be taking to the streets of britain this weekend. all well and good. if it's peaceful. but what if it's not.7 we saw yesterday the prime minister talking about this massive clampdown and how he plans to increase the use of things like intelligence sharing and facial recognition. is this all fair or is it a little bit of state overreach.7 your

thoughts also, should serial killers essentially be allowed to marry in prison? killers essentially be allowed to marry in prison.7 i killers essentially be allowed to marry in prison? i laugh because it is so ridiculous, but this is actually a debate that needs to be having today. levi bellfield remember him? he's not allowed to do so. should he be or not? also huw edwards should he have to give his £200,000 pay cheque back? and have you been following this very bizarre setup when it comes to the boxing in the olympics? do you think the ruling is fair? many people saying you've essentially got a situation where you've got a man and a woman in a boxing fing? a man and a woman in a boxing ring? your thoughts ? all of ring? your thoughts? all of that, amal. but first, the 6:00 news. >> michelle, thank you very much. and good evening to you. it's just after 6:00. the top story tonight. the prime minister has returned to southport today, visiting the

town for the second time this week after monday's knife attack that killed three young girls. there sir keir starmer has met with members of the local community, police officers and health services. he's also paid a visit to alder hey children's hospital in liverpool, where many of the victims of monday's attack were being treated. the prime minister praised the hospital staff for their professionalism in treating the injured, and southport has since seen violent unrest due to false claims about the attacker's identity that was spread on social media, with concerns now of further violence in the liverpool city region over the weekend . sir keir starmer has weekend. sir keir starmer has condemned any hatred on the streets and is calling for a national response to disorder. robert jenrick. this afternoon claimed that the conservatives lost the general election in july because of a broken promise. on immigration. the former immigration minister was speaking at the launch of his campaign to become leader of the tories and to succeed rishi sunak, mrjenrick also claimed the british political system has appeared . he said either

appeared. he said either unwilling or unable to secure the uk's borders broke our promise to the british public to deliver controlled and reduced migration and the secure border that the public rightly demand. >> we allowed the cycle of broken promises to continue and as a minister, when i concluded that i couldn't secure any more changes to our legal migration system, i resigned from cabinet last year . last year. >> a mural of the former newsreader huw edwards in his home village in carmarthenshire has been removed. the artwork has been removed. the artwork has now been painted over while institutions including bangor and cardiff university are reviewing their ties with the x presenter after he admitted to accessing indecent images of children. the culture secretary, lisa nandy, is calling on the to bbc reclaim the £200,000 in salary that mr edwards received between his arrest in november

and his resignation in april this year . and his resignation in april this year. we've heard tonight that 96 migrants are suing the uk government, claiming they were badly treated at the manston processing centre in kent. their lawyers claim the group were unlawfully detained between september and november 2022, with allegations also including a lack of access to hygiene products , forced removal hygiene products, forced removal of hijabs and reportedly inadequate conditions for children and pregnant women. the high courts granted the 96 asylum seekers anonymity , asylum seekers anonymity, claiming they could be at risk if identified. the home office hasn't yet filed their defence. three us citizens who were freed in the biggest prisoner swap between russia and the west in decades, are now back on american soil, among them are us reporter evan gershkovich, who was arrested last march. he was charged with gathering secret information on cia orders, which he denies. vladimir kara—murza, a british russian citizen, was also released in exchange for

eight russian prisoners. also released in exchange for eight russian prisoners . among eight russian prisoners. among those let out in return was an assassin serving life in germany . assassin serving life in germany. and in sport, great britain are having a successful day at the paris games, with further medal hopesin paris games, with further medal hopes in store tonight . golds in hopes in store tonight. golds in rowing, equestrian and trampolining have taken team gb up to third now in the medal table. and tonight bmx rider bethany shriever and swimmers ben proud, duncan scott and tom dean are all among the british hopefuls . and finally, some hopefuls. and finally, some troubling news. if you are a fan of crumpets, some batches have been removed from supermarket shelves today because they may contain pieces of metal . the contain pieces of metal. the food standards agency says certain batches of morrisons crumpets with a best before of either the 6th or the 7th of august, could be they say, unsafe to eat. and that warning also applies to the hovis brand, with the same dates . so do be with the same dates. so do be careful if you're picking up any of those packets. those are the latest gb news headlines for now, i'm sam francis. plenty

more still to come throughout the evening. up next though, it's michelle. >> for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . forward slash alerts. >> goodness me. look at those headunes >> goodness me. look at those headlines though it seems even crumpets are not safe. now. what is this? well coming to at least crumpets haven't yet been called far right , so crumpets haven't yet been called far right, so there is still a little bit of faux pas michelle dewberry. i'm with you until 7:00 tonight. the conservative life peer in the house of lords, daniel moylan, alongside me and the trade unionist and author paul embery is too. good evening to both of you. good evening. something very disturbing that you were chuntering to me whilst we were listening to that crumpet story. you were saying that no one should be in crumpets. in august anyway. what are you talking about? >> crumpets aren't for aukus, crumpets or winter food. nobody

eats crumpets in august. >> well, evidently they do. >> well, evidently they do. >> well, evidently they do. >> well, they shouldn't be peers of the realm like you probably don't eat crumpets ever at all. it's a proper working class delicacy. >> not crumpets are a great thing to eat on the end of a fork, toasted in front of an open, roaring fire. god in the middle. in the middle of the winter and then drenched in butter. i did a very bad for my waistline, which is why i don't eat them a lot. but i love them. >> didn't have you down as a crumpet, man, daniel. i've got to be honest. >> how the other half live roasting their crumpets in an open fireplace. we've never done anything of the sort of you. one of the raging arguments i have in my household all the time, well, not all the time, actually . well, not all the time, actually. frequently is whether or not those things are crumpets or pikelets. i grew up calling them pikelets. i grew up calling them pikelets. i grew up calling them pikelets. i always remain adamant. what? that's what they are pikelets are different. this is what this is why i make the housei is what this is why i make the house i knew about pikelets are small and thin and all the rest. that's what everyone tells crumpet. >> they don't have all the holes in them. >> is this an order? this is an order thing. >> i don't know if you're in the

nonh >> i don't know if you're in the north tonbridge you agree with me? do you call a crumpet a pikelet or am i just losing my marbles? anyway, look, there's lots i want to talk to you about tonight. not just crumpets, you know, the drill, don't you? how you can get in touch with me tonight? you can email me gb views @gbnews. com. you can go to the website gbnews.com/yoursay and talk to me and each other there. i haven't said hello to you yet on there, but i will bear with me. or you can tweet or text me @gbnews. but wherever you're watching or listening, you're very, very welcome tonight. now should we kick off them with our top story? we all know what's been going on, up and down the country when it comes to people taking to the streets to share their anger, their frustration with that horrendous murder of those three little girls and the assaults and attempted murder on many of the others. absolutely appalling feelings, still running very, very high across the country while we saw our prime minister, didn't we, keir starmer yesterday addressed the nation, rightly so, condemning the violence against people, property and places of worship,

worship and then announcing a crackdown. national crime units, the expansion of facial recognition, systems joined up working when it comes to the police, shared intelligence and so on. and so forth. obviously, i've got to point out again that it completely failed, to even look at a single reason why anybody might even be taking to the streets in the first place. so how effective his speech was, is a little bit questionable, if you ask me . anyway, people are you ask me. anyway, people are saying that lots of people are planning to take to the streets this weekend in protest and, of course, counter protest. what do you think then , to this you think then, to this expansion of things like facial recognition, etc? >> well, first of all, there's no excuse whatsoever for violence against the police , violence against the police, against property or against innocent people. and the prime minister says that should be cracked down on then. he's right. we need the police should be there to protect us from that. and we should be supporting him in doing that. i

do think, however, that he's fallen back very easily into a sort of left wing narrative , sort of left wing narrative, which is that this is all about the far right and the far, which is never defined. and the far right is bad. he's never actually said these things should also apply to people who are demonstrating, on behalf of other causes, where the police are very, very gingerly in the way in which they deal with them, as far as i can see. so crackdown by all means, but it needs to be even handed. that's the first thing. and the next thing is will be, no, i don't trust it will be. because, as i say, he falls back very comfortably into this narrative that we've got this major, far right problem in this country where many of us think we have problem across the spectrum with violence or at both ends of the spectrum, and that the police aren't dealing with it in an even handed sort of way. we saw this over the gaza demonstrations and things like that. and the violence, the sporadic violence that wasn't all violent. of course, majority of it wasn't. but the sporadic violence and threat and aggression that arose in the

context of those demonstrations where the police behaved in a very different way. so i think, you know, he needs to be more even handed about it. i think there's also this question of trying to understand what is going on. i don't understand what's going on. there are two narratives, aren't there? one is that there are people out there, ordinary people who are outraged at this event and feel that there is a lot of crime going on, much of it in their minds, associated with immigrants, which needs to be stopped. the other is that it's being organised by a small group of, of people who haven't been named, but who are organising this, who have got, you know, organised buses and coaches and get people on trains and things like that, and that it isn't a spontaneous population at all. it's an organised, thuggish population. >> i don't know which, by the way, i am playing some, clips from a protest that was at downing street. well, i mean, have you seen how these police are behaving, that fella that you've just witnessed on your

screen, he was stood there. he was punched in the face by what i'm seeing punched in the face. there we go again. look at this. he's just standing there. ian. what? we're describing someone that's lobbing bricks is getting battered in the face and now is yanked onto the floor. did you see that knee, everybody? did you see that police officer's knee? was there any need for that level of police? what i would call it's almost borderline brutality. look at that. do you ever see anyone getting treated like that at a palestine march? nope do you ever see anyone that thinks that they can gather around police stations dictating law and order, getting treated like that ? order, getting treated like that? nope. paul embery, your thoughts ? nope. paul embery, your thoughts? >> look, i don't think protesters should have gone to southport on that evening, to a town in grief and certainly shouldn't have a lot of them was from there. well, some of them were, but some of them weren't, and they certainly shouldn't have carried out the violence that some of them did. that's indefensible and needs to be condemned in the strongest terms . condemned in the strongest terms. but it is totally lazy just to

dismiss people the whole time as as being far right. it is now the go to label to attack any kind of working class rebellion. frankly, not that that that defends some of the actions that we've seen. i think you do need to call people out and condemn them where they inflict violence on on people's property and on other innocent human beings , but other innocent human beings, but it isn't good enough to dismiss people as just saying you're from the far right. bbc verify published an article today, no less, and even they said and i tweeted it earlier. even they said in that article that not everyone there was there was no obvious far right organisation involved and not everyone who went to southport was involved in fringe politics or could be dismissed as somebody on the far right. a lot of them went there because they were worried about the phenomenon of violent crime. and i just feel that if you constantly just dismiss people as being on the far right, then what you end up doing is

debasing the term. so people who really are on the far right suddenly then merge into the mainstream. and when they're called out, they say, well, why are you attacking me for being far right? look, they call they call people who supported brexit far right. >> i said, i'm surprised they're not declaring those crumpets as being far right. >> they call people who oppose open borders far right. they say people who say, say a man can't become a woman. they say those people are far right. so actually the term in the end becomes meaningless. we don't have, in my view, a seriously organised far right in this country. there are some people who genuinely are nazis, people who genuinely are nazis, people who genuinely are fascists. but what i think we're seeing is not the protests of people with far right ideology or of a far right organisation, but people who, although they're expressing it in a very sort of inchoate and in a very sort of inchoate and in some cases violent way , are in some cases violent way, are just at the moment feeling very angry about the direction of the country. and there's all sorts of problems that are stacking up

for this country. and we need to be honest about it. people are suffering from grinding economic insecurity. people see that, you know, low level crime in some cases has effectively been legalised . when you look at bike legalised. when you look at bike theft and phone theft and fare evasion and shoplifting and stuff like that, people see an immigration system that is absolutely broken and they just sense that nobody at the top has got any idea how to fix these things. and i tweeted on the way here, look what i'm showing you here, look what i'm showing you here, because there is no excuse for this. >> i think this one, i think this one is in hartlepool. yeah, this one is in hartlepool. yeah, this is hartlepool and this is no excuse. and one of the things that distressed me actually, was that distressed me actually, was that i had an 11 year old boy, had been, i don't know if he was arrested or questioned or something for setting fire to a police vehicle in hartlepool ii police vehicle in hartlepool 11 years. and i saw some that really broke my heart. >> i saw some footage of hartlepool where it looked like someone of an ethnic minority background was attacked in the street, just walking along the street, just walking along the street , and it's appalling street, just walking along the street, and it's appalling and i hope the people responsible for

that go to jail for a very long time and that cannot be defended. it's absolutely that is despicable. >> it is racist walking down the street and you're walloping him for no reason, presumably. absolutely absolutely. >> it's racist if you attack someone because of the colour of their skin. absolutely. it's racist behaviour and it needs to be called out and the people need to be punished for it. but let's also be clear that that's a minority of people. and there's a broad body of people in this country who are quite angry about the state of the country and feel that there's a chasm between the priorities of the governing elite and the governed, if you like. and i think some of that is starting to play out in some of these protests, as well. and i was going to say, this is not like a 1997 moment. i detect. there is no particular goodwill for keir starmer in this labour government. and i say that as a labour party member of 30 years, even though they were elected just a couple of a few weeks ago on a massive landslide, there's no particular feeling of goodwill. there's a real simmering tension. i think, in this country. this is not like 1997 at all. when, after the

labour government was elected , labour government was elected, there was that sort of feeling of euphoria. there was an upbeat feeling, called britannia and that kind of thing . i think this that kind of thing. i think this is something very, very different and it can play out in various ways, but there's a danger that it's going to play out in a really negative way. >> well, i've realised now we've got this terminology now about being a government of service. did you notice that kept getting repeated yesterday. government service, government service, government service. obviously he will know that only about 20% of the electorate obviously voted for that government. and many people will say, i hear you guys. i listen to you every day. people get in touch and they'll say, we're not far, right, michel? we've just been right so far. and i think that many people, i think that sums up an awful lot of people. >> the question for keir starmer is, you know, let's say you're a non—violent, totally non—violent person and you actually think there's too much immigration. you think there's a problem with the police , not, dealing with the police, not, dealing with low level crime , and you're just low level crime, and you're just unhappy about where things are going. where do you go peacefully exactly ? peacefully. peacefully exactly? peacefully. to complain about this without being called far right?

to complain about this without being called far right ? well, being called far right? well, there's nowhere to go. there's nobody listening to you. the ballot box. >> there's the ballot box. >> there's the ballot box. >> there's the ballot box. >> the ballot box. no, no, no. but where do you go amongst? >> i was about to agree with you. i was going to say the ballot box is supposed to be a pressure relief valve. it's where people should be able to go and say, i'm not happy with this aspect of the way the country is being governed. i want to change it and this is how i'm going to do it. i'm going to put my cross in this box. they did it with brexit. they did it when the tories promised year after year that they would get immigration down. now, if ten, 15 years later, they've been told for all of that time we are going to sort out the borders, we are going to get immigration down. and every year they see it go up and up and up. people then say, well, what is the point of the ballot box? what is the point of democracy? because nobody is listening to us. and that's when you get the scenes that we're seeing on our streets at the moment. >> so a really strange thing in, southport, actually, when it was all unfolding and i don't know if anyone else noticed this, i

was watching it very carefully and there was a group of people that had gone to the streets, in angen that had gone to the streets, in anger, frustration, so on and so forth. they were all there. they didn't have their faces covered. there was no, you know, they were there. and then there was this group, and i don't know if anyone noticed this, within this, kind of collective. and they were almost dressed identically. it was almost like they had some kind of odd, peculiar uniform on black from top to bottom. with their hoodies, like, pulled up black hoodies, like, pulled up black hoodies pulled up right up black, you know, whatever it was, scarves, mask or whatever. right up to their eyes. black jackets, black trousers, as i said, black from top to bottom and they were agitators. yeah and they were the ones that seemed to be right at the front, sparking all the trouble. now, these guys have obviously been classed as far right. who are they ? they? >> yeah, but i'd like to know that as well. >> who is it and how do we know? how does anyone know? actually, it's not about me. how does anybody know that there's actually not agitators that are not agent provocateurs that are not agent provocateurs that are not from the right of politics, that are actually going along to

these kind of gatherings , these kind of gatherings, protests, whatever you want to call it. >> it's probably it's probably not as fanciful as you might think, because in the great miners strike in the 1980s, there were suggestions, and i think some evidence actually , think some evidence actually, that that happened in terms of some of the demonstrations in the protests that were taking place with the miners, that there were agent provocateurs who were who were put in there to make things look much worse than they actually were. so i genuinely don't know the answer. >> conspiracy theory a bit too far for me . far for me. >> well, it is a good look at the role of the look at the role of the state and the police in the miners strike. do you really think that that's a conspiracy theory too far? yeah i do, yeah. >> well, well, there you go. different. >> you're facing a revolution in the miners strike and the police were entitled to take margaret thatcher closed down an entire industry and threw a quarter of a million men on the dole, and they responded by going on strike. >> that's not a revolution. >> that's not a revolution. >> absolutely not. what happened? and you know that that is exactly what they were. they were half of them didn't even

want to strike. they were cajoled into a strike and bullied into a strike by arthur scargill. scargill. the rules, changing the rules, breaking the rules. >> scargill should have should have held a national ballot. i'll go with you on that. but but the idea that calling a strike not over pay not but on the absurd demand that no mine should ever close until it was physically exhausted. >> that was the demand that the num made. that's the guarantee they wanted . that's what they they wanted. that's what they went on strike for. >> they didn't go on. never been for that demand. thatcher decided to close a number of mines. the first mine that she closed was cortonwood colliery. there were some in south yorkshire, and when that one was closed, that's when people voted with their feet and when there were always mines being closed . were always mines being closed. >> in this country, mines have always been. >> it was a political attack on the national union of mineworkers. absolutely not. the idea that it was a revolution is absurd. >> they wanted to bring the government down and the democracy, just as they'd done ten years earlier. >> absolute nonsense. i don't know what the mining strike's got to do with the goings on in britain today. very different. and we were saved from that revolution. what do you think to it at a huge amount of damage

price vie after the break, we shall continue the conversation about the streets of britain because of course, starmer expanded in his statement yesterday on things like the crackdown, the rolling out of surveillance, facial recognition and so on and so forth .do . do you support that move or do think it's an

hello, michelle dewberry with you till 7:00 tonight. daniel moylan, paul embery remain alongside me. i can tell you now all they did during that break is continue rowing about the miners strike, >> daniel ended up agreeing with every word i said, >> it's really got you guys going at home as well. i don't know, i've got the miners strike. but anyway, mel says . strike. but anyway, mel says. before thatcher came to power, labour closed more mines and thatcher did. he might want to research and learn his facts. >> oh, labour did close the mine. 70s. >> that's true, >> that's true, >> yeah. again, paul says, michelle, please can you point

out to paul that thatcher didn't decimate the coal industry more pits were closed under labour then under thatcher. there you 90, then under thatcher. there you go, look . so we started the go, look. so we started the program talking about the fact that people perhaps will be taking to the streets again, this weekend if they do, i really do hope that of course it is peaceful, and i would urge for that. but prime minister sir keir starmer, he's starting to clamp down now when it comes to anyone that thinks he would regard them. as we heard about an expansion of facial recognition, systems and so on and so forth, do you support those measures? >> i'm very worried about the expansion of facial recognition generally by the police. i do support what they you know, as i said, if the prime minister wants to crack down on violent disorder, then i would support him in doing that. i think it needs to be even handed. and i think people need to see that it's even handed. but i am a little bit concerned about facial recognition. but i think the other thing is the police are doing deploying extra officers, bringing them from, you know, putting officers on

trains. for example, i think those are sensible things to do at times like this. we don't want people who are setting out deliberately to break the law to be have life made easy for them in getting there. >> but wasn't he saying something along the lines of if you've got a criminal conviction, they would look to stop you doing things like travelling on the train. yeah, well, i mean, the other thing is they have this power at the moment that relates particularly to football hooligans. >> to prevent them from travelling in the direction of matches on certain days, and i think what he was saying, if i understand it, was he'd be extending that power so that you could be banned from going to certain places, if you had a conviction of some sort. i don't know what sort may be. you know, you've been previously convicted for doing it , you've been previously convicted for doing it, i think that's also going, you know, you know, it's all going a bit far. but what worries me mostly is that it's being used as a tool to build up this narrative about, there's a there's a big, you know, right wing threat, which isn't actually being mirrored even handedly in relation to

violence coming from elsewhere. i mean, our grannies, who are obsessed with the world coming to an end tomorrow, going to be given orders that stop them going to the national gallery to damage pictures, you know, is that going to happen? because i'd like it if you do it to the one, why not to the other. >> paul embery, face shield technology. >> i would normally say it's very sinister and authoritarian and smacks of china, but i'm kind of at the point where i think we have to perhaps give it a fair wind and say we need to try it, because there are some areas of our country which i think are seriously lawless, and where there's an awful lot of disorder and high levels of crime, and that can blight communities. it can blight the lives of ordinary people, usually working class communities are the ones that suffer most from high levels of crime. and if this is a way a bit like cctv, if this is a way

of bringing people to justice and identifying wrongdoers, then i think we should possibly consider it. >> i would like to see it, i think. can i just can i just finish the point? >> i would like to see it restricted. i do not want facial technology. if i'm walking on the devon coast or in the highlands of scotland, i don't think it's necessary there. i don't think government estate should be able to track your every move, but in areas of higher crime, i think there's a there's an argument for it. i didn't think i would ever make that case. >> but in areas of high crime, you've almost certainly already got cctv because we are the most cctv technology in the world. >> better. okay. >> better. okay. >> so if you're talking about crime in the ordinary sense, which usually doesn't involve mobs, you're talking about crime in the ordinary sense. you can usually pick up pictures as we know, of the people who are going in and steaming through shops and shoplifting them, you know , stealing, you know, the know, stealing, you know, the contents of the shop and so on. and gangs, which goes on now, that sort of thing. you can usually get some sort of

pictures of those, facial technology that they're talking aboutis technology that they're talking about is an ability to pick people out in a crowd. it's particularly used. it's particularly used. it's particularly intended to be used in sort of not crime situations , in sort of not crime situations, but protest type, mob type situations. >> steve. that's what worries me. my view is steve makes very good points, says michelle. a quick question what use is facial recognition technology, when these people intent on crime are just going to cover the face anyway? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> what's the answer to that? >> what's the answer to that? >> well, i think there needs to be an argument to say that people shouldn't mask up in pubuc people shouldn't mask up in public places. >> second part of his thing, he says you should be making it illegal for any face coverings. >> i think you'd need to be very careful because if you're going out on a winter's morning and it's minus ten, i think you're perfectly entitled to wrap a scarf around your face and to pull your hood down. and clearly that shouldn't be a crime. i think maybe if you are in a certain place of certain high crime place and there's no practical reason for you to have your face covered on a protest. for example, i've been on lots of protests. i wouldn't dream of

covering my face. i'm proud of the protests that i've been on because i think i'm standing for the right thing and arguing for the right thing and arguing for the right thing and arguing for the right thing. and i would say to people, if you're going to protest and if you've got nothing to hide, assuming you're nothing to hide, assuming you're not going to commit violence, then actually show your face and be proud about being on the protest motorcycle helmets. well again, if you're going into if you're going into a for bank example, daniel, i think it's reasonable to say to someone, you take the helmet off before you take the helmet off before you enter the building. i think each each case will turn on its own facts. but nonetheless, there's an argument to say that in certain situations in this country, people shouldn't be allowed to mask up. >> i found it quite interesting. there's a lady called silkie carlo and she runs a big brother watch, and she was responding to keir starmer's address yesterday. she said she was very angry about it, about his pledge to roll out facial recognition. she says , that this is basically she says, that this is basically mass surveillance that threatens rather than protects democracy. the ai surveillance tends members of the public into walking id cards, she says, she reckons it's dangerously

inaccurate, has no explicit legal basis in the uk. and she says 74% of police facial recognition matches to dates have been misidentifications. i've got to say i didn't, know that at all, she says to promise the country ineffective ai surveillance in these circumstances was frankly turned deaf and will give the public no confidence that this government has basically the competence or conviction to get tough on the causes of crime. >> it's always a trade off, isn't it? i've got a cousin who lives in china, and he speaks very highly of the measures that they have there to prevent people from committing crime. they've got facial technology and all sorts of stuff, which from demonstrating instinct instinctively. well, this is the point . point. >> modelling ourselves on this is the point. >> this is the point that i'm making instinctively. i would find that kind of stuff chilling, but there may be people out there who, unlike us, live in communities where they are constantly blighted by crime. and, you know , they've crime. and, you know, they've had their car stolen and they've had their car stolen and they've had their car stolen and they've had their property attacked and they've had their wallet nicked, and all the sorts of things, the

low level crime that goes on. and they think, actually, you know what? i'm not going to object to having a post erected at the corner of my street with with facial recognition technology, because if it stops those little blighters from wreaking havoc in this community, i'm prepared to do it. so it's a trade off. what are we prepared to give in order to have a lower a lower level of crime? >> many people will be concerned. daniel. it's about this constant expansion of power. there does seem to be like a lot of chaos being manufactured in society at the moment. we saw that situation, after southport, this account was set up on twitter and was starting to say this person is an asylum seeker. he came off the boat very recently that spread absolutely chaos and it wasn't actually true. so many people will be concerned. are there some kind of agitator somewhere that are deliberately trying to provoke chaos in to order expand police states, expand surveillance state, move into social credit systems, central bank digital currencies ? central bank digital currencies?

do you, indulge any of those theories or not? >> well, i'm. i have no difficulty in believing that there are people out there who want to cause chaos. i think they're more likely to be based in russia than they are to be based in whitehall, trying to promote that particular. >> and you said i was peddling conspiracy theories. no, i think it's well known. >> i mean, it's not secret. i think that russia is particularly russia, but byelorussia and other places like that. >> do you think russia was involved in some of these protests? because i've read from commentators, but people like paul mason, for example, are on social media saying this is being organised by russia. these far right protests in southport and elsewhere, russia's behind it. i mean, do you buy into that? that seems to me really far fetched. >> i don't even know that there are far right protests in any organised crisis. that's that remains in my to my mind, it's claimed that that's the case. but nobody can point to who the organisers are. >> so there's the world economic forum. they want you to have nothing and be happy. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> well they that's probably right. they want you to have nothing and be happy. but then,

you know, who cares ? but i do you know, who cares? but i do think it's he would probably say you should care. nobody nobody nobody seriously denies that russia and other actors are promoting a seat to promote chaos through spreading false news on the internet. and if they were putting that stuff out there, that wouldn't surprise me at all. >> i've got to say, i do think that everyone with a platform has an obligation to be cautious about what they share, because in moments of like high emotion, you get bombarded with stuff. and i've seen it so many times, it's like, for example, the manchester airport situation where those two fellas were accused of breaking the nose of that policewoman. there was this image going around of this, policewoman, the same white blonde hair with a big gash, and it was circling everywhere. look at what these guys have done to this woman. that image was from 2016. i also remember, on the southport situation, andrew tate , southport situation, andrew tate, he shared an image and said, like, this is the fella that's done this in southport. that

image was from years before, and i think it was from an instance in germany, if you're bored tonight, everybody look up something called a reverse image search. and if in doubt, just do a little bit of checks, because i do think it's incumbent on us all not to inflame situations and certainly not to be involved in spreading misinformation wherever we can, because actually it can be quite dangerous. >> lots of people repeated the lie in terms of southport, that the suspect was a migrant who had come from syria , was a was had come from syria, was a was a, was a muslim on the m16 watch. it wouldn't even be mi6 for a start. it'd be m15 watch list and people who people who should have known better, including 1 or 2 prominent people. forwarded that around. and it's absolutely wrong because that can, put innocent muslims in danger because people may think , actually, this is may think, actually, this is what this is what these people are. there was another and we're going to go for them. and it turned out to be completely false. >> there was another rumour

actually in southport that people were saying that the reason that mosque was targeted, and many people were saying that they fell. a muslim person had been arrested with a knife, well, anyway, you all need to look into that because the name of that person, has been released and it's not what people actually said it was. i can tell you that for free, anyway, look, we've all got a responsibility, haven't we, to make sure that we're as truthful and as honest as we can be. and social media is nanosecond decisions, isn't it? tell me your thoughts. do you think keir starmer should be trying to do more with social media companies? he was talking tough. or not. your thoughts on all of that? after the break? i want to switch the tone a little bit, prisoners, murderers. some of the worst ones in society, serving whole life sentences. do you think they should? i mean, it's almost laughable i do think it's absurd. do you think they should ever be able to get

hello there. i'm michelle dewberry and i'm with you till

7:00 tonight. daniel moylan and paul embery remain alongside me. now, if you're in prison, serving a whole life sentence. and to be clear, what i mean by thatis and to be clear, what i mean by that is you are one of the worst wrong'uns in society. you're not coming out. should you be able to get married behind bars? do you remember the serial killer levi bellfield? well, he is among those people now that have been told, no, you cannot get married because of a new law . married because of a new law. i've got to start by saying for the life of me, i can't even get my head around what kind of individual would even want to marry the kind of person that is in prison on a whole life tariff ? in prison on a whole life tariff? but i'll pack that for a moment. do you think anyone should be able to marry these people? >> yeah i do, this was rushed through parliament, in my view, and, because of this, the dissolution of parliament, the general election, and it was pushed through and i think first, for two reasons. first of all, people have a natural right to get married, it's part of

human nature, and i don't think it doesn't come from the state. the right to get married isn't given to you by the state. it's inherent in human nature, and i don't think you should be. the state should be in a position to take it away, so i would say this is a wrong thing to do. banning this. the second is, and i'll just make this point and i don't think this applies in this particular case, but you could imagine some there are a lot of legal and tax consequences of getting married . and even though getting married. and even though you might have been sent to jail for the whole of your life, you could have considered the fact that somebody in that position might still have a family, and they might still have responsibilities towards that family, which we always have allowed prisoners to exercise their responsibilities. and the tax situation, the inheritance tax situation, the inheritance tax and the other things that arise from being married, can be affected by that. so it can protect your your partner from having to pay inheritance tax. for example, there's one of the reasons people get married now. i don't i don't think that appues i don't i don't think that applies before you wander the streets murdering children. you

can you can think about that. but this these, you've been sent to jail for the whole of your life. that's your punishment. there aren't other punishments imposed on top of that. that was the punishment given you by the court. so we don't do, you know, additional supernumerary punishments on top of what the court gives you? >> just to be clear, everyone, this new law is part of the victim. okay? >> you don't agree with me, michelle? i most certainly don't think victims and prisoners. >> bill, one of the most ridiculous things that i've heard, today. >> and i feel it. ridiculous. i feel it very strongly. >> and that's good. all views are welcome on dewbs & co. this are welcome on dewbs& co. this is part of the victims and prisoners act. it aims to, i quote, deny the most heinous criminals from enjoying the important life events that they callously took from their victims. let's just remind ourselves, levi bellfield, he's murdered multiple people, the highest profile you'll perhaps be most familiar with was milly dowler. the senior welder he kidnapped, while she was walking. >> and that's the other thing. you always know. >> it's a bad law when it's

designed to affect one person. >> paul embery. >> paul embery. >> daniel's just a soft liberal. that's his. that's his problem. i think getting married is a right that goes hand in hand with being, a free citizen in society. someone who's not hold on. someone who's not incarcerated because they've committed a crime, but someone who's who's free and is able to enter into that sort of agreement in a free society. i think there are probably some circumstances , such as for circumstances, such as for compassionate reasons, for example, where it's probably arguable that the law should be relaxed. i don't particularly have a have a problem with that, and whilst i think the prisoners should have the same protections as any other citizens, i don't think they should have the same freedoms as any other citizen. and i just, you know, if they come out and get married and build a new life for themselves, then all well and good. i'm all in favour of that. i'm, as i say, i'm a i'm a supporter of

the principle of marriage, but i it just does not sit comfortably with me . the idea that there can with me. the idea that there can be a wedding ceremony effectively in a prison when someone is there to serve a punishment because they've done something seriously wrong, when they come out, they can do it . they come out, they can do it. i'm not convinced it should happen while they're inside. >> anthony says, please, can we all remember that prison is actually supposed to be punishment? >> and if you do indeed end up inside one, you should forgo any of the norms afforded to the law abiding population here, here, anthony, it's always fascinating, isn't it, how many people so desperately want this nofion people so desperately want this notion of human rights to be respected when it comes to themselves, but then we'll very happily, completely trample all over the human rights of other people in the meantime, like milly dowler, for example. what about her human rights to be able to go home from school safely that wasn't respected at all in the most disgusting way? was it your thoughts after the break? my favourite part of the

week can't lie. dewsbury tavern opens. come and join me and let's talk about huw edwards. should have to £200,000 of our

money? hello there. i'm michelle dewberry with you until 7:00 tonight. one of my viewers appg just got in touch and said, michelle, have you ever thought about renaming your show? you could call it the whiny, whiny money. our no, i've never thought about that at all. alongside me, i've got a conservative life peer in the house of lords, daniel moylan, and the trade unionist and author paul embery. my favourite time of the week. see, this is not money or whiny or negative. it's positive. cheers. happy weekend to each and every single one to you. cheers you. cheers, cheers. right. good health. if i was to think about what some of you might be talking about in the pub this weekend, i imagine that this fella, could perhaps be within your conversations.

the former bbc newsreader , huw the former bbc newsreader, huw edwards. of course. he pleaded guilty on wednesday to multiple counts of possessing indecent images of children. absolutely disgusting. this is him, by the way. arriving at court , one of way. arriving at court, one of the things that i found beyond bizarre, if you're being accused of something like that and you're going to prison , why you're going to prison, why would you meander down the road in this manner? i would be so ashamed of myself. >> did he have any choice? be trying to. >> did you see how far he walked along the road? >> no. >> no. >> it wasn't like he just pulled up outside the door in a taxi and deliberately tried to, like, push her. he had quite a reasonable walk. >> well, that was a bit like gary glitter when he got done for the same thing. and he was posing on the steps, wasn't he? in front of the paparazzi? >> very weird. anyway, the bbc boss, tim davie, he is now facing questions and will be from the government as well. over this £200,000. paycheque. long story short, the bbc admitted to knowing about his arrest in november, but they continued to pay his full salary

until he resigned earlier on this year. do you reckon he should give this cash back or not? daniel >> yeah. i don't understand why people who are suspended in those circumstances carry on getting paid their full, their full pay in the first place, because they might be innocent. daniel. yeah, they might be innocent, but that's that's the answer. yeah, but why are they suspended? i mean, if, you know . suspended? i mean, if, you know. >> but that's a that's a no smoke without fire work on the assumption that somebody is innocent till proven guilty legally. >> that's true. if you're going to apply that in air circumstances, you wouldn't be suspending them in the first place. you'd say, well, you're innocent until proven guilty, so you carry on working for your money. what i find even more bizarre is that he got a pay rise in the last month, and surely somebody at the bbc should have said, well, you know, he hasn't done a lot for his money for the last 12 months. he spent half of them not actually working. why are we giving him a pay rise or somebody else might have said, even if he deserves a pay rise, maybe this isn't the best moment to give it to him being nobody did. so they gave him a pay rise

as well. generally, i think the money should come back. i don't know if there's a way of getting it back, but i don't think disagree probably with you about the pension . i think his the pension. i think his pension, i don't think they can touch and i don't think they should be able to touch it. he's paid into it all those years he's done a terrible thing, obviously. >> but be being being arrested doesn't make you guilty. being in charge doesn't even make you guilty. i'm a trade was a trade union official . i've represented union official. i've represented many people in the workplace, including people who were on criminal charges, including people who were suspended from work because they'd been charged, but none of that actually makes you guilty. you're entitled to due process. and you're entitled to the presumption of innocence in the workplace and out. >> guilty now. >> guilty now. >> right? but this is my point. he has pleaded guilty now. and from the point at which he pleads guilty, then his employer or former employer and the rest of society is then entitled to apply the sanctions to him and say, you've now pleaded guilty. so this is what we're going, this is what we're going to do.

but for the period in which he was, he had been charged but had not yet pleaded guilty. then i just don't think it's right to say to somebody, well, exactly. as i said earlier about public conscience. >> well, because if you know that we are you're taking money from the taxpaying public. >> where's your head and conscience in all of this? >> that's a matter for him and his conscience. but the point that i'm making is the employer, because someone has been arrested or charged with a criminal offence, the employer should not be able to say, we are going to stop your pay now, or we're going to sack you, even though nothing has yet been proven against you in a court of law. because in some cases that individual will come to court, will be found to be not guilty, has lost his or her job, lost his or her livelihood because the employer jumped the gun his or her livelihood because the employerjumped the gun . now the employerjumped the gun. now i've got no sympathy for huw edwards. he's obviously ruined and he deserves to be ruined. but we can't make one particular law because of one particular

case, something. >> levi bellfield. >> levi bellfield. >> well, this is the point. something you said previously, daniel, and you're absolutely right on that. people who are in the, in their workplace have been suspended. they're entitled to the presumption of innocence, like everybody else. >> now, another thing that i found quite bizarre about this story, i always find the way that the issue of mental health comes into play, the second that someone suddenly starts getting scrutinised for something and perhaps held accountable for something, this mental health condition that perhaps seemingly wasn't there when they're doing whatever it is that they wanted, miraculously seems to pop up the minute accountability comes into conversation. i found that quite interesting . mary says huw interesting. mary says huw edwards is a disgrace, but he should not have to pay back the £200,000, catkins on twitter says yes, he absolutely should give the entire thing back and the bbc should hang their heads in shame. my favourite comment of the night says kevin, my parents were from the midlands and they always called crumpets pikelets sensible people. good night everybody have a great weekend. i'll see you monday

night . night. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on gb news >> good evening . here's your gb >> good evening. here's your gb news. weather from the met office. it is going to be relatively warm, not as hot as it has been, but warm and sunny at times through much of this weekend though , there will be weekend though, there will be some rain pushing through initially. we have a front making its way southeastwards through this evening and overnight that's already brought quite a bit of rain across scotland and northern ireland, but it's now clearing these areas and so here it is going to turn mostly dry overnight, with some clear skies for england and wales, though, turning increasingly cloudy and there will be some outbreaks of rain around where we have the cloud, temperatures aren't going to drop much. another warm night to come, but quite a bit fresher across scotland and northern ireland, dropping into single figures, particularly in more rural spots. but first thing tomorrow across in many parts of england and wales it is going to

be a bit grey. initially there will be some outbreaks of rain around and worth bearing in mind. some of the rain could be a little bit heavy at times, a bit brighter. first thing across nonh bit brighter. first thing across north wales and much of northern england, though some cloud here and there. a brighter start for scotland and northern ireland. just a couple of showers starting to feed their way in from the west as we go through the morning. eastern scotland getting off to a lovely fine start to the day with plenty of sunshine here. those showers though, across western parts of scotland and northern ireland will become more widespread here as we go through the afternoon, and some heavy ones are quite likely. meanwhile, across southern southeastern parts of england here we will have some bursts of rain through the day and these could be heavy at times before they clear away later . elsewhere, a good deal of later. elsewhere, a good deal of dry, bright and sunny weather and with temperatures albeit not as high as they have been getting into the mid 20s, it will feel warm in any sunshine. sunday should get off to a fairly fine start, albeit a fresher start than of late for many of us before some wetter weather starts to push its way in from the northwest, and this

is likely to bring some heavy rain as we go into the beginning of next week . so do watch out of next week. so do watch out for some high rainfall totals, particularly across northern and western parts. i'll see you again soon. bye bye . again soon. bye bye. >> looks like things are heating up . boxt boilers sponsors of up. boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb

>> welcome to the andersons real world. tonight i shall be joined on the show by the former political editor to the sun newspaper. that's trevor kavanagh. we've also got former labour mp stephen pound, former conservative mp jerry hayes, an

american comedian called lewis schaffer and