those 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, i7 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 bring them 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