gb news. >> well, the new rwanda plan is we're going to give you three grand to go to rwanda and five years free accommodation. if they think that's going to stop people crossing the english channel. i don't know what planet they're on. i'm joined by the of heritage the president of the heritage foundation, roberts. now foundation, kevin roberts. now they've a legal they've been launching a legal action try and find out. did action to try and find out. did prince harry lie on his visa forms about his drug taking.7 and it's ladies day.7 yes, it is at cheltenham at the festival. and yet it's no longer called ladies day. no, they've decided to give it a gender neutral tum. is nothing sacred? before all of that, let's get the news with sophia wenzler. >> nigel. thank you. it's 7:00. i'm sophia wenzler in the gb newsroom. your top story this hour. newsroom. your top story this hour . diane newsroom. your top story this hour. diane abbott, the mp at the centre of a growing racism row, has accused the speaker of

the commons of not serving democracy after she wasn't called to speak in parliament. it's after the conservatives biggest donor, frank hester, allegedly said that the former labour mp made him want to hate all black women and that she should be shot. mr hester says he's deeply sorry for the remarks at prime minister's questions today , sir keir questions today, sir keir starmer confronted rishi sunak over remarks, pressing him over the remarks, pressing him to return mr hester's £10 million donation. the prime minister acknowledged francesca's comments were wrong and racist, but declined to say his donation would be returned . his donation would be returned. >> i'm absolutely not going to take any lectures from somebody , take any lectures from somebody, from somebody, from somebody who chose to represent an anti—semitic terrorist group , anti—semitic terrorist group, hizb ut—tahrir, who chose to serve a leader who let anti—semitism run rife in this labour party. those are his actions. those are his values . actions. those are his values. and that's how he should be judged . judged. >> the prime minister speaking there now, migrants who've been

refused asylum in britain could be offered thousands of pounds to move to rwanda. the voluntary scheme would be separate to the safety of rwanda bill, which is facing delays due to a series of amendments. would extend amendments. it would extend current policies , which current returns, policies, which sees some migrants offered £3,000 to return to their country of origin. labour says it's evidence the government's rwanda plan has no chance of succeeding . however, the home succeeding. however, the home office has defended the scheme, saying voluntary returns are important part of tackling illegal migration. a new law aimed at quashing the wrongful convictions of subpostmasters will be introduced by the government . more than 700 post government. more than 700 post office staff were found guilty of crimes , including theft and of crimes, including theft and fraud, because of a faulty it system . rishi sunak says the system. rishi sunak says the legislation is a crucial step forward towards resolving the largest miscarriage of justice in britain's history. labour welcomed the progress, but says it won't be enough to deliver full justice, and the defence

secretary has warned vladimir putin to stop sabre rattling over nuclear war. it comes as the russian president warns that any us troops who venture to ukraine will be treated as interventionists. speaker on state television, putin said that while moscow is technically prepared for nuclear war, the country is not rushing into it. grant shapps told gb news the only way forward for russia is to pull out of ukraine. and for the latest story, sign up to gb news alerts by scanning the qr code on your screen or go to gb news. com slash alerts. now it's back to . nigel. back to. nigel. >> good evening. that rwanda debate never, ever goes away , debate never, ever goes away, does it? on a monday, the house of commons will be voting again on a series of amendments that have come through the house of lords. the game of parliamentary ping lords. the game of parliamentary ping pong is on, but overnight, another genius idea has come from our government. oh yes, if

you come to this country illegally and you fail your asylum claim, you are given the opportunity to voluntarily go back to your country and we hope you do it . but in back to your country and we hope you do it. but in some cases, let's say you've come from syria. well, we're not going to return you there because we don't think that's safe. so the new master plan is rather than forcibly removing you to rwanda, we're going to pay you to go to rwanda. yeah, we're going to give you £3,000 spending money to go to rwanda. you're going to get five years free accommodation . and you couldn't accommodation. and you couldn't make this up, could you? and the total cost estimated now from the office of national statistics is that for every single person that goes to rwanda, if any do, the cost will be an estimated £171,000 per person. that goes. but the idea that a £3,000, a little bit of pocket money and five years free accommodation and the chance to

work , the idea that that somehow work, the idea that that somehow will reduce the numbers coming across the english channel is for the birds. after all, you could buy a very, very cheap little kayak or kiddie dinghy in one of the main supermarkets around calais or boulogne , and around calais or boulogne, and on a nice day in june or july, on a nice day in june orjuly, row across the channel say you come from syria or somewhere like that , and you get three like that, and you get three grand every time you do it. i think if anything, it might actually encourage more people to cross the english channel. i think they are in absolutely dire straits with all of this. i've never thought the rwanda plan was going to but i'd plan was going to work, but i'd love know what you think. love to know what you think. maybe i'm you maybe you think i'm wrong. you tell me, will work? farage tell me, will this work? farage at gb news. com ivan samson , at gb news. com ivan samson, immigration lawyer and friend of this program , who himself has this program, who himself has expressed quite a lot of reservations about the rwanda scheme over time, although, you know , in principle any deterrent

know, in principle any deterrent would be a good thing, wouldn't it ? it? >> indeed. and voluntary returns is nothing new, nigel. it's been around for a decade. yeah. the difference here is that they're not going back to their own country. they're going to a third party now, israel ran such a 2014, sending people a scheme in 2014, sending people from eritrea and sudan to rwanda paying from eritrea and sudan to rwanda paying them to go back and paying them to go back there. and what the government's thinking is this , that if you thinking is this, that if you voluntarily go back, you can't then challenge the decision of then challenge the decision of the supreme court that it's not safe. you can't do a rule 39 injunction. so because it's voluntary, because it's voluntary, because it's voluntary . so that way you can't voluntary. so that way you can't say breaches my human rights, you know, because you're going back voluntarily. and that's the thinking behind it. back voluntarily. and that's the thinking behind it . what they thinking behind it. what they haven't told us is how much rwanda getting know rwanda is getting paid. we know that person will get 3000, that each person will get 3000, but how much is the government paying but how much is the government paying rwanda , as well as the paying rwanda, as well as the cost of the accommodation and so forth. so and also, how many people will actually the people will actually take the scheme to make it worthwhile? scheme up to make it worthwhile? how can rwanda take? it's how many can rwanda take? it's not going to have an impact on

the small. >> this is one of the problems, isn't it, that, you know, the talk from rwanda was hundreds of people. wasn't 5000 people, people. it wasn't 5000 people, it was 500. >> the amount that's been >> is the amount that's been batted around . that's not going batted around. that's not going to make a dent in the numbers coming across on the small boats from 26,000 to up to 45,000, probably about 30,000 maybe this yeah probably about 30,000 maybe this year. yeah. so it's not going to have any impact whatsoever. what the government needs to do is secure our borders. we're an island . please, we're a land island. please, if we're a land border, i can understand, like mexico and us. but we are an island. we should be able to secure the stretch of waters to prevent people from entering irregularly. >> well, i think if we had the political will, we could do it. but last on this. but one last point on this. £3,000, i dare see. i think that could add as a further pull factor for people to cross the channel factor for people to cross the channel, possibly , but the data channel, possibly, but the data will bear that out. >> i mean, would people come here, travelled right across, several continents , countries to

several continents, countries to get here for £3,000, to go to rwanda? i'm not sure. no. and then go back again and do it again. i'm not sure the cost, but it's actually a good backstop, isn't it? >> it is. if you come here and it all goes wrong and you fail your asylum, i mean, most of them pass the asylum but them pass the asylum claims, but you asylum claim. if you failed the asylum claim. if the case scenario is the worst case scenario is you're given £3,000 and a chance to free and work in to live for free and work in rwanda, not bad, is it? rwanda, it's not all bad, is it? >> a payback. i mean, >> well, it's a payback. i mean, the are charging the traffickers are charging tens dollars for tens of thousands of dollars for bringing so you know. >> yeah, that that depends, ivan. i mean , yes, ivan. that depends. i mean, yes, on, know, boats with decent on, you know, boats with decent engines , in the case of many of engines, in the case of many of the africans who and i've seen this myself in the channel who've got no money at all, i mean, they're coming in ,50 mean, they're coming over in ,50 worth of kayak. >> yes. they paid >> yes. and they haven't paid anyone, just just paid anyone. >> and the tragedy that we saw last week with the seven year old dying, that a group old girl dying, that was a group of who'd a boat. yeah. >> eh agree e"- en— 9 agree it could be a >> look, i agree it could be a pull . we need secure pull factor. we need to secure our borders, nigel. we need to know who's coming across where

they come they could be they come from. they could be terrorists coming across. we've had this conversation before. i know, we don't know who they know, and we don't know who they are. hamas are. it could be hamas terrorists for we know. so terrorists for all we know. so we to secure we've seen we need to secure we've seen this government not doing it. this government is not doing it. >> seen some >> and we've seen some horrendous haven't horrendous examples, haven't we? i alkali i mean, the clapham alkali attacker, somebody who came here illegally, last night illegally, we last night discussed the droves of people who claim to be turning to christianity. but how do we stop people in the middle of the engush people in the middle of the english channel island? >> we need investment technology. we need more border force officers . but the biggest force officers. but the biggest thing that we can do is have a deal with the eu . look, if we deal with the eu. look, if we had a deal to return people back to france, unless they go through proper routes after 100, who would cross the channel? when you know that you're going to be sent back? no, no one's going to do it. >> and certainly he would pay a trafficker who would pay. a very good indeed. well, joining good point indeed. well, joining me this subject me also to discuss this subject is ibrahim, obe, is professor azeem ibrahim, obe, author else, course, who somebody else, of course, who has this program. has appeared on this program. so, azeem, tell me, do you think

this could help ? this could help? >> well, nigel, this, scheme at the moment is basically just a stop gap until the rwanda bill comes to fruition. and, the uk government can then start deporting people and enforce, the actual immigration policy. so this is just a temporary , i so this is just a temporary, i believe, an extension of what the current scheme is of asking people to voluntarily return. and this is worked effectively. in the past, you've had about 19,000 people returned in such a way. and this is aimed at those principally that are coming from countries which the uk does not have a relationship with, where the not have direct the uk does not have direct flights with afghanistan, for example, government example, the taliban government with syria, etc. but this is not a permanent solution in any shape or form. and this is why we need the rwanda to bill get through parliament as quickly as possible, start possible, so we can start enforcing that, in more viable enforcing that, in a more viable fashion. yeah >> i mean, you're one of those commentators who's quite bullish in some ways about this rwanda plan. but let's say that after

the game of parliamentary ping pong has finished and monday will be a big part of that, that we get some legislation in we do get some legislation in place . you know, what is to place. you know, what is to stop? what to stop the echr stop? what is to stop the echr through the human rights act and legal challenges, rendering this completely unworkable bill. >> well, the bill is designed at the moment to make sure that we surpass that. you know, the bill is a treaty and a bill with rwanda. and i have looked at immigration policy throughout europe of every country. no country has been able to get this right. and the fact of the matter is, i firmly believe that the rwanda bill is the only thing that's going to work, is the only thing that's going to deter coming to deter migrants from coming to the they that as the uk. if they know that as soon they land, you know soon as they land, you know there'll a waiting for there'll be a bus waiting for them. that will take them to them. that bus will take them to gatwick there will gatwick airport and there will be waiting take them be a plane waiting to take them to i believe you only to rwanda. i believe you only need do this for a month or need to do this for a month or so. and i think the people smugglers, dry smugglers, the business will dry up and people will be deterred

from coming here. i firmly believe this is the only thing l, believe this is the only thing i, i agree that. i, i agree with that. >> if that's what were to happen. but i'm going to return to immigration lawyer ivan samson. ivan, you know what is eames? if that worked, it would be a deterrent. he's quite right. it wouldn't take a month. a fortnight would be enough. >> it's not going to work. >> it's not going to work. >> not going to work, is >> it's not going to work, is it? >> going to work. >> it's not going to work. firstly, supreme court firstly, the supreme court has said policy lawful, said the policy is lawful, but rwanda joint rwanda isn't. the joint committee of committee on human rights of parliament is not parliament said rwanda is not safe. human rights watch, amnesty international, unchr amnesty international, the unchr , the government. there's a moral obligation not to send people to a country that's not safe. even this current £3,000 scheme. there's a moral aspect to this. they're inviting people to this. they're inviting people to go to a country which we all know not to be safe. look, we had this conversation over the last year, not we. and i've told not one single person is going to be removed to rwanda . why? to be removed to rwanda. why? because it breaches the refugee convention it breaches article

eight of the european convention and also the clause four, which says that, you can appeal. well, you can't you can only appeal on very limited grounds. on top of that, the minister can overrule that, the minister can overrule that and prevent any interim measures . that and prevent any interim measures. that's a that and prevent any interim measures . that's a breach of the measures. that's a breach of the european convention. it will never fly. not a single person is going to be sent to rwanda. so. >> so i come back, azeem, to you on this. if you're still there . on this. if you're still there. yeah, yeah. you know, i've been saying, look, you know , we've saying, look, you know, we've signed up to the un convention, we're signed up to the echr, we have the human rights act in this country. we have a judiciary who will interpret that as they choose. azeem, the point that's being made is great idea that it is great. and i get it. i completely get why they've been trying to do this, but it just isn't going to fly unless we change those international obligations, which i think the government is very loath to do.

>> yeah, i'm not certain of that. you know, i think the supreme court decision was on refoulement and i myself have actually been to rwanda. i've actually been to rwanda. i've actually seen the accommodation . actually seen the accommodation. ispent actually seen the accommodation. i spent some time there, as a perfectly safe country by any measure. and i think the actual idea of, you know, moving asylum seekers to rwanda is actually a great idea, not just for rwanda, but for the uk as well. you know, this is an opportunity for them to participate in a growing economy and a safe, growing economy and a safe, growing economy and a safe, growing economy and build a for economy and build a life for themselves. i the policy themselves. i think the policy is and i, and i firmly is workable, and i, and i firmly believe that this is actually the only that's going to the only policy that's going to work . work. >> all right. well, let me put it you. you think that it to you. do you think that between now the general between now and the general election , there will be election, there will be planeloads, maybe several planeloads, maybe several planeloads of people who say cross the channel going to rwanda? do you think this will happen this side of a general election? >> well, i can't comment whether it's going to be planeloads or

not, but i do think the policy will be initiated before the side of the side of a general election . i do think we will election. i do think we will start seeing the policy in action, and then it's just a question of ramping it up and to make sure acts as make sure that acts as a deterrent for anybody that deciding to uk deciding to come to the uk through illegal means. through these illegal means. >> azeem ibrahim, thank you very much indeed forjoining me on gb news. and final word goes to ivan. ivan it could just be that a government in very deep trouble. i'm very deep trouble with this policy. just says, the hell with international law, the hell with international law, the hell with international law, the hell with the courts. we're going to send some plane loads the week before the election. it'll never happen. >> it'll never happen. i don't believe that. the believe that. what the government is, their government might do is, in their manifesto , though, is promise manifesto, though, is promise to come yeah. you come out the echr. yeah. you might see that coming. yeah. i just wanted to comment on what professor azeem said about rwanda. safe. yeah, i'd love to see him stand in rwanda with a placard which said paul kagame out because he'd be in prison

within a heartbeat. well, so i'm afraid it isn't safe. it's safe when they invite you and they want to show you the good parts. but the supreme court's judgement clearly states that rwanda is not a safe country. >> if you go to a home game at the arsenal visit, rwanda is one of their main sponsors and it looks wonderful. but i haven't been. yeah, maybe one day we'll go.thank been. yeah, maybe one day we'll go. thank you very much indeed, gentlemen, for that debate . gentlemen, for that debate. looking your thoughts? do looking for your thoughts? do you work? you you think this will work? you had different views had two very different views there. moment i'm joined by there. in a moment i'm joined by kevin roberts. he is president of heritage foundation, of the heritage foundation, a very , very conservative very, very large conservative think washington , think tank based in washington, d.c. he also had a very interesting speech to our friends at the world economic forum just recently. but interestingly , he's been trying interestingly, he's been trying legal means to find out what did prince harry put on his visa form? did he tell the truth about his drug taking

? come to 7 come to britain ? come to britain illegally. we'll give you three grand, five years free accommodation in rwanda. and you can work there and earn too . money is that policy going too. money is that policy going too. money is that policy going to work? some of your thoughts. angela says this will just encourage the revolving door to swing faster. come in a dinghy, get three grand flown to rwanda, rinse and repeat. get three grand flown to rwanda, rinse and repeat . you are so rinse and repeat. you are so cynical, angela, but i think you may well be right. laurie says. why would someone who has spent thousands of pounds with people traffickers to get here illegally be persuaded by three grand to leave laurie? they wouldn't. but but the point that i made was, get you get i made was, yes, you get you get people going through the traffickers. but equally you tend get people without money tend to get people without money coming most unseaworthy coming in the most unseaworthy vessels. you can even believe i was involved in a rescue of two africans a few years ago. i wonder actually , how many people

wonder actually, how many people have disappeared into the engush have disappeared into the english channel that we simply don't even know about. so there are some that don't pay a penny to come because they just either buy cheap boat or they buy a very cheap boat or they nick right now i get so nick one. right now i get so many emails from you guys about the wef , why don't you talk more the wef, why don't you talk more about the wef? well somebody that did talk at davos and i never get invited obviously, but someone that did talk at davos was the president of the heritage foundation. his name is kevin roberts. and here he was in action davos. in action at davos. >> political tell the >> political elites tell the average people on three or 4 or 5 issues that the reality is x, when in fact reality is why take immigration elites tell us that open borders and even illegal immigration are okay. the average person tells us in the united states that both rob them of the american way of life. they're right . elites also tell they're right. elites also tell us that public safety isn't a problem in big american cities. just travel to new york or washington or dallas, texas. the

average person will tell you that the lack of public safety damages, not just the american way of life, but their life. elites tell us that we have this existential crisis with so—called climate change, so much so that climate alarmism is probably the greatest cause for mental health crisis in the world. the solutions the average person know based on climate change are far worse and more harmful and cost more human lives, especially in europe dunng lives, especially in europe during the time that you need heating than do the problem and the problems themselves . the problems themselves. >> well, that was kevin roberts at davos world economic forum sponsored event. he was the heretic in the room. reminds me a bit of my time in the european parliament. and kevin joins me in the studio. welcome. thank you much indeed for coming you very much indeed for coming in. did that go down at davos? >> well, as you would imagine , >> well, as you would imagine, the in the audience were the people in the audience were aghast. in i had aghast. and in fact, i had someone know, must someone say, you know, you must have inner nigel farage. >> well, of course i did. what

better person would there be? but the good news is people around the world not because of what i, the fact that i said it, but the fact that the message was right have really been galvanised by that. >> good news. i >> and it's good news. i think even, you know, here the uk even, you know, here in the uk where tough have a tough where you tough have a tough election cycle, there are many places where places around the world where people have stood up and said, we're going to stand up for sovereignty, we're going to for stand our freedom, we're stand up our freedom, we're going stand common going to stand up for common sense governance. so in the sense governance. and so in the long i actually long view, nigel, i actually think response to that think the response to that wef message that really has message is one that really has caused to say , we're caused people to say, we're going stand up for our rights. >> yeah. no, no. and we are seeing, fact, quite a move, seeing, in fact, quite a move, aren't know, the centre aren't we? you know, the centre of gravity amongst of gravity of debate amongst folk countries folk in western countries has changed over the changed significantly over the last 18 months. and indeed, we're many more we're seeing many more conservative minded parties doing well, we've got a few problems this country at the problems in this country at the moment, but we'll skip over that for you nasty people for now. now, you nasty people at heritage foundation, at the heritage foundation, that's going after that's us. you're going after the adored prince harry, and

you're you're actually going as far as to seek, you know, legal means to find out whether there. so the question is, did he lie on the visa form or was the book a complete fabrication? >> it's one or the other. and i'll just say from from this american friend who, who loves the united kingdom and is grateful to it and to all of you, this has nothing to do with sort of american to sort of american hostility to the settled that the monarchy. we settled that question the monarchy. we settled that quethe1 the monarchy. we settled that quethe americans are jealous of >> the americans are jealous of our monarchy, aren't they? >> americans are not. i'm >> some americans are not. i'm married an american married to an american who's jealous your monarchy. jealous of your monarchy. >> that the >> all of that to say, the queen, of course. which is the doon >> oh my gosh, what an icon for actually we're actually these very things we're talking harry talking about in front of harry ten years ago was, i think, the most popular royal he was almost i'd ever seen. >> i mean , you know, teenagers >> i mean, you know, teenagers thought the monarchy was cool. and then he met meghan and things changed. >> so blame the americans. >> so blame the americans. >> well , we >> so blame the americans. >> well, we did have an american divorcee in the 1930s caused a few problems that led to an

abdication. so seen the, abdication. so we've seen the, you say on the history you know, to say on the history side but what you're i side of it, but so what you're i think what you're saying, i mean, clearly, even though i'm sure the book did contain fabrications, know, fact fabrications, you know, the fact that took a succession of that he took a succession of illegal drugs has been a illegal drugs has not been a secret at all. everyone knew this anyway. so do we assume, i mean, okay, if i go into america and i write down on the visa form that i've been a regular drug user, i will be refused. won't i? >> yes, particularly if you do. well, yeah, but but that's just the point, is that in the united states, that everyone states, we believe that everyone must equally. must be treated equally. >> has to do with >> it has nothing to do with with someone's title. so one with someone's title. and so one of two things true. and of two things is true. and either these would be a either of these would be a problem. going to find out problem. we're going to find out in next weeks. nigel in the next few weeks. nigel which is. he which of these it is. either he lied. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> and the american government let him get away with that and didn't around, which didn't turn him around, which is what to every what they would do to every other migrant. keep in mind, we have illegal aliens have 10 million illegal aliens who've come into this country dunng who've come into this country during told during this period. or he told the and he would be turned the truth and he would be turned around, or at least delayed long

enough figure about enough to figure out about the drug use know, is it drug use or, you know, is it possible know , sources close possible you know, sources close to harry says say he told the to harry says he say he told the truth the visa form can truth on the visa form that can mean whatever you it to mean. >> is it possible that he did tell the truth and was given an exemption because who is? exemption because of who he is? >> there no doubt in my mind >> there is no doubt in my mind that in it is that, that if in fact it is true that, as his associates he as his associates said, that he told that he was told the truth, that he was given preferential treatment because who he is, also because of who he is, and also because of who he is, and also because american because of who the american administration because of who the american administré raises very >> which raises a very interesting question. if let's say, a republican president was to win the election on november the 5th, he could reopen this, couldn't he? >> he sure could. and he's a very exciting prospect, isn't it? >> you're being a bit vindictive . no, we're being just okay. >> fair enough . well, you've >> fair enough. well, you've certainly been pursuing this, you know, very, very strongly indeed. now, a really interesting development, folks, that happened just a couple of hours ago. and it's this it's that the us house of representatives has overwhelmingly a bill to overwhelmingly passed a bill to force bytedance, who were the

company that owned the majority stake in tiktok, to divest of the shareholding or face a ban six months from now. bear in mind that 170 million americans are on tiktok now. i understand, kevin, that you again heritage have been heavily involved in this. >> we have been and our problem is not with tiktok per se, and certainly not with the advantage that tiktok presents us. you yourself use tiktok with with great effectiveness to reach a younger audience. those of us with our particular political beliefs need to do a betterjob of that. our problem is with the following. chinese communist of that. our problem is with the follov has chinese communist of that. our problem is with the follovhas a chinese communist of that. our problem is with the follov has a controlling communist of that. our problem is with the follovhas a controlling interest1ist party has a controlling interest in tiktok, it is an open and in tiktok, and it is an open and shut factual case that anyone who downloads tiktok, therefore, has given all of the personal data on that that device, that cell phone to the chinese communist party. considering, nigel, that that we at heritage believe the ccp is the greatest adversary facing the united states, the united kingdom, free people the world over, we have

to draw a line in the sand. and so we're hopeful that with the house this today the house passing this today and the senate hopefully this up senate hopefully taking this up soon, is a shot over soon, that this is a shot over the not tiktok or the bow, not over tiktok or someone enjoys using that someone who enjoys using that particular media channel, particular social media channel, but instead it is a shot over the bow of the chinese communist party. we need to do a much better job, particularly we in betterjob, particularly we in the uk and the united states of drawing a line in the sand against the chinese. otherwise they are going to take over western civilisation. >> basically they have to >> so basically they have to sell their shares or a majority stake of their shares, or a compromise gets reached somewhere. if a compromise somewhere. but if a compromise gets reached, how can we make sure the tech isn't sure the tech still isn't stealing data? difficult, stealing data? very difficult, isn't is much more difficult . >> that is much more difficult. but i have, and i mean this without being flippant at all. i have great faith in american technology , innovation in technology, innovation in british technology, innovation that not only can we get the free market side of this right, the acquisition is easy enough, right? but the more complicated part this, with guidance part of this, with this guidance offered is, is,

offered by our congress, is, is, is essential. i believe that is essential. and i believe that that can be resolved. >> well, i hope that's right, because an awful lot of because there's an awful lot of young britain young people in britain and america elsewhere america and elsewhere that just but on you but they live on tiktok, you know. now, a tiktok spokesman has this process was secret has said this process was secret and the bill was jammed through for one reason it's a ban. that's what they said after the vote, and they hope the senate will consider the facts. listen to their constituents when considering the bill. this is going to be a very, very important fight. i can't even imagine the amount of lobbying senators are going to get, actually, particularly from young people saying, please, please don't take tiktok away from us. and it, you know, for a majority of young people, it is through tiktok. they're now forming their opinions, which is why this debate, kevin, is so vital, so crucial . if we can get vital, so crucial. if we can get it right, it'll be good for everybody. thank you for coming on. >> thank you so much for having me. it was a real pleasure. >> and yeah, we're to see >> and yeah, we're going to see if trump becomes the if president trump becomes the next will happen

next president. what will happen to it's almost to prince harry? it's almost irresistible, it ? in irresistible, isn't it? in a moment we're going to talk about the subpostmasters. perhaps the greatest mass conviction of greatest ever mass conviction of people wrongfully in the history of the british legal system. at last, the government appears to be putting forward legislation that will give them all a pass. ihave that will give them all a pass. i have no doubt 1 or 2 people were guilty, but it'll be a good thing for everybody else.

it is said by many to be the greatest miscarriage of justice in our history. the hundreds of subpostmasters who were declared found to be criminals , when in found to be criminals, when in fact they weren't. well, the government is going to put forward a bill, a piece of legislation that would actually clear them and pave the way to some fast track compensation. now, normally when we get professor daniel hodson on, we

get him on to talk about banking because he had a very senior role in that. but also he was also the former non—executive director of the office and director of the post office and chair the post office audit chair of the post office audit commission. it's very, very good. daniel to get you on the show on this subject. i mean, what has happened to the hundreds of innocent people is truly appalling, isn't hundreds of innocent people is truly appalling , isn't it? truly appalling, isn't it? >> it is. it's frightening and it's a massive failure of governance. i think in the post office, my role ended in 1995, but i did share the audit committee's, as you said, nigel. and in those days we looked very, very closely at all consultancy contracts. and we also and value for money and all that kind of thing. and we also look very closely litigation. what litigation? the post office was carrying out. and i have to say in this case, i wish i wish that back in the late 90s and early 2000, they'd actually taken a reality check. because

if you look at the numbers now, if you look at the numbers now, if you look at the fact that 900 people or 900 businesses were actually taken on out of 11,500, and think of what a percentage thatis and think of what a percentage that is and how many people in reality and these relatively small businesses were likely to be dishonest. then you have to say they did not pass that reality check. >> no, no, that's perfectly clear . now, >> no, no, that's perfectly clear. now, it does appear the government is really is really is going to take a step to put this right. yeah. >> what it does look like and this, this, this great piece of legislation which i believe is called the poa horizon systems offences bill, really does cover the tracks as far as one can see. it deals with every aspect of the people who've been affected by this thing. but not before time. some of these people, and we know that i think, well, 236 people were in prison. think there were four prison. i think there were four suicides, and many, many more cases of personal discomfort and terrible things happening. and,

look, these are small businesses, these are people who serve rural communities. these are people who are beloved in their neighbourhoods. and most of them, most of the vast majority of them do a wonderful service and actually support our communities . communities. >> one last quick point, if i may, on this, daniel, isn't it odd that government didn't get involved in this earlier, given that mps were receiving letters from people saying, please help ? from people saying, please help? >> well, i think as i said before earlier, nigel, i think that it was a massive governance failure and i actually believe and what i would have hoped have happenedis and what i would have hoped have happened is that the audit committee would have rung the bell with the board, the bell with the board, and the board have bell board would have rung the bell with government with the government going back some they had plenty some time. yeah, they had plenty of reconsider this of moments to reconsider this in the stages . and when it the early stages. and when it became and the odd thing is that the actual bits of the system which appear to be wrong, were fairly obvious . i mean, there fairly obvious. i mean, there were things like cash machines, there things like tax

there were things like tax discs, there were things like lottery payments , which is basic lottery payments, which is basic post office business. so absolutely extraordinary. i think the government got. but i think the government got. but i think that the board, it should be done. i mean, in, in normal circumstances, under corporate circumstances, under corporate circumstances it would come through board they would through the board and they would have raised it with the shareholder who's the government now? >> a lot of people asleep at the wheel. ever, thank wheel. daniel, as ever, thank you joining here on the you for joining us here on the farage show on news. now some farage show on gb news. now some news today which is foreign news out today which is foreign state ownership news uk state ownership of news uk newspapers will be banned. and this of course is all about the uae telegraph takeover bid. i'm very pleased to be joined by tim stanley, telegraph columnist and leader writer tim, it's been extraordinary to watch journalists who've spent, in some cases, their whole career at the telegraph openly saying we do not want these people taking us over. i would think it's a day of celebration for you, isn't it? >> it really is. of course it's conditional. we'll see what the legislation looks like . and it's

legislation looks like. and it's also possible that redbird imi, which uae is attached to, could restructure its bid in the future. but don't get me wrong, right now we're very happy. you're right. it's been you're quite right. it's been really how journalists you're quite right. it's been reallyput how journalists you're quite right. it's been reallyput their how journalists you're quite right. it's been reallyput their careers rnalists you're quite right. it's been reallyput their careers rnathe. have put their careers on the line at telegraph to say, line at the telegraph to say, i don't want to be taken over by the uae , and some have openly the uae, and some have openly said won't for the said i won't work for the telegraph anymore if they're not. at the same time, i'm really proud way the really proud of the way the telegraph covered the bid telegraph has covered the bid because so because it's done so very objectively. allowed the objectively. we've allowed the uae to make uae and redbird to make their case. we just disagree with it. >> yeah. no, no, i mean, look, tim, we don't see many principle people in public life or hardly any politics. and yes, to see any in politics. and yes, to see very senior people at the telegraph saying if this goes through, you know, that's it. i'm off, regards this. whether i've got another, you know, safe haven go to has been haven to go to has been a remarkable thing to watch. and yet , tim stanley, here's the yet, tim stanley, here's the extraordinary thing. it seems to me that it was the labour party that acted first, that pushed the government into doing something it didn't really want

to do. and you could, if you were very cynical, argue that 1 or 2 people like for example, the foreign secretary, lord cameron, perhaps have been rather pro the uae and lots and lots of different ways. >> well, some elite tories actually supported the bid, and so you're quite right in that sense. but i think labour saw that this is a question of strategic interest in a free speech, viewers might be wondering what the fuss is. what does matter of some does it matter of if some foreigners buy british foreigners buy a british newspaper? is, newspaper? well, the point is, is wasn't a normal is that this wasn't a normal sale. wasn't like an sale. this wasn't like an auction. was. our previous auction. it was. our previous owners financial owners had some financial difficulties , and the uae difficulties, and the uae stepped in with a loan and said that as part of that loan will take the telegraph take control of the telegraph and spectator. could and the spectator. they could have have controlled have they would have controlled up 75% of the and what up to 75% of the stake. and what that to was a foreign that amounted to was a foreign government a british government owning a british newspaper . and that was the newspaper. and that was the problem. not that it was foreigners it, but that it foreigners doing it, but that it was foreign government to was a foreign government to allow to through in allow that to go through in principle in the future. what happens china tries make happens if china tries to make that ? well, whether

that move? well, whether you're left wing, labour left wing or right wing, labour or you can't allow a great or tory, you can't allow a great british newspaper to be bought up a foreign government in up by a foreign government in that way. >> no. and a free press has to be government control. be free of government control. otherwise simply isn't free otherwise it simply isn't free press. tim stanley, thank you for joining us. and i've got to forjoining us. and i've got to say, tim, your writing is getting funnier and funnier and funnier. keep going . i'm loving funnier. keep going. i'm loving it.thank funnier. keep going. i'm loving it. thank you forjoining us it. thank you for joining us here this evening . somebody else here this evening. somebody else that might be pleased is sir paul marshall , who of course, is paul marshall, who of course, is a significant shareholder in gb news. and he, together with a big, very well known american businessman, is also very keen on bidding for the telegraph, as indeed, we're told, our rupert murdoch and lord rothermere from the daily mail group. we'll see what happens by what the farage moment today has to be. i mean, i really couldn't believe it when this government came to power in 2010, there were 1.56 million people working for the national health service. we

learned overnight that number is now through 2 million. yes, there are more than 2 million people working for the nhs as we spent when they came to power . spent when they came to power. about 7 to 8% of our annual gross domestic product on health in one way or another, we now spend more than 10. that's a massive 25 to 30% increase on what we spend in real terms on the nhs. so so a lot more money, a lot more people . and yet i a lot more people. and yet i have a bet that most of you think the service is far worse than it was in 2010. something is fundamentally wrong, and no one really has got the courage to face up to it. now it's cheltenham week this week. i'm very excited. i'm going on friday. i expect to have lots and lots of winning bets, but the wednesday of cheltenham week is rather wonderful and like ascot and many other of these, race meetings, they have a

ladies day and it's a great day. and the ladies all dress up and everyone's terribly nice to them. and the photographers have a time this been a great time and this has been going for on about years, going for on about 200 years, but oh no, no, we can't have that in modern britain. no. today at cheltenham it was style wednesday, which includes men and women, is nothing sacred

? it's 7 it's cheltenham week, ? it's cheltenham week, which is really effectively the olympics of jump racing in this country. i mean, the other very well known race is the grand national, which will be run at aintree on the 13th of april. but cheltenham , it's day after aintree on the 13th of april. but of eltenham , it's day after aintree on the 13th of april. but of racing. m , it's day after aintree on the 13th of april. but of racing. thousands after aintree on the 13th of april. but of racing. thousands of ter day of racing. thousands of people across from ireland. people come across from ireland. over a quarter of a million people attend the cheltenham festival and the biggest race of the lot is the gold cup, which will take place this friday and i'll be there. i know the winner

already. it's wonderful . now all already. it's wonderful. now all of these big events have a ladies day. some people say that it's classist because it's only those with the money to spend that can turn up wearing the best hats and the best outfits. but actually it isn't about money. it's know, can money. it's you know, you can use ingenuity, it's always use ingenuity, but it's always been a fun thing. and it's been such a fun thing. and it's said that really all began said that this really all began with young queen victoria with a very young queen victoria turning up to ascot and wearing a bonnie hat. and somehow the craze began for ladies days. i don't think it's demeaning or insulting in any way to. in fact, quite the opposite . it's fact, quite the opposite. it's the day when it's the women that matter more than anybody else . matter more than anybody else. but course, just won't but this, of course, just won't do, no, no, no, do, will it? no, no, no, we can't have fun modern can't have fun in modern britain. that's ridiculous. no, it's style it's been rebranded style wednesday with some sort of green theme around it that if you can, you know, find some clothes in a charity shop somehow that makes you a better person. i think it's all crackers. and i'm joined by tv personality and occasional keen

racegoer, lizzie cundy and amy ansell comes back on the programme. star of course, of the apprentice. now lizzie, you love royal ascot's you like cheltenham, i love them, i love them all night. >> yeah, and i don't always win, but i don't go for putting the bets on. i go for the fun, the fashion and getting an amazing hat and just having a really good time . good time. >> wow, is that big enough for you ? so you just love this, you? so you just love this, don't you? >> i absolutely adore it. i go with my girlfriends every year. we get together and we particularly love ladies day and i feel really upset about this. i feel really upset about this. i really do . i didn't think i'd i really do. i didn't think i'd feel quite as angry about it to be honest , feel quite as angry about it to be honest, and i think it's time for us to really rein in the woke brigade. i mean, why are we being. >> that's how you see this. >> that's how you see this. >> that's how i see this. we are being dictated by this woke nonsense, and i really find it

so frustrating. i know many girlfriends of mine are deciding not to go because of this. really? yeah, they're they're upset , really? yeah, they're they're upset, nigel, really? yeah, they're they're upset , nigel, because. well, how upset, nigel, because. well, how is it demeaning? how is it demeaning to women? and why can't we celebrate women ? can't we celebrate women? >> some would say it's objectification. oh really? wouldn't. >> well, well, we you know why aren't we allowed to celebrate women? sadly, we're probably going to have a prime minister that can't even answer the question. what is a woman? >> i she'd get >> that's what i knew. she'd get political. knew it wouldn't political. i knew it wouldn't take the take very long, but i get the point, i know that you know point, amy. i know that you know you've been to royal ascot. you've not been to royal ascot. not yet. and you've but you not yet. and you've not. but you will, a wonderful will, because it's a wonderful thing. and cheltenham, equally, the quite as good, the weather's not quite as good, but a wonderful social but it is a wonderful social event you get the point event and you get the point about ladies day being this wonderful thing. >> the point. and >> i totally get the point. and here's the thing lizzie can still that way , look still dress that way, look fabulous like we just saw in all the she's gone . but the years she's gone. but basically, in my eyes, it's just modernising the name. it's simply modernising the name.

it's not taking anything away from women or ladies. it's simply calling it something different and being more inclusive, which is just modernising and keeping up with the times. how is it being more inclusive? >> well, because it includes men now. well, it always included men, but it's making a statement by claiming that men can compete. >> there's a new style award that's going to happen or that did happen, but i just feel that we to continue to evolve we have to continue to evolve as a . i mean, i was a society. i mean, i was thinking about this, think about paternity leave 20 years ago. it didn't exist, i know, and now it does. and it should have 20 years ago. but we're we're we have to keep on evolving. >> i'm pretty sceptical >> but i'm pretty sceptical about that. i think it's important. i think most men are utterly useless with newborns. but there you are. they are. i i won't comment on that. >> one is that you have to keep on evolving and modernising with the times. >> we old country . >> we are an old country. >> we are an old country. >> i appreciate that i live here now 15 years. >> have things that are >> we have things that are

called traditions. >> we have things that are cal|yes,raditions. >> we have things that are cal|yes, andions. >> we have things that are cal|yes, and ins. >> we have things that are cal|yes, and i happen to think >> yes, and i happen to think that a tradition started by. >> it's funny, isn't it? our best monarchs are nearly always women. but, you know, queen victoria, i think a tradition that dates back to queen victoria. a tradition that says on this day it's the ladies of the centre of attention. >> but nigel, they still will be. no, not in the same way. >> men and morning coats versus women in their gorgeous hats and fascinators and dresses will still be the star of the show. >> the reason, the reason that men wear, you know, dinner jackets wear the tails and jackets or wear the tails and striped trousers for ascot or whatever . it was done whatever. it was done deliberately so that women could shine. men would all be dressed to a certain standard, and it was done particularly with particularly with the dinner jacket. so men would all look the same, so that women could star could shine. we star women could shine. we shouldn't on shouldn't turn our backs on that. it's been going for centuries. >> can i tell you shine? in my opinion , grandmother used to go

opinion, grandmother used to go to the races. >> my nana , my mother, myself. >> my nana, my mother, myself. we loved ladies days. why are we changing and fiddling about with our traditions? i mean, leave the jumping to the jockeys and the jumping to the jockeys and the horses, but don't jump to the horses, but don't jump to the to the demands of this woke amy. >> rubbish. amy says it won't be any different , >> rubbish. amy says it won't be any different, but but i think it will. >> of course it will, nigel. of course it will. it's called ladies day. we've only ever known it as ladies day. >> but there's not going to be no ladies days anymore. there's going to be ladies day at other racecourses, oh no racecourses, obviously. oh no not no. not no no no. >> cheltenham gets national >> if cheltenham gets national epsom, hang on. >> like the >> if something like the cheltenham which is cheltenham festival which is very folk very traditional and the folk that of them are also that go many of them are also very traditional jump racing in some ways more traditional folk than flat racing, i would argue , than flat racing, i would argue, and certainly more country type folk . and once it goes at folk. and once it goes at cheltenham, it'll probably go everywhere, won't it? not necessarily me, but you'd like to get of it, well, i'm okay

to get rid of it, well, i'm okay with it being in certain places, but, you know, evolution happens slowly by little. >> but it doesn't have to be absolute. so if it's in a few different ones, that's great. i think it's going to make a statement. and that's important. i mean, just think about the fact that until the 70s, there were no female jockeys and now there are. and that's fantastic. and they raised it. i know . so and they raised it. i know. so we have to keep on moving forward. >> nigel, point is this was >> nigel, the point is this was a special day. every one knew it was ladies day and now it's nothing. >> it's called style day . it is. >> it's called style day. it is. >> it's called style day. it is. >> how dull. how how purist . >> how dull. how how purist. >> how dull. how how purist. >> how dull. how how purist. >> how classy. me, nigel, we're we're slowly erasing women. we're not at all. yes, we are in many aspects. >> and you think that more broadly in the gender debates, i totally do. >> i totally do, nigel. and sadly, with a labour government, we're going to get more of this woke nonsense. let's stop horsing around with our british values and traditions, excuse the leave it alone. we

the pun, and leave it alone. we all love ladies day. all my friends love ladies day. i you know what i don't call it? a lot of my friends won't be going because of this and it does mean a lot their loss. >> but you can sadly you can talk if you want lizzy about, you know, a labour government coming in what do. coming in and what they may do. >> woke we've become >> think how woke we've become under conservative government. under a conservative government. >> well yes indeed nigel. and sadly stopped sadly the conservatives stopped being they're being conservatives. they're more like the lib. that's why they're not doing they're they're not doing well. they're like they, they like the liberals and they, they lost really conservative lost what really conservative meant. this is just as i meant. and this is just as i said, woke nonsense . we're with said, woke nonsense. we're with modernism bowing to the demands and whims of i'm sorry you feel that brigade . it's not just me that brigade. it's not just me many out there, but i promise you, you will look and see how many women are so upset with this. >> and i'm upset they could still go on. and to me it will always be ladies day. this is really more green. i think this is tradition against modernisation for the sake of it. >> it's about women being a little bit less special in my view. now cheltenham say here we

go . it's style. wednesday day is go. it's style. wednesday day is to encourage punters to reuse their outfits and be more sustainable . brilliant. sustainable. brilliant. >> that's fantastic. it just gets worse. >> it just gets worse. fast horses, slow fashion. i mean, i will not be startled with this nonsense. >> sadly, i will not be saddled with it . with it. >> no no no. on with it. >> no no no. oh dear, oh dear, oh dear . oh dear. >> well, i want to say a huge thank you, lizzy. and i may see you on friday. >> see you on friday. >> see you on friday. >> yeah. just and just wear something ridiculously, please. >> be day, amy. >> you know, i'll. i'll see you at the soup kitchen around the corner with all the puritans or something we're something like that. and we're pretty much out of time now. the weather at cheltenham yesterday was absolutely ghastly, but it's getting better and better, i think before jacob think so. so before jacob rees—mogg, let's get the weather for cheltenham from alex deakin . for cheltenham from alex deakin. >> looks like things are heating up. boxt boilers sponsors of

weather on . gb news. weather on. gb news. >> good evening. welcome to your latest weather update from the met office for gb news tomorrow. most of us will see some rain. it's going to be another very mild day, particularly across parts of england and wales. today we've had this weather front straddling the country. it's and it's been providing cloud and outbreaks rain, some very outbreaks of rain, some very windy conditions across northern scotland. they'll slowly ease through the night, as will the showers. but this zone of damp weather persist, staying weather will persist, staying pretty north wales, pretty soggy over north wales, northwest england the rain just creeping back across northern ireland and eventually into southern scotland. by dawn, much of south and east of england of the south and east of england staying dry, mild here 9 or staying dry, very mild here 9 or 10. low in towns and cities 10. the low in towns and cities colder scotland. a touch colder across scotland. a touch of in the of frost possible in the countryside here, but we should start with some sunshine . still countryside here, but we should stfewnith some sunshine . still countryside here, but we should stfew showerse sunshine . still countryside here, but we should stfew showers over|shine . still countryside here, but we should stfew showers over the re . still countryside here, but we should stfew showers over the northern a few showers over the northern isles. quickly isles. rain spreading quickly through central belt. a through the central belt. a wet morning northern morning for northern ireland that slowly pushes that rain slowly pushes northwards. a few showers over northern england. some heavy showers for and southwest showers for wales and southwest

england through the middle of the getting further the day, a few getting further east, but much of eastern england, i suspect, will stay dry with some sunshine we dry with some sunshine here we could 17, maybe 18 could reach 17, maybe 18 celsius. a very mild here, celsius. a very mild day here, but colder with the wet but feeling colder with the wet weather across scotland. some snow that's still snow over the hills that's still around on friday but around on friday morning, but slowly start to pull slowly it should start to pull away. and then we're left with bright spells and showers for many . still quite breezy. and many. still quite breezy. and nofice many. still quite breezy. and notice the winds coming down from across northern from the north across northern scotland, so were a real chill here temperatures only here with temperatures only 6 or 7 again no further 7 celsius. again no further south. mild for the time south. pretty mild for the time of year 15 or 16 degrees. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar for sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> hello. good evening. >> hello. good evening. >> it's me , jacob rees—mogg on >> it's me, jacob rees—mogg on state of the nation. tonight, a group of leading academics have

castigated the covid inquiry for being fundamentally biased and ignonng being fundamentally biased and ignoring the costs of lockdown . ignoring the costs of lockdown. but is it too late for the already pro—lockdown groupthink riddled project? meanwhile, the archbishops of canterbury and york have warned muslim communities at risk over the new extremism definition, in my case with preventing is anything to go by. surely mainstream politicians may be at risk too. an arab israeli citizen has won a landmark asylum case in the uk on the grounds that he would face persecution in israel. arab israelis have more rights than those in many other arab countries, so this precedent could mean many of the many people in the arab world could seek asylum in the uk. but for this evening's finale, you'll be heanng this evening's finale, you'll be hearing from god's own county, obviously, somerset tonight i will be speaking to a 100 year old, 101 year old lady and her husband who were told by their local council to fix the potholes in their area . state of potholes in their area. state of the nation starts now