This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Thank you for downloading this episode of Newscast. If you never want to miss an episode, make sure you hit the subscribe button on BBC sounds. BBC sounds, music, radio, podcasts. How old do you feel this morning, Pat? Well, I don't feel old until you've suddenly asked me.
Well, I always feel very old on a Sunday morning because I wake up so early, but I felt quite old this morning because I asked Kenny Baidnock and Rachel Reeves what their favorite Beatles song on was because as we were talking yesterday, you know, we had Maca on the program, which I've probably talked about too much because I was like embarrassingly excited. But when I asked both of them what their favorite Beatles song was, they both looked slightly a scance. This is what they said.
I'm more of a Beyonce person myself, Laura. But hey Jude, I enjoy that song. I don't know what about you, you Beatles fan. Yellow submarine. It's a very good question. It's the sofa question. I remember Margaret Thatcher was asked, what are you reading? And she said, I'm rereading Freddie Forsyth. And you know, it was seen as very revealing. And I think in some way that is, for reasons I don't quite know how.
Let's get underway with Sunday's newscast. Newscast. Newscast from the BBC. I like landscape. I don't think I'm being rude. Japping. Unemployed people who are overweight. That is not the agenda. It's the fun police working overtime. The star is born, Elon! So hurt that America let this happen. Frankly, I think we need a British Trump. Take me down to Downing Street. Let's go have a tour. Blimey. Hello, it's Laura in the studio. Patti in the studio.
And? Well, it's Nick in the studio, and I'm in the presence of my great colleague Patty. But also, who else is in this room? Laura. It's Laura Koonsburg. And who is Laura Koonsburg biggest fan? Sir Paul McCartney. What did he say at the end of the interview? Laura, I'm a fan. Oh, did he?
Well, there we are. Well, enough of that. Enough of that. You obviously cut that out. Well, I don't know that we're going to leave that in. No, I'm not. Let's just come and go back to that. I mean, it's a fabulous interview to discuss. What about that thing where you ask politicians? What are you reading? What music do you like? I mean, it is revealing, isn't it?
It's very revealing and it's the classic one that you'll ask a culture secretary. What's the last play you saw? What's the last book you read? And when it's somebody who is genuinely interested in the arts, like famously David Miller when it was called the Department of National Heritage, of course passionate about classical music and all that sort of stuff. But I think was it Maria Miller? Did she do it for the Conservatives? She did it briefly, yeah. It sounded like it was not her natural habitat.
Well, these questions are revealing, actually, because I think politicians might sometimes think, oh, it's a bit silly, it's a bit frivolous. Actually, I think, newscasters and voters, you are interested in the kind of person who's after your vote. And it is important, but it's made me think about something somebody not that far from this parish told me once that a young, up-and-coming Labour leader of Tony Blair
was asked about, they knew he was going to be asked for his favorite pop songs when he was doing an interview on Radio One. And this person who shall remain nameless as the young sort of work he had to come up with a list of things that he would like of cool songs. Yes. But he had it all ready to say. Should we get on with it? Because there was a lot of news this morning. Lots and lots of chat about the economy because Nick, that's what the government is going to be focusing on this year. And we had the Chancellor Rachel Reeves with us this morning.
And we started by asking her if she thinks the last six months, which a lot of people have felt have been very doomy and gloomy, have actually gone well for her. This is what she said. When I became Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think that most people would recognise that the inheritance was pretty tough. Public finances were in an utter mess. But this is about the impact of the decisions you took. Yes.
Those decisions were to put our public finances back on a firm footing. And the worst thing that I could have done in the budget was to have swept those problems under the carpet, pretend they didn't exist, and leave us in a situation where our public finances were precarious.
Now, why do I say that would have been a risk? Because we've seen what's happened in the past, in the last few years, when governments have lost control of the public finances, and interest rates and inflation go through the roof. That's no good for working families in Britain, but it's no good for businesses either. We've now stabilised the public finances, which means that we can go further and faster on that bedrock of stability to grow our economy. Well, the debt is absolutely enormous. But we can now move on and grow our economy. Well, borrowing is at its side. Do labor MPs think it's been a success?
No, there are some quite long faces amongst Labour MPs, feeling that it doesn't look like a wholly confident Prime Minister and a wholly confident Chancellor. I mean, you can understand what Keir Starmer and Richteries felt they needed to do,
when they took power in July was that they needed to lay the blame for the ills of this economy firmly at the foot of the last government so they had to paint a bleak picture. But the problem is if your overall strategy is to promote economic growth and you're going round saying it's a bit of a misery show, then that does not sort of make it feel that you're wanting to take the government to the sunny uplands, which is what they're wanting to do. And so in a sense, and this is the sort of thing that you captured this morning,
Laura is that this speech by the chancellor next week is meant to sort of mark that gear change where it looks happier and sunnier. The problem is, as the chancellor said to you, is they have done a lot of stuff, change planning on onshore wind, moving on with the planning regulations, the changes, the reforms they're going to make there. They've done a lot already, but it feels like they haven't done it. And that's why a lot of labor MPs slightly fear that the government has got itself into a doom loop.
And there's very much a hope that they can sort of break out of that. Yeah, because I mean, I think that we said on this podcast before the general election, whoever wins is going to have an absolute horrific brief as Chancellor. We could go back and find the clip of us all saying that. We definitely said that. So we definitely said that.
So that was always true. The conservatives were going to put up taxes as well. So the point is that I think everyone's focusing on is Labour decided to say it wouldn't pull the three main levers and Nick and I were at work on News Night in the week discussing this same thing. One of the things that Rachel Reeves as a new chancellor has done is remove one of the biggest ways to get money in. That's what she's actually done and she should be made to answer for that.
In the sense of they said in the manifesto that they wouldn't raise a national insurance VAT or income tax, which are the three big ones, account for about 75% of tax revenues, but they did do national insurance on employers. Obviously, the small print of the manifesto would said that they wouldn't raise taxes on working people and national insurance on employers is obviously on employers. But interestingly, when Patti and I were talking about this the other night on Newsnight,
I was talking to a senior member of the Shadow Cabinet, who's also a member of Rishi Sunat's Cabinet, and this person said to me, we had a dreadful election campaign, ask conservatives, but there's one thing we did really well. We boxed Labour in on tax, which is why they had so little room for manoeuvre, and when Rachel Ries decided that she needed to get whatever it was, an extra $22 billion into the NHS, you've got to go for one of the big revenue raises, which means a form of national insurance.
It's interesting, though, isn't it? Because the difficulty for Labor, though, is that since they've been in, business confidence has fallen. As one example, Sainsbury's cut 3,000 jobs this week. There are other employers who've also having to share numbers. Growth has been absolutely measly 0.1% of the month. And seven months means, yes, they are a
New ish government but they are not a new new new government anymore and I think Rich Reeves is gonna try very hard this week to do that gear shift that you've been talking about Whether it's successful really who knows and it was interesting I think this week as well that she was willing to shift on something the rules about very wealthy people non-dorms bringing money into this country and that's not really a
A very kind of Rachel Reeves 1.0 friendly thing to have done, is it? But Rachel Reeves 2.0, I think we are asking a different chancellor or an attempt to portray a different kind of chancellor. And this is how she explained that change of heart this morning. We're making some changes to one part of the way in which very wealthy people from abroad are taxed. But it is a principle of this government. And actually, the previous government also made changes around non-dom rules. If you make Britain your home, you should pay your taxes here. But we want to be an attractive place for some of the
wealthiest and most talented people around the world. That's why when we publish our immigration white paper later this year, we're going to be consulting on visas for the highest skilled, particularly in sectors like AI and life sciences to ensure that Britain is a welcoming place for global talent. I mean, why shift on that and not on taxes for farmers or indeed on their changes in the winter fuel allowance?
Well, when you're a chancellor, you want to be really careful that your budget doesn't unravel. Because if it does, that has enormous impact on the markets and they'll lose confidence in you. So what the chancellor is saying here is that there are concerns. So we're going to change the rules, she would say, about investors coming in and how they bring money into the country immediately.
The crucial thing is they're saying that this is not going to affect the baseline that scored into what's called the red book. That's the big book with all the figures, sort of figures that paddy as a former business correspondent would understand, that this doesn't change the baseline. It doesn't change the red book. If you were to do the farming thing, which is imposing inheritance tax on farms, as you said in your interview with the chancellor, Laura, it
It's not a huge amount of money in relative terms, but if you change that, you would change the score line, you change the score card. And once you start doing that, you change the numbers, then you potentially start to unravel your budget. And here's another thing. I like door-steppable issues, because you two, I think, are political experts, slash geeks and wonks. Sados. No, I wouldn't say that.
I did. But can I take you back? And I'm sorry for newscasters who hate London buyers, but I think you'll judge me if this is a useful example. Do you remember the extension of Yulez and Boris Johnson's seat of Uxbridge? Yes. Boris Johnson left Parliament judged to have lied to Parliament by committee of his peers. A by-election is held. And what happens to the Conservatives? They
retain the seat and the reason we're told, and I went there myself as did you, was because of a charge on your old banger, if it drives into the centre of London with a Labour mayor. And now you've got a maximum version of this coming together with the question of Heathrow Airport. And many millions of people will be able to understand Heathrow Airport expansion in a way that they won't understand your red line in a red book.
No, absolutely, and Heathrow is a huge issue in London, and the London Mayor, Saasad Ikarn, is obviously completely against it. Interesting, Laura, you had Nadim Zahawi on the program, who was briefly Chancellor, but he
He was a ones worth Councillor way back and he mentioned to you he was Councillor for the Putney Heath area right under the flight path. I think he's thought he was the only Councillor in the borough who was in favour of it and talking about an environmental impact which is if you have a third runway you won't have the stacking of the planes and they'll be land more easily. So yeah big big issue in London where there's a lot of opposition to it.
And it's a big issue for the whole economy, isn't it? I mean, that's why this has become such a thing is that it's a huge issue for people who live nearby, but it's become such an issue of importance for all of sort of UK PLC and for successive governments because it is a big issue about our whole infrastructure as a country. If the biggest airport is congested, doesn't work very well, it's limited, then obviously that has no cons. And there's been such a sort of passionate debate about this for 20 years.
And we do think this week, Rachel Reeves is going to be the latest senior politician to say, ah yes, the government I'm part of is going to go ahead with this. But all that means is because there's a standoff between the government and Heathrow. And Heathrow, who could do it because Parliament voted for it, went all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that's fine. They could submit their planning application. But Heathrow have basically said to this new government,
We are not even gonna think of doing that planning application until you, the current government, give us an enthusiastic nod. So what we assume we will get is a nod from the Chancellor on Wednesday. The question is, how enthusiastic will it be? Because Heathrow need a big, friendly nod, because it's private money for them to go ahead with it. Okay, I'm loving the enthusiastic nod. I want to come back to that. Here's what Rachel Reeve said, a new judge, newscaster, the nod factor.
A lot has changed in terms of aviation. A sustainable aviation fuel is changing carbon emissions from flying. There's a huge investment going on on electric planes and also a third runway will mean that instead of circling London flights can land at Heathrow. So a lot has changed in aviation and sustainable aviation and economic growth go hand in hand
We're an open trading economy. We need to bring investment in, but I believe the clean energy that reducing our carbon emissions are good for economic growth. We could do the two together. There will be a third runway then. You more or less just said that. We'll announce our plans in due course, but already we've signed off expansion at Stanstedt and City Airport. She said in the middle of her answer, and I'm not sure she meant to go quite this far. She said a third runway will mean
Yeah, I mean, that's not formal confirmation, but it's pretty much there. And interestingly, the chancellor talking about the exact point that Nadine Zaha'u had been talking about, which is the third runaway, will mean that you won't have planes circling over London. So that struck me as pretty clear that Rachel Reeve is going to sit on the nod factor.
Well it sounds a sort of pretty enthusiastic nod but I mean remember we do know there are members of the cabinet Ed Miliband for example who are not happy about it although all the indications from his side is that he would go along with it. I wanted to read Richards.
message. He's a newscaster, please. Those of us who live near Heathrow have been enduring excessive air and noise pollution for years. To add even more to that without consulting, the hundreds of thousands of folks who try to work sleep and bring up healthy children under the invisible smog of LHR would be deeply immoral and it would trash our climate targets.
And there's a very real issue in Sadiq Khan's view is that you cannot say you're going to expand airports and also say that you care about the climate. But also these arguments are not the same as they were 20 years ago when this debate began. Someone should come up with an idea to build an airport at sea off the Thames estuary. That's what someone should do.
Did somebody once upon a time do that? Oh, who came up with that idea. But funnily enough, he wasn't willing to fund it. But if you're shouting at your phone or shouting at us and thinking, stop talking about this, because this is all about London. It's not all about London. It's about the economy that affects all of us because of Heathrow's status in all of that. And also, it's about the politics of the government's overall attitude.
and what they're willing to do to shake the economy out of the gloomy old doldrums. But there are huge issues around noise, around air pollution. And one of the big arguments that you'll have to address with a third runway is not the fuel that is emitted by aeroplanes, but the fuel that is emitted by getting to the airport. And I would have thought the Elizabeth line might be a huge factor in making the case for it because it's now easier to get to Heathrow
Are you a transport correspondent? Well, I feel absolutely impressed by your range of transport technical knowledge. Twice, I've mentioned the Conservatives. Yes. And let's move on to them, but not because I want to shut Nick down in the sense that, you know, I feel that we should go back to discuss the railways, you know, very soon when you come.
But let's talk about the Conservatives because they backed a third runway, didn't they? They did indeed, yes. OK. So one of the questions to ask of the Conservatives is, you say it's all going very badly, but you did turn the keys over of the state and we knew it was a difficult brief. So what you've had Kemi Badenock today, what's the key Sunday journalism question for Kemi Badenock today?
The thing I think is interesting and that is worth questioning, is she really having any impact on her party? Is she able to show any signs of progress, any sign of momentum? And Nick, spending more time in Parliament these days than I do, what is the view among the much depleted group of Conservative MPs on that?
I think the view is that it's sort of Kenny Badenock's progress is like so-so. She has sometimes some reasonable performances at Prime Minister's questions and sometimes some performances that are not exactly going to sort of lift the roof off. And what's interesting is the sort of the nearest comparison was, I remember just after I arrived at Westminster William Hague,
with leader of the Conservative Party, they'd had a similarly awful result. And he used to do the most incredible performances every Wednesday at Prime Minister's questions. And can interrupt as a general journalist, even his opponents laughed at what he said about them. He managed to capture a spirit of being generously critical, because they would labour would laugh at the things he said about. And he was very funny.
And then he jokes now about how it made absolutely no difference at all, because they went up by one net seat at the next election, and that was Tatton and George Osborne. But what it did do was it ensured that he wasn't deposed as Tory leader, because he would be, you know, his position would be looking pretty bad on a Tuesday night. And then he'd do prime interest as question, oh, that's all going to be fine. And so the thing about Kemi Badenock is the point that she makes is when you have had such a terrible defeat,
you need to show some humility that you're listening. And the second big thing she says, and she's saying it to you, is there's no point in making specific promises, because that's what's got us into this mess. Politicians making promises and not delivering. And William Hague was not being nutcracker from the right in the way that Kemi Badernock's being. That came later, the advance of UKIP and all of that came later than William Hague. So I'm told by you, just probably sat down, that you were asking her,
Apropos of Nigel Farage boasting about membership, right? Yes. How many members have you got? Kimi Badenol. And you said it like that. Is that your impression of me? Yes, it is.
uncanny. Absolutely uncanny. But this is the context, right? Is that reform is consistently ahead of the Tories in the polls. And if you go back, like you couldn't have imagined that a couple of years ago, even though before you point this out, you kept it sometimes do incredibly well in local elections and European elections and all those kinds of things. But that's the context for her. It's not just that she has found it difficult to show much momentum. It's that there's a rival party eating her lunch. And she's still
Involved in rightly or wrongly trying to sort of atone for the sins if you like of the government that she was actually part of and she's still putting a lot of effort into trying to distance herself. From the government that she was part of this is one of the things she tried to say this morning. I think that there is more that we could have said but.
I was not running the party then. I am now. And people saw my way of doing things. There were many arguments, which we had, which I didn't win. People saw that. But I was always very loyal, certainly, in public. You have to take collective responsibility. But now I can say the areas where I did disagree. I can talk about some of the things that I did. And I am somebody who doesn't run away from difficult issues.
even when there's personal pain involved. And that's one thing that I see a lot of politicians not want to deal with difficult things because it's too hard. They get attacked a lot, they get vilified. We're moving things along. And I do acknowledge that we made mistakes, but new leadership is going to require us doing some things that people may also not like. But actually, if we're going to earn the public's trust, then they need to see that what we're doing is real.
I think the challenge for Kenny Badenock is that you want to show that you're listening. You don't want to tie yourself down with specific ideas, but you've got to make some noise. You've got to be a big presence. You've got to be a presence in the land. And that's very difficult to do. And I think quite a few conservative MPs are thinking that she's not sort of becoming this big national figure. And that's a thing that is sort of worrying them.
One of the things that she said she felt she had made progress on is pushing the government to refocus again on the grooming gangs scandal. But also this week she's been making a lot of noise to use your phrase about the horror of what happened in Southport, which of course every newscaster would have been appalled and maybe even distressed as we've found out more of the details of what happened there.
But one of the points that Kemi Benok has made in the wake of that is she said it was absurd that as a country we weren't talking about integration more and the failures of integration in regards to this case.
What's interesting is that when you actually look at what happened in this case, there is evidence that his family, Axel Ridicabana's family, was integrated in the community. They were involved in the church. He was born here. There were pictures in one of the papers this morning at him at the drama club that he used to go to. And so we were keen this morning to ask, can we make no?
what her evidence was, the lack of integration actually was a factor in the horror of what happened in Southport. This is what she had to say.
Well, this goes well beyond the community. This isn't just about people making friends in the community. It is about the sense of understanding of who they are, what they are doing in a country, why they are there, and why they should want the success of the people around them, the success of the country, not just feeling like they are so set apart.
We saw evidence from the court case about the materials that he was reading, some of it religious extremism, some of it racial and ethnic hatred. That's enough for us to go on. We don't need to do so much research on this for us to even just have a conversation about integration. And that's what I'm talking about. It's something that I wanted to do in government. I even had a report where we wanted to look at the success of migrants coming in multiple generations. We ran out of time. That's work that I think we need to make a priority.
Yes. Now, the multiple generations angle is a different way of getting around the question of where was this perpetrator born. There's an interesting article by Janice Turner in The Times in the last few days saying that if you're from a country that's seen genocide, then genocide, the horror of genocide can transfer through generations in a family. So one of the things that could happen is that Keir Starmer has promised
that the public inquiry will leave no stone unturned. Well, it's clear if you go around the communities of Britain that people are concerned about intermission. So if he's going to do what he said, the public inquiry should address integration, which is one of the questions that Kimmy Bader once addressed.
Yeah, I think what Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper in the Sunday Times today are talking about is there was clearly a failing that Axel Ridicobana was referred to the prevent scheme on three occasions, and on each occasion it was case closed. This is not for us.
And the failing that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are talking about is that he went to prevent and was looked to prevent because he had this obsessive interest in violence. And the reason why Prevent failed was that they didn't identify an ideological cause. And the point about Prevent, Prevent is trying to prevent radicalisation. Radicalisation is what then leads to offences under the Terrorism Act.
and terrorism under the law is violence, but violence in an ideological cause because he failed the second thing. It wasn't ideological. Prevent said not for us. And what the prime minister is talking about is there have clearly been a number of attacks by lone wolves, very violent, obsessed with violence, not necessarily an ideological cause. How can we capture these people? That is what
They are saying that this inquiry's really got to focus on. Back to the Janice Turner article, it's meant. So there's this misogynistic violence aspect, which needs to be in the public inquiry as well. And that's part of the get for Kemi Badenold. She wants to get and put the Prime Minister to hold his feet to the fire about what his inquiry's going to answer.
And she's saying this has got to be one of the questions. We need a conversation about integration, and others want a conversation about why men go bad. But there are two different things, and I think that some of her critics might make this case about how Kemi Badnock is going about this.
because there are potentially two different aspects to this. One is the integration of communities from different religious, different racial backgrounds of people who are recently arrived in the UK. And are we doing enough as a country to make sure that people live alongside each other happily and also live together happily rather than having these very, very separate communities with all the problems that that can bring?
There's then a different thing which you're talking about, Nick, which is if you ask senior police officers about it, the change in terms of people who are getting mixed up in all sorts of hideous violence in the last few years is what they now call MUU. It's mixed, unclear, unstable.
as a sort of form of a dangerous radical stuff that people are looking at and i'm afraid it is as you say nearly always young men looking at material that might be misogynistic it might be in cell material it might be islamist material it might be hateful white nationalist material it might just be videos of extreme violence with no particular cause and it's that mixture of stuff it's called m u u
that senior police and now the prevent people have identified as a category. But as you were saying, it's not really captured by the current legal framework because the law was written before this really existed as a threat. And that's what is very difficult for, I think, for governments not just here, but in other countries also to grapple with, because it's involved and it's a new thing. And frankly, they don't really know what to do about it.
and the report into the olden rights, which is what well over 10 years ago, that identified people living parallel lives, which is people living really close to each other, totally, and completely different lives. And yeah, maybe that sort of thing needs to be looked at.
What you've just said about parallel lives needs to be looked into, it would resonate with the daughter of the murdered MP, Sir David Amos, who I spoke to today, Katie Amos. She says there is a link which is not being examined between the stabbing, fatal stabbing of her father by a man who had been referred to prevent and the killings in Southport by a young boy who had been referred to prevent. She says there is a link.
and the state has not owned up to what mistakes have been made, and this is what she told me. Everything is known to the government and to prevent, but nothing is known to my family and the public. So it hasn't been learned. The lessons have not been learned then.
been learned. If they'd have been learned that we wouldn't be sitting here today, we've had three and a half years since what happened to my dad, we wouldn't be sitting here today with the same kind of profile of the person that did it to the Southport, the tiny girls in Southport. Nothing's been learned. It's all just verbiage and no one has been held accountable, not one person.
So there we are, she's using the word profile. I've explained that both perpetrators have been referred to prevent. So we can see that this public inquiry has got a lot, it's freighted before it's even opened. Yeah, no doubt about that. We should also though say alongside that very difficult area for the government, there will be one thing for Downing Street that they will have been absolutely delighted by this morning. One of our BBC colleagues managed to collar
Donald Trump on Air Force One and ask him what he thought of care stommer. And this is what he said. I get along with him well, I like him a lot. He's liberal, which is a little bit different for me.
But I think he's a very good person. I think he's done a very good job thus far. He's very new with the job. But he's represented his country in terms of his philosophy. I may not agree with his philosophy, but I have a very good relationship with him. I've seen him twice in dinner with him in Trump Tower.
So, Nick, I thought, blimey, not that Donald Trump ever doesn't change his mind, but hearing that will be a big sigh of relief because there are a lot of nerves in government about whether or not the UK is going to be, I was going to say, NFI to the US government. That was a very rude way of saying there were nerves about how much Donald Trump was going to welcome them in, right?
But what is interesting about Don Trump's language there is he's clearly thought about this, which is, Kear Starmer and I were different people. We have different views, but I can do business with him. And then he said something specific, which is really interesting. I'm going to be talking to Kear Starmer really soon. Now, what's interesting about that is I spoke to somebody in government who would pretty much know what's going on. And they told me earlier last week, there will be a phone call probably within a week.
Well, it looks like that is happening. The second thing this person told me is the Donald Trump team are very unhappy about Peter Mandelson being made ambassador. They say, why not just hold on to Karen Pierce? She does a great job. But what this person told me is the Peter Mandelson ambassadorship will go through. Trump is not going to stop that.
Then the third thing this person told me is on the Chagos Island, which is us handing sovereignty over to Mauritius, real unease, real unhappiness in the Trump administration on that. But fundamentally, they think eventually he will let it go through. So we're beginning to test whether what that person told me is true. And on the first one, talk within a week. It's happening.
Very, very interesting indeed. And also it's a really good quote today for Labour, having had all the headlines we've been talking about. He's a good guy. He's doing a good job. He's a liberal. I mean, that's not, I'm not a liberal, but you know, he's a liberal. I mean, those are, that's quite, that's not fighting talk at all, is it? It's, I can do business with you talk. It's also another one of your marvellous impressions. But it sounds a lot like my impression of you. That's the problem.
It's an omnipression. It's an omnipression. It's an omnipression. I think Paul McCartney would be rallying to Laura's defence and say, Paddy, you don't sound a bit like that. But anyway, you have, in the middle of that, you gave us a scoop. Phone call within days. Well, Trump said it in that. He said, I'm going to be talking to him soon. I'm just saying that, that ties in with what somebody in the government told me on that timeframe.
Well, it's been lovely being with both of you and thank you for listening. Goodbye. Goodbye.
Don't forget, you can email us anytime. It's newscast.bbc.co.uk. And if you would like to join our Discord community to talk about everything newscast related, there is a link in the description of this podcast. And don't be scared, it's super easy to click on it and then get set up. Or you can WhatsApp us on 0330-123-9480. And I promise you, we read and listen to every single message. Thanks for listening to this podcast. Bye.
Yoga is more than just exercise. It's the spiritual practice that millions swear by. And in 2017, Miranda, a university tutor from London, joins a yoga school that promises profound transformation. It felt a really safe and welcoming space. After yoga classes, I felt amazing.
But soon, that calm, welcoming atmosphere leads to something far darker, a journey that leads to allegations of grooming, trafficking and exploitation across international borders. I don't have my passport, I don't have my phone, I don't have my bank cards, I have nothing. The passport being taken, being in a house and not feeling like they can leave.
World of Secrets is where untold stories are unveiled and hidden realities are exposed. In this new series, we're confronting the dark side of the wellness industry with the hope of a spiritual breakthrough gives way to disturbing accusations. You just get sucked in so gradually.
and it's done so skillfully that you don't realise. And it's like this, the secret that's there. I wanted to believe that, you know, that
Whatever they were doing, even if it seemed gross to me, was for some spiritual reason that I couldn't yet understand. Revealing the hidden secrets of a global yoga network, I feel that I have no other choice. The only thing I can do is to speak about this and to put my reputation and everything else on the line. I want truth and justice.
and further people to not be hurt for things to be different in the future. To bring it into the light and almost alchemise some of that evil stuff that went on and take back the power. World of Secrets Season 6, the Bad Guru. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.