paul scully. he's apologised for saying that there's no go areas . saying that there's no go areas. meanwhile, the suella braverman says that there are many folk in britain that are not of britain. what on earth actually is the state of this nation.7 are you keeping up with it all your thoughts please also , it looks thoughts please also, it looks like there'll be no extra money spent on defence come the budget next month. right decision or not. and if you're an nhs hospital and you assault hospital patient and you assault a member of staff, should you be

banned from that banned then from using that hospital a year? that's hospital for a year? that's a proposal. i think it's a great one. do you or not? and also should schoolboys be getting lessons in how to not be sexist? is this really the job of schools? is it is it you tell me, am i missing something? where's the parents in all of this? you tell me . indeed. i this? you tell me. indeed. i want to get stuck into all of that and more. but before we do, let's cross live to polly middlehurst for tonight's latest news headlines . michelle news headlines. michelle >> thank you. good evening. well, the top story from the gb newsroom tonight is that suspended tory mp lee anderson has held private talks with the leader of the reform uk party leader of the reform uk party leader richard tice. it's fuelled speculation that the former deputy chair of the tory party is about to defect to a

rival party, gb news understands they met for in person talks in derbyshire on sunday. the meeting happened a day after mr anderson lost the whip for refusing to apologise for saying islamists had control of london mayor sadiq khan . well, also in mayor sadiq khan. well, also in the news today , mp paul scully the news today, mp paul scully has apologised for saying there are no go zones in birmingham and east london. the former minister made reference to areas with large muslim communities , with large muslim communities, comments which he says he now regrets. mr scully admits he could have chosen his words more carefully , given the fact that carefully, given the fact that i used that time and i've used i spoken a lot about the need to use sensible language. >> i clearly didn't use the right language. there and why is that? because actually , it's that? because actually, it's a distraction from the direct opposite. what i was trying to say, which is basically there are areas around every city in the country, frankly, that are which people are worried about going it's often going to, whether it's often based around gangs or handful of idiots , frankly, that are idiots, frankly, that are threatening or intimidating or

whatever. like that . whatever. like that. >> well, west midlands mayor andy street told gb news earlier there was never any evidence to support paul scully's original claim. >> i'm actually don't think there's a controversy at all. one member of parliament said. it it obviously quite self—evident is completely wrong. i was very quick to say yesterday, it's just not right. it should not have been said. and of course, the member of parliament concerned has apologised today. so i think actually the issue is over and i am actually very pleased that the community here in birmingham has really rallied together. to say that is not a description of our home that we recognise in any way . any way. >> also in the news today, mps are warning that protests are putting unsustainable pressure on police resources. they're calling on the government to give more support as demonstrations continue over the israel gaza war. a cross—party committee found that policing the protests between october and december last year cost forces

more than £25 million. the bbc has apologised to the family caught up in the huw edwards scandal over the way their complaint was handled. it follows complaints the news presenter paid for explicit photographs of a teenage sinner. a review into how non—editorial complaints are handled identified a number of failures and says there's a greater need now for consistency when it comes to addressing concerns . comes to addressing concerns. the report found the initial complaint about huw edwards was not logged on to the relevant case management system, so couldn't be seen by senior figures , royal news and the figures, royal news and the prince of wales has pulled out of a royal event to honour his late godfather because of what's being described as a personal matter . being described as a personal matter. instead, queen camilla led the royal family during a memorial for king constantine of greece . prince william had been greece. prince william had been due to deliver a reading at the service. kensington palace didn't elaborate, but confirmed the princess of wales, who's

recovering from abdominal surgery, is doing well . the king surgery, is doing well. the king also missed the service as he continues treatment for cancer. for now an 18th century pub that was destroyed in a suspected arson attack in the west midlands, must be rebuilt by order of the local council . order of the local council. britain's wonkiest pub, the crooked house, was quickly demolished just two days after the fire last august, but an enforcement notice has now been issued against the owners for its unlawful demolition . varne its unlawful demolition. varne and south staffordshire council is ordering it be rebuilt in its original state within three years. a police investigation into the fire that burnt it down continues, and anyone with information is urged to come forward . the hs2 project reached forward. the hs2 project reached a major milestone today with a tunnelling machine completing its ten mile journey under the chiltern hills. the 2000 tonne piece of equipment, nicknamed florence, was greeted with cheers as it broke through dirt and rocks at the site in buckinghamshire. it began its

journey in may 2021 near rickmansworth in hertfordshire. on completion, it will be one of two tunnels used by trains travelling between london and birmingham , and lastly, two birmingham, and lastly, two d—day veterans have described the honour of having their names added to a memorial wall in portsmouth, british military veterans stanford and john roberts were presented with their plaques . today a total of their plaques. today a total of 13 names of normandy veterans will be added to the wall as portsmouth becomes as the uk's official host to mark 80 years since the d—day landings later this year. that is the news for the latest stories. do sign up for gb news alerts. scan the qr code on the screen right now or go to gb news .com/ alerts now. more from . michelle more from. michelle >> thanks very much for that , >> thanks very much for that, polly. i loved that last story there about the veterans. did you see how sprightly and energised those two chaps look?

>> they look better than some of the young men that i know. i could tell you that for free. i wonder what on earth is their secret? anyway, i am michelle dewberry i'm with until 7:00 dewberry i'm with you until 7:00 tonight me, i've got tonight alongside me, i've got the life peer in tonight alongside me, i've got the house life peer in tonight alongside me, i've got the house of life peer in tonight alongside me, i've got the house of lords; peer in tonight alongside me, i've got the house of lords. danieln the house of lords. daniel moylan, and a new to face this show. we like those, don't we? the broadcast journalist juditha da silva. welcome. thank you. you're much here you're very much welcome here tonight. as are you at home. you know the drill , don't tonight. as are you at home. you know the drill, don't you? it's not about three. it's not just about us three. it's very you at very much about you guys at home. as well. what's on your mind tonight? get in touch with me. what a strange set me. i mean, what a strange set of on have in this of goings on we have in this country. and wait get country. and i can't wait to get into all with you. but into it all with you. but whatever thoughts are, whatever your thoughts are, gbviews@gbnews.com email. whatever your thoughts are, gb'you s@gbnews.com email. whatever your thoughts are, gb'you canbnews.com email. whatever your thoughts are, gb'you can tweet.com email. whatever your thoughts are, gb'you can tweet me] email. whatever your thoughts are, gb'you can tweet me at email. whatever your thoughts are, gb'you can tweet me at gb email. whatever your thoughts are, gb'you can tweet me at gb newsil. or you can tweet me at gb news now . two men secret rendezvous now. two men secret rendezvous in a hotel bar just off a in a hotel barjust off a motorway service station. no, this is not the beginning of an aduu this is not the beginning of an adult movie. no no no , it's adult movie. no no no, it's better than that. everyone much more serious too. we're talking, of course, about the future of one of our key politicians that

many of you are very passionate about. let's cross live, shall we? to our political editor, christopher hope. christopher. good evening to you. now i've just given everyone a little hint there of the story that you might be about to tell us. please give us the details . please give us the details. >> that's right. we know about leon jackson, don't we? of course. he presents a show on gb news on fridays. he had his whip suspended. he was removed from being a tory mp for remarks he made about sadiq khan, uh, claiming that he was being controlled by islamists and that was seen to be beyond the pale for number 10 downing street. he apologised for his clumsy language lee anderson, but didn't sorry , and that led didn't say sorry, and that led to him losing in the whip on saturday. no longer a saturday. so he's no longer a tory he's the independent mp tory mp. he's the independent mp for now on sunday, for ashfield now on sunday, we're tonight and gb we're revealing tonight and gb news on sunday lunchtime he met for a meeting with richard tice. now he's the leader of reform uk , this party which is causing

the tories such problems. but running about 11 to 12% in the polls at just at a hotel off the m1, the holiday inn hotel . polls at just at a hotel off the m1, the holiday inn hotel. uh, michelle junction, 28, south derbyshire. you may know it well. they for met a cup of tea or a drink or something there for half an hour or so on sunday lunchtime to have a chat about what? we don't know. we've gone to lee anderson. he says he won't give a running commentary. i've been on a political journey. that was that was yesterday. he also says today i'm not talking about my next steps and my focus on it is on representing the people of ashfield. but this place is where work. westminster so where i work. westminster is so febrile fact that a febrile that the fact that a disaffected tory mp, former tory mp , has a meeting with the mp, has a meeting with the leader of reform uk has set some hares running in westminster tonight . are we about to see lee tonight. are we about to see lee anderson , the man described by anderson, the man described by the bbc as the red wall made flesh about to defect to reform uk and who might go with him? these are unanswered questions tonight, michelle.

>> well, let me just ask you a quick question before i bring my panel into this conversation. if he did defect to reform , what he did defect to reform, what would the impact of that be? do you think seismic or. would the impact of that be? do you think seismic or . what you think seismic or. what >> well, i mean, i think i think, you know, everything is in balance, i suppose in but i think it is seismic. i think that lee anderson was raised up by the party as the focus of its red wall of support. um, i've been told that if he went, several might go with him. several other tory mps might go to uk . um, a tory several other tory mps might go to uk. um, a tory mp told to reform uk. um, a tory mp told me today it was 5050. if he jumps across to the tories , it jumps across to the tories, it hasn't been helped by james cleverly. the home secretary, saying today that lee johnson should apologise for what he said. he's been very clear to us at gb news he won't apologise and what he wants, i think, is and what he wants, i think, is an exit ramp to get out of this situation he's in. he wants to probably stay the tory probably stay with the tory party he can. but as things party if he can. but as things stand, he's being backed into a corner and the result might mean

that this man leaves and joins the reform uk. now what might happen then is anyone's guess. there could be a by—election in that seat where reform uk might try and win it for lee anderson. um, again by elections can be held anytime up to three months before a general election. so it's all in play here. and it just shows for how, the fifth day running, we're not talking about the conservative government's agenda, but about things, noises off as they're described. and that's not great for rishi sunak. >> blimey, there's never a dull moment is there christopher hope, thank you for bringing us up speed that. up to speed with that. how glamorous holiday in glamorous did that holiday in look those pictures look look in? those pictures look great, didn't it? uh, look, there's so much i want to get into politically tonight. want into politically tonight. i want to the paul scully to get into the paul scully thing. a um, of thing. i've got a clip, um, of an interview with suella braverman live braverman that goes live tomorrow says tomorrow where she says interesting for now, interesting things. but for now, let me focus on the lee anderson debate hotel rendezvous. debate at that hotel rendezvous. what you make to that? are what do you make to that? are you a tory party or you worried as a tory party or as tory do you think, oh as a tory peer, do you think, oh gosh, going to go? do you

gosh, is he going to go? do you want to lose him? where are you on all? on it all? >> well, i don't lose anybody from party i'd from the conservative party i'd like to join the like more people to join the conservative i'd more conservative party i'd like more conservative so generally conservative mps. so generally speaking, i'm conservative speaking, i'm pro conservative mps not being mps and against people not being conservative anderson conservative mps. lee anderson is i to say. is a character. i have to say. my is a character. i have to say. my personal view is that his position, whether he's in the conservative reform conservative party or reform uk or joins the labour party, which he used to be a member of or whatever he does, don't think whatever he does, i don't think it'll a huge impact outside it'll have a huge impact outside his constituency. to be perfectly frank. so i think it's important follow what he's important to follow what he's doing. the idea that is doing. but the idea that he is a sort of totemic leadership figure will trail figure and people will trail after him in certain direction after him in a certain direction because lee anderson. i because it's lee anderson. i don't think that's wholly convinced . i think other things convinced. i think other things have as well for have to happen as well for before you get that sort of exodus. but of course it would make a difference seat make a difference in his seat because have more because you'd have more candidates. was standing candidates. if he was standing as independent, have, as an independent, you'd have, you more candidates, more you know, more candidates, more vote the vote splitting. it makes the result the election in that result of the election in that constituency more unpredictable . constituency more unpredictable. >> i just feel a little bit like the tories seems to be the gift

that keeps giving to the that keeps on giving to the reform party the moment. reform party at the moment. i've got say i'm absolutely got to say i'm absolutely convinced that that is not intentional. anyway, your thoughts intentional. anyway, your thougthink lee anderson is kind >> i think lee anderson is kind of positioning himself be the of positioning himself to be the by—product of a post or by—product of a post trumpian or soon maybe again, trumpian by—product of a post trumpian or soorwhereas)e again, trumpian by—product of a post trumpian or soorwhereas is again, trumpian by—product of a post trumpian or soorwhereas is thein, trumpian by—product of a post trumpian or soorwhereas is the image,|pian by—product of a post trumpian or soorwhereas is the image, the] era, whereas is the image, the opfics era, whereas is the image, the optics of the individual against the establishment standing against it, no matter what that is very galvanising. all he needsis is very galvanising. all he needs is a kind of machinery behind him, like social media and he could become a huge problem to the conservative lives because all he's showing now is that i can stand ten toes down in what i believe, and nobody, no matter who pushes me. and because the particular topic is islamophobia , is the idea of islamophobia, which polarising to have a which is so polarising to have a figure who speaks to the working class experience britain , class experience in britain, who's willing to go up against it be in a position of power it and be in a position of power that will put at for his that he will put at risk for his opinion? that's very motivational who feel motivational to people who feel they have voice. yeah. they don't have a voice. yeah. >> mean, he will say, hang >> and i mean, he will say, hang on a second. it's not about islamophobia. he would say islamophobia. he's he would say he's islamophobic. would

he's not islamophobic. he would say, a difference say, uh, there's a difference between islamist extremist between an islamist extremist and your, uh, normal average, you know, law abiding, decent, upstanding muslim . so he would upstanding muslim. so he would absolutely say he's not islamophobic , islamophobic. and islamophobic, islamophobic. and that's not what this is about. >> yes , yes and no. because it's >> yes, yes and no. because it's all kind of holistically involved. they all bleed into one another because whereas you can say you're talking about extremism, it speaks to a religion which is an entirety of a community, because born out of that religion is where you have the extremists. so if you're not truly specific, because the way he he phrased it was not specific enough. and if you articulate it but he was specific, he said islamist , specific, he said islamist, that's specific. the rest that's quite specific. the rest of it didn't speak to who of it didn't really speak to who you're talking about because islamists are muslim people who have certain kinds of views. muslim people are part of the community in which islamists can be found . what you need is that be found. what you need is that that's what i'm saying. politics is you to be so is so dicey. you have to be so clear what you're saying clear about what you're saying and the complete articulation of

what he was not specific what he said was not specific enough, could enough, where you could offend other what a lot of other people. what a lot of people in the muslim community want separate us from them . want is separate us from them. so you can speak to extreme policies and extremism, but be sure to separate us from them because we are not with them. and have a position of and if you have a position of power kind power he power and the kind of power he has his rhetoric needs to be has is his rhetoric needs to be more specific. let's see. >> do you get this whole notion that, um, there's this conflation of lee anderson conflation of what lee anderson said and therefore he is somehow islam phobic because that has really kind of, um, consumed a lot of the conversation , hasn't lot of the conversation, hasn't it, over the last hours, days. whatever about is lee anderson an islamophobic. and of course, he was on patrick christys show last night. he was pushing back against this he was against this notion. he was saying, even is, saying, what is what even is, uh, islamophobia. he was basically saying, is it a form of essentially like de facto blasphemy? are you saying that anyone that criticises the religion of islam is therefore somehow an islamophobic? so he was really quite clear in what he was saying. he was

specifically talking about the extremist, but it has been conflated. it hasn't it? do you think it is? do you think? i mean, i can't even believe i'm even about to say this sentence, because don't think he because i think i don't think he is islamophobic. i think he's been clear in what he said. been very clear in what he said. but that, but notwithstanding that, i'll ask the question. you ask you the question. do you think he well, i mean, think he is well, i mean, politicians of all parties, sensible have sensible politicians have have maintained over the last few years as they've to years as they've attempted to maintain a very clear distinction between the meaning of the word muslim and the meaning of the islamist, meaning of the word islamist, and islamist , they mean and by islamist, they mean people adopt particularly people who adopt a particularly violent agenda, violent anti—western agenda, something of that sort and if you use it, i think if you use that word, then it should be clear what you're talking about . clear what you're talking about. >> if, as juditha says, it all bleeds into itself , so does >> if, as juditha says, it all bleeds into itself, so does it. >> or are people deliberately bleeding it in? >> but if it does , then it >> but if it does, then it becomes impossible to have any pubuc becomes impossible to have any public discussion about it. and if that no, it does become impossible because everything what you said, everything bleeds

into itself. and i think there is a bit of a deliberate agenda on the part of some people to close down that sort of public discussion. so i think unlike where i disagree with juditha is i think these distinctions are absolute crucial, and i'm perfectly happy to accept there might be further refinements in the distinctions, but we can't say it all bleeds into itself because that's to abolish the distinctions and it means you can never talk about it without being criticised. >> i disagree with that. >> i disagree with that. >> will talk about it. >> people will talk about it. >> people will talk about it. >> you're you're speaking to >> you're not you're speaking to a experience you haven't a lived experience you haven't had for part of my had for i passed part of my family is muslim, and when i talk about the bleeding into each is a way that each other, there is a way that people who have the people who don't have the information don't have the information or don't have the access understand the access to understand the totality of the issue the way you do, think of everyone. >> no, experience that >> no, no experience that sentence said islamist sentence after you said islamist and then you described it. >> was perfect. it was >> that was perfect. it was a soundbite. it was short , it was soundbite. it was short, it was clear, it was succinct. hadley anderson done that. it's clear. >> why does he have >> but why does he have to define that because define a word that because you're given sort of

you're given that sort of because a politician, you're because as a politician, you're speaking everyone and not speaking to everyone and not just people understand just the people who understand you, is every word you, but that is every word actually means that's how it's been used . been used. >> you're making an assumption that everyone gets nobody that everyone gets it. nobody owes you an understanding. you have. the onus is on you to provide them with an understanding to know what you are saying and the position you occupy. >> so it would have been all right saying it if he'd added the to the words the word similar to the words i just used. the word similar to the words i justijsed. the word similar to the words i justi believe so right? >> i believe so right? >> i believe so right? >> okay. so he assumed people understood the he assumed >> okay. so he assumed people undershisd the he assumed >> okay. so he assumed people undershis mistake. he assumed >> okay. so he assumed people undershis mistake. that�* assumed >> okay. so he assumed people undershis mistake. that wasumed it was his mistake. that was his. there was no islamophobia. >> i, i say that i don't think he's islamophobic. i think that he's islamophobic. i think that he a responsibility as a he has a responsibility as a politician his politician to execute his rhetoric with more discipline. so he doesn't himself so he doesn't find himself in these situations. >> think that there is an >> do you think that there is an agenda among some people to deliberately try and conflate the conversation about an islamist with the conversation about islamophobia? because what they're deliberately trying to do is they know that if someone's got this valid concern that actually there are these extremists, the second use, then

start not you, but one the second. starts second. that one then starts saying, look at her, look at saying, oh, look at her, look at him. they islamophobic . him. they are islamophobic. everyone then oh, i don't everyone then goes, oh, i don't want be called that thing. so want to be called that thing. so i better up it's i better shut up then. it's a way of silencing genuine criticism. that's criticism. do you think that's fair or not? >> i think that is fair. up to a point, because it happens whether racism, sexism and whether it's racism, sexism and anti lgbtq discourse that there and is key. i always and this is the key. i always say the majority of these minority groups think the way most of society does. it is certain voices like you said, there are certain people who often speak the loudest are the most extreme, and then everyone gets a perception that they speak for the general community and they don't. and so yes, there are people that believe that by it's kind of the exercise of confusion . if you exercise of confusion. if you muddy waters, you don't give muddy the waters, you don't give anyone a pointed perspective to address actual problem. they address the actual problem. they definitely do that. but it is not the majority. so that's where the frustration comes from. say they're from. where people say they're offended taken offended because you've taken the the few to the perspective of the few to define many, which you define the many, which you shouldn't do . shouldn't do. >> you think that's what

>> what do you think that's what do you think is going on genuine confusion or something a little bit deliberate, an bit more deliberate, perhaps an attempt people slightly attempt to make people slightly more than they are more silent than they are currently being? tell you currently being? i'll tell you someone not being someone that's not being silenced. suella braverman she has out again . has been speaking out again. i'll play you what she's had to say in just couple of minutes. say in just a couple of minutes. don't anywhere

i'm christopher hope and i'm gloria de piero bringing you pmqs live here on gb news every wednesday we'll bring you live coverage of prime minister's questions. >> when rishi sunak and sir keir starmer go head to head in the house of commons, we'll be asking our viewers and listeners to submit the questions that they would like to put to the prime minister, and we'll put that to panel of top that to our panel of top politicians in our westminster studio. >> that's pmqs live here on gb news >> britain's election . channel >> britain's election. channel hi there.

>> michelle dewberry with you till 7:00 tonight alongside mr peel till 7:00 tonight alongside mr peel, the conservative life peer in the house of lords, daniel moylan and the broadcast journalist, judy said a silver welcome back everybody. we were just talking about the situation in the tory party, particularly around lee anderson. well, i've got to say, um, you might be familiar with the fact that paul scully, the mp yesterday, he was saying , um, about there being saying, um, about there being some well , two in particular no some well, two in particular no go zones . i some well, two in particular no go zones. i hate some well, two in particular no go zones . i hate saying that go zones. i hate saying that sentence with my accent. yes i know i sound ridiculous when i say it. anyway, he was basically saying that these uh, no saying that these two, uh, no zones. now, today he's basically come back and apologised for saying that the areas in question was sparkhill in birmingham and tower hamlets in london in. i've got to say though, someone that's not backwards in coming forwards. suella braverman she has done an interview with the podcast trigonometry. trigonometry it goes live tomorrow night. we've got a preview of that, and i just wanted to play you a little clip of it. let's listen. >> i think the pace of migration

is causing real damage to community cohesion and the social fabric of our country, because people are coming from countries where their culture is sometimes at odds with british values and british culture. and i think we are seeing that play out in a very worrying way on our streets. but this is only going to get worse in years to come. >> what do you mean by that? suella you've just made that comment. i think i know what you mean, but what do you actually mean, but what do you actually mean by that? >> i mean that if you you know, if you look at if you take a hard , honest look at our hard, honest look at our country, we have towns and cities around the united kingdom where multicolour tourism has failed, where communities are living parallel lives, where people come here and they don't speak the language, where they come here and they don't want to take part in british life. they don't want to integrate. and in fact , they they actively loathe

fact, they they actively loathe what britain stands for. and they are in britain, but not of britain . britain. >> well, that's as i said, was trigonometry. that's interview premieres tomorrow night at 7:00. i mean , she's not mincing 7:00. i mean, she's not mincing her words. there did you agree what suella had to say? >> uh, my first concern with immigration is, i think, simply leaving aside the question of cultural, um, assimilation , if cultural, um, assimilation, if you like, is simply the question of numbers. i mean, over a million people in the last year came to live in this country. um that was netted off against something like 400,000 who left. so you get left with a net figure of about 600,000 people. i mean, there are whole questions about how those how people are accommodated, what what the housing is that provides for them , the public provides for them, the public services, the medicines, the medical facilities and all the other things that go with that. and think that a pace of and i think that is a pace of numbers is simply too high numbers that is simply too high and fast for any country of and too fast for any country of this to assimilate . this size to assimilate. >> and do your party have the political a cap or

political will to put a cap or restrict those numbers? >> i'm going to ask i have >> well, i'm going to ask i have a next week in the a question next week in the house of that's been house of lords that's been timetabled week, asking timetabled for next week, asking them comment the ons them to comment on the ons projection population growth projection of population growth over ten years. over the next ten years. >> , we look forward to that >> well, we look forward to that to what policies. to know what their policies. i look forward with the look forward to that with the projections or they're going to look forward to that with the pro something they're going to look forward to that with the pro something to ay're going to look forward to that with the pro something to stop going to look forward to that with the prosomething to stop it.ing to look forward to that with the pro something to stop it. well, do something to stop it. well, the reason i ask is because suella carried this suella braverman carried on this conversation . she had something conversation. she had something to the to say specifically about the volume of immigration. just listen to this bit to , for my listen to this bit to, for my part , i've been very , very, um, part, i've been very, very, um, eager to deliver on that policy to lower net migration . to lower net migration. >> and technically, it's very easy to do, actually, from a home office or government point of view . you don't need to pass of view. you don't need to pass a law. you don't need to worry about human rights or the court in strasbourg . you don't need in strasbourg. you don't need to, um, get any new votes on it. you actually just have to take an administrative and executive decision to do it . and i, i had

decision to do it. and i, i had the hope that i would be able to do that. and unfortunately, i was met with a lot of resistance from around the cabinet table and, um, the prime minister, you know, didn't want to engage in this subject and didn't want to . this subject and didn't want to. why not deliver on it? you'd have to ask him. well you see, i think that's quite damning, actually. >> so there you go. so. well, the leader of your party, of course, our broader prime minister apparently suella saying there's resistance right from saying there's resistance right frocontrolling immigration. to controlling immigration. >> i think this is partly because there's a treasury mindset and an office of budget responsibility mindset that says the more immigration you have, the more immigration you have, the faster the country grows . the faster the country grows. that's the country as a whole. might grow. of course, there's a separate question about whether individual wealth is getting better, but the more it grows and therefore you can it addresses public finance problems and you can get on and do things. and it makes life easier for the chancellor. this is without considering the other area that i haven't mentioned, which the social

which is the social, the social context of immigration. >> we'll to that >> well, we'll come back to that one. just want to bring greta one. i just want to bring greta in. are your thoughts? either you can pick whichever one of those want. we're going those ones you want. we're going to so with to cover both. so start with whichever you want. >> um, i think the question i'm going start with the question going to start with the question of there's always of immigration. there's always this, put this, um, rhetoric that's put out that the britain small out that the britain is a small island. be island. you're going to be submerged under numbers submerged under the numbers of immigrants. yes. well, the key is integrate ation. is about integrate ation. the approach a government has to integrating those that come can always an economy if you always bolster an economy if you do it effectively. but when you have that's coming from have rhetoric that's coming from and kind language and and the kind of language and discourse engaged discourse that's being engaged in suella in and fuelled by suella braverman when constantly braverman, when you constantly other communities and make them feel that way, they will react accordingly . all you have to do accordingly. all you have to do is look through history. how did things like the mafia begin ? things like the mafia begin? italian and immigrants italian and irish immigrants were feel so other were made to feel so other and so deprived. they what was so deprived. they did what was necessary survive within necessary to survive within their community and provide for just so when you just their own. so then when you get by—product of behaviour get that by—product of behaviour you began, you cannot complain that it exists you

that it exists because you haven't provided remedy. haven't provided a remedy. >> she's >> so are you saying she's wrong? saying that her wrong? i'm saying that her approach, the issue exist 100. >> her approach to handling it is the wrong one, because it's only going to spur on more problems that fracture and splinter more splinter off into creating more ills society . so she's ills within society. so she's actually of the problem , actually part of the problem, not the solution. >> she many of my viewers >> but she many of my viewers would say actually just would say she's actually just been direct. it's quite refreshing to someone call refreshing to hear someone call it they live among it out. they live among communities there is no communities where there is no integration. people perhaps integration. uh, people perhaps don't speak the language. they don't speak the language. they don't , um, they're not as one don't, um, they're not as one like she says in the interview. they live parallel lives and they would that their they would argue that their communities are changing, not for better, because of this for the better, because of this uncontrolled immigration. and they someone being they would applaud someone being direct. would direct. finally about it. would you? the you you? am i feeling from the you that you would rather is that what you would rather is that what you would rather is that she almost kind of like pussyfoots around issue or pussyfoots around the issue or not at all. >> call it out because it is an issue, but the way you've been handung issue, but the way you've been handling far is what has handling it thus far is what has caused it to be the kind of issue it is. how do you call it out? >> nicely then? no. speak to it

and say that i believe that these kind, kind of these kind, this kind of infrastructure should be put these kind, this kind of infraplace,|re should be put these kind, this kind of infraplace, that|ould be put these kind, this kind of infraplace, that forcesie put into place, that forces immigrants to integrate and assimilate community. immigrants to integrate and assimi you community. immigrants to integrate and assimi you don't ommunity. immigrants to integrate and assimi you don't feel|unity. immigrants to integrate and assimi you don't feel|unothered >> so you don't feel so othered and cant >> so you don't feel so othered and can't be you force and you can't be you force someone to integrate. okay. for instance, let's okay, there's a film that's just come out by ken loach called the old oak. watch it. and you see the steps that goes through the goes through where, um, the syrian immigrants come in. they're made to feel like, why are because you're are you here? because you're coming deprived community coming into a deprived community that doesn't have much their that doesn't have much of their own. but over conversation and discourse, integrated. own. but over conversation and discourse, you integrated. own. but over conversation and discourse, you help tegrated. own. but over conversation and discourse, you help each ed. and where you help each other and improve the society. and you improve the society. it's all about knowing what is missing, needed, who missing, what is needed, who can provide, how i provide provide, and how do i provide access newspeople to access for those newspeople to fill gaps which aren't fill in the gaps which aren't being filled currently? that's how the economy . how you bolster the economy. >> so let's talk about this social cohesion, it social cohesion, uh, side of it then. do you agree with what you've just been hearing, daniel? >> well, actually, think judy >> well, actually, i think judy should on, you should actually focus on, you know, talks about suella know, she talks about suella braverman's approach. suella braverman's approach. suella braverman braverman and braverman suella braverman and has just said in front of us that her approach, what she would do. not would actually do. let's not keep about language,

keep talking about language, what would actually do is what she would actually do is take the administrator of decisions, which she says are easy.i decisions, which she says are easy. i don't know whether that's right or wrong. take the administrative decisions that would net migration would reduce net migration substantially. the real substantially. now the real question is, i think at the moment talking about suella braverman agree that braverman is do we agree that thatis braverman is do we agree that that is the right thing to do and stop talking about the language of the whole thing? that's what people want focus that's what people want to focus on , there is a separate on now, there is a separate question about of those people who have arrived and not necessary recently, because we know communities in in know there are communities in in britain have been a long britain which have been a long established actually established which which actually live, you know, have territorial areas in parts, some of our cities that are basically that is where they live and where quite frequently, some members, older members of the community still don't speak english, although might have been although they might have been here many years. so we know this is this a problem and we is not this is a problem and we know not necessarily just is not this is a problem and we kn do not necessarily just is not this is a problem and we kn do withiot necessarily just is not this is a problem and we kn do with recentessarily just is not this is a problem and we kn do with recent immigrants. to do with recent immigrants. there are questions you could ask about you integrate ask about how you can integrate them stimulate them and how you can stimulate that into operation and

encourage it. but the key question raises should encourage it. but the key que�*actually raises should encourage it. but the key que�*actually takeaises should encourage it. but the key que�*actually take the; should you actually take the administrative steps reduce administrative steps to reduce net migration dramatically? and do i think should? i think do i think she should? i think we've no choice about this we've got no choice about this is the key question. >> what are those administrative steps why does own steps and why does your own party's just disagree? party's leader just disagree? >> explained >> i've already explained why i think conservative are think the conservative party are given my view on why. i think the leadership of the government hasn't adopted steps, and hasn't adopted those steps, and i to do because of a i think it's to do because of a particular understanding of their financial and economic consequences and the consequence, fiscal consequence, the fiscal consequences think that consequences. and i think that is poor interpretation based is a poor interpretation based on bad modelling . that's my on bad modelling. that's my view. um, but, but, but the administrative steps are relatively straightforward because you stop issuing visas, you put salary requirements up so that you don't allow people below a certain salaries to come in. there are various administrative can administrative steps you can adopt that don't require new laws. she says , because laws. as she says, because they're the powers they're already the powers already under existing law already exist under existing law . for the government to do those things so take that. things. so you can take that. >> how i how i counter that again, is what i said before

about speaking to lived experience, you're experience, because what you're talking a very talking about is a very idealistic perspective, because the kinds of immigrants you're saying where you put a cap on earning potential and so on, it's wipes out a rudimentary amount of people who feel forced to migrate because they don't have the luxury of those meeting those quotas or meeting those barriers . those quotas or meeting those barriers. but those quotas or meeting those barriers . but when those quotas or meeting those barriers. but when you those quotas or meeting those barriers . but when you actually barriers. but when you actually have them in this country, they end up when through an unbelievable hurdles, they end up occupying all the jobs that indigenous populations in britain do not want to do. and when you go to an airport , when when you go to an airport, when you see the person cleaning the toilets at a hospital or somebody doing ungodly hours on a farm, they're doing it happily because with foreign exchange rates, they're probably sending it families. it back to their families. so they're it's happened they're doing and it's happened dunng they're doing and it's happened during saw so saw during covid. we saw so saw so many channels covering it where they jobs to british, young they gave jobs to british, young british people who said, i just don't like the hours you didn't turn up, but they will do it. so, the people you don't want so, so the people you don't want to have the potential to

to let in have the potential to contribute to the country in a way of labour certain areas. >> but if all we do is carry on with a model where our economic model a country is that model as a country is that wherever there's a job that's doing, we import somebody on low wages it at and, and we wages to do it at and, and we don't actually address ourselves with the capital investment that might areas, might be needed in those areas, which automated . and which can be automated. and there lots of them that can there are lots of them that can be automated. i'm not saying cleaning toilets hospitals cleaning toilets in hospitals is one them, are lots one of them, but there are lots of that can be automated of them that can be automated and don't force businesses to and we don't force businesses to do that investment. and we constantly on the taps of constantly turn on the taps of cheap then where is cheap labour. then where is where we're where do you think we're going to need an economic to go? we need an economic transformation this country. transformation in this country. we improved productivity we need improved productivity instead of having improved productivity. to productivity. all we do is to say, you get cheap say, oh, you can't get cheap laboun say, oh, you can't get cheap labour. provide you with labour. we'll provide you with some labour. some cheap labour. >> okay. do you then do you have a plan that to put a plan that you plan to put forward change the mentality forward to change the mentality of to then occupy of the society to then occupy and things that those and do all the things that those immigrants to all those immigrants to do, all those things, things can things, but who does things can be a lots of those things can be automated and through investment. >> i mean, i've just done the

house we've just done >> i mean, i've just done the h report we've just done >> i mean, i've just done the h report on we've just done >> i mean, i've just done the h report on modulare just done >> i mean, i've just done the h report on modular construction a report on modular construction for still for house building. we still build houses the same way we build houses in the same way we did in the 18th century. 200 years ago. but there's a huge amount you can to automate amount you can do to automate to, to, to to, factory eyes, to, to, to, to to, factory eyes, if that's the right word. the production of houses, we know all that . it's not happening all of that. it's not happening because the house builders like the idea of cheap labour and they're used to the old methods. you take the cheap labour away, they'd forced automate . they'd be forced to automate. >> so then doesn't automation open door to you, open the door to you, eradicating jobs and therefore of does. of course it does. >> what? but but then what? >> but what? but but then what? what the jobs we can only what are the jobs we can only fill the by importing fill the jobs by importing people cheap about providing fill the jobs by importing peono, cheap about providing fill the jobs by importing peono, it's:heap about providing fill the jobs by importing peono, it's aboutabout providing fill the jobs by importing peono, it's about fundamentally no, no, it's about fundamentally providing for people. >> automation opens door to >> automation opens the door to eradicating for eradicating opportunities for people. so automation might be the way forward and might be very functional. but my discourse always about what discourse is always about what is in the best interest of people all people people. all people should coexist to create a society, the best interest of people is that coexist to create a society, the beshaveerest of people is that coexist to create a society, the beshave moref people is that coexist to create a society, the beshave more productivity:hat coexist to create a society, the beshave more productivity int coexist to create a society, the beshave more productivity in the economy. >> everybody agrees on that. one way of doing that is automating.

>> i do like that word automation. do you sit there and 90, automation. do you sit there and go, yes, let's automate some of these simpler jobs. do you use these simplerjobs. do you use did you ever used to i mean , did you ever used to i mean, when i think back to my childhood , pretty much everyone childhood, pretty much everyone i knew go and get picked i knew used to go and get picked up minibus and go and up in the minibus and go and pick, um, fruit and veg etc. from the and farms . what from the fields and farms. what happened to that? did you used to do job and now you don't to do that job and now you don't want to? not, why? why and want to? if not, why? why and tell what, if anything? quite tell me what, if anything? quite frankly, i'm assuming you agree with hearing with what you're hearing tonight. different tonight. if you have a different opinion, thoughts opinion, tell me your thoughts on it all. but don't go anywhere. because speaking of investment, talk to investment, i want to talk to you about defence. apparently there's no extra for there's going to be no extra for money next money defence in the next budget. agree with that budget. do you agree with that or see you in two.

to. hi there . hi there. >> michelle dewberry with you till 7:00. conservative life peerin till 7:00. conservative life peer in the house of lords,

daniel moylan and the broadcast journalist dita da silva. lots of appreciation coming through on my inbox for the conversation between you two tonight. my viewers are appreciating that a couple of people getting in touch on that break. i'm asking you why. uh, perhaps you don't want to do those low paid jobs. did to. there's lot did you used to. there's a lot of suggestions that actually benefits why benefits are the reason why people perhaps you people are saying perhaps you can get a nicer, easier life by claiming some benefits and then topping perhaps some topping it up, perhaps with some wages that wages or whatever. is that a fair assessment of the situation? you tell me . let's situation? you tell me. let's talk defence, shall we? because of course, we by now we've of course, we know by now we've got budget coming up got the spring budget coming up next we be spending next week. should we be spending more then or not? more on defence then or not? apparently it's looking like the answer to that question is going apparently it's looking like the an beer to that question is going apparently it's looking like the an be no, that question is going apparently it's looking like the an be no, we're question is going apparently it's looking like the an be no, we're not;tion is going apparently it's looking like the an be no, we're not going; going apparently it's looking like the an be no, we're not going to. ing apparently it's looking like the an be no, we're not going to. is; to be no, we're not going to. is that the right decision to not spend more? >> daniel first of all, i >> daniel well, first of all, i have idea what the decision have no idea what the decision is be and nobody does. is going to be and nobody does. this speculation in the this is just speculation in the press. have to wait for press. we'll have to wait for what chancellor there what the chancellor says. there will a party pooper. will be a party pooper. >> with it, daniel. will be a party pooper. >> notrvith it, daniel. will be a party pooper. >> not ath it, daniel. will be a party pooper. >> not a party)aniel. will be a party pooper. >> not a party point. that's not

a party point. that's true of everybody. >> do you think we should spend more? >> i we should spend more >> i think we should spend more on defence. i we're going on defence. i think we're going to to no choice but to to have to have no choice but to spend on defence. think spend more on defence. i think the world changed. first of the world has changed. first of all, more hostile all, there are more hostile powers out, more overtly hostile powers out, more overtly hostile powers whether powers and secondly, whether it's biden, it's trump or even biden, i think is that the think the fact is that the american protecting arm, um, is going less firm and less going to be less firm and less sure than it has been in the past. whoever because the past. whoever it is, because the americans , too, are short of americans, too, are short of money and they are themselves overextended . so the west has to overextended. so the west has to be a bit more focussed and make a bigger effort. >> julie, you said you agree more money, i don't agree, i think that you kind of need to read the room. >> indeed, every should >> indeed, every country should bolster defences. it's bolster their defences. it's a necessity, the end the necessity, but at the end of the day, in current day, in this current circumstance, forces in britain, whether it's the cost of living crisis, deprivation the crisis, the deprivation like the underage coursing of the nhs, money spent elsewhere. money is better spent elsewhere. do that the average do you think that the average person britain wants to have person in britain wants to have a about spending person in britain wants to have a on about spending person in britain wants to have a on whatibout spending person in britain wants to have a on what could;pending person in britain wants to have a on what could happen, or money on what could happen, or spending money on is spending money on what is happening to right now? spending money on what is hapwell,g to right now? spending money on what is hapwell, i to right now? spending money on what is hapwell, i would right now? spending money on what is hapwell, i would argueiht now?

spending money on what is hapwell, i would argue it's|ow? spending money on what is hapwell, i would argue it's why >> well, i would argue it's why is either or? because we is it an either or? because we seem to have so much money for so many different things that people be yelling at their people will be yelling at their screens about, know, you screens about, i don't know, you can £8 million a day or can spend £8 million a day or whatever it is on hotels. you whatever in it is on hotels. you can spend an absolute fortune on funding wars , whether it funding foreign wars, whether it is the likes of ukraine or is in the likes of ukraine or wherever. so they always seems to a money tree for to be a magic money tree for a variety of things. so many people would say, well, why is it either or ? it either or? >> it is either or? because no matter math seems to not matter how the math seems to not exactly be adding up, there is a limited amount of funding that can be spent any given amount can be spent in any given amount of on given of of time on any given aspect of functional society . that is just functional society. that is just that's just the nature of it. that's an economy and that's how an economy works. and knowing have that knowing that you have that limited you've to limited funding, you've got to apportion proportionately. apportion it proportionately. and look at state and when you look at the state of britain today, money of play in britain today, money is better on things like is better spent on things like the , on transport, on that the nhs, on transport, on that kind of infrastructure than the potential of future global conflict , which isn't potential of future global conflict, which isn't a certainty. right now. >> is that fair? daniel

>> is that fair? daniel >> well, it's a matter of priority. i mean, i agree with you, judith, that the choices have to be made. i don't agree with you that there's money. you know, you can do everything at the all at once. so i the same time all at once. so i agree with the choices have to be made. but there are fundamental priorities, therefore, have and therefore, that have to be. and country these country has to confront these choices. and people have to decide. what decide. and that's what democracy my view is democracy is about. my view is that protecting the that that protecting the security of the country and being ready to defend our position globally with our allies is absolutely fundamental, more fundamental than social services and welfare type, where would you prioritise that additional funding? >> which aspects of defence? well, i'm not a defence expert to know exactly what it should be done. >> and know , in addition to >> and you know, in addition to the traditional you know, navy, army , air force, there's now all army, air force, there's now all these questions about whether more achieved through more can be achieved through technology, drones and different types of interviews , missions. types of interviews, missions. but at the moment we're woefully undefended. we have missiles

that come out of that . we only that come out of that. we only test every 16 years, and then they don't work. that we have a aircraft carriers that don't have enough aircraft on them and can't be got ready on time . we can't be got ready on time. we have recruitment problems with filling the army and the navy , filling the army and the navy, so i think we need to address these defence issues because if we're not defended, if we're not able to contribute to the and we've got russia actually conducting war inside europe against an independent country and real threats potentially from china to our allies, which very quickly spread down to australia and new zealand. and we can see all those countries just fall under the chinese sphere of influence. >> and is there not a part of you you talk about investing in transport you can transport or whatever you can have the best transport system in land, it's pointless in the land, but it's pointless if and drops if someone comes and drops a bomb it, isn't bomb on it, isn't it? >> no, but just down. >> no, but that's just down. i think scaremongering to an think it's scaremongering to an extent , because there is this extent, because there is this whole perception the access whole perception of the access of , far east, of the far, the far east, whether it's north korea, russia, china and being constantly afraid of them. it's akin to what you had with

churchill hitler where he churchill and hitler where he said, if he comes for one, he will for us that's the will come for us all. that's the idea putin. if you function idea of putin. if you function that way, you never actually focus on the things that are happening at home. they happening at home. like they say, before you say, clean house before you focus someone else's. focus on someone else's. >> tell me at home, if >> well, you tell me at home, if there's a limited pot of cash, which i don't which i've got to say, i don't actually believe that there is, but go that. so if but let's go with that. so if there is a limited pot of cash, do you want it to be spent on problems in the here and now or potential threats the future potential threats of the future is question. tell me is a great question. tell me your coming up after the your answer. coming up after the break. if you are in an nhs hospital assault hospital and you assault a member of should be member of staff, should you be banned receiving banned then from receiving care in hospital a year? in that hospital for a year? that's proposal. do you like that's a proposal. do you like it or i'll see you in two.

hi there. i'm michelle dewberry with utils. 7:00 tonight. conservative life peer in the house of lords, daniel moylan, alongside me as the broadcast journalist, editor at da silva.

phil says, hang on, a minute, michelle. you're talking about spending i spending more on defence. i thought had a nuclear thought we had a nuclear deterrent, that our best deterrent, isn't that our best protection all that we need? protection and all that we need? i you make an interesting i think you make an interesting point tommy. rest point there, tommy. uh, the rest of but for now, i of your thoughts. but for now, i want you about the want to talk to you about the nhs . uh, get this right. we all nhs. uh, get this right. we all know now. don't we, that so know by now. don't we, that so many nhs workers are abused by people they trying to help. people that they trying to help. we'll all agree that that is pretty damn disgraceful. but what we about it? because what do we do about it? because now london hospitals are now some london hospitals are looking not they looking at whether or not they should able to ban people should be able to ban people that for year from that do this for a year from those hospital facilities. is that the way forward? daniel, do you no abuse, no you like this? no abuse, no excuse . that is the campaign. excuse. that is the campaign. well, i certainly think that obviously we agree that , you obviously we agree that, you know, and offensive know, abuse and offensive behaviour towards hospital staff know, abuse and offensive be any our towards hospital staff know, abuse and offensive be any staff>wards hospital staff know, abuse and offensive be any staff doing hospital staff know, abuse and offensive be any staff doing theirital staff know, abuse and offensive be any staff doing their work:aff know, abuse and offensive be any staff doing their work ,ff or any staff doing their work, um, completely unacceptable. um, is completely unacceptable. >> but i think the nhs is in a very peculiar position because what the state did and it created the nhs is effectively it decided there was going to be a monopoly that everybody would have everybody has

have to join. so everybody has to nhs one way or the to use the nhs one way or the other. way of going other. there's no way of going around so it's not like, you around it. so it's not like, you know, a supermarket, one know, if a supermarket, if one supermarket you could supermarket bans you, you could use another supermarket to get your food. there's no other choice people, it's choice for most people, it's either or nothing. either the nhs or nothing. and if going that if you're going to take that oligopoly, oligopolistic oligopolistic for that oligopolistic power for that monopolistic power, then then you need, i think you have responsibilities towards people. you cut them off. so there you can't cut them off. so there are ways in which, of course, you can bring criminal charges against . if they've you can bring criminal charges against a . if they've you can bring criminal charges against a criminal've you can bring criminal charges against a criminal offence, committed a criminal offence, that's fine . might be that's fine. there might even be locked jail. but what you locked up in jail. but what you can't do is cut off health services because you're the only suppuen >> sir. think you can cut >> yes, sir. i think you can cut it off. you should cut it it off. and you should cut it off because i, for my own health struggles, i've in out struggles, i've been in and out of hospitals i was of nhs hospitals since i was a child, and i know that it's london is very different from everywhere else, and it goes back a conversation back to a conversation about immigration. of immigration. the majority of nurses either nurses in london are either african or filipino , and it african or filipino, and it harks back to their nature and their because as their culture because as a nigerian , we don't have things nigerian, we don't have things like old people's homes. when

you're younger , your parents like old people's homes. when you'rafter nger , your parents like old people's homes. when you'rafter you. , your parents like old people's homes. when you'rafter you. when parents like old people's homes. when you'rafter you. when you're s look after you. when you're older, you look after them. they don't go into so there's don't go into homes. so there's a threshold of a way that a threshold of tolerance have that is tolerance they have that is above most people. so above and beyond most people. so because like when i was because i found like when i was youngen because i found like when i was younger, most of the nurses were white. now they're working in hospitals ascot somerset. hospitals in ascot and somerset. london war i have london is the war zone. i have seen horrific things happen to nurses and they stay. they show up for work. there's a protection. they are owed beyond owed and if you abuse, if you abuse something that's offered to you as a part of your citizenship, you should be. there should be a penalty for that. for reason, if that. for the same reason, if you're obliged to, if you there's offer involved in. there's no offer involved in. but no, but there is an but it is no, but there is an offer because at the end of the day, you, figure out day, like you, you figure out how get money and go private. how to get money and go private. so because you've created so just because you've created something that gives you no solution, it's easy. if solution, no, it's easy. if it's easy, it's impossible. solution. they've easy, it's impossible. solution. they and beneficial to kind and easy and beneficial to all indeed. but it's a good thing for all. not abuse it. thing for all. do not abuse it. that's simple . that's simple. >> it is whether it's a >> well, it is whether it's a good thing or not is a is a debateable question. but the fact has seized

fact is, the state has seized control of the health service provision and provision in this country. and if have access to if you don't have access to private medical insurance or private medical insurance or private services , you have no private services, you have no choice but to use it . so to cut choice but to use it. so to cut you off from gives you no you off from it gives you no choice. as i say, it's not like going from one supermarket to another. but that's. another. i know, but that's. >> but that's you. but that's your fault. if you if you your fault. if you think. if you think go around think that you can go around swinging at health care swinging punches at health care workers. i don't think you should. >> if you swing a punch at a >> and if you swing a punch at a health worker, you're health care worker, you're committing criminal offence. committing a criminal offence. even the punch even if the punch doesn't connect i have no connect and, you know, i have no problem all with people being problem at all with people being prosecuted for that because that's even even that's an assault. even if even if punch doesn't land that if the punch doesn't land that is and you can is an assault. and you can be prosecuted it. i think prosecuted for it. and i think people should be. but this is a different matter. even if you're prosecuted go to jail, even prosecuted and go to jail, even if go jail for 30 years, if you go to jail for 30 years, you don't health care withdrawn. >> it's the system isn't working as you have to create as it is now. you have to create something, the right solution. it right solution it isn't the right solution because that must because it's something that must because it's something that must be to be extreme enough to be a deterrent. well, you see deterrent. well, if you see people dying the streets people dying on the streets because can't and they're

because they can't and they're outside and they can't get into the going outside and they can't get into th dying on the street? are you going soft in your old age, lord moylan, happening? moylan, what's happening? >> if you >> are you saying that if you have a socialist system in which you have down stalin you have top down stalin esque type health type control of all health services, you create obligations on own as well? no you on your own part as well? no you create obligations. >> but by provision >> indeed. but by the provision of you are providing, of what it is you are providing, there a respect for that there must be a respect for that provision. no, anything you provision. no, no, anything you provide to provide everything you need to have even have respect, even using a laptop. there are rules for how you use a laptop. otherwise you might break it might to might break it. it might to cease function. everything that exists engagement, exists has rules of engagement, the nhs engaging it. no, it the nhs and engaging it. no, it does it, if does because if you abuse it, if you those using it, you you abuse those using it, you cannot. well they go. >> we talk about rules of engagement. rules of engagement. i have rules of timings this program. at timings on this program. look at it. flies by doesn't it, it. it flies by doesn't it, john? a harsher man than john? you're a harsher man than me. because you're me. perhaps because you're saying assault any nhs saying if you assault any nhs staff, be off staff, you should be struck off all services for life? you all nhs services for life? you say, it's clear say, i gotta admit, it's clear as this is not just a as well, this is not just a london issue. this is happening right down the country. right up and down the country. all across it is all across the nhs. it is absolutely disgraceful. many of

you the way, if you saying, by the way, that if anyone, um, you know, gets drunk, and the police come drunk, etc. and the police come out, you're saying you out, you're saying that you should have pay back the should have to pay back the money those policing money spent on those policing services would that far services? would you go that far or but look, that's all or not? but look, that's all i've got time for giuditta. thank you. daniel thank you, thank at home. don't go thank you. at home. don't go anywhere. is up anywhere. nigel farage is up next. from me. nanites it . a next. but from me. nanites it. a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on . gb news. sponsors of weather on. gb news. >> hello . good evening. welcome >> hello. good evening. welcome to your latest gb news weather update with me. annie from the met office will be a foggy start for of us tomorrow, but it for some of us tomorrow, but it should stay dry across eastern areas. but through this evening we'll weather front push we'll see a weather front push into southeast. that's into the southeast. so that's when there's the greatest risk of chance rain across of a chance of rain across southeastern behind it, southeastern areas. behind it, though it turn much though, it will turn much clearer. so some cloud and rain through this evening across the southeast, but elsewhere it should fairly dry evening. should be a fairly dry evening. but some fog will start to

develop quite quickly through the it will be a bit of a the night. it will be a bit of a murky start for areas , murky start for many areas, particularly across central southern also show southern england, but also show up the pennines and up through the pennines and across eastern areas scotland across eastern areas of scotland as it will feel quite as well. so it will feel quite cold tomorrow morning once again. be quite as again. but it won't be quite as frosty it was this morning. frosty as it was this morning. and will be some early and there will be some early sunshine where we don't see any fog tomorrow , fog through tomorrow, particularly far east particularly across the far east coast , many southeastern coast, and many southeastern areas stay dry through areas should stay dry through much of the day. but elsewhere it turn much wetter as the it will turn much wetter as the day goes on, particularly across parts of the south—west of england and wales, where we'll see some persistent rain see some quite persistent rain at but also across at times. but also across northern of northern ireland, much of scotland england. scotland and northern england. but it will feel milder across the uk. the back of that rain will push into the southeast on thursday, so quite a wet day to come in the southeast on thursday. elsewhere, though, it will be of spells will be a mix of sunny spells and showers at once. that rain does through and that's does clear through and that's the story as head through the the story as we head through the rest the week. a showery rest of the week. a showery picture through friday and saturday as well, and after a

milder through wednesday milder spell through wednesday and it looks to turn and thursday, it looks to turn colder from friday. and thursday, it looks to turn c0l1l00k5 m friday. and thursday, it looks to turn c0l1l00k5 like iday. and thursday, it looks to turn c0l1l00k5 like things are heating >> looks like things are heating up boxt boilers as sponsors

gb news. >> good evening. i'm still in florida, as you can see. i'll tell you in a moment all about my visit to mar—a—lago. meeting donald trump yesterday. we'll also ask, are really no go also ask, are there really no go zones in london and birmingham? and i'm going to be asking, is the government's new gambling legislation likely to be good? will it help problem gamblers , will it help problem gamblers, or does it threaten the jobs of 85,000 people working in the racing industry? but before all of that, let's get the news with polly middlehurst .

polly middlehurst. >>