Skip to content
Dearest Gentle Reader,
This Author confesses to a certain grim satisfaction on this Wednesday morning, for the day’s intelligence confirms what any keen observer of society has long suspected: that ingenuity, in this Kingdom of ours, is most reliably deployed not in the service of virtue, but in the service of a very great swindle. Pray, read on.
The Broadcasting Society has conducted a most remarkable undercover inquiry, revealing a shadow industry of immigration advisers charging thousands of pounds to coach migrants into posing as gay persons in order to secure asylum. The scheme, it appears, is as brazen as it is elaborate – fake cover stories, fabricated letters, manufactured photographs, and medical reports conjured from thin air. Those whose student, work, or tourist visas have expired are being shepherded through a process designed to protect the genuinely persecuted, all for a handsome fee. This group now accounts for some thirty-five per cent of all asylum claims, which surpassed one hundred thousand in 2025. The Home Office has declared that anyone exploiting the system “will face the full force of the law” – which This Author trusts is rather more forceful than a strongly worded letter. That a system meant to shelter the vulnerable is being hollowed out by charlatans is, frankly, a scandal of the first order – and not the entertaining kind.
From one variety of systematic exploitation to another – though this one involves rather less theatre and considerably more checkout pages. The Trades and Commerce Watchdog has ordered the owner of the AA and BSM driving schools to refund more than eighty thousand learner drivers who were subjected to what the trade charmingly calls “drip pricing” – the practice of displaying an attractively low price until the unsuspecting customer, having dutifully entered their name, address, preferred lesson times, and hopes and dreams, arrives at checkout to discover an additional mandatory booking fee lurking like a toad beneath a lily pad. The fine stands at £4.2 million. The average refund amounts to approximately nine pounds. Nine pounds, Gentle Reader. One trusts the learner drivers will spend it wisely – perhaps on a cup of tea and a prolonged reflection upon the state of consumer law.
Meanwhile, in the corridors of power, Lady Reeves is not a happy woman – and who, in all conscience, could blame her? The war in Persia casts a long shadow over the Royal Exchequer, and Sir Mason of the Broadcasting Society observes with customary precision that the government now finds itself in a vicious circle: a struggling economy makes defence spending harder, while Lord Robertson, former secretary general of that most august military alliance, accuses the non-military experts at the Royal Exchequer of nothing less than “vandalism.” Lady Reeves has declared it “folly” that the American Colonies entered the conflict without a clear exit plan – a sentiment she expressed to a national newspaper with what This Author imagines was the restraint of a woman holding back a very great deal more. Lord Starmer had only recently ventured that “we are turning a corner.” The corner, it transpires, led directly into a wall.
On a rather more martial note, Lord Healey at the War Office has announced that the Kingdom is sending one hundred and twenty thousand drones to Ukraine – the largest such delivery ever made. Lord Putin, Lord Healey observes pointedly, “wants us to be distracted” by affairs in the Middle East. One rather suspects Lord Putin underestimates the British capacity to conduct several crises simultaneously whilst also complaining about the weather. Meanwhile, Lady Reeves is to announce a further £752 million payment to Kyiv in Washington – a sum forming part of a broader £3.36 billion loan. Lord Zelensky, for his part, has noted that American peace negotiators appear to have “no time for Ukraine” on account of the Persian entanglement. Wednesdays, it seems, were ever thus.
Finally, a word on the grand experiment known as Help to Buy, that scheme by which a previous Conservative administration proposed to assist first-time buyers onto the property ladder. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has now delivered its verdict: the scheme chiefly assisted higher earners in areas where homes were already cheaper, had “limited impact” on social mobility, and made only a modest difference to housing affordability – this despite supporting roughly one in five first-time buyer purchases in Southern Kingdom at its peak in 2014 to 2015. In short, a scheme designed to help those without wealthy relations climb the property ladder appears to have given a most agreeable leg-up to those who already had one. This Author is, as ever, entirely unsurprised – and can only marvel at the ingenuity of policy designed to solve a problem whilst quietly ensuring it persists.
I am, as ever, your most devoted observer – Lady Whistledown.