Tesla, run by Elon Musk, would be welcome to invest in the UK, the prime minister has said.

Sir Keir Starmer said he didn’t want to be misunderstood after the BBC reported that the tech tycoon had not been invited to the UK’s International Investment Summit due to his social media posts during last month’s riots.

“Obviously, I encourage investment from anywhere,” he told the BBC.

He added: “Good investment into the UK is what I’m very, very keen to promote.”

Sir Keir made his comments while speaking to journalists on his recent visit to New York, where he addressed the United Nations and met with Donald Trump and US business leaders.

“Every time I’m abroad, every time on an international trip, we do these investment breakfasts, because I’m absolutely determined to get the investment that we needed into the economy.

“And I do think we’ve got a real opportunity with a new chapter now,” he said.

The summit next month is the key moment that the prime minister hopes will drive tens of billions of pounds in inward funding for business from the world’s biggest investors.

Mr Musk was invited to last year’s event but did not attend. However, he took a starring role in November’s artificial intelligence (AI) Summit, including a fireside chat with then-prime minister Rishi Sunak.

Jeremy Hunt, the former Conservative chancellor and now the shadow chancellor, told the BBC it was a “big loss” not to have Mr Musk at the summit.

“He told me last year he was planning a new car plant in Europe and had not decided where but the UK was a candidate,” Mr Hunt claimed.

Mr Musk lashed out on social media after reports that he had not been invited to the UK government’s International Investment Summit.

“I don’t think anyone should go to the UK when they’re releasing convicted pedophiles in order to imprison people for social media posts,” Mr Musk claimed on X.

Following disorder and rioting across the UK in August, some people were jailed for encouraging unrest on social media.

During the August riots, Mr Musk posted on X, formerly Twitter, predicting civil war in the UK and repeatedly attacking the prime minister.

He also shared, and later deleted, a conspiracy theory about the UK building “detainment camps” on the Falkland Islands for rioters.

At the time, ministers said his comments were “totally unjustifiable” and “pretty deplorable”.

Like many cop watchers, Carolina Ft. Worth has an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of her local city. So when she noticed Fort Worth police seemed to be targeting the vehicles of bar workers late at night, she set out to investigate. According to Carolina, many of the tow companies in the city are operated by retired police officers, raising questions about the possibility of a racket being run from within the police department. As she was filming police towing cars in the downtown area, an officer familiar to Carolina confronted her and began to arrest her. The ensuing police-initiated altercation left Carolina bleeding and unconscious on the ground with a dislocated shoulder and elbow. Carolina Ft. Worth joins Police Accountability Report to discuss her harrowing ordeal, and how police across the country are engaged in similar kinds of suspicious behavior driven by municipal and even potentially illegal private economic incentives.

Studio Production: Stephen Janis
Post-Production: Adam Coley

Transcript

The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

Taya Graham:

Hello, my name is Taya Graham, and welcome to the Police Accountability Report. As we always make clear, this show has a single purpose, holding the politically powerful institution of policing accountable. And to do so, we don’t just focus on the bad behavior of individual cops, instead, we examine the system that makes bad policing possible.

And today we’ll achieve that goal by showing you this video of an officer throwing a well-known cop watcher to the ground and causing severe physical injuries for simply filming them. An example of police reacting violently for being watched, raising questions about just how dangerous it can be to hold police accountable.

But before we get started, I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct, please email it to us privately at par@therealnews.com or reach out to me on Facebook or Twitter @tayasbaltimore and we might be able to investigate for you. And please like, share, and comment on our videos it can help get the word out and it can even help our guests.

And of course, you know I read your comments and appreciate them. You see those little hearts I give out down there, and I’ve even started doing a comment of the week to show you how much I appreciate your thoughts and to show off what a great community we have.

And we do have a Patreon called Accountability Report, so if you feel inspired to donate, please do. We don’t run ads or take corporate dollars, so anything you can spare is truly appreciated.

All right, we’ve gotten that out of the way. Now, as we have documented rigorously on this show, filming cops is not easy or without risk. For one thing, they have the power to retaliate with an arrest, but also they have the threat of using violence to subdue those who dare to turn the camera in their direction. And that’s exactly what happened in the video I’m showing you now.

It depicts a Texas cop watcher, Carolina in Fort Worth, as she tries to film police for what she believed were unwarranted parking tickets. But how police responded and the severe consequences for her is what we address today in detail.

Now, just to note, this story has received a lot of attention within the Cop Watcher community, but today we are going to break it down with new footage and an interview with the victim of the arrest herself, Carolina in Fort Worth. And believe me, she has a lot to say. But first, let’s review what happened.

The story starts in June of this year in Fort Worth, Texas. There, Carolina was filming police in a parking lot. She believed cops were running a bit of a scam, writing unwarranted tickets, and in the process, unjustly saddling, hardworking bartenders and waitstaff from a nearby entertainment district with excessive fines and towing of their cars.

Bear in mind, this was 3:30 in the morning when she initially started filming. Let’s watch.

Carolina In Fortworth:

They’re saying, “Okay, we’re going to tow this, we’re going to tow that. Let’s see, what are we going to do?” I bet it’s a cop car that’s broken. That’s hilarious if it is. Predator tow truck drivers, they’re the worst. They’re towing a bunch of cars off. They’re trying to build the entertainment district up, right? This is a great way to do it. This is great for community relations and it’s a great idea for community relations to start towing people’s cars. I think that’s a wonderful idea.

Taya Graham:

Now, at this point, it is undeniable that Carolina in Fort Worth is doing nothing wrong. She isn’t interfering with police, simply filming them and for good reason. As you can see, police, were having cars towed from the parking lot right in the heart of one of Fort Worth’s most vibrant gathering spots.

But soon things get tense when police decide they don’t want their towing dragnet scrutinized, take a look.

Carolina In Fortworth:

That’s great for community policing. They’re trying to build up the entertainment center, but now you’re going to tow everybody’s shit. That’s a private parking lot. How the hell are you going to tow off a private parking lot? Are you allowed to tow off a private parking lot? Are you allowed to tow off a private parking lot? Oh, you’re going to ignore me. Okay. Do you see any towing will be strictly enforced signs? I don’t see any.

So there’s no signs that say towing will be enforced. What does this say? This is validated parking. It says, “Please register upon parking. Validated parking. Please register upon parking. Business is [inaudible 00:04:16], validated parking for Folk Street Warehouses.

Ways to validate. You can scan the QR code or text pay. Failure to pay or extend time may result in boots.” Okay, so how do they know if they paid or not? How do you know if they paid or not ladies? Hey ladies. Hey ladies. Hey ladies. Hey, Krueger.

Taya Graham:

Now, shortly after she begins questioning the ticket-writing officers, another cop shows up on the scene, a member of the Fort Worth Police Department that she was more than familiar with, and it doesn’t take him long to confront her. Take a listen.

Officer Krueger:

[inaudible 00:04:48] sounds [inaudible 00:04:49].

Carolina In Fortworth:

No, I’m not going to the floor. There’s no investigation. There’s no nothing.

Officer Krueger:

You can go to the other side of the street or you’re going to get arrested. I’m not warning you again.

Carolina In Fortworth:

What are you talking about?

Officer Krueger:

Go to the other side of the street right now.

Carolina In Fortworth:

Why? Wait, tell me why first.

Taya Graham:

She asked a simple question that we hear quite often on this show, but is rarely answered, why? Why do you, Officer Krueger, believe you have the right to arrest me? What law empowers you to put me in handcuffs?

Krueger doesn’t answer, but not being able to articulate a reason also doesn’t stop him from deploying the powers of the state in a highly questionable manner.

Officer Krueger:

You’re under arrest. Turn around please.

Carolina In Fortworth:

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, okay.

Officer Krueger:

Stop resisting. Stop resisting.

Taya Graham:

Stop resisting. Seriously, how many times on this show have we heard that phrase, cops who say, “Stop resisting,” when the victim clearly isn’t. However, this time we have several other camera angles to in fact, check on Officer Krueger’s camera performance.

First, let’s watch the officer’s body worn camera and you be the judge. If she was resisting.

Officer Krueger:

Hey Carolina, we’re busy. Go to the other side of the street.

Carolina In Fortworth:

There’s nothing to report. There’s no investigation, there’s no nothing.

Officer Krueger:

You can go to the other side of the street or you’re going to get arrested. I’m not warning you again.

Carolina In Fortworth:

What are you talking about?

Officer Krueger:

Go to the other side of street right now.

Carolina In Fortworth:

Why? Wait, tell me why first.

Speaker 4:

We’re doing an-

Officer Krueger:

You’re under arrest, turn around, put your hands-

Carolina In Fortworth:

No, no, no, no, no.

Officer Krueger:

Stop resisting.

Speaker 4:

She’s bleeding.

Officer Krueger:

[inaudible 00:06:34]

Taya Graham:

Okay. How exactly can you resist if you are lying on the ground bleeding? I mean, seriously. Resistance cannot occur when you are unconscious. That is simply an indisputable fact. You can’t resist if you’re lying on the ground in a pool of your own blood.

But just to be sure, let’s watch the footage from an entirely different angle, courtesy of the CCTV video released by the Fort Worth Police Department.

Officer Krueger:

Hey Carolina, we’re busy. Go to the other side of the street. You can go-

Carolina In Fortworth:

You did this before, there’s no investigation, there’s no nothing.

Officer Krueger:

You can go to the other side of the street or you’re going to get arrested. I’m not warning you again.

Carolina In Fortworth:

What are you talking about?

Officer Krueger:

Go to the other side of the street right now.

Carolina In Fortworth:

Why? Wait, tell me why first.

Speaker 4:

We’re doing an-

Officer Krueger:

You’re under arrest. Turn around, put your hands behind your back.

Speaker 4:

Okay.

Officer Krueger:

Stop resisting.

Speaker 4:

She’s bleeding.

Officer Krueger:

[inaudible 00:07:34] in ambulance.

Taya Graham:

Again, it’s hard to understand why the officer chose to be so aggressive. Yes, she was following the officers with a camera, which can be annoying, but that comes with the territory of having a badge and a gun. And yes, Carolina in Fort Worth is a stickler for accountability as you will learn later.

But why he decided that a cell phone camera justifies near deadly force is simply hard to understand.

Let’s just listen to his reaction after Carolina in Fort Worth is literally snoring. Snoring because she was literally knocked out.

Speaker 4:

She’s bleeding.

Officer Krueger:

[inaudible 00:08:17], I need a supervisor and an ambulance.

Taya Graham:

Being knocked unconscious was just one of several severe injuries, Carolina in Fort Worth endured. She also suffered a dislocated elbow and shoulder along with bruising and abrasions on her face, which I am showing you on the screen right now.

She also suffered damage to her orbital ridge and needed stitches to repair the damage around her eyes and lips. But of course, none of the aforementioned injuries include the trauma of being taken to the ground for nothing.

Now, the incident actually attracted local media attention and was widely decried as excessive. But when she and fellow cop watcher, Manuel Mata, confronted Officer Kruger just a few days later, he was not receptive to their complaints.

Take a look.

Carolina In Fortworth:

When’s the last time you falsified the police report?

Officer Krueger:

I have never falsified a police report.

Carolina In Fortworth:

You know what jaywalking is? Jaywalking occurs between two lights. There wasn’t two lights in here.

Officer Krueger:

Are you referring to jaywalking as a concept or jaywalking as a statue?

Carolina In Fortworth:

As a statute.

Officer Krueger:

You’re stupid. There’s only one. This was in the concept.

Carolina In Fortworth:

Oh, no, no. Jaywalking is not a real thing.

Manuel Mata:

Remember, I told y’all to give me a ticket. What’d you say? You’re going to jail for jaywalking. And then how do I end up with [inaudible 00:09:40]? Because y’all plain lie, right? It’s all on your cameras. And didn’t you just say it’s not a third degree felony to turn it off or mute it, right? Yeah, that’s how I like my servants, closed mouthed.

Taya Graham:

But there’s so much more going on behind the scenes than the questionable arrest you just watched, and that includes some intriguing background on the officer and his contentious relations with Carolina Rodriguez.

And for more on that, we will be talking to her later. But first, I’m joined by my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, who’s been looking into and examining the evidence. Stephen, thank you so much for joining us.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

So Stephen, what did the Fort Worth police charge her with?

Stephen Janis:

Well, I’ll tell you, it’s really amazing. It’s resistance, interfering, evading arrest, and false report all from what you see on video. It’s kind of hard to believe that they would use these charges, but it seems to me that it’s actually kind of purposeful because they’re trying to make her look as bad as possible because a video makes them look bad.

So those are the charges. They’re kind of shocking. We reached out to the police department. They said, “We don’t have media credentials.” We need to present them before they will answer our questions about whether they’re going forward with these charges.

Taya Graham:

Okay, wow. Interfering, but resisting and evading arrest? That really does seem like a stretch. You reached out to prosecutors about the case. What are they saying?

Stephen Janis:

Well, first of Taya, the prosecutors have not gotten back to us. But secondly, you’re right. It does seem really weird to charge you with things like that when she’s actually unconscious on the ground.

I don’t see how you evade an arrest when you’re lying on the ground snoring. I don’t see how you resist an arrest when you’re incapacitated.

So really, I think these charges are very questionable and hopefully prosecutors will back off on this, but we haven’t heard yet. When we do. We’ll say something in the chat.

Taya Graham:

Now this officer has had problems before. Can you talk about that and the concerns that it raises?

Stephen Janis:

Well, as Carolina in Fort Worth herself will tell us in the interview later, he has been noted for being very aggressive with the community.

Now, we reached out to Fort Worth Police Department and asked them specifically what they’re going to do about this officer. And they have not gotten back to us, but I think it raises concerns to see how quickly he turned to force.

He could have talked to her, he could have engaged her, but he didn’t. And I think that’s problematic. I think that might be emblematic of some of the he has as a police officer, Taya.

Taya Graham:

Now to get her take on what happened and how her relationship with Fort Worth police presages much of what happens and what she thinks about cop watching and why she will continue to fight for transparency and accountability.

I’m joined by Carolina in Fort Worth, our cop Watcher. Carolina, thank you for joining me.

Carolina In Fortworth:

You’re welcome. I’m glad to be here. Glad you asked me.

Taya Graham:

So please help us understand what we see in this video. First, we see you approach officers asking them questions about their car impounding practices. You’re a cop watcher. What were you investigating that night?

Carolina In Fortworth:

It was about three o’clock in the morning after the bars are already closed and most of the teenagers and everybody are gone. And I just noticed a bunch of activity going on at the end of the street.

So I walked down there to see what was going on, and I’m really into community policing, just like the chief says he’s in the community policing, but I noticed that there’s a row cars that were parked on a private parking area, but you had to pay for the parking spot. And so I was trying to figure out what was going on, but nobody would really tell me. And you have to really look at the clues to kind of guess because they won’t tell you what’s going on.

So I was trying to just put guesses together. So I heard this one lady say, “Well, I paid $31 to park here and you’re not taking my car.”

And I saw a man walk up, a cop walk up to her and go, “No, no, no, no, we’re not taking yours. You’re leaving in yours, right?” So I assumed that they were going to take that whole row of cars because there’s a tow truck there already.

Now the tow truck driver, I have a good reporter to tow truck drivers, but this one I’ve had bad karma with before. And so I said, so I asked him what’s going on? And he didn’t tell me. He totally walked by me like I wasn’t there. He totally ignored me. Didn’t even say, “I can’t tell you,” or, “You know I can’t tell you,” or anything like that. He just totally ignored me and he walked right on by me to go to his tow truck.

So I just assumed that they were going to tow that whole row of cars. And I thought, well, that’s not very good community policing because why don’t they just put a note on the car and say, “Hey, we’re going to tow you next time you’re here.” It was a private parking area. It was 3:30 in the morning. Those people that were in those cars were probably too drunk to drive and drove home with somebody else or maybe working at a restaurant somewhere and still haven’t finished their job yet.

So I think it’s pretty dirty that they’re pulling these cars out without any kind of type of warning. It’s not community policing. Who’s the crime hurting that they’re parked like that on a private parking area?

Taya Graham:

So the officers didn’t seem interested in responding to your questions, but it suddenly became violent. Can you help me understand what happened?

Carolina In Fortworth:

I’m still asking myself that to this very day because what happened was is after the tow truck driver walked by me and ignored me, I noticed two female cops walking by me. And I’ve talked to those two ladies before, but they were just strolling. They didn’t look like they were busy doing anything. They were just strolling, really just strolling along like you’d see two ladies at the mall doing, just strolling.

So I started to ask them what was going on and they ignored me. They totally ignored me. So I tried to get their attention and I said, “Fire, fire, fire, fire,” and they still ignored me and they kept on walking. So I thought, okay, I let them walk up to where they were and I said, “Well, I’m going to go find out what’s going on.” So I started to walk up towards them, right? And then I saw Krueger jump out of the vehicle.

Well, first I talked to the girls. I was like, “Girls, do they have to pay? How do you know they haven’t paid that you’re towing them off like that?” And they were starting to answer me and then Krueger jumped out of the car and said, “Hey Carolina, I need you to go across the street. I’m not going to tell you again.” He said it to me one time.

I said, “But there’s nothing going on. What do you mean I have to go across the street?” I was questioning his unlawful order to go across the street. I figured it was an unlawful order because I didn’t see anything going on. The girls were strolling. I saw two officers in the street, they were talking to each other like on a break. I didn’t see anything going on at all.

And so he walked toward me and he said that, “I’m going to arrest you if you don’t go across the street.” I said, “Okay, okay, okay, but just tell me first what’s going on?” And that’s when he attacked me.

I didn’t know where it came from. I have no idea what I did to cause him to do that. I asked him, just tell me what’s going on first. What’s wrong with asking? He only asked me one time to move, right? And I just wanted to know what was going on because that’s what I’m trying to portray to the people. But he never said anything. He just grabbed my wrist and then I mean, threw me down on the ground. And that’s the last thing I remember from there.

Taya Graham:

So for all of us who were watching the live stream, it was horrifying and quite obvious you’d been knocked unconscious. What were your injuries and were you medically treated?

Carolina In Fortworth:

Well, like I said, I don’t remember anything that happened after I hit the ground. Nothing. I don’t remember the ride to the… If I rode in an ambulance or if I rode in somebody’s car. I don’t know if they carried me. I have no idea. But I woke up in a hospital bed with my arm. My good arm chained to the size of the bed. I was like, “What the heck is going on here?”

In the meantime, I’m going in and out of consciousness. So I passed back out again after I saw my arm was attached. And then I felt them shaking me and they woke me up and they said they were giving me something in my IV. I didn’t even know I had an IV and they were starting to just put my arm back into the socket. My arm had been out of the socket the whole time, didn’t even know it.

I just couldn’t believe it. And then I couldn’t see because both my eyes were swelled shut. So I didn’t know why my eyes were swelled shut and I just didn’t know what was going on. There was no mirror there. All I know is that I was chained to the bed. Nobody was answering any questions to me. And there was a female cop sitting at the foot of my bed. And that’s the only thing I remember from there, because I went back later and found out that I only was there from four to nine, not enough time to treat my injuries and monitor me at all.

The doctors there at the emergency room told me that this whole eye socket right here is broken. It’s still broken and if I touch it, I can feel little pieces of bone moving, right? I can feel the little pieces of bone moving.

I still have the black eye on this side and on this side. And I had a, my lip was split open and so they weren’t going to do anything about it. And I asked him to sew me up. Can you please sew me up, doctor? And he goes, “Are you sure you want me to sew you up?” He goes, “I think we need to wait for one of the orthopedic people to come.” I’m like, “No, just sew me up.” So he sewed me up.

So it looks like I have collagen on this side because it’s a big old bump right there. So I have to have that fixed. But the bad thing is I can touch my bone right here and I can feel it moving. Every once in a while my eye will go blurry. And then I have ringing in my ears constantly now, constantly. So I’m going to have to get all that taken care of.

Taya Graham:

So after you were briefly given medical, you were taken to jail, right?

Carolina In Fortworth:

Okay. This is amazing. So when I went to the first… Here in Fort Worth, you go to the city jail first and then they transfer you to the county jail and you have to go and a tunnel underneath like a rat, underneath the street.

So recently we’ve had overcrowding at the jail, and so they’ve been holding the people at the city jail for longer than they can handle. So usually you’re only at the city jail for about 12 hours while they just check you in. But they’ve been holding people there for three days.

So when I got to the city jail, they all knew who I was. They already knew who I was. And they said, “Well, she’s in really bad shape. We don’t want to take her because we don’t have any medical stuff over here. We don’t have any way to give her meds. We don’t have any way if she goes into a seizure, we don’t have anything for her. So we don’t want her.” And they made me stay there.

And I remember crawling on the floor from the front door to where I got checked in over to the cell, my regular cell that we always go to over there. So I crawled on the floor over there and they just let me do it. And she goes, “I don’t know what to tell you, but we’re having to make you stay here three days.” But next thing I know, I passed out on the floor. They put me in a wheelchair and they wheeled me into the tunnel.

And they were going to use one of my old mug shots, but one of the jailers said, “No, you need to take a picture of her now. You don’t need to use one of her old mug shots.” I remember that. I told him, I said, “Yeah, you can use my old mug shot. That’s fine.” I didn’t realize that that would be an important piece of evidence, that mug shot. That mug shot was really important. And I’m glad that that woman, whoever it was, insisted that I take that mug shot picture.

Taya Graham:

So what exactly were you charged with and how were you treated and how long were you kept incarcerated?

Carolina In Fortworth:

My first charge is interference with public duties. Okay, we have a clause that says, “Speech can be used as a defense to interference.” It really has to be physical. I really have to come in between whatever they’re doing or working on. I didn’t see myself do that.

If I walked into their crime scene, it’s because they didn’t have it marked, right? But I didn’t see a body with a cover on it. I didn’t see anybody taking notes. I didn’t see anybody measuring anything. I didn’t see anybody taking pictures of anything. I saw tow trucks towing off a vehicle. So I don’t know how I interfered with that just by asking what’s going on.

My next charge was false reporting. False reporting, because when the girls were ignoring me, I said, “Fire, fire.” That’s what you’re supposed to do when you want someone to take your attention. You say fire, but it was not in a crowded theater and they totally ignored me and didn’t take the report. So I got charged for that.

Then I got charged for resisting, which I suppose was resisting after I was knocked out because that’s when he started saying, “Quit resisting.”

All right. And then also evading. So that means running away, running away from them. So I don’t know how I can interfere and run away at the same time. That doesn’t make any sense. And also if you look at his body cam footage, my arms are behind my back, I put my arm behind my back to be arrested. I didn’t resist whatsoever.

Supposedly he grabbed both my arms and threw me on the ground. That’s what happened. So I don’t know what I did to be handled that way. I have no idea what I did. I didn’t know that asking a question would cause you to be thrown on the ground and knocked unconscious.

Taya Graham:

Did you have to pay bail? And are there any conditions around your release?

Carolina In Fortworth:

Well, there was no really conditions except for I had Harvey and Manuel and a lot of other people, they helped me get out of jail. They helped get that 10% to get me out, and I have to report there every week. And I’m surprised that they’re still going pressing forward with these charges. I’m really surprised because I don’t know how they can justify any one of them, any one of them at all.

But I have to report there every week to the bonds people and that’s about it. So it was $4,000. They had to get 10% of that. So each bond was a thousand dollars.

Taya Graham:

Now the officer who slammed you onto the ground, his name is Officer Kruger and he has a bit of a history with cop watchers. Can you share with me a little background about him?

For example, I believe he pulled a gun on Manuel Mata, who’s been of course a guest on PAR before.

Carolina In Fortworth:

Well, see, I knew Officer Kruger before this happened, only because he was the same officer that arrested Manuel Mata at gunpoint for walking across that very street that he told me to walk across. Manuel and I do a lot of cop watching down there, and what we do is we go on separate sides of the street and we walk together simultaneously down the street and we keep an eye on each other to see, to watch each other.

I had turned around just briefly to get my equipment ready to go, and when I turned around, he was gone. He totally disappeared. I was like, what in the world? I’m looking for him across where we were he was supposed to be. He didn’t see him. Then all of a sudden I get a phone call. It’s Manuel Mata said he’s in jail, that they had arrested him when I had my back turned.

So he was arrested at gunpoint for jaywalking. Well, you can’t bring somebody to jail for jaywalking because the punishment is not jail time. You can only take somebody into jail if the punishment is jail time.

So they added a charge onto his little arrest there and they added evading. So he walked across the street, was held at gunpoint, made to lay down on the ground, but he was evading too. That didn’t make any sense. That’s why that charge got dismissed for him.

Come to find out is that we found out when Manuel Mata got arrested that this man had been fired from the Irving Police Department for hurting two women in two different occasions, pulling one out of a car, and that was one of them, within 28 seconds of arrival. And the other one was jumping a woman who had turned to go back to her house, and he jumped her, and both of them were hurt. I don’t know if they’ve had any lawsuits or anything like that, but he sued the city of Irving because he was fired and he got his job back. But it had stipulations and the stipulations were psychiatric help, meetings with the psychiatric thing, drug testing, all sorts of little stipulations he had to do for a whole year if he came back. And I guess he didn’t want to do the stipulations because he was hired at the Fort Worth Police Department right after that.

Taya Graham:

Now you’ve recently won a lawsuit against another Texas Police department. What can you tell me about that suit?

Carolina In Fortworth:

So I was just sitting on the bench filming them and a man came out from behind from where he was supposed to be watching stuff go through the X-ray machine, and he took a camera and he put it like two inches away from my face and started daring me to hit him.

My lawyer took that and we won a small lawsuit. The man was already retired and everything, but it was very small, pretty insignificant, but at least it sent a message saying that they can’t do that to us anymore. They just can’t do that to us just because we’re filming something.

I was sitting on the bench. I wasn’t instigating. I wasn’t interfering. I was sitting on a bench just filming that new equipment that we had and that was it.

So they feel like… I think they talk among each other that we’re instigators, that were bad guys, that we just try to make trouble. We’re just trying to get views and all that sort of thing. But most of us are really trying to find, we’re doing investigative journalism work and they don’t seem to understand that. They don’t watch our videos either. They just judge us by hearsay.

Taya Graham:

Now, something that really amazed me is that you went out cop watching and live-streaming practically the day after you were released. Why are you so dedicated to cop watching and why are you willing to risk jail and even injury to do this work?

Carolina In Fortworth:

I went right out the next day because the reason why we do this is to make sure that people don’t get hurt. We were watching their rights. We’re making sure that they don’t get violated, and we actually have saved a lot of people with our cameras, and I was not going to let them think that they had taken me down or put me out.

I want them to know that I’m going to be doing this until my very last breath. I don’t care. And I mean, of course I was sore. I had my arm in a sling and I have the ringing in my ears, but I’m still going to do it. I’m still going to make as much time as possible to do it because we’re out there protecting the citizens is what we’re doing, and trying to teach them their rights and bring awareness to the rest of the country or the rest of the world that it’s not fair what they do to us. It’s not fair.

I mean, I was lucky. I mean, I had a camera. How many times have they done this to people that don’t have cameras? How many times have they hurt people that actually die? Three people a day are killed by police every day, and we don’t want one of them to be here in Fort Worth, and that’s why we’re out with our cameras every single day.

Taya Graham:

You told me you like to protect the underdog. What inspires you to cop watch?

Carolina In Fortworth:

I guess because what happens is that these cops are allowed to lie to the people. And I hate that we’re brought up as little kids to trust the police that listen to what they say because their heroes, they’re out there protecting you and making sure that nobody gets hurt. But in the meantime, what we’re finding out is that they break the rules to get people, they break the rules to get people.

In other words, would they stop a vehicle and they take everybody’s driver’s license or everybody’s ID to check them, all for warrants, to see if they can catch anybody that has a warrant out maybe instead of just taking the drivers. And I feel like if we have to play by the rules, they should play by the rules, and I don’t think they should be able to lie to us.

Taya Graham:

Okay. Now, the treatment of Carolina in Fort Worth prompts quite a few reactions from me. None of them I would add are particularly charitable to the institution of law enforcement.

For one thing, I still can’t really reconcile the officer’s behavior with Carolina’s simple act of filming. I mean, if there’s any example of the excessive use of law enforcement in our country against transparency, this one really takes the cake.

But there is something else going on here that I think is perhaps revealing about how policing in general has become misguided to say the least. It’s an idea that actually sheds light on the imperative that informs what the officers were actually doing that evening that’s been overlooked, if not ignored, but deserves further examination.

So let me put this simply. The officers in question weren’t investigating a murder, tracking down a burglar, or otherwise pursuing the laudable goal of public safety.

They weren’t helping a cat out of a tree or helping a distraught family search for a missing loved one. No, that’s not what was happening.

Instead, they were writing parking tickets at 3:30 in the morning, no less. That’s right. The officers who were uncomfortable under the gaze of the cop watchers cell phone were exacting fees and fines from the hardworking people who I assume really can’t afford it. They were even towing the vehicles of the entertainment district workers who were more than likely finishing a night-long shift in a bar or a restaurant.

Now, I want you to think about that, what it means and why it matters. I mean, we spent billions in this country on law enforcement. We train and equip cops to work for roughly 18,000 police departments spanning small towns to big cities across the country. And the idea, at least in theory, is that this investment will somehow translate into better public safety.

But how? And I asked this question seriously, how does writing parking tickets achieve that goal? How does towing cars in the middle of the night advance the off-sighted imperative to protect and serve?

Well, clearly it doesn’t, and that’s sort of the point, right? I mean, time and time again on this show, we encounter examples of overreach by the law enforcement industrial complex that seems more designed to simply punish than to protect. A clear lack of consideration for the people that ultimately pay for it. Something that I think speaks to the broader issues about why the uniquely American process of enforcing the law seems predicated on a philosophy that’s far removed from the idea of a collective common good.

What do I mean? Well consider this article in the Washington Post. It recounts how a group of former police officers participated in a mind-boggling crime that sounds like it’s lifted straight from a Hollywood script, not just troubling but profoundly disturbing.

The officers included two former members of the LA County Sheriff’s Department, which we’ve covered often on the show for some pretty questionable arrests.

Now, these officers were working at the behest of a Chinese national who wanted to extract money from his former business partner. The person who hired what were described as mercenaries was not named in the indictment. She allegedly had a dispute with the man whose home was raided and she wanted to collect the money she felt was her due.

The officers showed up with expired badges and forced their way into the victim’s home. The cops then proceeded to pressure him to sign paperwork to turn over roughly $37 million. They tore his shirt, threw him against the wall, and threatened to deport him. All of this while his two youngest sons cowered in fear, unsure of what would happen next.

At one point an officer said he was in fact not law enforcement, suggesting that the man was facing an immediate threat to his life.

All of this prompted him to sign over a $37 million stock under the threat of a bunch of cops who actually weren’t even cops.

But I think the broader point of this story about bizarre police behavior goes beyond a faux raid and a bit of boneheaded extortion, a tale of policing for profits that isn’t just isolated to a group of former cops turned bill collectors.

No, I think this is in fact a symbol or what drives bad policing and our historic economic inequality and the reason that Carolina was confronting a bevy of police in a nondescript parking lot at three A.M. in the morning. All of this really is not about morality or crime or law and order. It is though about a particular type of cruelty that underlies the fragile system of democracy in which we all hope to flourish.

It is put simply a regime of enforcement, not tethered to any idea of bolstering or building a community, but rather exacerbating the inequality that greases the wheels of penalties for the people who aren’t part of the fabulously wealthy.

I mean, you can’t maintain the historic concentration of wealth without some type of system that extracts and enforces the inequitable reality that we all share.

I think we can see this imperative at work in the story I just recounted and the near deadly encounter with Carolina not just the aggressive behavior alone, but the deeper systemic failures that drive police to do things that really make no sense.

I mean, let’s face it, parking tickets are supposed to encourage the most productive use of space, not impose usury fines on unwitting people. They aren’t supposed to be deployed like a weapon to burden the working class with fines and tow truck fees and costs that can drown a person who’s barely getting by.

Meanwhile, the fact that a bunch of retired cops thought they could turn into a crew of paramilitary bill collectors shows the same inherent disregard for the rights of the people that often put law enforcement at odds with the people they purport to serve.

But what really strikes me about both stories is that each, in its own way, tells a story about us, about how we are not respected and how we often suffer in silence while the government uses the police we fund to make our lives miserable.

Now, this is not to suggest that a parking ticket is the end of the world or that a $300 tow will necessarily destroy a person’s life. And this is not to say that an errant mob squad that illegally raided a man’s home got away with it. In fact, the only reason we know about it is because they’re actually being prosecuted.

But what this does tell us is that government power must be kept in check, and by extension, the government’s ability to employ, deploy, and empower people with guns and badges. Now, I know I make this point often, but the work to hold police accountable is vital, not just because cops are inherently bad or they’re always doing something wrong.

I would say just the opposite. They behave better when we watch them just like anyone else would. But what’s really important is to understand the fluidity of power or rather who it really serves, how it concentrates at the top and flows down until it envelops the working people of this country in a deluge of fines, fees, and petty arrests. How it leads to a country where a just release report noted that America spends more on healthcare than any other wealthy country, and yet we have the worst outcomes in terms of life expectancy and wellness to other comparable nations.

That’s why we have to comprehend the true nature of the punishment regime that makes all of these incongruous realities possible, how it accumulates power in institutions that are supposed to serve and then swallows whole the communal benefits and turns into over-policing and an invasive attempt to shape our lives in ways that are often punitive and destructive.

The broader point is that inequitable power is not reluctant or discreet. It doesn’t watch over us to be constructive or helpful. Ultimately, it is intended to prescribe a reality where we don’t matter, our rights don’t matter, and our pursuits of happiness don’t matter. Where cop watchers are just a nuisance. The working class is ripe for exploitation, and every single one of us is diminished by a system predicated on denying our humanity.

That’s why we need cop watchers, activists, journalists, YouTubers, and perhaps even a show that reports on all of them.

That’s why we need to be vigilant, demanding and skeptical, and that’s why we need the community that you are all a part of, the people that refuse to be ignored or forgotten.

I want to thank Carolina in Fort Worth for speaking with us, sharing her experience and being willing to get back on the streets and filming police. Thank you, Carolina. And of course, I have to thank Intrepid reporter Stephen Janis for his writing, research and editing on this piece. Thank you, Stephen.

Stephen Janis:

Taya, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it.

Taya Graham:

And I have to thank mods of the show, Noli D and Lacey, our further support. Thank you and a very special thanks to our accountability report, Patreons. We appreciate you and I look forward to thanking each and every single one of you personally in our next livestream, especially Patreon Associate producers, John ER, David K, Louie P, and Lucille Garcia and super friends, Shane B, Kenneth K, Pineapple Girl, matter of Rights, and Chris R.

And I want you watching to know that if you have video evidence of police misconduct or brutality, please share it with us and we might be able to investigate.

Reach out to us. You can email us tips privately at par@therealnews.com and share your evidence of police misconduct. You can also message us at Police Accountability Report on Facebook or Instagram or at Eyes on Police on Twitter. And of course, you can always message me directly at Taya’s Baltimore on Twitter and Facebook. And please like and comment. You know I read your comments and appreciate them. And we do have a Patreon link pinned in the comments below for accountability reports. So if you feel inspired to donate, please do. Anything you can spare is truly appreciated. My name is Taya Graham and I’m your host of the Police Accountability Report. Please be safe out there.

Related

This is an audio transcript of the Political Fix podcast episode: ‘Starmer’s ‘weird’ week — from Liverpool to New York’

[MUSIC PLAYING]

George Parker
Hello and welcome to Political Fix from the Financial Times with me, George Parker. Coming up, they won an election by a landslide. That wasn’t exactly obvious at the Labour party conference. So why wasn’t the Labour party in a more triumphant mood? Plus, what to make of Labour’s plans to ramp up capital spending after its repeated warnings that the state coffers are empty? And as Starmer joins world leaders at the UN in New York, what does the new Labour government bring to the western alliance? Joining me in the studio are Political Fix regulars Robert Shrimsley. Hi, Robert.

Robert Shrimsley
Hello there, George.

George Parker
And Miranda Green.

Miranda Green
Hello, George.

George Parker
Right. So we’re all slightly bleary-eyed after a few days on the Albert Dock in Liverpool. One Labour veteran I bumped into in the Pullman Hotel bar, the main conference bar, heaving as usual, said there was one word to describe the atmosphere at the conference and that was weird. Robert, how did it feel to you?

Robert Shrimsley
Well, it was certainly more muted than you’d expect as you said, for a party that has just got over 400 seats in a general election, absolutely stonking landslide, back in power after a very long time. And that certainly wasn’t the mood. This was not a celebratory conference. And it was very strange. Obviously there had been the row over winter fuel payments for pensioners. This is the drums of doom coming out of Downing Street, which have clearly dampened the mood.

And then on top of which, just before the conference kicked off, we had this row over the freebies from Lord Alli over Keir Starmer’s suits and other shadow cabinet members’ suits, and then it moved on to hospitality, football matches and pop concerts. Now we’ve got into flats. So I think the whole thing was people feeling that they’re not doing as well as they should, and they couldn’t be as happy as they’d like to be, because this government doesn’t feel like it’s really motoring yet.

George Parker
No. Rather, it did seem subdued and a little bit awkward, didn’t it? I mean, I just wondered how it felt for you. And symbolically, of course, the last act of the conference was the conference for defeating the leadership on the winter fuel payment issue.

Miranda Green
Well, that’s right. And they thought that by postponing that vote, which was supposed to be earlier in the week, that that was good news management, but actually it meant that the final thing that people came away from the conference was a defeat for the platform that was quite old world, quite retro, and didn’t feel that great, particularly after the Reeves and Starmer speeches did feel as if they clawed back a bit of momentum because the rest of the week was . . . 

I agree. I mean, I thought it was positively glum, actually. You know, I’d bump into newly elected Labour MPs or senior people in the Labour party and say, you know, as an opener, congratulations. And it was almost as if they had to remember what it was I might be congratulating them for rather than their historic, you know, landslide and a chance to be back in power and do things. So it was very, very odd.

And the rain didn’t help. And I had to actually leave my wet boots in Liverpool, which seemed symbolic of a strange few days. Having said that, you know, I feel that there was, by the end of it, some sign of what they might be intending to do, particularly in this kind of weird lull before the Budget, which I think caused a lot of the problems. Actually, there was a bit of a vacuum of news into which these negative stories that Robert’s explained rushed.

George Parker
Yeah, I mean, the sequencing was terrible, wasn’t it? I mean, the fact that there was this three-month gap between Rachel Reeves saying how terrible everything was back on July the 29th seems an age ago now and the Budget on October the 30th. That’s a big news gap to fill when there’s no money around.

And as you say, I think that the clothes thing and the spectacles thing and the suits and the accommodation, Lord Alli, all seem to be slightly trivial. But Robert, you and I remember covering the back-to-basics scams as they hit the Tories back in the 1990s — and Miranda will remember this very well too — that the trouble is once you establish a narrative, it’s quite difficult to shake it off, isn’t it, because then everything is hung on to the narrative of sleaze, essentially.

Robert Shrimsley
Yeah. I mean, I think clearly that would be what their opponents would like. And Labour did always set themselves up for this fall by a slightly holier-than-thou attitude. They had an opposition I’m Mr Integrity Keir Starmer’s approach. So the moment, you know, any of the shine comes off, it comes off quite quickly and that’s very problematic.

And you had also the rows over Sue Gray in Downing Street and whether the operation in Downing Street is functioning as it should. And the answer is it shouldn’t, it isn’t. It’s this general feeling of you haven’t quite hit the ground running as we expected.

And I don’t know about you, but I talked to numerous ministers during the week and I kept saying, well, why aren’t you further along on your plans for whatever it is your departments do? And they say, look, we were busy fighting the election. And you think, well, OK, great, but you were fighting election in order to win it, in order to do things, but you haven’t worked out enough of these things.

And I just think we’re watching the government actually still being assembled in front of us to some extent. And that explains a lot of the things that aren’t going right. And I think the thing that should worry the Labour party, because a lot of this doesn’t, you know, may well go away four years from election. What should worry them is if they don’t get these foundations of their own government right quite soon. If this all goes away after the Budget, then it doesn’t matter. But if this lingers on after the Budget, these sort of drip, drip of stories that say they’re not quite on it, then I think they’ve got a problem.

Miranda Green
Yeah. And I think that slogan that they keep going on about, we’re building the foundations. They should have built some of these policy foundations before they won, because this is a real strong contrast, I would say, to ‘97, where, you know, the Blair-Brown duo came in, started doing dramatic things quite fast and you felt there was momentum and it didn’t feel as if the momentum was with them.

And also, I think there was a lot of talk about the electoral fix that they’re in with Reform in all these second places across the seats that they won. How do they kind of see off challenges from all other parties in an era where the electorate’s so volatile? And part of that, as everyone kept saying to, you know, ad nauseam, it’s all about delivery. We’ve got to earn our place, you know, winning the next election, being given this 10 years for national renewal by delivery, delivery, delivery. And if you’re gonna deliver, you have to know what it is you’re actually intending to do and be getting on with it quite soon. So, you know, I do think there is a little bit of a problem. There is early days, you know, it’s only 10, 11 weeks since they won. But, you know, if you’re gonna have this kind of sober, workmanlike attitude, then you really do need to be doing the work.

Robert Shrimsley
I mean, I agree. But I mean, your counter-narrative is important because I do think it is very early. And if this all dries up and they get on with the work of governing and, you know, party conferences are not real-world events. So in three months’ time, the up scenario is that we’ve forgotten all about this. They’re getting on with it. We’re talking about the Budget and the money they’re putting into health or whatever it is and these early things just look like a blip. The problem is, what if they don’t look like a blip?

George Parker
And Miranda, what do you make of Keir Starmer’s speech? What do you think he was trying to achieve? It was billed in advance, wasn’t it, setting out some of the sunlit uplands ahead if the party and the country sticks to the hard road he was mapping out. What do you make of it?

Miranda Green
Well, I thought that was a good speech, you know, in terms of its kind of construction. I did think it sort of addressed some of those questions about can you please explain where we’re all headed, you know, on the Labour party train to which people bought a ticket. But again, it was sort of sober and serious to the point of sort of slight sermonising. And, you know, that has been an unfortunate contrast with this backdrop of stories about freebies and all the rest of it. So I think there is a little bit of a kind of, you know, striking the tone of the vicar, both about Starmer and Reeves. It’s kind of a matter of taste, that stuff. I mean, I actually thought Reeves’s delivery, which, you know, she was slightly ridiculed for putting on a bit of a smile to show her “this way to the sunny uplands”.

George Parker
A rictus smile. Yeah.

Miranda Green
But I don’t mind that kind of we’re sensible people trying to, you know, take sensible steps in the right direction. But I still feel there’s a bit of lack of articulation of where we’re all supposed to end up, what the destination is.

Robert Shrimsley
I really liked Keir Starmer’s speech, not so much as a piece of rhetoric to inspire the country or win over the voters, but I liked the fact he advanced a couple of really strong ideological arguments and set some markers for what he was about. I like the fact that he said things like, well, if you want more prisons, they’re gonna have to be built near somewhere. And if you want more homes and pylons, these things are gonna have to be built if you want the clean energy. And so the first argument he made, which I really liked, was the one about hard choices against cheap and easy answers, setting him essentially the Labour party up as saying we are the party of serious, difficult choices which the country faces. And the alternative is easy answers, which we now know don’t work. And I thought that was a coherent argument he put it through.

And the second argument I liked as a piece of political thinking was the point about the state being back. You know, the taking back control is a Labour slogan, he said, and that we are gonna be a very active, in-your-face government, intervening all over the place because we believe in the power of the state to do good. So you can agree with that or disagree with it. But I thought that as a piece of political argument, it held together well.

Miranda Green
Isn’t there a problem, though, because in the right hands, that warning about easy answers from the populists, not just of the right, but now populists of the left with the Greens on the rise and the independents with Jeremy Corbyn organising that little caucus on the Commons benches as well. You know, in the right hands that could work. But the danger of it is telling the country it’s gonna be painful, it’s gonna be hard, that you’re basically saying your answer to populism is unpopulism and just doing things that nobody wants. And you actually do have to please some segments of the electorate at some point if you want to win again.

George Parker
Well, you do.

Miranda Green
And also, what is it you’re delivering, to get back to this concern of those new Labour MPs. What is the delivery?

George Parker
I agree. I think it’s that gap between promising all this stuff and then doing the really tough stuff and the benefits being felt by people. And in that gap you’re gonna have by-election defeats, local council defeats, plummeting opinion poll ratings. It’s gonna be a real test of nerve, isn’t it, for Keir Starmer and his 400-odd MPs.

Miranda Green
Yeah. And universities going bust, local councils going bust. I mean the list of potential crises that could buffet them of course is quite considerable.

George Parker
Oh, too much doom and gloom, Miranda.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Miranda Green
Sorry.

George Parker
Now, one of the most interesting speeches, I thought, at the conference and probably the most important announcement was the one made by Rachel Reeves, where she dropped some very heavy hints, to put it mildly, that she wants to increase capital spending and break free of the borrowing rules that she appeared to have set herself. She said that growth was the challenge, investment was the solution. And behind the scenes, the briefings were that some quite complex thinking was going on in the Treasury about how to relax the so-called fiscal rules. The person who knows more about this subject than anyone else? No, it’s not Miranda. It’s Sam Fleming, our economics editor, who has just walked into the studio.

Miranda Green
God, and there’s me with my hand up and everything.

George Parker
Yeah, well, I think you’ll be glad you put your hand down in a minute, because I’m gonna ask Sam how do these rules work and what is she thinking of doing?

Sam Fleming
The key phrase from the chancellor was that we need to get better at the Treasury at counting assets, not just liabilities. And what this is a reference to is that the key debt measure that the Treasury uses at the moment, public sector net debt, is largely about liabilities. But of course, when you invest you create assets as well. And so it counts the debt that you generate.

But assets are pretty in short supply on public sector net debt accounts, cash, very liquid assets but not much else. So one of the ideas is that perhaps you could broaden the measure of debt to include some more assets, which then obviously gives a more favourable reading.

And so there’s plenty of ways that countries can measure their national debt. The UK has a few which you already follow. The IMF has its own versions. One of the ones that the Treasury uses is called, it’s a bit of a heavy one, public sector net financial liabilities, which is more affably known as PSNFL in the Treasury. (Laughter) And so PSNFL, the benefits of PSNFL is it does include some financial assets. So you’d think of loans, equity investments, that sort of thing.

And so the benefit of PSNFL is that some of these vehicles that they use — for example, the National Wealth Fund, which is a big investment vehicle that Labour has created, UK investment bank — their loans and equity investments would count on the balance sheet under that particular measure, and so would make it look a bit better. Ultimately, the headroom, the Budget headroom, if they’ve adopted that measure, will be around £60bn as opposed to only £9bn back in March. Sorry, George, I’m rambling on. (Laughter)

George Parker
No, because I just want to cut to the chase there. Let’s say if Rachel Reeves changed the rules and theoretically allowed herself this additional so-called fiscal headroom, that’s money that Rachel Reeves could borrow to spend on what? What would she . . . 

Robert Shrimsley
Suits. Suits and glasses.

George Parker
(Laughter) Apart from sartorial items, what else might she consider spending the money?

Miranda Green
Taylor Swift tickets.

George Parker
Would she, for example, consider reversing some of those cuts she made to Ed Miliband’s green Budget?

Sam Fleming
OK, so I think that is something that you might be able to see, a bit more investment. It’s really important we don’t get ahead of ourselves because there are two fiscal rules. There’s the debt rule. But there’s also a current Budget rule which strips out investment. But any extra borrowing that you do in order to fund extra investments, you have to pay interest on that. And interest payments go into the other Budget balance. So pretty soon, that Budget balance starts growing because of the extra investment, and then you find you’re bumping up against the limits of that Budget balance.

So it’s really important in this context not to get ahead of ourselves in terms of the extra borrowing it entails. I think it is one route and I don’t think any decisions have been made. Another idea is to just strip these vehicles — National Wealth Fund, UK investment bank — to strip them off the debt measure entirely and just get them out of the way. I don’t think a decision has been made, but I think it gives incrementally potential room for a bit more borrowing.

Robert Shrimsley
How much flexibility, Sam, is there in the way they define capital or investment spending? I mean, obviously anything that you build or any equipment that you buy, but is there any way they can fudge this at all for some of the pump-priming work they want to do, say, to improve primary care? Can they fudge it at all?

Sam Fleming
Well, this is one of the eternal problems with fiscal rules where governments try and pull out investment. Pull out investment sounds virtuous, but of course my investment in the future could be a road. Yours could be teachers, better teacher salaries because you’re investing in the future of children and the country.

So I think the way that this appears to be framed is if it’s focused on these vehicles, which are investment vehicles — UK investment Bank, British Business Bank, National Wealth Fund, GB Energy — these are actually entities which have a mission, which is to invest in physical infrastructure. And that’s so, if that is how they’re focusing it, that might help to constrain some of the discretion rather than we having a slippery slope to everything being called investment.

Miranda Green
Well, it’s a slippery slope in one sense, Sam. But also perhaps the public would like to see some investment in people as well as pylons. And that’s a big issue, right? If the reason you were elected was the state of the public services.

Sam Fleming
Totally. And so I think that’s one of the interesting things and really unresolved conundrums, mysteries coming out of the conference is Rachel Reeves and indeed Keir Starmer intoning no return to austerity. And that’s why we’re talking about probably more in the realm of current spending than this separate issue of capital spending.

So day-to-day departmental spending — what actually does that mean? And where are they gonna get the money to prevent the real-terms cuts that have repeatedly been warned about under the existing fiscal plans, and indeed the plans that Labour appears to have adopted? There’s been rhetoric around that, but I don’t see any actual clear policy direction. I don’t know what you think, George, but . . . 

George Parker
Well, no. That’s almost certainly true. And whether PSNFL ultimately ends up answering Rachel Reeves’s Budget conundrum is something we’re going to see play out in the weeks ahead. And you can read all about it in the FT over the next 48 hours, because Sam and I think are gonna be writing quite a lot more about this subject.

Miranda Green
And I think we’ve also got Gus O’Donnell, who’s gonna share with our readers at the weekend what on earth this might mean in practice.

George Parker
That’s Gus O’Donnell, who, of course, was for a long time the cabinet secretary, Britain’s most senior civil servant. I’m looking forward to editing that one, Miranda.

Miranda Green
Yeah, I’m looking forward to it.

George Parker
Are you gonna strip out the acronyms?

Miranda Green
I don’t know, I’ll probably . . . It might be several cups of tea to get that one into (overlapping speech).

Sam Fleming
(Laughter) I could set some bets as to whether PSNFL goes into his op-ed. That would be an (overlapping speech).

Robert Shrimsley
I do like PSNFL. It sounds like someone is holding a party at the Tory conference. (Laughter) Oh, yeah, to PSNFL’s party.

Miranda Green
I think it sounds quite Christmassy. So maybe the Budget, you know, will be more optimistic because of PSNFL.

Sam Fleming
We’ll see.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

George Parker
On Tuesday, shortly after giving his speech in Liverpool, the prime minister got on a plane from John Lennon Airport and headed off to New York for the UN General Assembly, which had been billed as a big moment to discuss the war in Ukraine and President Zelenskyy’s request for more western assistance, but then quickly, of course, was dominated by the developments in Lebanon and the border between Lebanon and Israel.

With us now is the FT’s chief foreign affairs commentator, Gideon Rachman, just to talk us through a bit about the significance of this gathering in New York. And what indeed does Keir Starmer, Gideon, bring to the western alliance? Anything new?

Gideon Rachman
Well, he does bring something new in the sense of novelty. He’s a new prime minister and I think that certainly in Europe and to some extent in the wider world, there was the sense that the Tories were a sort of self-absorbed psychodrama that had taken Britain off the world stage. And the message that Labour are trying to send out around the world is, you know, we’re a stable government, a traditional British government, Britain is back as a global player.

And the UN was a very good platform because it’s actually kind of Britain’s last claim, along with nuclear weapons, to being a world power, because Britain is a permanent member, one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council. So I think Starmer was intent on using that platform. He was very strong on Ukraine, as were all western leaders in sort of attempting to shame Russia.

The Middle East is much trickier for him, though, because of the domestic politics of it, and also a slight gap that’s opened up between Britain and the US over how hard to be on Israel.

George Parker
I was gonna ask you about that because there has been this gap in the war in Gaza on issues like the arms embargo against Israel, on certain military equipment, the funding of the UN refugee agency, and indeed the International Criminal Court issue. Does that gap show up, do you think, in relation to the impending or what appears to be the developing war against Hizbollah?

Gideon Rachman
Well, interesting one to watch. I mean, it looked like there might be something because the Brits and the French were quicker to call for a ceasefire, but now the Americans have come in behind them.

So I think, look, there are differences, but they’re manageable. The domestic politics of both countries are different. America is basically a more pro-Israel country. Britain’s a bit to the left on that. I think, you know, maybe this is looking too far ahead, but if Trump were to be elected, it would be a real problem because the Republicans are very, very strongly pro-Israel, would regard the arms embargo or any restrictions on arms sales by Britain as sort of unacceptable.

I think for the Democrats, they kind of, you know, can see what Labour’s driving at. I think it’s manageable.

George Parker
OK. And on the question of Ukraine, we know that Keir Starmer has been pushing President Biden to allow the use of Storm Shadow, long-range UK-built missiles, against targets in Russia. Where are we at the end of this sort of passage of diplomacy in New York?

Gideon Rachman
Well, I think the Brits have learnt that in the end, America’s got the final say. You know, it’s a pretty open secret that the British want to allow these long-range strikes. But whether it’s because there’s a sort of technological reason that these Storm Shadows have bits of American kit in them, and therefore we violate American law, or whether it’s just the simple fact that we don’t want to get out of step with Americans and be, oh, it’s only the British who were, you know, effectively allowing Ukraine to lob missiles into Russia.

I don’t think Britain’s gonna move without the Americans relaxing their stance and at the moment doesn’t look like there’s much sign of them doing that. So I think, you know, they’re pivoting to saying, well, the war is not gonna be won by any single weapon. We have to have a complete package, etc. So it seems to me like Britain is, you know, continuing to press America behind the scenes but will not get too far out of step with Washington.

George Parker
Now, the other thing that’s happened whilst Keir Starmer’s been in New York is he had a meeting on the margins of the UN General Assembly with Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, where they set a date next week for Keir Starmer to travel to Brussels, his first trip to Brussels as prime minister. How do you think that relationship’s going to develop and what do you expect to see next week?

Gideon Rachman
Well, George, we’re fellow ex-Brussels correspondents. We should have a longer chat about that. But I think that . . . 

George Parker
Over a long lunch, perhaps.

Gideon Rachman
(Laughter) Exactly, in Brussels. Expensed lunch, yeah. No, I think that, look, they got off to a slightly false start because the commission was still being built and the commission people sort of let it be known, unofficially, that they weren’t that happy that the British didn’t immediately say yes to easing youth mobility and maybe restoring Erasmus, the student exchange program.

So there was a sense that there was a bit of disappointment on both sides, but I don’t think that’s irrecoverable. You know, von der Leyen is in position. They will have their first formal meeting in Brussels, and maybe they can get things back on track and do a classic exchange. You know, if the EU wants youth mobility and we want easier stuff for professional services or veterinary services, it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of diplomats to do a trade.

George Parker
And the question of fish, I imagine, will arise at some point, as it always does in these negotiations.

Gideon Rachman
Yeah, fish will come up. But I think another thing to watch that I’m very interested in because I was just in Berlin is that, separately, the Brits are working on a UK-Germany deal, which they think they can get done by the end of the year, and which they hope will really be quite wide ranging, going well beyond defence, affecting technology and so on.

Having to (inaudible) the commission to that would be quite interesting because they don’t like Britain doing bilateral deals with other European countries. It looks like cherry picking. And the Germans, who I spoke to, are well aware that the commission would not be happy with it but didn’t seem too fazed by that.

George Parker
OK, well, I’m looking forward to revisiting some of our old haunts next week, Gideon.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Now we’ve just got time for our political stock picks. Robert, who are you buying or selling this week?

Robert Shrimsley
OK, I’m gonna be really obvious this week. I’m gonna buy Michael Gove. He’s just been made the new editor of The Spectator. And as we know, The Spectator is a deeply influential magazine in Conservative circles, and there is the small matter of a leadership contest going on and an ongoing debate beyond that about the future direction of the Conservative party. So I think just when you thought Michael Gove had stepped away, he’s back and he’s in the driving seat of one of the most important media vehicles for the Tories. I’m going for him.

George Parker
Who’s ever known a senior Conservative politician using the editorial seat of The Spectator for their own political advantage? Miranda.

Miranda Green
I’m going to buy Bridget Phillipson, who is the secretary of state for education, which is a department I’ve followed for a number of years, being quite long in the tooth these days, and I think she’s pretty good so far. She’s got a very good back-story in terms of her own dramatic social mobility. And, you know, I think having seen her deliver quite a good speech in Liverpool, she seems one of the stronger performers. And also she seems, crucially, to be working quite well with Rachel Reeves and some of the other ministries to deliver a complicated set of policies that might actually help disadvantaged kids and their wider context of why they’re underperforming.

Robert Shrimsley
It’s interesting, people who know the party well said talk of her as being one of Keir Starmer’s absolute personal favourite colleagues, and even as someone he’d quite like to see succeeding him.

Miranda Green
Yeah, I’m gonna buy at the ground floor.

Robert Shrimsley
’Bout you, George?

George Parker
Well, I would go along with what Miranda just said about Bridget Phillipson. I thought her speech was excellent, and it was that graveyard slot on the Wednesday morning when everyone was hung over from the Daily Mirror party the night before, and she actually got the audience going. I thought it was a very passionate speech from a politician sometimes seen, frankly, as a little bit wooden, I think it’s fair to say, but I thought it was a very strong, strong speech indeed.

I’m going to sell, it’s a bit predictable, but I’m gonna sell Sue Gray. I mean, I think her position has become very, very difficult indeed. I think if you’re the chief of staff of the prime minister and you become such a target for criticism and become such a public figure in the way that she’s done over the last few weeks, I think she’ll say it’s unfair and Keir Starmer would say it’s unfair, of course. But we remember the great fixers behind the scenes in Number 10, like Jonathan Powell for Tony Blair, for example. They stayed out of the limelight. I think she’s just become too much of a target.

Robert Shrimsley
You don’t think that he would just feel it was too much of a reversal? He’s not gonna let her be, you know, hounded out by briefings.

George Parker
I think he will stick with her until he doesn’t. I don’t know, I think she’s in quite a tough position.

Miranda Green
Farewell 50 Shades.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

George Parker
And that’s it for this episode of the FT’s Political Fix. I’ve put links to subjects discussed in this episode in the show notes. Do check them out. They’re articles we’ve made free for Political Fix listeners. There’s also a link there to Stephen Bush’s award-winning Inside Politics newsletter, and you’ll get 30 days free. And don’t forget to subscribe to the show. Plus, do leave a review or a star rating. It really does help spread the word.

Political Fix was presented by me, George Parker, and Lucy Fisher will be back next time. The programme was produced by Tamara Kormornick. Manuela Saragosa is the executive producer. Original music and sound engineering by Breen Turner. The broadcast engineers were Andrew Georgiades and Rod Fitzgerald. Cheryl Brumley is the FT’s global head of audio. We’ll meet again here next week.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

A TOWN in the Red Sea Riviera in Egypt has a lot to offer when it comes to a winter break.

El Gouna, also known as ‘Venice of the Red Sea’, is a popular place to head if you want beautiful beaches and water sports to be a part of your holiday.

4

4

Advertisement

Its hot temperatures, cheap flights, and affordable five-star hotels are also reasons why at this time of year it’s a good place to visit.

Temperatures in El Gouna reach over 30C in September and October. And while it cools down during the winter months, you can still expect highs of 24C.

The town has lots of sandy beaches, lagoons and coral reefs, with many of them considered quiet and relaxing.

Zeytuna Beach is one of its quietest beaches, located on its own island just off of El Gouna, with scenic views of the Red Sea.

Many of the hotels offer ferry rides over for guests to enjoy a day there.

For those who like water sports, El Gouna is considered one of the world’s best kitesurfing spots, due to its shallow waters, consistent winds, and year-round sunshine.

The lagoons in particular are ideal for this.

For nature lovers, there are many ways to go wildlife spotting in the town, including bird watching, boat tours and nature walks.

Abydos Lagoon is a mangrove lagoon at the south end of El Gouna where shorebirds feed at low tide and winter gulls can be seen at high tide.

Mangrove Lagoon next to Abydos Marina is a good place to explore on foot, with mangrove and scrubby areas, and gardens.

El Gouna also has lots of highly-rated hotels, including luxury hotels offering affordable stays.

Movenpick Resort & Spa El Gouna is a 5* hotel with a private beach, three outdoor pools, and plenty of activities, with bikes to hire and two outdoor tennis courts.

Prices for a one night stay for two adults start from just £85.

CREEK Hotel & Residences El Gouna is another 5* hotel offering exceptional room rates.

The hotel offers a horizon pool with an infinity view, a lagoon for swimming, a gym, a sauna, and a jacuzzi. Prices start from just £69 a night.

The best way to get to El Gouna is to fly to Hurghada Airport.

During November, December and January, flights to Hurghada from London Gatwick are just £94.64 from easyJet.

From the airport, El Gouna is just over a half an hour drive away.

4

4

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Dovid Efune, the British-born boss of The New York Sun, has emerged as a leading bidder for the UK’s Telegraph newspaper, as competition continues from other interested investors and media owners in a sale expected to raise £550mn.

RedBird IMI is weighing offers for the right-leaning Telegraph broadsheet after a second round of bids on Friday. Those close to the process said no decision had been taken about which party to choose ahead of a formal assessment of the offers after the midnight deadline. A decision could come as early as this weekend.

US billionaire Bill Ackman had been sounded out by bidders to provide finance but declined to become involved, people close to the process told the Financial Times. Ackman declined to comment. 

RedBird IMI, which wants to recoup the money spent on acquiring control of the newspaper last year, is seeking about £550mn in the auction, according to those familiar with the situation.

Efune is seen as one of the most likely to succeed given the relative lack of obstacles such as antitrust concerns that could undermine rival offers, according to two people close to the process. He has also secured backing from a number of heavyweight US investment funds.

Rival regional newspaper owner National World, which is run by former Telegraph boss David Montgomery, also submitted a bid on Friday, according to people close to the process. 

The group has met the Telegraph management twice this month, those people said, and is in talks about raising money to fund its bid. However, it is more financially constrained than rival bidders given the need to raise money on the public market.

Sir Paul Marshall also officially remained in the process on Friday, in a consortium with Ken Griffin, the American billionaire, according to those close to the situation, but he had not submitted a further formal bid on Friday afternoon. 

Marshall, the hedge fund boss and co-owner of GB News, acquired The Spectator — the world’s oldest magazine that was the Telegraph’s former stablemate — from RedBird IMI for £100mn earlier this month. Those close to the bid process said he had not met the management and was concerned about the price, however, raising questions over whether he will continue with the offer.

Nadhim Zahawi, the former UK chancellor, is also still interested in pulling together a consortium for the paper, according to those close to the process.

A number of potential buyers have walked away from the sale.

Lord Rothermere’s DMGT, which owns the Daily Mail, on Friday rejected reports of new involvement. A DMGT spokesperson said: “Neither DMGT nor Lord Rothermere is currently involved in the Telegraph sales process, nor do they expect to be in future.”

Efune is the publisher of The New York Sun and was previously chief executive and editor-in-chief of the Algemeiner Journal, a Jewish community publication. The New York Sun closed in 2008 but was revived as a digital-focused publication in 2021 by Efune.

A deal for the Telegraph with Efune would mean a renewed link with Conrad Black, the Canadian-British businessman, who writes for The New York Sun. His Hollinger publishing business sold the Telegraph to the Barclay family for £665mn in 2004. He was separately convicted of fraud and obstruction of justice in 2007 and fully pardoned by Donald Trump, US president at the time, in 2019.

The Barclay family lost control of the Telegraph in 2023 in the wake of unpaid bad debts to Lloyds Banking Group, which then sold control to RedBird IMI in a £600mn deal. RedBird IMI was blocked by the UK government from completing the deal earlier this year owing to its backing from Abu Dhabi, which led to the second sales process.