thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Priti Patel Bullying Report: Here's What We Know

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Chaos erupted after Boris Johnson’s standards chief resigned over the PM’s decision to stand by Priti Patel despite an investigation finding the home secretary guilty of bullying.
Sir Alex Allan’s report found that Patel had “not consistently met the high standards expected of her”, and that her conduct “amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying”.
Advertisement
But Johnson, who has the final say, decided the ministerial code had not been breached.
Patel apologised on Friday, saying she was “sorry that my behaviour in the past has upset people”.
Here’s what we know about Patel’s case, and the contents of the report.
What were the allegations?
A Cabinet Office investigation was launched in March over allegations that Patel belittled colleagues and clashed with senior officials in three different departments. It followed the resignation of the Home Office’s permanent secretary Sir Philip Rutnam, who accused Patel of a “vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign” against him and is claiming constructive dismissal at an employment tribunal. Patel has always denied the allegations, expressing concern at the “false” claims. Allies have described her as a “demanding” boss but not a bully.
Will we ever actually see the report?
It is unlikely that the full report on the inquiry will ever be made public.
Instead, a short assessment of the report’s findings has been released by Allan.
The revelation that the full report will not be made public has been met with anger by Labour MPs, who have accused the government of a “cover-up” and demanded the details be made public.
Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds said suggestions that Boris Johnson would not sack Patel showed “all the hallmarks of a prime ministerial cover-up”.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme before Johnson’s decision: “I think we need to see the full report, it needs to be published in full, line by line, and the home secretary and the prime minister need to come to parliament to answer questions because the revelations in recent days have been extraordinarily serious.
Advertisement
“I’m afraid this really does have all the hallmarks of a prime ministerial cover-up and raises questions about his judgment.
“If what has been reported is correct, then it is tantamount to the prime minister condoning bullying.”
This stinks of a cover up.
Bullying in the workplace must never be condoned.https://t.co/l3ZhpfG7s5 — David Lammy (@DavidLammy) November 19, 2020
Spot on from @HollyLynch5 - we need to see the investigation in full - to ensure there has been no cover-up to protect Priti Patel. https://t.co/SB4OkOf55k — Chris Elmore MP (@CPJElmore) November 20, 2020
What do we know about what’s in it?
Reports of what the investigation found began to emerge on Thursday and while details are still scarce, Allan’s statement has shone more light on what allegations Patel had been faced with.
Advertisement
The adviser said Patel’s frustrations had seen her shout and swear in some instances.
In his published advice, he said: “She is action-orientated and can be direct.
“The home secretary has also become – justifiably in many instances – frustrated by the Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in DfID (the now defunct Department for International Development) three years ago.
“The evidence is that this has manifested itself in forceful expression, including some occasions of shouting and swearing.
“This may not be done intentionally to cause upset, but that has been the effect on some individuals.”
Crucially, he found that the home secretary’s conduct could amount “to behaviour that can be described as bullying” by individuals.
He said: “The home secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect.
Advertisement
“Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.”
But Allan did say Patel’s conduct needed to be viewed “in context”, adding that there was “no evidence” she knew the impact of her behaviour as “no feedback was given to her at the time.”
He continued: “The high pressure and demands of the role, in the Home Office, coupled with the need for more supportive leadership from top of the department has clearly been a contributory factor.
“In particular, I note the finding of different and more positive behaviour since these issues were raised with her.”
What does the ministerial code say about bullying?
The 36-page ministerial code mades two references to bullying – one of which is made explicitly in the foreword by Johnson in August 2019.
Advertisement
As part of an overview of the rules he wrote specifically: “There must be no bullying and no harassment.”
The actual detail of the code states: “Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the ministerial code and will not be tolerated.”
Normally, ministers are expected to resign if they breach the code.
While other advisers are frequently involved, the decision on whether or not there has been a breach of ministerial code is ultimately at the discretion of the PM.
Patel has been here before. She was forced to quit as development secretary in 2017 after freelance meetings with senior Israeli government figures including PM Benjamin Netanyahu while on a summer holiday in the country.
She was forced to publicly apologise for not informing the Foreign Office of the meetings, but suggested that Johnson – foreign secretary at the time – knew in advance of her visit.
Advertisement
Then-prime minister Theresa May was forced to call Patel into No.10 at the time to discuss with her a possible breach of the code.
What has Patel said?
In a statement on Friday morning Patel said: “I am sorry that my behaviour in the past has upset people. It has never been my intention to cause upset to anyone.
“I am very grateful for the hard work of thousands of civil servants who help to deliver the Government’s agenda.
“I care deeply about delivering on the commitments we have made to the people of this country and I acknowledge that I am direct and have at times got frustrated.
“I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his support.
“The permanent secretary and I are working closely together to deliver on the vital job the Home Office has to do for the country.”
Advertisement
How have Tory MPs reacted so far?
After refusing to sack Patel, the PM reportedly sent a Whatsapp out to Tory MP’s urging them to “form a square around the prittster”.
EXC: PM whatsapp order to Tory MPs: “Time to form a square around the prittster”https://t.co/u3GKiggVyC pic.twitter.com/irEVhuPX6V — Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) November 20, 2020
It appeared to mark a continuation of the strategy used by Tory MPs as they faced questioned from journalists on Thursday evening and Friday morning.
Before even apparently reading the report, Tory MP James Cleverly defended Patel on BBC Question Time on Thursday evening.
He said: “Well I haven’t seen the report and I am incredibly uncomfortable speculating about the contents of a report that I haven’t seen or pontificating about what actions might be taken from that.
Advertisement
“I know Priti Patel very well, she’s a neighbouring MP of mine and I have known her from long before either she or I became MPs and my observation of her is that she has always expected and demanded that people work hard.
“I think that is a completely legitimate attitude to take into government. The Home Office is the department that keeps us safe, it has to deal with some incredibly important and sensitive issues, and that does mean that people need to be decisive and hardworking.”
Cleverly continued: “It is the job of ministers to make sure that departments function at their ultimate output.”
At that point Labour MP Emily Thornberry interjected, adding: “Not by bullying people. You don’t get optimal output by bullying people, do you?
“You do it by challenging them, and you do by being clear, but you don’t do it by bullying people. You know that.”
Advertisement
Health secretary Matt Hancock also defended Patel on Friday morning, telling BBC Breakfast he felt “very proud” to serve in a cabinet with her.
“I think she’s doing an excellent job and is an excellent home secretary and really delivering on things that matter to people,” he said.
“In all the dealings I’ve ever had with her she’s been nothing but courteous.”
Leader of the commons Jacob Rees-Mogg said Patel was a “formidable home secretary” and an “asset to government”, and senior Tory MP Tom Tugendhat, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said the home secretary has support across the party because she is “hard working, determined and has been very kind to many”.
What have the opposition said?
Within minutes of the PM’s conclusion, leading Labour figures came out in force to condemn the decision.
Party leader Sir Keir Starmer said: “Yet again, the Prime Minister has been found wanting when his leadership has been tested. If I were Prime Minister, the Home Secretary would have been removed from her job.
Advertisement
“It is hard to imagine another workplace in the UK where this behaviour would be condoned by those at the top.
“The government should be setting an example. Instead, it is one rule for Boris Johnson and his friends, another for everyone else.
“The prime minister has previously said he ‘loathes bullying’. Yet when one of his own ministers is found to have bullied their staff he ignores the damning report sat on his desk and instead protects them.
“In the interest of transparency, the report into Priti Patel’s conduct and any drafts should now be fully published and the Prime Minister and Home Secretary should come to the House on Monday to face questions on their conduct.”
Responding to the findings Jess Phillips, the Labour MP and shadow minister for domestic violence, tweeted: “What an utter disgrace.
Advertisement
“While the government asks the entire country to stick to the rules it also cannot in good faith say that rules don’t apply to them.
“Any Tory seeking to defend this is utterly without reason or comprehension.
“In all my years of working with those who have suffered at the hands of those who use power to control and bully people I can tell you that when people get away with it it makes their behaviour worse where you might think it made them cautious, it doesn’t.”
While the Government asks the entire country to stick to the rules it also cannot in good faith say that rules don't apply to them. Any tory seeking to defend this is utterly without reason or comprehension. — Jess Phillips MP (@jessphillips) November 20, 2020
Labour MP David Lammy, the shadow justice secretary, tweeted that Johnson’s decision was “another spineless, hypocritical and pathetic failure of leadership”.
Boris Johnson condoning bullying by keeping @pritipatel in post despite his advisor’s resignation is another spineless, hypocritical and pathetic failure of leadership.
Once again it’s one rule for the @Conservatives and another for everyone else. — David Lammy (@DavidLammy) November 20, 2020


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--The Chase Introduces New Quiz Expert Darragh Ennis – Here's Everything You Need To Know About 'The M

The Chase Introduces New Quiz Expert Darragh Ennis – Here's Everything You Need To Know About 'The Menace'

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media .
We and our partners will store and/or access information on your device through @ @ @ @ @ similar technologies , to display personalised ads and content , for ad and content measurement @ @ @ @ @ development .
Your personal data that may be used • Information about your device and @ @ @ @ @ IP address • Browsing and search activity while using Verizon Media websites and apps Find @ @ @ @ @ use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy .
To enable Verizon Media @ @ @ @ @ your personal data select ' I agree ' , or select 'Manage settings ' for @ @ @ @ @ your choices .
You can change your choices at any time by visiting Your Privacy @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Chase has welcomed a new Chaser into the fold, with the introduction of Darragh “The Menace” Ennis.
Here’s everything you need to know...
Who is Darragh Ennis?
Darragh is a 40-year-old Oxford-based scientist who hails from Dublin.
He will be fitting in his new TV commitments around his day job.
He is currently studying how brains work and how memories are made at a molecular level.
“We use very advanced microscopes to study fly brains and their nervous system as a model to better understand how the human brain works,” he explained.
Advertisement
The Chase's new Chaser Darragh “The Menace” Ennis ITV
He initially appeared on the show as a contestant
He first took on Paul Sinha on The Chase in 2017, scooping an impressive £9,000 for his team, who later all took minus offers from the Chaser, meaning his overall total was depleted.
The episode caused a stir online, with #JusticeForDarragh trending on Twitter after it aired.
Darragh’s Chaser name will be The Menace
And he didn’t actually know what it would be until he walked out on set for the first time.
“I like it, it’s good,” he said. “I can’t wait for the merchandise. My friend has already said he wants me in Toby Jug form.”
His Chaser attire sees him sport a velvet paisley print jacket and bolo tie
“I had originally said that I genuinely didn’t care about the costume and that I would come out in a chicken suit if they wanted to – which I think they were tempted to do for a moment in time,” Darragh said.
Advertisement
They played around with a few different things. The tie is a bolo tie, a kind of Wild West thing. They found this really cool paisley material for the jacket - I really like the jacket.”
Darragh’s weakest areas are cricket and popular culture
“I stopped paying attention to music around 2005,” he said.
He cites his best subject as history as his mother was a history teacher.
He has a special trick for remembering facts
Darragh uses “little songs, rhymes and poems” to help him memorise things.
“I wasn’t doing it too much until I started on the show. I’ve found it’s a good way to memorise positions of things like capital cities,” he revealed.
Darragh is the first new addition to the Chasers since 2015
He will become the sixth Chaser on the popular ITV quiz show, joining formidable quizzing pros Jenny ‘The Vixen’ Ryan, Shaun ‘The Dark Destroyer’ Wallace, Mark ‘The Beast’ Labbett, Anne ‘The Governess’ Hegerty and Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha.
The Chase launched in 2009 with just Mark and Shaun before Anne joined the group a year later, with Paul added in 2011. Jenny then became the show’s fifth resident Chaser in 2015.
Bradley Walsh (centre) with the other Chasers ITV/Shutterstock
Advertisement
But there’s no rivalry with his new co-stars
“We’re mildly competitive, but we are more of an encouraging team that works together, rather than trying to impress each other,” he insisted.
“Personally, I want to reach certain goals. I want to be good at this. So I do work quite hard at that. I do a lot of studying and I do work at it. Impressing myself is the main thing, I think.”
His first Final Chase didn’t go exactly to plan
“I got a few wrong, five wrong. At least two of those were because I really wasn’t paying attention to the questions properly,” he said.
However, he still managed to defeat his opponents, saying it was important to get a first win.
He said: “It’s like Heathrow Terminal 5, when it wasn’t going well the first day, everyone just wrote it off. It’s a thing that humans do, if something doesn’t work the first time people get a bias against you and they keep that in their mind always, no matter what the evidence is afterwards. So it was good to get a first win.”
He already rates his chances on I’m A Celebrity
Asked if he could follow co-star Anne Hegerty into the jungle, Darragh said: “I’d probably be very good at I’m A Celebrity because in my day job I work with insects and I have no fear of creepy crawlies whatsoever. But I am terrified of heights so I wouldn’t be able to jump out of any helicopters.
Advertisement
“But I have no ambitions at the moment. I’m too busy, I’ve got a job on top of being a Chaser.”
The Chase airs weekdays at 5pm on ITV.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Women In Their Mid-30s Will 'Never Know Equal Pay' At Work

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Women in their mid-30s now will never know equal pay in their working lives, according to a new report, which suggests that at the current rate of progress, the gap will not be closed until 2052.
The pandemic has had a “devastating” impact on workplace equality, according to the analysis by The Fawcett Society.
Advertisement
The report suggests the UK is at a “coronavirus crossroads” as large numbers of working women are worried about their job or promotion prospects due to the pandemic.
The charity published research on the impact of Covid-19 on equality to mark Equal Pay Day, the date when women are said to effectively start to work for free because, on average, they are paid less than men.
Mayur Kakade via Getty Images
The survey of more than 8,400 adults found that a third of working mothers have lost work or hours due to a lack of childcare during the pandemic.
Advertisement
The group said women faced “significant risks” of unfair redundancies after furlough and the possibility of the childcare sector “collapsing”, but it also found signs of hope that more mums would be able to access flexible working.
It also suggested that certain changes caused by the pandemic – such as fathers spending more time at home – could actually accelerate gender equality.
Equal sharing of care in the home would create more equal opportunities in work, reduce the so-called ‘motherhood penalt’ and cut the gender pay gap, said the Fawcett Society.
General secretary Sam Smethers said: “Throughout the last century, crises comparable to the pandemic have been forks in the path of history. The Second World War gave birth to the welfare state; the winter of discontent led to a new Thatcherite era. The coronavirus crisis puts us at a crossroads again and it is clear that this applies to the gender pay gap.”
The data demonstrates once again that Black, Asian and minority ethnicity women have suffered disproportionately in the pandemic.
Advertisement
“We must recognise the racial and gender inequality that exists in the UK and how they intersect. This is why we need gender pay reporting by ethnicity,” Smethers added.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Jimmy Kimmel Stuns Barack Obama With An Absolutely Filthy 'Personal Question'

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Jimmy Kimmel got extremely personal with former President Barack Obama on Thursday night.
The late-night host said he had asked Michelle Obama during a previous interview if the first couple had gotten intimate on the night the president ordered the raid that led to the killing of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
Jimmy claimed she promised to tell him the story the next time they spoke.
The flustered former president quickly looked off to his side, then stammered out a response.
“Did... did... did she say she was going to answer that?” he asked in disbelief.
Jimmy insisted she did, and said the president’s new memoir, A Promised Land, has him wondering about it all over again.
Advertisement
“When I read the book and you were talking about hearing people outside the White House chanting ‘USA! USA! USA!’ I had an image in my head,” Jimmy said. “I did.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--White House Plans In-Person Holiday Parties As Covid-19 Cases Rise

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The White House plans to host its annual Hanukkah reception next month, even as coronavirus cases are on the rise around the country.
The reception is scheduled for 3 pm on December 9, according to a copy of the invitation, which was shared with HuffPost by the recipient. There were no instructions included about special coronavirus precautions.
Advertisement
The White House is also planning its Christmas party, looking at December 10 as a potential date, according to a GOP source on the Hill.
The White House did not immediately return a request for comment on whether officials plan to implement any safety measures. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency first reported on the Hanukkah event.
A crowded scene from the White House's 2018 Hanukkah party. Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put out new guidelines Thursday, stating that “postponing travel and staying home is the best way to protect yourself and others this year.”
Advertisement
Typically, hundreds of people ― from all over the country ― attend White House holiday receptions.
The White House has shown little interest in taking steps to slow the spread of the coronavirus. President Donald Trump’s Rose Garden ceremony to nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court in September became a “superspreader event.” Many of the 150 guests did not wear masks or practice social distancing. Shortly after, a number of people who attended became sick.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Rudy Giuliani's Face Oozed On Live TV And Twitter Went Into Meltdown Too

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Never mind the lies and conspiracy theories Rudy Giuliani was spouting at a news conference on Thursday, it was his oozing face that had everyone asking “WTF?”.
All eyes were on the former New York mayor and personal attorney to President Donald Trump when this happened...
Advertisement
Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani appeared to be sweating a dark colour from his temples as he gave a news conference.
Latest news from the US here: https://t.co/zFeaRB4gbw pic.twitter.com/IMMXwLFDOh — SkyNews (@SkyNews) November 20, 2020
As the mysterious dark liquid emerged from his sideburns and oozed down both sides, US talk show host Jimmy Kimmel joked: “How scary is this? It’s a grampire, run for your life!”
Meanwhile, over on Twitter...
Evidently, Rudy's election fraud allegations aren’t the only thing he can’t make stick. pic.twitter.com/6rGmU4227s — Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) November 20, 2020
Advertisement
Rush Giuliani has given his blood, sweat and grease this election.#RudyGiuliani pic.twitter.com/cXSJHeHauv — Sharath Babu (@Sharath85) November 20, 2020
Rudy melting like a chocolate sundae on a summer day. pic.twitter.com/nRpVPHESeb — Brad Smith (@thebradsmith) November 19, 2020
Advertisement
Seeing the images of #RudyGiuliani leaking head reminds me of that episode of Frasier where Martin uses "Colour in a Can" and unwittingly decides to sit next to the fire! pic.twitter.com/JYThgigYxZ — Lee Milsom (@123LSM123) November 20, 2020
So just what the hell was that liquid? One theory was freshly-applied leaky hair dye.
“Hair dye doesn’t drip like that, unless it’s just been applied,” David Kholdorov of the Men’s Lounge Barbershop told The New York Times.
Another theory was that Giuliani had used mascara to darken his sideburns.
“Sideburns are more grey than the rest of the head,” Mirko Vergani, creative colour director at the Drawing Room in Manhattan, told the Times. “You can apply mascara to touch the grey side up a bit so it looks more natural.”
Advertisement
Or had Giuliani been taking (bad) fake tan advice from his pal Donald Trump?


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Trump Has Appointed Two White Nationalists To Government Roles Since Losing The Election

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Since losing his reelection bid earlier this month, President Donald Trump has appointed two men with well-documented white nationalist ties to government roles, raising urgent questions about whether they’ll still have jobs under Democratic President-elect Joe Biden.
Darren J. Beattie, a former White House speechwriter fired in 2018 after it was revealed he’d spoken at a white nationalist conference, announced Wednesday that Trump had appointed him to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad.
Advertisement
On November 13, the Trump administration also appointed Jason Richwine — a policy analyst pushed out of a conservative think tank for writing that Mexican and other Latino immigrants have lower IQs than white people — to a senior position at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
“The US government should not be giving posts to people with ties to white nationalists, end of story,” Lecia Brooks, chief of staff at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told HuffPost in a statement. “Under the leadership of the Trump administration, our government has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to work with or amplify voices from the far-right racist fringe, and they appear willing to do so until the bitter end of the president’s term in office.”
But will Beattie and Richwine still have these jobs once Biden is inaugurated in January? The answer illuminates the sometimes complicated and confusing process by which transitions between White House administrations occur.
Karen Hult, a professor of political science at Virginia Tech and board member of the White House Transition Project, told HuffPost that most political appointees are expected to submit a resignation letter after a new president takes office.
Advertisement
This is the likely scenario for Richwine, she said.
“Although not all of these resignations are accepted, in this case it seems clear it would be,” Hult said.
Richwine, 38, resigned from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, in 2013 after co-authoring a widely mocked report about immigrants being a drain on the economy.
His resignation came after media scrutiny of his past racist writings, most notably his Harvard dissertation, in which he stated that Latinos and Mexican immigrants had lower IQs than whites and that “the difference is likely to persist over several generations.” The US, Richwine argued, should select only high-IQ immigrants in order to prevent “underclass behaviour.”
Richwine also wrote two stories for Alternativeright.com, the website founded by white supremacist figurehead Richard Spencer.
More recently, as noted by Science magazine, Richwine has co-authored reports for the Center for Immigration Studies, which the SPLC deems a white nationalist organisation.
Advertisement
Despite this history of white nationalism, Hult said, “Dr. Richwine can add being deputy undersecretary of commerce for standards and technology to his résumé” — even if he’ll only be in the position for a couple months.
Lame-duck presidents often make appointments to pad the résumés of friends and loyalists.
“These sorts of things not infrequently take place at the end of administrations,” Hult said. “They can be short-term résumé builders for some or longer-term, mostly ceremonial appointments for others. Of greater concern for many is when political appointees ‘burrow in’ to career service jobs.”
This is the concern about Beattie, whose appointment to the Commission for the Preservation of American Heritage Abroad drew sharp criticism from Jewish groups this week.
Darren J. Beattie, who was fired as a White House speechwriter after speaking at a white nationalist conference, announced Wednesday that Trump had appointed him to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad. Fox News
The commission, whose website isn’t currently working, is devoted in part to preserving Holocaust memorials and other sites associated with the genocide in Europe.
Advertisement
If Beattie’s appointment is finalized, according to a Congressional Research Services description of his new role, he’d serve a three-year term on the commission.
“Though a President Biden could not remove him, the president or allies might request that he step down,” Hult told HuffPost, but Beattie could refuse to do so.
A spokesman for Biden’s transition team didn’t respond to a HuffPost request for comment on how it might address Beattie’s appointment.
Beattie, who is Jewish, has extremely deep ties to white nationalists and anti-Semites.
He served as a speechwriter in the Trump administration until 2018. He was dismissed after revelations that he’d spoken at the 2016 gathering of the H.L. Mencken Club, an annual conference that routinely attracts prominent white nationalists.
He had appeared on a panel at the conference alongside Peter Brimelow, founder of the white nationalist and anti-immigrant website VDare.
Advertisement
Beattie has since become a frequent booster and ally of Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist who rallied alongside neo-Nazis at 2017’s deadly “Unite the Right” demonstration in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Nick Fuentes, the leader of the white nationalist America First, or Groypers, movement, in Washington, D.C., on November 4. Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Fuentes is a leading figure in the America First, or Groyper, movement, one of the more recent incarnations of the explicitly racist and anti-Semitic alt-right. Fuentes hosts a live-stream show in which he has promoted Holocaust denial and called for law enforcement to kill anti-racism protesters.
“I want to Roman salute my president so bad,” Fuentes once said of Trump, referring to the fascist arm gesture most commonly associated with the Nazis.
Fuentes also once explained that the only reason he doesn’t call himself a white nationalist is for branding purposes, “not because I don’t see the necessity for white people to have a homeland and for white people to have a country.”
Advertisement
Beattie has frequently retweeted Fuentes and promoted his work. Fuentes, in turn, has called Beattie “brilliant” and “honourable.”
This from the guy who is friendly with the Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, and who works for the congressman who brought a different Holocaust denier to SOTU ‘18.......https://t.co/AlsSW5tpJ7 https://t.co/JpZf7lv7zO pic.twitter.com/1Wj5FRRQMl — Sophie #DefundNYPD Ellman-Golan (@EgSophie) August 25, 2020
Earlier this year, Beattie issued a white nationalist call to arms on Twitter, writing, “If white people are targeted as a group, they must learn to defend themselves as a group.”
He has also promoted the fascist, misogynistic and anti-Semitic self-help manifesto Bronze Age Mindset.
Beattie did not respond to a HuffPost request for comment on his new role on the commission or about his well-documented white nationalism.
Advertisement
Stosh Cotler, CEO of Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, expressed dismay over Beattie’s appointment.
“Even as we cross the grim milestone of a quarter-million Americans dying from Covid, with Trump’s administration failing to protect Americans or provide desperately needed economic relief, Trump is using his final weeks in office to spread fear and lies and promote white nationalists and neo-fascists like Darren Beattie,” Cotler said.
Cotler added that the “ties between government, the Republican Party and hate groups have become so commonplace” that Beattie’s appointment was, sadly, not surprising.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--10 Showbiz Highlights That Put A Smile On Our Faces This Week | Good Vibes Only

10 Showbiz Highlights That Put A Smile On Our Faces This Week | Good Vibes Only
The stars of the I’m A Celebrity castle are not disappointing, the cast of The Crown’s fourth series bundled together on set to watch Naked Attraction. Harry Styles’ caused controversy (for some reason) by donning a dress on the US cover of Vogue, Holly and Phil cracked up at some dirty vegetables and the Bake Off finale looms after Hermine’ controversial exit.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Gorilla Tends To Injured Bird In Heart-Melting Display Of Kindness

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The World Wildlife Fund calls gorillas “gentle giants” ― and a new viral clip of one primate shows why. (Watch it below.)
A gorilla appears to tend to an injured bird and encourage it to fly at a zoo in New South Wales, Australia, according to video posted by Viral Hog.
Advertisement
In the clip, the gorilla approaches the stationary bird and lies down for a closer look. He then gently touches the bird several times, prompting one observer to say it “looks like he’s trying to get it to go.”
The bird flutters its wings and the gorilla eventually saunters off.
“How awesome was that?” a woman says in the clip.
The presumed videographer said of the November 10 scene in the YouTube description: “The gorilla walked away without ever harming it. It was amazing such a big animal could be so gentle.”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--British Dad Blinded And Paralysed After Being Bitten By Snake While Battling Covid

A British father is suffering from blindness and paralysis in a hospital in India after being bitten by a snake while battling Covid-19, his family have said.
Ian Jones is in intensive care after being bitten by a black king cobra in a village in the north west of the country.
The former healthcare worker, who lives on the Isle of Wight with his family, had been in India for months where he runs Sabirian, a charity-backed social enterprise aimed at helping people trade their way out of poverty.
His family have described their shock at what had happened in Jodhpur, Rajasthan but described Jones as a “fighter”, and have said they are hopeful the blindness and paralysis are temporary.
Jones’s son Seb said his father had already experienced malaria, dengue fever and Covid-19 but had “remained resolute in his determination to stay in the country and continue his work to help the people that needed his support”.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Rudy Giuliani's Face Was Oozing On Live TV, And Now We May Know Why

LOADING ERROR LOADING
It was the ooze seen ’round the world.
Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and personal attorney to President Donald Trump, delivered a wild news conference loaded with lies and conspiracy theories on Thursday.
But it wasn’t his outlandish and evidence-free allegations about the election that got all of the attention.
Advertisement
It was his face, as a dark liquid emerged from his sideburns and oozed down both sides.
Jimmy Kimmel called it the best part of the news conference.
“He was literally dyeing up there today,” he said, calling it something out of a sci-fi horror movie.
“How scary is this?” Kimmel said. “It’s a grampire, run for your life!”
“I know this could be the end of American democracy,” cracked “The Daily Show” host Trevor Noah. “But, guys, this shit is hilarious.”
He called it proof of “leakers” in the Trump White House.
“Honest question: Was his hair dye dripping? Was his brain shitting itself?” he wondered. “You know your legal strategy is fucked up when even your hair starts crying about it.”
Advertisement
On social media, the leading theory was hair dye oozing down Giuliani’s face.
However, The New York Times spoke to several hairstylists ― and they agreed it was possible that dye was the culprit, they were also sceptical.
“Hair dye doesn’t drip like that unless it’s just been applied,” David Kholdorov of the Men’s Lounge Barbershop told the newspaper.
One theory is that Giuliani had used mascara to darken his sideburns.
“Sideburns are more grey than the rest of the head,” Mirko Vergani, creative colour director at the Drawing Room in Manhattan, told the Times. “You can apply mascara to touch the grey side up a bit so it looks more natural.”
Another expert told The Daily Beast it could have been something else.
“He looks like to be wearing a decent amount of fake tan or bronzer or some kind of face makeup,” Blackstones colourist and educator Patti O’Gara told the website. “So if it’s not a shitty hair dye situation, it could be fake tan dripping because it does streak like that when you sweat. It’s hard to tell where it’s originating from – his hair or his skin.”
Advertisement
Another stylist suggested that it could have been dye... but just a very cheap one.
Nicole Wingo of Barber of Hell’s Bottom in Washington, D.C., told Slate it could have been a topical product, such as a tinted gel from a drugstore.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Revealed: How Home Office Is Ignoring Covid By Locking People Up – Again

LOADING ERROR LOADING
People who were released from detention centres at the start of the pandemic are being quietly locked up again, HuffPost UK can reveal – despite the health risks and uncertainty caused by the second wave.
Detainees are having to isolate in Morton Hall detention centre after cases of Covid-19 were identified there last week, while those awaiting deportation are in limbo with flights repeatedly cancelled at short notice.
Advertisement
“There is very little concern for the wellbeing of individuals and the spreading of the disease,” said Adam Spray, solicitor and legal manager for Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID).
“We’re in another lockdown, but we’re having people taken from their homes where they’re supposed to be staying as much as they can.
“Households are being mixed because they’re being taken into detention centres, they’re being put on planes as we’re being asked not to travel, and yet here we are moving people around just for the administrative convenience of the secretary of state.”
A Home Office spokesperson did not specify how many people had been affected by the disease outbreak at Morton Hall, saying only that it involved a “very small number” of cases in a “contained area”.
Advertisement
They added: “We are following Public Health England (PHE) guidance and we have a number of robust measures, supported by the High Court, in place to ensure the health and safety of both staff and residents on site.”
Hundreds of detainees were released at the start of the pandemic amid fears of outbreaks inside removal centres, as well as the cancellation of most flights and the rapid closure of borders worldwide.
Yet those people are now being re-detained – despite a fresh wave of flight cancellations throwing deportation dates into chaos, leaving them stranded indefinitely and seriously impacting their mental health.
Spray described the government’s “premature” approach as “wishful thinking”, adding: “What we’ve seen anecdotally, and what is certainly reflected in the contact we’ve been receiving from individuals in detention, is the numbers are going up again.
“The Home Office is deciding to detain people again, which seems like odd timing given that pretty much everything else in the sphere of public life has been asked to go back into lockdown.
Advertisement
“They seem to be arguing, perhaps a bit illogically, that in the first lockdown lockdown their removal wasn’t possible because of the flight restrictions and travel bans, but they think that situation is changing and they can remove people again. I’m not really sure if that’s supported by what’s happening in the real world.”
Under a set of EU laws known as the Dublin Regulation, some asylum seekers can currently be deported by the UK to the first “safe” EU country they entered, but Brexit could put an abrupt end to this on December 31.
Spray explained that he and other legal experts working in immigration were concerned that a potential looming deadline could be motivating the Home Office to enforce as many removals as possible, despite Covid concerns.
He said: “The number of charter flights we’ve seen over the past couple of months, even in spite of the pandemic, is much greater than you’d usually expect to see. We don’t have the actual figures at the moment, but anecdotally it really seems that way.
“I do think that’s a direct consequence of the Home Office being concerned that they’ll lose this route for removing people if we lose our participation in Dublin after December 31.”
Advertisement
Caseworkers have repeatedly seen flights cancelled in the past weeks and months, with people left “in limbo” in detention centres nervously awaiting a deportation that doesn’t come.
Detention centres are intended to facilitate the removal of individuals from the UK, and the Home Office has insisted that it does not detain people indefinitely. But Covid-19 is undeniably complicating removals, meaning some people are being held without knowing when they will be sent back to their country of origin.
Spray said one individual he’d been working on behalf of had been told five times within a matter of weeks that his deportation was imminent, only for the actual removal to fall through at the last moment due to coronavirus restrictions.
He said: “We represent clients who have served custodial prison sentences for committing crimes and have then been detained under immigration powers, and we hear all the time how serving a prison sentence is easier because you have an end date.
“That uncertainty takes a really large psychological toll on the people who are going through that. It must be borne in mind that the people who find themselves in immigration detention have often already experienced trauma or persecution.
Advertisement
“Then on top of that you’ve got Covid concerns – lots of people have health issues, they’re concerned about their wellbeing, they’re not able to properly self-isolate within the detention centre. It’s hugely stressful.”
HuffPost UK reported in 2019 that airline workers were on the verge of refusing to take part in the “abhorrent and dysfunctional” deportation process, citing safety risks and an enormous psychological toll not only on the individual being deported, but on staff and passengers – concerns that are amplified at a time when travel itself is so intensely restricted.
The Home Office has also been accused of hypocrisy after re-detaining people ahead of deportation whilst simultaneously failing to bring a single refugee to the UK through the government’s flagship resettlement scheme since the first lockdown in March.
HuffPost UK revealed in August that the Home Office had failed to reopen the resettlement scheme despite record numbers of asylum seekers crossing the Channel and a drastic loosening of lockdown restrictions.
On Wednesday a spokesperson for the department told HuffPost UK that the scheme had technically reopened, but admitted that no refugees had been resettled since it was originally paused and that there is still no date for the next arrivals into the UK.
Advertisement
Rudy Schulkind, research and policy coordinator at BID, said: “There’s nothing that can stop the deportation machine but they’re very very quick to close off refugee resettlement. It’s really a double standard.
“Refugee resettlement is operating in a completely different universe to deportations.”
Spray added: “On the face of it, it seems very contradictory to pause that scheme and at the same time be shifting people out as much as they can.”
A spokesperson for the Home Office defended the decision to detain people again, telling HuffPost UK that the “overwhelming majority of those detained are foreign national offenders, and we make no apology for trying to remove serious, violent and persistent criminals”.
They added: “Immigration enforcement is responding to the unique circumstances of the coronavirus outbreak and following the latest guidance from Public Health England.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--The Best (And Worst) Hot Christmas Drinks – Ranked By Us

HuffPost UK
There are three types of drink that define the run into Christmas for us.
Firstly, the fizzy kind – suitable in any context. Secondly, the mulled kind, to be sipped amid twinkly lights at a festive pop-up or market. And thirdly, the caffeinated or chocolatey kind, piped full of syrup and piled with whipped cream and sweet treats, the kind that used to keep us going through winter office hours and marathon Christmas shopping sessions.
Gone (along with our social lives) is our chance to enjoy the first two, except in our own homes. But with high street coffee chains and bakeries still open for takeaways in lockdown, we can – following precautions – try the latter. Read on for our verdicts, and thank you, baristas, for your socially distanced cheer.
Advertisement
Greggs Festive Mint Hot Chocolate
Price: In store
Rating: 4/5
Reviewed by: Angela Hui, life reporter
HuffPost
“I can’t remember the last time I had hot chocolate. Normally I gravitate straight towards the caffeine, but on first sip I realise I should go for hot chocolate more often – feel like a big kid again. The drink itself is chocolately, rich and creamy with a oh-so subtle hint of mint syrup, topped with a perfect whipped cream swirl sprinkled with chunky chocolate flakes (I unashamedly scoop this off directly into my mouth).This is a sweet warming treat, ideal for a cold winter’s day. Can’t say it instantly reminds me of Christmas though; it’s more of a refreshing minty afterthought. It doesn’t taste overly sugary, you know, where you’re left with furry teeth. But after checking, I realise there’s a whopping 46g(!) of sugar per serving, so maybe I’ll stick to my oat milk latte after all.”
Starbucks Toffee Nut / Eggnog / Gingerbread Latte
Price: From £3.15
Rating: 3/5
Reviewed by: Adam Bloodworth, features writer
Starbucks Toffee Nut Latte Glass
“Caution, do not approach with a fear of sugar! The Starbucks Christmas range doesn’t feel designed for coffee drinkers, points out my friend when we try them during a cold November lockdown walk. She’s right: they’re cloyingly sweet, all four of them, even the new Deluxe Hot Chocolate, which doesn’t have the depth of flavour you’d hope for. Of the three festive classics, the Toffee Nut Latte tastes most like it isn’t just made of sugar: there’s decipherable nut and toffee flavour profiles in there, and would be my go-to if I return. The Eggnog Latte scores highest in the ‘phwooarrr, that’s a lot of sugar!’ rankings, with the Gingerbread Latte somewhere in-between. These will please fans of festive drinks who go nowhere near coffee the rest of the year – and new for 2020, the vegan whipped cream, rich and full of flavour, is an inclusive hit.”
Advertisement
Costa’s Quality Street Purple One Latte
Price: £3.50
Rating: 3/5
Reviewed by: Rachel Moss, life reporter
HuffPost UK
“This latte supposedly comes with both caramel chocolate sauce and roasted hazelnut syrup, but, to me, it just tastes like your standard caramel latte. As I love caramel lattes, this isn’t a huge problem, I should add. It satisfies my sweet tooth without being overly sickly. It doesn’t scream ‘Christmas’ like the nutmeg and cinnamon-based drinks I usually associate with the season, and that makes it a nice alternative for those who’ve succumbed early to festive fatigue. My biggest criticism is that the hazelnut syrup could pack a bigger punch. At £3.50 for a small, it’s also not the best value. But the drink does come with a Quality Street sweet on the side – a gimmick that I shamelessly love.”
McDonald’s Salted Caramel Latte
Price: £1.69
Rating: 3/5
Reviewed by: Amy Packham, life editor
HuffPost UK
“Salted caramel isn’t necessarily a festive flavour – but it very much ticks the indulgence box we need right now. And I do enjoy this drink. It’s milky and sweet, like you’d expect from a caramel latte. But it’s nothing special and it doesn’t feel that Christmassy, either. There’s a sort of burnt caramel taste, which isn’t a bad thing – it actually makes it less sugary and gives it more of a distinct flavour. I’d easily get this again, just maybe in a smaller size. As with all of the sugary Christmas drinks, it’s hard to finish a whole one and not feel a bit sick.”
Advertisement
HuffPost UK
Caffè Nero Christmas Gingerbread Latte
Price: £3.30
Rating: 2/5
Reviewed by: Nancy Groves, head of life
HuffPost
“Pre-pandemic, my Flat White habit meant I could barely countenance a commute without coffee. Because I’m no home barista (however many guides I read to becoming one), I’ve reverted to tea in lockdown, and was looking forward to this as a treat. But here’s where I put it to you that festive hot beverages are massively over-hyped. I can’t deny this one looks pretty, especially with its marshmallows instead of the customary dollop of whipped cream. The issue lies beneath. This latte has all the consistency of a muddy puddle, which no amount of dusted cinnamon can mask, and a woody, smoky aftertaste that’s more burnt toast than Gingerbread. Alas, I do not know the muffin man, Gingey, but I could probably do with one to take the taste away.”
Pret’s S’mores Hot Chocolate
Price: from £3.15
Rating: 1/5
Reviewed by: Tasha Hinde, life reporter
HuffPost UK HuffPost UK
“Described by Pret as a festive hot chocolate, combining biscuit (Speculoos) syrup, a shot of chocolate powder and steamed milk, topped with whipped cream, a sprinkling of dark chocolate curls and a marshmallow. I was pretty excited to try the S’mores Hot Chocolate. I was expecting something marshmallowy and quite rich in flavour but sadly I got none of that whatsoever. What I did get was essentially hot, frothy milk with a couple of chocolate sprinkles on top. The person behind the till did explain they’d run out of cream for the top but I didn’t realise they’d run out of basically all of the other ingredients too. No flavour, no festive feel, just disappointment.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Why You Eat More When You’re Bored

Why You Eat More When You’re Bored

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The monotony of pandemic life has left many of us reaching for the snack jar.
In a new Europe-wide survey, Brits reported the largest rise in consumption of convenience foods (29%), alcohol (29%) and “tasty treats” (34%). While 42% of us have spent more time experimenting with recipes while staying at home, our snacking has also increased by 27%, according to the research led by Aarhus University in Denmark.
And it’s all too common to eat more – or less healthily – when we’re bored, dietician and BDA spokesperson Rebecca McManamon tells HuffPost UK.
Advertisement
Over a quarter of people feel they ate less healthily than usual during the first lockdown, according to a separate YouGov survey of more than 2,000 adults. And of those, 63% attributed their shift in eating habits to boredom. Research has also shown we tend to consume more calories during the winter months – with comfort food, whether sweet or savoury, fully living up to its promise.
We’re not anti-snacking here at HuffPost – as you can tell from our enthusiastic Christmas taste tests – and if there was ever a time to treat yourself, it’s now.
That said, coronavirus has given us all a wake-up call to look after our health – and many people report feeling anxious to stay mindful of their eating habits.
HMVart via Getty Images
Advertisement
So, why do we boredom eat?
There’s little firm evidence for why boredom increases eating, but anecdotally we know there are several possible reasons.
“It may be simply down to monotony, not having anything else planned to do, but there may be an underlying reason, such as feeling low in mood,” says McManamon. “Or it may be that we link eating as a habit to other activities, such as having a snack whilst watching TV, which more people may do when they are bored in lockdown.”
Eating because of boredom – or any emotion – isn’t necessarily a bad thing, says dietician Bahee Van de Bor. But it depends on “what you eat and how often”.
“Research suggests that emotional eaters are much more likely to eat sweets and high-fat foods and also snack more,” she says.
Advertisement
How to tell if you’re hungry or bored
A simple distraction technique will help you to identify whether you’re bored, or really do need to eat something,” McManamon says.
Advertisement
This might be something really simple like sending a text message to a friend, she says – or reading, doing a household chore, meditating or praying, playing a game, listening to music, or going for a short walk. “It is good to build up a repertoire of things that work for you as an individual. If after the task you have forgotten about eating, chances you were not truly hungry.”
Van de Bor suggests that it can also be handy to think about your hunger on a scale from one to 10 – one being very hungry and 10 being full and satisfied.
“If you score your feelings of hunger as five and above, then you are probably not hungry,” she says. “Sometimes, thirst is often mistaken for hunger. So if you’ve just eaten a meal or snack, reach for a drink. This will help you decide whether your desire to eat is triggered by emotion and boredom... or thirst.”
Give yourself a break
There’s nothing wrong with eating for enjoyment – food should be a joy. But if you’re worried that you are boredom eating and it’s not going to bring you longterm happiness, think about switching things up.
“Make sure that the fruit bowl and cupboards are well stocked with fruit, high fibre crackers and other nutritious snacks so you always have pre-planned foods that you can eat when the munchies hit,” advises Van de Bor.
Advertisement
“Foods that are particularly linked with good mood include oily fish plus fibre, B-vitamin and folate-rich foods like fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds.”
None of us has lived through a global pandemic before, McManamon emphasises, so it’s understandable if you’re feeling stressed, bored or anxious – and all of those things may change our eating habits.
“One episode of eating something just because you are bored is unlikely to impact your health overall,” she says. “However, if it is something happening more regularly, it can be helpful to reflect and talk through why it may be happening.” Trusted friends and family might be a good first point of call.
If you feel like your eating is getting out of control, you are eating all the food you have at home, or eating to the point you feel sick or vomit, McManamon says it is important to seek help via your GP or the independent charity Beat.
“Coronavirus is understandably causing a lot of stress and anxiety, and we know that things may feel very uncertain right now,” advises Beat’s website, which has collated a range of guidance and support services for lockdown, both for those who are worried about their own eating – or someone close to them.
Advertisement
Useful websites and helplines:


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--We've Been Told To Open Our Windows This Winter. Here's Why

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Prepare for a chilly winter, because the government is advising us all to open our windows wherever possible.
The advice, detailed in a video from the Department of Health, is currently relevant when you have any tradesperson visiting your home, or if you’re mixing within your support bubble. But it’ll become all the more pertinent as and when we all leave lockdown and potentially start mixing indoors more frequently.
Advertisement
So, why are we being asked to do this, and will it actually make that much difference?
“If the virus is in the air and you remove that contaminated air, you also remove the virus. This is what ventilation does,” explains Dr Julian Tang, a consultant virologist and expert in respiratory sciences at the University of Leicester.
“Think about if you have a smoky room or burn the toast in the kitchen. Opening the windows dramatically lowers these contaminants, replacing bad air with fresh air. You can smell the impact almost immediately.”
We already know that poor ventilation in confined indoor spaces is associated with the increased transmission of respiratory tract infections such as influenza, tuberculosis and rhinovirus infection, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.
Research to date suggests Covid-19 is no different. This is why we’re all being told to open our windows – and the small change could have a big impact.
Advertisement
Dr Tang previously contributed to a study on ventilation published by the World Health Organisation, which looked at the impact of opening windows in hospitals.
The research found window opening was associated with increased air flow and lower virus transmission rates – although the percentage decrease will be impacted by a number of factors, including the size of the room.
Nevertheless, Dr Tang says: “If you leave the windows open and continually refresh the air that people are breathing, this will make a massive difference.”
Of course, while you’re opening the windows you should follow general social distancing rules too; a bit of fresh air doesn’t mean hugging and kissing those outside your household is suddenly advised.
sUs_angel via Getty Images
Advertisement
There have been photos taken of students around the world wrapped up in coats while completing their lessons. Teachers in the UK have also been advised to leave their windows open wherever possible.
Although it may not be the most conducive teaching environment, Dr Tang says this will help with virus transmission – especially as the weather gets colder.
“When you open the windows, if it is cold outside and warm inside this adds to the ventilation flows (called thermal buoyancy driven flows) due to this temperature difference,” he explains. “The warmer contaminated air from inside the room exits the windows near the top (as it is lighter and hot air rises) and the colder clean fresh air enters the window near the bottom (as it is denser).”
picture alliance via Getty Images
Temperature is one of the two driving forces behind natural ventilation, says Dr Tang. The second is wind, also called “the wind-driven or pressure difference-driven flows”.
Advertisement
Both wind and temperature can impact the extent of ventilation, which is why it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly how helpful opening windows is in different buildings at different times of the year.
But from what we do know, Dr Tang insists it’s well worth doing. You should also open the window where possible if you need to take a train, bus or taxi.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Erectile Dysfunction Didn’t Ruin Our Sex Life, But His Reaction To It Did

rclassenlayouts via Getty Images ideal for websites and magazines layouts
You’re reading Sex Diaries, a HuffPost UK Personal series about how we are (or aren’t) having sex. To share your story, get in touch on ukpersonal@huffpost.com.
I was ready to give dating one last go before becoming a mum on my own, when I met Chris.
Meeting through a writers’ forum, at first we exchanged messages about the projects we were working on, but our talk soon turned flirty.
Advertisement
Before I knew it, we decided to meet. When he came to London, I saw how affectionate and caring he was – back at my flat after dinner and a show, he tenderly massaged my feet. When he visited again, I couldn’t wait to get back home after dinner, and as soon as we got through the door we were kissing and falling into my bed.
As he took my clothes off, I was desperate for him. He was loving and gentle, but as I reached for his trousers I discovered the excitement I was sure I felt minutes earlier had dissipated.
I admit it was an anticlimax, but I knew it was only natural to be let down by biology the first time you’re intimate with someone new. Chris explained he’d not had sex with his ex for a long time, and for me it had been a bit of a drought too, so I was worried my expectations may have overwhelmed him. We tried again the next morning and, though he made sure I finished, his problem persisted.
“My attempts to seduce him were often met by disinterest once he realised his body wasn’t complying, which made me feel rejected.”
Advertisement
I tried not to mind as I could see how it was affecting him. He tried to explain that his head was into it, his body was letting him down and, overwhelmed by thoughts and worries, losing himself in the moment became even more difficult. I feared the more we made it into a “thing”, the more it would become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
My attempts to seduce him were often met by disinterest once he realised his body wasn’t complying, which made me feel rejected. I honestly didn’t think it was about me, or the way he saw me – it was a physical thing that he seemed to have no control over. But I couldn’t help feeling let down when he began to lose interest to even try to get things to work for a little while longer. While I didn’t mind persisting, cuddling, talking dirty, getting on top, using lube, making him watch me touch myself, taking time, surprising him with sexy outfits or flirting in public, I began to sense a defeatist attitude from Chris.
If he could see things weren’t working, he’d say he was tired, and cuddled me to sleep.
In order to take the pressure off being sexual, I fully appreciated the comfort and reassurance I experienced in the relationship. We got on so well, we could talk about everything, we kept laughing and sharing many precious moments beyond just being lovers.
“A person is so much more than just their genitals, or their ability to use them to satisfy their partner.”
But it was difficult not to see overcoming the erectile dysfunction as a sort of mission to accomplish by any means necessary. We drank a bit, but not too much. I tried to gently seduce him while watching a film on the sofa, to trick his mind into not paying too much attention to the way his body responded. Sometimes this worked up to a point, but when he took his trousers off his erection had disappeared. More than anything, I just wanted him to lose himself and simply ravish me. It wasn’t as though he lacked opportunity, but I think the worry of not being able to perform stopped him from even trying.
Advertisement
Eventually, Chris saw his doctor and was prescribed some medication, but it didn’t solve the problem of getting him into the mood. As our relationship progressed, things started to feel a little bit one-sided. He was tall and strong, yet his confidence seemed affected – virility, after all, is so closely connected to masculinity in society’s definition of what a man should be.
After we broke up, he quickly began seeing someone else. This hurt, especially when it emerged that they faced similar problems in the bedroom. Personally, I would never have left him over the issues he experienced with his sexual performance. A person is so much more than just their genitals, or their ability to use them to satisfy their partner.
I am glad we tried everything we could think of, but I think my own needs took second place – I didn’t want to have to wait until he was snoring to make myself come, and with a future partner I would hope these issues could have been discussed together with a professional.
Chris was not yet 50, and I feel sorry for him if he doesn’t find ways to overcome his problem. I can’t help but feel there was something he didn’t want to open up to me about, but I don’t regret the year we spent together.
Have a compelling personal story you want to tell? Find out what we’re looking for here, and pitch us on ukpersonal@huffpost.com


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-20--Can Keir Starmer Find A Way Through The Jeremy Corbyn Row?

LOADING ERROR LOADING
You’re reading The Waugh Zone, our daily politics briefing. Sign up now to get it by email in the evening.
“Jeremy has got to make a full apology. No ifs, no buts, no caveats, no qualifying sentences. He has got to admit he got it wrong.”
Advertisement
It’s not every day that one former leader of the Labour party tries to tell another former leader of the Labour party what to do. But although Gordon Brown’s words were typically robust, it seems very likely that Jeremy Corbyn is typically determined not to take anyone’s orders.
In fact, far from some kind of olive branch being devised to mend relations between Keir Starmer and his predecessor, tonight Corbyn and his allies have “lawyered up” for an almighty legal battle to get him reinstated as a Labour MP
Not one but two letters have been sent by Corbyn’s solicitors to the party, preparing the grounds for legal action. The raft of claims includes breach of contract, “double jeopardy” of being effectively tried twice for the same alleged offence, indirect discrimination, freedom of speech and data protection breaches.
A mass of documentation is also sought, including the use of GDPR laws to make subject access requests for any references to Corbyn’s case within Starmer’s office and Labour HQ. A further letter to general secretary David Evans from 14 Corbyn-supporting members of the NEC warns of legal action is likely.
Advertisement
The NEC members say Starmer’s decision to withhold the whip undermines the party’s own disciplinary process, after a properly constituted panel decided to restore his membership this week. Their letter says the “direct political interference” in the process by the Labour leader was “unacceptable”.
And it is that phrase – direct political interference – that is at the heart of this whole mess, for Starmer’s critics on both the left and the right. In fact, the idea of “acceptable” political interference seems to be the cause of much of the conflict.
One of the central charges against Starmer is that for all his protestations that he was staying out of disciplinary process against Corbyn, his own office was actively engaged in contacts with the former leader’s helpers in a bid to find a “grand compromise” (as I mentioned on Tuesday) to resolve the situation.
That compromise involved a clarification from Corbyn that concerns about anti-Semitism were neither “exaggerated” nor “overstated (both words he had used to talk about the scale of the issue). The clarification would be published before an NEC panel met. In return, the party would restore his membership, while sending him a “reminder of values”, one of the weakest possible sanctions.
It’s worth saying that Starmer’s allies reject the claim that there was any such deal, while accepting that Corbyn’s team lobbied hard for his reinstatement. There is also dispute over alleged agreement about the timing of the clarification statement, the wording of which is said to have been agreed by both sides within two days of the original suspension.
Advertisement
Although some of Starmer’s allies may have wanted the statement published earlier than this week, Corbyn felt that doing it too far in advance of an NEC decision would lead to charges that it didn’t go far enough and wasn’t a full apology (see, G Brown) and would then make life difficult for the NEC.
It’s claimed that Starmer then broke his side of the agreement (seen as a sensible compromise by its supporters, and a dirty deal by its critics). The NEC panel imposed a stronger sanction than expected, issuing a formal “warning of conduct” letter. It also made a request for him to pull down the original Facebook statement that got him suspended. Starmer’s withholding the whip was the biggest dealbreaker, however.
Which brings us back to the current impasse. The perception that Starmer “reneged” on the “deal” is what is making Corbyn dig in right now. Even though there are still efforts on both sides to find some way out, I understand the former leader is reluctant to take any assurances at face value: if he agreed a new statement, there is real doubt Starmer could guarantee it would lead to a return to the PLP. ‘Starmer chameleon’, is the Left’s song right now.
But Starmer faces claims that he has also reneged on his promises to the Jewish community. As one Labour MP put it to me after the NEC decision: “First they were attacked, now they feel betrayed.” Starmer himself said when he was elected in April that the test of his leadership would be that former Jewish members could feel comfortable to return. So when Margaret Hodge told him she was ready to quit this week, the pressure to act was intense.
Amid the fog of civil war, there are lots of conflicting claims in all this. One is that the NEC panel decision was “unanimous”. I’m told that actually the whole reason its meeting lasted four and a half hours was because two members fiercely resisted the idea of readmitting Corbyn. There was no formal vote at the end, but more a weary resignation that they were outnumbered.
Advertisement
ASSOCIATED PRESS
One key argument against Corbyn was that he breached the rule which sanctions conduct that is “grossly detrimental” to the party. Crucially, the party has frequently considered that “seniority” within the party is an “aggravating factor” for such cases. That’s why councillors and council deputy leaders have been expelled in the past, and you can’t get more “senior” than a former leader of the entire party.
Some in the party think Starmer’s biggest failure was not to follow through on his own pledge made in April to “begin work immediately to deliver on my campaign pledge to establish an independent complaints process”. Others think that it will be impossible for any independent system to work out what is and isn’t “grossly detrimental” the party, rather than the party itself.
As a former DPP, Starmer may believe the legal case against him is thin, overblown and unlikely to be treated seriously by any court (judges are reluctant to engage in internal party rulebooks, but even less keen on interfering in party political decisions like whipping).
One extra complication in all this is Corbyn’s own unique approach to politics. In what is seen by some as a microcosm of his leadership reign, I’m told even some of his supporters found it difficult to get hold of him at key points in recent weeks, when his sign-off was needed. “He just went awol,” one said. A degree of chaos meant some things were decided at the very last minute.
Advertisement
The new letter from chief whip Nick Brown to Corbyn (as revealed by the Guardian) informing him of a three month suspension from the whip, may strangely offer a glimmer of a way out. It refers to him being suspended pending a PLP investigation, which suggests an interpretation of breaches of its standing orders is still up for grabs.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-19--Here's When You're Most Infectious With Covid-19, With And Without Symptoms

LOADING ERROR LOADING
People with Covid-19 are most likely to be highly infectious in the first five days after they develop symptoms, a new study confirms, highlighting the need for abrupt isolation.
The research, published in the Lancet journal, also suggests asymptomatic individuals may clear the virus faster from their body, and might be infectious for a shorter amount of time.
Advertisement
In the first systematic review of its kind, researchers analysed data from 98 previous studies on coronavirus infection transmissions.
They looked at three key factors in the studies:
Viral load (the amount of the virus detected in the body through the different stages of infection)
Viral RNA shedding (the length of time someone sheds viral genetic material)
Isolation of live virus (where the live virus is isolated and tested to see if it can successfully replicate in the laboratory).
The researchers compared their findings on Covid-19 to two other strains of coronavirus, to better understand why Covid-19 has spread so rapidly.
Advertisement
They found that the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) peaks in the upper respiratory tract early in the disease course, between the onset of symptoms and day five.
This is significant, because virus in the upper respiratory tract is thought to be the main source of transmission. In comparison, the viral load for two other strains of coronavirus (SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV) peak later – at 10-14 days and 7-10 days respectively – providing more time to recognise symptoms and quarantine.
“Our findings are in line with contact tracing studies which suggest the majority of viral transmission events occur very early, and especially within the first five days after symptom onset, indicating the importance of self-isolation immediately after symptoms start,” lead author Dr Muge Cevik of the University of St Andrews commented.
“We also need to raise public awareness about the range of symptoms linked with the disease, including mild symptoms that may occur earlier on in the course of the infection than those that are more prominent like cough or fever.”
The World Health Organisation lists the following possible symptoms of Covid-19:
Most common symptoms:
Fever
Dry cough
Tiredness
Less common symptoms:
Aches and pains
Sore throat
Diarrhoea
Conjunctivitis
Headache
Loss of taste or smell
A rash on skin, or discolouration of fingers or toes
Serious symptoms:
Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath
Chest pain or pressure
Loss of speech or movement.
Although viral loads appear to be largely similar between those people with and without symptoms, the research did indicate that asymptomatic individuals might clear the viral material from their bodies faster.
Advertisement
“Several studies have found that individuals with asymptomatic infection may clear the virus faster, suggesting that those without symptoms may be as infectious as those with symptoms at the beginning of infection, but may be infectious for a shorter period,” said Dr Cevik.
However more research on the shedding of infectious virus in asymptomatic people would be needed before any policy change on quarantine duration could be considered, he added.
The authors also noted that many of the study participants were people who’d been hospitalised with Covid, so they may have received treatments that impacted the course of their infection.
“Therefore, our findings may not apply to people with milder infection, although these results suggest those with milder cases may clear the virus faster from their body,” Dr Antonia Ho of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research said.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-19--Tory MP Ben Bradley Mocked After Calling For 'Minister For Men'

The Mansfield MP has previously faced criticism for comments on free school meal vouchers. Ben Bradley, Tory MP
A Tory MP has faced derision for suggesting it was time install a minister for men.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Ben Bradley aired a series of grievances relating to being accused of “mansplaining” and “male privilege” to mark International Men’s Day.
The Mansfield MP argued – among other things – that “banter with the lads” was being misconstrued as “bullying”.
Advertisement
Bradley, who raised issues raised in the debate over the rise in male suicide and educational attainment rates of white working-class boys, made several complaints about language.
He told MPs: “In recent years, it seemed like there are more and more of those kind of phrases coming into use designed to undermine the role and confidence of men in our society.
“I mentioned a few before, things like male privilege, like toxic masculinity. How about mansplaining, manterrupting, the trend of spelling woman with an ‘x’ to remove the undesirable man part... wonderfully empowering for some, I’m sure, but (...) seeking equality and fairness doesn’t need to mean dragging everyone around you down.”
At another point, he essayed “working-class values” that he said may be “considered old hat or even sexist by the modern establishment”, explaining: “It’s a set of values where you hold a door open for a lady, a man might be expected to stick around and provide for his family, where the role of men is a worker and breadwinner and a positive role model for his children.”
Advertisement
He went on: “You might also find, particularly when considering young men who are looking ahead at their life and seeking their purpose, that they might struggle to find it when they’re told those things they thought were virtues – their good manners, wanting to provide for their family, wanting to be a man’s man, wanting to go to the football at the weekend and have some banter with the lads – are toxic, doing down the women around them, those manners they were taught on the way to respect women in their life is now sexist, that banter is now bullying.”
But one question on Bradley’s mind received short shrift.
He pressed ministers to look again at equalities legislation and to ensure people in Whitehall hold departments to account, asking: “Why have a minister for women but not one for men?
“Why single out one characteristic for special mention?”
It prompted a series of responses, including from former home secretary Jacqui Smith, who said the men she knows “recognise institutional sexism and patriarchy” and want to tackle its “debilitating effect on women”.
She added that “they’re not sure you’re quite as committed to that as they are”.
And the former chief prosecutor of the North-West of England, Nazir Afzal, added that Bradley is the “kind of guy who questions why we have international a International women’s day when men have 365 days a year”.
He continued: “His call for a minister for men deliberately forgets that since time immemorial, men have had whole governments.”
Advertisement
Dear Ben. The men I know & love recognise institutional sexism and patriarchy and want its debilitating effect on women tackled. They also believe women AND men would benefit from a more equal society. They’re not sure you’re quite as committed to that as they are! Best Jacqui — Jacqui Smith (@Jacqui_Smith1) November 19, 2020
you know, if the calls for a minister for men were ever about *actually helping men* as opposed to bashing women/feminists and blaming us for the ill-effects of outdated stereotypes of masculinity, we would be first in line to back those calls — Caroline Criado Perez (@CCriadoPerez) November 19, 2020
Ben Bradley is the kind of guy that questions why we have a International women’s day when men have 365 days a year
His call for a Minister for Men deliberately forgets that since time immemorial, men have had whole Governments
pic.twitter.com/tohy9OScXU — nazir afzal (@nazirafzal) November 19, 2020
For too long men have been sidelined and overlooked https://t.co/69QQL09lEY — Helen Nianias (@helennianias) November 19, 2020
So sick of idiots like Ben Bradley and talentless Laurence Fox conveniently and publicly failing to grasp what inequity means. Positive discrimination is about addressing historically entrenched social inequalities, where prejudice has created glass ceilings for talent. Get it? https://t.co/q1NruotOA2 — Nitin Sawhney (@thenitinsawhney) November 19, 2020
Advertisement
Bradley really is powerfully idiotic. He's like the comment section of the Guido website in human form. https://t.co/aQLiTKdjgW — Ian Dunt (@IanDunt) November 19, 2020
Why not just have a minister for Ben Bradley? https://t.co/n4ptEi7YCe — Tom Peck (@tompeck) November 19, 2020
Awaiting Ben Bradley’s accompanying social media meltdown this evening https://t.co/PWx1HLFwWq — Dawn Foster (@DawnHFoster) November 19, 2020
He did it, the absolute mad man, furious gibberish. https://t.co/r60nEL5F7X pic.twitter.com/ZY5WEl9sW9 — Dawn Foster (@DawnHFoster) November 19, 2020
Writing on Twitter after the criticism of his comments, Bradley said: “I’m being slated for suggesting Equality Act applies equally to men.
Advertisement
″#Hey, here’s news: it does. ‘Sex’ is protected - ie both! Act protects characteristics, not groups. People tweeting at me that ‘male is not a p.c.’ need to do some reading!”


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-19--Keir Starmer Could Face Leadership Challenge If He Keeps Dividing Labour, MP Warns

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Keir Starmer has been warned he could face a leadership challenge if he continues what appears to be a “vendetta” against Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters.
Former Labour chair Ian Lavery told HuffPost UK’s Commons People podcast that the “opportunity” for a leadership challenge would always be available, but stressed he wants the party to “settle down” and “unite”.
Advertisement
Lavery hit out at Starmer for refusing to let Corbyn sit as a Labour MP – even though his party membership had been restored by Labour’s ruling body. He was initially suspended last month over his reaction to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report into anti-Semitism in the party.
Lavery told Commons People: “It looks very much that this is a vengeful, divisive, provocative sort of move from Keir Starmer.
“This isn’t about uniting the party – it looks to me as if it’s a personal and political vendetta now from the new leader of the party to the previous leader of the party.”
The Wansbeck MP urged Labour to set out clearly who was making the decisions on Corbyn’s suspension.
“Who made the decision that Keir has got the overriding powers to overrule the national executive committee [Labour’s ruling body]?” he said.
Advertisement
“I’m not being melodramatic but that’s a little bit like a tin pot dictatorship to me.
“We’ve got to have some form of democracy in the party and at this moment in time it doesn’t look like we have.”
Lavery said he would refuse to “walk away” from Labour if Corbyn was not reinstated fully.
But he said ex-MP Thelma Walker’s resignation was evidence that anger was not confined to the hard left of the party.
“I want the party to be united. I want the party to flourish, move forward, win an election in 2024. If that’s with Keir Starmer, that’s fine,” Lavery said.
Labour MP Ian Lavery Hollie Adams via Getty Images
Asked what he meant and whether Starmer would be Labour leader at the next election, Lavery said: “I hope that Keir can unify the party. I’ve got to say the first few months of his leadership would suggest that’s not his intention – unless he proves otherwise, of course.
Advertisement
“Keir is the leader. Obviously he should be in pole position to be leader of the party at the next election.
“But there’s a lot hinging on how Keir reacts not just to this but how Keir performs on behalf of the party.”
Lavery said Starmer had caused “absolute mayhem” among the Labour membership since being elected leader.
There is “genuine concern” about Starmer’s willingness to support the government’s Covid policy and abstain on legislation opposed by many in the party, including the controversial Overseas Operations Bill, he said.
Lavery also called on the leader to deliver on his pledge to unify the party and his 10-point plan, which included promises to continue with “radical” policies such as taxing the rich, backing public ownership, and legislating against “illegal wars”.
Advertisement
Asked what happens if Starmer fails to deliver, Lavery said: “There’s always the opportunity of a leadership challenge and the rules allow that to happen.
“It just depends how Keir’s leadership develops.
“I’ve got to say I’m very disappointed in it in this moment in time and it’s not a left/right issue.
“Keir Starmer is a very decent, genuine individual.
“But it’s the direction that’s coming from him.”
Lavery went on: “‘New leadership’ [Starmer’s slogan] is basically a message telling the rest of the country Jeremy Corbyn’s gone.
“Why shouldn’t the message be something the party actually stands for? ‘For the many, not the few’ – that was fantastic.
“But everything seems at this moment in time as though there’s a political provocation from the leader’s office.”
He added: “There’s always the discussions, there’s always noises about ‘people should be challenged’ – I would like to see the party settle down, I would like the party be unified, and I would like to move on and hold the government to account.”
Advertisement
Corbyn was suspended from the party in October over his reaction to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report into anti-Semitism in the party.
The watchdog had found the party committed unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination while Corbyn was leader.
In response, Corbyn said allegations about anti-Semitism had been “dramatically overstated” by his political opponents.
The Islington North MP, who later said he did not intend to “belittle” anti-Semitism allegations, was issued with a “warning of conduct” letter as a sanction over the response.
But Starmer said he would not restore the party whip because his predecessor had “undermined and set back our work in restoring trust and confidence in the Labour Party’s ability to tackle anti-Semitism”.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-19--Johnson And Starmer Struggle To Break Free From Their Recent Past

Johnson And Starmer Struggle To Break Free From Their Recent Past
Corbyn-backing Labour MP Ian Lavery joins Arj Singh, Paul Waugh and Rachel Wearmouth to give his opinion on the week in Westminster as both Keir Starmer and Boris Johnson try for a restart.


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-19--The Pogues Completely Shut Down Laurence Fox Amid Fairytale Of New York Row

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Pogues have shut down actor Laurence Fox, after he took issue with the BBC’s decision to censor their song Fairytale Of New York when it’s played on Radio 1 this year.
In November, it was revealed an edited version of The Pogues’ song would be played on Radio 1 in the lead-up to Christmas, featuring alternative vocals from singer Kirsty MacColl, while Radio 2 would play the full, unedited track.
Advertisement
Discussing the matter that morning, Laurence tweeted: “Here we go again. The cultural commissars at the @bbc are telling you what is and isn’t appropriate for your ignorant little ears.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if we sent the (proper) version to the top of the charts? [sic]”
Here we go again. The cultural commissars at the @bbc are telling you what is and isn’t appropriate for your ignorant little ears. Wouldn’t it be nice if we sent the (proper) version to the top of the charts? #DefundTheBBC. RT https://t.co/XzE9aITgsH — Laurence Fox (@LozzaFox) November 19, 2020
The Pogues shared a rather blunt response just 15 minutes later, promptly telling the White Lines actor to “fuck off”.
Fuck off you little herrenvolk shite https://t.co/znPSuhkSo0 — The Pogues (@poguesofficial) November 19, 2020
Advertisement
Prior to that, the band endorsed a tweet from one Twitter user who supported the decision to censor the track on Radio 1, which read: “This is all I’m gonna say on it for the whole year: the word itself being in Fairytale Of New York doesn’t bother or offend me, but straight people being so angry & outraged at its removal and literally fighting and arguing for the right to sing it bothers me deeply.”
While BBC has made a blanket decision when it comes to Radio 1 and Radio 2, Radio 6 Music presenters will have the option to play whichever version of the song they want.
In a statement, the BBC said: “We know the song is considered a Christmas classic and we will continue to play it this year, with our radio stations choosing the version of the song most relevant for their audience.”
Advertisement
Laurence Fox Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock
Back in 2018, Pogues frontman Shane MacGowan said: “The word [‘f****t’] was used by the character [in the song] because it fitted with the way she would speak and with her character.
“She is not supposed to be a nice person, or even a wholesome person. She is a woman of a certain generation at a certain time in history and she is down on her luck and desperate.”
Pogues frontman Shane MacGowan Andrew Benge via Getty Images
He continued: “Her dialogue is as accurate as I could make it but she is not intended to offend. She is just supposed to be an authentic character and not all characters in songs and stories are angels or even decent and respectable, sometimes characters in songs and stories have to be evil or nasty in order to tell the story effectively.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpostuk--2020-11-19--Princess Diana Interview: The Row Over Martin Bashir’s Bombshell Explained

The Duke of Cambridge has welcomed an investigation into the BBC’s 1995 Panorama interview with his mother Princess Diana, saying it “should help establish the truth behind the actions” that led to the programme.
William said the independent probe into Martin Bashir’s controversial television interview with the Princess of Wales in 1995 was a “step in the right direction”.
Advertisement
The interview saw the then-separated Diana publicly confirm she knew her husband had resumed his affair with Camilla Parker Bowles and admit to having developed an eating disorder. It prompted the Queen to urge the couple to seek a divorce a month later.
Diana during her interview with Martin Bashir for the BBC in 1995 PA
It was a landmark piece of journalism that won Bashir a Bafta award and propelled him to prominence, enabling him to secure a similar scoop with global superstar Michael Jackson. But Bashir himself is now to be the subject of an investigation into the steps he took to land the scoop.
The BBC has appointed Lord Dyson, who formerly presided over the Court of Appeal, to lead the investigation. It will begin straightaway and seek to discover what steps Bashir and the broadcaster took to land the interview.
Advertisement
Second in line to the throne William said: “The independent investigation is a step in the right direction.
“It should help establish the truth behind the actions that led to the Panorama interview and subsequent decisions taken by those in the BBC at the time.”
False bank statements
The probe comes after allegations by Diana’s brother Earl Spencer that he was shown “false bank statements” by Bashir and that these statements were used to help the reporter gain access to the princess.
Charles Spencer provided introductions between Diana and Bashir, which resulted in the infamous interview – which sent shockwaves through the monarchy with details about the state of her marriage to the Prince of Wales.
Spencer claims that, in the weeks before the programme, Bashir showed him bank statements detailing payments supposedly made to two members of the royal household by security services. Spencer says these statements were fake.
Advertisement
The documents suggested the individuals were being paid to keep the princess under surveillance through phone tapping and car tracking. The earl claims Bashir repeatedly deceived him in order to win his trust, which eventually led to Spencer giving the journalist access to his sister.
In the years following the interview, the BBC says, Bashir admitted providing other mocked-up documents that appeared to show stories were being leaked by one of Spencer’s own employees, prompting him to broker the pair’s meeting. It isn’t clear how this would have gained Bashir a route to the princess, but perhaps the idea was to give Diana an opportunity to set the record straight.
Bashir with his Bafta award for the interview, pictured on 21 April 1996 Alan Davidson/Shutterstock
The earl further alleges that Bashir made a series of false and defamatory claims about senior members of the royal family themselves to ingratiate himself with him and his sister.
In 1996 the BBC held an internal investigation that examined the mocked-up documents relating to the earl’s former employee. This aimed to determine whether or not the princess had been misled, with a key piece of evidence – a note from Diana – suggesting she had not.
Advertisement
The corporation has previously said in a statement that its investigation found Bashir had “done wrong” – but it is not known what sanction, if any, he faced.
In an earlier statement, a BBC spokesperson highlighted an apology the earl has received from the director-general over the mocked-up documents relating to his former staffer.
When the @BBC say they’ve “apologised” to me, what they’ve apologised for is showing me false bank statements relating to a lesser, unrelated, matter. They haven’t apologised for the fake bank statements and other deceit that led to me introducing @MartinBashir to my sister. — Charles Spencer (@cspencer1508) November 4, 2020
The earl tweeted his response: “When the BBC say they’ve ‘apologised’ to me, what they’ve apologised for is showing me false bank statements regarding to a lesser, unrelated matter. They haven’t apologised for the fake bank statements and other deceit that led me to introducing Martin Bashir to my sister.”
The note
The BBC has claimed Diana had handwritten a note saying she did not see these false bank statements and that they played no part in her decision to give the interview.
Advertisement
The corporation had said a copy of the princess’s note was no longer in its possession and could not be produced for a 2007 Freedom of Information request – although its existence was documented in BBC records.
This month, however, it said the note had been found. The corporation said in a statement: “Following the announcement of the independent investigation, the BBC has now recovered the princess’s original handwritten note which is referred to in our records from the time.”
The palace was left reeling after the interview was broadcast - as this Evening Standard sign from 1995 implies Nils Jorgensen/Shutterstock
Former BBC chair Lord Grade said that there was a “very dark cloud hanging over BBC journalism” following the allegations. He told BBC Radio 4 programme The World At One: “We’ve got to get into the timeline of when knew what when. ‘Was the Diana letter also a forgery?’ is the question that needs to be asked.”
The investigation will consider if the steps taken by the BBC and Bashir were appropriate and to what extent those actions influenced Diana’s decision to give an interview.
Advertisement
It will also investigate what knowledge the BBC had in 1995 and 1996 of the “mocked up bank statements purporting to show payments to a former employee of Earl Spencer [and] the purported payments to members of the royal households”, the corporation said.
The interview
The result was the explosive interview 25 years ago in which Diana famously said: “Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.”
She added: “Yes, I was [aware of Prince Charles’s relationship with Camilla], but I wasn’t in the place to do anything about it. [...] A woman’s instinct is a very good one.”
The Princess of Wales used the interview to talk about her husband's affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, quipping 'there were three of us in this marriage' PA Archive/PA Images
A mammoth 21.5m viewers tuned in to watch the princess’s frank discussion about her marriage breakdown and her dealings with the palace, sending shockwaves through the monarchy.
Advertisement
As well as revealing candid details about her marriage and the Prince of Wales’s relationship with his now wife, she also questioned Charles’s suitability as king.
The mother-of-two also spoke of her eating disorder. She said: “I had bulimia for a number of years. That’s like a secret disease you inflicted upon yourself because your self-esteem is lowered and you don’t think you’re worthy or valuable.
“You fill your stomach up four or five times a day – some do it more – and it gives you a feeling of comfort. It’s like having a pair of arms around you, but it’s temporary.
“Then, you’re disgusted at the bloatedness of your stomach and then you bring it all up again. It’s a repetitive pattern that is very destructive to yourself. [...] It was a symptom of what was going on in my marriage. I was crying out for help but giving the wrong signals. People were using my bulimia as a coat on a hanger. They decided that was the problem. Diana was unstable.”
The couple divorced in 1996.
The princess died in 1997 in a car crash in Paris and Charles married Camilla in 2005.
‘The fall guy’
The graphic designer who mocked up the documents allegedly used to secure the interview has said he was made “the fall guy” by the BBC, and called on the broadcaster to apologise.
Advertisement
Bashir commissioned Matt Wiessler to create the mocked-up financial documents relating to the earl’s then employee, who no longer works for the earl.
Matt Wiessler believes he was made a 'scapegoat' by the BBC for Bashir's actions and has demanded an apology from the broadcaster PA
He believes he was made a “scapegoat” by the BBC for the reporter’s actions and wants an apology. He told his story on a two-part ITV documentary.
Following the 1996 inquiry, the BBC’s board of governors was told there had been “steps to ensure that the graphic designer will not work for the BBC again”.
Wiessler told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme he was “absolutely gobsmacked” to discover that “a board of governors meeting [...] to look into what Martin had done” had made him “the scapegoat”.
Advertisement
Bashir, who is now religion editor at the BBC, is currently signed off from work.
A statement from the corporation said: “He is currently recovering from quadruple heart bypass surgery and has significant complications from having contracted Covid-19 earlier in the year.”
Former BBC director-general Lord Hall was director of BBC news and current affairs when the Diana interview was screened.
He led the corporation’s internal investigation into whether Diana had been misled.
The earl has claimed in a letter to the BBC that the 1996 inquiry was a “whitewash” and has gone on to allege the corporation covered up Bashir’s actions.
Lord Hall, who left the BBC earlier this year, has told The Times newspaper he was “unaware” of the documents at the centre of the new claims.
He said in a statement to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that “the focus of the original investigation was whether Diana had been misled”.
Advertisement
He said “this and any new issues raised will no doubt be looked at by the BBC’s new inquiry”.
Tim Davie, current director-general of the BBC, said: “The BBC is determined to get to the truth about these events and that is why we have commissioned an independent investigation.
“Formerly Master of the Rolls and a Justice of the Supreme Court, Lord Dyson is an eminent and highly respected figure who will lead a thorough process.”
Lord Dyson said: “This is an important investigation which I will start straight away. I will ensure it is both thorough and fair.”