And so, a very good morning, we seem to have passed the middle of the week and we're

hurtling headlong towards the end of January, which seems extraordinary to be.

There's all kinds of stuff to catch up on from what we did yesterday.

We had a very rambunctious, you might say, debate yesterday

about the meaning of the law when it comes to contempt of court. What you can say, what you can't say.

We were able to digest properly what Sir Keir Stama had said on Tuesday, which was all about his

excuses for not releasing any information whatsoever. Rae Heidelman Kew is here, a scholar of many things, and I know about you, Rafe, but I mean, I basically managed to get it from Michael Mansfield, a very well-renowned barrister, a man who's been involved in a lot of very high-profile cases over the years.

I managed to get from him that Kea Starmer actually could have said an awful lot more

legally without in any way jeopardising the court case.

And that has been my argument all along.

Let's have a look.

Obviously, you can see in this case why there was a problem,

because they find al-Qaeda bomb-making guidance and so on the book about that they find rice in it looks

pretty much as though it might be but it looks and now of course looking back uh they're able to

say in the context that it was this individual but that doesn't mean to say he hasn't got a terror related, because if you have,

you possess items that might be of use to a terrorist, then you're guilty of a terrorist

related defence.

Right.

Now, I think it was perfectly entitled at the time if he wanted to, to say it's potentially

related to terrorism, but I can't give you the details.

It's exactly right, which has been my sort of stated case all along, because for me,

Kirstarmer's hiding behind the sort of the legal framework of the word terrorism, which you

...