PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron’s wife Brigitte apologized for being caught calling feminist activists sales connes — which roughly translates to “stupid bitches”— but said she should be able to speak her mind away from the cameras. Interviewed by online news outlet Brut, Macron insisted that her remarks were made in private — she was attending a show by comedian Ary Abittan, who had been accused of rape in a case which was later dismissed — and that she would not have used these words in public. “I’m sorry if I hurt female victims [of sexual assault],” Macron said. She then added: “I’m the president’s wife, but I’m also myself, and in a private context, I can let myself loose in a way which isn’t appropriate … people have the right to [freely] speak and think.” In a since-deleted clip published by gossip outlet Public, Macron is seen asking comedian Abittan, before his performance, how he is doing, to which he responds that he is “afraid,” likely referring to the possibility of protesters interrupting his show. The French first lady then responds: “If there are stupid bitches, we’ll toss them out.” A small group of activists wearing cardboard masks with Abittan’s face attempted to interrupt a show in Paris, yelling “Abittan rapist” while being pushed back by security, video published by French outlet Le Média showed. Macron’s comments drew outrage from French politicians, feminist organizations and film industry celebrities alike. The hashtag #JeSuisUneSaleConne (#IAmAStupidBitch), launched in solidarity with the protesters, was shared by several high-profile figures, including Judith Godrèche — a French actress who has played a central role in confronting sexual violence in the film industry — and Oscar winner Marion Cotillard. Abittan is on his first tour since investigating judges decided not to charge him with a crime after he was accused of rape. While the plaintiff was found to have suffered post-traumatic stress, justice officials said they could not establish sufficient grounds to determine that the sexual encounter had been forced. Abittan has denied wrongdoing and said the act was consensual.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s wife Brigitte sparked outrage after calling feminist protesters sales connes — roughly translated as “stupid bitches” — backstage at a comedy show. In a since-deleted clip published by gossip outlet Public, Brigitte Macron is seen asking comedian Ary Abittan before his performance how he is doing, to which the former responds that he is “afraid,” likely referencing the possibility of protesters interrupting his show. Abittan is on his first tour since investigating judges decided not to charge him with a crime after he was accused of rape. While the plaintiff was found to have suffered post-traumatic stress, justice officials said they could not establish sufficient grounds to determine that the sexual encounter had been forced. Abittan has denied wrongdoing and said the act was consensual. After Abittan said he was afraid, the French first lady responded: “if there are stupid bitches, we’ll toss them out.” Abittan’s return was protested by the feminist group Nous Toutes, whose members disrupted the show to denounce what they called a “communication campaign aimed at portraying him as a traumatized person while humiliating and belittling the victim.” In a statement to French newswire AFP published Monday, Macron’s office said the remark should be understood as “criticism of the radical methods used by those who disrupted and obstructed Ary Abittan’s show.” Condemnation came from political figures across party lines, as well as activists and film industry professionals. Marine Tondelier, head of the French Greens, called the remark “extremely grave” and conservative Senator Agnès Evren described it as “very sexist.” Prisca Thévenot, a lawmaker from the president’s party and former government spokesperson, deemed the comment “inelegant.” “When it comes to women fighting against violence against women, we don’t speak that way,” former President François Hollande said Tuesday on RTL. Judith Godrèche, the French actress who has played a central role in confronting sexual violence in the film industry, took to Instagram to criticize Macron. “I too am a stupid bitch. And I support all the others,” she wrote.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a bill to force the Department of Justice to release more information related to its case against the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a stunning reversal after fighting the bill’s passage for months. The law — the Epstein Files Transparency Act — is the culmination of months of fierce GOP infighting as some Republican defectors joined Democrats to buck their party’s leadership and force a vote. Trump had virulently opposed the legislation, calling it a Democratic “hoax,” but reversed course earlier this week and urged his party to support it after the bill’s passage appeared inevitable. It is not yet known when the documents may be released. “Perhaps the truth about these Democrats, and their associations with Jeffrey Epstein, will soon be revealed, because I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES! As everyone knows, I asked Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, to pass this Bill in the House and Senate, respectively. Because of this request, the votes were almost unanimous in favor of passage,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. The legislation passed the House by an overwhelming 427-1 vote Tuesday before speeding through the Senate in the afternoon, with the chamber approving the measure by unanimous consent. The newly signed law compels the Justice Department to release information in its possession within 30 days, though it’s unclear how much new information the department will actually make public and when it may do so. It comes days after Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a trove of new documents that reopened questions about the relationship between Trump and the disgraced financier, including the suggestion in an email by Epstein that Trump “knew about the girls.” Trump has repeatedly denied having a close relationship with Epstein and claims to have kicked him out of his Mar-a-Lago club in the early 2000s. Trump has denied wrongdoing in relation to the Epstein allegations, and no evidence has suggested that Trump took part in Epstein’s crimes. The White House organized a monthslong pressure campaign to try to prevent the legislation from reaching a House vote, even as his opposition grew increasingly politically perilous for the president. During the presidential campaign, he promised to make the Epstein files public. That crusade included Trump and White House officials pressuring the three Republican women who signed onto the discharge petition — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia , Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina — to remove their names.

House lawmakers released more than 20,000 pages of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday — and they include communications between the convicted sex offender and high-profile individuals in politics, media, Hollywood and foreign affairs. One email shows Epstein communicating with a former White House counsel. Some showed offensive emails between Epstein and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. Another offers insight into Epstein’s offer to help Trump’s former adviser Steve Bannon. The documents, a small batch released by Democrats and a larger one released by Republicans, also shed light on the disgraced financier’s private musings about Trump and to what extent Trump may have known about his criminal conduct. The Trump administration pushed back on allegations of wrongdoing Wednesday, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt alleging Democrats “selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump.” Trump, in a social media post, also accused Democrats of “trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax again because they’ll do anything at all to deflect on how badly they’ve done on the Shutdown, and so many other subjects.” Here are some of the most stunning revelations from the latest trove of documents. EPSTEIN AND FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY LARRY SUMMERS Epstein’s inbox features several appearances by Larry Summers, a prominent economist who served in the Clinton and Obama administrations. In one exchange, Summers shares snippets from a 2017 trip to Saudi Arabia, including a quip that the “general view” among Saudi officials was that “Donald is a clown, increasingly dangerous on foreign policy.” In another email, Summers remarks that “I observed that half of the IQ In world was possessed by women without mentioning they are more than 51 percent of population.” “I’m trying to figure why American elite think if u murder your baby by beating and abandonment it must be irrelevant to your admission to Harvard, but hit on a few women 10 years ago and can’t work at a network or think tank,” Summers added before directing Epstein: “DO NOT REPEAT THIS INSIGHT.” Summers has attracted scrutiny for his rhetoric about women in the past, including a 2005 speech in which he cited a controversial theory that has been used to suppose that men are more prone to extremely high or low IQs than women as one reason women are underrepresented in science and engineering. The backlash generated by the speech contributed to Summers’ decision to step down as president of Harvard University in 2006. A representative for Summers did not respond to a request for comment about the exchange. MICHAEL WOLFF’S ADVICE In a series of emails dating back 10 years, Epstein discussed his predicament and his ties to Trump with author and journalist Michael Wolff. Wolff on several occasions offered advice to Epstein regarding how he might best publicly navigate his relationship with Trump, who at the time was in the midst of his 2016 presidential campaign In a 2015 email, Wolff offers advice on what to do if Trump was asked about his relationship with Epstein. Specifically, Epstein asked Wolff how Trump would respond to such a question. “I think you should let him hang himself,” Wolff wrote of Trump in a 2015 email. “If [Trump] says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency.” In a 2019 email to Wolff, Epstein wrote that “Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever. [O]f course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.” The message appears to reference Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club and Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted Epstein co-conspirator currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for crimes connected to Epstein. The following year, Epstein and several associates received word that Reuters was readying a story about a lawsuit filed against the disgraced financier and Trump over an alleged sexual assault from 1994. “Well, I guess if there’s anybody who can wave thus [sic] away, it’s Donald,” Wolff wrote. “Let me know if there’s anything I can do.” Wolff’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment. EPSTEIN AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL KATHRYN RUEMMLER Epstein’s inbox also features repeated appearances by another member of the Obama administration: former White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler. In a 2018 exchange, Ruemmler — then a partner at law firm Latham & Watkins — discusses the criminal case against former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who admitted to conspiring with Trump to pay porn star Stormy Daniels hush money during a New York criminal investigation. In one of the messages, Epstein exclaims: “you see, i know how dirty donald is. my guess is that non lawyers ny biz people have no idea. what it means to have your fixer flip.” In a separate exchange, Ruemmler shared her apparent disdain for the people of New Jersey during an email about a planned road trip to New York. “Think I am going to drive,” she wrote. “I will then stop to pee and get gas at a rest stop on the New Jersey turnpike, will observe all of the people there who are at least 100 pounds overweight, will have a mild panic attack as a result of the observation, and will then decide that I am not eating another bite of food for the rest of my life out of fear that I will end up like one of these people.” Ruemmler did not respond to a request for comment. She is now the chief legal officer at Goldman Sachs, which declined to comment. EPSTEIN AND PETER THIEL In one 2018 exchange, Epstein asks PayPal founder Peter Thiel — an ally of Vice President JD Vance — if he was enjoying Los Angeles. Epstein also complimented Thiel on his “trump exaggerations, not lies.” “Can’t complain thus far…,” Thiel answered, to which Epstein replied, “Dec visit me Caribbean.” Epstein’s private island near St. Thomas in the Caribbean has long been the subject of speculation about which possible conspirators may have visited the island, which Epstein allegedly used to conceal his criminal behavior. A spokesperson for Thiel said he never visited the island. EPSTEIN AND STEVE BANNON In several of Epstein’s exchanges with business associates and friends, he boasts of his relationships to powerful figures in media, technology and foreign affairs. In a 2018 exchange with Bannon, Epstein says “there are many leaders of countries we can organize for you to have one on ones” with if Bannon agreed to spend eight to 10 days in Europe. “If you are going to play here, you’ll have to spend time, europe by remote doesn’t work,” Epstein wrote. A representative for Bannon declined to comment. EPSTEIN AND THE KREMLIN Epstein apparently leaned on his foreign policy connections in at least one instance: in the lead-up to Trump’s 2018 bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Epstein suggested that Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s longtime foreign minister, seek his insights on Trump. “I think you might suggest to putin that lavrov can get insight on talking to me,” Epstein wrote in an email to Thorbjorn Jagland, a former prime minister of Norway who was leading the Council of Europe at the time. During the exchange, Epstein said he had already spoken with Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, about Trump before Churkin died in 2017. “Churkin was great,” Epstein wrote. “He understood trump after our conversations. it is not complex. he must be seen to get something its that simple.” The Russian embassy did not respond to a request for comment. EPSTEIN AND CELEBRITIES The rotating cast of characters Epstein turned to for advice apparently also included the family of disgraced filmmaker Woody Allen. In one email, Epstein shared a news article about James Woolsey, who led the CIA during the Clinton administration, joining Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign as an adviser with Soon-Yi Previn — Allen’s wife and the adopted daughter of actress Mia Farrow, whom Allen had a relationship with. Previn replied that “Woody said it didn’t mean anything.” Previn and Allen could not be reached for comment about the exchange. EPSTEIN AND A WELL-KNOWN PUBLICIST In 2011, Epstein wrote to Peggy Siegal, a prominent publicist who has worked in elite New York and Hollywood circles, with an ask: Could she reach out to media mogul Ariana Huffington to enlist her help in clearing his name? In the exchange, Epstein and Siegal discuss “the girl who accused Prince Andrew” — an apparent reference to the late Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s most prominent accusers who sued Prince Andrew in 2021 alleging he sexually assaulted her on several occasions. The prince was stripped of his titles and is now identified as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. He has long denied any accusations of sexual wrongdoing. In one message, Epstein writes that Huffington — the co-founder of the Huffington Post, now HuffPost — “should champion the dangers of false allegations” and “send a reporter or reporters to investigate” Giuffre. Epstein wrote of the idea: “the palace would love it, the girl in the photo, was nothing more than a telephone answerer,, she was never 15, according to her version she worked for trump, first at that age, at MAra lago.” Siegal offered to send the message to Huffington on her own behalf if Epstein fixed the grammar in his message, although Huffington, who left HuffPost in 2016, told POLITICO she “was never contacted and never sent a reporter.” A spokesperson for HuffPost also said that “After reaching out to current and former staff, to the best of our knowledge, no talk of this coverage ever made it to HuffPost.” Siegal could not be reached for comment. EPSTEIN AND CONTROVERSIAL ARTIST ANDRES SERRANO While several of the emails released Wednesday call attention to Epstein’s apparent ties to Trump, in one conversation, he appears to express doubt about supporting the then-candidate’s presidential campaign. In the exchange from October 2016, Epstein discusses the election with artist Andres Serrano, whose controversial 1987 photograph “Piss Christ” — depicting a crucifix submerged in urine — attracted widespread condemnation. Epstein wrote to Serrano that there was “no good choice” in the electi on, to which Serrano replied “I was prepared to vote against Trump for all the right reasons but I’m so disgusted by the outrage over ‘grab them by the pussy’ that I may give him my sympathy vote.” Serrano was referencing the widely known Access Hollywood tape of Trump bragging about sexually abusing women. “I’m sure Bill C said things, too,” Serrano added, in an apparent reference to former President Bill Clinton. Serrano did not respond to a request for comment about the emails. Clinton has previously denied having a close relationship with Epstein and through spokespeople said he had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. Gregory Svirnovskiy, Cheyanne M. Daniels, Kyle Cheney, Josh Gerstein and Erica Orden contributed to this report.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee are calling on former prince Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to sit for an interview as part of their probe into deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “The Committee is seeking to uncover the identities of Mr. Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers and to understand the full extent of his criminal operations,” the lawmakers, led by Oversight ranking member Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), wrote. “Well-documented allegations against you, along with your long-standing friendship with Mr. Epstein, indicate that you may possess knowledge of his activities relevant to our investigation.” Formerly known as Prince Andrew, Windsor was in 2019 accused of sexually assaulting Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers who was 17 years old at the time of the alleged abuse, and has faced backlash for his friendship with the disgraced financier, who died by suicide in a New York jail cell six years ago. Last week, Windsor was stripped of his royal title — and ordered to vacate the palatial mansion that had long been his home — by his brother, King Charles, suggesting it was over his ties to Epstein. Democrats, including Reps. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) have continued to call for Windsor to speak before Congress “In response to a subpoena issued to the Epstein estate, the Committee has identified financial records containing notations such as “massage for Andrew” that raise serious questions regarding the nature of your relationship with Mr. Epstein and related financial transactions,” the lawmakers wrote. House Democrats lack subpoena power. Windsor, a British citizen, cannot be legally required to testify. The committee asked Windsor to respond by Nov. 20. Both his office and Buckingham Palace did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

PARIS — French lawmakers approved legislation Wednesday that introduced the concept of consent in the legal definition of rape following the shocking Gisèle Pelicot trial last year. While advocates have been pushing for years for France to change the definition of rape and sexual assault to outlaw nonconsensual acts, Pelicot’s case, where 51 men were accused of raping her with the help of her now ex-husband, who had drugged her, gave new impetus and got the ball rolling. Until now, French law defined sexual assault — including rape — as acts performed through “violence, coercion, threat, or surprise.” Some of the lawyers in the trial had unsuccessfully centered their defense on the argument that the definition did not explicitly require seeking a partner’s consent, claiming their clients believed they were taking part in a sexual fetish shared by the couple. The newly-written law states that “any non-consensual sexual act … constitutes sexual assault.” Consent must be “free and informed,” given for one specific act prior to it taking place, and it must be “revocable,” it adds. Crucially, it is explicitly stated that consent cannot be “inferred solely from the victim’s silence or lack of reaction.” Véronique Riotton, a centrist lawmaker who coauthored the bill and wrote a report on the issue in 2023, told POLITICO that the bill’s passage was a “positive moment” proving that parliament could still move forward on major issues despite the political gridlock currently crippling France. Several lawmakers had tried to pass similar legislation in recent years, but the issue drew little attention until Pelicot’s case. In 2022, a European Commission proposal to require all member countries to classify any nonconsensual sex as rape was dropped from a wide-ranging draft law on violence against women due to opposition from several countries, including France. French President Emmanuel Macron later clarified that he supports the legal redefinition but does not see it as a European prerogative.

LONDON — Nigel Farage thinks there’s no need to give Prince Andrew a further kicking. His voters disagree. Asked if parliament should intervene in the Andrew saga, the leader of Britain’s populist party, Reform UK, on Monday suggested King Charles’ brother is already “down, and on the way out,” adding there was “no particular need” to give him “a kicking on the way.” Under growing pressure over his links with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and other scandals, Andrew announced earlier this month that he would be giving up his titles, including as duke of York. He will, however, remain a prince. Reform voters, however, think Andrew should lose that title too due to his alleged behavior. Two-thirds of Reform voters (68 percent), Green voters (69 percent) and Liberal Democrat voters (63 percent) reckon he should have the honorific title of prince “officially removed,” according to a survey by the More in Common think tank. That compares with just 51 percent of mainstream Conservative and Labour Party voters. Officially removing Andrew’s prince title would require either an act of parliament, or could be done using the legal powers of the royal prerogative, but that would likely need to be done on the advice of a minister, according to a House of Commons briefing note. “It perhaps shouldn’t be surprising that those voters who most want to see the Prince stripped of his title are those who are now voting for populist parties on the right or left,” Luke Tryl, executive director of More in Common, said. “For Green voters, who tend to be among the least supportive of the monarchy, the desire to see the Prince stripped of his title shouldn’t be surprising. “But support is almost as high among Reform voters, a timely reminder that many Reform voters are particularly exasperated by what they see as a rigged system with ‘one rule for the rich and powerful and another for anyone else,'” he said. There are growing calls for Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson to move out of the 30-room Royal Lodge following the publication of the posthumous memoir of Virginia Giuffre, the woman who accused him of sexual assault, which he strenuously denies, and after it emerged he pays a “peppercorn rent” – a quirk of British law that reduces the ground rent paid on a property by a leaseholder to a small, nominal fee, or “peppercorn” – to live in the vast property on the Windsor Estate. The Green Party’s four MPs have signed a parliamentary motion calling for the government to take legislative steps to remove the dukedom granted to Prince Andrew. A total of 27 MPs, including Scottish and Welsh nationalists, have signed it. Speaking at a press conference in London on Monday, Farage attacked the “nice liberals” he claimed would like to hound Andrew physically out of the country, never to be seen again, warning parliament should only interfere in a “real extreme situation,” such as if Andrew refused to leave Royal Lodge, or he started reusing his duke title. “[Andrew] has renounced the dukedom. He undoubtedly will be looking for a new home very soon, probably somewhere where it’s a lot warmer and sunnier than it is here. I think for somebody who is down, and on the way out, there’s no particular need to give them a kicking on the way,” Farage said.

Prince Andrew has surrendered his titles, including the Duke of York, amid growing pressure over a series of scandals, including his alleged ties with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family,” Andrew said in a statement Friday evening. Andrew has been under intense scrutiny over his relationship with Epstein — the American financier and convicted sex offender who ran a network that exploited and trafficked underage girls. He faced backlash over a civil sexual-assault court case brought in the U.S. by Virginia Giuffre, which was eventually settled, and over his involvement with an alleged Chinese spy. “I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life,” Andrew added in his statement, “vigorously” denying the accusations against him. The announcement comes just days before the release of Giuffre’s posthumous memoir, which reportedly details three occasions on which Andrew allegedly had sex with her — excerpts of which were published by the Guardian earlier in the week. Andrew’s children, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, are set to retain their titles.

In a court in southeast England, a man in his forties awaits trial over an assault that allegedly took place in September 2024. The trial won’t get underway until September 2026 — at the earliest. In the meantime, as a condition of his bail, the judge has ordered the defendant to sleep at home, meaning he will miss out on nights with one of his children from a previous relationship. The man has refused to plead, telling the judge he doesn’t agree with the court’s jurisdiction — even though he originally chose it. The defendant could have been tried at a Magistrates’ Court — the lowest criminal court in England and Wales — where a panel of volunteer justices might have dealt with the case in an hour. Instead, he gambled on a full trial in the Crown Court, where 12 members of the public, often less prone to convict than magistrates, will decide his fate. It’s a tradeoff future defendants may not have the opportunity to make, as England’s once-lauded court system creaks at the seams. A growing backlog of cases has prompted the United Kingdom’s Labour government to search for radical ways to make English justice more efficient. Among the recommendations being considered are new restrictions on jury trials. Since 2019, the average length of time between a case arriving at the Crown Court and being completed has rocketed 70 percent, to 239 days. Across England and Wales some 80,000 cases are awaiting trial, with some now starting to be scheduled as far away as December 2029. The case backlog is expected to hit around 105,000 by spring 2029, according to official forecasts —even with extra funding to put judges on the bench for longer and the rollout of temporary “Nightingale courts,” created to handle the cases that racked up after the Covid lockdowns. The accused wait, and so must their victims. Mary Prior, a senior barrister who until September was chair of the Criminal Bar Association, warns that the consequences of the pileup go beyond justice being delayed, or even denied. A broken justice machine can lead to a broken society. Prior says furious members of the public could attempt to take the law into their own hands, citing the 2024 riots across Britain after three girls were murdered in Southport: “Riots arise because people don’t think the law is working for them.” The government has turned to retired judge Brian Leveson to fix the crisis. Among a list of ideas, he proposes letting magistrates hand down sentences of up to two years — double the current limit — which would divert many serious cases away from the Crown Court. He also suggests reducing some sentences to fit under that new cap. Meanwhile, Leveson suggests creating a new mid-tier court, where a judge and two magistrates would oversee trials with expected sentences of up to three years. The government has turned to retired judge Brian Leveson to fix the crisis. | Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images The measures combined would slash the role of juries. The Labour government is expected to sign off on the plans in the coming months. But insiders warn the changes could undermine fairness for defendants — and won’t make a real dent in the backlog unless ministers find the money to undo decades of cuts and neglect. “The whole system is both figuratively and literally crumbling and falling around our ears,” says Law Society President Richard Atkinson. He lamented the system’s crippling inefficiencies and the dire condition of the buildings. “It is a truly horrendous picture.” Indeed, time appears to slow down in the courts. There is no such thing as punctuality. Nobody questions a 15-minute pause in proceedings stretching into 30 minutes or an hour. Cases often get going late in the morning and break for the night in the mid-afternoon.  Despite the need to reduce the case backlog, more than a fifth of courtrooms sit vacant each day due to organizational, maintenance and personnel issues. Jurors and dock officers fall asleep in public view. Hold-ups and mistakes that leave victims and defendants waiting extra weeks or months for justice are the accepted norm. One ambitious starter, observing court at the beginning of her Crown Prosecution Service career, says the system is rife with “mismanagement,” sighing: “By the end of day two, I thought: Now I understand the backlogs.” One ambitious starter, observing court at the beginning of her Crown Prosecution Service career, says the system is rife with “mismanagement.” | Andy Rain/EPA POLITICO spent a week visiting England’s Crown Courts, speaking to dozens of barristers, judges, clerks, probation staff, defendants and their families, to understand how a best-in-class justice machine came to be broken, and whether it can be fixed. WONDERING WHEN JUSTICE MIGHT BEGIN A defense barrister lets out a deep sigh as she contemplates another wasted day at Isleworth Crown Court in west London. The defendant in her morning hearing, an attempted strangulation case, failed to show up — she thinks because he was never told about the court date — and the defendant in her afternoon hearing is nowhere to be found either.  (The names of the defendants mentioned in this piece have been withheld to comply with U.K. law aimed at not prejudicing trial verdicts.) The defense barrister, who asked to remain anonymous to speak freely about the court system, had worked late preparing for the hearings. Both were listed, as usual, mere hours before their scheduled start times. She gets paid for her court appearances after each case concludes — an indefinite point in the future. But she doesn’t get paid for the prep, which could be 30 hours for a serious case. And the fee for failed hearings is lower, despite the wasted time on paperwork and travel.  “It’s a slog,” she laments, staring at the patches of duct tape holding the stained carpets together in the corridor. “It’s relentless. The caseloads are insane.” Days when none of her hearings go ahead are far too frequent, and becoming more regular. Sometimes the prison transport contractors fail to bring defendants. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Sometimes the prison transport contractors fail to bring defendants; sometimes the probation service forgets to tell a bailed defendant they are due in court; sometimes a document or a staff member is missing; sometimes evidence is not up to scratch or has not been shared with the relevant legal teams; sometimes the prisons haven’t granted the barrister access to meet their clients; sometimes a video link isn’t working; sometimes a translator who speaks the wrong language has been sent; sometimes there are building maintenance issues. The list goes on. The government argues new tech will fix the administrative bottlenecks, but those in the trenches are more skeptical. “Our overlords claim AI is going to solve all our problems, but we just want a fucking printer that works,” one usher snorted.   Tech can’t fix crumbling buildings. In 2016, ceilings in Maidstone dripped toilet water onto jurors and barristers during a rape trial. Just this summer, floodwater cascaded down the walls of the most high-profile criminal court in Britain.  As the defense barrister wonders whether her second case will go ahead, a clerk wanders the long, windowless Isleworth corridor, clutching a clipboard. The case in her courtroom was meant to start 30 minutes earlier, but the police officer running it has gone AWOL. A screen flickers with the title of a case in another court, but the information is wrong; that trial wrapped up last week. In court 3, the trial didn’t get going until 3 p.m. because the defense barrister was late. The case in her courtroom was meant to start 30 minutes earlier, but the police officer running it has gone AWOL. | Neil Hall/EPA Finally, just as the court considers giving up on the hearing and closing for the afternoon, the barrister’s second defendant appears, making excuses about sickness and a problem with the trains. The 18-year-old saunters in wearing a grey tracksuit and clutching a plastic bag with a couple of drinks inside. He’s been charged with assault against a police officer and pleads not guilty.  The judge schedules his case for March 2029 — four years after the alleged offense. “This is my first time in adult court,” he says after the hearing. “When this is done, I’ll be, like, 22. It just seems like no one really cares.” Other defendants that morning also got trial dates for 2028 and 2029. “I’m very sorry about that,” Judge Edward Connell told one about the long wait. TOUGH ON CRIME, SOFT ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF CRIME Under the Leveson reform proposals, the 18-year-old’s case would be heard in the magistrates’ court. Before 2018, it would also have been heard in the magistrates’ court. But the politicians got involved. A proposal passed by the Conservative government that year made assaults on emergency workers a specific offense and triable in the Crown Court. In 2022, the possible prison sentence was doubled from one year to two, again increasing the chance of cases being sent to the higher court as the government flexed its “tough on crime” muscles. In 2022, the possible prison sentence was doubled from one year to two, again increasing the chance of cases being sent to the higher court as the government flexed its “tough on crime” muscles. | Andy Rain/EPA Nevertheless, sentences for hitting or spitting at a police officer rarely top the 6-month prison sentence magistrates could impose before November 2024 — never mind the new 12-month threshold the government increased it to that month in a bid to reduce pressure on the Crown Court. Almost all assault cases of this nature now go to juries, clogging the machine. Earlier this year, the backlog of police assault cases got so bad that prosecutors changed their guidelines to basically ignore the 2018 law. “We’re chasing our tail around all sorts of offences that have become political,” one barrister says. It’s not uncommon for politicians to try to look tough on crime without considering the consequences, says the Conservative former Justice Secretary Alex Chalk. There are few restraints on a “big ego” in the Home Office wanting to “burnish their own political credentials” regardless of the added pressure on the courts, he says.  A tougher stance against sexual offenses and increased efforts to ensure rape cases make it to court have further contributed to the pileup. But the move to take what are often complicated cases more seriously has not been matched with funding for the courts to deal with them, and that squeeze has made matters worse. It’s not uncommon for politicians to try to look tough on crime without considering the consequences, says the Conservative former Justice Secretary Alex Chalk. | Tolga Akmen/EPA Mary Prior, the former chair of the Criminal Bar Association, was in summer prosecuting a child sexual assault case. The two victims gave evidence under a 1999 rule allowing cross-examinations to be filmed long before a trial might start. The rule was designed to make the ordeal less traumatic for kids, but has led to unintended consequences. Once the sensitive evidence is gathered, any impetus to ensure a quick trial evaporates. The case Prior was prosecuting was postponed four times before going ahead in 2025 at Leicester Crown Court — three and a half years after the victims first went to the police. One victim completed school, then further education in the interim, and self-harmed each time the case was put off. The accused has now been found guilty. “I don’t think it’s that long away where a father of a child who’s been abused, who has been waiting three or four years for a trial, just goes and takes the law into their own hands,” says Prior. ‘BREAKING POINT’ The list of factors contributing to the pileup runs long. Advances in forensics and the use of smartphone data have made cases more complex, while some 20,000 police officers were cut then replaced with new recruits less experienced in handling and preparing evidence for trial. And then there are the funding cuts: Between 2010 and 2018, the Conservatives slashed spending on the courts by 20 percent in real terms. More than half of court buildings were closed down over the same period. Staff numbers are now down 20 percent on 2010 levels.  Chalk, who after leaving politics returned full-time as a barrister, argues it was “a mistake to cut funding from what was already an underfunded department.” It’s little surprise the system has struggled to attract and retain probation staff, solicitors and barristers — all of which compounds the existing delays. “Everybody is working close to breaking point,” says a barrister in the robing room at Leicester Crown Court, in the English Midlands, where case binders are piled high on the tables and a notice encourages staff to use the in-house cafeteria — despite its having closed down months ago. “These days I tend to give up on deadlines, because I want to have a life.” In 2022, barristers went on an extended strike over cuts to their wages — further increasing the backlog. Few in the system think reducing jury trials will solve the problems. Most people POLITICO spoke to argued the Leveson reforms sounded like a poor fix for chronic underfunding and risked more wrongful convictions in serious cases, since magistrates and judges are more prone to determine guilt. The defense barrister whose clients did not show up says cutting juries will not create more barristers, staff and courtrooms — “it’s just going to be less fair for defendants.” A sitting judge at Snaresbrook Crown Court in east London says removing juries from important cases “is wrong and not the solution.” A probation officer says justice must be “fair and transparent, and getting rid of juries reduces both.” In 2022, barristers went on an extended strike over cuts to their wages — further increasing the backlog. | Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images Another barrister says: “If the jury system goes, I go. It’s the reason I do the job.” “We are investing in a record amount of court sitting days and increasing funding for maintenance of our crumbling court buildings,” Sarah Sackman, minister for courts and legal services, told POLITICO. “But we cannot spend our way out of the mess we inherited. That’s why we’ve asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold and ambitious measures, so we can do whatever it takes to create a system fit for the 21st century and deliver swifter justice for victims.” POST-TRIAL TRIBULATIONS In a Crown Court southwest of London, a 21-year-old defendant glances over the glass of the dock at his mum, who is wearing a black t-shirt and a black skirt patterned with white flowers. The victim he was convicted of assaulting is also wearing flowers for the occasion — big red poppies on a black dress, over fishnet tights.  The trial is finished, and both have come to hear what his sentence will be. But the judge, Claire Harden-Frost, has questions. “I’m missing quite a lot of information that would assist me, from a prosecution point of view,” she tells the court. It’s little surprise the system has struggled to attract and retain probation staff, solicitors and barristers — all of which compounds the existing delays. | Andy Rain/EPA The prosecution barrister was drafted onto the sentencing at the last minute. She didn’t work on the trial and was not given all the relevant paperwork before the hearing.  Harden-Frost looks up at the clock above the courtroom door. She gives the prosecution barrister an hour to do her best, but in the end has no choice but to postpone the sentencing for another six weeks — the earliest date she and both barristers are available. The 21-year-old’s gran sighs: “I’m very disappointed the prosecution was not better organized, because it’s playing with people’s lives.”

LONDON — Nigel Farage was once a political outsider. Other insurgents now want to claim that crown. The Reform UK leader is plotting a major shake-up of British politics, aiming to build on local election successes and win national power for his populist right-wing party in 2029. But as he tacks to the left to try and win over the wider British public, Farage is gaining noisy detractors on the right. Back in June, Rupert Lowe launched the Restore Britain movement. A prolific X user who has caught the eye of Elon Musk, Lowe was elected as a Reform UK member of parliament last July but fell out spectacularly with Farage earlier this year. Now an independent MP on the self-declared Commons “reject bench,” Lowe has used his lone voice to advance radical right-wing policies. Restore Britain is not a political party — but it thinks it can use its niche and outsized social media presence to force policy changes from the other main outfits. “The ultimate purpose of Restore Britain is to act as a center of gravity for those people who are concerned about the direction of the country,” says Charlie Downes, Restore Britain’s campaigns director, in an interview. But others question whether there is really much space in British politics to the right of Farage — and see a worrying normalization of once-fringe ideas. IMMIGRATION OUTRAGE  On opposition to migration, Restore Britain goes much further than Farage. Lowe has backed the radical move of deporting all illegal migrants — a policy Farage himself has described as a “political impossibility” — which includes those on small boats crossing the English Channel. “The idea that you can just bring people in from anywhere in the world and that it will just be fine has been shown to be a fantasy,” argued Downes. Yet while immigration is undoubtedly a top concern for the British public, that doesn’t necessarily translate into backing for Restore’s more hardline approach. Back in June, Rupert Lowe launched the Restore Britain movement. | Joe Giddens/PA via Getty Images “They probably are going further than the median voter” on immigration, says Chris Hopkins, political research director at pollster Savanta. But he adds: “It doesn’t feel like the discourse from the Conservative Party and Reform UK needs Restore Britain to shift the discourse any further to the right. It already feels pretty crowded on the right.” It’s not just on migration where Restore Britain wants to make an impact. “Low tax, small state, slash immigration, protect British culture, restore Christian principles, carpet-bomb the cancer of wokery, fight lawfare, empower individual enterprise, and plenty more,” the outfit promised in its launch post — with “substance, detail, [and] a plan” to follow. On X it has called for the reintroduction of capital punishment, the legalization of pepper spray possession, and has backed the right to use “reasonable force” in self-defense of Brit’s homes. Just last week, Lowe leapt on an apparent split over gender in Farage’s law and order team to post a series of digs at his old party. In the past year, Farage has notably tilted some of his policies — including nationalization of key industries and support for axing the two-child cap on social security payments — leftwards as he tries to target disillusioned Labour voters. That’s potentially opened up space for parties that marry full-blooded social and economic conservativism to steal a march. Hopkins, the pollster, cautioned against that. “They’re fighting a losing battle,” he said of Restore Britain. “It feels at the minute that Reform UK have such momentum that they need to be left to get on with it.” PARADISE LOST  While Restore Britain has no plans to run candidates as a traditional political party (Downes claims Lowe would have found himself “more restricted” and “viewed as an electoral rival” had it moved in that direction) the outfit is bullish about its chances of shaping the U.K. political debate, particularly online. Lowe has so far promoted petitions objecting to clampdowns on social media posts, and demanding the collection of data on the “nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion of child sexual offenders.” Both exceeded 100,000 signatures, meaning they’ll be considered for debate in the U.K parliament. “We’re using the tools that we have at our disposal,” Downes says. Some 17 other MPs (including 11 Conservatives) signed Lowe’s early day motion (EDM) — a largely symbolic way of drawing political attention to an issue which has hardly any chance of getting debated in parliament — on deporting illegal migrants, while nine other MPs expressed concern about non-violent individuals imprisoned for riots that swept the U.K. last summer. Though the numbers are relatively small and EDMs are little more than a chance to sound off, Restore believe it’s fighting a step-by-step battle to normalize the previously unthinkable in SW1.  “What we’re doing is seeking to unite the right around these ideas, these principles, these policies,” says Downes. “We want issues to be the center of gravity … rather than personalities and parties.”  Despite just a minority of the U.K. population using X, Downes argues that the presence of politicians, journalists and activists on the platform — where Restore is racking up views — mean it’s not to be ignored. “You’ll see a trickle down effect where eventually our talking points inevitably end up entering mainstream discourse,” he predicts. Elon Musk appeared to endorse Restore Britain by responding to the launch tweet with two Union Jack flag emojis — a big social media boost for such a small outfit. | Pool Photo by Francis Chung via EPA Musk, the tech mogul who owns X, appeared to endorse Restore Britain by responding to the launch tweet with two Union Jack flag emojis — a big social media boost for such a small outfit. Some see Restore as a part of a general rightward trend typified by Donald Trump’s MAGA takeover of the Republican Party in the United States and the success of nationalist parties in key parts of continental Europe. In this view, Farage’s success may have opened the door to even more radical forces. “We’ve observed a normalization of politics that are no longer part of a conservative right-wing realm,” says King’s College London professor Georgios Samaras, who specializes in researching right-wing politics. “It’s trying to capitalize on the hype that Reform UK has achieved and try to fit in somewhere in the far-right realm.” Samaras highlighted how Brexit began as a policy before consuming a mainstream party — and warns Restore Britain could follow that model. “Lowe is testing the waters right now,” says Samaras. “He has the voice and also a very powerful far-right audience that is following him on Twitter.” “What they’re trying to do is grab Westminster’s attention,” says Hopkins. But he says it is still hard to see how Lowe could really overshadow Reform. “You can’t out Farage-Farage.”