>> well . >> well. >> well. >> good evening. the top stories from the gb newsroom. a third man has now been charged with committing violent disorder in liverpool city centre yesterday. that is, the prime minister vowed rioters would regret taking part in what he called far right thuggery after a fifth day of violence in england , as day of violence in england, as the government announced. also announced emergency security for mosques amid the threat of further disorder. it comes as anti—immigration demonstrators attacked police and smashed the windows of a hotel in rotherham. masked rioters threw lengths of wood and sprayed fire extinguishers at officers,

police have warned further violence was likely to follow protests in england and also in northern ireland. over 100 people were arrested yesterday and it comes after three little girls were killed in a knife attack at a dance club in southport almost one week ago. sir keir starmer says those causing violent trouble will face convictions . face convictions. >> i won't shy away from calling it what it is far right thuggery to those who feel targeted because of the colour of your skin or your faith , i know how skin or your faith, i know how frightening this must be. i want you to know that this violent mob do not represent our country, and we will bring them to justice and news just coming in. >> one person has been arrested on suspicion of public order offences in rotherham. more on that as we get it. the police service in northern ireland says those involved in violence,

which erupted following anti—immigration protests in belfast, will be dealt with using the full force of the law. it's after a supermarket owner in belfast says his business has been reduced to ashes after it was targeted during the disorder. northern ireland's first minister says those involved in violence on the streets of belfast should be quickly brought before the courts. this morning a clean up operation was underway in the donegall road area following last night's unrest . and as you've been unrest. and as you've been heanng unrest. and as you've been hearing today, number 10, sources are disputing claims that the prime minister is planning a summer getaway tomorrow despite the risk of further unrest. it comes after tory leadership candidate and former immigration minister robert jenrick urged sir keir starmer to cancel his trip and get a grip on the situation. many more arrests have been promised in the coming days, as the prime minister said the police have his full support to take action against extremists . take action against extremists. and a shift now to other news to the united states. prince harry

and his wife meghan markle have been discussing online safety with broadcasters in the us. >> one of the scariest things that we've learned over the course of the last 15, 17 years that social media has been around and more so recently, is the fact that it could happen to absolutely anybody . i mean, we absolutely anybody. i mean, we always talk about in the olden days, if your kids were under your roof, you knew what they were up to. at least they were safe, right.7 and now they can be in the next door room on a tablet or on a phone and can be going down these rabbit holes. and before you know it, within 24 hours they could be taking their life . their life. >> and those are the latest gb news headlines. for now i'm tatiana sanchez. more from me in an hour 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 . gbnews.com forward slash alerts. >> the crisis in the middle east escalates the olympic boxing controversy continues, and the

liberal democrats are found guilty of discriminating against a woman who says there are only two sexes. this is free speech nafion two sexes. 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 continue their honourable mission to try and suck all of the joy out of our existences. but coming up on the show tonight, we're going to be speaking to natalie bird, who was suspended by the liberal democrats and prevented from standing as an mp because she stood up for women's rights. investigative journalist and broadcaster andrew gold will be to here discuss his new book, the psychology of secrets , and the psychology of secrets, and fiona mckenna from fair play for women in sport will be here to discuss the gender row, which has overshadowed the women's boxing at the olympic games in paris and of course, myself and my fantastic panel will be answering questions from this rather lovely studio audience and my comedian guests. this evening are cressida whetton and

josh howie . okay, how are you , joy? >> good, good. just back from liverpool . really? why? you liverpool. really? why? you know, the riots and no , no, i know, the riots and no, no, i was doing i was doing stand up up there. okay. >> i didn't mean to sound like it's a terrible place to go. i'm just. >> no, just. >> no, no , just. >> no, no, it was great. we had a great weekend and then we were just seeing all the sort of helicopters and. oh, blimey. oh! they're out. >> i thought they were there for you. >> yeah, of course my ego would, yeah. >> what about you, chris? have you done anything so exciting? >> no rioting yet. >> no rioting yet. >> yet there's still the rest of the evening. who knows? >> absolutely. okay, well, look, we've got a lovely audience here, so let's use them. let's get some questions. we've got a question coming in from jeff. which one is jeff? hello, jeff. >> hello. well, starmer's proposed violent crime units do anything to solve the problem. >> so that's the phrase he's used about trying to deal with all the riots. i think it's 147 arrests they're up to now, jeff, what do you think? i mean, do you think he's addressing the problem in the right way? do you think he's going about it in the

right way? >> it's too little, too late. do you think much? too little, too late? >> and what do you mean by that? what should he have done before this problem goes back years? as in, you're talking about the tensions that are rising. yeah. >> the catalyst has been this, the stabbing of the three young girls. yes. and that's just lance, the boil. and the country is absolutely. >> i mean, i think there's been a concatenation of things, hasn't there's been that there's been of course the manchester airport. yeah. yeah. situation. you know, these things are happening. and then of course the riots the other week and all of this thing coming about, cressida, can i ask you about this? because jeff's point really is that okay, you have to deal with violent criminals robustly and immediately, and obviously nobody in their right mind would defend criminal activity, burning cars, attacking hotels, whatever it is they're doing, they should all be arrested and prosecuted. absolutely no debate about that as far as i'm concerned. i can see. but jeff is alluding to the problems, the tensions that have been boiling up because of failures from both the tories and labour. i don't think this is can be levelled at one particular party.

>> of course it can't. i mean, keir has just come in now and gone. oh blimey, look at all this. of course it's not a surprise to him. he knows what's been going on, but you're exactly right. i mean, i completely agree, it's been going on for years, hasn't it? and we've heard endlessly about two tier policing. i mean, maybe if starmer had made that speech six months ago, if he could have done, you know, that might have been a bit better. but it's like at this point it just sounds like he's he's just addressing one side and not the other. and if anything, it's just going to inflame tensions. >> so, josh, can i ask you about this because you're a bit of a starmer fan? >> i wouldn't go that far. no. >> i wouldn't go that far. no. >> but you think he's better than the alternative. but what i would say is, he could have given this kind of speech the other week after harehills, and then he would have more credibility when it comes to the two tiered policing issue, couldn't he? >> yeah, totally. i mean, it's just it's hypocrisy and, i was expecting you to defend him for balance. >> no, no, no, no, i think he's absolutely made the wrong call, >> in terms of that sort of rhetoric, yes. this violence needs to stop. it needs to be shut down. but there is no

indication within what he's talking about of previous issues that have led up to exactly this. you saw what happened in leeds. those. right? i don't remember a sort of a press conference there and saying, we're going to shut these people, we're going to run the courts 24 hours a day. >> so why is that? >> so why is that? >> because they're hypocrites, frankly. and i'm when i say hypocrites, i don't just mean the letter. you know, everybody's been well i mean, look, everyone's worried about far right thugs. >> the people that he described in his speech earlier on. but the problem is not all of these people who are engaging in writing or even right wing like i had a guest on the show earlier talking about how a lot of those in certain areas are left wing socialist areas, you know, so, so this is not really about left and right. this is about left and right. this is about people who are breaking the law. i mean, ijust about people who are breaking the law. i mean, i just think as the law. i mean, ijust think as soon as you've thrown a brick, as soon as you resort to violence, you've lost. you've lost like you should be arrested. >> no, no, absolutely. but that's not pretend. i think the one thing i have seen people do is who sort of saying that there seems to be no far right element to this. well, of course there is when there is, i know, but there are some people of that

who are trying to say, oh, they're just tarring everybody as far right now. that's wrong. there are ordinary people from the left and right who have are rightly concerned of issues that go back arguably. yeah, decades. but to sort of then also be hypocrites and go, no, this isn't there isn't a far right element here. it's also hypocrisy. >> i wonder how helpful it is to take that emphasis. i mean, maybe it would be betterjust to say we're going to apply the law equally, whoever you are, if you break the law, you're going to get arrested. that's it. but they haven't really been doing that. no, they haven't been. >> and this is why there's this concept of two tier policing. this is obviously obviously coming through after a tory government who didn't apply that law. and when there are people out there chanting hate on on the streets and that's just been ignored for ten months, then of course, at this point when suddenly he comes out and goes, look, the far right are bad. well, what have islamists and the far left been doing for the last ten months? >> that's interesting. you know, when hizbut tahrir on the streets calling for jihad and the police put out a tweet sort of defending them, saying, well, actually, jihad can mean lots of things, you know, and just arrest them. obviously. yes, of course, the good old jihad has got lots of meanings. >> maybe they're having a struggle. yeah, exactly. i mean, how infuriating. >> well, hizb ut—tahrir, who are

outlawed in all arab states and were recently out. >> that's the one i drew. that's. >> i'm sure they're just calling for peace. >> that's exactly right. >> that's exactly right. >> it's a misunderstood bunch of lads. okay, let's move on to another question now, so this question is coming from, who's this from? ryan. evening. all >> hello. hi, why won't the olympic committee stand up for women's sports? right. >> so this is obviously the hot topic of the week, ryan. and this is obviously to do with the two boxers. algeria's imani khalife and taiwanese lin yu ting, who both failed a sex test last year at the world boxing association, the international boxing association, the world boxing association, the world boxing championships, which turned out they had xy chromosomes, they were disqualified from that test. the olympics haven't had sex tests in sports for, i think, about 25 years at this stage. ryan, what do you think about that? i mean, this is a complicated issue, isn't it? this isn't i should say this isn't a transgender issue. this has got nothing to do with transgenderism, which is how it's been framed. >> yeah. and so it is complex, but i think for the olympic committee to have failed to implement sex testing for these issues months ago because they, they presumably would have known they presumably would have known they were notified last year of

this issue. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> so they chose to do nothing. and now they're reaping the consequences. >> it's very interesting, cressida, because janice turner wrote an article this week just sort of saying there is an easy cheek swab test which you can do to determine chromosome makeup. it would be very easy to implement this. it would be very easy to implement this . the olympic implement this. the olympic committee haven't even decided to do that now. i mean, it's not invasive. it's not an invasive test. >> it's irrelevant if people are still saying that's not why people that are defending these women or people being in the competition, they're not saying they're not arguing about the chromosomes. they're they're talking about the way they were brought up and that they live as women. >> so i think we should clarify about this. absolutely. that at the boxing championships last yean the boxing championships last year, the iba did a test and it determined that they had xy chromosomes and that they they also said that they had a competitive advantage over women competitors, but they haven't released the actual details. they can't do that because they could be sued for doing so. it's private details. so there's a lot of murkiness. there's a lot of misunderstanding. and i would say surely the way to clear this up is to just is for those

athletes in question to release the results of the tests. but to counter that, you know, algeria, for instance, which is where one of the candidates khalife is from, is very well, let's say socially or very conservative. when it comes to matters of sex. let's put it, you know, diplomatically. and so there could be dangers involved in that as well. >> so i sort of understand i can sort of understand, but like you say, there's a there's a swab test. it's very simple. you do a swab of the person's willy and, it's the cheek. you're just you're just saying, oh, it's the cheek. oh, okay. fine yes. look, this is actually incredibly simple . yes. if you have a simple. yes. if you have a y chromosome, you are a biological male. as such, if you went through male puberty, which they did, then you have a physical advantage. and in something like boxing, you have the greatest physical advantage because the biggest power differential is with punching. it's about 200% male punching. so this is unfair. it's cheating. so the question is here is for me is like to what level is this person culpable? are they

actively cheating or to what level are we sympathetic to their medical condition? >> okay, but if it were determined. so if everyone said, look, let's just release all of the results and it would determine that in fact, they did not go through male puberty, which is possible with a very, very small number of x, y chromosome people. that is absolutely possible. would you say then they should be able to compete ? no. compete? no. >> if you have a y chromosome in your biological male, it's just there has to be a line somewhere. okay. >> so i think we've got a statement haven't we from the ioc. d0 statement haven't we from the ioc. do we have that. let's have a look. >> dasturan is not a perfect test. many women can have testosterone , which is in what testosterone, which is in what would be called male levels . and would be called male levels. and still be women and still compete as women. so this panacea, this idea that suddenly you test do one test for testosterone and that's also everything out. not the case, i'm afraid . the case, i'm afraid. >> so i'm going to be talking to fiona mckinnon about this from fair play for women in sport. but i want to get your take on this. i mean, it is a bit more

complicated insofar as if it is the case that these individuals have a dsd, a different sex development, have a dsd, a different sex development , they will have development, they will have grown up not realising that they were male. and, and then when they went through puberty, obviously then things changed. that could be quite distressing . that could be quite distressing. >> absolutely. and i think that's a reason to be sympathetic. it doesn't mean that therefore they should compete and that it's fair. it's just quite a nuanced discussion. i'm so glad you've got an expert coming in. >> and yeah, so am i. >> and yeah, so am i. >> and i can see why there's so much debate about this, because of course, you feel enormously compassionate. i mean, it's it sounds like a bit of a nightmare, doesn't it? it sounds like a very difficult, challenging thing to live with. and so no wonder lots of people are being compassionate. >> yes, but on the other hand, this is actually a safety issue. i mean, there is a case, for instance, of a middle distance runner called caster semenya, who is a male but was raised as female, had this dsd , which female, had this dsd, which means the testes are inside, not immediately visible, goes through male puberty. huge advantage . and that i would advantage. and that i would suggest is even a problem. of course it's a problem. that's unfair. that's an unfair situation where you have a biological male racing against

women. and i think most people will agree with that at this point . but will agree with that at this point. but this will agree with that at this point . but this is a will agree with that at this point. but this is a different this isn't just fairness, this is safety . this is this isn't just fairness, this is safety. this is women getting punched in the face that changes it, doesn't it, josh? >> well, no, i mean, yes, of course it does on one level, but no, i feel that they're both the same. the cheating is there, the stakes are higher, but you've got the olympic committee there basically trying to fudge the issue to make it about testosterone. it's got nothing to do with testosterone levels or whatever, this is all about having a y chromosome going through male puberty. it's self—evident that they have you can look at their physique, you can look at their physique, you can look at their physique, you can look at their height. they have been through a not a female puberty. and this is also a bit of a weewee contest between the, the boxing committee or the world boxing and the ioc, and they're sort of trying to argue this is like sort of a bit of a struggle , well, it should be struggle, well, it should be quite simple, shouldn't it? it should be quite simple. that's what i'm saying. >> you just analyse to discover whether the individual is male or female and react accordingly. >> very, very simple. but no , >> very, very simple. but no, they the, the olympic committee

here are trying to sort of run, the gauntlet here and try and pretend that it's not. and trying to make it all confusing when anybody with any eyes can see that. and we probably it looks like we're going to have two males competing in the female boxing final. okay. >> well, i will be talking to fiona mackinnon about this later. and she'll be able to explain all of this situation. it is very complex but very , it is very complex but very, very interesting. anyway, we're going to move on now to a question from robert , question from robert, >> good evening. hello. do you think the british medical association can now be seen as an activist organisation? >> yeah, this is astonishing. of course, we had the cass report, obviously coming out with a, you know, four years of research, very, very sensible recommendations, saying there's no evidence for prescribing puberty blockers for gender, confused kids and that you would need to, you know, gather that kind of evidence before you could safely administer these drugs . and as a result, the drugs. and as a result, the government has banned them. the nhs has banned the use of puberty blockers, the labour government wes streeting has gone on board with that as well, in spite of criticism from within the party. but the british medical association is

now saying no, we should just ignore the cass review. now this, robert, i find astonishing because these are medical practitioners. why would they be doing this? do you think ? doing this? do you think? >> i'm not sure, >> well, i don't want to put you on the spot, but. no, no, but that's. but but you know, my point is that they should be the ones who are saying actually, we're going to follow an evidence base. yes. and once you've got doctors who are saying they won't do that, i mean, cressida is this just another example of the level of ideological capture? because, you know, it doesn't just stop at activists online screaming terf? >> no, that's exactly right. this is now applicable to real living children. it's mind blowing . and i wonder how many blowing. and i wonder how many doctors are divided over this. and privately thinking, oh my god, i'd really like to speak out. it's interesting you say that because there was a member of the bma obviously being anonymous, saying this does not reflect this is the committee. >> it doesn't reflect the general membership of the bma because it's always the case, isn't it? it's a few people at the very top. absolutely. >> you know, i mean, do no harm. it's just outrageous. and the

bma are now saying that the cass report is it's not valid because it's not justified . it's not it's not justified. it's not based on anything. and you think, well, as opposed to the experimental medicine that you are quite pushing, i mean , i are quite pushing, i mean, i find this i don't know why i should be surprised. >> josh, at this point, you know, more than astonishing. >> it's evil. frankly, these are representatives of doctors in this country. if anybody else, if any other organisation should be getting fully on board to protecting children , it should protecting children, it should be this one. and as you say, it's the it's the committee, not regular doctors. and as we know, anybody in any kind of normal life, anybody who's attracted to being on a committee is a wrong'un. just by nature. so it's sort of true, though. >> i mean, if you go back to student politics, the people who get involved in it, they are wrongand. yeah, yeah. they're dodgy. >> it's like they want power and then they become our politicians. exactly. of course they do. weirdos, but the fact that they represent doctors and they are putting this out there andifs they are putting this out there and it's actively pushing for the harm of children. >> yeah, but they don't see it that way. >> well, no, no, of course they

don't see it that way. but when you have a 400 page document and all they're using to try and counter it is some like weird onune counter it is some like weird online supposed counter study that just actually was being there. >> they're actually using some of the studies that cass rejected because they were too weak. yeah. right. so that that should be enough. shouldn't it. >> no, of course it should be. >> no, of course it should be. >> i mean, it's kind of a bit slanderous in terms of doctor cass's research as well, which was rigorous and went for on years and years who they met to represent. >> yeah. the leading paediatrician in this country, i just think never be surprised at the extent of ideological capture. >> i saw miriam cates saying she thought it sounded medieval, you know, to go with an ideology over evidence based medicine. i thought, yeah, yeah, but human, human kind doesn't change. >> apparently not subject to superstition. we are superstitious creatures. you think doctors wouldn't be into leeches? well, maybe they'll bnng leeches? well, maybe they'll bring back leeches. maybe. okay, well, we'll see, won't we? we'll definitely report on that. if that happens. the next up on free speech nation, we're going to be speaking to natalie bird, who was suspended by the liberal democrats and prevented from standing as an mp because she stood up for women's rights. don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me andrew doyle natalie bird recently won a noteworthy legal victory over the liberal democrats, who have admitted discriminating against her because she wore a t shirt reading woman, adult, human, female. natalie was hoping to stand as an mp, but says she was instead suspended from the party because she fought for women's rights . after a three and a half rights. after a three and a half year battle, the lib dems admitted natalie's claims just before the trial was due to start next month. so i'm delighted to say that natalie joins me now with her solicitor, elliott hammer. welcome to the show. thank you . natalie, i want show. thank you. natalie, i want to start with you . obviously. so to start with you. obviously. so a lot of people watching this sort of won't believe this, that, you know, you wore a t that, you know, you wore at shirt with the dictionary definition of a woman, and you ended up getting harassed by members of the liberal democrat party. >> yeah. i mean, i wore the t

shirt to an internal party meeting. it's a woman, adult, human, female. yeah. controversial. nothing controversial about that at all. everything. 90%. you know, of the population agrees with. yes. nobody's got any qualms about it, when i was at the meeting, i'm trying to, you know, get my lunch, pick up my coffee and my sandwich. i get this woman who i later find out is chair of the candidates committee, storms over to me and says, why are you wearing that t shirt? my response was , because we can't response was, because we can't have any sensible debates about this issue within the party at all. and there needs to be sensible debates happening . sensible debates happening. yeah, that was back in 2018. so this has been going on for a fair few years. yeah. so this has been going on forever. >> and then you ended up in a position where you were being harassed by by activists effectively, who are liberal democrat members. what's, what sort of things were going on. >> well, i mean, i wore thist shirt this woman comes storming over to me, why are you wearing

this t shirt? >> i said, we need to have sensible conversations. yeah. she then said to me, are you an approved candidate? i said, yes, i am . she says, we'll see about i am. she says, we'll see about that then, won't we? rest of the meeting carried on? yeah meanwhile they're all on a facebook forum. yeah saying oh by the way, there's a well—known terf going around in this meeting wearing this t shirt. and then they all coordinated, complaints against me. yeah. so then on the monday following this meeting on the saturday, i get a letter saying there has been numerous complaints about you wearing an offensive item of clothing, and you were now suspended from the party. now, i said immediately, i want to appeal this. and i got told, no, you can't appeal this because it sounds like an old school witch hunt. i mean, well, it is an old school witch hunt. >> they've used the word terf, which as we know, stands for trans exclusionary radical feminist. >> terf has now become the

equivalent of witch as a way to brand people, but everyone coordinating in that way to get you thrown out. it's very it's very cruel. >> yeah. it's not very democratic, actually for a liberal democrats. >> and like you say, it is a witch hunt , isn't >> and like you say, it is a witch hunt, isn't it. >> yeah, yeah. >> yeah, yeah. >> by any other name. >> by any other name. >> and this is why. >> and this is why. >> so, elliott, you've been representing, natalie in this case. that's right. for about four years. and it's been a long, long time. this, i mean , long, long time. this, i mean, this takes quite a bit of grit to go through something like this. most people would have ditched it. right, natalie? >> determination. spine of steel. amazing client to work for. >> okay, well, yeah, i mean, i have to say that like this. this must have been quite an ordeal for you. i mean, how how have you found it? on a personal level? >> well, i mean, to bring a court case is hard going . yeah. court case is hard going. yeah. i mean, it's quite it's a stressful situation. and this has been going on for such a long time. >> yes, but they've now admitted that they did, in fact discriminate. >> well, unusually, they put in a judgement against themselves, which elliot tells me is highly unusual when it comes to court scenarios. okay. >> what have they done there, elliot? just quickly. >> well they, they, they applied

for a judgement against themselves as natalie said . and themselves as natalie said. and then when we attended court, they admitted all the all the claims that natalie had brought against her. >> so now it just now it's just a matter of deciding how much it is that you were awarded. >> is that. yeah. >> is that. yeah. >> well, we're in court next on the 20th and 21st of august, and that's for the damages hearing . that's for the damages hearing. so yeah, that'll be the amount of the award that i should get. >> okay. so what has been the response from within the party? i mean is there any sign of repentance from . repentance from. >> no. they are the activists are still in denial and the group think is still strong. >> is that right? yeah. >> is that right? yeah. >> you mentioned to me earlier in the green room about an internal statement that's gone out to party members. >> well, a bit about that. >> well, a bit about that. >> yeah. i mean, following the last court hearing where basically they admitted in court to everything, all parts of my claim, and they basically said that they'd admitted breach of contract and breaching the equality act . the next thing was equality act. the next thing was an internal comms went round to all the party members and activists , and it literally had

activists, and it literally had activists, and it literally had a tiny sentence at the top. >> we actually have the sentence if you want to hear it, this is what they said, they said. >> on 22nd july, the county court issued an order in a long standing case that the party decided to not defend as it related to a complaint system that was replaced in september 2019. that's all they've said, and this is in a statement which is ostensibly about your case, but the headline seems to be about protecting , well, trans rights. >> i mean, that the whole article was about protecting trans rights apart from that tiny sentence , which in itself tiny sentence, which in itself is misleading because the issue wasn't the complaint system. the issue was these individuals that were abusing the complaint system who don't seem to have had any accountability or any reflection or any punishment at all by the party. >> i mean, isn't it suggestive that the fact that they're framing this in terms of trans rights, it's actually got nothing to do with trans rights? it's to do with you defending women's rights, to do with women's rights, to do with women's rights, to do with women's rights, which is, of course, a belief. and your beliefs are protected under law,

under the equality act . so under the equality act. so i suppose this is a broader problem, isn't it? we know that there have been problems in the green party. i've spoken to shahrar ali on this programme about that problem. we know there are problems in the snp. there are certain parties and the lib dems are one of them. they seem to have this intolerance when it comes to discussion, open debate about this really important matter. i mean, am i reading that right? >> well, i think we've got a broader issue in that our political parties have never been set up for women. i mean, emmeline pankhurst had this issue 100 years ago. yeah our political parties just are not set up to support women in the way that they need to. and focus on women's issues. way that they need to. and focus on women's issues . yes. so i on women's issues. yes. so i think, you know, there's a wider issue within the parties that need to be tackled as to why none of our political parties are actually able to focus on this and find real solutions for women. >> so is it not particularly dispiriting that the person who spearheaded this was a woman within the party? i mean, this

seems like it's a major systemic problem. >> yeah . >> yeah. >> yeah. >> you know, is there anything the lib dems can do about this? do you think i mean, do you think now following your case, they might reflect? i mean, it doesn't look like it so far. >> i think they need to take real reflection, real accountability. >> people need to actually lose their roles over what's actually occurred. yeah. and i think it's going to take a long time because the group thinking at the heart of the party is really strong around this issue, around the trans women and women. so, yeah, i think it's going to take a long time to undo. >> okay. well, natalie, thanks so much for coming in and explaining your situation. really. thank you . well, next on really. thank you. well, next on free speech nation investigative journalist and broadcaster andrew gold is going to be here. he's going to be discussing his new book, the psychology of secrets . please don't go secrets. please don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nation. later in the show, i'm going to be turning agony uncle with the help of my panel , with the help of my panel, cressida whitten and josh howie, we're going to help you deal with your unfiltered dilemmas. that means any personal problems that you have, don't be shy. just send us a message at gbnews.com/yoursay we'll sort your life out. we do every week. well, we sort of do anyway. let's move on. we've got our next guest coming up talking about the psychology of secrets , about the psychology of secrets, my adventures with murderers, cults and influences. that's this brilliant new book by award winning journalist and podcaster andrew gold. now while hosting his successful podcast heretic's gold noted the many confessions of wrongdoing and secret desires which was shared with him by guests and listeners to the show, decided to investigate the psychology and history behind secrecy. i'm absolutely delighted to say that andrew gold is here with me now.

welcome to the show. >> thanks for having me. >> thanks for having me. >> congratulations on the book . >> congratulations on the book. ihave >> congratulations on the book. i have to say, there are some dodgy people you've met. is that a fair comment? yeah, everyone. >> i'm friendly with andrew is quite dodgy. no. i'm joking. keep me out of it. >> i have no secrets at all. my life is an open book. anyway, let' s, let's, >> this is it. >> this is it. >> well, this is it. okay, so now it's interesting because this is a book all about secrets and the secrets that we all keep in order. but you've also gone to the extremes of that. do you want to tell us about some of those? the most extreme. >> can i use the pword on those? the most extreme. >> can i use the p word on this about these people who are go to parks and look for children. >> we know who you're talking about. >> yeah. those people, i've just i always i wanted to embark on a career louis theroux kind of career. looking at the extremes of the society. and those people are fascinating because they hide in the shadows. those are the people today who keep the biggest, darkest secret. and i'm talking mostly about the ones who don't actually offend, those who don't actually offend, those who just keep it to themselves and don't do anything their whole lives. and it's a very difficult secret to keep. so i spent a, well, two years in germany trying to understand

these people, talking to clinicians and all kinds of things like that. and in the book, there is a chapter where i spend a day with a 25 year old girl or woman who has that condition and trying to understand what it is for her to keep that secret. >> i mean, it's that chapter of the book that i think is the boldest in a way, because most people won't touch the subject. but i think as you argue, if you don't address this issue, you're actually putting kids at danger. >> that's right, that's right. it's one of the few cases where we don't really look at the perpetrators. we just look at the victims a lot of the time, we're not looking at what these people are like, what their psychological makeup is, because nobody ever wants to talk about it. well, unfortunately, as you point out, i mean, it's something like 1 in 6 girls and 1 in 9 boys. the stats vary depending on which study that are are abused. yeah, yeah. and so what do we do. we just go don't want to talk about it really. we need to look into these people who are keeping this big secret and who often might be tempted into actually acting on it. and we need to get to them first. and that's why we need to talk about this stuff in the open. >> and you're also talking about cults. just give us a bit more about that. yeah, i subscribe to the idea that everything is cultish. >> i know a lot of cult experts

think there's a sort of binary cult and not cult, but i think maybe scientology, you would call a ten out of 10 or 9 out of ten cult, whereas maybe your local book club is a two out of ten, you know? wow. well, you might you might not feel comfortable in your book club. espousing creepy. yeah, yeah. or saying certain opinions you might have. you might get kicked out for them. you know, i don't like this book. or i thought the trans character was this or, oh, if you're doing middlesex or something. yes, that's slightly cultish. so you have to look at cults, i think for, for everything we're going through, i think all of, all of the cancel culture, everything you speak about on your show, we have to look at the cultish elements, which is why do we have to suppress certain things ? have to suppress certain things? who makes us keep these secrets? >> so, andrew, don't you think that in a world in which we have no secrets, in which we just reveal all of our most private thoughts at all times , wouldn't thoughts at all times, wouldn't that be just chaos? >> yeah, there's that ricky gervais film, isn't it? the invention of lying? yes. everybody has to tell the truth all the time. so that's it. i started with this idea of because we're told all the time, got to get the truth off your chest, and that is good because we go through something called a fever model, which is like a real fever, but it's psychological. when you keep a

secret, that's done, because when you're in a tribe, you know, go back to tribal times. of course, it was good for the tribe. if individuals felt compelled to reveal their secrets to others , it made secrets to others, it made sense. however, on an individual level, you have to weigh up how difficult that feeling is of keeping a secret, and it can be really difficult with what will happen to you if you reveal the secret. are you going to be ostracised, kicked out, left to die on the savanna? >> that's so interesting that, i mean, you do point out in the book there's an evolutionary element to all of this, which i don't think people will have thought of. >> absolutely right. and that's it. you can really see how tribes would have gone about in their ways, and they would have been some tribes where everybody was maybe compelled to keep their own secrets. well, that tribe wouldn't have done well because somebody who had a secret stash of food or an extra shelter that they were using wouldn't have shared it with the tribe, so that tribe would have died out. other tribes would have had individuals who felt bad when they had a secret and were compelled to sort of, oh, i want to get this off my chest. tell people what the reason and those tribes would have survived better. and we are the result of that hundreds of thousands of years later. >> so typically, you're not just

talking about the secrets that criminals harbour, you're talking about secrets that we all harbour. >> yeah, that's right, that's right. and i think that is, again, something we need to speak about a lot more. i did a survey about what people are like in their homes. i know people have spoken about this a lot. of course, instagram gives this portrayal that we're all perfect, wonderful people. yes, the reality is we're sat at home and, you know, i looked at some of the sort of dirty habits and things i won't go too much into detail. careful. well, well , detail. careful. well, well, even the one in public i'll talk aboutis even the one in public i'll talk about is like nose picking, right? if there's an example of somebody in the book, for example, who was like, who told me a story, they were 12 years old and they had their finger up their nose, and they suddenly in their nose, and they suddenly in the car getting taken to school, and they suddenly looked out the window. and there were three sort of girls his age who had been looking and walking along with the car the whole time, while his finger was right up there and that stayed with him for years and years and years. and that's sad, because my survey i did found that like, pretty much everybody feels they pick their nose excessively . so pick their nose excessively. so that's just one example where we might feel less shame if we were able to be a bit more honest. at the same time, i'm not advocating for a society where we've all got our fingers stuck up our nose, so it's about

getting that balance. >> well, yeah, because, i mean, sam harris wrote that book on lying. that's right. and he believes that we should tell the truth at all times, in all circumstances. but as you point out, there are limits to that. >> yeah. well sam mentioned that old trope of the what is it, the nazi at your door. immanuel kant had, it was it was just it was before the nazis. so it was just an aggressor or perpetrator at your door looking for the jew or the or the person that you're hiding. and sam harris said he had a teacher who could always find a way to say to explain why the truth was the best possible way. he doesn't actually elaborate. i think everyone's well, what is the best thing? how can you tell the truth to the nazi when you're hiding a jew or harbouring a jew? i don't think you can. kant had this really weird, logic that was. oh, well, what if you say there's no jew upstairs or no person? and then that person escapes out the window. the jew and then the nazi, when he goes about his business, goes and finds the jew. it's your fault that they met each other. it's all a bit. it's all a bit theoretical, i think. yeah. so even sam harris says, look, to actually endorse this, to actually endorse this, to actually live your life, never telling a lie, only a psychopath could actually endorse that .

could actually endorse that. >> it's absolutely fascinating. now, you've written this book, and i have to say, the book is not a culture war book. it's not concerned with the culture war. and yet and yet a kind of event that was meant to launch your book at the tate gallery was cancelled because of your podcast. now, can you explain what's going on there? yeah this was gutting. >> and this is something i want to say because we talk about this so often. you talk about it, i talk about it. cancel culture. and i think there's an element of speaking about it with bravado. because we joke about it and we have a sense of humour, but when it actually happens to you, it's horrific. because, again, going back to tribal times, it's very much that feeling of i've just been kicked out of my tribe. many of us speak about these issues, but maybe harbour a slight secret desire for the theme of secrecy to have one foot in the mainstream still. and i'd like to believe that i'm still somebody who could go out to a reputable establishment and not be seen as a some sort of controversial nutcase, but my publisher, pan macmillan, came came through with quite a few different festivals and bookshops and all sorts of places that i was supposed to be

going. the tate was one of them. i don't actually know who was involved with making this group, whether it was the tate's organisers themselves or somebody organising something at the tate. all i know is right before it i was told you've been disinvited. now this then happenedin disinvited. now this then happened in quite a few different festivals going forward. >> and this is because you have a podcast called heretics . yeah. a podcast called heretics. yeah. the name sort of gives it away. you're going to be talking to some people who are considered to be controversial. so it's actually guilt by association. >> yeah, that's exactly what i think it is. yeah. and i get it. i get that you don't want like hitler talking at your your festival. right. you don't want those kinds of things. i think those kinds of things. i think those places unfortunately the publishers and the festivals and the bookshops, i think they, they are too cowardly and they're erring too much on, on they're erring too much on, on the side of caution because i spoke recently, nothing to do with the book. but at a vegan campout festival that's about as woke as it can get in terms of theme, right? but they didn't. the owners a really good guy. he just didn't care. and there was a round of applause. i spoke about cancel culture and the problem. and if you want to stop people being meat eaters, you've got to talk to them. instead of just cancelling everyone, they applauded it felt like a weight

had been lifted from them. the reality is that the tate, the people at the tape, wouldn't have been bothered and it makes a bigger deal out of it by cancelling us and stopping us speaking. and they need to get that message. yes. >> so they should just ignore the activists when they say when they demand to cancel events. it's that simple. really? yeah. and you're not a controversial figure. you don't strike me as controversial. >> well, that's because you are. >> well, that's because you are. >> wow. well are you saying it's my fault because i was on your podcast? >> it just means that we're all it might have been. i don't remember what the title was for our episode, but, look, it's really hard, isn't it? you and i ideologically are quite similar. much of this audience is. and unfortunately, in the mainstream, or at least organisers of events, seem to think that we are controversial for pointing out biological reality. >> unbelievable. well, this is the book by andrew gold, the psychology of secrets. i would highly recommend it. andrew gold, thanks so much for joining me. thank you . so next on free me. thank you. so next on free speech nation, we're going to be discussing a story which has gone viral this week as a swiss court rules that parents separated from their daughter for objecting to her gender transition must hand over

documents for her legal sex change. please don't go

welcome back to free speech nation, a video released this week by adf international has attracted over 34 million views and even attracted comment from elon musk. it concerned a pair of swiss parents who have had their child taken away from them by the authorities because they objected to her gender transition and would not give her puberty blockers. let's take a look. >> swiss authorities have taken our child , our daughter, who's our child, our daughter, who's 16 years old. we as parents are facing an alliance between the school, the swiss child protection agency , the swiss protection agency, the swiss

hospital in geneva, and we feel powerless . powerless. >> adf international are supporting the parents legal case and their communications officer, paul sapperjoins me officer, paul sapper joins me now. paul, welcome to the show. i mean, i think that's pretty chilling stuff. it sounds very much like the state has kidnapped their child . kidnapped their child. >> i think you could definitely say that the state, the daughter has been separated from her parents by the state, by court order. what we saw is that for over a year, the daughter has been separated from the parents. and that's because really, they just objected to her gender transition. so we could sort of take a step back and say, how did this unfold? because when people hear that, they think there must be more to this story. it can't quite be as simple as that. but what we had is during covid, we had a daughter in geneva, and she was sort of suffering other mental health issues . she was 13 years health issues. she was 13 years old at the time, spending a lot of time alone in her room on social media as unfortunately, a lot of children were doing at that time. and she told her parents at that time that she

started. she felt that she was the opposite sex, her parents then sort of did not want to go down the route of gender. affirmative care, social transition. they told the school that the school reacted, by sort of getting in touch with the child welfare protection agency and a trans activist. ngo, child welfare protection agency and a trans activist. n60, and they sort of worked together, accused the parents of abuse for going down the path of seeking sort of therapeutic care for the daughter that didn't gender affirm her, and eventually this sort of situation spiralled. they ended up socially transitioning the daughter against the parent's explicit wishes. and it's conspired to the point that a court eventually said that the daughter had to be placed in a government shelter, separated from the parents. her the parents access to the daughter is now regulated by the state. a really, really tragic situation. adf international supported the parents in challenging a court order that said they had to hand over documents which, which are necessary for the daughter's legal sex change. that means changing her sex from female as she is a female to male and our puberty blockers involved in

this, not at this point. the we're unsure whether she is on puberty blockers. the parents made it explicitly clear that they did not want her to be on puberty blockers , medical puberty blockers, medical authority has been transferred from the parents to the child welfare protection agency. so they don't have full, sort of authority over decisions. >> the agency could make these decisions on behalf of the parents. >> that's right. so this case wasn't looking at that issue, but the problem is that parents, it should not be the case that children can go down this route of gender affirmative care, against the parent's wishes. it's absolutely abhorrent. parental rights must be guaranteed and safeguarded. and in this case, we have seen them violated. >> well, let's talk a bit about the cass review. i mean, the cass review, four years of rigorous study, which has come out and said gender, there's no evidential basis for gender, affirmative care, also said that there is a danger with schools socially transitioning kids. thatis socially transitioning kids. that is to say, using the preferred names and pronouns that the child wants because it has the effect of locking in that identity and actually increasing the risk that they will go on to dangerous drugs and irreversible surgery. so when they throw around this term of abuse, are they not the ones guilty of abuse? >> i think that's that. that's

absolutely right. and what we saw is another thing . time and saw is another thing. time and time again we see lies peddled quite frankly. another thing the parents were told is that if they didn't go down this route, there would be an increased risk of suicide in the daughter. the cass review also showed that is not true. there is no evidential bafis not true. there is no evidential basis for that. and so, yeah, the parents just wanting to sort of look out for their daughter's interests have been punished for this. and if you look at the quotes of the father, which can be found easily online and in this video which we looked at, it is heartbreaking. they said it is heartbreaking. they said it cannot be. we cannot believe it cannot be. we cannot believe it is the case that we can be punished and have our daughter taken away from us, just for trying to look after her best interests. >> now, what is the i mean, surely the cass review is pretty clear about all of this. now, obviously this is switzerland. this is not the uk. but why is the cass are you not having this this effect globally? why are so many people resisting it? >> well, yeah, we have seen that it has had this global impact in terms of people have seen a lot of the claims peddled by trans activists, completely discredited . they do not have an discredited. they do not have an evidential basis. i think in many ways the uk is leading the world in banning puberty blockers. and we saw that high

court ruling this week which deemed that ban was completely lawful. we see cross—party agreement. it was introduced by the conservatives wes streeting welcomes the ruling, which is a great thing to see agreement on the very fundamental fact that puberty blockers should not be given to children, unfortunately, other parts of the world aren't there yet. in california, we saw another case, which is why elon musk, we mentioned he took an interest in this case, and i think it could be because it bears similarities to something that he experienced with his own son, where he said he was tricked into giving into signing documents to send him down the route of gender affirmative care, which he exactly which he deeply regrets. and we've seen that that law passed in california, which, which which goes which sort of embraces trans ideology teachers, schools like teachers cannot be informing parents about if a child is, sort of identifying as the opposite sex. and that is a very dangerous thing because social transitioning is not a neutral act. that's what the cass review said. yeah. and so to, to sort of it's the first step. and the younger that it's done, the cass review also said the more likely the child is to go down the route of medical interventions ,

route of medical interventions, which are irreversible and cause harm. >> do you think that this case the adf international is involved with now will change the perception in switzerland? i mean, like for instance, the issue you mentioned of suicide that we now know for a fact that it's not true, that there's a risk there's a higher risk of suicide if you don't put children, if you don't affirm children's gender identity . children's gender identity. that's not we know. it's not true. it has been debunked. will it take court cases of this kind to hammer this message home to the various medical and governmental authorities? >> adf international is committed to supporting those sorts of cases that you're talking about, bringing the force of the law to say, this is not right. in this case, we will be supporting the parents and seeking to appeal this , this, seeking to appeal this, this, this order that that is for them to hand over a court document, sort of sorry documents for the daughter's legal sex to be changed. and that's under the threat of criminal charges. so they aren't assisting in their daughter's legal sex change. they are under the threat of criminal charges. adf is supporting that. and we are we are committed to supporting cases, to prevent the spread of trans ideology, which harms children. and hopefully the case

like this, shedding a light on it and the real life harm it causes. it's not sort of an abstract culture war issue. it causes harm to the daughter. it causes harm to the daughter. it causes a heartbreak to these parents. and we are committed to stopping that because it's yet to have a flourishing society. we need to have parents making these interests which are in the best interests of their children. >> paul zappa, thank you ever so much for joining >> paul zappa, thank you ever so much forjoining me. really appreciate it . so there's plenty appreciate it. so there's plenty more to come . still on free more to come. still on free speech nation this evening we're going to delve into the olympic boxing controversy. we're going to ask if telling jokes in private could now land you in prison. please don't go anywhere . prison. please don't go anywhere. >> hello there. welcome to your latest gb news weather forecast. it remains unsettled over the next 24 hours, particularly across western parts of scotland. drier further southeast and turning increasingly humid as well. a deep area of low pressure sits to the north—west of the uk. outbreaks of rain pushing in

from the atlantic but also drawing in some quite warm and humid air through the rest of sunday into the early hours of monday. rain across parts of northern ireland into scotland. this turning increasingly heavy. met office warning in place across western parts of scotland, right through until the end of monday. temperatures overnight despite clear spells evenin overnight despite clear spells even in the south remaining in the mid teens for many 14 to 16 celsius. so a mild muggy start to monday. best of the sunshine across southeastern areas but heavy rain across western parts of scotland. you can see the bright colours there, so some tncky bright colours there, so some tricky travelling conditions . tricky travelling conditions. first thing with this slowly pushing north eastwards through the day. northern ireland as well seeing outbreaks of rain pushin well seeing outbreaks of rain push in now and then and temperatures around 19 or 20 celsius. so a muggy start to the day. cloudy across wales, the west country with some drizzle over the hills, but that sunshine from the word go across south east england as we go through the day. rain continues to push north and eastwards across northern ireland, affecting parts of scotland.

it'll be here where it will be heavy at times. western parts of northern england , wales also northern england, wales also seeing the risk of some rain, which will turn heavy later on in the day. best of the dry and bright weather holding on further south and east, where it will be warm and humid. temperatures reaching 25 to 27 celsius, a little fresher across the far north—west. highs around 19 degrees here for tuesday. this weather front eventually starts pushing its way south and eastwards, clearing much of the uk through the morning showers. though pushing in across northern ireland, western scotland. some of these heavy at times and generally a fresher feel for all. further showery rain expected through the middle towards the end of the week as well. see you soon. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb news

>> there's plenty more still to come on free speech nation. this week we're going to delve into the olympic boxing controversy. we're going to ask if telling jokes in private could now land you in prison, and we'll get some more questions from this very lovely studio audience. but let's get a news update first from tatiana . from tatiana. >> andrew, thank you very much. the top stories this hour. >> andrew, thank you very much. the top stories this hour . a the top stories this hour. a third man has been charged with committing violent disorder in liverpool city centre. yesterday, the prime minister vowed rioters would regret taking part in what he called far right thuggery after a fifth day of violence in england, as the government also announced emergency security for mosques amid the threat of further disorder. it comes as anti—immigration demonstrators attacked police and smashed the windows of a hotel in rotherham. south yorkshire police has said. one person. he's been arrested on suspicion of public order offences there and they say ten

police officers were injured. police have warned further violence was likely following protests in england and also in northern ireland. over 100 people were arrested yesterday . people were arrested yesterday. it comes after three little girls were killed in a knife attack at a dance club in southport almost a week ago. sir keir starmer says those causing violent trouble will face convictions . convictions. >> i won't shy away from calling it what it is far right thuggery to those who feel targeted because of the colour of your skin or your faith , i know how skin or your faith, i know how frightening this must be. i want you to know that this violent mob do not represent our country, and we will bring them to justice. >> meanwhile, police have denied claims that the organiser of a march in middlesbrough had been arrested on terrorism charges. they said a 29 year old man was

arrested last friday over firearms offences. large scuffles have broken out between police and anti—immigration protesters today. the unrest spread during a protest which started at the town's cenotaph. this afternoon. nine people have been arrested as cars were set alight and missiles thrown at police . the police service in police. the police service in northern ireland says those involved in violence, which erupted following anti—immigration protests in belfast, will be dealt with using the full force of the law. it's after a supermarket owner in belfast says his business has been reduced to ashes after it was targeted during the disorder. northern ireland's first minister, michelle o'neill, says those involved in violence on the streets of belfast should be quickly brought before the courts. this morning a clean up operation was underway in the donegall road area following last night's unrest and finally, prince harry and his wife meghan have been discussing online safety with broadcasters in the united

states. >> one of the scariest things that we've learned over the course of the last 15, 17 years that social media has been around and more so recently , is around and more so recently, is the fact that it could happen to absolutely anybody. i mean, we always talk about in the olden days, if your kids were under your roof, you knew what they were up to. at least they were safe, right? and now they can be in the next door room on a tablet or on a phone and can be going down these rabbit holes and before you know it, within 24 hours they could be taking their life. >> and those are the latest gb news headlines. for now, it is back to andrew 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 . slash alerts. >> welcome back to the free speech nation with me andrew doyle. well, we've got this

very, i have to say, very attractive studio audience here tonight. i know sometimes they can be horrors, so thank you for coming in. let's get some questions. our first question in this segment is from omolo. omolo, how are you? >> good evening . my question is, >> good evening. my question is, what do you think about the deteriorating situation in israel and iran? are we in an unsafe world now? >> oh, wow. it's a big question. and of course, there has been this escalation. now hasn't there? you know, in terms of iran, in terms of hezbollah sending more rockets now over to israel, so, josh, this is all obviously off the back of the, successful assassination of the hamas leader in tehran. yeah. and iran has said has claimed israel has crossed many red lines now and will retaliate. is it now inevitable that we're going to get this conflict with lebanon? >> well, war has actually been going on since october seventh. and, you know, hamas is a is an iranian proxy, along with hezbollah and the houthis and all of these different regions, who israel is fighting war on

seven different fronts. what we've seen in the press over here is mostly about what's going on in gaza . but for this going on in gaza. but for this whole time, hezbollah in lebanon have been they've sent 7000 missiles over. they're much better armed than than well, that's the fear, isn't it? >> i mean, this is why so much within israel, so much of the fear has been if hezbollah gets involved in this, you know, you talk about the rockets from the gaza strip. it's nothing compared to the rockets. >> this is this is the real deal >> this is this is the real deal, and we, you know , the deal, and we, you know, the whole of the north of israel has been sort of evacuated now for nearly ten months. no one's talked about that , that human talked about that, that human displacement. also, of course, you saw ten children killed playing football, a week or so ago. so, and this is israel now responding to that. no country would , would allow themselves to would, would allow themselves to be bombed by 7000 missiles and not have and not respond. >> no. and it's interesting, after october the 7th, i remember joe biden making an rememberjoe biden making an early statement directed at hezbollah saying, don't do anything, don't escalate this, but it looks like they are at at this point. do you think it's

now inevitable? i think it's inevitable. >> i think that israel has no choice for its own safety to take. they don't . if people take. they don't. if people would just if the if the surrounding countries would just 90, yep' surrounding countries would just go, yep, you exist and that's fine. it would all end tomorrow. and the release of the hostages and the release of the hostages and the release of the hostages and the release of the hostages and the palestinians, you know, then the palestinians, if the palestinian people wanted to then have their own state more than they wanted the destruction of israel and the rest of the countries went along with it. so but that's not what the situation is. israel has to fight for its survival. >> yes. and of course, the other thing, crestor is you know, leaving hamas in place really isn't an option. hamas have sworn to repeat october the 7th again and again and again. and if you actually care about the palestinian people, the worst thing you could do is leave hamas in place. >> absolutely. using children and hospitals as human shields. i wouldn't want to live under their regime . it just looks their regime. it just looks really bleak, doesn't it? i heard a minister in lebanon today saying warning people or advising people not to stockpile food. don't panic. at that point, you know things are bad,

don't you? i mean, that's pretty alarming . alarming. >> okay, we've got a question from mark. where is . hi. yeah. from mark. where is. hi. yeah. >> how are you doing? hello. >> how are you doing? hello. >> good evening, are the unionists and the nationalists finally coming together in northern ireland? will there be peace? >> isn't that a you know, i've seen those images too. so there were these images going around of the protests in belfast , were these images going around of the protests in belfast, and these were protests to do with these were protests to do with the immigration levels. and you saw in the crowd union flags and the irish tricolour side by side, which never happens. and there were also on the other side of the protest, unless i was imagining this, we can see it there. on the other side, there were people holding, palestinian flags and the progress pride flag, because of course, those two things go go together about as well as the unionists and the nationalists together. but isn't it, i suppose, nice that they're agreeing on something, but i mean , josh, i mean, this is mean, josh, i mean, this is you'd never thought you'd seen this. >> no, this is wonderful. it's peace finally coming. >> apart from all the violence

to the region, apart from all the hate. >> yeah, there's just so much peace going on, you know, it's. >> i mean, ijust don't peace going on, you know, it's. >> i mean, i just don't know to what do with it. look, there's the image there. you would have never seen that 15 years ago. >> maybe it's going to be like that football match in world war one. and afterwards they'll go back to their old ways . back to their old ways. >> well, you know, it looks a bit like that, doesn't it? i mean, the extent of the sectarian tensions, people think it's all gone away in northern ireland. it absolutely hasn't. so to see that in the middle of belfast, just outside city hall, i mean, i don't think i would have ever expected to see something like that. >> no, it's a silver lining, isn't it? >> well, i don't know if i'd call it. i don't know if i'd call it. i don't know if i'd call it. i don't know if i'd call it. no, there was violence as well, which we shouldn't forget, but. >> absolutely. >> absolutely. >> but this is an astonishing case of i mean, whether it will last or not depends on what happensin last or not depends on what happens in the coming weeks and months and years, doesn't it? i think it just goes to show that you can't pin these concerns to down one side of the political spectrum. i think that's that's the case. it's not like that. the lots and lots of people are concerned, but there is a problem, isn't there, josh? because people are resorting to violence and they undermine their own point as soon as they do that. >> yeah, of course they are. and

then there are just opportunists who want to be violent. right. that's the other thing that's, you know, i wonder how many of those people aren't aware of issues, don't have any particular strong feelings about it, and they just want to be out and breaking windows. it, and they just want to be out and breaking windows . there's a and breaking windows. there's a state agent. no, not a state travel agency was ransacked today or you know, what's that got to do with anything? no, exactly. i mean, it's about people coming in, not people leaving now. >> i mean, you get this in every riot, don't you? get the blm riots, you know, where people were smashing up sports shops and nicking trainers. it's like, i'm sure that's not what george floyd wanted. you know, this is bizarre disconnect between opportunism, even in the northern irish troubles. i mean, i've spoken to people who've said, basically we had a lot of fun throwing rocks at the army and the police, you know, so this always happens. but i mean, maybe, maybe there's some, like you say, a silver lining, but it's if it is a silver lining, it's if it is a silver lining, it's a weird one. >> well, it certainly is. i suppose what you could argue is that smashing up those places does raise awareness. >> i don't think that's i don't think it's . you're really think it's. you're really pushing it there, aren't you? that's a real defence lawyer approach, isn't it. but i don't think it's convincing. we're going to get a question from

kathy. where's kathy? hiya. >> hi there. should we continue using the term mothers or refer it to people who want to give birth? >> which do you prefer? kathy? >> which do you prefer? kathy? >> well, as a proud mother and feminist . absolutely. feminist. absolutely. >> mothers, you're never going to say i'm a person who gave birth. >> absolutely not. >> absolutely not. >> never. no. and this keeps coming up, doesn't it? because we've had this from various aspects of the nhs even. but this is kind of this is the next step up because this was in massachusetts. it's the state senate actually has passed a bill this week. it's going to replace the word mother on birth certificates with the phrase person who gave birth. but get this, they're also going to change the word father with other parent. so, this has been passed in the senate. this is, you know, it sounds we're laughing because it sounds so absurd . actually, it's pretty chilling. >> it's pretty chilling, but it feels almost like it's 220, 22 or something. yeah because we've had this from different institutions a long time. this is the first time it's sort of been passed into law. yeah. well that's the problem isn't it.

>> now a bill. >> now a bill. >> yeah. and there's arguments that it denigrates the role of mother. father, and what that entails. those are special , entails. those are special, sacred role. >> who asks for this anyway? like are there any trans activists out there asking for these words to be replaced? because i haven't seen it? >> possibly, no i haven't. >> possibly, no i haven't. >> i've seen some crazy ones cheering it on, but i haven't seen people actually actively say i find the word mother offensive. >> so somebody's baby, that was a bad choice of words, but somebody's idea that they chose to make this their cause for the week. i mean , it's just week. i mean, it's just unbelievable, isn't it? >> other parents, by the way, i should say that my mother doesn't want me calling her mother. >> yeah, but that's a different issue. >> no, no, because she wants, like, to attract men. and if i'm going. mummy. hello. over here. she's like, no, you must call me lynn. >> oh, i thought it was just that she wanted to disown, you know, she wants to get laid. i'm hoping she's not watching this show. >> i guarantee she's not here. >> i guarantee she's not here. >> highly unlikely. >> highly unlikely. >> i'm assuming she's not. okay. good. so don't worry. let's move on. now to a question from marie. where's marie? hiya >> well, the raaf right to drop

14 squadron's name. the crusaders. >> yeah. okay. this is an interesting one. before marie, before you sit down, i just want to ask you about that, because this is this is a lincolnshire based squadron. they were called the crusaders back in 1915. and people have said that's an offensive nickname, so they have to change. do you think it's offensive personally? >> personally? no and i don't necessarily think it's right. although there was a professional review. yes. for them to do that to service inquiry. but i think there's more ethos in a squadron name and a brand in that is current that should be considered. >> okay. that's an interesting, balanced approach because the thing is, cressida, you know, and the other thing to that is the original missions they flew, i think, back in 1915 were to the middle east. the word crusades has got connotations. oh, you're staring at me like i'm being an idiot. >> oh, what? too soon, i know i don't have much patience with this. >> what? really? >> what? really? >> you don't think they should change that? >> well, no, i think it's just drawing attention to it, isn't it? it's almost like implying that there's a problem. >> well, i suppose we see this

quite a lot. you know, when sports teams change their name. wasn't there an american sports team? yes. they're changing the name. >> anything with indians in it. >> anything with indians in it. >> anything with native american people has been changed, would you say i'm no fan of the crusades, right? >> the crusades, they went. no, no, i mean, historically, they went through europe along the way. they murdered and raped jews. like, i'm not a fan of crusades, but they absolutely anyone is a fan of the crusades. >> no , no. >> no, no. >> no, no. >> but the point is, they should not have changed their name at all. and also the fact this came down to one complaint is that all it was, that was one person made a complaint and then suddenly this institution that's been, you know, more than 100 years and suddenly it has to change their traditions, all to appease this one person. i mean, that's the problem. >> the world that we're living in, isn't it quite literal minded to assume that if the thing has a nickname, the crusaders, therefore it's an endorsement of medieval barbarism? >> isn't that quite a leap? yes. there we go . there we go. there we go. there we go. absolutely is. >> there's not much more. >> there's not much more. >> not much more to say than that. >> okay, a rhetorical question. >> okay, a rhetorical question. >> yeah, it was a rhetorical question. yeah. it was. okay, let's move on. this is a

question from jan. >> that's me. hi. hello. hello, hello, hello. are universities not as popular as they once were ? not as popular as they once were? >> yes, jan. apparently the applications are way down and a lot of people not wanting, a lot of young people not wanting to go to university anymore. why do you think that is? >> well, arguably there's less return on investment from universities, so maybe it's that. >> yeah, that's absolutely true . >> yeah, that's absolutely true. i mean, i think over the years a lot of governments , successive lot of governments, successive governments have sort of said we want to get as many people into universities as possible because that makes us look good. forgetting that actually, you know, some people are academically minded, some people aren't academically minded. you can earn a lot more money if you go for an apprenticeship in certain jobs, you know, i mean , certain jobs, you know, i mean, i worry about this, josh, that in a sense, there was a time when people were kind of pushing this so much that they were almost kind of implying that you should be ashamed if you didn't get into university. but, i mean, a load of the people who went to university earned so much more than people who do sometimes, you know, so they're the suckers, the ones who went to. well, absolutely. >> and people who just kind of start an app or go out and work, and there's a myriad of

different options available now. i mean, obviously for certain fields you need to specialise. that makes sense, but it's costing them a huge amount of money, as you're saying. and it's also for me, it's like going i tell my kids, like, if you want to go to uni, great. but for me it was all about, you know, getting to have sex and you went for the right reasons. theni you went for the right reasons. then i see, but and i, and i didn't have to pay that much for it. okay. i mean, this is this lesson. >> nailed it. i mean, this is at the end. josh too much information. >> howie here. i mean, is this because you don't want to have to pay for your kids to go to university? you're telling them not or actually. well, there is like, guys just go and get drunk like, guys just go and get drunk like normal people. on for goodness sake. i mean, what do you think, cressida? >> i mean, i think loads of reasons. >> it doesn't. it's not financially worth it. and i say that as a philosophy graduate with great confidence. as josh said, nobody's having any fun. i was sitting here thinking, shall i mention the metoo campaign and the worries of young men? and i thought, no, i won't say that. and then you covered it anyway.

people aren't having sex as much. it'sjust people aren't having sex as much. it's just not a glamorous thing. and on top of that, because there are activists every five minutes doing protests and closing things down and not letting speakers come, it's not what it could have been anyway. if you're not allowed to have a debate and a discussion, you might as well go on youtube and watch, you know, people talking about these things as they come up with 50 grand's worth of debt. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> well, exactly. yeah no, i mean, that's a very good point, is that a lot of academics particularly, are now activists. are you getting the best education there? i sort of reckon if you stay at home and just read a selection of really good old books, books published before 1950, then you probably do just as well, right? yeah. and they could read yours. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> yeah, obviously mine is the exclusion. you read my book as well, have you read mine yet? >> next question . no, josh has >> next question. no, josh has had my books for like two years and he hasn't got round to my bag. >> it's really. i was having too much sex at university. yeah i didn't understand it. right. >> let's let's move on. we've got a question from ryan. >> hi. hi, ryan. >> hi. hi, ryan. >> is it time to terminate the phrase? this train terminates here?

>> yeah, well, i had a joke in my stand—up about this because i hate that phrase. the train terminates here because it doesn't. it doesn't terminate there. the journey terminates there. the journey terminates there. the journey terminates there. the train lives to see another day. and i did this bit about it. and i can't do it anymore because they're changing it, but they're not changing it for the reason that it's inaccurate. they're changing the phrase because they say it's too jargony to bureaucratic. but but the train doesn't terminate at the train doesn't terminate at the station. >> yeah, i'm very sad about this. i'm sorry to keep on bringing this back and be filthy, but this is part of my sex talk and oh my god , i'm cressida. >> shut up. josh preston, i'm going to come to you now. >> and you know i can trust you to keep it clean. >> well, when i heard this, when i read the headline, i thought, oh, it's going to be about sensitivity. and we're talking about assisted dying a lot at the moment. and that's what it's going. no, they just think we're too thick to understand what they mean. is that what it is? too much jargon. >> oh unbelievable. okay. well anyway next on free speech nation, we're going to be discussing the row that has unfolded in the boxing ring at the summer olympic games in paris. it's a spicy one. don't go anywhere

>> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation with me . nation with me. >> andrew doyle the women's boxing at the olympic games in paris has been dominated by a row over the sex of two competitors. the decision to allow boxers imani khalife of algeria and lin yu ting of taiwan to participate in the games has been heavily scrutinised after they both failed a gender eligibility test given by the international boxing association last year. there was widespread outrage when italian boxer angela carini abandoned her match with khalife after 46 seconds, saying she had to preserve her life. but the international olympic committee has strongly defended the athletes, pointing out they have always competed as women. so to discuss this controversy , i'm discuss this controversy, i'm delighted now to be joined by the director of sport at fair play for women, fiona mckinnon. welcome to the show . welcome to the show. >> thank you. fiona, i'd like you to clarify it for us.

>> there has been an eligibility test which was conducted by the international boxing association. these two athletes were disqualified from the world boxing championships. is that right? >> this is what the iba have said. and they have apparently written to the ioc and told them all about it. but there's a row here between the international boxing association and the ioc , boxing association and the ioc, nothing to do with gender. and it goes back to governance issues and accusations of corruption. so what we're seeing here is the politics of boxing has has led to the ioc basically taking over running the boxing at the olympics. and they did that in tokyo. and they've done it again this time. so these are their rules being played out. >> now this is really interesting because this is actually not to do with transgenderism. that's not what the issue here. the issue here is to do with a women's category in sport potentially being violated effectively. now, my understanding is that the implication of the tests from the iba was that the two athletes in question had x, y chromosomes and had a competitive advantage, which sounds like code for had gone

through male puberty. but we don't know because we haven't got the actual test results, have we? >> we don't know if the ioc have been given the test results because it's claimed that they were given them. who knows? we don't know what the truth is because those two organisations are at loggerheads . but, it's are at loggerheads. but, it's not new. this problem. you know, if you go back to rio in 2016, the rio olympics, in the 800m, all the medals went to athletes with the same condition. we subsequently discovered, which is 46 xy five ard caster semenya was the gold medallist. they are all people who look like baby girls when they were born because of a disorder and when they grew up, it turned out they they grew up, it turned out they they were able to produce and process testosterone. they went through puberty and they have that enormous male advantage. >> so someone like caster semenya, with a lot of people will know, is a male, but did not know that growing up . not know that growing up. >> now, if you're someone who grows up thinking that you are female, then puberty hits and you suddenly discover that you've got this condition, this dsd condition, and you're

actually male, that's going to be quite difficult. i mean , be quite difficult. i mean, there should be a degree of compassion for someone going through that right? compassion for someone going through that right ? yes. through that right? yes. >> and it's very unlikely to happenin >> and it's very unlikely to happen in a developed country with good access to health care. and that's one of the reasons why you tend to see these athletes coming out of much poorer countries, where it's more likely to go in undetected for longer. so it's true when the ioc says these people were born female, grew up female , born female, grew up female, what they mean is they were registered female at birth and then, as you say, something happened. puberty typically . but happened. puberty typically. but whatever compassion we might have for the trauma that that may cause, we also have to have compassion for the women who are having to , to fight against having to, to fight against these people. in the boxing, there were famous scenes where they've been played again recently of the scottish 800 metre runner lynsey sharp, who should from rio, who came sixth but she should have had an olympic bronze medal and the three women who came fourth, fifth and sixth basically said it was like we were running a separate race. so you know, whatever compassion we have for people with dsds , we have to people with dsds, we have to recognise that it's not a

consolation prize to get to go in the women's category and get to be an olympian. when you're just an average male runner, as semenya was. >> let's just have a look. >> let's just have a look. >> we've got a statement from the ioc spokesman, mark adams. this was on friday. he said the algerian boxer he's talking about, imani khalife there was born female, was registered female , lived her life as a female, lived her life as a female, lived her life as a female, boxed as a female , has a female, boxed as a female, has a female, boxed as a female, has a female passport. this is not a transgender case. there has been some confusion that somehow it's a man fighting a woman. this is just not the case on that. there is consensus scientifically. this is not a man fighting a woman. now, if it were the case of fiona that the results come out and in fact, this athlete does not have a dsd, this athlete is in fact female , you athlete is in fact female, you would accept, that that this person should be in the women's category? >> yes. and i think if this athlete is female, that should be very easy to prove. i don't know how the ioc spokesman can say so categorically that he knows all this, >> unless he means by born female, they assumed was female at birth. >> i think that's what he means. and maybe he means well, what he

has said repeatedly is that passport is the is the passport. sex is what they're talking about. so if it's an f on the passport, he says that's good enough for him. well, i don't think that is good enough in a boxing ring. >> and of course, you know, from the from the boxer's perspective, coming from algeria, where there's very conservative values in terms of sex differences, this is difficult. maybe this is why, imani khalife does not want to reveal the details because it could cause lots of problems back home. >> that could be. but again , >> that could be. but again, that doesn't make it acceptable because imani khalife doesn't have to be in the public eye. you know, the point at which it became apparent that this person, if this person doesn't really, legitimately qualify to be in a women's sporting event, is the point at which they should have should have pulled, pulled back. >> and, you know, we can talk about the unfairness of, you know, various athletes at the rio games, taking all the three top medals, etc. there's that's an issue of fairness. this actually escalates in boxing to an issue of safety, doesn't it? >> yeah. and i think you know, when people say, well, you don't know anything about this, this

boxer and just take believe us when we say that she's a woman. i think we also have to recognise that, that some of these top women boxers, like angela carini, when they're in the ring and they feel what's going on, they know, they instinctively know, you know, they're among the best in the world. they spar with men as part of their training because there aren't enough really talented women around who are as good as them. they know when they're what they're facing. >> am i understanding, you know, with with sex differences in sport, there is always some kind of overlap sometimes. but when it comes to punching, when it comes to the physical force of the upper body, there isn't no, i mean , the weight for weight, i mean, the weight for weight, because of course in boxing we do match people by weight, >> a man can punch more than twice as hard as a woman. 162% more. but just to your point about there is some overlap . about there is some overlap. yeah, among all men and all women, if we all went for a run, there's some overlap. but if you take highly trained men and highly trained women, there's no overlap. if you take you know, teenage boys and teenage girls, there's no overlap. so if you're matching sets, which is of course what happens in sport, there is no overlap. >> okay. well i just want to move on to another question,

which is about the british medical association, because this week they have voted and announced that they want the cass review to be ditched, not to be implemented, and to everyone to just go back to administering puberty blockers to kids in spite of the evidence. what's going on there? >> quite extraordinary. isn't it? i think people should remember that the bma is a trade union. it is not representative of medical opinion in the uk. it's representative of the rights of, of doctors and particularly i think gp's. but or maybe all doctors, unlike a lot of unions, you know, it's, it's run by a minority of the members. they were very, sort of there was no transparency about this. so first they said there was a motion, then they wouldn't say if they'd voted on it, then they wouldn't say what the result was. and finally they came out and said, this. and they've now set up a little working group to look at it, which is quite breathtakingly arrogant, that a bunch of people who gps think that they can set up a little project team to review the cass review, which itself took four years, had a you know, a number of people

involved, including a former head of the royal college of paediatrics and a specialist team at the university of york to look at all the research. so i think what's going on is that some activists in the medical profession and we all know there are such people, have decided that it's pretty uncomfortable that it's pretty uncomfortable that the gravy train is ending and they have they voted on it and they have they voted on it and said, we support transitioning children, which is pretty shocking . pretty shocking. >> the ideology is a hell of a drug, you know, and i think a lot of these people are ideologically captured. but surely it must be the case that the majority of people in the bma, the majority of doctors, understand the professionalism, the rigour that went into the cass review and to just dismiss all of that, i just don't understand. >> well , i understand. >> well, i think if you're committed to a belief system rather than evidence, it really doesn't matter how much evidence there is. >> i mean, one other thing that should comfort people is that the academy of medical royal colleges, so all the real specialists , they collectively specialists, they collectively have put out a statement in response to the bma's vote to

say, we stand behind this review and it should be implemented as soon as possible, because we've had wes streeting in the labour party saying they are going to the labour party will be implementing the cass review. >> i know there's been a lot of pushback from various medical bodies around the world, again dominated by activists group like w path, for instance, of course, which is as far as i can see, an activist body, but are you confident that ultimately the findings of the cass review will win out? it will have global ramifications and gender affirming care will be a thing of the past? >> i think that there's a very strong push for the revenue streams to keep going. private health care in the us is still going. i think the only thing that will stop that is lawsuits. the biggest problem with lawsuits is that they get timed out. so what happens is that by the time someone realises that transition was a mistake, it may be five, six, eight years down the line and it's too late to bnng the line and it's too late to bring a medical malpractice suit. so there's work going on in the us, not by us, but by people there to try and get that changed. because i think until the money is stopped, i think

there's still a great deal of interest in pursuing these treatments among the medical, some small proportion of the medical profession . medical profession. >> well, fiona, thanks ever so much for coming on the show and sharing your thoughts. really appreciate it . so next on free appreciate it. so next on free speech nation, the high court upheld the custodial sentences of two police officers who sent grossly offensive messages in a private group chat. i'm going to discuss this with the professor of commercial law, andrew tettenborn, next. please don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nation. this week, the high court upheld the custodial jail sentences of two police officers who were prosecuted for sending grossly offensive messages over a public communication system. the messages, which included racial slurs and jokes about

disabled people, were sent in a whatsapp group chat and they were only unearthed when one of its members, wayne couzens, was arrested for the rape and murder of sarah everard in 2021. now section 107 of the 2003 communications act was used to prosecute the two officers. although the legislation has come under fire, as in this case, there was no single victim who felt offended by the content. so with me now is professor of commercial law andrew tettenborn, who has been writing about this issue this week. andrew thanks for joining me. this is a difficult one, isn't it , because me. this is a difficult one, isn't it, because this was a horrific crime by wayne couzens. everyone will agree with that. the other officers within the group chat with him, put some probably very unpleasant comments and phrases in that group chat . comments and phrases in that group chat. so can you explain to us why you think that shouldn't be criminalised? >> yeah, certainly. i don't in any way support what they said it was . purile, sorry. it was it was. purile, sorry. it was puerile. it was testosterone

fuelled. it's the sort of thing you'd expect to find on the on the school lavatories occupied by 16 year old boys , it was by 16 year old boys, it was extremely offensive, but i still think it's very, very worrying that here we've got an open and shut case of the state. criminalising the entirely private expression of a viewpoint between two people who consented to receive it, the only reason why it ever came to light being, the chance event that one of them later got arrested for a completely different crime, it's as if, i write to my brother sharing a racist joke and a couple of months later, he's arrested for a drug offence. the police searched the house. they find

the note that i wrote to him, and they then try and prosecute me. now, they can't do that for a mere note, they can do it for anything that appears anywhere on the internet, because the other feature of this case is that it shows the extent to which section 127 of the communications act, which you just talked about, can be misused. >> yeah. so that's interesting. >> yeah. so that's interesting. >> andrew, can i ask you about that? because a lot of people think the communications act is about things you post on social media in the public domain. facebook twitter, that kind of thing. this is a private group chat. there's got to be a distinction there, hasn't there ? distinction there, hasn't there? >> well, there should be. the trouble is, the legislation was badly drafted. if anybody in the in the room wants to know, it actually dates from the 1930s. and started out as legislation against nuisance phone calls. some bright spark then said just

before 2000, oh, we'd better extend it to cover any electronic communication system to show where clever and up to date and that sort of thing, thereby covering the entire internet. but the trouble is, what it simply says is a person who sends a message using a an electronic communication system , electronic communication system, now, it would have been perfectly possible if the high court had really wanted to, put down a marker for free speech. they could quite simply have said, well, wait a moment. the stuff you send has to be grossly offensive. how can something be grossly offensive if there's nobody to be offended by it? >> so that's a key element of this case, is that there weren't there was no quote unquote victim in this case, because the only people who read it were the people who were sending it. but i want to ask you about this, because this is the big question when it comes to free speech,

isn't it? and it's also the big test. it's very easy to defend free speech when the when the people are saying very innocuous things, when people are writing actually, genuinely horrible, offensive things, that's when your principles are really tested, isn't it? >> oh, it is. and well, the thing is, free speech isn't worth having if it's only free speech to say things that are innocuous, exchanging the time of day and so on. it's the free speech of the people you dislike, the free speech of the people you seriously disagree with. that matters. and it comes down to the fact that the state should not be in the business of censoring viewpoints merely because those viewpoints are outrageous , offensive, or whatever. >> andrew, do you think, though, that in this case, because of the proximity to wayne couzens, who was obviously in the whatsapp group, that what's happenedisin whatsapp group, that what's happened is in a sense these two crimes are being conflated. i say crimes, but certainly the wayne couzens crime is being

confronted and is in a sense , confronted and is in a sense, influencing the court's decision when it comes to this separate issue of jokes expressed sick jokes in a private context, i'd love to say i thought you were right, andrew, but i'm not quite sure because we've been here before. >> a couple of years ago. a person who gave a party in london and took a film, which. well, i won't go into it, but it was, very, very racist, it was all about grenfell tower. >> i think we all saw the film. it was a viral clip he took. >> he took it as a joke and again sent it to a closed group of his friends , and it then came of his friends, and it then came to light, quite by chance, a little bit later. so in a sense, it's exactly the same as the case we've got here. and he got a prison sentence. admittedly, there it was suspended, but it was still a prison sentence. and

the court said, you know, the fact that this stuff is being sent in private groups where we can't see it, if anything makes it even more serious. >> yes. can i ask you, andrew, about so you'll know about this because you know more about me than the law. but the press, my understanding is the law, of course, is, is based on precedent. does this case and the grenfell joke case that you described, does this mean now that actually any, private joke that actually any, private joke that any of us have sent via whatsapp, even to our closest friends who understand the context, who understand that you don't mean what you say , the don't mean what you say, the kind of jokes that if they were broadcast to the public would get you cancelled. does that mean that any of us who have done that, we are now open to prosecution? >> in theory, yes. what the court actually said was, oh, well, don't worry, we've got the european convention on human rights and if you're lucky, that might come in and say you're

protected there. the trouble is that the european convention on human rights is actually very bad when it comes to free speech, and actually not very good when it comes to the privacy of speech, either. but yes, unless you can pray in a the european convention on human rights, if i make a phone call to my brother in which i make a seriously nasty racial comment, i'm guilty of a criminal offence for which i'm liable to go to prison . that's why i think it's prison. that's why i think it's an outrage. >> okay, andrew tettenborn, thanks very much for discussing this. really appreciate it . a i this. really appreciate it. a i want to just quickly ask my panellists about this sequester. if it's the case that any of us can be the way that we joke in private with close friends is not the same as what we would say. for instance, right here, apart from josh, who clearly has no filter. well, but what do you think about i mean, the idea that you could be prosecuted for something you say on whatsapp, are you happy with that? >> no, i'm not happy about it at all. i mean, firstly, obviously i'm going to delete everything

between bruce, bruce devlin and i. >> i] >> i i. >> i absolutely would agree with that. yeah. >> no, i it's just horrible isn't it. it's so big brother esque, yeah. >> i mean i wonder whether with this josh , is it just because of this josh, is it just because of the nature of the, you know , the nature of the, you know, sometimes these people say horrible things in these group chats, but there's a higher principle, isn't there, of free speech? >> yeah, yeah, of course there is. and there's other factors. you know, there's gallows humour. i'm not like trying to condone or say what they said. i don't know what the jokes were. yes, but i know that there exists gallows humour. certainly people who work in life and death situations. there's an argument, of course, that that kind of humour is also what led and the acceptability of wayne couzens to sort of get away with what his behaviour was. >> but that's not what the court is saying . is saying. >> no. exactly. so that's the danger here. all i know is i expect a lot more letters from me. >> okay. there we go. so next on free speech nation, a new art exhibition is walking on eggshells. liz truss is seemingly invisible, and president biden starts singing. it's almost time for social sensations. please don't anywhere

>> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation . nation. >> so 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. and first up is this video of a new art exhibition that's been doing the rounds. the artist, known only by her pseudonym, con. she spent three years finding a gallery that would agree to exhibit her work. let's have a look at it . i work. let's have a look at it. i can't oh my god , we can't , we can't oh my god, we can't, we can't oh my god, we can't, we can't , we can't be. can't, we can't be. >> kyrees behaves became be kind are you be kind. are you kind right now ? right now? >> so in the exhibit, people have to walk over eggshells to get into the exhibit. and of course, there's a there's

someone shouting, be kind. actually, i have to be honest, i do feel a bit like that when the activists go for me on twitter and when i get the most vicious comments, i click through to the bio and it always says kindness, compassion and also you should die in a grease fire. >> you know, if anyone doesn't live in london, that's very much what it's like to use. tfl actually isn't it? on the underground? be kind, be kind. don't look at anyone . don't do don't look at anyone. don't do this, don't do that. >> yeah, there is an element to that. do you think there's a point to this i don't know. >> well yeah. i mean first of all i think i recognise that artist really well. is it is that you, christa ? in a week, that you, christa? in a week, no. yeah. of course, i mean, the. the irony of be kind is exactly those people who utilise it. i'd say it's the most insidious sort of phrasing of the last eight years or so. >> yeah, it should be be kind or else. yes. really. i think that would work. anyway, let's let's have a look at this video. it's from itv racing, which rather awkwardly features former prime minister liz truss , doctor jim minister liz truss, doctor jim of the three, which one have you

the most hope for, >> i couldn't pick between the three of them. >> i mean, subsequent has done it. he's proven it, the other two, a lot of potential there. so time will tell. >> well, he will in a few minutes time. two of those trainers could be very worried if the other wins . good luck. if the other wins. good luck. >> i don't think so. they'll all be happy. >> thank you. doctor liz truss, wasn't it ? wasn't it? >> it was. my eyes are not deceiving me. this market could crash any minute, couldn't it? wow >> that's just mean, isn't it? josh? which one was the horse? josh? which one was the horse? josh howie josh howie kind be kind. >> i'm sorry. she. but you know what? they don't keep your mouth open.i what? they don't keep your mouth open. i know it's a bad look. >> it's a bit like a muppet. >> it's a bit like a muppet. >> yeah, it's just so exciting. >> yeah, it's just so exciting. >> any thoughts? >> any thoughts? >> cressida, i feel very sorry for her. obviously it's going to go viral. how embarrassing. >> oh, i know, it's always. on the internet was a bad idea. okay, look, finally, we've got president joe biden. he's been

caughtin president joe biden. he's been caught in yet another gaffe this week , this time as he celebrated week, this time as he celebrated the us, russia prisoner swap. yeah you all know we have a tradition in the biden family. >> we sing happy birthday on any birthday . ready, >> we sing happy birthday on any birthday. ready, all of you. happy birthday to you. happy birthday to you. happy birthday , birthday to you. happy birthday, dear mary, happy birthday to you. remember? no serious guys to your 30. god love you know what, guys? >> i'm serious. i read about this during the week. >> no serious guys, serious guys. >> until you're 30. he's not into tradwives , apparently. into tradwives, apparently. okay. whole thing. >> that's so awful. yeah. yes. and he's still the president. >> he's also. it wasn't her birthday. >> no . wasn't even a birthday. >> no. wasn't even a birthday. >> no. wasn't even a birthday. >> the whole thing was awkward . >> the whole thing was awkward. okay, we're going to move on now because we've got some of your unfiltered dilemmas which you send through every week. and we're very grateful. we've got a dilemma here from mary. mary says my other half is taking me

to a karaoke party with his friends, and it's the first time i'll be meeting some of his mates. do i go all out and commit to belting out some classics, or do i play it more low key to make a better first impression? it's tricky, isn't it? because i think the whole point of karaoke is you've got to be bad at singing. i really hate the people that stand up and they can actually sing. i mean, what's the point? so i think it should be go full on, go for the hardest things to sing. like my heart will go on, just go full on. what do you think, josh? >> i think you should learn how to pronounce karaoke and. >> well, how did i pronounce it? >> well, how did i pronounce it? >> you. you went full on japanese. it's a japanese word. okay it was just because i have respect . respect. >> i have respect for the japanese culture. and i pronounce their words properly. >> did you recently go to barcelona ? barcelona? >> maybe i did okay, >> maybe i did okay, >> yes. >> yes. >> i think you're just being racist. >> josh . >> josh. >> josh. >> all right. okay, >> all right. okay, >> what do you think? >> what do you think? >> i don't know, go. go all out. go for something with rapping in it. really embarrass yourself. >> yeah.

>> yeah. >> gangsta's paradise. there you go. >> great choice. >> great choice. >> i've actually done that in karaoke. what about that football one where john barnes had to do a. >> oh, that's a new order there. you go. >> i remember that was a great line. you blacked up and everything. anyway god, that didn't happen. >> i'm not justin trudeau. >> i'm not justin trudeau. >> let's move on to another dilemma. this has come in from jack.jack dilemma. this has come in from jack. jack says going to a wedding in france with my other half next week. the following day, she is off to some kind of post—wedding hen do, and i will be stuck with a load of blokes i've never met. should i try and crash the hen? do >> well, i know, but the sort of the rules, isn't it? >> you don't crush the hen. >> you don't crush the hen. >> do you think he should try some karaoke? and no, of course. no, it's very hard. >> that's how mr miyagi would have pronounced it. >> and he would teach that karate very well. >> that's how he pronounces karate. >> he says karate, but it's going to be. >> oh, there's nothing worse than just being dumped together with a bunch of blokes and then having to feign masculinity. >> it sounds quite good to me. i think i'd enjoy that kind of thing. >> i do that sort of thing all the time. all right, good. what do you think? >> i got roped into a spa day

once. what's that? great question, it's. it's sitting around in a dressing gown with no mascara on being bored with other women. you don't really know. it was very similar to that. >> how'd you get out of that? >> how'd you get out of that? >> well, you didn't. i sat through it. and i've never been to a spa since. >> anyway, let's. we've got one more quick. >> we've got one from carol. carol says i have a second date on monday, but i accidentally let slip the venue to my workmates, and now they're all threatening to come along. do i change venue or just hope for the best? get better friends, for goodness sake , josh, why for goodness sake, josh, why would they be doing that to her? >> i think that's really funny. >> i think that's really funny. >> yeah, it's a sort of thing you would do. i would do you would go along and watch. >> you're really good. i think it's a shame she's not telling us the venue. i think we should all rock up this entire audience and ask them their opinions on free speech. and when they finish your book. >> yeah, well, you've got to finish my book, josh. first very quickly. cressida. >> absolutely not. change the venue. get out of it. >> there we go. take the risk. >> there we go. take the risk. >> i'm with you, chris. that's absolutely right. thanks so much for joining us for free speech nation. this was the week when riots erupted through the uk. the british medical association came out in favour of pseudoscience and the olympics continued to deny that biological, biological sex

matters in boxing. but thanks so much to my panel. cressida wetton and josh howie to all of my brilliant guests this evening. and by the way, if you want to join us live in the studio and be part of this audience, you can easily do that. just go to western audiences.com. you can apply there. come along . stay tuned. there. come along. stay tuned. because the brilliant mark dolan is coming up just next. and don't forget headliners is on every night at 11:00. that's the late night paper preview show where comedians take you through the next day's top news stories . the next day's top news stories. that's going on tonight and every night. thank you ever so much for watching free speech nation. i'm going to see you next week . next week. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello there. welcome to your latest gb news weather forecast. it remains unsettled over the next 24 hours, particularly across western parts of

scotland. drier further southeast and turning increasingly humid as well. a deep area of low pressure sits to the northwest of the uk. outbreaks of rain pushing in from the atlantic but also drawing in some quite warm and humid air through the rest of sunday into the early hours of monday rain across parts of northern ireland into scotland this turning increasingly heavy metoffice warning in place across western parts of scotland, right through until the end of monday. temperatures overnight despite clear spells evenin overnight despite clear spells even in the south, remaining in mid teens for many 14 to 16 celsius. so a mild muggy start to monday. best of the sunshine across southeastern areas but heavy rain across western parts of scotland. you can see the bright colours there, so some tncky bright colours there, so some tricky travelling conditions. first thing with this slowly pushing northeastwards through the day. northern ireland as well seeing outbreaks of rain pushin well seeing outbreaks of rain push in now and then and temperatures around 19 or 20 celsius. so a muggy start to the day. cloudy across wales, the west country with some drizzle

over the hills, but that sunshine from the word go across southeast england as we go through the day. rain continues to push north and eastwards across northern ireland, affecting parts of scotland. it will be here where it will be heavy at times. western parts of northern england , wales also northern england, wales also seeing the risk of some rain which will turn heavy later on in the day. best of the dry and bright weather holding on further south and east, where it will be warm and humid . will be warm and humid. temperatures reaching 25 to 27 celsius. a little fresher across the far north—west. highs around 19 degrees here for tuesday. this weather front eventually starts pushing its way south and eastwards, clearing much of the uk through the morning showers. though pushing in across northern ireland, western scotland, some of these heavy at times and generally a fresher feel for all. further showery rain expected through the middle towards the end of the week as well. see you soon. >> looks like things are heating up boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

>> good evening. it is 9:00 on television, on radio and online in the united kingdom and across the world. this is mark dolan tonight, the last mark dolan tonight until september. tonight, the last mark dolan tonight until september . so in a tonight until september. so in a big opinion, special, we need to get to the truth of what's going on with these riots. i'll be giving my fearless and unapologetic verdict in a moment. you won't want to miss it. in the big story, amid accusations of two tier policing, are britain's police officers now politically biased picking and choosing how they enforce the law? i'll be asking a retired top cop it might take a retired top cop it might take a ten. harry and meghan will not come to the uk because it's too dangerous. instead, they're off to crime ridden colombia murder capital of the world. i'll be deaung capital of the world. i'll be dealing with the duke and

duchess of double standards in no uncertain