for 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.

i'll also be joined by my most pugnacious panel, former editor of the sun, kelvin mackenzie, and the historian . and and the historian. and broadcaster tessa dunlop. as always, i want to hear from you. it's a crucial part of the programme. email me mailmogg@gbnews.com. but now it's all been it's what you've all been waiting the day waiting for. the news of the day with wenzler. with sophia wenzler. >> jacob thank you. i'm sophia wenzler your top story this houn wenzler 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 serving the commons of not serving democracy wasn't democracy after she wasn't called to speak in parliament. it's after conservatives it's after the conservatives biggest donor, frank hester, allegedly biggest donor, frank hester, allegecmp made him want to hate labour mp made him want to hate all black women and that she should . mr hester says should be shot. mr hester says he's deeply sorry for the remarks at prime minister's questions today, sir keir starmer sunak

starmer confronted rishi sunak 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 donations would be returned . his donations 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, hizb ut—tahrir rear, who chose to serve a leader who let anti—semitism run rife in this labour party . those are his labour party. those are his actions. those are his values. and that's how he should be judged. >> now, the first minister of wales has criticised boris johnson's leadership during the covid pandemic. mark drakeford said the former prime minister was like the absent manager of a football team and accused him of not taking the pandemic seriously. speaking at the covid inquiry, he also said mrjohnson was deliberately unclear as to whether some rules only apply to england . the welsh conservatives england. the welsh conservatives accused mr drakeford of using

the inquiry to attack his political opponents, and called for a whale specific inquiry. andy mcdonald . andy mcdonald. has had the labour whip restored after he was cleared of breaking party rules by using a controversial slogan at a pro—palestine rally. the mp for middlesbrough was suspended in october after he used the river used the phrase from the river to the sea during a speech at a pro—palestine words pro—palestine event. the words refer land between the refer to the land between the river the river jordan and the mediterranean, find mediterranean, which many find offensive to offensive because it appears to refer of israel. a labour refer to all of israel. a labour spokesperson refer to all of israel. a labour spoibeen'son refer to all of israel. a labour spoibeen reminded that elected had been reminded that elected representatives mindful representatives must be mindful of are of how their words are interpreted , and migrants who've interpreted, and 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, is facing delays due bill, which is facing delays due to of amendments. to a series of amendments. it would extend current returns policies, which sees some migrants offered £3,000 to return to their country of

origin . and for the latest origin. and for the latest stories, 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 . jacob. back to. jacob. >> we are approaching the fourth anniversary of the united kingdom locking down amid the covid 19 pandemic. it was a moment that changed the nation, indeed changed the world. as other countries followed suit. nearly . half other countries followed suit. nearly. half £1 trillion of quantum easing followed, leading to a significant inflation. our economy saw one of its largest ever contractions. supply chains were disrupted, businesses failed, people lost their jobs, failed, people lost theirjobs, childhood development was disrupted, mental health problems now problems accelerated. we now have 700,000 more people out of work than we did before the lockdown, and the economy has hardly sparkled since. in spite of all of this, i think considering novelty the considering the novelty of the virus situation, the

virus and the situation, the first lockdown was justified. however, the opposite at the time was always pressing for more lockdowns , more closures more lockdowns, more closures and more restrictions. there were hardly any moderating voices political voices in our political establishment . indeed, the establishment. indeed, the moderating inside establishment. indeed, the morgovernment inside establishment. indeed, the morgovernment and inside establishment. indeed, the morgovernment and a inside establishment. indeed, the morgovernment and a few;ide establishment. indeed, the morgovernment and a few in; the government and a few in parliament itself. it was boris who ultimately successfully resisted the pressure to lock down for omicron, and thank goodness he did. however, the consensus that has prevailed since we left lockdown has been that the only problem, the only mistake with lockdowns, were that they were too late, too mild and too infrequent or too short, and this view seems to have engulfed . the covid have engulfed. the covid inquiry. a number of scientists have made these very suggestions about lockdown to the inquiry and went unchallenged, unchallenged on the view that it wasn't harsh enough. and this is why today's about letter why today's news about a letter from leading public from more than 50 leading public health accusing the health academics accusing the inquiry of fundamental bias and a failure to examine the costs

of the lockdown, is welcome. the letter, which was organised by doctor kevin bardock, an expert in infectious medicine, lambasts the inquiry for the following inquiry has shown clear signs of bias owing to the fact that the inquiry originated with petitions from bereaved families , an all , it has excluded an all encompassing that encompassing approach that includes those who suffered from the lockdown. the the effects of lockdown. the inquiry accept as inquiry appears to accept as gospel truth the assumption that lockdowns proportionate for lockdowns are proportionate for when public health consensus pnor when public health consensus prior to the pandemic was that lockdowns had weak evidence of effectiveness . the inquiry lacks effectiveness. the inquiry lacks impartiality when it comes to questioning expert witnesses. it has given a lot of time to sage scientists , despite the fact scientists, despite the fact that it scientists, despite the fact thatitis scientists, despite the fact that it is their interests to justify the policy recommendations they themselves made . the inquiry has taken made. the inquiry has taken a legalistic rather than a scientific approach, leaving gapsin scientific approach, leaving gaps in scrutinising scientific policy. and last, it risks reducing public trust. and that,

perhaps, is the most crucial point of all. this inquiry could cost you, the taxpayer, as much as half £1 billion. and what for? to reinforce the politicised narrative that the only with lockdowns was only problem with lockdowns was that they were too late and too short, because boris johnson wasn't paying attention. it's not an inquiry at all, but rather an ideological stitch up as ever. let me know your as ever. let me knowyour, mailmogg@gbnews.com . thoughts mailmogg@gbnews.com. and i would say it's a great shame we asked nearly 50 scientists who represent the pro—lockdown position if they would like to come on and defend it. not one of them said yes. if there are any pro lockdown scientists watching, please mail mog and . we will read out what mog and. we will read out what you've got to say. but i'm now joined by professor angus dalgleish, oncologist and infectious diseases expert. thank you for coming in and joining the programme again. i assume view of assume you share the view of these have written in these people who have written in to inquiry is

to say that the inquiry is fundamentally biased. >> share the view and >> i totally share the view and i have signed it if had i would have signed it if it had not to email . well, i not gone to my email. well, i was away, so i completely agree with everything that was written. >> and it does seem to me that the inquiry decided from day one that the politicians were the baddies, and that we should have followed zealand approach followed a new zealand approach and everybody as and locked everybody up as harshly as early as harshly as possible, as early as possible, ignored . ring the possible, and ignored. ring the knock on effects of lockdown on people's mental health, on the economy and the cost balance between the policy decisions that and the economic consequences. >> i totally and i made >> i totally agree, and i made myself vocal was myself very vocal and was on a lot of the daily mail lot of media and the daily mail and the telegraph and others pointing out that what on earth is lockdown going to achieve except delay the inevitable ? at except delay the inevitable? at one stage they said it was to protect the nhs from being overloaded, but a respiratory disease lockdown is not appropriate when they dismiss the idea of quarantine. i mean, they are illiterate with regards

to infectious disease and that . to infectious disease and that. includes all the advisers of the chief medical officer, etc. i would hold them all to account for this. there was no quarantine from china and we were allowing all the planes to come in. they didn't think about that until were lockdown that until we were into lockdown the of lockdown. now the third week of lockdown. now i pointed i immediately pointed out i was doing the clinics with patients and said if you do lockdown, especially in cancer, my speciality, i wasn't going to be diagnosing early, i wasn't going to and the on to be treating and the knock on effect, this going to be a effect, this was going to be a disaster just from point of disaster just from that point of view alone. >> it's not that , but >> and it's not just that, but it's economic effect it's also the economic effect that country is getting that if a country is getting nchen that if a country is getting richer, by and large, life expectancy grows . and that if expectancy grows. and that if a country gets poorer and you have strong economic effects of a lockdown, then that has a health consequence, a massive health consequence, a massive health consequence, we are seeing consequence, as we are seeing very and the excess very much now, and the excess

deaths are seeing now is deaths that we are seeing now is very much issue. very much an issue. >> you a pandemic and >> when you have a pandemic and you blip death, you have a blip in death, it's normally followed by a sort of reactive you can't die twice effect , and so you have a effect, and so you have a reduction. but now with this , reduction. but now with this, with this pandemic and the lockdown, we are having a rising excess death . and i think that excess death. and i think that is in some part due to the fact that the nhs gave up being at the nhs for periods of many, many months and became a national covid service and ignored all the people who, if they were treated early, would not have died of attacks not have died of heart attacks and many other conditions, particularly in cancer. and that is what . i and my very good is what. i and my very good colleague karol sikora, we both shouted from the rooftops, do not do this for our patients! >> but was there a fundamental philosophical error about the argument you had protect

argument that you had to protect the actually the nhs? because actually the nhs protect us, not nhs is there to protect us, not the way round. it's not the other way round. it's not there to their there for people to lead their lives, to stop putting a burden on it's there look on the nhs. it's there to look after people have fallen ill. >> of course it should be. and one of the big problems that this this is shown and what the inquiry should really unveil. why was there no debate? why were myself were people like myself dismissed being dismissed possibly as being a maverick people call me. maverick of some people call me. but i found that there are dozens of people who gave the same advice to the government, and we were completely ignored. there was debate this, there was no debate about this, and i a great admirer of the and i was a great admirer of the swedish angus who swedish angus tegnell, who basically and basically stood his ground and said, evidence that said, there's no evidence that this anything any this will do anything of any good, especially as the average age of death, you know, this this data was starting to come in rapidly. average age of death from covid was 82, when the average age of death of everything else was 81. so why would want to destroy would you want to destroy everybody's lives and the economy order prevent that

economy in order to prevent that i >> -- >> and boris johnson made this point early on, and the inquiry mocked him for making this point as if it was the most callous thing anybody could say. but actually it a perfectly actually it was a perfectly reasonable, to make. >> it was the obvious point to make. everybody mock? make. so why did everybody mock? i believe had agenda make. so why did everybody mock? i belthey had agenda make. so why did everybody mock? i belthey were had agenda make. so why did everybody mock? i belthey were had agegoing that they were they were going to actually it through to actually force it through whether it or not. whether we liked it or not. i mean, i wrote to the mean, i wrote a papers to the cabinet and to chris whitty and everybody starting with the fact that the virus clearly had been engineered from the engineered and escaped from the lab was up, just pushed lab that was all up, just pushed aside rubbish. what do aside as rubbish. what do i know? etc. and we did the same with regards dangers of a with regards the dangers of a lockdown for a respiratory organ organism, which clearly was not that lethal to the average person, and there was an awful lot of strange groupthink early on and change in view. >> so first of all, people thought that stopping flights from abroad wouldn't make any difference , then they thought difference, then they thought that you couldn't lock down for

very long because people wouldn't accept it. they they kept changing their view, but kept on changing their view, but they then all moved in a pack. it was very hard to get any alternative view considered in this process . this process. >> well, there were plenty of alternative views, but they wouldn't consider don't listen to, listen i'm to, they listen to. and i'm surprised that i wasn't the only one. i was made to feel like a post office subpostmaster. i am the only one who can't get the accounts right? no. i've subsequently followed. like the postmasters, there were dozens and dozens and dozens of us, many people incredibly eminent and learned with fantastic track records. they were treated as nonentities by the sage committee. i mean, you couldn't make it up. i don't think i would choose any of them if i was asked to form a sage committee. >> and what worries me is that this inquiry does seem to be heading towards conclusion we heading towards a conclusion we should down earlier should have locked down earlier and actually the and harder, whereas actually the reverse true. if reverse seems to be true. and if we draw on this committee for a

future pandemic, we will get completely the wrong response. >> i couldn't put it better myself . i >> i couldn't put it better myself. i think >> i couldn't put it better myself . i think that's myself. i think that's absolutely the case. i personally would sack all the sage, all the advisory committees because they've become too internecine and they basically are two like what they call the westminster bubble . as call the westminster bubble. as you would know, they just don't listen to anything outside . and listen to anything outside. and myself and other doctors were in the real world seeing patients . the real world seeing patients. and also i've done a lot of general medicine. and i knew that this would absolutely be a disaster for minor things. disaster just for minor things. restriction of exercise, keeping people inside drops, the vitamin d, the various things you need to keep healthy to brush off a virus. >> thank you. thank you very much. a spokesman for the inquiry said the inquiry was established in june 2022 and is an entirely independent lady hallett, chairman of the inquiry, has said repeatedly that she will not reach any conclusions until she has considered evidence. considered all of the evidence. that the written that includes the written evidence. the inquiry does not act assumptions has

act on assumptions and has called who called expert witnesses who question lockdowns question the use of lockdowns and interventions , as well and other interventions, as well as experts who advise on the imposition of lockdowns . and imposition of lockdowns. and that certainly encouraging. and we that will prove to we hope that that will prove to be the case. thank you again, angus, the archbishop of canterbury and york have suggested the new extremism definition could marginalise muslims, as my own experience with shows . could it with prevent shows. could it also be used against conservatives? plus some news from god's own county of somerset involving potholes and incompetent local council and a centenarian? >> very concerned about >> he is very concerned about it. sheila is sitting next to me now because , as you know, she's now because, as you know, she's 101 coming up 102 and dead

i >> -- >> well. welcome back. we've been talking about the covid inquiry, and it's interesting. we couldn't get any scientists on to defend lockdown. but we've had moggs that had three male moggs that basically jane says

basically do so. jane says jacob, hundreds of thousands died in covid. it protected the vulnerable . you were part of the vulnerable. you were part of the government who implemented it. support steve if you look at support it. steve if you look at examples of and south examples of taiwan and south korea, can see some evidence korea, you can see some evidence of working. roy, of lockdowns working. and roy, why banging on about why do we keep banging on about covid? it's done dusted. covid? it's done and dusted. nothing to change what nothing is going to change what happened. is happened. hindsight is a wonderful unless we think wonderful thing. unless we think bad decisions were made deliberately, which may have contributed people getting contributed to people getting sick than that. let's sick or worse than that. let's move well i always do what move on. well i always do what the mogs say. so, roy, we are going to move on to talk about the two most senior church of england clerics. the two primates, the archbishops of york have claimed york and canterbury have claimed muslim communities at risk muslim communities are at risk of over the of vilification over the forthcoming revised definition of extremism that set be of extremism that is set to be unveiled by michael gove. their graces published a joint statement warning that the definition, which aims to embolden institutions against the threat of extremism, could vilify the wrong people . while vilify the wrong people. while the government should be careful what it wishes for as it's well known the prevent programme

known that the prevent programme added conservative added me and other conservative commentators to a list of far right red flags. commentators to a list of far right red flags . what would stop right red flags. what would stop a labour government weaponising this extremism definition against legitimate conservative voices ? well, i'm very pleased voices? well, i'm very pleased to be joined now by barrister and columnist for prospective sam falls, as well as my most pugnacious panel, former editor of the sun, kelvin mackenzie , of the sun, kelvin mackenzie, and the historian and broadcaster tessa dunlop. sam, these types of definitions from a legal perspective are very difficult, aren't they? because you want to you sort of know who an extremist is when you see it, but once you try writing it down, you may get a lot of people who are just exercising freedom of speech. >> well, quite. and that's the problem extremism. problem with extremism. historically, history of extremism has always meant something that the people in power like and consider a power don't like and consider a bit beyond the pale, the existing extreme ism definition is very woolly. the new extremism definition is likely to be even more woolly and potentially can encompass almost anything. and that gives an

enormous amount of power, discretionary power to politicians , to the executive, politicians, to the executive, to essentially use against the people they don't like. and that can be really problematic. >> and essentially, unless you're proposing the violent overthrow of the state, you should be able to say pretty much what you like, shouldn't you? that the scottish nationalists plaid cymru nationalists and plaid cymru have a view that they're entitled even though it entitled to hold, even though it would break up the country as we know it? >> absolutely. that must be right. i'd perhaps add one more caveat to which is unless caveat to that which is unless you're advocating the violent overthrow country or overthrow of the country or violence against any people in the country, i think that's right, but you have to have this this sort of open debate. >> i just ask you the question of violence against any individual, it's legitimate to campaign. in favour campaign. i'm not in favour of it the penalty. it for the death penalty. >> that's difficult point. i >> that's a difficult point. i think it is legitimate to campaign for it. it is wrong to agree. >> i think it i think capital punishment is morally indefensible. but i don't think

it's you. >> but but i think there's a difference between campaigning for something that is changing the law and putting something on a statutory basis in an a structure and saying , because i structure and saying, because i hate this particular group, because i think this particular group is a threat. these these people are traitors. these people are traitors. these people are traitors. these people are a threat to our children. you should be violent against them. there's a there's against them. there's a there's a clear difference between those those two different types of campaigns. and i think one, we have to make space for, even if we don't particularly like it. the other we don't have to make space for. >> that's the key that >> and that's the key thing that it's easy dismiss anyone it's very to easy dismiss anyone you disagree as an you disagree with as being an extremist. saying their extremist. and saying that their views undermine fabric of views undermine the fabric of the , but actually you the nation, but actually you undermine the fabric the undermine the fabric of the nafion undermine the fabric of the nation quickly. if you nation pretty quickly. if you prohibit freedom speech. prohibit freedom of speech. >> absolutely. i was >> well, absolutely. i was accused of undermining the fabnc accused of undermining the fabric of the of the nation when i defended the mps the i defended the mps in the prorogation case. and when i argued for the restoration of parliament, i was accused of undermining democracy, which undermining democracy, which under the new definition of , of

under the new definition of, of extremism would potentially label me as an extremist because i was on completely the other side on that. >> i was an extremist in the other direction. well, quite. it depends who wins. doesn't lock them both up. >> i thank you hsi. >> i thank you hsi. >> the voice of reason. >> it's very confusing. >> well, it's very confusing. this. i woke up, actually, to , this. i woke up, actually, to, his grace arch, bishop, archbishop, archbishop, archbishop, archbishop, archbishop of canterbury, on the radio this morning worrying he was out loud about the current level of political discourse, which he added on at the end of his sermon, effectively countering this idea of new definitions of extremism, which would hollow out the middle ground. why on earth would we want to do that? you need to capture as many people as you can in the middle, and once you start banning groups and cordoning that's cordoning people off, that's where . where danger lies. >> doesn't it actually make the middle ground the only ground? >> if you try and ban extremism because you if you think of a

bell curve, the bits at the very end, you just make illegal. and now for everyone's happy in the middle. >> to be honest with you, i, i would wish that the archbishop of would a of canterbury would spend a little worrying about little more time worrying about not our country, but not islam in our country, but worrying about christians facing islam in africa where they're being chased out, persecuted , being chased out, persecuted, denied food. >> and you hear nothing about that. but he spends , but he that. but he spends, but he thinks there's some political gain to be made in a in the church of england has lost 50% of its congregation in in a decade. of its congregation in in a decade . right. when you get decade. right. when you get people like welby getting involved in this very narrow. and i agree with you by the way, quite wrong, completely wrong. trying to define extremism. it will be thrown out by labour, by the way. even even if, even if, even if it goes through which i have my doubts. right. even if it goes through. we haven't even seen it yet. why is he bothering to in, about the to join in, worry about the christians do christians in africa and do not worry the about the three

worry about the about the three and a half to 4 million muslims in our country who are quite capable of speaking for themselves. >> you quite missed the point of having an established church. i mean, he sits in the lords, he is one of our bishops. he's actually a seasoned voice of reason. and he talks about communities within communities, and he's able to reach out to those communities. i've seen him stand with leading members of the muslim and the jewish community recently, since the attacks in october, and speak with credibility and authority. i want him room for these discussions. >> i agree we shouldn't have this extremist . what i don't this extremist. what i don't like is completely talking like him is completely talking for muslims and forgetting i think about christians. >> want to bring you in on the >> i want to bring you in on the issue of hate crimes and, non—crime hate speech. how should you deal with that? >> i think what's the >> well, i think what's the labour party are proposing is a little bit more sensible. i'm not fully endorsing it . but what not fully endorsing it. but what the labour party are proposing is to record non—crime hate incidents. and so that is a hate

crime. and just to be clear, a hate crime is when you commit a crime for a discriminatory purpose because you someone purpose because you hate someone because they're gay or they're black or whatever, non hate incidents are when you do something hateful, that's not a crime . the reason it's important crime. the reason it's important to record this is because you see patterns. and when you're policing, when you're trying to protect people from the dangers of violent extremism , and we do of violent extremism, and we do have violent extremism in this country. colleagues have country. my, my colleagues have been threatened with knives, attacked with knives because they've been accused of standing up for immigrants. when you when you're trying to protect people from this sort of violent extremism, you need to watch the pattern. and so that's a sensible way to go about this. >> but isn't there the same risk that people saying that that people saying things that are of their faith, are in support of their faith, and whether it be islam or of christianity, may find that they are saying things that offend people and then do you say that is a hate incident? rather than

a crime? >> well, i think there's a big difference between something that offends people, which is the of public the inevitable product of public discourse something discourse, and saying something that's incident. that's a that's a hate incident. there's a big difference between saying something like, i think we should have less immigration. and i think all immigrants are plotting to take over the country. >> but what if you say that you think a biological man who dresses up as a woman a man? dresses up as a woman is a man? >> well , if dresses up as a woman is a man? >> well, if you then go on, as many people who say that do to say because they're a paedophile, then that's a hate incident. but if you just if you say my the courts have been very clear, if you say my view is, is that gender is binary, well, that's something the courts have been very clear isn't a hate incident. if you say my, my view is that gender is binary and people only and trans people are just dressing men so just dressing up as men so they can or just can assault women or just dressing men for sexual dressing up as men for sexual pleasure or because they're paedophiles. then you're crossing into line. >> i'm going to give you the

final word. >> i'm just interested. sam, i think what's triggered this, and one the reasons why one of the reasons why the conservatives claiming conservatives are claiming it is because marches the because of the marches and the explosion interest explosion of interest in gaza and peace protests, etc. and and the peace protests, etc. and i to know the projections i want to know the projections onto of parliament. onto the houses of parliament. you know, from the river to the sea. is this hate? because this seems to be a very grey area. >> that is a very good question. you can mail mog with your answers. thank you to sam to my panel answers. thank you to sam to my panel. after the break, sam says no. discussing a no. we'll be discussing a landmark ruling that landmark asylum ruling that surely the surely paves the way for the entire, least most of the entire, or at least most of the arab world to move to the united kingdom. is the of kingdom. plus, is it the duty of nonagenarians and centenarians to when lazy lib to fill potholes when lazy lib dem

well, thank you for coming back. we've been talking about extremism, and you've been sending in your mail. moggs

beverley says . have i missed beverley says. have i missed something? of the bishops abandoned the christian church. they only to standing up they only seem to be standing up for minorities. frank. surely everything a crime is everything that isn't a crime is a and therefore a non crime. and therefore the police business dealing police have no business dealing with do the with it and neither do the labour and james, i think labour party. and james, i think the all non the police should report all non crime, the hate related crime, not just the hate related ones. everything going ones. everything from going to the from the shops to buy milk from reading a copy of right ho, jeeves. that's jeeves. i think that's a splendid , if somewhat eccentric splendid, if somewhat eccentric view. but thank you, james. the israel—palestine conflict continues to expose divisions on the britain. but the streets of britain. but a landmark uk asylum case linked to conflict may have a to the conflict may have set a precedent for the entire arab world, or most of it to come to united kingdom. a palestinian citizen israel been citizen of israel has been granted asylum in this country on the grounds that he faces persecution in israel , which he persecution in israel, which he believes apartheid believes to be an apartheid regime. is that regime. great irony is that arab—israeli citizens, who make up more than 20% of the population, enjoy more rights than most arabs across the entire middle east. they are equal citizens in israel. arabs sit on the israeli supreme court. they are represented in

the knesset. fight in the the knesset. they fight in the idf, they civil idf, and they have civil liberties enjoyed liberties not enjoyed by millions the arab world. in millions in the arab world. in other arab israeli other words, if an arab israeli can be given asylum status in the uk, then surely much of the arab world could come here too. well, with me is my most pugnacious panel. you know who they mackenzie and they are? kelvin mackenzie and tessa tessa, this tessa dunlop. tessa, this is a very judgement, it? very odd judgement, isn't it? >> well, it is >> well, i expect it is extremely confusing for as extremely confusing for you as a conservative it actually conservative because it actually turns government's foreign turns your government's foreign policy bit on its head, policy a little bit on its head, doesn't it? because, israelis have always been courts . well, have always been courts. well, israel has always been framed as this friend of the west, this great friend of the west, the only democracy in a sea of authoritarian theocracies and here we have an individual for whom it's been ruled unsafe for him to return to his natal country. i believe , and i think country. i believe, and i think it's a reminder of what the un has been telling us. amnesty international has been telling us that actually israel is not a safe space. if you're palestinian. and if you look at

the rulings in 2021, in 2022, that was seen to be the case both in the opts and the occupied palestinian territories. and in israel. >> so are you saying that 10% of the israeli population should be able to come to the uk? >> no i'm not. you know quite well this case on well that this case pivots on the he has been the fact that he has been joining ceasefire protests, joining the ceasefire protests, is support of a is voluble in his support of a ceasefire gaza . and that is ceasefire in gaza. and that is why it's believed he will be imperilled if he returns to israel. >> and i think there's just another bizarre court's judgement, another court, another and another piece of madness and worrying madness , we are close worrying madness, we are close friends with israel , we have friends with israel, we have been stood by them through this , been stood by them through this, conflagration going on in the middle east right now. and for a court to decide that this is a goodidea court to decide that this is a good idea and the problems allowing the left to come up with the argument of saying, if you use the united nations as your legal entity to decide anything in this world, our country would have 500 million people living in it from all over the world, and we would be

thrown out. the indigenous people . so i don't take anything people. so i don't take anything that the un says as serious in this matter, and it's enormously worrying that somebody can deploy this argument in our free courts when they come from a great place like israel . israel great place like israel. israel is a great, great place , and is a great, great place, and people should enough kelvin and people should enough kelvin and people start leaving. there are no there are there can be no argument against a democracy which allows 2 million people, whereas whereas what are you defending then ? are you defending then? are you defending? oh, i see you would have some kind of what would you do, move the whole of the middle east over here under this argument? >> oh, don't be so melodramatic. >> oh, don't be so melodramatic. >> no. would you? >> no. would you? >> i like to read out >> i would like to read out answer question. very answer the question. a very short amnesty short statement from amnesty international interested in citing see or united citing my see or the united nations. citing my see or the united nationstalking about democracy >> i'm talking about democracy and democracy. right. >> source to our left is >> the source to our left is kelvin mackenzie. the source in front of is amnesty front of us is amnesty international, their new investigation. two investigation. this was two years before the current years ago, before the current conflict israel conflict shows that israel imposes of oppression

imposes a system of oppression and domination against palestinians across all areas under its control in israel and in the occupied palestinian territories , and against territories, and against palestinian refugees in order to benefit . conclusion. benefit israelis. conclusion. this amounts to israelite israeli palestinian citizens, not israeli palestinian citizens. >> didn't you under what? >> didn't you under what? >> israeli palestinian citizens? >> israeli palestinian citizens? >> we need to move on. we all know that amnesty international is of a particular political view. many people want by the telegraph, including gb news primary investor, sir paul marshall, who has publicly thrown his hat into the ring, as well as others including lord rothermere , and even recent rothermere, and even recent suggestions murdoch suggestions that rupert murdoch may interested . but until may be interested. but until today, the frontrunner was the united arab emirates via the investment fund redbird imi, the telegraph's political editor, ben riley—smith, who will be joining program tomorrow to joining the program tomorrow to discuss book, reported discuss his new book, reported earlier that earlier this afternoon that foreign control of british foreign state control of british news is set to news organisations is set to be outlawed in light of the uae's bid for the telegraph. however,

it minority stake could it seems a minority stake could still be permitted. the question is, of course, who could be the next owner of this great british institution ? kelvin. institution? kelvin. >> right, so i have two aspects on this. so unusually so. first of all, it is great news for a fantastic investor like sir paul marshall, who has literally pumped tens of millions into this business and actually created an audience where nothing existed before. so fantastic for him. he's now the front runner on the other side of that argument is the following. the idea that redbird will come along and actually decide . i tell you what the decide. i tell you what the telegraph used to support israel. on no , we're going to israel. on no, we're going to support hamas. the entire £700 million investment would go to seven points in a heartbeat . i seven points in a heartbeat. i would also point out that we don't mind them owning , for don't mind them owning, for instance, they bought all three media the other day. it cost a billion pounds. so gogglebox. oh, what are we going to put on gogglebox now? oh, we're going to a lady wearing hijab on to put a lady wearing a hijab on there like that, there or something like that, right. ridiculous. right.

right. it is ridiculous. right. so we don't mind them for that. and other thing is so and the other thing is this. so if am , if i am redbird, if i am, if i am redbird, i could say myself and it would could say to myself and it would probably cost a lot less money. i what, i'm going to i tell you what, i'm going to start a conservative leaning onune start a conservative leaning online offering because in the essence, the daily telegraph, all its readers are dying, right? and actually their whole future is the online for the uk and more importantly , they think and more importantly, they think it's a good opportunity in america. so that is what i would do, i would compete. i'm not sure this is a good idea. and if you're the arabs have the middle east has the we are east has the money. we are a skinny little nation, right? and therefore, i think actually, in therefore, i think actually, in the end of the day, i'm not sure this is a good idea. >> i find it an utterly extraordinary decision that the great bastions, the promoters of free capitalism , say free market capitalism, say everywhere else, but not on our patch. thank you very much. this wasn't about editorial control . wasn't about editorial control. this was going to be a passive investor in two right leaning

newspapers. and i thought that andrew neil, who has been out there front and centre against this investment from imi, from, that's not true. by the way, he has been. no, that's not true at the moment. he is not true standards against. no. he he revealed his cards as simon nixon pointed out. he revealed his cards he said that this his cards when he said that this imperilled these two great centre bastions of free centre right bastions of free thinking in britain, or words to that effect as if, you know, the right wing thought was going to wither on the vine . if suddenly wither on the vine. if suddenly the telegraph and the spectator had passive investment from had a passive investment from another country. it's an absolute , jacob, and absolute nonsense, jacob, and i know your hands are tied, but the truth is, one of the reasons why the british press and british television have railed against it is because the mail gb news the, not the times. there's another one they would all like a little bit of the pie. so gb news, i believe, would quite like to own the telegraph, the spectator. i think that the mail fantastic to welcome to fraternity of welcome you to the fraternity of right commentators, because right wing commentators, because you're from

you're basically saying from a free market perspective, this is an anti—competitive move by people who want to stop lots of money being invested in the telegraph. >> that would make it a more effective competitor. >> and, know, it is you >> and, you know, it is you know, about know, it's an anti it's about blocking it's about blocking competition. it's about little up the little britain putting up the protective barriers. >> any about foreign >> any concerns about foreign ownership media, media. ownership of the media, media. >> well do as it happens. if >> well i do as it happens. if they have editorial control i have grave concerns about murdoch's the editorial murdoch's empire, the editorial mr farage around the whole brexit campaign. i can tell you quite that i on times quite openly that i was on times radio night before the radio the night before the coronation, was told coronation, and i was told by the presenter, murdoch's in town, say anything town, you can't say anything negative the coronation. negative about the coronation. is that freedom of speech? well, naturally i let rip for the next houn >>i houn >> i don't mind if people own something , having editorial something, having editorial control because somebody else can and compete with them. >> and as i said, if the if, if redbird had bought it and they changed their position on the middle there would be no middle east, there would be no business. yes, there would be. it completely crater . and it would completely crater. and so i, you know, i, i have so i'm, i, you know, i, i have i have concerned about it. look, i

work for murdoch murdoch for many years. right the idea that when he owned the times right . when he owned the times right. and he had that editorial board, which still exists today, by the way, collection of patsies. way, a collection of patsies. right. and the idea meant to right. and the idea i meant to say idea that they say that the idea that they would, in any shape or form, do something that rupert didn't want to do for them, that's want to do is for them, that's quite important, want to do is for them, that's quite important , because it does quite important, because it does mean that any commitments made to independence are complete. >> a complete waste of time. >> a complete waste of time. >> hang on a minute. >> hang on a minute. >> it works very well with the economist, editorial economist, the editorial board, in steerage that in terms of the steerage that they have over particular they have over that particular publication. think this is publication. and i think this is concerns. andrew neil again concerns. and andrew neil again showed other showed his colours the other night. was on night. i think it was on newsnight when basically newsnight when he basically attacked zucker , would attacked jeff zucker, who would have believe, have editorial, i believe, over the publication , because he took the publication, because he took or was seen to take cnn. he's the ex—editor of cnn. he was seen to take it to the left, and that was andrew's consultant . that was andrew's consultant. >> but zucker also put the boot right into him by pointing out that andrew neil would come that that andrew neil would come to and basically said, to see him and basically said, if if i can be the if i can have if i can be the chair of the telegraph and the

spectator, and how much spectator, then and how much will you pay me? all right. >> that's insider knowledge, all right. >> no, no, he said it. >>— >> no, no, he said it. >> thank you. thank you. to my panel >> thank you. thank you. to my panel. i did jeff zucker, panel. i did meet jeff zucker, and confess, i thought he and i must confess, i thought he was impressive. tough was enormously impressive. tough american was enormously impressive. tough ameriicontacted redbird for we've contacted redbird army for comment. at the comment. coming up at the moment, you've all been waiting for after the break, i will be speaking to a 101 year old lady in a old gentleman, in a 92 year old gentleman, relatively young by my standards. in from god's standards. god's in from god's own somerset, who were own county of somerset, who were told by their council to fill nearby potholes themselves . nearby potholes themselves. >> on patrick christys tonight, 9 to 11 pm. migrant madness has failed. asylum seekers are going to be paid £3,000 to move to rwanda . former immigration rwanda. former immigration minister robert jenrick hits out at that plus, as a heartbroken daughter fears she kissed an empty coffin. i reports on the shocking police raid at a hull funeral parlour that found 35 bodies. and after yet another political outburst is the archbishop of canterbury , justin

archbishop of canterbury, justin welby, showing more interest in the muslim community than christians. don't miss patrick christys tonight. nine till 11 pm. be

i >> -- >> well. welcome back. we've been talking about palestine asylum and the telegraph sale and david says surely the asylum seeker would be less safe here. and karen, karen's very flattering. jacob, why didn't you buy the telegraph? you'd make a editor. that's make a fine editor. that's a very simple i can't very simple reason. i can't afford it . very simple reason. i can't afford it. i'd probably have to borrow the uae . borrow the money from the uae. earlier today, i spoke to a simply delightful couple from watchet, in god's own county of somerset, who live on one of the most potholed roads in the united . after repeatedly united kingdom. after repeatedly raising issue the local raising the issue with the local authorities with many authorities along with many other residents on the street, the refused the council refused and suggested the residents should try fix potholes try and fix the potholes themselves . this would be potty themselves. this would be potty in any scenario, but the couple ispoke in any scenario, but the couple i spoke to, the nicholss are 101

and 92 years old, council claimed. because it is a public right of way, it isn't necessarily its responsibility to fix it. but the street has many elderly residents and the potholes pose a significant risk. so without further ado, here was my discussion with nicholas earlier today. mrs. nichols, thank you so much for joining me to talk about the way you've been treated by somerset council. can you tell me exactly what happened? >> well, it's not a question of exactly what happened. we live in a little private road , marked in a little private road, marked unauthorised vehicles . there's unauthorised vehicles. there's five, five little bungalows here. none of us are aware, according to our deeds, that we were responsible for this road. and so we want the council to come and fix the potholes. i don't know if you've seen any pictures of them yet, but they are disgusting . there's 21 are disgusting. there's 21 potholes in a short distance. will probably about 50 yards,

sheila is very concerned about it because, as you know, she's 101 coming up 102 and dead scared to go out there and, so i would like you to know on behalf of our, the rest of the street, why aren't these potholes being fixed? >> and that's a very important question. and the council suggested that you should fix the potholes yourself. i imagine the potholes yourself. i imagine the elegant lady sitting next to you has no experience of fixing potholes. in her 101 years of life. >> exactly, exactly. sheila look at that man in there. mr rees—mogg . tell him how rees—mogg. tell him how frightened you are to go out in the road. >> i'm very foraging. i i'm an old lady and i would fall over very easily . very easily. >> it seems so unfair that the council is expecting people of your age to fix the road

yourselves when they have a responsibility for maintaining paths and highways in somerset. >> that's right. so you know, as we've got the opportunity to speak to you, we i can only say to you on behalf of our neighbours , what can we do if neighbours, what can we do if they keep putting us off and not, giving us silly answers as silly answers like fill them yourself when it's not our responsibility? there is street lighting in in the road. there is gas mains in the road , there is gas mains in the road, there are water mains in the road and sewerage in the road . are we sewerage in the road. are we expected to fix that as well? if >> you you'll have to borrow one of those, yellow jackets from george osborne when you go out to mend it. >> well that's we won't be going out to mend him. mr rees—mogg. we won't be doing it. it's to us. it's you know, it's there's always a funny side to everything, but this is getting

beyond a joke now, as far as we are concerned. what's going to happen? >>i happen? >> i mean, it's the council responsibility . and what seems responsibility. and what seems to me so important is that you should be able to maintain your independence by being able to go out, but that everyone knows that falls are the greatest risk to older people and therefore having 21 potholes in a short stretch of road is just so dangerous for you. so i understand exactly why mrs. nichols is so worried about going out and potentially falling. >> well, local press have been talking about it, and, other people have been talking about it. and the council latest we've heard, we've seen from the council in print is that the ownership of the road is complex. >> i wonder if mrs. nichols , >> i wonder if mrs. nichols, like, might like to say anything about this. limits her ability to go out and therefore restrict her movement . her movement. >> yes. you tell him, sheila. tell them. tell that man in that

little hole there. tell him how far you can get down the road without me. nowhere. >> nowhere . >> nowhere. >> nowhere. >> how do we. how do we get. how do we go out? >> you look after me. aren't oh, put me on a bike, not a dog in the car. >> and we take the car to the front door. and you. you get in. and even where you get in by our steps, there's a huge pothole. >> i mean, the council really ought to do something about it. and that's one of the reasons i wanted to talk to you, because sometimes councils respond when they of embarrassing they get lots of embarrassing pubuchy they get lots of embarrassing publicity and they feel forced to do things . so i hope this to do things. so i hope this will help persuade them to do what they ought to have done in the place. the first place. >> six injuries in the >> we've had six injuries in the road we know of, and two of those people have been hospitalised, one for 3 or 4 days because of a fall in a pothole, could be us. it's

frightening. >> you're doing exactly the right thing in getting publicity for this, because now the council looks uncaring and ridiculous. asking a 101 year old lady to mend a pothole. and that that ought to be pushing them into acting to help. so i would encourage you to do other interviews to maintain, the news around this important story. >> well, thanks very much . what >> well, thanks very much. what mr rees—mogg just told us is to get in touch with our members of parliament and keep the campaign of what we're doing in, in the pubuc of what we're doing in, in the public eye. >> that's absolutely right. and ihope >> that's absolutely right. and i hope that will succeed. but it is the council ultimately that has to do it. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> bye bye. goodbye >> bye bye. goodbye >> well, didn't mrs. nicholls look absolutely magnificent and elegant at 101? if any of us

could look as good as that at such a fine age, we would be doing well, a spokesman from somerset county council , somerset county council, somerset county council, somerset said we somerset council, said we certainly cause certainly don't intend to cause any distress to residents over this issue. however, like a great many similar lanes around the county, this is a complicated situation . at this complicated situation. at this point in time, we understand the road to unadopted and road to be unadopted and therefore organising repairs would normally be the responsibility the adjacent responsibility of the adjacent homeowners. well, that's all from . up next, it's patrick from me. up next, it's patrick christys patrick, what are you going to be entertaining us with this evening? >> well, jacob, firstly i'd like to i'm sure you will age to say i'm sure you will age like wine, in terms like a fine wine, but in terms of i've got on the show of what i've got on the show today. okay. welby, the archbishop , is he archbishop of canterbury, is he now doing more to promote the islamic faith opposed to the islamic faith as opposed to the christian faith? i think there are serious questions about that. there is our woke civil service really going take the service really going to take the government if they are government to court if they are made to implement the rwanda plan? to do plan? isn't that their job to do what democratically elected what the democratically elected government to government wants them to do? what our funeral what is going on in our funeral homes? you know, i regret

homes? and, you know, i regret asking this, but i think it is relevant. some of our relevant. will some of our viewers another relative's viewers have another relative's ashes urn their ashes in the urn on their mantelpiece? as mantelpiece? it is looking as though might actually, though that might actually, shockingly, we'll be having possibility. we'll be having a look into all of that. and keir starmer has snuck a from the river to the sea mp back into the labour party . he thought no the labour party. he thought no one would notice. well, we did and i will of course have all of tomorrow's pages tomorrow's newspaper front pages for press for you tonight with my press pack. >> well, as always, patrick, that's to be such that's going to be such an interesting that's interesting programme. that's coming the weather. coming up after the weather. i'll tomorrow at 8:00. i'll be back tomorrow at 8:00. i'm jacob rees—mogg. this has been the nation since been state of the nation since yesterday. i've had two creme eggs. just to keep you to eggs. just to keep you up to date on the creme egg score. and we're about to go to the weather in county somerset. in god's own county of somerset. i watchet will be i hope in watchet it will be clement, know over the clement, but i know over the county a it be county as a whole it will be absolutely splendid. everybody will of will be enjoying acres of sunshine. the growing season begins, spring is in the air and somerset is the perfect place for anybody to be, to enjoy it. >> a brighter outlook with boxt

solar sponsors of 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 been providing cloud and outbreaks of rain, some very windy conditions across northern scotland. they'll slowly ease through the night, as will the showers, zone of damp showers, but this zone of damp weather staying weather will persist. staying pretty soggy over north wales, northwest england. the rain just creeping across northern creeping back across northern ireland into ireland and eventually into southern dawn . much southern scotland by dawn. much of and east of england of the south and east of england staying here. staying dry, very mild here. 9 or 10. the low in towns and cities colder across scotland. a touch of frost possible in the countryside here, but we should start with some sunshine. still a showers northern a few showers over the northern isles . rain spreading quickly a few showers over the northern isles . rthe spreading quickly a few showers over the northern isles . rthe central1g quickly a few showers over the northern isles . rthe central belt.ickly a few showers over the northern isles . rthe central belt.ickwet through the central belt. a wet morning for northern ireland that rain slowly pushes northwards. few showers over

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

gb news. >> it's 9 pm. i'm patrick

christie tonight. >> greetings to muslims at the start of the month of ramadan. i wish you peace and joy. >> is the archbishop of canterbury promoting islam over christianity also be free palestine . palestine. >> free. free palestine . >> free. free palestine. >> free. free palestine. >> has starmer's weak leadership been exposed again? >> and one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist , right? >> surely labour have to hand this extremist owners money back, don't they? plus raid. >> what we're hearing today is something very different, much weaker, and is going to undermine the very principle that lies behind the policy . that lies behind the policy. >> £3,000 to go to rwanda and the woke civil service is threatening to take the government to court. on my panel government to court. on my panel, it's the editor at large and the mail on sunday, charlotte activist charlotte griffiths, activist adam author rebecca adam brooks and author rebecca reid. and, what is going on

reid. oh, and, what is going on in our funeral