, I'veread today as well that in the US
some rabies cases have also goneup, so make rabies great again.
Andy (37:45):
Good Lord.
I know that you have to gothrough a confirmation hearing.
You mentioned earlier oneof the Republicans who.
Confirmed him, uh, to, to be approvedfor your seat or, or you know, the role
you've got in cabinet, whatever it is.
Was it close with Kennedy?
Helen (38:00):
Yeah, it was, it required a, certain amount of, of brow beating,
of a couple of Republican senatorswho were really reluctant to pass him.
Um, and the senate's veryfinely divided, right?
So a couple of votes, one way orthe other would've been decisive.
and there was a. A really substantialpush by the Trump administration to get
him in post, because essentially thatwas the bargain that had made right.
Like, switch to supportingus and we'll give you health.
(38:20):
and it's a shame because immediatelywhat happened, he also appointed his
own director of the CDC, Susan Menez.
She lasted 29 days before they fell out.
and even in that time, in her firstweek in the job, a gunman turned
up at some CDC offices in Atlanta.
Um, sprayed of 500 rounds and thegunman's rationale was, I've been
driven to be feeling suicidalbecause of the COVID vaccine.
(38:43):
So you can already see where thestrengths of feeling that there is
about the fact that, you know, theCOVID vaccine was a lie or it was
implementing with microchips, or it waspart of some, you know, sinister plot.
Like those are all widelyheld views on some.
Bits of the Maha, right.
And they're real world consequences.
And, and so Menari has quitalong with a load of other senior
(39:03):
officials, just essentiallysaying, you're destroying the CDC.
their job is going to be harder, because,you know, they, they're running uphill
basically against an administration thatthinks that they're kind of corrupt and,
and unscientific, and they've coveredup the, the downsides of vaccines.
Andy (39:20):
Wait, they think these guys are on scientific.
Helen (39:22):
They think the CDC are un scientific and, and one of their,
um, kind of prime ways that they'vedemonstrated this is that the CDC changed
all of its advice to be gender neutral.
So it would say like, it, its adviceon pregnancy would refer entirely
on to pregnant people, for example.
And this is part of the kind of Trump,line, which is essentially like, these
people don't even know what a woman is.
Why would you trust them with any kindof scientific advice and I, and to an
(39:45):
outsider, I think that kind of seems.
Kind of loopy, right?
These are two very, like a, a, alinguistic tweak is very different to
like the question of whether or nota vaccine has side effects, which is
something you can empirically establish.
But it is part of the, the waythat gender and the left has
been used to delegitimize, likeleft wing authority basically.
And that for, for some parts of theright is a really potent message to them.
Andy (40:08):
now Helen, as you know, I'm a parochial list.
I care principally about British politics.
Is there a sign that this vaccinestuff is making its way over
Helen (40:19):
Uh, I'm,
Andy (40:20):
or are we inoculated against it?
Helen (40:22):
Oh yeah.
Nice.
Very
nice.
I, I think it's harder becauseof the position of the the
BBC and OFCOM regulation.
I can't think of any of the.
Major newspapers that are really, I mean,you know, the, I think they're also still
feeling slightly scorched over MMR in theway that they were misled over that right.
As indeed private eye was at at the time.
So I think there's a, wasmore of a reluctance to go
(40:42):
there on vaccine stuff online.
I'm sure lots of Britains who get alltheir news from Facebook are absolutely
drowning in anti-vaccine sentiment.
But the other thing is, you know,like the classic phrase about American
politics, which is like American.
Sneezes and Britain catchesa cold, well, America sneezes
because an American's got bird flu.
Then that person gets on a plane, thenBritain very much could catch that cold.
(41:02):
Right.
This is the, thing is that you know, wehad one pandemic, we're still overdue.
A flu pandemic.
It's really important that you cantrust global health authorities.
you know, one of the things, bigproblems with COVID was the feeling of
like, is any of the data that's comingoutta China even vaguely reliable?
I think there are now similar questionsabout a lot of the health data that's
coming out of America, as well asthat agency's ability to like, go
(41:25):
to the poultry farm, do the testing,work out what strain it is, is it
actually anything to be worried about?
Right?
All of that kind of stuff.
I think that.
Ability is being eroded.
And it's a real shame because actuallyon the other side of it, some of what
RFK JR was saying is really basic.
Like, have you consideredeating a vegetable?
I hear they're good.
Right?
And when Michelle Obama did it, theywere like, oh, I don't need to be
(41:46):
told what to do by Michelle Obama.
But actually like the idea that youshould go to the gym and eat right.
Is a message that America withits obesity crisis and its
incredibly unworkable places tolive, could really do with hearing.
So there's a kind of great tragedyabout RFK Junior that, that, you know,
there's a lot of kook there, but there'salso, you know, some quite basic advice
(42:07):
that is probably quite good for people.
and meanwhile, America has multiple,you know, terrible health crises
that I don't suspect that this CDCand this health department and RFK
Junior are gonna be able to have alot of hef to do something about.
Adam (42:20):
That was Helen Lewis and, uh, thanks to Andy.
, Ian, I should just say, coming offthe back of that, Helen mentioned
in passing, Private eye did have arole in, uh, the MMR controversy and
connections to autism, didn't it?
In the past.
Ian (42:30):
Yes.
Nice Helen to bring upmy, uh, not finest hour.
Yes, the early MMR coveragein the eye was wrong.
we accepted, the findings of Wakefield'sfirst study, as did the lance.
And there were, uh, various othervoices, but we were essentially wrong
to stay with it and wrong to stayquestioning it and ran a, a mayor cul.
(42:51):
the
person who was right in thiswas Phil Hammond, our current
MD, who said, no, this is wrong.
And he was right.
Adam (42:57):
And that's it for this episode
of
page nine four, the Private Eye Podcast.
If you want to read more about,uh, the cases we've been discussing
and many, many more, which willbe popping up for years to come.
Then, uh, get yourself, first ofall a copy of the magazine, uh, and
if you like what you see, then getyourself a subscription as well.
It's incredibly reasonably priced.
thank you to Jane Mackenzie.
Thank you to Ian Hislop.
(43:18):
Thank you to Helen Lewisand Andrew Hunter Murray.
And thank you to Matt Hill of RethinkAudio for producing as ever, uh, until
the next time, in a fortnight, goodbye.
Page 94, the Private Eye Podcast.
Adam (00:03):
Hello and welcome to another episode of Page 94.
I'm Adam McQueen, and I'm joined inthe Private Eye Office today by Ian
Hislop and Jane McKenzie, but fear not.
Later in the episode, we'll be hearingfrom both of our other regulars, Helen
Lewis and Andrew Hunter Murray, who aregonna be talking about President Trump
and his health secretary, RFK Junior,and they're slightly peculiar ideas
about how to make America healthy again.
But first the three of us aregonna be discussing some of the
(00:24):
stories from the last issue, uh,specifically police bugging of
journalists, both in Northern Irelandand on our tellies courtesy of ITV.
And, um, some of the things that havehappened since our last edition came out
specifically, we finally, after 11 months,have a new Archbishop of Canterbury.
Ian,
Ian (00:39):
I thought you were gonna say finally, after thousands of years,
we have a female Archbishop ofCanterbury, which is is certainly news,
Adam (00:46):
1,428 years since Saint Augustine to go.
Yeah.
The first woman in the role,specifically, she is Sarai Mul,
formerly the Bishop of London.
And before that, in, I mean, by anymeasure, is an impressive LinkedIn
page, chief nurse in the NHS.
That's not bad.
Is it for two positions, Jane?
Jane (01:02):
Also from a, a comprehensive school background, which, uh, I don't think
the latest few, uh, bishops have been,
Adam (01:09):
Uh,
but it is an extraordinaryachievement, isn't it?
I mean, women priests were first ordainedin, uh, the Church of England in 1994.
They could only become bishops from 2014.
Uh, so Mal became Bishop of London,which effectively the third in command
of the Church of England, isn't it?
It's after the archbishopsof Canterbury and York Um,
remind us, Ian, why didJustin Wellbe her predecessor?
Why was he obliged to step down?
Ian (01:29):
Well, he had an unfortunate argument with someone at a drinks party at the
British Museum and he just had to go.
Uh oh.
Jane (01:37):
think
Adam (01:37):
we may be getting the timing slightly wrong on that one.
Ian (01:40):
Oh yes,
that was afterwards.
Uh, no self-regarding nonsense.
He had to leave quite rightly 'cause he'dbeen, , involved in one of the major.
Scandals in, in the Church of England,about, his connection with a, really
horrific serial abuser called,John Smythe, who'd run, uh, various
Christian camps and had had various,connections with Wellbe over the years.
(02:03):
And we'd written about it at somelength, particularly Jane had.
Adam (02:06):
I
should say
for podcast.
Listen, actually, um,
If you do want the full story, um, if yougo back to episode one, uh, 126 of page
94, uh, which we recorded last November,France Ween, uh, joined us to discuss
the John Smythe case in, um, in depth.
Essentially it was John Smith was anevangelical Christian who ran these.
Camps around the country for youngpeople, but also turned out to be
(02:27):
sadistically beating young men ina shed at the end of his garden.
Jane (02:30):
Uh, that's a summary of the, of the beginning of the story.
after, some people found out, um, whatwas was going on, he was, Moved a long,
long way away from, uh, where he couldbe a problem for senior people at the,
the Church of England off, off to, toAfrica So, the fact that he was, he
was just sort of exported to, carry on.
(02:51):
Behaving dreadfully, wasanother big part of the scandal.
Adam (02:54):
was one of the many figures in the church who was found out to have,
um, kind of connived in this, this,this relocation rather than actually
attempting to tackle the problem.
Ian (03:05):
Yes.
And he, he, it turned out he'd senthim a Christmas card and he'd supported
the mission and all of these thingsdidn't quite chime with the, suggestion
that he knew nothing about it.
And, he had no links to,um, this figure previous to.
When he first heard about him.
And so there was a great deal ofargument about, um, safeguarding
(03:25):
in the church, whether the head ofthe C of E could actually continue,
in his posters, head of the Churchof England when the safeguarding
had completely failed, with SM and,
and more and more cases keptturning up of repeated failures
with other priests, with other, uh,lay people in various positions.
And eventually he decided veryreluctantly that he had to go
(03:49):
and he left with no grace at all.
Even after he'd been criticized forbeing graceless, he stood up in the
House of Lords and basically said,well, you know, the main victim in the
whole thing was his diary secretary.
'cause you know, she had to rearrangestuff, which was unbelievably tone
deaf and various, other bishopssat around laughing, but the one
(04:10):
who didn't and covered her facein her hands was Sarai Muli,
Adam (04:14):
who now takes over the job.
Ian (04:16):
and I think.
Maybe as a basic requirement forthe job, finding your predecessor
cringe Work worthy is pretty good.
Adam (04:24):
I mean the, the ongoing safeguarding issues around the church with, there was
an awful lot of them still, still ongoing.
Um, that's presumably part of thereason why it's taken a full 11
months to appoint a successor.
I mean, the, the, the CatholicChurch managed two day
papal conclave, didn't they?
So, um,
Jane (04:37):
That's right.
Um, in order to, uh, appoint an archbishopfor the, um, church of England, uh, the
first thing you have to do is appointthe panel that that does the appointing.
Uh, and they did have a great deal ofdifficulty putting together a panel,
um, because of the number of, um,various sort of bishops and senior
figures who also are sort of dealingwith the fallout from their own
(05:01):
safeguarding scandals, where within.
Various different diocese seas, theyhave also failed to investigate or
sort of, sort of done belated orpoor investigations or coverups.
Um, so there were multiple peoplewho you would've expected to have
been on that panel who, who steppedaside or sort of had to be replaced.
(05:23):
Mulally's
Adam (05:23):
record like on sort of safeguarding issues?
Jane (05:26):
So, um, Malawi certainly has experience of stepping into
the leadership of an organizationthat's in a terrible mess, uh,
safeguarding and leadership wise.
When she first started as Bishopof London, the London Diocese
was in a, a, a shocking state.
in fact.
When she first arrived and started tryingto impose some kind of organization and
(05:49):
governance and appropriate systems, um,there were some significant figures who
quit, such as the head of operationsthere, a man called Martin Sergeant.
Uh, now that's, it's not a good sign whensomebody quits that, uh, because there's
an attempt to sort of clean things up.
It turned out that he had defraudeda Church of England, um, charitable
(06:11):
fund by about 5 million pounds.
Adam (06:14):
pounds.
Wow.
Jane (06:16):
Yes.
Ian (06:16):
he's now in prison.
our readers will know much of thehistory of Mr. Sergeant's, um, uh,
desire to spend the church's moneyon gambling and on holidays and in
living, um, quite a high lifestyle.
So, um.
The fact that he quit, uh, the minutesomeone new came in who wanted to have
a look at things, um, was not a, not agreat sign about the mess that was there.
(06:41):
And then the mess got even worsewhen he on leaving delivered.
, What was called a brain dump ofinformation, which turned out to be a
lot of gossip and a lot of, , secondhandand unfounded rumor about all the
priests and all the people, , inLondon, , who he'd sort of vaguely known.
(07:01):
And the, , Bishop of London whocame in Sarai, Mulally had then
to cope with, what do I do?
With all this information,information in inverted commas.
Mm-hmm.
Um, and there was a, a huge amountof criticism of the way, um, this
was handled, particularly afterone priest committed suicide.
(07:24):
, Jane: So, uh, father Alan Griffin, um, took his own life after being subject to
one of the safeguarding investigationstriggered by the brain dump.
and so it was a dreadful time forquite a lot of other, um, clergy
who, , were included in this sortof roundup of brain dumped gossip.
With sort of very little evidenceof, of any actual, um, abuse
(07:46):
happening in, in these cases.
So, there was an inquest and,investigation into all of this and,
Mulally's, response to, the end ofall of this, uh, was that she gave an
an unreserved apology for her part inhaving not sort of had, processes and
support in place of people quickly.
(08:07):
Once, um, all thesesafeguarding investigations.
Got started.
Well now that is, an interestingcontrast to give an unreserved
apology for, for her party little all,
and I mean it's slightly ironic, that we now have, an Archie
for Canterbury who was accused ofover zealotry in trying to prevent
abuse as opposed to under zealotry.
(08:29):
In trying to prevent abuse.
You, you essentially can'twin in the Church of England.
Um, but uh, she seems to be can't winningin a slightly more positive direction.
Adam (08:38):
It's, I would say it's another positive development after 1,428 years.
Isn't it really?
Ian (08:43):
there are still people who are critical of her for that.
there are a number of other problems.
She's a woman.
As you, you've, I think pointed out,um, and this is still a problem, um,
in the Church of England, there's a,a group who don't, recognize women
bishops, let alone women archbishops.
She has to reconcilethat as point number one.
(09:04):
Um,
Adam (09:05):
I go for a really basic question here?
Because what exactly is the jobof Archbishop of Canterbury?
It's not really one job, is it?
And it's got very little to dowith Canterbury, but it's, it's in
fact several jobs, isn't it, Jake?
Jane (09:14):
is.
And in fact, one of the jobsis to be bishop of Canterbury.
That's why.
The Diocese of Canterbury gets sortof more of a say than any other
diocese in, in the appointment.
Right.
The next tear up is to be theleader of the Church of England,
primate of All England, primate
Adam (09:32):
primate so called Because you are the monkey to God's
organ grinder, presumably.
Ian (09:36):
Yes.
That's
Jane (09:37):
that's my Church of England Church.
I'm here.
Adam (09:40):
week.
Jane (09:42):
Um, but the Church of England is not the, the sort of only part of what's
called the Anglican communion, globally.
So, there are Anglicanchurches all over the world.
Ian (09:54):
and the global Anglican communion is, Very divided by a number of issues,
between the conservative and the moreliberal wings, the evangelicals and
the other wings, uh, a lot of theAfrican churches in particular are
not very keen on, the attitude to samesex couples, the attitude to women,
bishops, and a number of other things.
And there's an organization called Gafcon,which is the global Anglican Fellowship.
(10:20):
And they greeted the appointmentof this archbishop with sorrow.
The Bishop of Rwanda inparticular is, is not happy.
Adam (10:27):
The Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans to give them their,
uh, their, their, their full name.
Yes.
Um, they, they representconservative churches, not just
in Africa but Asia as well.
They said they received thenews from sorrow churches, South
Africa dissented from that.
Interestingly, they, they, theypopped up and said they heartily
welcomed Mulally as archbishop.
But it is, it is a very odd job 'causeas you say, a large part of the global
communion that she's now the head of.
(10:49):
Do not recognize women priestsor women bishops at all, do they?
Jane (10:52):
No.
And in fact, they don't evenrecognize male bishops who've been
ordained by women bishops 'causethey don't accept the ordaining
worked if it was done by a woman.
Ian (11:04):
because it's not in the direct apostolic succession.
Jane (11:07):
That's right.
Ian (11:08):
I just thought I'd throw that in
Adam (11:11):
the direct apostolic de.
You don't get that inevery podcast, do you?
Okay.
Ian (11:16):
Well, I tell you, I was reading the result of who had actually got the
job and um, I was reading it in what hadobviously been a quickly put together
piece and halfway through it stoppedsaying Mulally and it said Beasley.
And I thought, we haven't been told whothe runner up is, but I think you have.
And this is Bishop Beasleywho is Bath and Wells
Adam (11:38):
i'd just say if you were Bishop Bothels, you'd probably wanna stick that.
'cause he's got a lovely palace.
That's the one with a moatwhere the swans come up to ring
a bell when they want feeding.
Ian (11:46):
Right?
Yeah.
Okay.
Jane (11:47):
Well,
Adam (11:47):
country.
Um, legend there.
Ian (11:49):
there.
All
I'm saying is there was a misprintand maybe they knew more than I
Adam (11:53):
Possibly, yes.
Maybe, maybe next time Beasley,maybe you'll get lucky.
We should point out also, there is anotherpart to the job as well, which is that,
uh, the arch of Canterbury, along withI think 26 other bishops also have seats
in this country's parliament, don't they?
In the House of Lords.
Ian (12:06):
they?
do.
Adam (12:06):
That was of course where, well, we made his crass resignation speech.
Uh, uh, uh, joking abouthis diary, diary secretary.
Um, but it's very odd 'causeit is a political role.
I mean, a literallypolitical role in that sense.
But, um, days prior to, uh, Sarai Milan'sappointment, her predecessor, George
Carey, made an extraordinary intervention.
He did an interview with the Telegraphin which he said the archbishop,
uh, the incoming archbishop.
(12:27):
Should maintain a judicious silence onspecific policies, uh, and said that the
church had no more expertise than anyone.
When it comes to the ins and outs ofhow we handle migration, for example,
Ian (12:37):
I think, um, the, the arch of Canterbury is meant to have
views on morality and ethics, thatbeing part of the point of it.
And I think the engagement in politics,it always infuriates politicians.
I mean, they're very keen to invokereligion when it suits them, but when
religious figures get involved inpolitics, even to say, I think this
may be bad or good, may be wrong.
(12:59):
Maybe against conscience, theyget very, very upset by it.
But as we all know, I mean, there,there is no way of escaping politics.
Um, and particularly not at the moment.
And she will have to deal with politics,um, not just internal politics.
And there's gonna be plentyof that in the church.
She'll have to deal,deal with real politics.
I mean, her name was put forwardby the Prime Minister to the king.
(13:23):
I mean, this is politics.
Adam (13:26):
It absolutely is.
Um, George Kerry, I should just sayfor the record, had to resigned as a
priest last December over not just hisreadmitting, a priest who'd been banned
from ministry after being accused ofsection assaults on teenage girls, but
actually actively pushing colleaguesto give that priest a particular job.
So, um, he, he might.
Possibly consider taking hisown advice on judicial silences
along with Justin Welby, I think.
Ian (13:46):
Yeah.
Is there not a silent orderwhere, where all former
archbishops could go for, I dunno.
I'm thinking maybe 10 years aTrappist location somewhere.
Adam (13:57):
I'm saying nothing.
Ian (13:58):
But it's going to be, same sex, couples.
Women, priests, um, and thenassisted dying, which she's
already made her position clear on.
and as a former chief nurse, it was quiteinteresting 'cause she has done this, um,
Adam (14:14):
an educated view, isn't it?
Yes, it's, yeah.
Ian (14:15):
So that is quite interesting on one of those big moral issues.
we have someone who has.
Bit more experience.
So again, that will get her into trouble.
I'm sure that's politics.
I mean, it is actually a bill that'smeant to be going through Parliament,
so there will be more of this to come.
for the sake ofcomprehensiveness, I should say.
There's also, the issue of COVID and theclosing of the churches and they were
(14:38):
closed in London even for private prayer.
And a lot of, um, priests felt thatwas, um, a failure at the one time.
When the church was absolutely needed.
I mean, with any candidatethere's a lot of baggage.
so I just thought I'd mentionas much of it as possible, uh,
uh, and wish her luck obviously.
Adam (14:59):
Now onto another story that Private Eye has been following
for a good long while now.
Uh, the discovery, or rather inthis case, confirmation that the
police service of Northern Irelandwas for many years routinely spying
on journalists in what they calleda defensive security operation.
Uh, the journalist in question, quite afew other people have different opinions
about why it might've been happening.
Jane, you've been following this.
So what's the most recentdevelopment in this story?
Jane (15:21):
Uh, so our last issue, we were, um, reporting on the publication of
the McCulloch review, , so in thecase of, of two journalists who,
transpired, the police had indeedbeen, uh, carrying out surveillance on.
Uh, but in the course of thatcase, lots more, uh, cases of
surveillance came to light.
And so the new chief constable of,police service of Northern Ireland had
(15:44):
had a review carried out by a kc andthat was published, um, last issue.
And lots and lots more, uh, evidenceof, of surveillance came out in that,
including some, some unusual thingssuch as anybody who had been in touch
with the police, press office, uh,journalists who got in touch, uh,
whether they phoned up or emailed in.
(16:05):
But so long as they're.
phone number was available.
It was kept, and then it was washedthrough the phone system to check
whether anybody from any police stationanywhere in Northern Ireland was
speaking to journalists off the record.
So, in a way this was principally spyingon their own staff, but they were doing
(16:26):
it by using, journalists and track,trying to track down journalists sources.
Adam (16:31):
just to unpack this story a bit.
This all kicked off with, um, adocumentary that was made about
the Locking Island massacre,which was, , an attack on a pub
for granted by Catholics in 1994.
Uh, a gun attack by membersof the Oster Volunteer Force.
Um, it's actually during a WorldCup match between Ireland and Italy.
So you can imagine how, how, howcrowded the pub was at the time.
Um, many years later, the policeombudsman for Northern Ireland concluded
(16:53):
that, um, police in what was thenknown as the Royal Ster Constabulary.
Since, since turned into thepolice service in Northern Ireland.
Um, but the ombudsman concluded that,uh, the, the officers had, um, colluded
with the UVF to protect informantsthat they had in that particular
parent paramilitary organization.
so journalists, Barry McAfeeand Trevor Binney made a
documentary about this in 2017.
(17:14):
So we're talking, this was somethingthat amazed me slightly much.
We're not going right back to theheight of the troubles in all of this.
This is, this is a much, much morerecent surveillance efforts, isn't it?
Jane (17:23):
Uh,
Adam (17:24):
and McCafferty had their homes raised, they had documents seized.
uh, a judge later ruled that thesearch warrants that police had used
for that raid were inappropriate.
Um, and in the course of thatinvestigation, they discovered the police
had been running covert surveillanceon them for years, hadn't they?
Jane (17:36):
the police were desperately trying to find out who, Bernie
and McCaffrey's sources were.
They suspected that somebodyat the, police ombudsman.
Was, um, passing information.
So they were also carrying outsurveillance of the people whose
job it is to be the police watchdog.
So they were carrying out surveillance oftheir own watchdog and of these, um, two
(17:59):
journalists to try and find out whetherthey had any contacts between them.
Um, they never uncovered.
The, who, the source of, of theinformation was through all of this.
But yes, they were using things like,um, traffic cameras to, to watch
where these journalists were going.
The, you, they were, youknow, it's a proper like TV
style surveillance operation.
(18:21):
the, the alleged
Adam (18:21):
crime in all of this, which as you say was never proved, was theft
of an official document because theOmbudsman's report to remind ourselves
that was extremely critical of thepolice service of Northern Ireland had,
uh, been leaked to these journalistswho had reported it as something
that's entirely in the public interest.
Jane (18:36):
Yes.
So, so all of this effort and resource andso forth of the police who, who clearly
have no crimes whatsoever to investigatein Northern Ireland, besides this was, was
all about protecting police reputation.
This.
You know, this was all about whowas passed information on about
how badly police had handled theRocking Island murder investigation.
Adam (18:57):
Essentially.
It sounds a lot like the, uh, the,the police put an awful lot of effort
into protecting potential killers whodid tell them things and going after
journalists, who wouldn't tell 'em stuff.
Is that, is that a kind of summary?
Jane (19:08):
Yes.
the, uh, review that was published,a fortnight ago among it's, it
reveals many more journalists, allof whom were investigating things
that like, um, police corruption andpolice collusion and relations with
the UVF and all that kind of thing.
some lawyers who have also sort ofrepresented the other side in cases where,
(19:31):
for instance, victims' families havesued the police and that kind of thing.
So these are all the people whothe, the police were surveilling.
Adam (19:37):
And that seems to be like enormous numbers, doesn't it?
Because one extraordinary detail thatcame out ahead of the case, which the two
journalists brought at the InvestigatoryPowers Tribunal, and I should just, um,
tell listeners exactly what that is.
They, they basically are an independentbody which provides the right of
redress to anyone who believesthey've been the victim of unlawful
action by a public authority usingconvert investigation techniques.
But that includes MIfive, MI six, and GCHQ.
(19:59):
So pretty, sort of wideranging powers there.
There were several other partieswho applied to be part of this
case, uh, including the BBC andthe National Union of Journalists.
Um, and lawyers for MI five and GCHQ atthat point argued that actually they held
so much material on BBC journalists inNorthern Ireland that they simply didn't
have the time or the necessary staff togo through all of that information ahead
(20:20):
of when the tribunal was scheduled for.
Jane (20:22):
Uh, that's right.
So there are more tribunals, coveringthings like BBC journalists coming up,
um, separately and in, in relation to, uh.
BBC journalist, Vincent Kearney, bothpolice and MI five have admitted certainly
that they have his phone records.
Now, not, that's not the contents ofthe conversations, it's it's the who
he called and who called him records.
(20:43):
But that's hugely useful if you're tryingto work out who a journalist sources are.
Adam (20:49):
And as a journalist, this is sort of quite terrifying.
I mean, the idea, I mean, we dotake, um, source protection extremely
seriously, but actually in mostcases, you are not reporting on.
Cases of, uh, violent killers.
I mean, the retribution potentialfor if your sources are given away
to anyone in, in, in stories likethis is, terrifying, isn't it?
Jane (21:10):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, so yeah, so much of these,these cases sort of relate to, um,
the sort of paramilitary and gangviolence in, in Northern Ireland.
These are not people that you want,um, to get on the wrong side of,
Ian (21:25):
And The idea is it's the police who are looking into your sources, but the
police are the people being accused ofcollaborating with the very bad people.
Um, and therefore might wellgive your information to the very
bad people that is, is worrying.
Adam (21:40):
It is all slightly reminiscent of, uh, as we were saying, the, um, ITV
drama, the hack, or at least half ofthe hack, uh, which, um, I understood
ahead of, uh, its transmission wasgonna be the story of how Nick Davies
uncovered, uh, phone hacking at thenews of the world for the Guardian.
In fact, half of it turned out tobe a completely separate program and
really oddly, sort of episode two, Ithought, hang on, I've, I, I, I've,
(22:01):
I've clicked on the wrong thing herebecause it was totally different.
And to be, to tell acompletely different story,
Jane (22:05):
I, I've tuned into a police drama by mistake.
Yeah.
Yes.
Adam (22:08):
it was bizarre.
Um, uh, yeah, so it, it was, uh, infact both halves of the drama, the
hack are kind of stories that the,the, the I has followed on and off
over many, many years, if not decades.
Um, so the, the other half that wasn'tabout, specifically about Nick Davis
and phone hacking, uh, was about themany police investigations into the
murder of private Detective DanielMorgan in South London in 1987.
Uh, and specifically the role ofDave Cook, uh, a police officer who.
(22:32):
I gotta say it came outslightly less heroic in the
eyes coverage in over the years.
Jane, tell us a bit about, uh,about Dave Cook and his involvement
in the Daniel Morgan case.
Jane (22:42):
So, um, he's a detective, chief superintendent, so
quite a senior detective.
so he took on.
The investigation, I think it was thefifth reinvestigation of the case.
Um, so he was sort of brought in tohave another go at trying to, to find
out who had killed private investigatorDaniel Morgan, an ax murder, which
was a number of suspects involvedin, um, sort of organized crime.
(23:06):
his investigation, resulted.
this does, has not, so far in theepisodes I've seen, has, does not come
out at all resulted in both a, a highcourt case and an appeal court case,
um, in which it emerged that he hadcoached witnesses, for their evidence.
And, um.
(23:26):
Essentially this, uh, created a massiverisk of a miscarriage of justice.
And, um, the high court upheld that thiswas, um, misfeasance in public office,
and the appeal court later concludedthat it was, uh, malicious prosecution.
so the, the risks of, um, miscarriagesof justice when police officers do
that kind of thing are very high.
Adam (23:48):
Yeah.
It resulted in the collapse of thetrial that, uh, that they were hoping to
bring in 2011, uh, and as you say, um,and actually a payout for, um, of, of
more than half a million pounds to the,the people who recused of involvement
in the murder of Daniel Morgan.
and the, the case remains even afterthese five police investigations
and a large independent, um,report on it in more recent years.
(24:08):
Unsolved officially.
It is a fascinating case 'cause it doestouch on a whole axis of corruption within
the police, uh, particularly in SouthLondon, which also it has kind of like
tendrils that go into the whole debacleover the Stephen Lawrence murder our
late colleague Paul Foot looked an awfullot into, uh, into what was going on
around various police stations in SouthLondon and their involvement with, uh,
(24:29):
involvement of various officers with, uh,corrupt kind of gang land figures There.
it's also got massive tendrils,which you know, is what the thing
that connected it in the drama,uh, to, uh, fleet Street as well.
What was Fleet Street?
Um, both the news of the world 1 seniorjournalist there, Alex Murran Murch, was
involved in, uh, putting surveillanceon Dave Cook's family that's depicted in
(24:49):
the drama, uh, but also the daily mirror.
As well.
Um, famously, uh, the, a lot of thepolice tapes and police bugs picked up
journalists going in and having a chatwith, uh, Daniel Morgan's associate,
John Reese Southern Investigations,the company he ran, uh, including, um,
Gary Jones, who, uh, went on to becomeuntil quite recently, the daily editor
of The Daily Express, discussing withJonathan Re was sitting, listening to
(25:09):
Jonathan Reese describe how what theywere up to was very, very illegal.
So, um, there are.
It is the most extraordinary case,which so far no one has got entirely
to, to, to the bottom of, the, uh,commissioner of Met Police, I just
say, Mark Riley refused to accept thefinding of the independent panel that
looked into the various investigationsinto the Daniel Morgan murder, that
his force was institutionally corrupt.
(25:31):
Um, just as he did the findings,Louise Casey, who ran an inquiry
following the murder of Sarai Everard.
By a, uh, serving met officer, uh,that the met was institutionally
racist, misogynistic, and homophobic.
All of this, of course, ahead oflast week's panorama, which went into
Charing Cross Police Station with somesecret filming to prove that that does
pretty much appear to be the case.
Ian (25:49):
this applies to so many institutions, it's a default position.
You are criticized, you say Thisinstitution is really important.
The church, the police,the B, BC, the NHS.
It's so important that we continue ourgood work that we must shut up everyone
who says we're not doing good work
Jane (26:07):
now.
Ian (26:08):
You can see people falling into this, and for some reason,
Paula Nels comes straight into mind.
This is the most blatant case of it.
Uh, the post office isvery, very important.
We must defend the brand and the, ifthe police do it, it's really dangerous.
I mean, it's pretty dangerous when anyonedoes it, but for them to devote this much
time to what is essentially, uh, revenge.
(26:31):
Um, for bad publicity, it'snot really lessons learned.
It's not, uh, we must, you know, sortof make sure things are going better.
It's just saying, uh, we don't like this.
We are gonna get our own back.
And that, I mean, you know, doesthe police know good at all?
Jane (26:47):
And of course Paulas was also one of the shortlisted candidates
to be Bishop of London back in, um.
2018 when, um, Sarai Mulally was,uh, eventually selected for the post.
So we could be lookingat Archbishop Paula now.
Adam (27:03):
Wow,
Ian (27:03):
the Daniel Morgan episode in the hack, which was, I mean,
I've, I've read all the pieces.
All of you have written aboutthis for a long time and
understood only some of them.
I mean, it is anunbelievably complex case.
but I felt there, the fact that it wassuddenly the news of the world spying
on a policeman, I know it was thereto demonstrate that they basically
(27:26):
were out of control, the press andspied on everybody and thought they
were above the law, literally abovethe police and above everyone else.
But for me it confused what was thedrift of, Nick Davis investigation,
which was simpler to follow and endedup with various people from the Murdoch
organization going to jail, and Mr.
(27:48):
Murdoch having to sit there and havea custody by friend at him, which
seems to me the big point of thestory, but that, that may be just me.
Adam (27:56):
I mean, it did have extraordinary details which were
taken directly from real life.
I mean, the, the fact that when, um,uh, Dave Cook, uh, went in to talk to
Rebecca Brooks, then editor of the Newsof the World about, the surveillance
that had been put on his family, theexcuse being by the way that they
thought he was having an affair withthe Crime watch presenter, Jackie
Hammes, to whom he had been married for
Jane (28:15):
quite some years by
Adam (28:16):
point, so not the most convincing excuse.
She did go directly from that, escortedby, uh, the Mets head of communication.
And Dick Fedor to a reception withthe Met Commissioner, which does
sort of slightly suggest some fairlycozy relationships there, doesn't it?
Ian (28:29):
That was a fine bit of the drama.
I thought the, the portrayalof Rebecca Brooks as a
misunderstood and innocent woman
Adam (28:37):
absolutely,
Ian (28:37):
I thought was top
Adam (28:39):
How else could you possibly portray it, Ian?
Ian (28:41):
I think it's worth pointing out that the Nick Davis' book,
which he's rewritten, is that right?
Jane (28:46):
He
Adam (28:46):
has, he's added an extra chapter on, uh, new investigations into what he says,
uh, is evidence of corporate hacking.
So specifically by management, uh, at,uh, at News International as it was to
try and interfere with kind of politicaldecisions which were being taken over the
proposed takeover of Sky at that point.
And I think
Ian (29:05):
that stuff is very interesting too, just in terms of a less
confusing narrative and it's, it'sslightly more, it's moved it on.
Adam (29:12):
It's certainly peaking the interest of lawyers at News International who
has revealed a couple of issues back,have been sending out warning letters to
anyone who might think about reviewingthat book or saying anything about it.
Oddly enough, we have saidsomething about that book.
We didn't get the letter, so there you go.
Keep reading private eye.
Now as promised, Helen Lewis is off onher travels in the States, but Andrew
(29:34):
Hunter Murray wasn't having a slack offon her podcast duties just 'cause of that.
So he's caught up with her to talk aboutDonald Trump's recent alarming claims
around autism, paracetamol, or Tylenol asit's known in the US and pregnant women.
Uh, they kicked off by talkingabout one of the offshoots of maga,
the alphabetically adjacent Maha.
Here's Helen.
Here's
Helen (29:52):
Maha is Make America healthy again.
And it's probably gonna turn outto be one of the most consequential
parts of the Trump agenda.
Now, let's be brutal about whatTrump has managed to achieve so
far is a lot of destroying things.
Uh, would I say that was thekind of thing that's the, the
main outcome of Doge, right?
Is that they just cut a lot of programs,particularly in, um, overseas aid.
(30:13):
Whether or not they're good atbuilding new things that they
do, like remains to be seen.
And Maha is a very good example of that.
So, it is currently being led,the Department of Health and Human
Services by Robert f Kennedy Jr.
Now, as the name suggests, he's theson of the original Bobby Kennedy.
Brother of JFK, and then, you know,from a lifelong democratic family,
he's both a lifelong environmentalcampaigner and a lifelong, well, pretty
(30:36):
much lifelong, um, vaccine skeptic.
and, you know, he has a varietyof, I would say pseudo-scientific
views on a number of things.
And in his position.
in control of the Health Departmentof America, he is able to do
things like change the vaccineschedules, change the collection
of data, all of that kind of stuff.
The, you know, I think mighthave very severe consequences for
(30:58):
infectious disease in America.
Andy (31:00):
When you say vaccine schedules, is that who gets it?
How many are dished out?
What is that?
Helen (31:06):
It's a recommendations on basically what childhood vaccines there should be.
You know, he's, he's making the COVIDvaccines harder to get, and now that's,
you know, that's something that'skind of debatable about what this
kind of schedule for those should be.
And, but childhood vaccines are.
know, to the scientific community a muchless, uh, controversial topic, right?
We just simply know that there arechildren alive today who wouldn't
(31:27):
be because they got the MMR vaccine.
Look at the rates of that.
but he is, you know,he's, he's very worried.
Um, he's is deeply steeped in vaccineskepticism and he basically got rid of
the panel at the center of a diseasecontrol, the CDC that is in charge of
the kind of vaccine recommendationsand stuffed it with people who are
much more of his point of view.
Andy (31:46):
It's interesting hearing about this from a British perspective because I think
in the UK a lot of government ministersor cabinet ministers even are people
without a specific ax to grind in thearea that they're given the portfolio for.
Barring maybe the exception of, edMiller Band, who's, you know, like
did climate and energy last timeand is doing it again this time and
(32:06):
has been doing a lot in between.
you know, Heidi Alexander hasn'tbeen banging the drum for better bus
provision for 30 years and has nowfinally been given the transport brief.
So it's quite weird hearing aboutthis from the RFK side of things.
Helen (32:19):
Yeah.
And that's a reflection ofreally the unique way that he
ended up in this administration.
So, uh, you know, the Kennedys arethe, the big democratic Catholic
family, you know, and he raninitially for president as a Democrat.
And so there's this very funny dynamicwhere quite a lot of oppo research
dump came out in, you know, uh,the spring of last year, which was.
(32:40):
You know, designed to kindof, um, tank him essentially.
Because what happened at thatpoint was that he was edging
towards the Republicans.
So the Republicans loved him runningas a Democrat because they thought
the Kennedy name was gonna kind ofdraw support away from Joe Biden.
and then suddenly, hang on a minute.
No, he's edging towards, he didn'tget on the ballot as a Democrat.
He's an independent, uh oh.
Actually.
What do people who hatevaccines normally vote for?
(33:02):
That's us, the Republicans.
This might be a problem.
And then so you start seeingthis mad spate of stories after
hearing lots of stuff about hisgreat environmental, uh, activism.
Suddenly you got to hear a lot of storiesabout, there's this time where he think,
we think he might have eaten a dog.
He says It was a goat, Ishould clarify for the record.
And then, and a further revolutionhappened, at which point Trump
realized how great it would be to beable to have a Kennedy on his ticket.
(33:26):
To say, people say, I'm incrediblyextreme and right wing, look at
me, I'm reaching across the aisle.
I've got a Kennedy.
And you know, somebody said thatto me when I was, um, canvassing in
Pennsylvania for people's opinionsand ahead of the last election.
They said, well, you know,he's, you know, he's got a broad
church, he's got a Kennedy,
Andy (33:43):
You are not a good Kennedy, like
Helen (33:45):
He's got very much one of the,
Andy (33:47):
the
Helen (33:47):
less good Kennedys.
Yeah, I mean.
There's quite a few fairly rogue Kennedys.
but yeah, anyway, but sothis was, this was the point.
He had a great value to, toTrump as a kind of fig leaf.
And actually, you know what, he wasvery popular with that kind of Rogan
sphere, as I often call it, you know,the podcast sphere, because what is
the podcast that bit of the Trumpfriendly podcast sphere funded by?
(34:09):
So crypto, which is, you know, moneywithout regulation and supplements,
which is medicine without regulation.
And so if you want to find, you know,m. Pseudo alternatives to sunscreens,
or you want to hear discussions oflike what, testosterone replacement
therapy, which is something that,um, Kennedy has spoken about.
It's why he says he can still doa pull up at sev, you know, in his
seventies, all of that kind of stuff.
(34:32):
Then he was very friendly withthat kind of Establishment
skeptic, bit of the podcast sphere.
Uh, and some of it is, you know, justtake a few vitamins and eat a bit better.
And, uh, some of it's avoid seedoils, which is kind of neutral.
And some of it's, you know, maybethe MMR vaccine causes autism,
which is debunked and untrue.
So, you know, he, he had, hebrought a great asset to the
Trump team and as a result, hegot the portfolio that he wanted.
(34:53):
Right.
He was, that, he's like, thatwas what he was always gonna get.
His environmental viewswould not have sat very well.
Right.
If he'd been given Ed Milliman'sportfolio, he might've said.
You know, we should stoppolluting the rivers.
And that would've been quitean unpopular thing to say.
But in the, you know, in the, inthe context of the current movement,
his skepticism of traditionalmedicine is, is absolutely on
brand for the Trump administration.
Andy (35:13):
So one point that you've made is that the Trump administration,
the first one for all its legions offaults and corruption and, and goodness
knows what else did actually produceCOVID vaccines, but he was unable
to boast about it because so manyof his supporters don't like jabs.
Helen (35:31):
Yeah, there was a really funny movement in the, um, in the hearing.
So, RFK Jr was in front of a,a senate committee hearing, you
know, being kind of scrutinized.
And Louisiana Republican, bill Cassidy,who provided the, casting, deciding
vote on his confirmation in this role.
Right.
is obviously now feeling thathe's been sold a pup as well.
He might, because RFK
Andy (35:50):
a goat or a
Helen (35:51):
or a goat.
The Boulogne structure is very similar.
you can't tell from the pictureof it barbecued, uh, at all.
Anyway, so, you know, he, he, he,he's obviously shown a bit of buyer's
remorse, and so he asked RFK Junior ifhe thought Donald Trump deserved a Nobel
Prize for operation warp speed, whichis, you said, was the, the government
program to develop a COVID vaccine.
(36:12):
And Rogen went a, you know, absolutely.
And then Cassidy's follow up questionwas, well, how have you just told us that?
The quotes, the COVID vaccine killedmore people than COVID, right?
So the Maha position is now both thatDonald Trump is an absolute legend for
having invented the COVID vaccine, butalso the COVID vaccine killed people,
Andy (36:31):
Yeah, it's quite, it's two quite distant planks to straddle, isn't it?
Helen (36:35):
and he's the man to straddle them because his, as I say, his muscle tone
from man in his seventies is exemplary.
Andy (36:40):
So he is making it harder to get vaccines, not just the COVID ones,
but childhood vaccines, things likevaccinating children against measles.
And I believe that is startingto yield results, isn't it?
Helen (36:51):
this is why there's a real worry about it because I
have already been, um, the first.
Measles deaths in the US for, forquite a long time, for about a decade.
And that happened in aMennonite community, so a very
closed religious community.
And those are, you know, communitiesthat have traditionally been very
skeptical of, of vaccines anyway,um, and traditional medicine.
And, you know, it's too simplistic toattribute that because, you know, they.
(37:13):
The administration had only beenin place for a certain amount of
time, but I think you can certainlysay that the, prominence of vaccine
skepticism on large parts of the rightand bits of the left, what you might
call the kind of crunchy left, right.
There's a lot of kind of peoplewho do yoga who also think
the body can heal itself.
that, you know, it's nota. Purely partisan view.
I'm sure that has contributedto, a culture of suspicion
(37:36):
of medicine essentially.
yeah, and then we always, I, I, I'veread today as well that in the US
some rabies cases have also goneup, so make rabies great again.
Andy (37:45):
Good Lord.
I know that you have to gothrough a confirmation hearing.
You mentioned earlier oneof the Republicans who.
Confirmed him, uh, to, to be approvedfor your seat or, or you know, the role
you've got in cabinet, whatever it is.
Was it close with Kennedy?
Helen (38:00):
Yeah, it was, it required a, certain amount of, of brow beating,
of a couple of Republican senatorswho were really reluctant to pass him.
Um, and the senate's veryfinely divided, right?
So a couple of votes, one way orthe other would've been decisive.
and there was a. A really substantialpush by the Trump administration to get
him in post, because essentially thatwas the bargain that had made right.
Like, switch to supportingus and we'll give you health.
(38:20):
and it's a shame because immediatelywhat happened, he also appointed his
own director of the CDC, Susan Menez.
She lasted 29 days before they fell out.
and even in that time, in her firstweek in the job, a gunman turned
up at some CDC offices in Atlanta.
Um, sprayed of 500 rounds and thegunman's rationale was, I've been
driven to be feeling suicidalbecause of the COVID vaccine.
(38:43):
So you can already see where thestrengths of feeling that there is
about the fact that, you know, theCOVID vaccine was a lie or it was
implementing with microchips, or it waspart of some, you know, sinister plot.
Like those are all widelyheld views on some.
Bits of the Maha, right.
And they're real world consequences.
And, and so Menari has quitalong with a load of other senior
(39:03):
officials, just essentiallysaying, you're destroying the CDC.
their job is going to be harder, because,you know, they, they're running uphill
basically against an administration thatthinks that they're kind of corrupt and,
and unscientific, and they've coveredup the, the downsides of vaccines.
Andy (39:20):
Wait, they think these guys are on scientific.
Helen (39:22):
They think the CDC are un scientific and, and one of their,
um, kind of prime ways that they'vedemonstrated this is that the CDC changed
all of its advice to be gender neutral.
So it would say like, it, its adviceon pregnancy would refer entirely
on to pregnant people, for example.
And this is part of the kind of Trump,line, which is essentially like, these
people don't even know what a woman is.
Why would you trust them with any kindof scientific advice and I, and to an
(39:45):
outsider, I think that kind of seems.
Kind of loopy, right?
These are two very, like a, a, alinguistic tweak is very different to
like the question of whether or nota vaccine has side effects, which is
something you can empirically establish.
But it is part of the, the waythat gender and the left has
been used to delegitimize, likeleft wing authority basically.
And that for, for some parts of theright is a really potent message to them.
Andy (40:08):
now Helen, as you know, I'm a parochial list.
I care principally about British politics.
Is there a sign that this vaccinestuff is making its way over
Helen (40:19):
Uh, I'm,
Andy (40:20):
or are we inoculated against it?
Helen (40:22):
Oh yeah.
Nice.
Very
nice.
I, I think it's harder becauseof the position of the the
BBC and OFCOM regulation.
I can't think of any of the.
Major newspapers that are really, I mean,you know, the, I think they're also still
feeling slightly scorched over MMR in theway that they were misled over that right.
As indeed private eye was at at the time.
So I think there's a, wasmore of a reluctance to go
(40:42):
there on vaccine stuff online.
I'm sure lots of Britains who get alltheir news from Facebook are absolutely
drowning in anti-vaccine sentiment.
But the other thing is, you know,like the classic phrase about American
politics, which is like American.
Sneezes and Britain catchesa cold, well, America sneezes
because an American's got bird flu.
Then that person gets on a plane, thenBritain very much could catch that cold.
(41:02):
Right.
This is the, thing is that you know, wehad one pandemic, we're still overdue.
A flu pandemic.
It's really important that you cantrust global health authorities.
you know, one of the things, bigproblems with COVID was the feeling of
like, is any of the data that's comingoutta China even vaguely reliable?
I think there are now similar questionsabout a lot of the health data that's
coming out of America, as well asthat agency's ability to like, go
(41:25):
to the poultry farm, do the testing,work out what strain it is, is it
actually anything to be worried about?
Right?
All of that kind of stuff.
I think that.
Ability is being eroded.
And it's a real shame because actuallyon the other side of it, some of what
RFK JR was saying is really basic.
Like, have you consideredeating a vegetable?
I hear they're good.
Right?
And when Michelle Obama did it, theywere like, oh, I don't need to be
(41:46):
told what to do by Michelle Obama.
But actually like the idea that youshould go to the gym and eat right.
Is a message that America withits obesity crisis and its
incredibly unworkable places tolive, could really do with hearing.
So there's a kind of great tragedyabout RFK Junior that, that, you know,
there's a lot of kook there, but there'salso, you know, some quite basic advice
(42:07):
that is probably quite good for people.
and meanwhile, America has multiple,you know, terrible health crises
that I don't suspect that this CDCand this health department and RFK
Junior are gonna be able to have alot of hef to do something about.
Adam (42:20):
That was Helen Lewis and, uh, thanks to Andy.
, Ian, I should just say, coming offthe back of that, Helen mentioned
in passing, Private eye did have arole in, uh, the MMR controversy and
connections to autism, didn't it?
In the past.
Ian (42:30):
Yes.
Nice Helen to bring upmy, uh, not finest hour.
Yes, the early MMR coveragein the eye was wrong.
we accepted, the findings of Wakefield'sfirst study, as did the lance.
And there were, uh, various othervoices, but we were essentially wrong
to stay with it and wrong to stayquestioning it and ran a, a mayor cul.
(42:51):
the
person who was right in thiswas Phil Hammond, our current
MD, who said, no, this is wrong.
And he was right.
Adam (42:57):
And that's it for this episode
of
page nine four, the Private Eye Podcast.
If you want to read more about,uh, the cases we've been discussing
and many, many more, which willbe popping up for years to come.
Then, uh, get yourself, first ofall a copy of the magazine, uh, and
if you like what you see, then getyourself a subscription as well.
It's incredibly reasonably priced.
thank you to Jane Mackenzie.
Thank you to Ian Hislop.
(43:18):
Thank you to Helen Lewisand Andrew Hunter Murray.
And thank you to Matt Hill of RethinkAudio for producing as ever, uh, until
the next time, in a fortnight, goodbye.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com