where. >> good evening. the top stories from the gb newsroom . thousands from the gb newsroom. thousands of israelis are currently gathering in jerusalem calling for the release of hostages still being held by hamas. it comes as today marks six months since the terror attack on the 7th of october. families of hostages also joined a rally in london to call for their release, saying the six months after the attack have been hell while also marking the occasion. the prime minister, rishi sunak, has said the government continues to stand by israel's right to defend its security and added the uk is shocked by the bloodshed and he called for an immediate humanitarian pause in fighting. he also urged hamas to release its hostages and implored israel to get aid into gaza more swiftly . meanwhile, gaza more swiftly. meanwhile, the foreign secretary has used the foreign secretary has used the occasion to stress that the uk's support for israel is not unconditional. writing in the

sunday times, lord cameron says there's no doubt where the blame lies over the death of three british aid workers. and he added this must never happen again. john chapman , james again. john chapman, james henderson and james kirby died in airstrikes carried out by the idf on an aid convoy on the 1st of april. the deputy prime minister has denied claims the uk is failing to prepare for war. oliver dowden is defending the government after outgoing armed forces minister james heappey told the telegraph only ministry of defence officials attended a war time preparation exercise, which was meant for the whole of government. former defence secretary ben wallace has backed him up, saying too many in government are just hoping things go away . police hoping things go away. police have named a man they're searching for after a woman was stabbed to death in broad daylight in bradford city centre. west yorkshire police detectives say they want to trace 25 year old habiba masoom,

who was from the oldham area. they were called to the city centre yesterday afternoon following reports of an attack by a man who then fled the scene. the woman was taken to hospital where she died . and a hospital where she died. and a british man nicknamed hardest geezer has become the first person to run the length of africa. russell cook , from africa. russell cook, from worthing in west sussex, crossed the finish line in tunisia today. he ran through 16 countries in 352 days. the 27 year old said he'd struggled with his mental health gambling and drinking and wanted to make and drinking and wanted to make a difference. he's raised over £600,000 for charity . for the £600,000 for charity. for the latest stories, you can sign up to gb news alerts. just scan the qr code on your screen right now or go to gb news .com/ alerts. >> the scottish hate crime law comes into effect. social

transitioning in schools is criticised in a government report and bambi is remade as a horror film. this is free speech nafion horror film. this is free speech nation . welcome to free speech nation. welcome to free speech nafion nation. welcome to free speech nation with me andrew doyle. this is the show where we take a look at culture, current affairs and politics. and of course, we'll have the latest from those lovable culture warriors, as they to provide us they never fail to provide us with hours worth of with two hours worth of material. so coming on the material. so coming up on the show as the new hate show tonight, as the new hate crime laws begin take effect crime laws begin to take effect in scotland, we will to in scotland, we will speak to guests and guests who both agree and disagree new measures disagree with the new measures as nhs launches a new as the nhs launches a new advertising campaign, we will ask they making parents ask if they risk making parents overly about overly anxious about their children suffering children potentially suffering mental and we're going mental illnesses and we're going to meet the creator of a remarkable world war one memorial sculpture, which will be washington , dc be unveiled in washington, dc later this year. and of course, myself and fantastic panel myself and my fantastic panel will answering questions from will be answering questions from this studio this rather delightful studio audience and my comedian panellists are cox panellists tonight are paul cox and cressida wetton. welcome

both . how are you, paul.7 both. how are you, paul.7 >> i'm good. thank you. >> i'm good. thank you. >> really pleased to be here. i love frisbee, like i said before, it's like my youth club. it's now the tour. i had to take that. this is where i come to hang out, play some table tennis and. and learn from you. andrew >> that's nice, but i hope >> well, that's nice, but i hope you've done research and the you've done the research and the work are not all lazing about. >> let's say yes. >> okay. let's with are >> okay. let's go with yes. are you buzzing you well, cressida, i'm buzzing the to this thing. yeah. the air con to this thing. yeah. no no, don't let people at home know that. isn't working know that. yeah isn't working sometimes. because they wouldn't know, would they? >> wouldn't know you >> they wouldn't know unless you tell them. right. tell them. quite right. >> free speech, andrew. >> it's free speech, andrew. it's focus on the free it's just focus on the free speech and on that theme. >> let's straight into the audience. >> so we've got a question starting from catherine. catherine is the catherine hello. hello, is the scottish hate crime bill really just a ploy by the police to earn masses of overtime? >> well , it's true, catherine, >> well, it's true, catherine, isn't it, that the police have said that they are having to pay lots of police officers extra money to keep up with the demand to keep up with the number, the

volume of complaints. >> have any thoughts on >> do you have any thoughts on this bill, catherine, well, thoughts on the bill? >> where do we begin? you're not. you're not a fan. >> definitely not a fan. big fan of jk rowling, actually. >> all right. >> all right. >> i would think it would >> but i would think it would bankrupt nation. by bankrupt the nation. judging by the complaints, you the number of complaints, as you say. was, i believe , in >> well, it was, i believe, in the first 24 hours, 3800 complaints. and of course there were lots of, activists online sort saying we're going to on sort of saying we're going to on day one, know, on april the day one, you know, on april the 1st, complain 1st, we're going to complain about it about jk rowling. as it happened, were more happened, there were more complaints yousaf , complaints about humza yousaf, himself. you know, himself. but cressida, you know, obviously this was always going to open the door for vexatious complaints. >> and we've seen the police working over time. we've seen the saying can't the police saying they can't cope the the burden cope with the with the burden and the same time a couple of and at the same time a couple of months they said they were months ago, they said they were going stop investigating months ago, they said they were goingand;top investigating months ago, they said they were goingand vandalism gating months ago, they said they were goingand vandalism gatinthey theft and vandalism that they couldn't they just couldn't solve because they just didn't manpower. didn't have the manpower. >> mean, there's mixed >> so, i mean, there's mixed messages. say, right, messages. i would say, right, it's just isn't it? it's just chaos, isn't it? >> i mean, it's well, are they going to because no matter >> i mean, it's well, are they goin much because no matter >> i mean, it's well, are they goin much they ecause no matter >> i mean, it's well, are they goin much they saste no matter >> i mean, it's well, are they goin much they say we're matter >> i mean, it's well, are they goin much they say we're goinger >> i mean, it's well, are they goin much they say we're going to how much they say we're going to investigate single case,

investigate every single case, they they? so there's they can't, can they? so there's going be element of going to be this element of picking choosing. picking and choosing. something's going to stand out unless first come, first unless they do first come, first serve unless they do first come, first senwell, i wonder though, >> well, i wonder though, because yousaf did because they humza yousaf did say would not be very say that he would not be very approving of vexatious complaints. mean complaints. but does that mean that they're to that they're going to investigate people make investigate the people who make the complaints? the vexatious complaints? because then you've got the complaints and complaints to investigate and the complainants? the and the complainants? >> yes, you've got all of that, and then you've the people and then you've got the people who find if there who want to find out if there are complaints against them are any complaints against them that somewhere. so that are hiding somewhere. so that's cost the that's another cost to the government. is i mean, that's another cost to the govjust1ent. is i mean, that's another cost to the govjust incredible is i mean, that's another cost to the govjust incredible job; i mean, it's just incredible job creation, it? creation, isn't it? >> let's just play devil's >> paul? let's just play devil's advocate here a moment. you know, none of us, none of us like, hate. none of us like hateful. speak for yourself, andrew. forgot andrew. well, okay. i forgot that people's gammon. andrew. well, okay. i forgot thaton people's gammon. andrew. well, okay. i forgot thaton the people's gammon. andrew. well, okay. i forgot thaton the whole,)ple's gammon. andrew. well, okay. i forgot thaton the whole,)ple'know,mon. andrew. well, okay. i forgot thaton the whole,)ple'know, we]. but on the whole, you know, we want live in a world where want to live in a world where people are nice to each other, right? what's wrong with right? so what's wrong with having enforces that? having a law that enforces that? >> we're all grown >> because we're all grown adults. and very adults. and what's very revealing is it revealing about this law is it gives the impression, ian, or an insight humza yousaf the insight into humza yousaf in the snp much they feel snp about how much they feel comfortable encroaching on people's for people's lives. for me,

government stand back, government should be stand back, set policy that enables grown ups lives. all ups to lead their own lives. all within of within the boundaries of the law. this does is it law. but what this does is it says, you're not adult says, no, you're not adult enough to do this. we actually want hear about your dinner want to hear about your dinner table and they table conversations, and they feel create feel very comfortable to create laws where, you know, grumpy teenagers report their teenagers can report their parents, but they would parents, like, but they would say, the snp said say, i mean, the snp have said and the police would say that the threshold is very, very high. >> f know, so things like >> and, you know, so things like that, you know, malicious complaints, not to complaints, they're not going to end in prosecution. end up in a, in a prosecution. so isn't fair point? so isn't that a fair point? >> it probably is a fair point. but why have the law if that's the case. because i don't think there's any need for the law. if there's any need for the law. if the are they the i mean, what are they actually you've asked actually going to. you've asked this number of times. this question a number of times. what are they actually going to investigate that wouldn't be investigated already under the current law that was current law or the law that was in place previously? >> i'm you know, do have >> well, i'm you know, i do have a guest on in a, in a bit who supports law. so will ask supports the law. so i will ask him question. i think it's him that question. i think it's an important question, final an important question, any final thoughts one? thoughts on that one? >> we move on, >> cressida, before we move on, we still don't exactly know what hate that's a bit of a

worry. >> i mean, that it's the nebulous lack of definition around term i think is around the term that i think is concerning. but look, we've got i've got two great guests i've got a two great guests tonight, one of whom is for the bill, against bill. bill, one is against the bill. i'm interview them i'm going to interview them individually i'm going to interview them indiv across. so i'm hoping case across. so i'm hoping this will an interesting, will be an interesting, interesting okay. interesting discussion. okay. we're move on we're going to move on to another question. you for another question. thank you for that one, catherine. by the way, we're move to we're going to move on to a question from boater. yes >> stop >> here. hi, should the uk stop the arms israel? the sale of arms to israel? >> yes. >> yes. >> so very serious question. >> so very serious question. >> it is a very serious question, i won't unless question, i mean, i won't unless do specific views do you have any specific views about that or. >> don't allow me to >> well, don't allow me to huack >> well, don't allow me to hijack show because on for hijack the show because on for five but could do five hours. but if you could do a short answer. absolutely not. >> well okay. it's >> right. well okay. it's interesting because it interesting because of course it has six months the has been six months since the horrific attacks. had this horrific attacks. we've had this horrible , death of three britons horrible, death of three britons who were aid workers , it's such who were aid workers, it's such a horrible situation . so at this a horrible situation. so at this point, do we think that the uk needs to stop arms sales? i mean , what do you think? >> well, my understanding is

it's kind of irrelevant. i mean, it's kind of irrelevant. i mean, it's not irrelevant in performative terms saying, look, we've something, but we've done something, but if other america other particularly america are selling arms, i don't selling far more arms, i don't think it's going to have that big a difference anyway. so the issue is how i mean, israel are in a position where there are there are terrorists next door who say they're to do this who say they're going to do this again again and again. who say they're going to do this agayeah. again and again. who say they're going to do this agayeah. dolain and again. who say they're going to do this agayeah. do they|nd again. who say they're going to do this agayeah. do they reallyain. who say they're going to do this agayeah. do they really have a >> yeah. do they really have a choice when it comes to i mean, they surely have to deal with hamas at this point, don't they? >> and the next >> well, and that's the next part yeah, exactly . you part of. yeah, exactly. you can't can't. you've got can't you can't. you've got to get job done haven't you. get the job done haven't you. i don't what do don't know what they can do other than going at the other than keep going at the same time. >> paul, it's really incumbent on all civilised societies to, >> paul, it's really incumbent on war civilised societies to, >> paul, it's really incumbent onwar civilizconditionszs to, >> paul, it's really incumbent onwar civilizconditions minimise in war time conditions minimise the casualties as much the civilian casualties as much as possible. and a criticism of the israeli government for not doing enough is fair enough. do you think that they could be doing more in that regard? >> war. and, you know, we >> it's war. and, you know, we seem to be forgetting there seems to be this whitewashing of why we're in this position in the first place. 7th of october was now six months ago. and it's

like that didn't exist. it's been played down much that we been played down so much that we forget still hostages forget there are still hostages being held today. we don't know what condition they're if what condition they're in. if they're alive or not. we know hostages died. the uk hostages have died. the uk supply point 1% of the total. >> this won't make a difference. >> this won't make a difference. >> so even if we took that away, now you have to look at the bigger picture. now i say this knowing full well that families are dying. okay? no one. i do not to see this. i'd like not want to see this. i'd like to see the end of the war. i don't like to see children or women i don't like to see women dying. i don't like to see men even you know men dying. even though you know none like men. but at the none of us like men. but at the end of the day, this is a much bigger global picture that we need on the world need to be seen on the world stage being a force for good. stage as being a force for good. and i think whether we like it or not, the only one of the ways we can do that is through munitions. >> it's very difficult, isn't it? i mean, one thing you make an interesting point about forgetting about october the 7th, because have to say, some 7th, because i have to say, some of the i've heard on those of the stuff i've heard on those protests been very protests has been very disturbing. openly disturbing. a man openly supporting hamas, people denying

that rapes. i'm that hamas committed rapes. i'm thinking, you know, this. it's that's either a wilful, misrepresentation. >> they're still using civilians as human shields, which is just not how it's not acceptable, is it? >> very, it? >> v ery , very it? >> very, very serious topic, which, of course, we will no doubt return to many times. we're going to move on now to another question. this question is jeff. jeff, is coming from jeff. jeff, where are ? hello, jeff. hi, are you? hello, jeff. hi, andrew. >> do you think the tories should take any action against the honeytrap mp? >> yeah, well, we know about this, don't we? we've been talking this all week. the talking about this all week. the william wragg case looks like he's punished. he's unlikely to be punished. for his role in this honeytrap sixteen scandal . and in case you sixteen scandal. and in case you aren't caught up on this, he effectively was blackmailed. i suppose he'd been involved in some sort of sexual discussion with someone online on grindr, which hook—up site, and which is a gay hook—up site, and he'd, i suppose, given them information or images of himself. i'm not sure what, but whatever this person whatever it was, this person then blackmailed then effectively blackmailed him, said, okay, and him, and then he said, okay, and he all these phone he gave all these personal phone numbers number of his

numbers out of a number of his colleagues. jeff, colleagues. now, look, jeff, i don't what you think about don't know what you think about this, he was frightened. i this, but he was frightened. i mean, someone who was mean, this is someone who was going his career. so do going to ruin his career. so do you have any for that, you have any sympathy for that, in relation his career? yes. in relation to his career? yes. but what he's done and the but for what he's done and the personal information that he passed on about other individuals as well. i'm sure they're not pretty happy about that. that in itself that. but that in itself reason for that way. for punishment that way. absolutely >> so it's a tricky one. i mean, i'm i'm torn. cressida, i think when you exploit someone's sexuality way this sexuality in that way that this blackmailer did, i think that's deeply, deeply unpleasant. i can understand his fear. deeply, deeply unpleasant. i can understand his fear . you know, understand his fear. you know, revenge porn is illegal, but people like that , people can do stuff like that, but on other hand, giving up but on the other hand, giving up numbers other people to save numbers of other people to save yourself. that's not right ehhen yourself. that's not right either, well, it's not either, is it? well, it's not right, and it's not right because a it didn't save him anyway. because a it didn't save him any no,. because a it didn't save him any no, there's because a it didn't save him anyno,there's guarantee because a it didn't save him any no, there's guarantee that >> no, there's no guarantee that that have stopped that it would have stopped at any secondly , he was any point. and secondly, he was throwing other people under the same because were being same bus because they were being subjected maybe didn't know subjected. maybe he didn't know that time, i don't know. that at the time, i don't know. >> the, the >> well, they then the, the whoever was then whoever this person was then pretended spear pretended they call it spear phishing. where

phishing. spear phishing, where you someone else phishing. spear phishing, where you you someone else phishing. spear phishing, where you you contact someone else phishing. spear phishing, where you you contact them1eone else phishing. spear phishing, where you you contact them ands else phishing. spear phishing, where you you contact them and you.e phishing. spear phishing, where you you contact them and you get and you contact them and you get into a conversation and then you you same, blackmail you do the same, you blackmail them, do this kind of them, you do all this kind of thing. yeah. >> was the question? >> so, what was the question? should do you feel sorry should they do you feel sorry for or think feel for him, or do you think feel desperately for him, or do you think feel desperat clearly he didn't think because clearly he didn't think this happen. at this was going to happen. but at the same time, yeah, you. it's not i can't believe not acceptable. i can't believe they're him carry on as they're letting him carry on as if happened. and if nothing's happened. and talking a victim talking about him as a victim when it the next when he's done it to the next people in line. >> it's very interesting because back day, used to back in the day, the kgb used to target people they target gay people because they were vulnerable were particularly vulnerable to blackmail. with were particularly vulnerable to blac of, ail. with were particularly vulnerable to blac of, like, with were particularly vulnerable to blac of, like, guy with were particularly vulnerable to blac of, like, guy burgess. with were particularly vulnerable to blac of, like, guy burgess. you ith lots of, like, guy burgess. you ended up with gay people ended up with sort of gay people in spy network, but feels in the spy network, but it feels like kind the same like it's kind of the same weakness is being exploited. i'm not being a not saying being gay is a weakness, by way, but i hope weakness, by the way, but i hope you're angry. it but you're not angry. it can be, but you're not angry. it can be, but you know what i mean. you know what i mean. you know what i mean. you know whtyeah.aan. know, all >> yeah. you know, we've all been involved in online sexual conversations. regret andrew, conversations. we regret andrew, speak yourself, have speak for yourself, and i have some because of some sympathy for him because of that. can't have that. what? i can't have sympathy really is sympathy with, really is the lack punishment. just lack of punishment. right? just on the basis that what message does send? it feels like does it send? it feels like a weak tory party anyway, now it's

even . even weaker, even weaker. even weaker, because of this. now we shouldn't forget the context . it shouldn't forget the context. it is a honey trap and therefore this guy has put in a very this guy has been put in a very compromising the compromising situation. the one thing the biggest thing that is the biggest problem for me is the way he freely handed over the numbers. now, caught in now, if i was caught in a conversation like that and i handed your number, you'd handed over your number, you'd want to be punished. want me to be punished. >> everyone's my >> i mean, everyone's got my number yeah, think number anyway. yeah, i think i think point of it that. think the point of it is that. yeah, it's. yes. not it's yeah, it's. yes. it's not it's not the right thing to do, but you can understand the human impulse behind it, can't you? i suppose isn't suppose that's the point, isn't it? think he it? yes. i think why didn't he go to police, though? go to the police, though? i mean, if you're being blackmailed, would be the blackmailed, that would be the first of wouldn't first port of call, wouldn't it? >> shame. >> shame, shame. >> shame, shame. >> possibly. >> okay. yeah. very possibly. okay. well, we'll. we'll never know, let's move on know, i guess, but let's move on to from peter. peter to a question from peter. peter hello. >> hi, should teenage teenagers only to have mobile >> hi, should teenage teenagers only with to have mobile >> hi, should teenage teenagers only with social have mobile >> hi, should teenage teenagers only with social media nobile >> hi, should teenage teenagers only with social media appsa phones with social media apps removed? yeah. >> this is, this story about >> so this is, this story about the general secretary of the new, which is the biggest the national education union, the biggest teaching union. they want be able to buy want parents to be able to buy their teenage children phones without now they're

without the apps. now they're called dumb called they're called dumb phones. mean, do you think phones. i mean, do you think that apps are ruining that the these apps are ruining kids lives? >> yeah, i'm a teacher. i don't think should mobile think they should have mobile phones at all. >> do you do in the class >> what do you do in the class then? do you do you the phones? >> try to ask >> you try to ask them to put it away? whenever they're away? yeah. whenever they're sitting with their face. and when to educate when you're trying to educate them. do they. >> they continually do it. yes. so that just >> they continually do it. yes. so thatjust generational so is that just a generational thing? do think they're just thing? do you think they're just addicted these addicted to these apps? >> addicted addicted to these apps? >>it. addicted addicted to these apps? >>it. yeah. addicted addicted to these apps? >>it. yeah. and addicted addicted to these apps? >>it. yeah. and causesicted to it. yeah. and it causes trouble school all the time. >> it's so difficult. i know that katharine birbalsingh at, michaela academy. she won't let phones the school. michaela academy. she won't let phorin. the school. michaela academy. she won't let phorin fact the school. michaela academy. she won't let phorin fact , the school. michaela academy. she won't let phorin fact , some the school. michaela academy. she won't let phorin fact , some ofthe school. michaela academy. she won't let phorin fact , some of the school. michaela academy. she won't let phorin fact , some of the kids»l. and in fact, some of the kids volunteer for a detox and they give phones in at give their phones in at the start time don't get it start of time and don't get it for whole time, which i think for a whole time, which i think is a great idea, right? >> yes. are two things >> yes. there are two things going in parallel here. one going on in parallel here. one is have phones is should children have phones in is should in schools and one is should children to children have access to smartphones ? and the apps that smartphones? and the apps that are apps are are social media apps are available now in school is a very different conversation because , you know, time. whilst because, you know, time. whilst times have progressed outside of

school , within school, the main school, within school, the main structure of discipline still remains. know the best remains. yeah, we know the best conditions under which children remains. yeah, we know the best conrlearn; under which children remains. yeah, we know the best conrlearn andier which children remains. yeah, we know the best conrlearn and therefore children remains. yeah, we know the best conrlearn and therefore we dren can learn and therefore we should probably stick to that. and that doesn't involve, you know, snapchat in somebody else in distraction. in the distraction. >> know, know you >> you know, we know that you can't focus if you're distracted in that you focus. in that way. you can't focus. and look, mentioned the and look, i mentioned the michaela school because the truth are inner city truth is these are inner city kids. are underprivileged kids. these are underprivileged kids. these are underprivileged kids doing fantastically kids. these are underprivileged kids they're doing fantastically kids. these are underprivileged kids they're gettingantastically kids. these are underprivileged kids they're getting incredible! well. they're getting incredible results the results among the best in the country, they country, precisely because they don't distractions . don't have those distractions. so look, it might people might say, very draconian, say, oh, that's very draconian, but works. but it works. >> not. it's great idea. >> no it's not. it's great idea. and these designed to and these phones are designed to be hyper palatable. the designed to addictive. we should to be addictive. yes. we should be having a conversation about should they be banned for of should they be banned for all of us. to have mine taken us. i'd like to have mine taken away. well, look. >> mean, can't away. well, look. >> i mean, can't away. well, look. >> i get mean, can't away. well, look. >> i get addicted�*an, can't away. well, look. >> i get addicted to, can't away. well, look. >> i get addicted to those 't talk, i get addicted to those stupid games. i had to delete robot from my robot unicorn attack from my phone because it was. it was taking too much of my time. >> very revealing. >> very revealing. >> don't play game. oh, >> don't play that game. oh, blimey . anyway, move on. blimey. anyway, let's move on. next free speech nation, i'm next on free speech nation, i'm going speaking going to be speaking to the barrister fowles, barrister and author sam fowles, who scotland hate

who thinks the new scotland hate crime law will eventually serve to rather curtail to enhance rather than curtail freedoms. don't freedoms. please don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. barrister sam fowles wrote a very interesting article in the national recently, in which he explained why scotland's new hate crime bill, which came into force this week, will actually enhance than limit enhance rather than limit freedoms. i'm delighted to say that me now. welcome that sam joins me now. welcome to the show. hi there, i think we should give him round of we should give him a round of applause. shouldn't thanks. applause. shouldn't we, thanks. i sir. and i appreciate that, sir. and i have say something because have to say something because obviously very the obviously i take very much the free speech and it's free speech position, and it's difficult people on who difficult to get people on who disagree. very disagree. so i do very much appreciate and appreciate you coming on. and i want to start with a question which asked. because which i also asked. because a lot of people are unclear when it comes to the new hate crime

law, what, crimes would be covered or what scenarios would be covered by this law that are not already covered by existing hate crime law? right. >> basically , this law mostly >> so basically, this law mostly consolidates things. so not that many, but it brings the law in scotland in line with the law in england. so it adds stirring up. it's already against the law in scotland to stir up racial hatred. it adds hatred based on age , disability, sexual age, disability, sexual orientation, transgender characteristics and variations in sex. now where it goes beyond the english law is an explicitly talking about transgender. the engush talking about transgender. the english law doesn't do that, but otherwise it's the same as the engush otherwise it's the same as the english law, now does it not? >> also eliminate sex from the equality act? the list of protected characteristics ? protected characteristics? >> no, it absolutely doesn't do that at all. >> and it's so sex is covered in the crime law. the new hate crime law. >> sex is covered the new >> so sex is covered in the new hate law . it's explicitly hate crime law. it's explicitly says ministers power says it gives ministers a power to sex that list. and in to add sex to that list. and in addition to that, there is a new

law in progress that is going to be anti misogyny law. be a specific anti misogyny law. and the reason they did this was because an independent commission headed by, helena kennedy kc, who's actually one of my personal heroes, recommended that misogyny should be a separate standalone act. >> so that will be covered eventually in your view. okay. so can i ask you about it? now, i know that you've argued about this before, about the idea of misgendering and you feel it's a bit of a misrepresentation. so yeah. to clarify yeah. so i just want to clarify that. because that. so in your view, because a lot people are concerned lot of people are concerned about misgendering about this misgendering will never under this about this misgendering will nevelaw. under this new law. >> well i think misgendering is purely i don't believe purely saying i don't believe you are the gender that you say you are the gender that you say you are. that's not going to be covered saying, i don't believe you're the gender you say you are, and therefore i think you should die. and i'm going to get a bunch of people to do that that would be covered, because that's a threat. >> so aren't threats already illegal threats are already illegal. this consolidates that >> and this consolidates that that . and it specifically that law. and it specifically says are motivated says threats that are motivated

specifically by hating someone because they're trans. that's going to be a specific crime, suppose. >> what i mean is why would you need to criminalise the misgendering aspect of that when the threat itself is already against the law? the threat itself is already agawell,�*|e law? the threat itself is already agawell, it'saw? the threat itself is already agawell, it's not criminalising >> well, it's not criminalising the aspect that. the misgendering aspect of that. it's criminalising the hating someone because they're trans. you can like someone and misgender them. people do that. people can have a reasonable debate, but if you say because you are trans, i think you're a paedophile, i think you should get burnt. i think you should get burnt. i think you should get assaulted. that's what the specific harm that the law is targeting. and the reason that's really important is because trans people are the most trans people are one of the most vulnerable people, minoritized communities, vulnerable to violence, and that violence has increased in direct correlation with the increase in people saying really, really threatening and abusive things about trans people . about trans people. >> okay, so there's a lot to unpack there. i mean, the idea of calling someone a paedophile, i mean, that's presumably

i mean, that's that's presumably already defamation i mean, that's that's presumably alre iny defamation i mean, that's that's presumably alre in scotland. defamation i mean, that's that's presumably alre in scotland. anyway,|ation i mean, that's that's presumably alre in scotland. anyway, but�*n law in scotland. anyway, but defamation different to defamation is very different to criminal defamation is very different to cririt'sil defamation is very different to cririt's like of money to >> it's like a lot of money to sue someone for, for defamation. so, for instance, i couldn't afford to someone afford someone to sue someone for thinking, oh, for defamation. so thinking, oh, well, on well, it's fine. someone on minimum just pay 200 minimum wage can just pay 200 grand a slaughter and may to grand for a slaughter and may to come and run a defamation case for them just isn't really realistic . realistic. >> okay, so let's look at this, this of so you're saying this idea of so you're saying that this is specific. this is important. think if correct me important. i think if correct me if wrong, argument is if i'm wrong, your argument is that specifically that it's specifically important that this includes trans identity. yeah, think that's identity. yeah, i think that's important that important because you say that this marginalised this is uniquely marginalised group, don't group, but the statistics don't really back that up, do they? i mean, if we take the murder rates, for instance, it's quite clear well, tell clear that the well, i'll tell you, average adult in you, the average adult in england, wales has a 1 in 100,000 chance of being murdered in year. the average in a given year. the average trans one in 200 to trans person, one in 200 to 500,000 chance. in other words, the being murdered the likelihood of being murdered as a trans person is much less than categories in the than other categories in the country. uniquely, country. why are they, uniquely, in your view, uniquely marginalised? you've marginalised? well, you've you've statistic, you've picked one statistic, another statistic. >> statistic is that 75% of the

trans population have have suffered violence, violence against them . so they're more against them. so they're more trans people, for example, are more likely to be raped than than other people. and the reason this is particularly important is the same reason it's really important that we have laws that protect people from racial hate, that protect people from anti—semitic hate, that protect from from, that protect people, from from, i don't know, age related hate because these are specific problems that make people particularly vulnerable. >> but isn't the problem the criminal acts that you're describing? i mean, the idea of rape and the idea of violence, those the things that we those are the things that we ought to be criminalising. surely, someone surely, you know, if someone attacks doesn't to attacks me, it doesn't matter to me they me me whether they attack me because they like gay because they don't like gay people some other reason , people or for some other reason, the crime is what should the crime itself is what should be my view. what's be punished in my view. what's wrong with that? >> there's >> because the there's a correlation hate speech correlation between hate speech and hate crime, is there? yes >> can you give me evidence of that. >> yeah i can absolutely. so and i'll give you the, the uk wide

statistic because that was the one i was, was looking at in my, my, my article which was originally for a uk, uk originally intended for a uk, uk papen originally intended for a uk, uk paper, but actually the paper was too worried about the volume of threats that it's its people would receive, as a result of publishing that that piece. and so i gave it to a scottish paper instead. so that in itself is one of the reasons, over the course of the last ten years, we've seen an increase us in the uk in anti—trans rhetoric, the daily mail for example, if you can count the anti—trans pieces, the daily mail runs, and they have increased over the years . have increased over the years. >> now, when you say anti—trans, let's be clear about that. i can agree that i think the perception that the number of anti—trans articles has increased i don't anti—trans articles has increethe i don't anti—trans articles has increethe reality i don't anti—trans articles has increethe reality isi don't anti—trans articles has increethe reality is there. think the reality is there. i think the reality is there. i think a lot of what the people are doing, and i think what you do in your article is you predicate on predicate it on the interpretation that women standing their sex, standing up for their sex, single—sex people

single—sex spaces, gay people standing rights, standing up for their rights, that motivated by that this is motivated by hostility, bigotry hostility, hostility, bigotry and hatred towards the trans community. i've had a lot of gender feminists on my gender critical feminists on my show. them ever show. not one of them has ever expressed hostility expressed any kind of hostility towards trans people. isn't towards trans people. so isn't that perception problem? that about a perception problem? >> , because there's these >> no, because there's these articles for example , articles are based, for example, on saying things like trans people represent a particular violent threat to women who said that , well, there's violent threat to women who said that, well, there's articles in the daily mail that suggest that there's articles in the in the daily mail. there's been a submissions to parliament which say that trans people are more likely to commit sexual violence, i think, and that's based on all of that is based on really bad research, research that doesn't hold up. >> i don't think that's what people are saying. i think what people are saying. i think what people are saying is that when you have a system of self—identification that is then open by open for exploitation by nefarious will nefarious characters who will identify in order to identify as women in order to gain to women's gain access to the women's estate spaces, estate and women's spaces, i think that's i don't think they're people they're saying that trans people inherently predatory . inherently are more predatory. >> well, they're saying both of

these the idea and, you these things. the idea and, you know, i've, i've dealt with cases of sexual, sexual violence. and i can, can say from a fairly expert position that a sign if someone is going to an act of sexual to commit an act of sexual violence, a sign on door violence, a sign on the door isn't going to stop them one way or they're certainly isn't going to stop them one way or going they're certainly isn't going to stop them one way or going twaite certainly isn't going to stop them one way or going twait until:ainly isn't going to stop them one way or going twait until they can not going to wait until they can identify different sex identify as a different sex before they go and commit sexual violence. should how violence. so we should not how it works. >> we shouldn't have >> so we shouldn't have single—sex grounds single—sex spaces on the grounds that find that predators are going to find a way around it anyway? >> just saying that >> no, i'm just saying that argument not particularly argument is not a particularly good but what i'm also good one. but what i'm also saying specific saying is there are specific stories and saying is there are specific storiis and saying is there are specific storiis you and saying is there are specific storiis you can and saying is there are specific storiis you can go and saying is there are specific storiis you can go on and saying is there are specific storiis you can go on the and saying is there are specific storiis you can go on the uknd this is you can go on the uk parliament website and look at these, these submissions that say based on a piece of this piece of research , trans people piece of research, trans people are more inherently violent than cis people, when in fact that is completely not true. in fact, they're less likely to commit violent crimes. >> i'd be really. would be >> i'd be really. i would be welcome . i'd open the idea of welcome. i'd open the idea of you sending me that. i haven't seen i've i've seen seen those. i've seen i've seen people saying that self—identification can be exploited, which i presume you can you agree with. right.

>> think law can be >> well, i think any law can be exploited. think the benefits exploited. i think the benefits of self—identification outweigh the risks of it being exploited, because don't think it's because i just don't think it's realistic to say that we've got this massive array of sexual predators who are waiting until they can, until they can get the correct paperwork before they start sexual assaulting start a sexual assaulting people. realistic. start a sexual assaulting peowell, realistic. start a sexual assaulting peowell, we've realistic. start a sexual assaulting peowell, we've seen'ealistic. start a sexual assaulting peowell, we've seen it.listic. start a sexual assaulting peowell, we've seen it. we've >> well, we've seen it. we've seen identify women in seen men identify as women in order gain access women's prisons. >> and p.- p.— >> yeah. and we've also seen lots of different lots and lots of different crimes. we've seen we've know and actually let's correct that . and actually let's correct that. we've seen men identify as women and be put in women's prisons. but actually identifying as women does not give you access to women's prisons because every it hasn't . and legally, every it hasn't. and legally, every one of those decisions must be based on a specific risk assessment. and so it looks at the individual. so what risk. so if i'm if someone's being prosecuted of rape as in the case of isla bryson or adam graham, what risk assessment do you need to say. >> actually maybe double >> actually maybe a double rapist shouldn't into rapist shouldn't go into a women's prison. >> you assess risk that they >> you assess the risk that they pose other prisoners. you pose to other prisoners. you

assess they assess the risk that they pose to themselves. he's a double rapist. >> isn't that enough? >> isn't that enough? >> case, actually, >> isn't that enough? >> that case, actually, >> isn't that enough? >> that theyise, actually, >> isn't that enough? >> that they are actually, >> isn't that enough? >> that they are posed y, >> isn't that enough? >> that they are posed to the risks that they are posed to by prisoners would be, by other prisoners would be, would assessed as well, would be assessed as well, i think isla bryson decision, think the isla bryson decision, they got that one wrong and we get public law decisions wrong all the time. that's why i have all the time. that's why i have a job, i challenge the a job, because i challenge the government they get government when they get decisions wrong. so i might have challenged i'm >> so again, correct me if i'm wrong. am wrong. so it's your view. am i right this? you're saying right about this? you're saying that identify as women that men who identify as women should accommodated should not ever be accommodated in in women's prisons? no. >> i'm that every >> i'm saying that every prisoner assessed prisoner should be assessed for their profile their particular risk profile before are assigned any before they are assigned any prison, whether it's men, whether it's women , whether it's whether it's women, whether it's solitary confinement, whether it's category whether it's it's category a, whether it's category c, and we should make decisions based upon the individual set facts , not a individual set of facts, not a sort of broad, sweeping culture war debate. >> it's not a cultural >> but it's not a cultural debate. mean, this how debate. i mean, this is how safeguarding comes safeguarding works when it comes to you these to safeguarding. you apply these principles to safeguarding. you apply these printiny, s to safeguarding. you apply these printiny, tiny minority . when the tiny, tiny minority. when i trained to be a teacher, there were checks on me and everyone else doing so. not because

teachers are particularly have a particular predilection for sexual assault, but because a tiny when comes tiny minority do when it comes to self—identification, we've already to self—identification, we've alreithat men are now that men are self—identifying as and self—identifying as women and they into female they are going into female prisons . so surely that's prisons. so surely that's something we should stop? >> i think is something >> no, i think that is something . men a man is . because if a men a man is afflicted with gender dysphoria, or some, i should say. and by the way, i should say if someone who is born with male sex organs is afflicted with gender dysphoria such that their real self is a woman, but the punishment that we are imposing on them by putting them in prison is a sentence of a period of time in prison. we're not imposing an additional punishment on them of effectively making their gender dysphoria worse and potentially torturing them. can i just explain? i don't want to no, no, double punish people. >> but we know that the majority of those people who are going into prisons don't into women's prisons don't suffer from gender dysphoria. they that they do in they are saying that they do in order to gain access. they are saying that they do in ord�*we) gain access. they are saying that they do in ord�*we don't access. they are saying that they do in ord�*we don't know;s. they are saying that they do in ord�*we don't know that there's no >> we don't know that there's no evidence for that. >> i mean, okay, >> well, there is i mean, okay, i'll you evidence

i'll give you some evidence for that. of justice that. so the ministry of justice 2020 found that 76 2020 data found that 76 offenders 129 offenders out of 129 trans women, when comes women, 58, when it comes to women, 58, when it comes to women, there's 3.3% of women in prison are sex offenders. when it men . 16.8 and this it comes to men. 16.8 and this is the latest uk is corroborated by the latest uk census data. so is it your contention, then , that trans contention, then, that trans people are just three times more predatory than other men? or is it your contention that people are exploiting the system because it has to be either one or the other? >> it's contention that that >> it's my contention that that research been repeatedly research has been repeatedly debunked, the debunked, because actually the ministry of justice data has been the research been debunked. the research that is particular study . is based on a particular study. and that study, they only and in that study, they only looked most serious looked at the most serious offenders . so instead looking offenders. so instead of looking at serious offenders, at the most serious offenders, they looked at the they should have looked at the trans population as a whole to look trans population as a whole to loo no, you're thinking of a >> no, you're thinking of a different the thinking of a different the thinking of a different sorry. i'm different study. i'm sorry. i'm talking ministry of talking about the ministry of justice which justice 2020 data, which specifically that 58.9% specifically says that 58.9% of trans males prison trans identified males in prison are therefore sex offence purposes, as opposed to 16.8% of men. now, you could you can if you want to debunk the ministry

of justice data. i'm more than happy to hear about that, but that you're talking about a different there. it the different study there. is it the case? i do want an answer to this. the case, therefore, this. is it the case, therefore, in view, that trans in your view, that trans identified are three identified people are just three times more likely to be predators which not predators innately, which is not my is that your view my view? or is it that your view that are identifying and that men are identifying and exploiting gain exploiting this in order to gain access spaces, which is access to the spaces, which is actually view ? actually my view? >> my view that neither actually my view? >>those my view that neither actually my view? >>those is my view that neither actually my view? >>those is true. 'iew that neither actually my view? >>those is true. what'st neither actually my view? >>those is true. what's the ither of those is true. what's the third option? the third option is looking a really, third option? the third option is tiny)oking a really, third option? the third option is tiny sample. a really, really tiny sample. >> try the ministry of >> so to try the ministry of justice data all prisoners justice data about all prisoners , number you're the , the number that you're the number giving is 54 people. >> you're sample a is it 54 >> you're sample is a is it 54 129 129. your >> you're sample is a is it 54 129129. your number is 129. to 129 129. your number is 129. to try and extrapolate towards an about an entire community on the bafis about an entire community on the basis of data from community. >> i'm saying i'm saying about the idea that clearly from that there are people exploiting that system. i refuse to believe that there is just a huge preponderance within that prison community of 129 people who are sex offenders nature of the sex offenders by nature of the fact they're trans, that fact that they're trans, that strikes as transphobic. strikes me as transphobic. frankly, this frankly, i think what this is men identifying in

men identifying as women in order access . that's the order to gain access. that's the obvious and clear explanation here, it? obvious and clear explanation her no, it? obvious and clear explanation her no, inot at all. you're >> no, it's not at all. you're looking you're looking at a tiny, proportion people tiny, tiny proportion of people and trying extrapolate an and trying to extrapolate an intention not evidence . intention that is not evidence. and so i think before you make any sort of decision about that, you should look at the individuals and look at the individuals and look at the individuals situation. but and that just doesn't do that. that data just doesn't do that. >> but you understand why women would rather just have a system would ratherjust have a system where men go in one prison, women go in another. i i mean, i understand how people get there. >> what i don't understand, though, why want to though, is why people want to make rules make these generalised rules when actually there is a very, very clear set of rules for deciding which prisons prisoners go into, which looks at the individual, rather than tapping into what we do know as a culture. and we've got the we've got mps on record saying we're going to use this as a culture war point to drive votes. and i think that's really, really think that's a really, really dangerous dealing with dangerous way of dealing with deaung dangerous way of dealing with dealing with prisoners. >> love to talk to you >> i would love to talk to you more i hope you more about this, sam. i hope you

come on the show because come back on the show because i think only scratched the think we've only scratched the surface fowles, thank think we've only scratched the surf very fowles, thank think we've only scratched the surfvery much fowles, thank think we've only scratched the surfvery much fowlso thank think we've only scratched the surfvery much fowlso still k think we've only scratched the su come much fowlso still k think we've only scratched the su come on jch fowlso still k think we've only scratched the su come on free fowlso still k think we've only scratched the su come on free speech '>o still k to come on free speech nation, we're get more on the we're going to get more on the scottish crime laws with scottish hate crime laws with the lecturer michael but the lecturer michael foran. but my going my comedian panel are going to be me just be back with me in just one moment. we're going to get some questions from rather questions from this rather beautiful studio

welcome back to free speech nation. so let's get some questions from our rather lovely studio audience. and our first question comes from peter. hello. >> good evening. andrew. are you offended by the reiteration of roald dahl's book? >> okay, so this is about the bbc hosts , greg james and chris bbc hosts, greg james and chris smith. they've been forced to apologise after telling an illustrator to give of their illustrator to give one of their characters glass to eye make characters a glass to eye make her more disgusting, and they characters a glass to eye make her mthese;gusting, and they characters a glass to eye make her mthese remarks and they characters a glass to eye make her mthese remarks in|d they characters a glass to eye make her mthese remarks in a they made these remarks in a promotional video for the upcoming follow to the upcoming follow up book to the twits . we've all read the twits. twits. we've all read the twits. that's the roald dahl classic. they were widely criticised for

this on social media, and the royal institute of blind people was also very critical. do you think these criticisms are fair? peter >> well, there's something to be said for it, but be honest with you, i think they should have left. alone. left the book left. well alone. left the book as it was. >> chris said, i'm going >> okay. chris said, i'm going to come to you about this one. >> i think this is a new >> well, i think this is a new book, isn't this is a book, isn't it? this is a fanfiction. guess. book, isn't it? this is a fan'yeah.. guess. book, isn't it? this is a fan'yeah. fan. guess. >> yeah. fan. >> yeah. fan. >> yeah. fan. >> yeah. they're gonna they're gonna next door to some gonna move in next door to some neighbours called lovelies. neighbours called the lovelies. >> gonna you neighbours called the lovelies. >> this gonna you neighbours called the lovelies. >> this is gonna you neighbours called the lovelies. >> this is really.1a you neighbours called the lovelies. >> this is really. ii you neighbours called the lovelies. >> this is really. i read you neighbours called the lovelies. >> this is really. i read the know, this is really. i read the article, what was question? article, what was the question? do i, i are you do i think i, i are you offended? >> are you offended? oh, it was a unfortunate choice of words. >> and they're saying it was a genuine mistake. i don't know whether believe sort of do whether i believe i sort of do believe that, because it would believe that, because it would be so daft as to say that in public. >> but in order to prove whether it's offensive or not, it needs to be true or false. doesn't it? to some degree. the to some degree. so say it the other around. no one has other way around. no one has ever make that character ever said to make that character more attractive. give them a glass eye. >> okay, look, you know what? we're not we're not going to

solve this. let's let's get a question andrina. hi, question from andrina. hi, andrina . andrina. >> yeah, my question is, does a slice of cure loneliness? slice of cake cure loneliness? >> what do you think? do you think it does? >> do you know i've never been lonely with a slice of cake, you know, and a cup of tea. peppermint tea. >> that is fair enough. i mean, the is. so this is. the thing is. right. so this is. i this is because we i know what this is because we discussed this on headliners this this this this week and this is this research from in the, research from ucla in the, in the they found the us. and they found that women, feel lonely , they get women, who feel lonely, they get more activity with cake. more brain activity with cake. cake sort of thing that cake is the sort of thing that they go to. i don't look, i think we discussed this earlier in didn't i don't in the week, didn't we? i don't think is about women. think this is about women. >> of us have got decades >> some of us have got decades of research this. andrew why of research on this. andrew why are you researching women and loneliness anyway? are you researching women and lon andrina anyway? are you researching women and lon andrina i'm anyway? are you researching women and lon andrina i'm with anyway? are you researching women and lon andrina i'm with you. ay? are you researching women and lon andrina i'm with you. it? >> andrina i'm with you. it wasn't about feeling like, i don't is a women don't think this is a women thing. i think this is a human thing. i think this is a human thing. that is a sort of thing. that cake is a sort of universal panacea, because i've only ever been me. >> but i definitely think when i think happy relationships are, like, natural ozempic, aren't

they? they, i imagine i definitely i believe it anyway. i certainly don't find it hard to believe. >> do women have a greater propensity to need cake ? propensity to need cake? >> what a question, i think you get into trouble . get into trouble. >> yeah, yeah, i don't think so. i mean, it doesn't make it certainly doesn't make you any thinner. >> no, no. look, i'm both lonely and hungry a lot of the time, and, and i've. >> and it hasn't solved anything for me. you look beautiful, darling. >> please don't do yourself. >> please don't do yourself. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm going to get a question for michelle. where's michelle? hi. yeah, hi. for michelle. where's michelle? hi. doih, hi. for michelle. where's michelle? hi. do we1i. for michelle. where's michelle? hi. do we think finally >> do we think we're finally going rishi sunak managed going to see rishi sunak managed to rwanda flights going? to get the rwanda flights going? >> okay, michelle, what you think? >> i think we might see them, but i personally think they're going to be a of time. going to be a waste of time. whilst the whilst i understand the principle, look at principle, if you look at australia, very different australia, it's a very different setup. is setup. i think every lawyer is going and argue for going to try and argue for months and months. we might get two a plane that will two people on a plane that will cost of thousands of cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, going to be pounds, but it's not going to be enough deterrent to enough of a deterrent to actually do they want it to. >> the thing is, i've never been

convinced this rwanda plan, convinced by this rwanda plan, but one that worry but one thing that does worry me, notion of me, i think, is the notion of democracy. think in a way, democracy. i think in a way, sunak right, i'm not sunak is right, and i'm not a fan the tories. but you know fan of the tories. but you know the point this was passed by the point is this was passed by our court. you our our high court. you know, our high court, our top legal executive know, you executive said, you know, you can this is a system can do this. this is a system you then some judges you can do. and then some judges in none in strasbourg who none of us voted in, us can name, voted in, none of us can name, decided to override that for me, that's the issue. it isn't actually and actually about the rights and wrongs rwanda plan. the wrongs of the rwanda plan. the issue we or we not live issue is do we or do we not live in a democracy? well we do, despite we've for despite what we've seen for about absolutely about ten years, we absolutely do a democracy. do live in a democracy. >> thing about >> and the thing about the rwanda is, at it's rwanda plan is, at least it's a plan . well, it's something plan. well, it's something because i'm not seeing any thing else. i mean, safe routes of passage are just some words together very quickly. >> i mean, labour say they've got the solution. they haven't said what it is yet, but they're going to solve it. >> no, haven't and they >> no, they haven't and they can't because it's the rwanda sitcom. if ross can't because it's the rwanda sitccrachel if ross can't because it's the rwanda sitccrachel get if ross can't because it's the rwanda sitccrachel get together. if ross can't because it's the rwanda sitccrachel get together. and ss and rachel get together. and that's works. that's that's not how it works. no, can't it happening ehhen >> really? >> really? >> well, okay. well, we will

come back to that because that's going go on as well. going to go on and on as well. but up on speech but next up on free speech nation, michael a nation, michael foran is a lecturer law at the lecturer in public law at the university and university of glasgow. and we're going asking the going to be asking him about the impact new hate crime impact of the new hate crime laws what they're doing in laws and what they're doing in scotland not scotland so far. please do not go anywhere.

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. so let's return to the scotland hate crime bill now. and this time, we're going to speak to someone who's a little more critical the new legislation. critical of the new legislation. michael lecturer michael foran is a lecturer in pubuc michael foran is a lecturer in public the university of public law at the university of glasgow, he joins me now. glasgow, and he joins me now. welcome, michael. >> thanks, andrew. >> thanks, andrew. >> wanted come to you >> now, i wanted to come to you about this hate crime law and specifically what your reservations about it might be. could you maybe us a brief could you maybe give us a brief outline , i think that the main outline, i think that the main issue with the law as it stands

is, is, i think a failure of the scottish government to recognise the context into which this law was being introduced. so there's an ongoing political debate about the interaction between trans rights and women's rights. that's we're all aware of this . that's we're all aware of this. and ordinarily you would imagine the introduction of a new offence of stirring up hatred on the basis of certain characteristics would take into account the fact that there is an ongoing political debate that will involve people exercising their human rights to freedom of expression, and that specific rights would be put onto the face of the bill to make it clear to everybody involved that the expression of legitimate political speech in this context wouldn't that's wouldn't be criminal. that's certainly what was recommended by the commission for by the law commission for england and wales when it considered the expansion of, hate crime laws in england. and it's also what they did when they expanded hate crime laws into the context of religion and sexual orientation. they carved out specific instances to say ,

out specific instances to say, well, look, if you're criticising your religion or being or ridiculing a religion that won't count as a hate crime, and the scottish government in its proposals did not do that. it initially proposed. humza yousaf, the current first minister, proposed a specific carve out for the expression of gender critical speech in this context, and then pulled that proposal in in the aftermath of significant , aftermath of significant, backlash that he received. and so what happened was that the bill went ahead and became an act with generic freedom of expression protections, which likely, if something got into a courtroom, wouldn't, would be sufficient to ensure that, the expression of gender critical views or other views. and in this area would be protected. the problem is that virtually nobody seems to have understood that until very recently. and that until very recently. and that includes scottish government ministers. police scotland, it seems like the messaging on this has failed to adequately take into account freedom of expression until very

recently. >> well, a lot of people are saying you know, even if these cases made it to court, the threshold is so high that it's certainly unlikely that anyone would prosecuted for would be prosecuted for offensive things that they've said . so is the concern here? >> well, i think that's absolutely true. i mean, if you hit, a courtroom on this, there's a bunch of provisions on there's a bunch of provisions on the face of the bill that would make it very clear that the, the conduct in question would not constitute a criminal offence , constitute a criminal offence, and that would include respect for people's human rights. that's that's pretty clear. and the problem that we have here is that that's not clear on the face of the act when it has been made clear on the face of other legislation deals with, legislation that deals with, offences of stirring up hatred. so an opportunity to so there was an opportunity to introduce that and it wasn't taken. addition to that, taken. but in addition to that, there's a background context here really should have here that we really should have been or that the been aware of or that the scottish parliament have scottish parliament should have been chose to been aware of when it chose to legislate this area . and so legislate into this area. and so it should have been aware that there's context there's this background context where people are attempting to weaponize the police against

their opponents . does their political opponents. does their political opponents. does the context of the the background context of the police hate police recording non—crime hate instances which are not criminal offences, but could lead to , offences, but could lead to, individuals having their lives destroyed by a report like this and getting back to their employer. for example . so employer. for example. so there's a context there that just wasn't taken into account when legislation was when this legislation was brought even though the brought in. even though the legislature including the legislature is including the first minister were acutely aware of when they were aware of this when they were going through the process of legislating, it just didn't end up on the face of the act. >> well, humza yousaf has said that important that it's important that the police non—crime hate police record non—crime hate incidents get a incidents so that we can get a sense in the country of trends, you know, that we can get a sense there is an increase sense when there is an increase of hostility towards any minority group. what's wrong with you'd that >> well, you'd imagine that there wrong there wouldn't be much wrong with that if we were, certain that the, the recording here was going to be accurate and that there was some kind of mechanism for ensuring that complaints are are in some way reflecting an underlying rise in hatred . but

underlying rise in hatred. but all of these complaints will be recorded as hate instances, purely by dint of the fact that someone has complained that something has happened. and you could imagine in some contexts , could imagine in some contexts, like domestic violence, you might willing take might be willing to take a complaint face value. but in complaint at face value. but in this context, where again, we know background is know the background context is that a that there is there's a significant debate going on about the interaction between, for example, women's and for example, women's rights and trans . and, you know, one trans rights. and, you know, one person's legitimate expression of political speech is protected under both human rights and equality law is another person's abuse of offensive hate crime. and so i know that a lot of this michael kill surrounds this idea of that, that conflict between women's trans rights, women's rights and trans rights, and a lot of feminists i know are concerned that sex wasn't included in the list of protected characteristics in the hate speech, but i put hate speech, bill, but i put that to barrister sam fowles earlier, he point earlier, and he made the point that actually they're creating a whole for misogyny whole new category for misogyny to protect women, that actually it's so important that they felt they had to keep that separate. >> that is that a fair point?

>> is that is that a fair point? >> is that is that a fair point? >> is that is that a fair point? >> i think that's a fair point. it certainly when the proposal was introduced into the scottish parliament and a lot of feminist groups, responded and complained that this should be separated out as its own separate , out as its own separate, provision. and it seems like that's certainly what the scottish government has said that it intends to do. whether we will see something come as a result of that is a separate point. one thing that's not on the face of the bill, though, that i think might, might otherwise it would otherwise have it would have been it was was that, been better if it was was that, there's an offence of stirring up hatred on the basis of religion in, in this act, but not on the basis of philosophical belief. so that could have expanded to include the expression of gender critical beliefs such that rather than whether or not this is misogynistic hatred. you know, if someone was to say to punch turks in the face or to decapitate them or something like that, that could raise the level of meeting criminal level of meeting a criminal threshold of stirring up hatred. if philosophical belief was a

protected characteristic under the it's not. and so the act. but it's not. and so one of the areas where we might have wanted to see better attention to background attention to this background context been in context would could have been in this where the scottish this area where the scottish parliament could have chosen to include philosophical belief in addition to religion in these areas. >> and finally , michael, very >> and finally, michael, very quickly, do you think, given the fact have been so fact that there have been so many complaints about this, given that a of given the fact that a lot of vexatious complaints are coming in becoming in and it's clearly becoming unworkable, will the scottish police and the scottish government reconsider law ? government reconsider this law? >> don't know if they'll >> i don't know if they'll reconsider the law. i think that's obviously up for them to decide. i think they will certainly reconsider their messaging on, in relation to this know, up until this law, you know, up until very the scottish very recently, both the scottish government scottish government and the scottish police failed police force failed to adequately provide , serious adequately provide, serious messaging on freedom of expression aspects of this bill. you know, we had a scottish government minister went on the radio last week and said that she wasn't sure whether misgendering was going to be a crime. might be up for the

crime. that might be up for the police decide. now, if you're police to decide. now, if you're a for law , you a responsible for this law, you should know whether this law is going criminalise misgender going to criminalise misgender in in the abstract, which it doesn't. anybody who doesn't. i mean, anybody who knows about this knows anything about this law will that not true. will know that that is not true. but that creates the but saying that creates the impression for an awful of impression for an awful lot of people that might be people that it might be a criminal offence to misgender. so messaging here, i think, so the messaging here, i think, clearly has to change to reflect the actual law , and i think that the actual law, and i think that will happen going forward. >> foreign, thank you so >> michael foreign, thank you so much me. really much forjoining me. really appreciate . right. there's appreciate it. right. there's loads more to come on free speech nation we're speech nation tonight. we're going to asking if the nhs going to be asking if the nhs are parents for idiots. are taking parents for idiots. we'll the sculptor who we'll speak to the sculptor who has remarkable world has created a remarkable world war i memorial in america. and me and my panel are going to get some more questions from this fantastic audience. see some more questions from this fantin:ic audience. see some more questions from this fantin a audience. see some more questions from this fantin a bit audience. see some more questions from this fantin a bit. audience. see you in a bit. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on gb news . news.

news. news. >> hello, here's your latest weather update from the met office. we hold on to rather unsettled weather across the uk dunng unsettled weather across the uk during the ahead. further during the week ahead. further spells most areas and spells of rain in most areas and often windy storm often quite windy too. storm kathleen started to move away towards the north and northeast of now, but notice low of the uk now, but notice low pressure gathering once again towards and it's towards the southwest and it's this bring further wet this that will bring further wet and over the next and windy weather over the next couple days . back to the couple of days. back to the detail evening and detail for this evening and overnight, fairly overnight, and it's a fairly quiet picture areas, at quiet picture for many areas, at least a time, because notice least for a time, because notice there's wet weather there's a more wet weather coming across southwest coming in across the southwest of into parts of wales of the uk into parts of wales and very blustery showers and the very blustery showers we've recently towards we've seen recently up towards the gradually we've seen recently up towards the into gradually we've seen recently up towards the into early gradually we've seen recently up towards the into early hours. ally ease into the early hours. temperatures mid temperatures dipping down to mid single figures towards the north under clearest spells under the clearest spells overnight, starting to rise overnight, but starting to rise tonight the cloud and rain tonight as the cloud and rain comes from south and comes up from the south and southwest. there'll be some bright around tomorrow bright weather around tomorrow across southern and eastern areas during the morning, but showery already showery bursts of rain already gathering south gathering down towards the south and more and southwest, becoming more widespread england and widespread across england and wales afternoon, and wales into the afternoon, and some those quite some of those turning quite heavy. some of those turning quite heavy . northern ireland, after a heavy. northern ireland, after a bright start, will see some rain in afternoon, so it's

in the afternoon, so it's scotland that's set to see the best of the weather here. plenty of and feeling pleasant of sunshine and feeling pleasant enough in light winds with temperatures enough in light winds with temperat tuesday enough in light winds with temperattuesday looks like degrees. tuesday looks like being very unsettled day being a very unsettled day across have across all areas. we have warnings for wind warnings in force for wind and rain. weather there, rain. wettest weather there, likely the north—east likely towards the north—east of the windiest the uk and the windiest conditions generally down towards south and southwest. conditions generally down towtwhereverouth and southwest. conditions generally down towtwherever you and southwest. conditions generally down towtwherever you are, southwest. conditions generally down towtwherever you are, pretty/vest. but wherever you are, pretty blustery on wet day to come and it stays quite unsettled during the perhaps a bit the week ahead. perhaps a bit warmer a bit drier come warmer and a bit drier come thursday. generally speaking warmer and a bit drier come thurs(unsettled. nerally speaking , very unsettled. >> warm feeling inside from >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers, sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> and there's plenty more still to come on. free speech nation this week, broadcaster and commentator ella whelan will be with us soon to ask why the new nhs campaign seems takes parents for fools. and this fantastic studio audience will get another

chance to fire questions at me and my panel. but let's get a news first from tatiana news update first from tatiana sanchez. >> andrew, thank you very much and good evening. the top stories this hour. thousands of israelis are gathering in jerusalem the jerusalem calling for the release of hostages still being held by hamas. it comes as today marks six months since the terror attack on the 7th of october. families of hostages also joined a rally in london to call for their release, saying the six months after the attack have been hell . marking the have been hell. marking the occasion, the prime minister, rishi sunak, has said the government continues to stand by israel's right to defend its security. and he added the uk shocked by the bloodshed and called for an immediate humanitarian pause in fighting. he also urged hamas to release its hostages and implored israel to get aid into gaza more swiftly . meanwhile, the foreign swiftly. meanwhile, the foreign secretary has used the occasion

to stress that the uk's support for israel is not unconditional. while writing in the sunday times, lord cameron said there's no doubt where the blame lies over the death of three british aid workers . and he added this aid workers. and he added this must never again. john must never happen again. john chapman, james henderson and james kirby died in airstrikes carried out by the idf on an aid convoy on the 1st of april. the deputy prime minister has denied claims the uk's failing to prepare for war. oliver dowden is defending the government after outgoing armed forces minister james after outgoing armed forces ministerjames heappey after outgoing armed forces minister james heappey told after outgoing armed forces ministerjames heappey told the minister james heappey told the telegraph the only ministry of defence officials attended a wartime preparation exercise which was meant for the whole of government . former defence government. former defence secretary ben wallace has backed him up, saying too many in government are just hoping everything goes away. former tottenham defender and wimbledon manager joe kinnear has died at managerjoe kinnear has died at the age of 77. dublin born kinnear, who also managed

newcastle, nottingham forest and luton , had been suffering from luton, had been suffering from dementia having been diagnosed in 2015. he won the fa cup , in 2015. he won the fa cup, league cup and uefa cup as a player with spurs, he went on to manage luton and nottingham forest among others. his family say he died peacefully this afternoon . and a british man afternoon. and a british man nicknamed hardest geezer has become the first person to run the length of africa. russell cooke, from worthing in west sussex , crossed the finish line sussex, crossed the finish line in tunisia today. he ran through 16 countries in 352 days. the 27 year old said he'd struggled with mental health, gambling and drinking, and he said he wanted to make a difference. well, he raised over £600,000 for charity . for the latest stories, you can 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 free speech nation. >> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. so we've got a brilliant studio audience let's let audience here. let's not let them go waste. let's get some them go to waste. let's get some questions. comes from questions. first one comes from peter. hi peter. hey, peter. hi >> hi again, was it correct that schools were kept shut down dunng schools were kept shut down during the pandemic? >> yeah , i know that the >> yeah, i know that the national education union this week had their little conference, and they said they were proud that they saved lives by ensuring that schools got shut. did that lives? and shut. did that save lives? and was good thing for the was it a good thing for the kids? a teacher, right? kids? you're a teacher, right? >> definitely don't >> yeah, i definitely don't think it was a good thing for the kids, and no matter what, some were kept for some schools were kept open for children nhs staff and that. children of nhs staff and that. so no matter what, some kids were still having to go to school. and i certainly school. yes and i certainly don't think we should have had them as long, you know,

them shut for as long, you know, i mean, it's interesting cause i used a teacher as well, used to be a teacher as well, so. 50. >> so. >> and you and i know that once kids behind bit, kids fall behind a little bit, actually, it a knock on actually, it has a knock on effect it's very, very effect and it's very, very difficult. seems difficult. there seems to be a whole generation of kids who are whole generation of kids who are who behind now who are basically behind now as a result and cressida, a result of this. and cressida, the gets about the thing that gets me about all of that always knew, of this is that we always knew, always right from the start always knew right from the start that didn't affect that this virus didn't affect children. that this virus didn't affect chiiabsolutely. think i can't >> absolutely. i think i can't really to really believe we're having to ask think it's ask this. i think it's outrageous this outrageous that this organisation, they've congratulated organisation, they've congratultdoi organisation, they've congratult do well? organisation, they've congratultdo well? didn't didn't we do well? didn't we save all lives? how dare save all these lives? how dare you? these kids you? you've changed these kids outcomes the rest of outcomes for the rest of their lives. maybe some kids lives. probably maybe some kids can get a tutor in. but the worst affected kids will continue to be the worst. worst affected kids will conthea to be the worst. worst affected kids will conthe national|e worst. worst affected kids will conthe national education union >> the national education union has become major has really become a major activist body in the guise of a teaching union. they are teaching union. i mean, they are caught all sorts of caught out on all sorts of issues this. i mean, issues like this. i mean, really, it time that we really, isn't it time that we just them? there are just ditch them? there are better just ditch them? there are bet i'd happy to do that. just ditch them? there are bet i'ci happy to do that. just ditch them? there are bet i'ci think)py to do that. just ditch them? there are bet i'ci think it'sto do that. just ditch them? there are bet i'ci think it's infuriating. yeah, i think it's infuriating. >> well, wasn't with them when >> well, i wasn't with them when i a teacher. go on paul. i was a teacher. go on paul. >> and i've been >> and i've never been a teacher. you'll be pleased to know. good. teacher. you'll be pleased to kno no, iood. i don't mean. >> no, sorry, i don't mean. i mean, i just, just don't

mean, ijust, ijust i don't think your skill set. think it's your skill set. >> not. no, no, no, >> no. probably not. no, no, no, i could teach little piglets to do but could it do things, but you could look it quite were quite clearly. they were the. they to be the least they were likely to be the least effective affected of society effective of affected of society at time. of at that point in time. of course, there's lot of course, there's a lot of hindsight now that some of us, including back in march including myself back in march 2020, worried about and 2020, were worried about it. and my daughter was taken out of school and it seemed like the right do. maybe for right thing to do. maybe for a couple of weeks. well, we didn't know. >> to be fair, this was a new virus. didn't know all of the virus. we didn't know all of the ins outs. i think really ins and outs. but i think really from start, we did know that from the start, we did know that kids affected. from the start, we did know that kid�*so affected. from the start, we did know that kid�*so aff absolutely knew >> so what we absolutely knew very that it was very very quickly is that it was very bad the it was very bad for the kids. it was very bad. the virus bad. it well, the virus know that that they were kept out of schools. well, obviously, but we knew that educating children, we knew that educating children, we knew very, quickly. knew that very, very quickly. absolutely. we knew that the absolutely. and we knew that the risk was much lower for them. so we you know, what i would say is that they are congratulating themselves because they created themselves because they created the mess. so they've got to congratulate themselves because if they don't , they've got to if they don't, they've got to admit they're wrong.

>> yeah. it just feels like gaslighting oh gaslighting to use their oh yeah, they should be yeah, i think they should be running and getting running for cover and getting a good lawyer. >> yeah, yeah, it's crazy, >> but, yeah, yeah, it's crazy, isn't it? >> we're em“ e we're to move on. isn't it? >> to we're to move on. isn't it? >> to a we're to move on. isn't it? >> to a question to move on. isn't it? >> to a question from move on. isn't it? >> to a question from ian.ye on. now to a question from ian. where i'm here. hello where is ian? i'm here. hello ian, yes, back to trans where is ian? i'm here. hello ian, yagain.:k to trans where is ian? i'm here. hello ian, yagain. i'm» trans where is ian? i'm here. hello ian, yagain. i'm very trans where is ian? i'm here. hello ian, yagain. i'm very .�*ans where is ian? i'm here. hello ian, yagain. i'm very. do; where is ian? i'm here. hello ian, yagain. i'm very. do you issue again. i'm very. do you think that social transitioning, in other words, gender transitioning in schools is ever going to end? >> well, this is an interesting one, ian, because we've got the cass review, which we know we've had interim cass report , had the interim cass report, which has already been published for the government for a long time. the government has that to kind of has been using that to kind of moderate and generate new guidelines for teachers and for schools. when it schools. basically, when it comes identify comes to children who identify as opposite sex no sex as the opposite sex or as no sex or whatever, whatever it might be, review final be, and the cass review final cass going to be cass review is going to be published wednesday. published this wednesday. it looks cass review is looks like the cass review is going pretty what it going to say pretty much what it said which was not said before, which was it's not a neutral actually it a neutral act, and actually it can psychologically can be very psychologically damaging to socially transition a words, to call a child. in other words, to call the by the name of the the child by the name of the opposite sex and the pronouns of the sex. because what the opposite sex. because what it does it locks in

it does is it locks in psychologically, the idea that they the opposite they actually are the opposite sex. that this is sex. and we know that this is largely a social contagion. ian, do have any particular views do you have any particular views on this, do you think? what do you teachers should do you think teachers should do when child says, i want to be when a child says, i want to be called maeve whatever ? called maeve or whatever? >> like to see the >> well, i would like to see the whole thing come to an end. it seems insane to me just for teachers to say to little johnny, yes, a little johnny, yes, you're a little girl we'll treat you as girl now, and we'll treat you as such. >> yeah. i mean, there's a way that's crazy. there's way to that's crazy. there's a way to treat sensitively treat kids sensitively about this you this stuff. not to be mean, you know, to of talk, know, a way to sort of talk, talk kids the troubles talk kids through the troubles that they are facing. but we know don't mean know christa, and i don't mean to have go at girls, but we to have a go at girls, but we know that studies show that know that the studies show that teenage in particular teenage girls in particular have a propensity towards social contagion history. contagion throughout history. falling sicknesses, limping, dancing you know, dancing crazes. yeah you know, the witch hunts in salem. not blaming you, but what i'm. what i'm saying is that there is a propensity for andrew. and when i was, when i was a teacher, it was it was eating disorders. and before then it was cutting themselves. and so in case, before then it was cutting tilot selves. and so in case, before then it was cutting tilot of ves. and so in case, before then it was cutting tilot of kidsand so in case, before then it was cutting tilot of kids and so in case, before then it was cutting tilot of kids and at in case, before then it was cutting

tilot of kids and a lot case, before then it was cutting tilot of kids and a lot of case, before then it was cutting tilot of kids and a lot of girlse, a lot of kids and a lot of girls are identifying out of being female by saying they're non—binary they're male. >> of course they are. it's stressful. you get into puberty and suddenly faced with and you're suddenly faced with a whole stuff. didn't whole load of stuff. you didn't have to with this is why have to deal with this is why i hated that coffee advert, hated that costa coffee advert, where tummy where they showed mastek tummy scars who now scars and the person who was now male was surfing their eyes male was surfing with their eyes closed, having closed, looking cool, having a costa and i thought, that costa coffee and i thought, that is successful when is so successful because when you're you feel, you're a teenage girl, you feel, you're a teenage girl, you feel, you know you're all confused about body. would like about your body. you would like to it all. and to just get rid of it all. and this surfer cool dude thing was saying, could just saying, look, you could just transition. it's big deal. transition. it's no big deal. >> spoke to a female >> yeah, i spoke to a female guest on my show about this, actually. of the things actually. and one of the things she is that, know, it's she said is that, you know, it's difficult time because difficult at that time because you're suddenly male you're suddenly getting male attention want. attention that you don't want. your of attention that you don't want. your various of attention that you don't want. your various things. of you these various things. and if you can make go away , you can just make that go away, you know, lot of these girls know, and a lot of these girls are being that they will be are being told that they will be accepted gay men within accepted as gay men within the gay you know, i know gay world. and, you know, i know a don't go a lot of gay people who don't go on gay dating apps like on the gay dating apps like ghndr on the gay dating apps like grindr anymore grindr and things anymore because women because it's full of women who've that they're who've been told that they're attractive of attractive to men. and of course, gay men aren't interested in them. never will course, gay men aren't intybecause�*n them. never will course, gay men aren't intybecause they're never will

course, gay men aren't intybecause they're gay er will course, gay men aren't intybecause they're gay .r will be because they're gay. >> to answer the >> exactly. and so to answer the original if you're original question, if you're setting in motion, setting all that in motion, yeah, children, you're yeah, small children, you're just setting up for all these really complicated things to deal on. deal with later on. >> but i don't think the activists are going to this activists are going to let this one i mean, but it is one go, paul. i mean, but it is a problem. you know, i've got a teacher me teacher friend who contacted me saying, a child in saying, look, there's a child in my to called my class who wants to be called by opposite sex name and by the opposite sex name and pronouns, school told pronouns, the school has told me that to do that. but when that i need to do that. but when i the school, to the i write to the school, to the parents in reports and things, i have to lie and use the other name pronouns not tell name and pronouns and not tell them. lot of schools them. there's a lot of schools that involved them. there's a lot of schools thatparents involved them. there's a lot of schools thatparents here. involved the parents here. >> so multifaceted. this >> this is so multifaceted. this first think it's first of all, i think it's a fad. i really, genuinely do. and at point we will all see at some point we will all see a lot. everybody collectively, we will see the emperor's got no clothes on and it will just, you know, there will be some acceptance that some kids are trans some are not, that trans and some are not, and that people through of people are going through lots of changes group. the other changes at that group. the other thing, , is it makes no thing, of course, is it makes no difference their so difference to their learning. so we, they used to they we, you know, they used to they used to uniforms so used to wear uniforms purely so that all kids didn't have to

worry what they worry about what they looked like. all the on worry about what they looked liky look. all the on worry about what they looked liky look. flooked the on worry about what they looked likylook. flooked ite on worry about what they looked likylook. flooked it looked on it. look. it looked it looked neat tidy and when neat and tidy outside. and when you're , it didn't matter you're inside, it didn't matter if poon you're inside, it didn't matter if poor, wealthy, if if you were poor, wealthy, if you gold trainers like or you had gold trainers like me or nike air like the rich kid nike air max, like the rich kid down road, it didn't down the road, it didn't matter. so whilst we're just reintroducing by the back reintroducing stuff by the back door and i'm really uncomfortable with it, i mean, we all pretended to be things as a kid. i remember i think, you know, i told the teacher i was superman. he was like, get down, mate. yeah, carry with your mate. yeah, carry on with your maths. yeah. okay. well, that >> yeah, yeah. okay. well, that would one approach and would be one approach and certainly categorisation certainly the categorisation of non—binary is one that's really common well now. of common as well now. and of course your reaction there, cressida just cressida says it all just i think who these people that think who are these people that think who are these people that think that you're 100% female? >> aren't we all? we've >> i mean, aren't we all? we've all . all got. >> well, think what non—binary >> well, i think what non—binary the of non—binary >> well, i think what non—binary th doing of non—binary >> well, i think what non—binary th doing is of non—binary >> well, i think what non—binary th doing is actually non—binary >> well, i think what non—binary th doing is actually reinforcingy is doing is actually reinforcing sex because sex stereotypes. because what you're is, i see the you're saying is, i see the world as you've got to behave like this if you're male and this if you're female. so i don't do either. but none of us don't do either. but none of us do either. so aren't we all non—binary? >> well, of course we're >> well, no, of course we're not, are andrew? not, though, are we, andrew? because, or because, no, we're male or

female. >> f- >> male or female. >> male or female. >> it's ridiculous that it's >> it's so ridiculous that it's hard begin to explain hard to begin to explain it. i also it's particularly also think it's particularly nasty children being nasty to have the children being split one truth at home split between one truth at home and one truth at school. >> yeah, think that's a big problem. >> that's very interesting. we're going to come back to this issue, again. and issue, no doubt again. and again. got another again. but we've got another question from sarah. again. but we've got another questi> are you are you one of the writers? >> sorry. that's a great idea. that's. king would pay that's. stephen king would pay money for that. that's brilliant. because a new brilliant. this is because a new film version bambi called film version of bambi is called bambi. reckoning it's bambi. the reckoning, and it's been actually been made, and we've actually got package let's have got a package of it. let's have a look. >> do you have a shot of deer? no. why? have you ? no. why? have you? >> yeah . what .

>> yeah. what. >> yeah. what. >> i actually think that looks quite good. i mean, look , quite good. i mean, look, there's something sinister and horrific about a lot of old fairy tales and kids stories, and i think some of them are the best. >> when we talk about roald dahl earlier, there's that. there's, the lion , the witch and the the lion, the witch and the wardrobe with creepy wardrobe with that creepy paedophile thing. wardrobe with that creepy paeyes,1ile thing. wardrobe with that creepy paeyes, yes. thing. >> yes, yes. >>- >> yes, yes. >> you know, but i don't >> so, you know, but i don't think is aimed at children. think this is aimed at children. >> isn't a >> andrew. oh, isn't it a crucial difference? >> think should be >> no, i think it should be aimed children. ithink >> no, i think it should be aimed children. i think you aimed at children. i think you should it definitely isn't. should see it definitely isn't. >> seen because >> i've never seen bambi because i've heard what happens, and i don't to think about that. don't need to think about that. yeah, this might be less yeah, so this might be less traumatising, definitely traumatising, but definitely for adults, i mean, i like >> do you think i mean, i like little riding hood to little red riding hood to me always pretty traumatic. always seemed pretty traumatic. >> hansel gretel >> well, all hansel and gretel was wasn't it? was traumatic, wasn't it? >> was all supposed to >> yeah. it was all supposed to be terrifying. yes.

>> doesn't wolf her >> doesn't the wolf eat her grandmother? yeah i mean, that's not but in the picture book, >> no, but in the picture book, it lovely, it? it looks lovely, don't it? because wolf's cuddly. because the wolf's all cuddly. yeah. quite yeah. grandmother looks quite happy been munched to happy as she's been munched to death. yeah look, it doesn't really the really matter, does it? at the end day, if they remake, end of the day, if they remake, if they remake, what it if they remake, what was it called again? if they remake, what was it calibambi, n? if they remake, what was it calibambi, the reckoning, bambi, if they remake, what was it cal| reckoning. reckoning, bambi, the reckoning. >> n the reckoning. >> i might even >> yeah. smashing. i might even go that. go and see that. >> i'm going see that >> yeah, i'm going to see that 100. my street. 100. that's right up my street. okay. to move now okay. we're going to move on now to another question. this is from simon. simon, hello. >> i have particular >> i don't have a particular opinion on this one. >> heard something hot >> i just heard something hot off about this in off the press about this in brazil. speech being brazil. free speech being threatened. oh, yeah. >> because. oh, this is a twitter spat between in brazil. i say a spat, actually, it's quite serious , so twitter or the quite serious, so twitter or the brazilian government, the brazilian government, the brazilian court has basically ruled and said that certain accounts, certain popular accounts, certain popular accounts in brazil on twitter, sorry, to be blocked by sorry, x have to be blocked by elon musk, and they've just said you have to do that, otherwise we'll just ban your site. and elon musk has said , no, i'm not elon musk has said, no, i'm not going to do that, even if it means that it's going to be

completely shut down in brazil, so this was reported. i saw this video by michael shellenberger, who was reporting on this issue, and i hadn't realised this was happening. krista, what do you make this? happening. krista, what do you ma as this? happening. krista, what do you ma as usual,’ happening. krista, what do you ma as usual, elon's a legend . >> as usual, elon's a legend. he's just said, no, i'm not >> as usual, elon's a legend. he'sjust said, no, i'm not i'm he's just said, no, i'm not i'm not going to capitulate to this at going to lose money at all. i'm going to lose money over it's right. freedom over it. it's not right. freedom of matters. of speech matters. >> i mean, there's various countries. various, countries. china has various, you firewalls and you know, extra firewalls and things. you know, they manipulate and that manipulate the internet and that kind it is good, kind of thing. it is good, i think, that musk saying, think, that elon musk is saying, no, rather i'd rather no, we will rather i'd rather lose money and revenue for the principle of free speech. i think that's really great. >> and not making their >> and it's not making their leader look good is it? leader look good at all, is it? i that's the worst press i mean, that's the worst press you have. you could have. >> you think, paul? >> what do you think, paul? >> what do you think, paul? >> he's got his version of >> he's got his own version of philanthropy he? elon philanthropy now, isn't he? elon musk a lot of lot of people musk a lot of a lot of people get billions. a lot of get their billions. a lot of people there's four people like there's four of them, there, krista i them, aren't there, krista and i are included that. are included in that. >> it's you two, elon musk are included in that. >> inaya,t's you two, elon musk are included in that. >> inaya, basically. ), elon musk and inaya, basically. >> inaya did you say? and inaya, basically. >> yeah, inaya did you say? and inaya, basically. >> yeah, she's did you say? and inaya, basically. >> yeah, she's got you say? and inaya, basically. >> yeah, she's got a)u say? and inaya, basically. >> yeah, she's got a castle’ and inaya, basically. >> yeah, she's got a castle in dublin. got to be rich. dublin. she's got to be rich. >> yeah. sorry. how >> okay. yeah. sorry. yeah. how could so he's he's could i forget? so he's he's created philanthropy

created this philanthropy now where necessarily where he's not necessarily giving but he's giving to charity, but he's giving to charity, but he's giving to charity, but he's giving to society. he's giving back to society. he's saying, bought, he saying, look, he's bought, he bought, bought huge bought, he bought twitter a huge loss, didn't care. he loss, but he didn't care. he knew straight away he would. he's not a stupid guy. he knew that's a way money. that's not a way to make money. you know what he decided to do was i'm going, this is going to be one of the hugest platforms available on planet available to humans on planet earth. there's earth. yeah, because there's humans and as a humans elsewhere. and as a result, i'm going to make sure it stays free speech within reason. >> and it wasn't for a long time. you know, the people that ran twitter, they were ran twitter, they they were colluding with various government to censor government factions to censor certain political speech. i mean, there was dodgy mean, it was there was dodgy stuff on there, you know. stuff going on there, you know. so he's he's made so i think he's he's made a difference. he certainly has. >> just another >> and this is just another stand. who are who stand. and who are people who the who are the arbiters, who chooses can and can't be chooses what can and can't be said ? at the moment it feels said? at the moment it feels like humza yousaf and some bloke in yeah what elon is in brazil. yeah what elon is saying is, shouldn't be saying is, no, it shouldn't be either people. we either of those two people. we should as a community should all decide as a community and know, we all know what's and you know, we all know what's right and we can right and wrong and we can debate that's the only

debate it. that's the only way you ever get through anything. you hear some of you you need to hear some of those otherwise those things out loud. otherwise they're just going to go elsewhere. they're just going to go els> hi, andrew, should . should >> hi, andrew, should. should offenders from difficult backgrounds get lighter sentences? >> yeah. thank you. andrew for that. actually, andrew is a great name . great name. >> shapps fantastic name. although it's not maybe as popular at the moment. >> no, it's not, but it comes from the greek for so you from the greek for manly. so you and you can tell. and i, you can tell. >> yeah. there's no doubt about it. about it. it. no doubt about it. >> are hench, andrew. >> we are pretty hench, andrew. i know what this is about. so this is about these basically the sentencing council which sets the guidelines for judges and magistrates. and they said they need to be mitigating factors, should someone come to court and they basically come from a bad they're badly educated. maybe they grew up with a drug addict family. with in a drug addict family. they've grown up poor. so that should be reflected in the sentencing. andrew, do you think

i mean, there's a risk here, isn't there, that basically they're patronising poorer people and saying, well, you you're bound to commit crimes. so have to be a so we're going to have to be a bit or am wrong bit more lenient. or am i wrong about that? bit more lenient. or am i wrong aboyou're:? bit more lenient. or am i wrong aboyou're never wrong, alan. >> you're never wrong, alan. well, but of course, as someone said years ago , a crime is said years ago, a crime is a crime is a crime. so no, that's right. >> i mean, cressida, do you think it's patronising to working class people? >> yeah i do, i mean, we're assuming that the crime is the same. i thought there was already an element of sort of. how do you present in court? a friend of my dad's was a rugby coach when my brother was a kid, and he got he got so many points on his license, they were going to and when he to take it away. and when he turned court, he said, oh, turned up in court, he said, oh, you all these you can't do that. all these lads rely on me. and he kind of, we thought got lesser we thought that he got a lesser sentence anyway because of that, because his case because he was pleading his case that shouldn't be sent away. because he was pleading his case thatthisshouldn't be sent away. because he was pleading his case thatthis isyuldn't be sent away. because he was pleading his case thatthis is slightlye sent away. because he was pleading his case thatthis is slightly different,ay. but this is slightly different, isn't because saying isn't it, because they're saying we for you. we feel sorry for you. >> yeah, bit like that, >> yeah, it's a bit like that, isn't it? i mean, i get isn't it? i mean, like, i get the point. mean, the point. the point. i mean, the point. paulis

the point. i mean, the point. paul is that, you you paul is that, you know, if you come from deprived background, come from a deprived background, statistically you are more come from a deprived background, statisttoilly you are more come from a deprived background, statisttoilly yup are more come from a deprived background, statisttoilly yup in; more come from a deprived background, statisttoilly yup in criminality. likely to end up in criminality. but shouldn't holding but shouldn't we be holding everyone standards? but shouldn't we be holding evei'm|e standards? but shouldn't we be holding evei'm|e a standards? but shouldn't we be holding evei'm|e a poortandards? >> i'm i'm from a poor background didn't take the background and i didn't take the route crime. end up on route of crime. i did end up on gb news. >> you did. and. and you've stolen some of the mugs from my chin. stolen some of the mugs from my chi|yeah, only because >> yeah, but only because i needed to my needed to sell them to feed my children. needed to sell them to feed my chiiwell, i'm sorry. no, you >> well, i'm sorry. no, you should out there. >> well, i'm sorry. no, you showe've out there. >> well, i'm sorry. no, you showe've had out there. >> well, i'm sorry. no, you showe've had this ut there. >> well, i'm sorry. no, you showe've had this chatare. >> well, i'm sorry. no, you showe've had this chat in. >> we've had this chat in private, andrew. but look, of course, it's it's very course, it's very. it's very patronising. cresta, really. you know, thing where know, hit on a thing there where it's equal crime, if it's if it's an equal crime, if i not me, because i'm no longer working class. of course i'm aspirational. i'm working aspirational. i'm upper working class. this class. yes, yes, yes. but, this is problem. middle is a serious problem. middle class. but if two people have committed exactly the same crime, one of happens crime, and one of them happens to an affluent to be from an affluent background, they going to background, are they going to get, of a sentence than the get, more of a sentence than the working criminals working class? because criminals are to be clever, you are going to be clever, you know, going go, you know, they're going to go, you know, they're going to go, you know dad me up. know what? we. dad beat me up. i don't think i should be going to prison. >> that's true. >> that's true. >> yeah, right. x factor i do quite like the idea really quite like the idea of really rich punished it. >> it. just because i'm jealous. >> good old neutral andrew doyle. >> good old neutral andrew doybrilliant. didn't mean it.

>> brilliant. i didn't mean it. okay, free speech okay, next up on free speech nation, and nation, we've got author and journalist ella whelan who's going discuss going to be here to discuss whether the nhs are taking parents morons. whether the nhs are taking parentsdo morons. whether the nhs are taking parentsdo not morons. whether the nhs are taking parentsdo not anywhereyrons.

i >> -- >> on -_ >> on mark dolan tonight. in my big opinion, a labour government is coming. but no one seems to be celebrating. it's a case of. be careful what you wish for. are the conservatives now too left wing? and it might take a ten. angela rayner and the political scandal that won't go away. plus, as they celebrate 19 years of marriage, i'll reflect on charles and camilla's great romance with king charles's biographer hardman . we're biographer robert hardman. we're live at nine. >> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. so does the nhs now think that

mothers and fathers are now incapable of raising children without a steady stream of apps and campaigns to guide and poster campaigns to guide them? seems to the them? that seems to be the assumption new. if assumption behind the new. if they could campaign they could tell you campaign designed laudable designed with the laudable intention of supporting parents to help build secure bonds to help nurture their baby's future mental health. but which can give the worrying impression that not following the advice to the letter could lead to your child having mental illnesses. well, me to discuss well, joining me to discuss this, have the author, this, i have the author, journalist mother of a journalist and mother of a toddler ella whelan toddler herself, ella whelan ella. it sounds very benevolent this campaign. so do you want to tell us what's wrong with it? >> well, yeah, good intentions are one thing, but i think this actually, it's not benevolent and these sort of. >> it's. if anyone remembers the start for life campaign , the start for life campaign, the government campaign with those really horrendously irritating plasticine people telling you that you're too fat and, you know, change your life, it's a campaign under that umbrella and it's the government announcement is all about the idea that

unless you are giving direct attention to your baby and 24/7, then they're they will develop mental health issues later in life, it's the most astonishing amount of sort of psychobabble . amount of sort of psychobabble. what's the evidence for that? >> i mean, what are they basing that on? i mean, there isn't that on? i mean, i there isn't any credible evidence for it, number one. >> but i suppose there's a correlation being drawn between, an in reporting of an increase in reporting of mental health issues in adults. we see now, which, you know, is a thing that's happening. and you would if you were sensible, you would if you were sensible, you would if you were sensible, you would question the accuracy and legitimacy of of those and legitimacy of a lot of those claims. but there's a real kind of mummy love me attitude of mummy didn't love me attitude going where the ills that going on where the ills that people are facing today are being blamed parenting being blamed on parenting styles. so, for example, there's this that says , this one poster that says, sometimes i just really need a hug of a lovely little boy and it's telling you, you horrible , it's telling you, you horrible, awful mother, to hug your child

because , you know, because you because, you know, because you wouldn't know to if the nhs didn't tell you . right. and, the didn't tell you. right. and, the and there's two really bad things going on here. number one, you know, if you are actually being a good mother, you hug your kid all the you can't hug your kid all the time because you've got to, you know, their soiled clothes know, wash their soiled clothes and dinner and yes, and cook their dinner and yes, you know, the things that you know, do all the things that mean child. also mean raising a child. but also the bottom it says , you the bottom line of it says, you know, physical contact or something builds brain connection . so you shouldn't hug connection. so you shouldn't hug your kid because love them your kid because you love them and lovely. yes. but you and they're lovely. yes. but you should hug them because it builds synapses . so it's builds brain synapses. so it's this horrible, sterile this really horrible, sterile way of looking at child development or looking at raising children . and actually, raising children. and actually, it's so insane that the minister for health, andrea leadsom, did this sort of press release to press release to announce it. and said in the 1001 days and she said in the 1001 days from pregnancy , pregnancy like from pregnancy, pregnancy like conception, like the minute you have sex to their second

birthday, these are the days in which the future of their mental health will be decided. and that's just utter lunacy. >> i mean, i mean, that sounds mad. >> it's completely mad, but it's also a really it's really damaging for parents. it's such a huge amount of pressure to put on.and a huge amount of pressure to put on. and it's always women, particularly women. and you already crippled by guilt already are crippled by guilt when you like i'm doing at the moment. drop them off at nursery and they cry at the nursery gates or, you know, you, you feel like you haven't put your all peekaboo, which is one all into peekaboo, which is one of the posters, because you're knackered, because had knackered, because they've had you half night. and you half up half the night. and then have this sort of then to have this sort of messaging, breathing your then to have this sort of mess.tellingreathing your then to have this sort of mess.telling you hing your then to have this sort of mess.telling you that your then to have this sort of mess.telling you that there your neck, telling you that there will consequences you will be consequences unless you do right . will be consequences unless you do right. think it's a do this right. i think it's a terrible amount of pressure being on parents. can ask being put on parents. can i ask no reason? being put on parents. can i ask no why n? being put on parents. can i ask no why is it that successive >> why is it that successive governments think governments seem to think that these any effect these campaigns have any effect whatsoever? i mean, we saw in scotland the hate monster campaign, where puppet campaign, where a puppet lectures nicer to lectures you to be nicer to strangers . but the point is that strangers. but the point is that no one reacts well to this. no one that says, oh, one sees that and says, oh, i will, will change my will, i will change my behaviour. you government.

behaviour. thank you government. when happened? behaviour. thank you government. whywell, happened? behaviour. thank you government. whywell, well happened? behaviour. thank you government. whywell, well actuallyppened? behaviour. thank you government. whywell, well actually itened? >> well, well actually it is changing behaviour, changing people's behaviour, but not better . so i, you not for the better. so i, you know, spend a lot of time in playgroups and things like that and they're full of really nervous women who are, because again, mostly mums who are treat their kids like, you know, and i mean this in sort of a nice way, like tamagotchis, it's like you're terrified about if you're doing the right thing. have have they had the broccoli today? have they the tummy time. have they done the tummy time. have they done the tummy time. have done. tick tick have they done. tick. tick tick tick they're not tick tick. and they're not actually raising their kid in a way that's enjoyable for them. so i think it is having a direct effect. but of course this current government didn't invent this. this is sort of hangover from start from new labour's sure start scheme, all about scheme, which was all about a kind of a social engineering project. you know, with a bonus of some childcare which has been stripped away. now there's hardly any of that but a hardly any of that left but a sort a social engineering sort of a social engineering project . that said, we're project. that said, we're going to inequality by to fix social inequality by making that parents, making sure that poor parents, the poor parents get the kids of poor parents get away from home life and mix with

some richer kids and hopefully pick up some good habits. and it was a really it's been a really corrosive intervention into family life through that has come blossomed all nhs come blossomed all these nhs campaigns sort of campaigns and the sort of horrible irony of all of it, is that the nhs, to my mind, has no right lecturing parents on how to raise their kids because at the moment, with the maternity scandal, is failing to scandal, the nhs is failing to bnng scandal, the nhs is failing to bring into the world bring babies into the world alive on a quite astonishing scale at the moment. so, you know , to have to have that know, to have to have that happening and then be sort of finger wagged by campaigns at, you what i'm the fact that you know what i'm the fact that it's the worst, you know, international war crime that i give my toddler a bit of squash is, you know, i think that's what really that's what really kicks in. >> well, i was going to ask because on the basis of you because on the basis of what you said, imagine these campaigns said, i imagine these campaigns aren't isn't there aren't cheap, isn't there something government aren't cheap, isn't there sometbeg government aren't cheap, isn't there sometbe doing government aren't cheap, isn't there sometbe doing financially ment aren't cheap, isn't there sometbe doing financially orent could be doing financially or spending the money in a better way for new parents? >> a couple crashes, >> yeah, a couple of crashes, you of some you know, a couple of some better childcare be just better childcare would be just would alleviate so many family

pressures. >> pressures. >> but also, think it's , you >> but also, i think it's, you know, it's really a policy know, it's not really a policy issue. links to sort of issue. it links to the sort of hate crime stuff. it hate crime monster stuff. it links the things that are links to the things that are going on in schools with gender ideology. is this sort of ideology. there is this sort of nofion ideology. there is this sort of notion that parents left alone to their children as they to raise their children as they see fit are a dangerous, and children will come out harmed from that. and parents making decisions, whether it be about religion or ethics or morals or what goes in their play or how long you know how you organise family life. yes, can't happen freely. it has to happen under a sort of with with a state surveillance. >> so you mean schools not telling their kids that their parents that they've changed gender or that kind of thing, or the the scotland's named the or the scotland's named person where the person scheme, where the scottish to scottish government tried to assign guardian , state assign a guardian, a state guardian child. yeah. assign a guardian, a state gueand] child. yeah. assign a guardian, a state gueand i child. yeah. assign a guardian, a state gueand i mean, child. yeah. assign a guardian, a state gueand i mean, youild. yeah. assign a guardian, a state gueand i mean, you know,3h. assign a guardian, a state gueand i mean, you know, there's >> and i mean, you know, there's slightly controversial, but slightly more controversial, but there whole row about there was the whole row about there was the whole row about the ban, which again, there was the whole row about the whateveran, which again, there was the whole row about the whatever you vhich again, there was the whole row about the whatever you think again, there was the whole row about the whatever you think about which whatever you think about smacking, understand which whatever you think about smaydoesn't understand which whatever you think about smaydoesn't really understand which whatever you think about smaydoesn't really work.1nderstand which whatever you think about smaydoesn't really work. never:and that doesn't really work. never mind being of maybe mind it being sort of maybe a bit but the idea that bit outdated, but the idea that you criminalise, know,

you would criminalise, you know, you would criminalise, you know, you a you would put such a surveillance and criminalise parents raise their parents on how they raise their kids into this idea that, kids feeds into this idea that, you know, adults be you know, adults can't be trusted to do the most natural and commonsensical thing, which is kids. i mean, even the is raise kids. i mean, even the word parenting i have an issue with, because it's turned into this sort horrendous concept this sort of horrendous concept that's full of rules and lists and, and judgement, not healthy judgement , and, and judgement, not healthy judgement, but sort of corrosive judgement, but sort of corrosive judgement, when in actual fact it's just raising children . i it's just raising children. i think we really need parents need to start not quite . i mean, need to start not quite. i mean, i'm going to start pulling down the posters in my nursery because the spaces are so sought after. want to stay in there. after. i want to stay in there. but we have to start saying, for god's this is just not god's sake, this is just not helping. actual fact, i helping. and in actual fact, i think you the people think it's, you know, the people keep going about the birth keep going on about the birth rate low and one rate being so low and no one wanting to have any kids. i understand because you're understand why, because you're not a kid and having not just having a kid and having a family having a nice a nice family and having a nice time. you're you're embarking on this everyone this project of which everyone from midwife to andrea from the midwife to andrea leadsom to the nhs local sort of

do gooder is looking at you and watching you doing. and we actually should. i don't want to be kumbaya about this, but you know, get back to sort know, i want to get back to sort of takes a village raise of it takes a village to raise a child aspect because children of it takes a village to raise a chil(benefit because children of it takes a village to raise a chil(benefit beca this. hildren will benefit from this. and i think the last i think probably the last thing i want that you look want to say is that you look around in, particularly in sort of middle haunts of cafes of middle class haunts of cafes and things like that, and you see products of these see all these products of these intensive parenting, gentle parenting, they're monsters. they're absolute monsters. so this is wrong. the nhs doesn't know how raise your kids know how to raise your kids better you do. better than you do. >> very ella >> you know very well ella whelan, for whelan, thanks so much for joining me . and coming up on joining me. and coming up on free speech nation, i'm going to be speaking to sculptor sabin howard, his amazing world war i memorial is going to be unveiled in washington, dc later this yeah in washington, dc later this year. we're going to be talking all about that. please don't go anywhere.

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. a new world war i memorial is due to be installed in washington, dc later this year. a soldier's

journey will be america's first national memorial to those us servicemen who lost their lives in the first world war. american sculptor sabin howard and the pangoun sculptor sabin howard and the pangolin foundry in stroud have taken ten years to create the life sized battle scene, which depicts 38 figures. and to tell me more, i am joined now by the master sculptor himself, sabin. welcome to the show for having me on today. really appreciate you coming on. congratulations on the piece. it is utterly spectacular . i very much looking spectacular. i very much looking forward to seeing it in the flesh. can you tell us about the genesis of this project? where did begin , so this was a did it begin, so this was a global team that ran in 2015. there were 350, design teams that entered and we won this project and, from there, then i had to go through government agency approval and, after that aspect, we had to figure out how to do this, in a very short amount of time . amount of time. >> could you tell me a bit?

>> could you tell me a bit? >> can you hear me? >> can you hear me? >> all right. yes. i'm just heanng >> all right. yes. i'm just hearing you now , sorry. sabin. hearing you now, sorry. sabin. so you've created this piece. can you tell us a little? and it's obviously depicting soldiers, through the through the war and what they went through, do you have a particular approach to this kind of thing? what is it that you were trying to convey through these ? these depictions? >> yeah, you know, here's the thing. get a giant project thing. you get a giant project like this, and there's all these people that are jumping out. all of a sudden everyone is a sculpture expert. and i had to hold on to my vision, which is very much based on the renaissance idea that we are sculpting humanity . and from sculpting humanity. and from that perspective, i took the way that perspective, i took the way that i worked, which was working from a life model and then translating that into sculpture, i went out and got a actors, and i went out and got a actors, and i dressed them up in, real uniforms, actual uniforms. we found photographs in some of those uniforms of the people's

family , i took 12,000 images and family, i took 12,000 images and iended family, i took 12,000 images and i ended up doing 18 iterations, from that last iteration, we came up with a soldier's journey. so this is a story, really, about a father. that father is an allegory for the united states, it is also , a united states, it is also, a soldier. and it's the hero's journey where someone leaves home. so in this case, he left, leaves his family behind , enters leaves his family behind, enters into the brotherhood of arms, and then leads a battle. and then from that battle becomes , then from that battle becomes, he's shell shocked and from that, that's the focus of the whole composition , and then he whole composition, and then he returns home at the very end, handing his daughter his helmet and that that daughter and that helmet are representation of world war two. so i think what was really important to do was make a project that an eighth grader could understand and

would also be very exciting because, look, let's face it , because, look, let's face it, art has taken a beating. it's there's no sense of value in sacredness anymore. and my sense was like, you need to do something really that elevates human spirit. talks about rising to the occasion and forget about victimisation. this is a sculpture about empowerment, i ended up using real military men, people that had been in battle. i use six veterans as models . those models are on that models. those models are on that bronze relief, so they will be immortalised forever. there expressions show what it is to be a soldier to and do something thatis be a soldier to and do something that is it's daunting to enter into combat and then return home. >> i think a lot of people will be looking at that sculpture and thinking, wow , this does not thinking, wow, this does not look like your typical modern art think there's art piece. i think there's something in the modern art world art, the world where conceptual art, the idea something that doesn't idea of something that doesn't raise the levels the raise us to the levels of the numinous, you know, sort numinous, you know, doesn't sort of the human spirit that of elevate the human spirit that almost of approach is,

almost that kind of approach is, is mistrusted and seen as a bit outdated . i mean, do you think outdated. i mean, do you think i'm right about that? >> think you're spot on >> yeah. i think you're spot on when you say that. think when you say that. i think there's a real effort to there's been a real effort to decimate value decimate anything of value or something sacred, not, something that's sacred, not, you know, forget about doing a story about human beings. it's not even part of the present narrative of what the art world can do. so this is a very rebellious act on my part. it's meant to change the direction of art. and we've been going on around 100 years now since world war one, where you had this decimation of how man perceived himself prior to world war i, there was a divine order. there was a sense of god and all of a sudden, you know, 22 million people are decimated . of course, people are decimated. of course, we're going to get a different view of like , you know, us. it's view of like, you know, us. it's one of alienation. it's where modernism actually starts. so we're coming full circle on this project. i'm taking it back to 100 years ago when the war, just

before the war. and i'm making something that has the great sense of unity here. okay, we got 38 figures, but mind you, this is one, one sculpture. that sculpture speaks from 100ft away or five feet away. there's an intimacy to it. what? you look at those human beings, and when you move back, you see the whole story unfold from left to right and, you that's not something that's going on today in the art world. >> it's very interesting that, i mean, when i see pieces of work like this, i think the word that spnngs like this, i think the word that springs to my mind is or, you know, when you go into the sistine chapel, when you go to the parthenon. i was recently at the parthenon. i was recently at the cathedral in seville, and you there, you see the artworks there, and you see the artworks there, and you the sense of you get filled with the sense of awe and wonder and the capability humankind when capability of humankind when it comes art . and that seems to comes to art. and that seems to be something that, i mean, are you suggesting we might be able to reclaim, that kind of thing? >> so why why wouldn't we? >> well, so why why wouldn't we? it's like it. you're saying it

exactly the way i would say it, art represents us. how do we want to be represented? i don't really want to be represented by a bunch of cinderblocks on the ground. on the floor. i want to be represented by something that's, you know, really amazing . it's all inspiring. and i really like that you bring up michelangelo's sistine chapel , michelangelo's sistine chapel, it played a really big part in in me getting a clear head about what i should do. so in my studio, in my studio, i have a, in the bathroom area. i have a poster of the sistine chapel, the last judgement, actually. and in the beginning of the project, everybody is saying, okay, we want more barbed wire, we want more horses. we want more men running over the top. we more biplanes . and my we want more biplanes. and my head, you know, it's about to explode. i have coming out explode. i have smoke coming out my and so i look at my ears. and so i go look at this poster and i hear in my head, do what you know. and i looked at that poster, it's like humanity all pretzeled together,

advancing and receding in space. every one of us will meet our maker, you know . and i looked at maker, you know. and i looked at that poster. i said, i'm going to do that with the world war i memorial. so the world war i memorial. so the world war i memorial is the interdigitation of all these figures, all showing the different emotions that run and course through human beings from heroism to fear to sadness. you know, all these things are things that are intangible. and i have made them physically present in reality in a bronze sculpture to explain who we are 100 years ago. but the beauty is, and it's not really a beautiful thing when you think about it, these wars continue on the war to end all wars is really it hasn't ended. and so you have veterans now that will come to this in our country, afghanistan, iraq, you know, some from the korean war and vietnam war. and they will see their story within this because it's a historical piece.

don't get me wrong on that. they're wearing the uniforms of those world war i soldiers, but us, any soldier, even one from the uk and britain who comes to see this piece, will recognise his story within it. see this piece, will recognise his story within it . and i think his story within it. and i think that's really important to connect with human beings. >> and finally, if you could just tell us about where it's going to be unveiled, unveiled and when . and when. >> all right. so then this is, on september 13th of this year, i would i will be unveiling and what we're going to do is we're going to do a candlelit vigil, i expect a lot of veterans to show up for that vigil. the sun sets at 719 that night, and it is at pershing park, which is 150 yards away from the white house and this is a moment that we will recognise the soldiers that have fought and given of themselves physically and mentally . many of them come mentally. many of them come back, you know, not not whole. and this is a way to give back

to a service that is truly sacred because there is no there's nothing more noble than to give of oneself for one country. i want country. and i just want to mention the biggest thing mention here the biggest thing that through this that i learned through this project be in service of project was to be in service of something larger than oneself, is what gives you empowerment. it gives you the sense to proceed forward because you are not just relying on your own ego and your own self, and this is a value that extends back in history . so i'm playing forward history. so i'm playing forward history. so i'm playing forward history and i'm saying western civilisation does have a role in proceeding forward. it is about us. why would we cancel that? that's inspiring stuff. >> sabine howard, congratulations and thanks very much for joining congratulations and thanks very much forjoining me. my pleasure . and next on free speech nation, owen jones puts his foot in it again and a guest on antiques road show gets more than she bargained for. it's almost time for social sensations. go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me. andrew doyle. it's time for social sensations. that's the part of the show where we look at what's been going viral this week on social media. so political media. so first up, political commentator jones sparked commentator owen jones sparked plenty of anger this week online when was discussing arms when he was discussing arms sales to israel, and he suggested germans were suggested the germans were making palestinians to making palestinians pay due to their the their own guilt over the holocaust. a look. holocaust. let's have a look. >> oh, right, britain >> oh, you're right, britain doesn't that many arms. >> oh, you're right, britain doezif't that many arms. >> oh, you're right, britain doezif it that many arms. >> oh, you're right, britain doezif it ends that many arms. >> oh, you're right, britain doezif it ends arms many arms. >> oh, you're right, britain doezif it ends arms sales, arms. >> oh, you're right, britain doezif it ends arms sales, that;. but if it ends arms sales, that then huge pressure on then puts huge pressure on germany which decided to germany, which has decided to make people pay make the palestinian people pay for crimes it for the grievous crimes it committed by attempting to exterminate people . exterminate the jewish people. that's some distance. and germany decided can make germany has decided it can make up obscene guilt by up for its obscene guilt by forcing somebody for forcing somebody else to pay for the crimes that germany committed. it's a very straightforward point. there's nothing offensive about it. >> something i've >> this is something i've noficed >> this is something i've noticed with owen jones. he has this tendency to mind read. he has this idea that he

understands what everyone's secret including understands what everyone's secret governments. including understands what everyone's secret governments. it's uding understands what everyone's secret governments. it's aiing understands what everyone's secret governments. it's a real whole governments. it's a real flaw pretty much everything whole governments. it's a real fla does. retty much everything he does. >> yeah , and i suspect it's some >> yeah, and i suspect it's some kind of projection. so what's he guilty about? i don't he's seeing his own values. >> let's not do the thing that he does. >> well, i can't be specific, but you know, he's. yes. fair enough. >> but what a bizarre thing to say. yeah, absolutely. >> isn't it rather offensive? >> so on brand. yeah. >> so on brand. yeah. >> there's nothing more powerful than story, is than a made up story, is there, to and make point. i to try and make your point. i mean, thing that he mean, the whole thing that he said assumes that all germans, by were nazis , which is by the way, were nazis, which is not true either. so it's collectively the modern germans are responsible. so they're feeling that guilt . i mean, all feeling that guilt. i mean, all of his premises, all of the premises of the people that sit that on the left are that that far on the left are that you hold guilt from the you must hold the guilt from the past. you must, you must, you must. you we all must hold must. you know, we all must hold guilt the slave and guilt from the slave trade and etc, it's owen jones can etc, etc. it's owen jones can only remain relevant all the time that guilt is there. as soon as that guilt goes, as soon

as we all wake up and go, do you know what that was? the past. this is not what's happening now. you can up as much as now. you can make up as much as you to you like, but we're going to dismiss we're going to dismiss it and we're going to move forward. >> be just helpful >> wouldn't it be just helpful to holocaust comparisons to avoid holocaust comparisons when the current when it comes to the current conflict? yeah. >> haven't done other >> they haven't done other people have they, people much good, have they, well, like it's well, it feels like it's minimising on, minimising what went on, you know, bringing when know, by bringing it in when it's not really relevant. yeah, it's not really relevant. yeah, it's just invoking it. it's like trying to be dramatic. it's not. it's not appropriate. >> what's on in >> i mean, what's going on in palestine it's not palestine is a war. it's not ethnic cleansing. >> exactly. >> yes, yes, exactly. >> yes, yes, exactly. >> let's on to >> anyway, let's move on to something a bit lighter. something now. a bit lighter. this lady who innocently this is a lady who innocently took along to be valued took a bangle along to be valued by the antiques road show crew last week, not one of the band. it an item and more than she it was an item and more than she bargained for when expert ronnie archer it had archer morgan realised it had links to the slave trade. let's watch this ivory bangle here. >> it's not about trading in ivory, it's about trading in human life. yes, and it's probably one of the most

difficult things that i've ever had to talk about. i just don't want to value it . i do not want want to value it. i do not want to put a price on something that signifies such an awful business. i just love you for bringing it to the roadshow. and thank you so much for making me so sad . so sad. >> well, he's right, slavery was abhorrent and terribly sad. but should he have valued the bracelet he could have done? >> i mean, he was making a point i >> -- >> it wasn't berating her, though. >> no, he did say to her, thank thank you for bringing it along and making me cry, which was, weird, yeah , i can understand weird, yeah, i can understand it. right? you know, it could be. it could be classed as virtue signalling. however to it, the connotations, i mean, it's the bracelet as well. these things were used to bound people. >> yeah. they're horrible. yeah. >> yeah. they're horrible. yeah. >> so, so however, i would imagine a lot of things that come onto the antiques roadshow do have a link to something

nasty. >> i imagine they do . nasty. >> i imagine they do. i nasty. >> i imagine they do . i mean, >> i imagine they do. i mean, most historical artefacts are probably, know, i'd be very probably, you know, i'd be very surprised if they didn't have some problematic links. but, you know, i have to doubt know, i have no reason to doubt the of his feeling on that. >> no. >> no. >> absolutely not. and to be fair to the program, they they aired did the object. aired it. they did the object. they didn't say we can't possibly they didn't say we can't pos conversation. great the conversation. great >> yep. all right. well, look, we've just time look we've just got time to look through unfiltered dilemmas through your unfiltered dilemmas . appreciate you . i really appreciate you emailing with your emailing in every week with your problems. and our dilemma problems. and our first dilemma comes in from mary. and mary says, sister says, what the hell? my sister has boyfriend to the has added her boyfriend to the family whatsapp group she's family whatsapp group and she's only for four only been seeing him for four months. this too early now? months. is this too early now? i don't even have somewhere to complain about it. it's definitely, think, family definitely, i think, a family whatsapp group has to be private so we can complain about spouses, partners. that kind of friends. >> no no no, come on. >> n0 no no, come on. >>— >> no no no, come on. >> mary doesn't understand how whatsapp works . now you just whatsapp works. now you just start another group that he's not in. that's it works. not in. that's how it works. >> oh, but it's evolving. >> oh, but it's evolving. >> then it's deception. >> then it's deception. >> well, obviously >> yes. well, obviously it's involving >> yes. well, obviously it's inv

>> but also, isn't this this person pushy sort of person is being pushy sort of saying, no, he's part the saying, no, no, he's part of the family right. that's that's family now. right. that's that's the here. the implication here. >> she to get her >> she he she, she to get her own back have introduced >> she he she, she to get her own to ck have introduced >> she he she, she to get her own to ck group have introduced >> she he she, she to get her own to ck group asve introduced >> she he she, she to get her own to ck group as a introduced >> she he she, she to get her own to ck group as a intrcloand him to the group as a new loan signing so he he is he is signing so that he he is he is he's a new signing and he's lucky to here for about three lucky to be here for about three months. yes. >> interesting. >> and that's interesting. >> and that's interesting. >> then she could have gone, >> and then she could have gone, you know, welcome to my sister's latest boyfriend. we look forward to him being around for about weeks. about six weeks. >> quickly. have >> very quickly. we'll have a quick dilemma rachel. quick dilemma from rachel. rachel says i due to be a rachel says i was due to be a bridesmaid at friend's bridesmaid at a friend's wedding, complained wedding, but she complained i was enough was not showing enough enthusiasm where was not showing enough entiphased where was not showing enough entiphased out where was not showing enough entiphased out totally here was not showing enough entiphased out totally and she phased me out totally and i didn't an invite. i'm didn't even get an invite. i'm seeing next weekend. seeing her next weekend. how should it? this should i play it? yeah, this idea that have to do this idea that you have to do this performative about performative enthusiasm about a wedding boring, wedding weddings are boring, you know, honestly, should know, like, honestly, why should you bother? know, like, honestly, why should you bothdress. i don't know, >> nice dress. i don't know, nice dress. >> she's dodged >> i think she's she's dodged a bullet there. >> it sounds like >> well, yeah, it sounds like i don't know she's don't know what she's complaining about. she's at lack of enthusiasm. let her of enthusiasm. her mates let her go. yeah. go. fine. yeah. >> friends? >> still friends? >> still friends? >> don't you find that people getting married, they expect you to over? to be all over? >> if she wanted to be part of it, she should do she should

it, she should do it. she should have the enthusiasm to be have shown the enthusiasm to be part got to part of it. we've all got to pretend, haven't we? yeah. you know, the idea being know, i mean, the idea of being a bridesmaid, it has never happened andrew. happened for me, andrew. no. and to honest, they're still to be honest, if they're still looking will do it. looking for one, i will do it. will yeah it's part my will you? yeah it's part of my it's part it's on my bucket it's part of it's on my bucket list. want be a bridesmaid. list. i want to be a bridesmaid. make it happen. >> note, thank you >> okay, on that note, thank you for us free speech for joining us for free speech nation. was week when nation. this was the week when the hate crime law came the scottish hate crime law came into the writers a into effect. the writers of a roald dahl follow found roald dahl follow up found themselves water and free themselves in hot water and free speech themselves in hot water and free speecithanks to panel, brazil thanks to my panel, cressida and cox to cressida wetton and paul cox to all if you want to all my guests. if you want to join us live the studio, be join us live in the studio, be part of the audience. just go to sro audiences. mark dolan sro audiences. .com, mark dolan tonight at sro audiences. .com, mark dolan tonigfeaturing at sro audiences. .com, mark dolan tonigfeaturing paul at sro audiences. .com, mark dolan tonigfeaturing paul and at 11:00 featuring paul and cressida. so much for cressida. thanks so much for joining see you next week joining me. see you next week. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers . sponsors of boxt boilers. sponsors of weather on . gb news.

weather on. gb news. >> hello. here's your latest weather update from the met office. we hold on to rather unsettled weather across the uk dunng unsettled weather across the uk during week ahead. further during the week ahead. further spells most areas and spells of rain in most areas and often windy. two storm often quite windy. two storm kathleen started away kathleen started to move away towards north and northeast towards the north and northeast of the uk now, but notice low pressure gathering again pressure gathering once again towards southwest it's towards the southwest and it's this will bring further wet this that will bring further wet and weather over the next and windy weather over the next couple days. the couple of days. back to the detail evening and detail for this evening and overnight and a fairly overnight and it's a fairly quiet picture for many areas, at overnight and it's a fairly quiet forture for many areas, at overnight and it's a fairly quiet for a re for many areas, at overnight and it's a fairly quiet for a time, many areas, at overnight and it's a fairly quiet for a time, becausezas, at overnight and it's a fairly quiet for a time, because notice least for a time, because notice there's weather there's a more wet weather coming in across the southwest of parts of wales, of the uk into parts of wales, and the very blustery showers we've up towards and the very blustery showers we"north—west up towards and the very blustery showers we"north—west gradually s the north—west will gradually ease into the early hours. temperatures dipping down to mid single figures towards north single figures towards the north under spells under the clearest spells overnight, starting rise overnight, but starting to rise tonight cloud and rain tonight as the cloud and rain comes from the south and comes up from the south and southwest. there'll some southwest. there'll be some bright around tomorrow bright weather around tomorrow across southern and eastern areas morning, but areas during the morning, but showery bursts of rain already gathering the south gathering down towards the south and , becoming more and southwest, becoming more widespread and southwest, becoming more widesfinto the afternoon and wales into the afternoon and some those turning quite

some of those turning quite heavy. ireland, a heavy. northern ireland, after a bright start, will see some rain in the afternoon. so it's scotland that's set to see the best plenty best of the weather here. plenty of feeling pleasant of sunshine and feeling pleasant enough winds with enough in light winds with temperatures about temperatures up to about 12 degrees. like degrees. tuesday looks like being unsettled day being a very unsettled day across areas. we across all areas. we have warnings force wind and warnings in force for wind and rain. wettest weather. they're likely north—east of rain. wettest weather. they're like uk north—east of rain. wettest weather. they're like uk and north—east of rain. wettest weather. they're like uk and the north—east of rain. wettest weather. they're like uk and the windiest-east of the uk and the windiest conditions generally down towards south southwest . towards the south and southwest. but wherever you are pretty blustery wet day to come and blustery and wet day to come and it quite unsettled it stays quite unsettled during the a bit the week ahead. perhaps a bit warmer bit drier come warmer and a bit drier come thursday, generally thursday, but generally speaking, . speaking, very unsettled. >> looks like things are heating up . boxt boilers sponsors of up. boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> good evening. it's 9:00. on television. on radio and online in the united kingdom and across the world. this is mark dolan

tonight . in the world. this is mark dolan tonight. in my big opinion, a labour government is coming and i haven't met anyone that's looking forward to it. my mark meets guest is the world renowned biographer of king charles, who will give us the inside story of our remarkable monarchs short but challenging reign . in the monarchs short but challenging reign. in the big monarchs short but challenging reign . in the big story, after reign. in the big story, after a shock poll of local tory councillors. are the conservatives now two left wing? i'll be speaking to philip davies mp, who strongly disagrees and makes the case for sunak being the most conservative pm since margaret thatcher and looking forward to this in my take at ten angela rayner and the political scandal that won't go away. i'll be deaung that won't go away. i'll be dealing with labour's deputy leader in no uncertain terms at ten. you won't want to miss it. a really busy and lively show to come. two hours of big opinion,

big debate and big