Starmer takes responsibility for Mandelson – but did he lie to Parliament?

The Telegraph

Romantic retreats, luxury beachfront hotels, expansive family villas with sensational

sea views, not lots of, just the very best of.

Simpson travel, the magical destinations you love, the personal service you expect.

We visit every one of our properties so we can hand pick the perfect holiday for you.

Simpson travel.com because your time is precious.

You know what's wild?

Most people are still overpaying for car insurance, just because it's a pain to switch.

That's why there's Jerry.

Jerry's the only app that compares rates from over 50 insurance in minutes and helps you

switch fast, with no spam calls or hidden fees.

Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year.

Before you renew your car insurance policy, do yourself a favor.

Download the Jerry app or head to jerry.ai slash a cast.

Kirsta Amar has accepted full responsibility for the Mandels in the scandal.

It's me who made the mistake he says.

It's me who apologizes to Epstein's victims.

Did the Prime Minister mislead the House of Commons and light a parliament?

And is the government guilty of breaking the ministerial code with that £75,000 pay off?

And the government's anti-Muslim definition.

Is it going to suppress free speech and lead to figures like me and Tim being accused of Islamophobia?

We spoke to the man who wrote the definition, Dominic Grieve, and asked,

why do we need this at all when it's already illegal?

And is it the right time to do it when anti-semitism is on the rise?

Welcome to the daily team with me, Camilla Tomani.

And me, Tim Stanley.

Tim, it's the morning after the release of the Mandy files.

We did cover their contents extensively yesterday as we got our highlighters and our folders.

But this isn't going away for the Prime Minister, is it?

No, it's not, because it's a question about his judgement

and whether or not he's been entirely open with us about how Mandy was appointed.

So as we detailed yesterday, there are three killer pages in these files

which amount to 147 pages altogether,

which lay bare all of Mandelsen's quite dodgy associations.

And we discuss yesterday, before you even get to Epstein,

you've got to get through his chairmanship of Global Council,

which had links to China, Russia, Qatar and others.

His links to the Hinduja brothers and his loan from Geoffrey Robertson

over both of which he had to resign when he was previously in government.

We also have an extensive briefing note

informing him of evidence suggesting that Mandelsen's relationship to Epstein

was very close, including a January 2024 piece I contributed to

for the Telegraph, along with two colleagues laying bare in over a thousand words

just how charming they were.

So that's what's in the documents.

What we're now trying to do is piece together what's not in them

and find out what was going on behind the scenes.

Well, one more detail from that release was Jonathan Powell was quoted

in an internal memo about discussions that followed the sacking of Mandi,

saying that he thought the process at the time had been,

quote, weirdly rushed.

And according to the Times, Powell was even stronger in private.

Quote, his view was that Peter is always a disaster

and we always end up having to fire him,

said a senior official.

So that's Jonathan Powell acting as Keirstarmer's national security advisor,

just to remind everyone back in the day he was Blair's

chief of staff.

So he was at the heart of the new Labour project.

You might imagine that there could be loyalty to Mandelsen

because they were both in the same camp, but clearly not.

The impression once given of Powell is that he really did know where the

bodies were buried and he did try and flag how dangerous this

appointment was, which then leads us on to

Starmer's subsequent chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney,

and this notion that actually quite a lot of responsibility

was devolved to him in the appointment of Mandelsen.

Now that's significant because we are trying to interrogate

how much the Prime Minister did or didn't know and it seems very obvious to us.

Now we've read the documents that he was presented with

that he must have known a great deal.

But ever the technocrat Starmer's approach

has not only to be able to blame the staff because of course McSweeney is now

fallen on his sword, he's gone, but it's also to repeatedly insist

Tim that due process was followed at all times.

We'll drill into that in just a moment, but you observed something about an empty

box in the paperwork, Tim.

Oh, I'm not the only person who's observed that I don't take credit for all of that,

but it is true that there is in these documents an empty box

where normally the Prime Minister would write what his responses and what he

wants to see done next.

And the curious thing is that this box is empty.

Now the explanation given by officials inside number 10 is there are

other means for the Prime Minister to communicate his instructions.

But obviously if we're going for full transparency here, we need to know what

those are, where those are, are we talking a phone call, we're talking WhatsApp,

why are they not part of this document if they were written down?

We are also told that the Prime Minister

instructed Morgan McSweeney to go and put questions to Peter Madlison

and the McSweeney then returned with those answers.

So that conveniently puts a bit of distance between the Prime Minister

and Madlison. We're not talking about Prime Minister

ringing up Mandy and saying what's this about your relationship with Epstein,

this has farmed out to someone else who then passed it on.

But it's the wrong person to farm it out to

if that person is the person advocating most strongly for that person to get

the job and is Madlison's protege. So he has got a very close

personal relationship with Madlison, yet he's the person, the so-called objective

observer who is advising the PM on this appointment.

This is like asking Robin to put some difficult questions to Batman.

Yes. Exactly. Others did also express

reservations, Tim, so we have Sir Philip Barton, who is the former

permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. He raised

reservations about the appointment. He was said to have been partly influenced

by Dame Karen Pierce, who was the outgoing ambassador to the US,

who, quote, repeatedly flagged the Epstein risk.

Now, we're going to come on to the question of whether the Prime Minister is

actually lied to the House of Commons, as Kemi Bainock is now claiming

in just a moment. But there is a potential legal

issue on the horizon, and that concerns the £75,000.

Well, can we call it a golden goodbye? It's more like a two-fingered salute

to Peter Madlison and indeed the taxpayer. It's not as golden as the

amount he initially asked for, which is over £500,000.

The government insists that it got, quote, value for money

by knocking him down to £75,000. But we have a story that says that Rachel

Reeves' deputy, James Murray, may have broken the ministerial code by agreeing

to the payoff, because according to the code, ministers must ensure

value for money and must abide by the requirements set out in a document

called Managing Public Money. This document says the department should not

sign off on severance payments to avoid, quote, unwelcome publicity

or reputational damage. And as we mentioned yesterday,

in those documents, there is a communication which seems to suggest

that officials were concerned that if they didn't give Peter Madlison

something, then he would go public. A number of politicians, for instance,

Labour's Douglas Alexander have said that the money should be given to charity,

because that's not something you can compel Peter Madlison to do.

I'm sure he does actually have some expenses that the 75 grand is necessary

to cost. But also, at lighter reminders, politicians,

it's not Peter's money. No. It's tax payers money. No. You're requesting that

someone who got tax payers money give my money to someone else. I know. I'm

honest. I'd rather he just gave it back to me. Well, he could give it

back to you all to be fair. I suppose Sir Eddavie is in the

think of the victim's mould and is thinking that really if Mandlison had any

sense of decency at all, if he really is sorry and regrets his association

with Epstein, then he should probably give that money to an organisation

that helps the victims of sex trafficking, for instance. Again, that's up

to Madlison, but I'm going to double down on this. We are not in the business

in this country of giving individuals large pots of tax payer cash,

and then saying, you might want to give that to a nice cause. That's just not

how the tax system is supposed to work. And also as I said. I didn't sign up to that.

No, as he said yesterday, there is something

venal about him leaving in such disgrace, but clawing as much money as he could

back from his contract. Yes, with a threat of an industrial tribunal hanging

over the government. Now, let's just go back to September

the 10th, 2025, Tim. This is important now, because

can we bade not the leader of the opposition has said this this morning.

It is very clear that he told lie after lie after lie about the appointment

of Peter Madlison. He wanted to make this all about Peter Madlison,

but this is about his judgement. He has been dishonest with

parliament and with the country, and Labour and East have been good conscience

should be looking at whether or not this man should be leaving on country.

Now, why is she saying that? She's going back in time

to the moment that Keir Starmer expressed confidence in Peter Madlison,

as you and I have discussed just a day later, Peter Madlison resigned.

But what's crucial in these parliamentary exchanges

is the number of times the Prime Minister

insists that due process was followed. He actually uses that phrase

on three separate occasions. Was the Prime Minister aware of this

intimate relationship when he appointed Lord Madlison to be our ambassador

in Washington? Mr Speaker, as she and the House would

expect, full due process was followed during this appointment,

as it is with all ambassadors. That was the first time he used the phrase,

here's the second. Part of the appointment,

there will have been extensive government vetting,

including details and timings of Peter Madlison's dealings with Jeffrey Epstein.

So will the Prime Minister publish all these documents, including those about his interests?

Mr Speaker, as I say, full due process was gone through in relation to

the appointment, as would be expected. Those first two tim were two

Kemi-Badenock, and then he said the phrase again to Ed Davy.

Has the Prime Minister asked the ambassador what other compromising material

the Trump administration might have on him, as he leads

Britain's negotiations with the White House?

Well, Mr Speaker, as I've made clear to the House,

a full due process was gone through when the appointment was made.

So Tim, this is the question for Kirstama.

Let's just point out the former director of public prosecutions.

Can you possibly claim that due process was followed

if you are given a document that mentions the reputational risk of appointing

Mandelson on numerous occasions that clearly points out the closeness of his relationship to Epstein?

And we now know, and maybe he did comment elsewhere, that there is an empty box

where the Prime Minister's response to all of this should have been.

If there's an empty box, then the whole of the process can't have been followed,

because the Prime Minister doesn't appear to have reacted to the information,

the evidence that was presented to suggest repeatedly that appointing this guy

was a very, very bad idea that would reflect badly on him personally.

So is that following due process?

Well, can we be knocked?

We'd like the answer to be no, so that she can say the Prime Minister has misled the House.

If that is the case, then that doesn't actually lead to anything.

It doesn't matter if you mislead the House.

It's a convention that that's a bad thing and that you ought to apologize for it,

but it doesn't get you disqualified from Parliament, it doesn't send you to jail.

Nonetheless, it will be a great political win for her.

And there is one interpretation, which is what we infer from Jonathan Powell,

that the process was super rushed, so due process was not followed.

The second interpretation, which I favor as due process was followed,

and the Prime Minister ignored it.

Yes.

That to me seems more likely.

I mean, we have a document which suggests a box-ticking exercise.

In fact, a box-filling exercise, in which officials have put loads of pretty sound advice,

which is proven to be correct, and it was obviously ignored.

Yeah, so I suppose the kind of key premise then is,

it's not even with the benefit of hindsight that we can say

that if due process was followed, Peter Mandelson wouldn't have been appointed.

We can say that at the point that the Prime Minister was given this dossier,

because if you followed the due process and listened to what you were being told in the dossier,

if you followed due process through to its full conclusion,

there is no other conclusion you really could have drawn.

Bar goodness me, we better not appoint him, because of all of his associations, let alone with Epstein,

and because of the reputational risk to me, now, the Prime Minister's defence to all that is,

but when we asked Peter about all this, he said there was nothing in it.

Is that following due process?

Is believing Peter Mandelson's lies a full exercise of the following of due process?

Or is it a case of a Prime Minister either being duped or turning a blind eye,

because he felt that this appointment was politically beneficial to him?

As someone said, this is the first time in his political life that Kierstam had took a gamble,

and it horribly backfired.

Yes.

Normally he does everything by the book to a degree which is, many people find aggravating and annoying.

Some might say he's handling a run and the use of American bases was so by the book,

or the Chegos Islands was so by the book, because international law says you have to hand them over, etc, etc.

This is the first time in his life in which he's been given official advice,

and seems to have gone, I don't care, I'm going to point him anyway, because Morgan McSweeney says

he's fine. In which case, what does that say about his judgment that when he does take a risk,

it's a really bad one. Why does all this particularly matter?

Because, hey, Labour has a massive majority, and surely he can ride this out.

What it's worth listening to this speech by Clive Lewis, the Labour-backed bench MP,

in Parliament, when they were discussing the release of these documents.

This isn't just about technicalities, about lapses of judgment.

This is about a wider, rotten political culture, a 30-year project,

where proximity to wealth and power, isn't a means to an end, it is the end goal.

That's what Peter Mannersen represented, and he wasn't just about him being the ambassador,

so let's to be ambassador. He was at the heart of the political project around number 10.

That has to change. Does the government understand? Out there, this isn't just about one bad set

of decisions. It's about a political culture that he represents, and that it's destroying

party politics, mainstream party politics in this country. Do we get that? Do we understand that?

Will we change? So, what you just heard Clive say is really important, because it goes to the heart

of why Labour is so angry about this, why the backbench is so angry, because they see it as an

indictment of new Labour, of a political project, which abandoned socialism for what?

Yes. For money and power, and it compromised them, and it means you end up with a Prime Minister

who, in their eyes, isn't doing socialism. No. It's just in office, but not in power,

and it's surrounded by the same kind of rich, venal people that you could have had under the

Tories. So, the backbench is getting very angry about this, and Kenny Badenot claims that some

Labour MPs are reaching out to the Tory whips about a possible vote of no confidence. Now,

that does matter. Yes. Because if you lose one of those, the government falls. Or even if you

narrowly win it, the damage is already done. Because people can look forward and say they will lose

the next one. The trouble is with this argument. The trouble is with this argument. Are the

leuaces and the Rachel Maskels and the Richard Burgens and the John McDonald's and the heavy

blare-right critics of this world really going to side with the Tories?

Yeah, I don't believe her, but I think there's a big difference between having serious strategic

conversations, like, you know, famously in the past, Michael Foot, conspiring with Enoch Powell to

stop Lords reform, or Harold Wilson conspiring with Enoch Powell over defeating a membership

of the common market and things like that. Yeah, but they're big things. They're big to get

people with big things. I suspect what's happened is a lefty labour envy has bumped into someone

in the canteen and has said, oh, he's not gone long and that's being translated into their support

for a no confidence vote. But nonetheless, okay, so maybe he can't be brought down that way,

but it could mean that people are more likely to rebel over key legislation. Yes. Because they

don't like the man who's proposing it. No. And so they don't trust his judgment. There's also,

by the way, I think, quite key concern about a lack of scrutiny here of the Prime Minister himself.

The timing of PMQs, and then Darren Jones, so this is the chief secretary to the Prime Minister,

speaking afterwards about this whole issue and releasing the files, meant that Kiastama couldn't

be directly scrutinised by Kenny Baidnock in the House, because by that point he's left.

Yes. We then get the files. So we have to wait until next Wednesday. We have to wait until

next Wednesday and no doubt more developments in Iran will take place overnight and into the weekend.

Yes. He might get lucky. World War Three might break out. Well, it possibly already has.

So we're just now in this holding pattern. So this is all now, in terms of the politics of it all,

where the Baidnock is going to be able to keep this on the front pages between now and next Wednesday.

Isn't it ashamed, by the way, that common sense isn't enshrined in international law,

because Starma could have consulted his friend, Lord Hermann.

That's a very good point. Who could have provided some great legal advice on the

idiocy of appointing Peter Mandelson, and Starma could have said, I'm sorry, but in the interest

of international law, which has enshrined the policy of common sense, which just can't possibly

do this. If only the United Nations have passed a resolution against Jeffrey Epstein a couple of

years ago, this would never have happened. Yes, or the international court of justice had made a

decision or the WWF, anyone, but not the officials. Well, aside from Starma and the Mandelson files,

Tim, there's another subject that has been exercising the telegraph audience.

For the past year, the Labour government has been working on a definition of Islamophobia.

It's settled on one of anti-Muslim hate. We speak to the man who helped author it, Dominic Greve,

and ask, is this just a blasphemy law through the back door?

Romantic retreats, luxury beachfront hotels, expansive family villas with sensational

sea views, not lots of, just the very best of. Simpson travel, the magical destinations you love,

the personal service you expect. We visit every one of our properties so we can handpick the perfect

holiday for you. Simpson travel.com because your time is precious.

He uses blue apron. He says he ordered one pan assemble and bake meals and these things called

milk hits. They're all super easy to bake. He keeps y'all in protein and fiber, baby.

Also, the food, we try to. So good. So maybe you check it out or whatever, blue apron.

Give 50% off your first two orders plus free shipping with codeless and 50 terms and conditions

apply. Visit blueaprint.com slash terms for more.

Tide of your card insurance rate going up even with a clean driving record, you're not alone.

That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side-by-side

from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts

you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save

over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit jerry.ai slash acast today.

We're now joined by Dominic Grieve, KC, a prominent barrister. You were a member of Parliament

for the Conservative Party and then Lately as an independent. Your top position and government

was Attorney General for England and Wales and you were tasked by Labour with coming up with

a definition for anti-Muslim hate. So my first question is, why do we even need a definition

of anti-Muslim hate when it's already illegal in this country to discriminate on the basis

of race or religion? It's a fair question and there are some people who think that we shouldn't

have any definitions at all. It's worth bearing in mind, however, that we have a definition of anti-semitism

and when we took evidence about whether we should have a definition of anti-Muslim hatred,

it was clear that the majority of people who came in front of us thought that the definition

of anti-semitism had been helpful in identifying what the issues were and therefore being able to

tackle them. So the reason for having a definition of anti-Muslim hatred is that firstly we've got to

face up to the fact that anti-Muslim hatred is becoming a very prevalent phenomenon. Lots of people

going about their lawful business, living in peace with their neighbours, are getting abuse

and harassment from complete strangers because they are identified as being Muslims. If you go

online and go and look on X, there is a torrent of hostility and vitriol against Muslims

generically irrespective of what their views may or may not be. And so pragmatically, I think that

if one can come up with a definition, which is the right one, then it helps identify the problem

and it will then make it easier to address it. And it's worth bearing in mind that they're already

out there, a large number of definitions of anti-Muslim hatred or sometimes the word used is Islamophobia,

some of which I think are quite seriously flawed. And some of the issues one then picks up is that

they are misunderstood or misapplied and that just makes it even worse. So effectively, they are

used to suppress legitimate freedom of expression or try to suppress it. So actually coming up with

a definition which doesn't do that, which I believe ours does not, I think is a step in the right

direction, but I should make clear on its own it doesn't solve anything. And I'm pleased that

the government has announced a separate package which I should emphasize we were not asked to

advise on in detail, but we did make the point in the submission we made to government. We said on

its own this won't do anything. You have got to have somebody who is paying some attention to

social cohesion in this country because we are I think at risk of our social cohesion degrading.

And as we have been historically a cohesive country with a lot of live and let live and a lot of

tolerance, I think that's a very undesirable place for us to go. Did you avoid the word Islamophobia

on purpose in this definition? Most certainly yes. Islamophobia is a word that's been around

for about 20 years. It started as an expression used really in academic communities because

take, given its literal English meaning, it means an irrational fear of something. But rationality

and irrationality are things that we're all perfectly allowed to have. For many Muslims,

the word has simply come to mean anti-Muslim hostility or anti-Muslim hatred. But it's right to say

that given coming back to its ordinary English meaning, it means a fear of a religion. And people

are entitled to be fearful of a religion or dislike a religion if they wish. That's part of our

right in this country. What is worrying is when your dislike of somebody else's views or

generically or of a belief system translates into treating with completely casual hostility,

complete strangers, who indeed may not in fact share those views at all because the reality is

that Islam is a hugely wide term and encompasses widely different belief systems within it.

If you were to do that, if you were to discriminate against someone on the basis of their faith,

that would already be illegal. I mean, this is my perspective. You're quite right. Every

offense you've described against Muslim people is abhorrent and wrong. And it is also necessary

that we have social cohesion. I think people would accept that. But what people like to cling to

in this country is the idea of a colorblind or a faithblind social cohesion. That we treat people's

individuals not as parts of groups. And therefore, we just say that any kind of discrimination

on the basis of faith, on the basis of race is wrong. Why do you need to single out a particular

group? I agree with the first part of your premise completely. And as I said at the beginning,

I can see that there is an argument that we should not have any definitions of any kind of tool.

But we are a pragmatic country. And if there is a problem, I don't think it's wrong to try and

approach it pragmatically. If you look at the definition, the first part of it really deals with

criminal offenses, which are already criminal offenses. The last part deals with the equality act,

although it goes it's tighter than that, because you can reach the equality act and discriminate

against somebody without intending to stir up hatred against them. You can do it negligently or

you can do it by mistake. So the middle part is the most controversial part. I'm well aware of

that. But it is, in my view, well drafted, because I don't think a government has a duty to be

neutral about the issue of people expressing views generically with the intention of stirring up

hatred against groups irrespective of the views of the individuals. Now, they may still do it,

and it will still, it won't be a criminal offense, it's worth bearing in my, this is a non-statutory

definition. But if somebody within my employment, if I were an employer and somebody was doing what

that middle paragraph is saying within my business, I would tell them to stop, and I'd be right to.

I just want to read it, because I think it is, it is the toughest bit of the definition.

Anti-Muslim austerity is also the prejudicial stereotyping of Muslims or people besieged

by Muslim, including because of their ethnic or racial backgrounds or their appearance,

and treating them as a collective group defined by fixed and negative characteristics,

with the intention of encouraging hatred against them irrespective of their actual opinions,

beliefs or actions as individuals. I think my problem with singling out

this as a definition is for the following reasons. We already know in this country that it is

more problematic to criticise Islam than any other religion, and I say that because we've got

evidence for it. The batley schoolteacher who put a cartoon of Muhammad up on a board is still in

hiding five years on from having to lose his job in his position. We had another situation where

a child dropped a Quran and was subject to some kind of community expose. I would suggest that even

in journalism, you have to watch yourself. I can be very critical of my own religion, Catholicism,

Christianity. I could be critical of Judaism as a Christian and say, of course Jesus isn't still

to come. I could be critical of Hindus, I could be critical of Sikhs, but we have to really watch

ourselves if we are criticising the religion of Islam because of community backlash that is

completely disproportionate to my exercising of free speech. And this, people might say this

validates. And so therefore you're almost doubling down on this uniqueness of not being able to

criticise this religion when other religions are fair game. That's my concern about it.

I understand that and all the examples you've given are deplorable. And there is in my view

lot of evidence that there are extremists who are Muslims who try to push such an agenda.

And I think that's something which needs to be addressed as well. But they've all happened

without having a definition. I happen to think that this definition will make it

less likely, particularly if it's linked to the other measures which the government is taking.

I think it will make it less likely that this sort of thing won't be picked up and stopped.

So I accept it's quite a finely balanced issue, but against that you've got to understand the

damage that is being done to our social cohesion within Muslim communities who, most of which,

whom are not interested in these examples, which you give at all, are leaving perfectly

law-abiding lives, mixing with their neighbours, working and contributing to our society,

but are finding themselves at the receiving end of the increasing abuse. And there's no data

at all that some of it, the social media aspects of this, are now getting really quite serious

that the stuff on social media, which is indeed uncontrollable, because most of it comes,

a lot of it comes from the United States. I mean, it really is not in any way different from the

sort of stuff the Nazis were pushing out against the Jews in the 1930s in Germany.

In which case if it's that bad, why is this not a law? This is guidance. It's not statutory.

Well, that's a matter of a government. I personally would not wish to see this turned into a law,

but it was not within our remit that that was where we were asked to produce non-statutory

definition. That would require something completely different and doubtless for the very reasons

you've given. It would also be controversial and I think might be very hard to craft.

What's needed is a bit of focus on this and people of goodwill to come together, both to deal

with the nonsense of the extremist end of this, which is undoubtedly it's a cycle which just

feeds on each other. So the more you get, Islamist extremists saying very unpleasant things,

the more people then start to attribute that to the why the views of all Muslims in the United

Kingdom. And we ought to make a collective effort at trying to tackle it. I think the definition

helps. I certainly set out with the west of the working group with the idea of do no harm.

Whether it will do good, I hope it will, but do no harm. And I think that applied to the other

members of the working group as well. And they were all Muslims. My concern, and I am somebody

who has been accused of Islamophobia for reporting the following, concerns about women being subjugated

in Muslim communities, concerns about the low economic activity, particularly of Bangladeshi

and Pakistani women coming to this country, concerns about the low take-up of English and the

low spoken English among some in the Muslim community, concerns about primary school girls being

made to wear hijab in Muslim schools, concerns about a run in Tower Hamlets that excluded women

and girls over the age of 12. Okay, these are all perfectly legitimate concerns to raise

about some of the practices within the religion of Islam. And yet at the same time,

I am accused of being a racist for pointing them out. That's why I worry about this, because I

think that my critics will latch onto this and use it as a stick with which to beat people who

raise perfectly legitimate concerns about why some practices within Islam do not appear to be

compatible with either British values or indeed women in 2026. I understand that, but I think

you're mistaken. Read the definition. You're not intending to incite hatred against anybody by

raising these points. They're perfectly legitimate points for debating a pluralist society.

They're perfectly legitimate things to raise and you are entitled to criticise Islam as a religion

and its practices. All that is absolutely clear and indeed it's made clear in the notes to the

definition. So I just don't think this definition is going to have any impact on preventing you from

doing that. Now that may not mean that you're still not accused of Islamophobia, but for the reasons

that I've given, I hope that we're getting away from that term because I don't think it's very helpful.

But the context in which this is being produced is one in which police forces have been encouraged

to record non-crime hate crime incidents and also one in which we have been told that racism is

not just a matter of intent but also perception. And I guess that Camilla might say, can she write

those things without fear that because you have defined anti-Muslim hate this way, someone will

read this document, read what Camilla has written, and then say, well, I perceive whether that was

her intention or not, I perceive that she is committing some sort of anti-Muslim hate. And then I have

an Alison Pearson essence, not cut the door. And even if it's not the law, because we were in a

situation in which the police still have to listen, you're creating even more trouble for Camilla and

have to really use the word perception in the definition is about the fact that non-Muslims who

are thought to be Muslims are often at the receiving end of hatred because they are thought to be

Muslims. You get examples of Sikhs particularly who are confused in the mind of those who are doing

this. So coming back to your point, I just don't think that that will happen. And indeed, if the

government sets up a proper social gehesion unit, you should be entitled to some verbal protection

from whoever is appointed to run it. So I think those are all positive steps in the right direction.

Of course, at the end of the day, you talk about knocks on the door and on the door step, all of us

who put ourselves out into the public sphere and say things as I discovered the height of the

Brexit crisis in the 2019 get death threats from people. This is, I'm afraid, is one of the

more unpleasant sides of modern politics, particularly fueled by social media. And I'm afraid there

is a point where one says we have to live with it and we just have to courage to get on with it.

So this isn't a cure all, but I do happen to think it's a step in the right direction and a

bubble, because as I said earlier, there are a large number of places in this country where people

are operating their own definitions. Often, often created for perfectly valid and good reasons,

but open, I think, to miss application quite easily. And I actually think this one is much more

robust. Who's going to use the guidance? We've discussed the police, the CPS, the judiciary, schools,

because on one hand, you could say, look, this isn't going to be binding in legislation. So it's

just guidance, but we've also seen guidance overinterpreted. And I'll use the example of trans

guidance. We got into a situation where guidance was produced. Schools followed it caught up in a

wave, caught up in a transgender trend. They then appeared to be backed up by the Department

for Education. And some of the outcomes were hugely disturbing. For instance, we reported at this

newspaper of the guidance being interpreted so widely that children were transitioning in school

and their parents weren't being told about it. So sometimes when the guidance isn't statutory,

it can actually be more unwieldy than when it is. I entirely accept that, which is why the guidance

has to be well crafted. And there was plenty of examples over guidance of trans issues that it

was poorly drafted and being misapplied. And there is, in the papers and on social media this morning,

a lot of comment about guidance, apparently, in some schools in the north of the country about

what form art and what can be depicted by children in art class. Yes. We reported in that, Dominic,

and we have had a great many thousands of comments condemning this in a Judeo-Christian country.

And very understandably, now I haven't had a chance of reading the entire document, but from what

I understand of it, it's nonsense. I have read it and it is nonsense. The document actually just warns

teachers that some Muslims may be uncomfortable. The point is, it's about leaving the pupils up to

decide what they want to do. But the problem is, as you can just imagine, a head teacher reading it,

misunderstanding it and saying, look, to avoid any potential controversy, let's just not allow any

drawing. That's the problem is interpretation. We're on the same page. Obviously, if you're running

a school with Muslim children, you don't suggest to them that they should draw a picture of the

holy prophet of Islam, because that is regarded within, for most Muslims, not all, but almost most,

as being iconoclastic and improper. But on the other hand, it doesn't mean that you prevent people

from doing an activity card showing the Virgin Mary and the child Jesus, or indeed depicting the

crucifixion. It's obvious. So often, I'm sure you may find this, I am bemused at the utter

idiocy of the way in which people try to apply, even unwritten rules or unwritten ideas. I'm

afraid this happens. And actually, I think this guidance will help in this. I realise maybe

that the proof of the pudding is going to be an eating, but my personal view is that this

will be helpful. And it will also have the consequence of providing, I think, reassurance

for the British Muslims, that the issues to which they are being subject, the problems to which

they're being subject in which are now, I think, much more widespread than we understand,

are being taken seriously. And I think that's important, because ultimately, these problems

are going to be best addressed when sensible Muslims, proud and secure in their faith,

understanding also that they're living in a pluralist society, are able to make sure that

those who are of more extreme views are marginalised. And because of the state of the world,

including the Middle East and lots of other problems, that is not always happening. And allowed

his voices are the most extreme. I just want to add on the school's guidance, because I find it

so it's a classic of the genre. The guidance was produced under a Tory government. And it was run

in Tory, run councils, a little detail, which is getting ignored this morning. But okay, here's

where I think the big problem, big challenge ahead lies. I suspect the reason why you've gone

with anti-Muslim hate, Podoslamophobia is because you want to make this about human beings and

individuals. Not criticism is quite right. The thing is, though, that Muslim-ness is a manifestation

in many cases of someone's religion. So if you criticise Muslim-ness, if you criticise an

individual on the basis of their Muslim-ness, you are being drawn into a discussion of the

validity of the theology itself. So for instance, there is a live conversation in this country,

which I suspect we need to have about the relationship between Islam and women's rights.

There's tension there. Issues like face coverings. And my worry is that if you're going to say

with this guidance, you cannot generalise, you cannot stereotype, so you can't presumably say things

like, you're a Muslim woman, presumably, you don't have as strong a rights as your husband does,

or presumably your husband mistreat you, or you're a Muslim man, presumably, you look down on

your wife and your daughters. Okay, there are some bigots who just want to be nasty about Muslims,

but there is also a genuine interrogation about faith they're going on, which I think is a

legitimate discussion. And my concern is that bad faith actors, again, it uses your attempts

to defend Muslims against discrimination as an opportunity to shut down debate about the thing

that probably most defines them in their life, which is their religion. But we've just heard in

this conversation we're having that this is happening already. Question is, is this definition

going to make it better or worse? I think it will make it better. Of course, these are legitimate

subjects to debate. I'm a Christian. I'm a practicing Anglican Christian. If people wish to

criticise my faith or my practices, they are open and free to do it. And in the same way,

when I was in Parliament, I was leading light in getting the blasphemy law repealed. And actually,

I was also the leading, along with David Davis, we were the two leading parliamentarians that

got the Labour rebellion, which got incitement to religious hatred amended to require intent

and to take out abusive and insulting language, because comedians said we will be at risk.

That's where I stand on this. And I certainly wouldn't be allowing a definition to go forward,

which I was uncomfortable with. I think it correctly encapsulates what the issues are for

British Muslims. It's their limited experience and a real problem for them. And I think it needs

to be addressed. And as I say, there is a wider package of measures that the governments come up

with, which I'm also pleased about. And in many ways, those are likely to be more important in

making progress than the definition itself. But the definition does help identify the problem.

And whilst it's possible that people will try to misuse it, inevitably, anything is capable

of being misused or made people may try, I don't think it would be successful.

I don't want to go around in circles, but again, it's a question that we mustn't be naive about

context. When it came to the rape gangs, we now know there were officials who did not want to

properly investigate them for fear of being accused of what I think you're defining here.

Yeah, anti-Muslimness. Yeah. That may well be the case, but I don't, I think it's also worth

bearing in mind that a lot of it, I'm afraid, and I've said this in the past, has to do with politics.

If you are, or you see yourself as dependent on a particular community vote,

and we've after all seen it in the recent Gordon by election, then I'm afraid, I think my

impression, having taken an interest in this subject for some time, is as a tendency to gloss

over issues. Mr. Grieve, I'm going to accuse you of anti-Muslim hate there. You're implying that

Muslims vote as a bloc, and they just vote for whoever their community elders tell them to hold on

the moment. That's not what I'm saying. Actually, I don't think they do vote as a bloc, but the

perception by some politicians that they are available as a bloc has been the issue that has troubled

me. Yes. Which is a different thing altogether, and that's a mastery in which political parties

need to look at their own ethical standards. Can I just ask a question about timing here,

and I do appreciate what you're saying about the growing levels of anti-Muslim hatred,

but haven't we got a much bigger, more obvious problem with the growing levels of anti-Jewish hatred?

The last time I checked, Muslim students weren't being driven off university campuses.

The last time I checked, people weren't calling for Muslim armies. We weren't calling for death

death to Muslim armies in the streets. We weren't calling for Muslims to be in the ground

at Oxford University. We weren't marching outside mosques and intimidating Muslims.

Only this weekend, Dominic Grieve, we witnessed one man at a so-called peace march

called for the return of Muhammad's army, which famously slaughtered Jews in the seventh century.

I think if you called for that on the streets of Britain, you would rightly be criminalised.

We don't see the same response, so I would suggest that if you're Jewish in the UK right now,

you'd be thinking why on earth is the government prioritising anti-Muslim hate when we are the victims

of arguably the highest levels of anti-Semitism since the Second World War?

Nobody would be abusing Muslims in the street as Jews and Israelis have been abused since October

the 7th. It just isn't happening. I agree that there's a serious issue with anti-Semitism.

As I have many Jewish friends, it's a very serious problem. We have a definition of anti-Semitism

that I think was in part the response by the last government to the issue, but it has undoubtedly

grown much worse since, and there's no doubt that the current events in the Middle East

crystallise it, and there are people who fail completely to distinguish between the actions of

the Israeli government and the wider Jewish community, many of whom, to not support the actions

of Israel. And so there are serious issues there that need to be tackled, but I was simply

point out that we were not told in the course of the evidence we took, which included evidence

within the Jewish community. Nobody suggested that we were wrong in looking at this issue

of anti-Muslim hatred. I want to, finally, I want to raise a point

made by the Free Speech Union, which as they say, this conflicts with the occupying the

field doctrine of law, which says that you can't produce something where there's already

law covering it, and it could potentially contradict it. Now, I suspect you're just going to say

that's the government's problem, but do you see this being resolved by what you have written

turning into law and being integrated into the statute books? No, I never intended to see this

be incorporated into law. I don't think it's necessary. It's there as a guidance document

for public authorities, and that's where I expect it to be used. I never the intention that

it should be turned into law. And indeed, somebody said to me that they wanted to turn it into law,

I would say it's not necessary precisely because I think the law as it stands is sufficient.

And if the law as it stands is not sufficient, we've got to go back to the drawing board.

I certainly wouldn't use this as a basis for change. As for the Free Speech Union, yes, I understand

they're going to mount a judicial review of the government's decision. I shall wait with interest

to see the outcome of that, but I have to say that I don't find it easy to see myself

that adopting a non-statutory definition of this kind of falls foul of any legal principle,

but we will see. Dominic Grief, KC, former Tory MP. Thank you very much indeed for joining us

on The Daily Tea. Thank you.

Tim, before we go, could you lend me a fiver so I can get some lunch? Let's see, what have I

got in here? There it is. This is so staged. There it is. And look at this hand, some devil.

Look at this. The other side is the queen. Oh, the queen, it's an oldie. So we have the queen

and we have Churchill. Yes. But wouldn't we like Churchill, the greatest Britain that ever lived

to be replaced by a squirrel or a badger? Why doesn't Labour go the whole hog and replace him

with a white flag? I love that you're now thinking you might turn at the end at a week which

started with you, channeling your inner Jeremy Corbyn. Now, come to the dark side. This is an

aberration where an earth are we considering replacing the likes of Churchill, Jane Austin, Turner,

Cheering with little beasties, little critters, otters, squirrels. Can I be boring and say it's not

actually the government's decision? I don't know. It's something that we do every 10 years anyway.

In the past, the fiver was Wellington, then it was George Stevenson and then it was Elizabeth

Fry. And you can tell someone's age about what they can remember was on the five-pound note.

And it used to be nothing. So it's just come around. But the problem is its context because we

happen to be going through a period in which it feels like we're retreating from the world stage

and we can't send a ship anywhere anymore. And to replace Churchill with a hedgehog at that

moment, I think is very unfortunate. Also, hedgehogs are the sort of thing that countries do

where they're nervous about their history, the way the EU can't put any faces on notes. I'm

sure listeners will correct me and say they do that now, but I believe until they don't put

faces on notes because they can't agree on who is a national hero of the European Union.

So you end up with viaducts instead and things like that. Well, rather a viaduct than replacing

fry with a ferret. I say, let's have a bit of fun. I want on the five-pound note, I want

direct trotter. Yes. From only fours and horses with the motto, this time next year, it will be

millionaires. Or just other iconic figures from British culture like, for instance, Bungle from

Rainbow. Oh, wouldn't that be lovely? Yes. Or who else could we think of? Or John Inman from

Are You Being Served on the 50-pound note with the motto, I'm Free. Love that. Or let me think,

who else British? It's a fun, because I think everything we do should be done to fox foreigners.

Yeah. So they look at these people. Let foreigners look at it and see Mrs. Slocum and think,

is this Queen Elizabeth the first? Yes. And where's her pussy? And equally, can we just have

Harry N. Field loads of money? Yes. Come on. Can I have that far either? No, you can't.

Okay, you're going to throw in a bit of a toilet because it's the last time we'll see Churchill

on a bank note. No one uses cash anyway. I know. We'll be back tomorrow 5 p.m.

Work moves fast. Every email, report, and proposal counts. That's where Grammarly comes in.

It's your one place to think, write, and finish. Grammarly's AI agents help you find natural

phrasing, fine-tuned tone, and confidently write wherever you work. It's the premier writing

tool that 93% of users trust to get more work done. In a world of generic AI, don't sound

like everyone else. With Grammarly, you never will. Download Grammarly for free at Grammarly.com.