Thousands of miles from Washington, shock waves from the Justice Department’s release of the latest Jeffrey Epstein files continue to rock British society at its highest echelons, engulfing Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a fresh political crisis and casting a lengthening shadow over the royal family. In their first public remarks since the latest revelations, Prince William and Princess Catherine of Wales said they were “deeply concerned.”
The most recent releases appear to offer further evidence of long-running links between the convicted sex offender and two high-profile men in British public life: London’s former ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson,who was dismissed in September over his links to Epstein,and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the younger brother of King Charles III who was stripped of his titles.
The swirl of repercussions faced by both men — who have largely been forced from public life as a result of the revelations — stands in sharp contrast to the relatively muted fallout so far faced by Epstein’s high-profile associates in the United States.
🏛️ More Politics
For Starmer, questions over his judgment in selecting Mandelson for that ambassadorship were threatening on Monday to boil over into a full-fledged political crisis. Over the weekend, Starmer’s top aide, Morgan McSweeney, announced his resignation from government, citing his role in advising Starmer to send Mandelson to Washington. By Monday morning, Tim Allan, the prime minister’s communications director was also gone, citing the need for a reset.
It was not immediately clear whether the resignations would be enough to stem the growing political blowback, with a high-profile figure from Starmer’s party — the leader of Scottish Labour, Anas Sarwar — on Monday afternoon calling on him to step aside.
Among other previously unseen documents, the latest tranche included an undated photograph of a man who appears to be Mandelson in a T-shirt and underwear alongside an unidentified woman. It also appeared to include correspondence between Epstein and Mandelson from when the latter was in public office.
Mandelson has been a controversial fixture of British political life since the 1980s, when he helped mastermind the Labour Party’s centrist reinvention and paved the way for its return from the political wilderness to power in 1997. He went on to serve in high-profile positions under two Labour prime ministers. He has not been accused of any sexual wrongdoing.
Last week, Mandelson resigned his Labour membership,after the Financial Times reported that the latest documents showed Epstein made payments totaling about $75,000 to accounts linked to Mandelson when he was a lawmaker in the early 2000s. In a public letter to Labour officials, Mandelson acknowledged the “furor” surrounding Epstein and said he needed to investigate the latest allegations for himself.
“I want to take this opportunity to repeat my apology to the women and girls whose voices should have been heard long before now,” Mandelson added.
The revelations have prompted police to open an investigation into potential misconduct in public office. Last week, Starmer apologized directly to Epstein’s victims and said Mandelson had repeatedly portrayed Epstein “as someone he barely knew.”
Then-British Ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson is seen in London last year. (Jaimi Joy/Reuters)
The political fallout came as the British royal family also grappled with its links to Epstein.
A spokesperson for Kensington Palace told reporters Monday: “I can confirm the prince and princess have been deeply concerned by the continuing revelations. Their thoughts remain focused on the victims.”
Among the previously unseen documents, photographs and email messages to be released last month was an image of a man who appeared to be Mountbatten-Windsor kneeling on all fours and positioned over a female individual. The tranche also contained an email from an account labeled “The Duke” and signed “A” to Epstein, suggesting dinner “and lots of privacy” at Buckingham Palace in 2010, a month after Epstein’s house arrest ended.
Mountbatten-Windsor has long denied any wrongdoing, and the latest releases contain no allegations of criminal behavior by him.
In October, Buckingham Palace stripped Mountbatten-Windsor of his royal titles after excerpts were made public from a memoir by Virginia Giuffre, the American who said she was forced to have sexual encounters with him as a teenager.
Last week, a Buckingham Palace official confirmed that Mountbatten-Windsor had relocated out of Royal Lodge, his 30-room longtime residence in Windsor, about three months after the palace announced he would be leaving the property.
LONDON — Britain’s economy is staring down a familiar foe: creeping inflation that threatens to erode living standards and stall recovery. Yet amid the headlines of a 3.4% CPI rise in December 2025—the first uptick in five months—and a slowdown in wage growth to 4.5% annually (regular earnings excluding bonuses) in the three months to November, per the Office for National Statistics (ONS)—a more optimistic path emerges. The UK possesses the structural levers to break free from this inflationary trap without resorting to punitive interest rate hikes or endless fiscal giveaways. The key? A renewed focus on domestic production, export revival, and supply-side reforms that rebuild economic resilience from the ground up.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves, fresh from her Autumn Budget’s £13 billion in targeted relief over three years—including £5.4 billion this year for pocketbook boosts—faces a tough early 2026. Inflation climbed from November’s 3.2% to 3.4% in December, driven by airfares, tobacco duties, and persistent services pressures (4.5% annual rise), according to ONS data released January 21. Economists had penciled in 3.3%, making this a mild surprise that likely keeps the Bank of England on hold at 3.75% for its February meeting, per Reuters polling and City pricing.
Wage momentum has cooled too: Regular pay growth eased to 4.5% from 4.6%, with private-sector earnings dropping sharply to 3.6%—the lowest since November 2020, ONS figures show. Public-sector pay remains elevated at 7.9% due to timing effects from prior awards, but overall trends signal easing labor-market heat. Unemployment held at 5.1%—highest since January 2021—while payrolled employees fell 155,000 year-on-year to November, with provisional December estimates showing another 184,000 drop.
This isn’t the 1970s wage-price spiral redux. Real wages have grown just 9% over the past decade, a far cry from the unchecked rises that fueled stagflation then. Today’s pressures stem from structural imbalances: a chronic trade deficit widened post-2008 financial crisis, when financial services exports—once a sterling stabilizer—plummeted 25% and stagnated. The City lost its allure as a global capital magnet, siphoning fewer foreign inflows and weakening the pound by over 20% against major currencies since the crash peaks.
A depreciated sterling inflates import costs for essentials—food up 0.8% monthly in December, nearly doubled since 2008; clothing and footwear reversing long-term deflation to rise 20% in five years. This feeds services inflation, the economy’s dominant driver. Yet the ONS and Bank of England data point to transience: Headline inflation is forecast to drop sharply in January (potentially 0.5 percentage points, per Resolution Foundation), with the BoE eyeing a return near 2% by mid-2026. Deutsche Bank’s Sanjay Raja predicts the UK’s biggest G7 inflation fall this year, with Q4 forecasts averaging 2.2% (Treasury economists) to 2.1% (OBR November outlook).
Escaping the Whirlpool: Production Over Handouts
Reeves’ £150 energy bill cuts, rail fare freeze, and prescription charge hold are welcome short-term palliatives, but lasting relief demands supply-side boldness. Britain’s post-crisis malaise—widening trade gaps, sterling weakness, import dependence—mirrors vulnerabilities that subsidies alone can’t fix. The answer lies in revitalizing domestic manufacturing and agriculture to reduce reliance on overseas goods, create high-value jobs, and strengthen the currency organically.
Since the 1980s, the UK has shed a million hectares of farmland, per historical data, exacerbating food import exposure. Yet glimmers of reversal exist: Textile production shows tentative growth after decades of decline, with Q3 2025 sales rebounding 4.3% for small-to-mid fashion manufacturers to £500,517 average revenue, per Unleashed reports. Broader manufacturing output grew modestly in late 2025, though confidence dipped amid fragile demand (Make UK/BDO Q4 survey forecasts 0.5% growth in 2025 before a 0.5% contraction in 2026).
Policymakers should accelerate this shift: Targeted incentives for onshore production in essentials—cars, clothing, food—could rebuild supply chains. Challenge the defeatist myth that Britain can’t compete; scale and innovation can offset labor costs if energy prices fall and taxes ease. High electricity bills (among world’s highest) and employment taxes deter investment—abandoning rigid net-zero timelines for pragmatic energy policy could unlock competitiveness without subsidies’ fiscal drag.
Public discourse underscores this: Commentators lament foreign ownership of utilities and manufacturing siphoning dividends abroad, urging British-owned firms to retain profits domestically. Others decry subsidies as non-solutions, advocating deregulation, lower energy costs, and tax relief instead. Freeing food imports could collapse prices short-term, but long-term security demands balanced domestic capacity.
New export powerhouses—beyond stagnant finance—could replace lost sterling inflows. Green tech, advanced manufacturing, and services innovation offer paths if regulations don’t stifle them.
Market Implications and Political Calculus
Sterling held steady post-inflation data at around $1.32 and €1.146 (Wise mid-market January 22), reflecting expectations of temporary blips. BoE futures price one to two cuts in 2026, likely from April if January data confirms cooling. Gilt yields and FTSE sectors sensitive to rates (banks, utilities) show muted reaction, betting on gradual easing.
Politically, 2026 is Reeves’ proving ground: Deliver cost-of-living relief via growth, not handouts, or face voter backlash. As she once advocated “make, sell and buy more in Britain,” returning to that vision—boosting production, jobs, investment—offers sustainable escape from inflation’s grip. Handouts fade; productive capacity endures.
Britain isn’t doomed to perpetual import dependence or sterling weakness. With supply-side courage—lower barriers, energy realism, domestic focus—the UK can rebuild strength, tame prices, and deliver genuine prosperity. The tools are there; the will must follow.
A radical plan to halt “virgin steelmaking” in the UK is being considered in a move that threatens the loss of 2,000 jobs at British Steel’s works in Scunthorpe.
Government officials are weighing a proposal to switch off Britain’s last two remaining blast furnaces despite launching emergency legislation this year preventing the works’ Chinese owners from doing the same.
The proposal is understood to envisage merging British Steel with part of Speciality Steel UK (SSUK), a division of Sanjeev Gupta’s metals empire that crashed into a government-led insolvency in August.
It is one of several options being considered, Whitehall sources said.
But the merger option is said to be favoured by Jon Bolton, co-chairman of the government’s Steel Council, which was launched by the government in January. Under this approach, SSUK’s electric arc furnace in Rotherham, which will require significant investment to get back up and running, would be used to feed the downstream operations of British Steel, according to senior industry sources.
This would allow the two blast furnaces at Scunthorpe to be switched off, reducing losses that are said to be costing taxpayers more than £1 million a day. But it would leave the UK as the only country in the G7 without virgin steelmaking capabilities.
Industry figures are split on whether Rotherham could produce the correct types, grades and gauges of semi-finished steel — and in sufficient quantities — for British Steel’s downstream operations. The company employs about 4,000 people in the UK, of which 2,700 work in Scunthorpe.
In April, MPs were called for a Saturday sitting of parliament for only the sixth time since the Second World War to fast-track emergency legislation giving the government the ability to direct the company’s workforce and managers and order raw materials for the furnaces.
British Steel has been in the hands of Chinese firm Jingye since March 2020. The legislation meant that although Jingye remained the owner of the steelworks, the UK state was in control of day-to-day operations.
The government intervention followed claims by ministers that the Chinese company was trying to unilaterally close the blast furnaces by refusing to buy enough raw materials. Blast furnaces require a steady supply of iron ore and coking coal to continue running. Although production can be halted temporarily, any longer than a few days can render the equipment redundant.
In the summer, Jingye submitted a compensation bill of more than £1 billion to the UK government in return for handing over its shareholding in the business. Ministers are understood to have sought to reduce the compensation costs by offering to wave through China’s controversial new “mega embassy” in London.
A spokesman for the government said: “We will ensure a bright and sustainable future for steelmaking and steel jobs in the UK and are continuing discussions with Jingye over the long-term future of the site.”
SSUK employs nearly 1,500 people in Rotherham and its other works in Sheffield and is part of the wider Liberty Steel Group, which in turn is part of Gupta’s GFG Alliance, an employer of 16,500 people globally across more than 200 locations.
SSUK was placed under the control of the government’s official receiver in August after the High Court granted a winding-up order pursued by creditors owed hundreds of millions of pounds.
The official receiver, supported by special managers from consultancy Teneo, wants to sell SSUK whole rather than in piecemeal fashion.
Bids have been submitted for the business, though the electric arc furnace in Rotherham is said to be less attractive because it will need millions of pounds of investment to bring it up to working order. The merger plans would be scuppered if a suitable buyer for the Rotherham site can be found.
Using the Rotherham works to feed British Steel’s downstream activities would not be without its difficulties. However, it does have a precedent: the two operations were previously part of Tata Steel’s long products division. The Scunthorpe operation was sold to turnaround fund Greybull Capital in 2016 and the Rotherham works to Gupta the following year.
Separately, an £8 billion green energy plant in the North East will go ahead with an order for steel from China instead of the UK, snuffing out hopes of a U-turn.
Alasdair McDiarmid, assistant general secretary at the steelworkers’ union Community, said: “Reports that the government is considering ending steelmaking at Scunthorpe, just months after making their historic intervention at the site, are extremely concerning and scarcely believable.
“The loss of the UK’s last-remaining primary steelmaking facility — a vital strategic asset for the country — would represent a devastating blow to national security and sovereignty. Community and the wider trade-union movement will not accept the closure of the blast furnaces outside of a long-term investment strategy that secures the future for Scunthorpe steelmaking.”
This newspaper revealed in November that Net Zero Teesside, a joint venture between BP and the Norwegian energy company Equinor, was on the cusp of awarding a major steel contract to a Chinese firm called Modern. Net Zero Teesside will build the world’s first gas-fired power station with carbon capture and storage.
Backed with taxpayer cash, the joint venture had promised that at least 50 per cent of the engineering, procurement and construction contrasts would be sourced from the UK.
Lord Houchen, the local Conservative mayor, called for “an immediate rethink”. This prompted BP to intervene, raising hopes that British Steel — an under-bidder — would prevail.
Sources said, however, that the joint venture had decided to stick with China, ordering 7,000 tonnes that will be made and then fabricated overseas. The contract is understood to be worth £20 million.
A government source said ministers are “keen to see UK steel sourced for UK projects”.
The BBC’s new antisemitism training course says people who “have no intention to offend Jewish people” should not “criticise Zionists”.
The training, rolled out to BBC staff last week and seen by Middle East Eye, says: “Antisemites frequently use the word ‘Zionist’ (or worse, ‘Zio’), when they are in fact referring to Jews, whether in Israel or elsewhere.
“Those claiming to be ‘anti-Zionist, not antisemitic’, should do so in the knowledge that many Jewish people consider themselves to be Zionists.”
The training adds: “If these individuals mean only to criticise the policies of the government of Israel, and have no intention to offend Jewish people, they should criticise ‘the Israeli government’, and not ‘Zionists’.”
The course was made by the BBC Academy in conjunction with the Jewish Staff Network, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Community Security Trust (CST).
The CST, which monitors antisemitic hate crimes and works with the government and police, has previously claimed that pro-Palestine marches in London were “disrupting the peace and the basic rights of Jews” and called for them to end.
The BBC training also incorporates the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which the British government has adopted but which legal experts have warned could lead to a “curtailment of debate”.
The definition says that claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a “racist endeavour” is an illustration of potential antisemitism.
Its critics say it conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism, or with criticism of policies that led to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes in modern-day Israel.
‘Against any form of discrimination’
Asked for comment, the BBC directed MEE to comments previously made by outgoing director general Tim Davie.
In an email to BBC staff on 4 December, Davie said that the “BBC is for everyone, and we are clear that everyone working here should feel they belong. As an organisation we stand united against any form of discrimination, prejudice, or intolerance”.
“In response to this, the BBC Academy has spent the last few months developing new anti-discrimination training. We’re starting with e-learning modules on antisemitism and Islamophobia, which we expect staff across the BBC to complete,” he added.
Davie said that the “module on antisemitism is available from today, while the Islamophobia module is just being finalised, to launch in February”.
Davie resigned last month amid a row over the broadcaster’s editing of a speech by US President Donald Trump on 6 January 2021 for the BBC’s Panorama show.
The public broadcaster has also been embroiled in several scandals over its coverage of Israel and Gaza.
MEE reported last month that the BBC’s online Middle East editor Raffi Berg said in 2020 that it was “wonderful” to be in a “circle of trust” with current and former Mossad agents while writing a book on the Israeli intelligence agency, and that the Mossad’s “fantastic operations” make him “tremendously proud”.
A study published in June by the Muslim Council of Britain-linked Centre for Media Monitoring (CFMM) claimed the BBC’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza is “systematically biased against Palestinians”, according to an analysis of over 35,000 pieces of content.
The study found that the BBC gives Israeli deaths 33 times more coverage than Palestinian ones, uses emotive terms four times as much for Israeli victims and applies “massacre” 18 times more to Israeli casualties than Palestinian ones.
The BBC pulled a documentary on children in Gaza, Gaza: How To Survive a Warzone, in February after it emerged that the boy who narrated the film, Abdullah al-Yazuri, was the son of a deputy minister in Gaza’s government.
This followed an intense campaign by pro-Israel groups and the Israeli embassy in London.
The BBC then came under fire in June for dropping a second film on Gaza, this one on doctors, after delaying its broadcast for months.
Officials at the broadcaster said that “broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC”.
The film was aired instead by Channel 4 and other news organisations.
The BBC has ordered staff to complete mandatory anti-Semitism training following a series of scandals at the broadcaster.
Tim Davie, the outgoing director-general, has told staff they have six months to complete the new course, which aims to end “any form of discrimination, prejudice, or intolerance” at the corporation.
It follows the publication by The Telegraph last month of an internal memo which revealed anti-Israel bias in the BBC’s news coverage, and prompted Mr Davie to resign.
The broadcaster has also been embroiled in controversy over a Gaza documentary, and its decision not to cut anti-Semitic chants from its coverage of rap act Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury set.
The documentary, called Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, prominently featured the son of a Hamas official, whose identity was not disclosed to viewers at the time. The revelation later led to it being pulled from the airwaves.
Abdullah al-Yazouri, the documentary’s teenage narrator, was revealed to be the son of a Hamas official
A Palestinian boy called Zakaria poses alongside a Hamas fighter in the BBC documentary
Meanwhile, BBC staff did not cut away from chants of “death, death to the IDF” during Bob Vylan’s set, and were criticised for allowing the broadcast to go ahead despite knowing it was “high risk”.
In a company-wide memo about the new discrimination training, staff have now been told that “anti-Semitism has no place at the BBC” and that the module “provides a framework of understanding for staff to spot and call out anti-Semitism”.
Staff have been told that the module involves “real world examples” of how anti-Semitism can appear in society, with a warning that this “understandably may be upsetting for some colleagues”.
Another module on Islamophobia will be made available to staff from February, they were told.
Mr Davie said: “The BBC is for everyone, and we are clear that everyone working here should feel they belong…the BBC Academy has spent the last few months developing new anti-discrimination training.”
The memo revealed that BBC’s Arabic news service chose to “minimise Israeli suffering” in the war in Gaza so it could “paint Israel as the aggressor”.
It also found that BBC Arabic had given a platform to journalists who had made extreme anti-Semitic comments, including one contributor who was featured 217 times despite describing a Palestinian who killed four Israeli citizens as a “hero” in 2022.
The announcement of the training was welcomed by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, whose president Phil Rosenberg said there was an “urgent need for change in both culture and content at the corporation”.
The BBC Academy course on anti-Semitism was made in conjunction with the Jewish Staff Network, the Anti-Semitism Policy Trust and the Community Security Trust (CST).
The Telegraph’s publication of the memo also led to the resignation of the broadcaster’s head of news, Deborah Turness.
Last year, Sir Michael Ellis, the former attorney general, told MPs that the BBC was “institutionally anti-Semitic”, and that its reporting of the Israel-Hamas war had contributed to attacks on British Jews.
In February, Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservatives, wrote to Mr Davie to complain about BBC Arabic’s coverage, describing it as a “platform for terrorists” that was promoting “appalling anti-Semitism” to millions of viewers.
In his email, sent to staff on Thursday, Mr Davie added: “I know that everyone will be committed to the training, ensuring the BBC is a role model as an inclusive and tolerant workplace.”
British asylum seeker policy lags behind the Danes
Number of asylum seeker applications and applications granted* in Denmark and the United Kingdom
Denmark’s grants are the number of residence permits | Source: Statistics Denmark, Home Office
The Labour Party’s champagne socialist wing, a cadre of far-left MPs has unleashed a barrage of sanctimonious outrage against Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood‘s proposed migration crackdown, labeling it “far-Right” and “undeniably racist” while conveniently ignoring the spiraling chaos at Britain’s borders. MPs like Nadia Whittome and Clive Lewis, ensconced in their safe metropolitan bubbles, are urging a retreat from Denmark’s proven blueprint—a system that has slashed asylum claims by over 80% since 2015—insisting it echoes the very “hate” they claim to abhor.
As Labour grapples with the fallout from high-profile migration debacles, including a deported Iranian migrant sneaking back via small boat and a convicted sex offender’s bungled release, this internal mutiny reeks of the same border-blind naivety that handed Nigel Farage and Reform UK their electoral surge.
Mahmood, tasked with restoring sanity to a Home Office battered by years of open-door lunacy under the Tories and now Labour’s wobbly grip, is reportedly finalizing a Danish-inspired package for announcement later this month. Drawing from Copenhagen’s rigorous model—mandatory financial guarantees for family reunions (£7,000 equivalent), age thresholds (24+ for partners), integration tests, and temporary humanitarian stays— the reforms aim to curb the unchecked influx that saw net migration hit 685,000 last year. Denmark’s success is undeniable: Asylum applications plummeted from 13,000 in 2015 to under 2,000 by 2024, without the economic drag of unchecked welfare claims or the cultural fractures from “parallel societies.” Yet, in a party already hemorrhaging support to Reform, the hard-left brigade cries foul, as if compassion means capitulation to every dinghy-dodger.
Woke Warriors Weaponize ‘Racism’ Against Common Sense
Leading the charge is Whittome, the Nottingham East MP and self-styled eco-warrior, who branded the Danish model a “dead end—morally, politically and electorally” on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “These are policies of the far-Right,” she thundered, dismissing Mahmood’s pragmatic borrowing as a “dangerous path” laced with racism. Whittome’s hyperbole isn’t isolated; Norwich South’s Clive Lewis echoed the sentiment, decrying Denmark’s “hardcore approach” that apes “far-Right talking points.” For these ideologues, any curb on unchecked migration—family reunions requiring independent status, or asset seizures from asylum seekers to cover stays (a 2016 Danish staple)—is tantamount to xenophobia, not the fiscal prudence it is.
This isn’t mere dissent; it’s sabotage. As Red Wall MPs like Stoke-on-Trent’s Gareth Snell praise exploring Danish tactics to reclaim Reform-leaning voters, the left’s purity tests threaten Labour’s fragile unity. Snell, representing a Brexit heartland, sees sense in Copenhagen’s framework: “Worth exploring,” he told The Telegraph, recognizing that voters fleeing Labour for Farage cite migration overload as the tipping point. Whittome and Lewis, however, prioritize performative allyship over electoral reality—echoing Lucy Powell’s deputy leadership plea for a “softer” stance, which reeks of surrender to the migrant caravans overwhelming Dover.
Recent fiascos underscore the urgency: An Iranian “deportee” under the Franco-UK “one-in-one-out” scheme returned via Channel dinghy last month, mocking border controls. Then, Ethiopian rapist Hadush Kebatu—jailed for assaulting a 14-year-old—slipped custody post-sentence, sparking a manhunt before a £500 bribe quashed his asylum claim for deportation.
These aren’t anomalies; they’re symptoms of a system Whittome’s crowd deems too “tough.” Meanwhile, Labour’s pollster panic mounts: Reform’s 14% surge in locals ties directly to migration gripes, per YouGov.
Christian Clerics Join the Open-Borders Chorus
Compounding the farce, a flock of Anglican elites has waded in, decrying anti-migration sentiment as “Christian nationalist” poison. Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams sermonized that migrants aren’t “enemy invaders” but “vulnerable people like us,” urging a rejection of “lazy, hurtful stereotypes.” Southwark’s Bishop Rosemary Mallet echoed: “Migration is… a test of our shared humanity,” invoking gospel love for neighbors—conveniently ignoring the neighbors already strained by housing shortages and NHS queues.
Friday’s London “prayer walk”—clergy clutching poppy-crosses at migrant memorials—dramatized their plea, but it rings hollow against the data: Net migration’s 20% spike under Sunak fueled 4 million excess deaths from overburdened services, per ONS. As one Daily Mail reader quipped online: “Love thy neighbor—until they’re 10 to a flat, then it’s ‘compassion overload.’” This clerical meddling, blending theology with politics, alienates working-class Christians who back Farage’s “stop the boats” clarion.
Labour’s Fork in the Road: Farage’s Gain or Reform’s Pain?
Mahmood’s Danish pivot isn’t flirtation with the “far-Right”—it’s survival. Copenhagen’s Social Democrats, once centrist, adopted tough measures without imploding, slashing claims while boosting integration. Labour, trailing Reform by 5 points in marginals (Ipsos), can’t afford Whittome’s moral grandstanding. Starmer’s post-election silence on the rift—after Powell’s “step forward” plea—hints at internal tremors: Red Wall pragmatists vs. Islington utopians.
As migration dominates headlines—1,200 Channel crossings last week alone—the left’s sabotage hands Farage a gift-wrapped narrative: Labour as migrant enablers, blind to cultural erosion. Whittome’s “racist” slur? A badge of honor for border hawks. Lewis’s “lose progressive votes”? Tell that to the 2 million who shunned Labour in locals.
Mahmood must steel against the sirens: Implement Danish rigor, reclaim the center-right on security, and remind voters migration isn’t charity—it’s capacity. Otherwise, Reform’s “complete and total failure” taunt about Labour becomes prophecy. Britain deserves borders that work, not woke whimsy.
The BBC will apologise for the misleading editing of a Donald Trump speech in a Panorama documentary, the Telegraph can disclose.
Samir Shah, the BBC’s chairman, will write to the culture, media and sport committee on Monday to express regret for the way the speech, made on the day of the Jan 6 2021 Capitol riot, was spliced together.
The apology will heap further pressure on Tim Davie, the BBC’s director general, to quit over an 8,000-word dossier compiled by a whistleblower that alleged widespread bias within the corporation.
The Telegraph has previously disclosed that both Mr Davie and Mr Shah were warned of the doctored footage in May but appear to have kept quiet.
The decision to issue an apology now raises questions about why it has taken them six months to admit viewers were misled.
The Telegraph understands the apology will be for the misleading editing of the Trump speech. It is not clear what Mr Shah will say about the coverage of the Gaza war or alleged bias in the BBC’s reporting on gender, but it is understood that he may also advocate changes to the management and oversight of BBC Arabic.
The Panorama episode, broadcast a week before the 2024 US election, “completely misled” viewers, according to the memo written by Michael Prescott, a former standards adviser to the BBC.
His memo was circulated amongst senior managers, who “refused to accept there had been a breach of standards”.
Mr Prescott is then understood to have warned Mr Shah of the “very, very dangerous precedent” set by Panorama, but received no reply.
The existence of the dossier and its contents were revealed by The Telegraph last week, prompting calls from senior politicians, including the former prime minister Boris Johnson, for Mr Davie to resign.
On Friday night, the White House accused the BBC of “purposeful dishonesty”, claiming it was a “Leftist propaganda machine”.
The dossier also highlighted anti-Israel bias, especially in coverage of the war in Gaza, on its dedicated BBC Arabic news service.
Sir Vernon Bogdanor, Britain’s foremost constitutional expert, also called on Mr Davie to resign with “immediate effect” on Saturday.
The academic, a former professor of government at the University of Oxford, said the broadcaster had “ignored” a separate report he had sent to it, warning of distortion and bias in its reporting on Gaza.
The Telegraph has been told that Mr Shah’s apology for misleading viewers on the editing of Mr Trump’s speech will be contained in a letter sent to Dame Caroline Dinenage, the chairman of the culture, media and sport committee.
It is likely to raise questions over whether Mr Shah and Mr Davie tried to cover up internal concerns over the Trump edit, given that they are only now apologising in the face of intense media scrutiny.
Danny Cohen, a former director of BBC Television, said on Saturday night: “It is extraordinary that the BBC’s leadership has been missing in action for a week amidst this growing crisis.
“Both BBC director general Tim Davie and chairman Samir Shah were in the room when the faked Trump video was raised as a serious problem six months ago. This makes it very hard for them to excuse away the scandal.”
In his report, Mr Prescott wrote: “Examining the charge that Trump had incited protesters to storm Capitol Hill, it turned out that Panorama had spliced together two clips from separate parts of his speech. This created the impression that Trump said something he did not and, in doing so, materially misled viewers.”
‘The BBC has become the story’
In an email sent to news staff on Friday evening, Deborah Turness, the chief executive of BBC News and Current Affairs, appeared to lay the ground for the apology. She said in her email: “I’m writing to you today because it’s always difficult when the BBC becomes a story – as it has, in some quarters, this week.”
She went on: “You will all have seen the news coverage following the leaking of a letter to the BBC board from Michael Prescott, who is a former adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee (EGSC). The EGSC is a sub-committee of the BBC board.”
She said the BBC had received a letter from Dame Caroline “seeking reassurance from the BBC, adding: “The chairman will be providing a full response on Monday, and this will be shared with you, but I felt it was important for me to come to you as CEO of BBC News before the end of the week.”
In a statement, a BBC spokesman said on Saturday night: “The BBC chairman will provide a full response to the culture, media and sport committee on Monday.”
‘Serious manipulation’
Sir John Whittingdale, the former culture secretary, in an interview with Radio 5 Live on Saturday night, said: “The BBC does great work and I’m a huge supporter of the BBC World Service, its investigative journalism has been outstanding. But all of that has been threatened in the case of the Trump speech.
“It’s a very serious manipulation to present a picture that is not accurate and that will cast doubt on everything that the BBC says.”
Sir John, who is MP for Maldon, said the “buck stops” with Mr Davie.
He added: “I think part of the problem is that the director general also has the title of editor-in-chief. Ultimately he is responsible and previous director generals have had to resign.
“If Tim Davie is to continue he has got to show that he recognises what a serious threat to the reputation of the BBC this is and to show that he is going to act very swiftly and make sure things improve and that it can’t happen again.”
On being asked if he thought Mr Davie’s job was under threat, Sir John said: “Yes I do.”
He added: “There are already people saying that the director general will have to resign.”
‘We need to listen and learn’
Nick Robinson, presenter of the BBC Today programme, said on X: “We live in a time of deep divisions – about politics and culture – Gaza/Israel, trans and women’s rights, Donald Trump’s policies and politics – to name just three.
“The BBC like many public organisations faces competing pressures about how we navigate these treacherous waters.
“We, like others, need to listen and learn. We can and will do better but we should stand up to those who prefer propaganda and disinformation.
“I look forward to hearing what the chairman of the BBC will say in response to legitimate concerns which have been raised but I have no idea what he plans to say nor did he – or any other my bosses – know what I said on air today or here on X.”
In the shadow of Windsor Great Park’s ancient oaks, Royal Lodge stands as a Georgian jewel—a sprawling 30-room mansion once beloved by queens and now at the epicenter of a brewing royal scandal. For more than two decades, Prince Andrew, the disgraced Duke of York, has called this Grade II-listed estate home, sharing its opulent halls with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson. But a bombshell lease document, unearthed and scrutinized this week, has ignited bipartisan outrage: Andrew hasn’t paid a penny in rent since 2003. Instead, he’s handed over a symbolic “peppercorn” annually—if demanded at all—while taxpayers foot the bill for lost revenue estimated at over £5 million.
The revelations, first detailed by The Times and corroborated by the Crown Estate’s own records, come amid fresh waves of scrutiny over Andrew’s ties to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Just days after Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and military honors—moves seen by some as a desperate bid to salvage his fading royal status—Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl hit bookshelves, reigniting allegations of sexual abuse that Andrew has vehemently denied for years. Politicians from across the spectrum are now demanding answers, investigations, and even eviction. “The public are sick of him,” thundered Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “It’s about time Prince Andrew took himself off to live in private and make his own way in life.”
This is no mere tabloid tittle-tattle; it’s a flashpoint for broader questions about royal privilege in an era of austerity. As King Charles III navigates a slimmed-down monarchy, the optics of his brother’s taxpayer-subsidized luxury are toxic. With parliamentary committees gearing up for probes and campaigners calling for compensation, Andrew’s grip on Royal Lodge—secured by a 75-year lease running until 2078—may finally be loosening. But as our investigation reveals, evicting him could cost the public purse dearly, thanks to a little-known compensation clause buried in the contract.
The Peppercorn Deal: A Royal Bargain or a Public Slight?
The story begins in the balmy summer of 2003, when Prince Andrew, then a roving trade envoy with a penchant for high-flying diplomacy (and higher-flying controversies), inked a deal that would secure his family’s foothold in Windsor’s gilded enclave. Fresh from Sunninghill Park—another grace-and-favor gift from his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II—Andrew shelled out £1 million upfront for a 75-year lease on Royal Lodge. In return, he committed to a staggering £7.5 million refurbishment, transforming the then-weathered estate into a modern palace fit for a fallen prince.
But here’s the kicker: since those initial outlays, Andrew’s annual rent has amounted to precisely nothing. The lease stipulates “one peppercorn (if demanded)” per year—a legal relic from feudal times, symbolizing nominal payment without actual cash changing hands. Market estimates peg the property’s true rental value at £260,000 annually, meaning the Crown Estate—whose profits flow directly to the Treasury—has foregone millions in potential revenue. Andrew, in exchange, shoulders all maintenance costs, a burden that reportedly runs into hundreds of thousands yearly for the 98-acre grounds alone.
The Crown Estate, an independent body managing £15 billion in royal assets, defends the arrangement as standard for historic properties requiring “close management control.” A 2005 National Audit Office (NAO) report, commissioned post-refurbishment, deemed it “appropriate,” noting that without Andrew’s investment, taxpayers would have footed the renovation bill. Downing Street echoed this on Tuesday, with a No. 10 spokesman insisting: “An independent evaluation concluded that the transaction… was appropriate.”
Yet critics smell favoritism. The NAO report itself conceded that the “over-riding need” for royal oversight “constrained the Crown Estate’s ability to realise the highest market value.” And lurking in the fine print? A compensation clause: If Andrew surrenders the lease early, the Crown Estate must pay him £558,000—equivalent to £185,865 annually until 2028. Eviction, it seems, isn’t just politically fraught; it’s financially punitive.
Political Firestorm: ‘Disgraceful’ Subsidy or Sovereign Right?
The lease’s exposure has supercharged a cross-party backlash. Robert Jenrick, the Conservative shadow justice secretary, didn’t mince words on Today: “He has disgraced himself, he has embarrassed the royal family time and again. I don’t see why the taxpayer, frankly, should continue to foot the bill at all.” Jenrick, a vocal monarchist who has praised King Charles’s “great respect and admiration” for handling the crisis, argued Andrew should “vanish from public life” entirely—no more luxury pads on the public dime.
Labour’s Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Commons Treasury Committee and a 20-year MP veteran, signaled parliamentary muscle: “Where money flows, particularly where taxpayers’ money is involved… Parliament has a responsibility to have a light shine upon that, and we need to have answers.” Her Public Accounts Committee counterpart is poised to join a joint scrutiny, potentially hauling Crown Estate executives before MPs by year’s end.
The Liberal Democrats, ever the fiscal watchdogs, went further. Cabinet Office spokeswoman Lisa Smart demanded Andrew “show some contrition by returning every penny of rent that he’s not paid while disgracing his office.” “Andrew has failed our King and Royal Family and betrayed the values of the British people,” she added, framing the saga as an “insult” to public decency.
Even as voices unite against Andrew, the palace remains tight-lipped. Buckingham Palace sources, speaking anonymously to the BBC, admitted “more days of pain ahead” but insisted the lease is a private matter. King Charles, who slashed Andrew’s £1 million annual allowance last year and yanked his £3 million security detail, is reportedly “at the end of his tether,” per royal insiders. Yet Andrew digs in, buoyed by his “cast-iron” contract and a personal fortune estimated at £1.5 million—bolstered by the controversial £15 million sale of Sunninghill Park in 2007 to a Kazakh oligarch’s son-in-law.
Shadows of Epstein: Giuffre’s Ghost and Unfinished Reckonings
No discussion of Andrew’s woes is complete without revisiting the Epstein specter. The financier’s 2019 suicide left a trail of shattered lives, with Andrew at its painful nexus. Giuffre, who died by suicide in April 2025 at 41, accused Andrew of sexually abusing her three times as a 17-year-old—once in London, once in New York, and once on Epstein’s Little St. James island. Andrew settled her 2022 civil suit for an undisclosed sum (rumored at £12 million) but never admitted liability.
Nobody’s Girl, co-written by Amy Wallace and published posthumously per Giuffre’s wishes, peels back layers of trauma. Extracts in The Guardian describe Giuffre’s recruitment at Mar-a-Lago: “An apex predator… spotted me like fresh meat.” Wallace, in ITV News interviews, defended Giuffre’s hazy timelines—”I may not remember particular dates… but I remember that face”—and lambasted Andrew’s inaction: “He was in the houses, he was on the jets… he could come forward and help investigators.” She hailed his title surrender as a “victory,” a “step in the right direction” toward accountability, though “his life is being eroded… as it should be.”
The memoir’s timing—mere days after Andrew’s title drop—has amplified calls for justice. Giuffre’s brother and sister-in-law, Sky and Amanda Roberts, urged Channel 4 News to press the Metropolitan Police to reopen its probe, or failing that, involve the Independent Office for Police Conduct. “Virginia wanted all the men… held to account,” Wallace told BBCNewsnight. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s convicted procurer, emerges as the “more ghastly” villain—a woman who “used her gender to lure young girls into this den of hell.”
Andrew’s denials persist: “I have never intended to… meet Virginia Giuffre,” he stated post-settlement. But emails unearthed in U.S. court filings show post-2001 contact with Epstein, contradicting his infamous 2019 Newsnight claim of a clean break. Ferguson, too, faces fallout—stripped of seven patronages after a groveling Epstein email surfaced.
A Storied Seat: From Queen Mother’s Haven to Andrew’s Holdout
Royal Lodge’s history mirrors the monarchy’s own: humble origins as a 17th-century farmhouse, rebuilt in 1830 by King William IV as a hunting retreat for George IV. By the 1930s, it became a sanctuary for the abdication-scarred House of Windsor. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother) raised their daughters there, Elizabeth II frolicking in her gift “Wendy House”—Y Bwthyn Bach, a thatched play cottage still on the grounds.
The Queen Mother held court until her 2002 death at 101, overseeing lavish updates. Andrew’s 2003 arrival marked a shift: He, Ferguson, and daughters Beatrice and Eugenie transformed it into York family HQ. Interiors boast seven bedrooms, a grand saloon, and a private chapel amid manicured gardens. Yet whispers of a “secret palace” in Abu Dhabi—rumored as an Andrew bolt-hole—add intrigue, with Daily Mail investigations probing Gulf ties.
Andrew’s finances remain opaque. With his allowance axed, he leans on a £20,000 naval pension, Pitch@Palace residuals (now suspended), and opaque Gulf/Chinese ventures. The Sunninghill windfall endures scrutiny for its £3 million markup and buyer’s Kazakh links. Security? Self-funded at £3 million yearly, per palace edict.
But the real sting is opportunity cost. Over 22 years, forgone rent could have swelled Treasury coffers by £5.7 million—enough for 1,000 NHS nurse salaries or climate adaptation projects. As Jenrick put it: “He shouldn’t have any taxpayer subsidies going forward.”
As autumn leaves carpet Windsor’s paths, Royal Lodge’s future hangs in balance. Andrew, 65 and isolated, shows no sign of budging—his lease a fortress against familial pleas. Yet with Giuffre’s words echoing (“This is about a system of powerful… people hurting people who aren’t”), and MPs sharpening their quills, the pressure is unrelenting.
King Charles, ever the modernizer, faces a dilemma: Enforce eviction and risk a £558,000 payout, or let the “embarrassment” linger? For taxpayers weary of royal excess, the verdict is clear: Time’s up for the Peppercorn Prince. As Wallace warns, the “fetishisation of young girls” didn’t die with Epstein—nor, it seems, has Andrew’s unyielding grip on privilege.
Donald Trump flies into Britain on Tuesday evening for a three-day state visit, with the US and UK promising to boost financial ties, including by exploring closer alignment of their capital markets.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer wants to use Trump’s visit to showcase Britain as an inward investment hotspot, with US private equity company Blackstone pledging to invest £100bn in British assets over the next decade. US officials said there would be at least $10bn of investment deals in the technology sector, an agreement on nuclear co-operation and an exploration of “how the deep connections between our leading financial hubs can be maintained into the future”. But Trump’s arrival could throw up problems for Starmer.
The US president is unpopular in Britain and his schedule has been designed to shield him from any public or political protest. Trump will not address the UK parliament and is expected to travel by helicopter from the US ambassador’s residence in London to Windsor Castle and later to Starmer’s country retreat at Chequers. Trump has not yet finalised a deal, agreed with Starmer in May, to exempt British steel exports from US tariffs, although they do benefit from lower 25 per cent levies compared with the 50 per cent applied to other countries.
British officials were in Washington on Monday holding urgent talks with US trade officials to try to conclude a deal that would exempt Scotch whisky from a 10 per cent tariff imposed on other UK exports.
A senior US official said the White House was not “tracking” any announcement to reduce US tariffs on whisky, in a sign that an agreement was unlikely. But the official suggested it may well be discussed. Meanwhile, US officials would not be drawn on whether Trump would endorse Tommy Robinson, a far-right activist who is admired by figures on the American right and who organised a “Unite the Kingdom” rally in London on Saturday, attended by between 110,000 and 150,000 people.
Asked whether he would speak out in support of Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, or even meet him, a US official said: “I don’t have anything on that right now.” For Trump, the highlight of the visit is expected to be a stay with King Charles and Queen Camilla at Windsor Castle, where he will be feted with a fly-past by military jets, a carriage procession and a state banquet.
But Starmer will try to use the visit to focus on financial, tech and nuclear co-operation, in an attempt to bolster his claims to have a “growth agenda” and to move on from a series of scandals that have rocked his government. Starmer is facing a wave of anger among Labour MPs and questions over his judgment after sacking his US ambassador Lord Peter Mandelson last week over his links to the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump is likely to be grilled over his own connections to Epstein at a press conference on Thursday, his last official business before returning to the US.
The state visit will be preceded on Tuesday by talks in Downing Street between UK chancellor Rachel Reeves and US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent over closer financial co-operation.
By aligning UK standards more closely with the US, Reeves would be hoping to increase access to the world’s deepest and most liquid financial markets, as well as attract greater American investment into Britain.
Stock Widget
The push follows a period of intense political anxiety over an exodus of London-listed companies to the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, as businesses seek higher valuations on the other side of the Atlantic. Trump will bring leading figures from Big Tech including OpenAI’s Sam Altman and chipmaker Nvidia’s NVDA +2.45% ▲ Jensen Huang on his delegation, while companies such as Rolls-Royce RYCEY +1.80% ▲, GSK GSK +1.35% ▲ and Microsoft MSFT +1.95% ▲ will attend a business roundtable at Chequers.
US officials did not indicate to what extent Trump would press Starmer on Britain’s Online Safety Act, which has been a source of tension between Washington and London as some US tech companies have decried it as censorship.
“How that may or may not play into the bilateral discussion that will take place with the prime minister is yet unknown. It may well arise, but it may not,” a senior US official said. “Free speech in the UK, but free speech elsewhere, is something that we in this administration are very much focused on,” they added.
Stock Widget
Blackstone BX +2.65% ▲ is making its commitment to Britain as part of a broader $500bn investment push across Europe, which co-founder Stephen Schwarzman told The Financial Times aimed to profit from economic reforms and a revival of growth. Blackstone’s top leaders like Schwarzman and president Jonathan Gray have long considered the UK a key market for the $1.2tn in assets investment group, and they have strong ties with Downing Street.
Blackstone is already one of the largest foreign investors in the UK, with billions put into digital infrastructure and ecommerce warehouses, among other things. It also has large corporate investments including Merlin Entertainments, the owner of Legoland, and was a major shareholder in the London Stock Exchange’s parent company until fully divesting its shares last year.
In a stark display of government heavy-handedness, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has declared that the British flag will not be hijacked as a “symbol of violence” following a massive rally organized by anti-establishment activist Tommy Robinson. The event, billed as “Unite the Kingdom,” drew up to 150,000 fed-up citizens to London’s streets on Saturday, highlighting growing public frustration with Labour’s handling of immigration, crime, and free speech erosion. But what Starmer and his Downing Street spin doctors are framing as “far-right thuggery” looks more like a legitimate outcry against a regime that’s turned a blind eye to real threats like grooming gangs while cracking down on patriotic dissent.
The Prime Minister’s comments came after Elon Musk, the billionaire innovator and free speech champion, delivered a fiery video message to the protesters, urging them to “fight back” against what he sees as a tyrannical drift in British politics. Addressing the crowd via live link, Musk warned that “violence is coming” if urgent changes aren’t made, a stark prediction that resonates with many who feel the establishment is pushing ordinary Britons to the brink. Downing Street wasted no time in piling on, with the PM’s official spokesman accusing the Tesla CEO of promoting “violence and intimidation on our streets.” “The UK is a fair, tolerant and decent country,” the spokesman huffed. “The last thing the British people want is this sort of dangerous and inflammatory language.”
Yet, from a right-leaning perspective, Musk’s intervention isn’t meddling—it’s a much-needed wake-up call from an outsider who’s unafraid to call out the failures of a Labour government that’s prioritized virtue-signaling over public safety. This isn’t Musk’s first rodeo in British affairs; earlier this year, he used his platform X (formerly Twitter) to ignite a national debate on the scandal of grooming gangs, exposing how authorities have failed vulnerable communities for years. That “war of words” with the government only underscores Musk’s role as a bulwark against censorship and cover-ups.
Saturday’s march, far from the chaotic riot Starmer’s allies are painting it as, started as a peaceful assembly of everyday people waving Union Jacks and demanding accountability. Violence did erupt, with 26 police officers injured—four seriously—and 24 arrests for offenses including affray, violent disorder, assault, and criminal damage. But let’s be clear: in a nation where protests against lockdowns or net zero policies often pass without a whimper from the left, this event’s scale (initial estimates pegged it at 110,000, later revised to 150,000) speaks to deep-seated anger over issues like unchecked migration and the two-tier policing that favors certain groups.
Starmer, ever the lawyer-turned-leader, issued a weekend statement condemning the “use of the flag as a symbol of violence, fear and division.” He insisted that “the right to peaceful protest was core to British values,” but drew a line at “assaults on police officers doing their job or for people feeling intimidated on our streets because of their background or the colour of their skin.” “Britain is a nation proudly built on tolerance, diversity and respect,” he proclaimed. “Our flag represents our diverse country and we will never surrender it to those that use it as a symbol of violence, fear and division.”
This rhetoric, while polished, smacks of the same divisive tactics the left has used to delegitimize conservative voices. By equating the Union Jack with “far-right” extremism, Starmer risks alienating the very working-class voters who propelled Reform UK to gains in recent elections. It’s a classic Labour move: smear patriots as thugs while ignoring the root causes—like the grooming scandals Musk highlighted—that fuel these gatherings.
Across the aisle, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey called Musk’s words “totally inappropriate,” whining that Britain’s democracy is “too precious to be a plaything for foreign tech barons.” In a letter to Starmer, Tory leadership hopeful Kemi Badenoch, and Reform’s Nigel Farage, Davey demanded they all condemn the “dangerous” remarks. Badenoch has yet to respond publicly, but her track record suggests she’d view Musk as an ally in pushing back against woke overreach.
Farage, never one to shy from controversy, offered a nuanced take on Monday: “The context in which the words had been used left a degree of ambiguity.” He added, “If the fight that Musk was talking about was about standing up for our rights and free speech, if it was about fighting in elections to overcome the established parties, then that absolutely is the fight that we’re in.” Farage’s measured words cut through the hysteria, reminding us that Musk’s call to “fight back or die” could just as easily apply to the ballot box as the streets—especially with Labour’s approval ratings plummeting amid economic woes and border chaos.
As Britain grapples with these tensions, one thing is clear: Starmer’s attempt to “reclaim” the flag won’t silence the growing chorus of discontent. If anything, Musk’s bold stand has amplified it, proving that even from across the Atlantic, truth-tellers like him can shake the foundations of a government more interested in control than common sense.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
