Exclusive: Did the Met “cover up” a paedophile ring?

This is a global player, original podcast. Before we get going on today's episode, we wanted to give you a warning that there are graphic descriptions of sexual abuse, indeed child sexual abuse from the very start. Hi, my name's Andy Hughes, I'm a reporter for LBC. It's okay if we chat about some allegations. What are you doing here, Dave? Yeah, I do, yeah. Here's a letter which details the allegations, the allegations relate to your time at the Met Police, and the allegations are that you sexually abuse young girls when you were at the Met Police. Do you have any comments to that? Can you take this? That was the Crime Agents, Andy Hughes, door stepping, a former Metropolitan Police Officer about a story that Andy has been working on for months. This officer has been accused of being involved in a London pedophile ring while serving with the Metropolitan Police as an active officer, and it gets worse than that. Andy has heard claims that the case was brushed under the carpet and covered up. On today's episode of The News Agents, we speak to Andy about his story, his jaw-dropping story, and ask what it tells us about the culture of the Metropolitan Police, both then and now welcome to The News Agents. The News Agents. It's Lewis, just me today, and we have Andy Hughes, who is LBC Crime Correspondent and co-host of The Crime Agents. You'll know, of course, here to talk through this extraordinary story at some length, and it isn't extraordinary story, Andy, isn't it? I mean, a former Met Officer being accused of being in a pedophile ring. It is shocking. How did it first come to your attention? Well, this whole story started in 2012 in a custody suite in West London, and what happened was a young woman had been arrested for a fairly minor offense, was taken into the custody suite, and when she arrived there, she looked behind the desk and she saw the officer that she said had abused her as a child. She then became extremely distressed with total coincidence, and she was utterly shocked that her abuser was standing there in a police uniform behind the desk. So she became very distressed, and she was taken away by detectives. She didn't know that he was a police officer? No, no, she didn't abuse. She had no idea. She had no idea. So when the detective sat down and said, "What's happening?" he said, "That police officer, when I was a child, picks me up near my care home, take me to a hotel in Park Lane. We used to share me with other important men, including," she said, "A judge. We've later found out in our investigation that an unnamed MP was involved in that pedophile ring as well." So this goes beyond this girl in question? Yeah, so not only this girl, so we started looking into this one case. And then I started speaking to more and more people, and the more people I spoke to, the more people who knew who this officer was. And in fact, I then went on to speak to a senior Westminster councillor called Ruth Bush. She was the first Labour Lord Mayor of Westminster. She told me that she knew one of the victims, and then she told me the story over the phone. And it was an identical story as the story that I'd previously heard. So I assumed that this was the same woman, the same victim. But in fact, down the line, I discovered that this was a completely different woman. So here we have two women who are telling the identical same story about the same officer who are completely independent of each other and didn't know each other. How did it come to your attention? Well, I just started looking into the grooming gang story, and something which primarily here, too, has been associated, at least in much of the media, obviously, with Muslim grooming gangs, particularly the North of England, Rothermen and so on. Yeah, which is interesting because 70% of grooming gangs are white, but I'm sure we'll come back to that. But I spoke to a detective, and she told me that they met at the moment. They are looking into cases that don't form the common understanding of grooming gangs. And I said, what do you mean by that? And he said that it meant important people. So, and I said like who? And it was him who told me, I know of a case where police officer was involved. And that's when I started down this rabbit hole. At that time, I only knew of one case. It was only through speaking to different people I then discovered that there was more cases. And in fact, one of the victims in her police interviews said that this officer did this numerous times with several girls in the care home that she was in. God. Yeah. And what happened then? So, the girl in question, she sees this guy completely to her astonishment, can't believe he's a copper, a serving police officer. She breaks down what happens then, does she make a complaint? She does. She did a complaint at a police station in West London, a separate police station, of course, because she didn't want to see her alleged abuser again. This complaint was made. This then went up to the on duty detective chief inspector who told the detective who told him, leave it with me, I'll look into it. However, two months later, this officer had retired and was allowed to retire. So, the alleged abuser. The alleged abuser. Yes, this custody sergeant had retired while under an investigation for grooming and sexual abuse of young girls. What happens to the investigation? Well, in 2013, a year after the complaint was made, it went away, it was shut down because of lack of evidence, the meds said. It quietly disappeared. It quietly disappeared. Not only that, the other allegation disappeared completely off the face of the earth, it just disappeared into the net. I've been speaking to them about this, obviously, over the last couple of weeks. They tell me that there's no record of the second allegation, non-mots however. So a serious allegation, set of allegations about the same man who is a reasonably senior serving police officer. Just disappear. He's allowed to retire, zoomed on his pension, and there is no as far as you can tell, and as far as the med can tell, with regards to at least one of these things, there's not even a paper trail about what if anything was done to investigate him. No, so the only way I know what happened is I've spoken to people who were actually involved in the investigation. This Labour councillor Ruth Bush, she was sat in on the police interview supporting one of the victims, and one of the victims explained that this officer used to pick her up, take her to Park Lane, and then I asked Ruth. I said, did the detectives who were asking the victim questions? Was there any sense that they believed her? She said, yes, it was absolutely clear the detectives believed her, yet a year later the case was dropped due to lack of evidence. What are the meds saying about this now, Andy, as you say, you've obviously been talking to them about this story for a while, I mean, what are they saying now? Well, I think there's a lot of internal wrangling going on, if I'm honest, just judging by the twoing and throwing out I've been having with them. What the meds saying now is that they are reviewing the case, and that they are urging people to come forward with any new information, and that any new information and the review of this case will be completely thorough, but interestingly, it's not only the allegations that have gone missing and disappeared into thin air. This officer was allowed to disappear into thin air. So at that time, an officer can't retire while under criminal investigation unless they get permission from someone very senior in that force, and that could even go up to commissioner level. The force is bigger than that, it's unlikely to go there. But someone signed off his retirement, someone who knew he was being investigated for sexual offenses and grooming and being part of a pedophile ring allowed him to walk off into the sunset. And they're saying the met in response to your story that they were made aware of this on recent sexual abuse involving a former officer they're calling, I'm not entirely sure why it matters if it's recent or not, but not recent. And then they say I, director of professional standards, did receive a complaint about this individual in 2012. At that time, the matter was investigated as both a criminal and misconduct case, which was closed in 2013 due to a lack of evidence and inconsistencies in the information provider. And now they're saying as you say, they'll review it. But as you say, I mean, they clearly had someone who was there and making these allegations. Yeah. It wasn't pursued. No, not at all. And this is the thing that as you know, Lewis, when you do an investigation like this, it is so hard to get people to go on record because a, it brings this all back up for them. And b, they've already been through this. And if they're putting their neck on the line and just say this doesn't go anywhere, then they will feel that this is all for nothing. I managed to gain the trust of these people, I've interviewed two people in our investigation. One is the council. One is this ex-med detective. It took a lot of convincing to get them both to go on record, but they both, interestingly, they both said exactly the same thing to me when I asked them. They said, I need to do it. It's the right thing to do. Also, it bothered them. Yeah, exactly. So, for example, when I first got in touch with this councillor, it was someone else who said suggested that she might be connected to, to one of the victims. I remember I was sat in the LBC newsroom, I sent an email from my phone, I put the phone in my pocket, I walked to the kitchen to make myself a cup of tea, before I got to the kitchen my phone was ringing from an unknown number. I picked it up and it was this councillor and she just said, oh my god, I can't tell you how relieved and happy I am to hear from you. This has been haunting me for years and that reaction alone told me I had something. I mean, we heard a little bit at the start of the show, of you confronting the alleged perpetrator of these crimes. What happened to him after he retired? And what was he doing there? At the time, when he retired, I've not only spoken to the people on the record, I've spoken to several people now who knew this officer. They all say the same thing about him, he was a bully, he was a misogynist. So a lot of the police officers that I've spoken to, they don't know about these allegations, they didn't know about these allegations, but when I told them, none of them were surprised. I, in fact, tracked him down to the north of England. This took several weeks to track him down, it wasn't easy. Eventually when we did, myself and a camera operator, we travelled up there and we waited outside his house to identify him. We already had pictures of him, that sent to us what he looked like. So we waited outside and then we saw him come outside his house and they kind of immediately went back in. So we didn't have time to jump out the car and confront him. And we were waiting there, literally 24 hours, he just wasn't leaving and then we thought we'd just got to do it. So it's a nervous moment, right? And also in the back of your mind, it's just even though this man, people say he's done the most horrific things, there's always a human element when you're just about to confront someone and you know that what you're about to say to them could potentially completely destroy their lives, even though he might be guilty. So it's a really weird moment that you go through and knocked on the doorbell, he opened the door and I had this letter with all the allegations just in my hand and I said his name and then he kind of scoffed at me and said, "If you've got any ID?" And I said, "I have, anyway, I'm here to talk about some allegations and the allegations about your time when you were at the Met and the allegations are that you sexually abuse young girls when you were at the Met. Do you have a comment?" And I looked in his eyes and I described it to people, it was the look of a man who could tell his pasted cord up with him and he just said, "No comment and shut the door." And then I spoke through the letterbox as he can hear and see in the clip and then I posted the letter through and I walked away. It was a week later where we got a letter from his legal team denying all the claims. And we should say, to be clear, he is denying. Yeah, yeah, so he sent an updated response just about 24 hours ago where he said that he "strenuously" denies all the allegations. I mean, it is the most extraordinary story, the most extraordinary tale as well in terms of all those moments like confronting him and so on. We should say there is a full episode about this on the Crime Agents, which is out now, I think. Yeah, it'll be out now on your feet. It'll be out on the feeds now, so you can go and listen to that on the Crime Agents. There's also a film version which you can watch on Global Player and elsewhere as well. Let's just listen to a little bit of Andy's report, which as I say, you'll be able to hear and watch. I've come to meet Chris Wilde. He works with young people here and says young girls in the care system are targeted by grooming gangs. These are complex organisations, people who wear suits, let's say. People have got power. People have got lots of money. They are the ring leaders. Those are the ones running the gangs and destroying people's lives. And it could be connected to, like I said, some prominent figures. So who are these important, powerful people? I'm contacted by a former met senior detective who investigated sexual abuse. He tells me a name I don't recognise. The name he mentions, he says, was part of the VIP pedophile ring that targeted young girls in care. Then comes the bombshell. The name belongs to a former met police officer. The source says the officer was investigated in the early 2010s after two women came forward naming him as their abuser when they were children. The victims say the officer picked them up near their care homes, took them to expensive hotels and shared them with other important men, including an unnamed MP and a judge. It started to unfold when a young woman was arrested for a minor offense, and she recognised the custody sergeant as the man who abused her as a child. The detective has asked us to protect his identity. The ID had been arrested recently when she went into the custody area to shop to see who the custody officer was. The ID had been in care as a child and then she ran away from care coming to London. She got some officer and used a picker up with other girls and types to take to an address in London where he and several of the powerful men would sexually abuse them. And she didn't have very known to these men, but she saw war as a judge. And she just couldn't believe it was soon the police. And before you go, the thing that I think a lot of people listen to this will be thinking and something I'm thinking now is that this story in so many ways speaks to so many big political stories that we've had over the last few years. One is obviously about grooming gangs themselves, which, as I say, we mainly hear in the context of Muslim men for which there clearly has been a problem in some areas, but here we have a very different sort of grooming gang potentially. But secondly, as well, obviously the met itself and the cultural problems that we see again and again in the met. And I'm sure the met will say, oh, this is not recent, but it's still in the 2010s we're talking here, right? It's not. In the 70s here, or the 1980s, we're talking about relatively recently. And obviously we've seen Wayne Cousins, Murder of Sarah of Rod, we saw the prolific rapist David Carrick. Does this speak to just something that continues to be culturally rotten at the Met, or can you dismiss it as just one bad guy? You clearly can't. There's a reason why the met launched Operation Onyx in 2023 and this operation was launched as a direct result of Wayne Cousins who murdered Sarah of Rod and David Carrick, who is known as one of the most prolific serial rapists this country has ever seen. Both ex-offices. Both ex-serving officers, just like this officer that we're talking about, and interestingly on that, when that was launched, they said that allegations came in between 2012 and 2022 would be reinvestigated. Therefore, this officer should have been reinvestigated as part of Operation Onyx. However, the Met tell us that he has not been reinvestigated. Is there a reason? Are they giving you a good reason? They haven't given us a reason. The original reason they gave was he fell outside the time period. I came back at them and said no, he didn't. And still now, I've still not had a response. You'd think given everything that has happened both with a question of grooming gangs and the officers we just described that the Met would want to take this very seriously. Yeah, I imagine there will be, I imagine there will be, and to give credit where credits due, Sir Mark Rowley has done a lot of work in cleaning up this phrase, The Bad Apples, and he has done a lot of work. Initially, when he came in, one of the first things he did was place more than 1,000 officers under investigation. He's got rid of hundreds of them. Be rest assured, they'll be taken this very seriously. What does it say? People can listen to the full report on the crime agents right now, really worth listening to. Andy, thanks so much for coming in. Cheers, Lewis. Right, we'll, of course, keep an eye on that story and if there are developments, we'll bring them to you on the news agents. When we come back after this, we will be speaking to a minister from the Justice Department, Jake Richards. About the Prime Minister's efforts today to secure reform to the European Convention on Human Rights, something that he has defended his entire career, but is now saying is fueling the rise of the far right in Europe. Stay with us. News you can trust and the conversations that matter. With award-winning journalist at the heart of the stories from the UK and around the world. Breaking news here in Edinburgh. I'm Simon Marks. My American Week is next. Reporting from the heart of Cardiff. Discover how today's story affects your life. Listen on our free Global Player app or the new LBC app. LBC Leading Britain's Conversation. The News Agents. Well, we join now by Jake Richards from the Ministry of Justice. We were just saying three months into the job now as a minister and they really call you minister, everything minister. I go by Jake. Right, right. I go by Jake. I go by Jake. Oh. How very Tony Blair of you. I don't, what, being called by your name. I don't think that's just call me Jake. Exclusively Tony Blair. Well. Well, we'll see how far the comparison is running the end. Look what we're talking about. The ECHR today because the prime minister is and it does seem as if from the kind of mood music and the communicate that's coming out of the Council of Europe, it does seem like you might be making some progress. But let's talk about it. Keir Starmer, Meta Fridrux and the Danish prime minister have written today. The best way of fighting against the forces of hate and division is to show that mainstream progressive politics can fix the problem. Is that your message to Europe? Is that how grave you think the situation is? And you really root the ECHR at the cause of that? Absolutely. What's coming out of Strasbourg today is really, really important on both the legal technicalities and the ECHR and modernising how we interpret and implement the ECHR. But there's a bigger point here, which is about European countries and partners coming together to tackle the big problems we face in the 21st century. And one of those is mass, irregular or illegal migration and working together to confront that. Because that is the only way we're going to solve these problems by working with our international partners. And that's the big dividing line in British politics at the moment. Today you have the prime minister working with colleagues abroad, the deputy prime minister in Strasbourg, making the case on the continent for the need to work together, making progress, and you have the Conservatives and Reform who simply want to rip up the whole thing and start again. And look, we've got the deliverability, don't you? We need what, sir? Unanimity. No. For all of the signatories. Well, there's a process which is going to take place going into the new year by which we're going to be seeking a political declaration on various aspects of the ECHR and trying to modernize how that's interpreted in domestic law. That process will be ongoing, 27 countries, that's a big chunk of those that are members of the Council of Europe. Well, yeah, it's a good start. There's a way to go. But remember, back in May, only nine countries signed a letter on this issue. The UK wasn't one of them. The UK have now begun to lead and shape this process. So you're one and a half percent confident? You're 100 percent confident. You can convert the 27 to 45 and get substantial, not just sort of token reform, but actually change in substance, the nature and legal application of the ECHR, which will make a material difference to your efforts to stop a regular migration. Yes. I'll tell you why. Because there's a lot, a lot of this reform agenda, this modernising agenda is in our own hands, by the way. So the operation of article eight, which is a big part of this agenda, is all about really reforming our domestic law and should bottom it, mood the home sector is already set out, really quite important reforms that she will be setting out in legislation in the house over the next few months, which will begin to change how article eight operates in domestic law. On an international scale, things do take more time, because you've got to bring countries with us, but I'm very confident that we're going to be making progress. Look, I was in Strasbourg just a few weeks ago, meeting with representatives from countries from across Europe. Everyone has a different perspective of this, of course, but there's a general acceptance that if the European community is going to remain together, remain united and see off the dark forces of populism on the right and the left, then we're going to have to make progress on this. When? Might we expect that unionality? When might we expect? There's a lot. Because you say it's urgent. So when would you expect that? There's a moment in May next year where we're hoping that we'll be able to deliver a political declaration, which will be a big moment about the operation of article three and article eight. Again, there are technical issues that we want to deal with as part of that political declaration, but this is actually more about ensuring that Europe, together as a community, is working on dealing with enriching the might. Just explain to people, why would that be significant? Just getting a political declaration on article three and article eight. Why would that mean? Well, there's a technical reason why. So the European Court takes into account what they call the European consensus, and that's really important that they look at what the democratic elected governments are saying as to these big issues, which sometimes come before the court, whether that's article three, on issues of deporting foreign national offenders or article eight, which deals with private life and a family life for often in the context of migration. And she's been one of the articles that has caused different governments, previous government and your government difficulty when you're trying to deport. And on article eight, as I touched upon before, and without getting too technical for your listeners, there are levels, I know they're very not today program now, don't I? But look, article eight is primarily a domestic issue, and that's why it should bond with the home sector is setting forward pretty rapid and important reforms to how we implement article eight in our law. There is an issue as to article three on an international scale. I can talk about that in more detail if you wish, and I think we're going to see progress on that in the coming months. So you think that by May, you're confident that you will have the necessary political will from the 45 countries to issue that political declaration, you're confident that there will be a movement on that. There's a lot of work to do, movement or the actual declaration. I'm confident we can get a political declaration next May. That's what we're aiming for. That's what the deputy prime minister is is is essential to begin actual legal reform of the CHR by when well, a political declaration affects the operation of the ambition or is it just a political declaration, or would you actually want to reform the substance of it itself? Well, I don't think we need to reform the protocol itself. The words in the European Convention are words that I hope every single member of Parliament and politician on the left and the right agree with. So the summit of your political, the summit of your ambition is a political declaration? No, we need to make sure that the ECHR and all our international agreements are fit for the challenges we face today, and one of those big challenges is mass migration. And there are changes that can be made into how that document is implemented, how it's interpreted, which will help governments of all different colours across Europe grapple this problem. If you're unable to secure that political declaration and therefore affect the changes that you're looking for, would you be happy to see us stay in the ECHR on the basis of the status quo? Look, I think remaining signatories to the ECHR is absolutely paramount to our ability to deal with these problems. Even if you can't get any reform. Well, frankly, I think we will, so I don't think that will come to you for a change. Because no one else has managed to do it before. Well, no, that's not quite right, I mean, in 2012 we had a political declaration on it, there has been, it's a living instrument, quote unquote, that's in the convention itself, it's purposefully developing organically all the time. But the point I'm driving at is that I'm just trying to understand what the hierarchy of your preference is, because clearly the Conservatives and reform, and I know you'll say that it's flawed and so on, fair enough, but their preference clearly is to leave. They think it's impossible to reform, and it would just be better if we left with all of the external, all of the negative consequences therein. You obviously want reform, but I'm just wondering if you're unable to secure reform. Your position remains that it's better to stay in it as flawed as it is than leave it. Well, look, I think we're going to get some changes into how it's interpreted, because partly that's in our own hands. I mean, this is the point, and I think this is often lost. But clearly, you think it's not the same as, is it's not the same as the relationship with the European Union and Brexit, and it's completely different. A lot of this is in our own hands. We're passing domestic legislation, which will go through the House of Commons, which will affect this. So I don't accept the premise of the question. Well, but, but, except Jake. There is a really important point about the negatives, because we don't speak about the negatives that are leaving. Let me just turn the pin agreements on trade, on security. And the good Friday agreement. And the good Friday agreement. Exactly. We're the first ones to say that. But it is the Prime Minister today who is pushing for reform, and it's the Prime Minister with Metafredics and another saying that if you don't get reform, then it will basically be the handmaiden to the populace and the far right, and so on. So he's the one positing that tension. So I'm just wondering that given those stakes at that high, given that he clearly believes that our membership in the current ECHR and the way that it is now helps fuel those forces, whether if we can't get reform, it will be best to just leave. No, that's not the position. What's the article? No, it's not what he's saying, Lucy. It really isn't. He is saying it's a rallying cry for the European community in any forum, by the way, but this is our main multilateral, political institution that we engage with. The best way of fighting against the forces of hate and division is to show that mainstream progressive politics can fix this problem. Yes. So what I'm saying is that if you fix it, it would be better to leave. But I think the ECHR is only one component of tackling illegal migration. But clearly in an important one. But the Council of Europe, which is the institution intrinsically linked to the ECHR, also has as part of its four-point plan on this issue, deals around return agreements and hubs. These are practical arrangements, which is going to help countries across Europe deal with migration issues. So ideally reform. But if not reform, let's stay in. Well, it's not quite stay in. I mean, I think you're trying to use language, so let's be more precise. Try and reform. But if we can't reform, remain a secret. I don't accept. I essentially don't accept the argument that leaving will have any benefit on our ability to tackle the migration crisis in our country. If someone can persuade me with that, I'll consider it. But trust me, I've read pretty much every legal analysis there is on this and no one has yet to do that. And I think that's because there isn't a case for that. You all know today that a series of public figures, celebrities and others, including Michael Palin, Stephen Fry, Joanna Lumley, have written urging you to stop this. They've said that the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, and the UN Convention Against Torture at the heart of Britain's legacy, they have saved lives, delivered justice and shown the world the Britain leads not by fear, but principle. Any attempt at undermining their universal protections is in the front to us all and the threat to security of each. What's your message to those people? Well, I agree with a large part of what they say. And that is why the first line of, I think, the article that Prime Minister has written and the statement that's come out, which is signed by the UK Government, is that we are reaffirming our commitment to human rights and the ECHR. But if we are going to protect this document, if we're going to make sure that it continues being in existence for next 75 years, then it has to adapt to the challenges we face today. And we are not talking about ripping up different articles or taking away that right from this group or this right from that, we're talking about pretty modifications to fit the challenges we face today. And it's just one part of this migration challenge to reform to survive. Well, look, it needs to show, and the institutions in Europe need to show, any UK government needs to show, that we are able to match the challenge we face on migration. And that's not just, that's not just us, by the way, as I say, every single country in Europe to differing degrees and from different variations of facing this problem. But you say, I mean, you agree with them, but they clearly disagree with you. The Palins are Stephen Fry's, the Joanna Lunditz, because they're cautioning you against your own plans. They say that your plans are our threat. I think they're cautioning against plans that we don't have, because we're not trying to leave the ECHR. So they're trying to rip up the human rights act. That's the other party, by the way. That's the concern, that's reform. Your message to them, therefore, Minister is Jake, sorry, is that they misunderstand what your plans are. Yeah. Look, I haven't had a conversation with them. I've seen some media articles that they've set out, and I respect and admire anyone who stands up for human rights and principles of the rule of law and democracy, of course. But when you're in government, when you're dealing with a migration crisis, which is affecting the hold of Western Europe, you have to face up to that challenge without compromising those principles, but you have to face up to that challenge. If you don't, the other side will get in. And by the way, they do want to rip it up. It's clear. I mean, there's been all this commentary. I just wonder if you could sort of talk about this a little bit. There's been all this commentary that Shabbat and the government overall are fixated by, and interested in, the Danish social democrats. And their approach to questions of migration, but politics generally, is that true? Are you very interested in how they approach things? I don't think we're fixated. I mean, I went to Copenhagen earlier this year to meet with SDP colleagues. It's obviously a sister party that's in government at the moment. One thing you can say is that their policy has worked. Now, we can talk about the politics in Denmark, if you want. I'm not an expert. You might be loose. I'm not an expert. But their policy has worked when it comes to migration. It works. And politically, though, has it? I mean, they've just got hammered in all the local elections. Well, they had a difficult set of elections in Copenhagen. They've got elections next year. But I would say, you know, we're in government. We're trying to find policies that work for the British people and for our country's interest. I'm less bothered about the polling in Denmark and what happened in Copenhagen. I'm in municipal elections, frankly. I'm more bothered about, can we get a grip of our borders? Can we get a grip of this problem? And if we can learn from Danish colleagues, if we can learn from anyone, then we will. And it's working. I've spoken to American colleagues as well, you know, and the lessons good and bad from the Biden administration. I've spoken to colleagues in France and Germany. This is a worldwide-- In Trump administration? I'm yet to speak to Trump administration. I'm very open to-- Do you think their approach has worked? On migration. I think there's a-- we're taking a different approach to migration than President Trump. But you know what he says about our approach. He says it's leading to the decay of Europe and European civilisation. Yes. Look, we've seen his comments overnight. I think what we're seeing today and what we've just been discussing actually shows that President Trump is wrong about this, that actually Europe is coming together. It's meeting the challenges we face, whether that's the war in Ukraine or the threat of irregular migration. Prime Minister Spokesperson refused to disagree with him yesterday, but you do. Well, look, I don't accept that Europe is some kind of decaying continent that can't meet the challenges of the future. I don't accept that, no. Well, he's talked about civilisation and erasure. Are we on the verge of civilisation and erasure? It's not a phrase that I would sign up to. Let's talk a little bit about some of the other things going on in your department. Obviously, one of the things has been controversial over the last week or two has been the justice secretary's plans on jury trials. And indeed, you might have seen your senior about Bencher Carl Turner has written about this. He's very much against it, as you know. If this ever comes to the House of Commons, I will rebel and vote against it. I think the government should would be defeated on this issue. The House and the public will not stand for the erosion of a fundamental right, particularly given there are more effective ways to reduce the backlog. These plans are definitely going ahead. Are you going to you turn it just like you did, Winterfuel? Look, the policy statement set out last week, these are absolutely critical plans to ensuring that our justice system is fit for purpose for victims across the country. Very single MP, their inbox is inundated with concerns, frustrations about delays in the justice system. Now we have to look at a package of reforms, which includes investment, which includes changes the way in which we operate the court system. But these pretty modest reforms to criminal trials is just part of that, but an important part of that. Well, and if at the next election, we go to that election and I'm determined to play my part in ensuring that we can show that we have dealt with a backlog and a problem in our criminal justice system that we've inherited, we have to make a fair, difficult, but right decisions. If it's just about the backlog, why not insert a sunset clause into the measures? Well, they would just be for a time limited period. MPs could be assured that yes, it's always tempting to put sunset clause into every piece of legislation. But on this, there's two things. One, it's about dealing with the immediate problem of the backlog, 80,000 cases, by the way, so that means that for many criminal trials people are waiting four, five, six years even. But secondly, it's about making sure the system is then sustainable going into the 2030s, 2040s. We can't be in a situation where we deal with this crisis, and then we let it develop again. And towards the end of the next decade, we have to have another review, get Sabrina out again, and we come back to dealing with these fundamental rules. Well, you know, there's a serious point here, though, because this is about saving the criminal justice system and then making it fit for the future. So urgent, then why are the proposals most likely to be tabled in the second half of next year? If it's so urgent, it's really you'd want to do this now. Well, I'm not sure those timings are right to be honest. Well, that's what Carl Turner is saying. Well, as we've found out, it's not in government. And so, you know, you'll see when they're brought forward. I've got an enormous amount of time for Carl. He's a senior member of parliament. He's been in parliament longer than me. I've read his article. I'll continue to listen to him, but we disagree on this point. He says that Labour and Peasers are better from the Prime Ministers, have us marched up to the proverbial hill to be marched back down again and then pretend that we were never asked to do the unthinkable in the first place. Do you have the votes for this? Are you absolutely confident that this will be the House of Commons? I'll tell you why, because when I speak to colleagues, as I've said before, they receive a wave of correspondence from victims who are not getting justice. And by the way, it's not just victims, defendants as well, who are waiting years and years for their day in court to either prove their innocence or if not serve their sentence and get on with their lives. This is a problem which is affecting hundreds of thousands of people. We've got to deal with it. We've got to modernise the criminal justice system. And I think that this... No change is ready to do that. You don't have any changes to it. Well, there's no change. We haven't even set out the legislation yet. So, we've set out our policy intent. Legislation will be coming forward after Christmas, and I'm very confident that we'll make the changes that we need to save the criminal justice system. So, I just draw your attention to it at one other story. I'm not sure if you'll have seen it, but this actually refers to a story from one of my colleagues on LBC and he used it. He's reporting on claims that a met police officer had child rape claims brushed under the carpet by the force and that he was involved in a pedopharying. They're now urging people to come forward if they have any more information, just wonder what's your response to this concern about it. Well, I've just read the news piece. It's obviously an important story, very serious. I've been assured that the relevant authority are looking at it closely. I can't really comment much further than that, because I've just read the news piece. Concerned, be right. Concerned. Absolutely, of course. I mean, I read these stories like everyone else, and it's deeply concerning, and I'm sure that we'll do everything we can to find out what's happened. The met police is a suggestion, I think, from a port this week saying that the met police should be removed from oversight from the mayor of London. Is that something that you would support? Well, you'd have to speak to home office colleagues about that. You must have a view as a justice minister. Look, I think there's challenges in our police, and on this issue of sexual offences, particularly grooming. I mean, I'm an MP in Roverham, before being elected, I was a child protection barrister. I know about these issues. There are real fundamental changes we need in our country. Some of those are being brought forward by the government at pace, and where there are gaps. We need to fill them. Just finally, Jake. Who are you backing for, leader? Kirstler. You think he's going to be leader at the Labour Party in a year's time? Absolutely. Look, today is another example where you're seeing leadership in Europe taking forward a really important agenda. We've got a lot of work to do in government, whether that's on immigration, that we've been discussing for the majority of this conversation, whether it's on NHS, where we've made huge progress in terms of waiting lists. What do you think of all of life? I don't see any plotting. You must be the only MP to have been left out. Of course, maybe it may be being left out by suspect, or actually happening is that we have a very fee-ball and free media, which is a good thing, and they get very excited about these stories. But I think that this government is absolutely determined to deliver on those priorities. I think the Prime Minister is in the first 18 months of this government set out framework by which we can deliver. We're starting to see that delivery, whether it's on waiting lists, whether it's on the big changes we're bringing to the immigration system, the budget towards the end of last month. There's a lot of work to do. I'm not for a minute suggesting that we're job done, but I think what would your message be to colleagues who are plotting and briefing to the media about this? Well, I don't think they are, but we've got to get on with the job we're delivering at all. We've got to get on with delivering for the British people. And the last thing, the last thing that, you know, for me and you Lewis, we follow politics on a daily basis. I'm sure your listeners do as well. Fast majority of people, they don't follow the minutia of politics and what they worry about is the cost of living, the NHS appointments, how, the economy, the local community, but the idea that we should engage in what the Conservative Party did towards the end of their time in power is in my view, fanciful and not in the country's best interest or not in my party's best interest. Yeah, which is. Thanks so much for joining me. Enjoy it. The news agents. That was Donald Trump speaking in 2018. After you might remember, he was alleged to have described lots of countries, which were sending immigrants to the United States as shitholes. Well at the time, it was really, really controversial as you heard he had to deny it and said that he wasn't racist. We've been talking all this week about how far politics has shifted, the Overton window has moved and that really hammered, and that was really hammered home to us last night when Donald Trump was speaking in Pennsylvania and he said this. And I say, why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right? Why can't we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few, let us have a few, from Denmark, do you mind sending us a few people, send us some nice people, do you mind? So controversial in 2018, he had to deny it in 2025, he's loving it. Right, we'll be back tomorrow. I assume John and Emily will have had their flu jabs by then, we'll see you then, bye bye.