on the 2nd of july. so at struck on the 2nd of july. so at this stage doesn't appear to be any progress on that. bring you more on that as we get it. meanwhile, in ukraine, a british man is missing, feared, buried under the rubble after a russian missile hit a hotel used by journalists in the east of the country. he was part of a six strong team from reuters. the news agency. a ukrainian and a us national were also injured. reuters have released a statement. they say they are urgently seeking more information, working with authorities in kramatorsk and supporting the colleagues and their families here. the prime minister is set to warn that things will get worse in the uk before they get better. in a speech on tuesday, sir keir starmer is likely to say there are no quick fixes to remedy what he'll call the rubble and ruin left by the conservatives. he'll also continue to argue that the last tory government concealed the true state of pubuc concealed the true state of public finances. but the conservatives have responded, saying labour are fabricating a financial black hole to clear the way for tax rises . and

the way for tax rises. and they're also calling the prime minister to reverse cuts to winter fuel payments . winter fuel payments. immigration enforcement officers have detained 75 suspects illegally suspected rather of illegally suspected rather of illegally working as part of a week long crackdown . officers week long crackdown. officers visited more than 200 businesses in the past week, particularly car washes, with over 120 receiving civil penalties for employing illegal workers. the home secretary says the government will make sure that those who break the law face the full force of the law. businesses found to be employing people illegally face fines of up to £45,000 per worker for the first offence and then £60,000 for any repeat offenders . well, for any repeat offenders. well, a royal navy warship has conducted a major drugs bust in the caribbean. cocaine with a street value of more than £40 million has been seized and three alleged smugglers have been handed over to us authorities so far this year, hms trent has seized close to seven tons of drugs . police say

seven tons of drugs. police say they have made 38 arrests tonight and recovered four knives on the first day of the notting hill carnival in west london. more than 7000 police officers are on duty on the streets, with around a million people set to attend. a man believed to be in his 20s has been stabbed, though his injuries are not life threatening. and finally , some threatening. and finally, some brighter news a two world war veteran celebrating her 102nd birthday has become britain's oldest parachutist after leaping from a plane in east anglia. this was the moment she took that leap, manette bailey marked the milestone with the skydive and raised over £10,000 for charity, for good her. despite admitting the jump was a bit scary, she encouraged others in their 80s and in their 90s to keep going and never give up. well, it's not the first time she's pulled off a daredevil stunt there. you can see her relieved face at the relief of 102 years old there , for her 102 years old there, for her 100th birthday, she drove a ferrari on a race track around

silverstone. who knows what she'll do for 103.7 those are the latest gb news headlines for now. i'll be back with you 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 . >> forward slash alerts. >> forward slash alerts. >> welsh librarians are to told avoid racist buildings. puberty blockers are banned in northern ireland, and an australian judge rules that sex is changeable. this is free speech. nation . this is free speech. 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 loveable culture warriors whose motto is be kind or else. coming up on the show tonight, who is to blame for the riots following the southport stabbings.7 was it social media? we'll the southport stabbings? was it social media? we'll discuss this with barrister sam fouls, who

blames far right tropes and free speech campaigner toby young. we're going to go down under, we're going to speak to the ceo of google, who recently lost a landmark case and has the decline of religion led to the rise in wokeness? author and cultural writer helen pluckrose joins me in a short while. and of course, i've got my fabulous comedian panellists tonight who are leo kearse and paul cox . are leo kearse and paul cox. hello both. yeah. >> good. thanks. >> good. thanks. >> are you happy, leo? >> are you happy, leo? >> yeah. i'm happy. good. >> yeah. i'm happy. good. >> i'm always worried about you. >> i'm always worried about you. >> happy as a scottish person can be in august. yeah. >> it's not not necessarily possible. have you had a good week, paul? >> i have, yeah, just drove past the notting hill carnival. and. was it fun? >> lively was it? parts of it looked like millwall versus millwall. but yeah, it it looked like a lot of fun to me. >> well i'm glad it's lively because if a carnival isn't lively, something is going seriously. >> exactly. yeah. yeah, yeah. >> exactly. yeah. yeah, yeah. >> well, good for them. okay, let's. we've got an audience here, so we may as well use them. let's get a question from, don. who's don here? >> here i am. how are you? i'm

very well. how are you? not so bad, don. >> we could talk about this all night. okay. >> let's get let's get the question down. it's a question that often keeps me awake at night. it's. should librarians hold meetings in racist buildings? yeah, it's . buildings? yeah, it's. >> it is a worry. >> very important. and i'm sure most people saw this story because it's obviously decolonisation . people are at it decolonisation. people are at it again. and they've basically advised libraries across wales that in order to become anti—racist, you've got to avoid racist buildings . and i think racist buildings. and i think they mean buildings that have a connection to someone who once was connected to the slave trade or that not that the buildings themselves are racist. >> yeah, it's not like if you look at them on, on google maps, they're going to like lay out in a swastika shape. not like that. no, no, these are i mean, it's a ridiculous idea. it's taking systemic racism which which says that, you know, systems are imbued with racism and it's actually transplanting it into the into the bricks. and mortar of a building. it's insanity. >> what is it about librarians? right. there's a real problem with activist woke librarians who, like, they've been caught hiding books at the british

library in london. there was a decolonisation working group who decided to put all these authors on a watch list if they were vaguely connected to the slave trade. and they even said, honestly, this working group said that the building, the main building of the british library was problematic because it resembles a battleship and therefore that's colonial . well, therefore that's colonial. well, these people are totally insane. >> yeah, correct. yeah. there's a good point about librarians, though. what is it? i mean, they do their whole career is based around them speaking and no one else being allowed to. yeah. so they're all actually secret dictators, an authoritarian element to wanting to become a librarian, but but i hate this idea of them hiding shelves or lecturing you about them. >> just put the books back on the shelf. that's it. that's all i want you to do. >> yeah. and this is all to do with. i think it's called. it's not critical race theory, is it? but it's critical. critical white studies. yeah which i don't think means they're so critical. we need to do it immediately. no, no, they are much more about, you know, being criticising white people, which leo and i hate ourselves. >> you're a paragon of

whiteness, aren't you? i mean, look at you. >> i am quite, quite white. yeah.i >> i am quite, quite white. yeah. i mean, i've got an excuse. i'm from scotland, but . excuse. i'm from scotland, but. yeah. and this is. this is all dressed up as anti—racism. and when they say anti—racism, what they mean is a lot of racism because it's specifically looking at people and judging them based on the colour of their skin and, you know, making people go through these weird rituals like, if you go into, into a building, if you're giving a lecture in a building that's supposedly racist or got a racist history , which most a racist history, which most buildings do because they're built 100 years ago when more people were racist, you know what i mean? yeah. so when you go into one of these buildings to give a lecture, you've got to acknowledge the racist history and apologise for it. it reminds me of, doing shows in australia. there'd be somebody before the show who'd come out and be like, so we want to acknowledge that, you know, this, this was built on aboriginal land and blah, blah, blah. and we apologise. and we before comedy, before the comedy show and then obviously i go out and make fun of it, but they were if they were that sorry about it, they'd give the

land back. yeah. it's like, don't dress it up as this. don't don't dress it up as this. don't don't get, you know, aboriginal people excited that they're going to get their land back and then not do it. >> you know what i mean. what do they do in a place like qatar? you know, they acknowledge that this building was built by slaves yesterday. >> do they say is that what happened? >> there's a dead one over there. >> exactly. >> exactly. >> all right, let's get a question from nicola. where's nicola? hello? >> hello, should we accept the taliban's treatment of women, >> i mean, nicola, i'm hoping you're going to say no, right? like. i mean, this was quite shocking , wasn't it? this news shocking, wasn't it? this news this week, and obviously, it's the taliban. so what do you expect? but basically, women in afghanistan have been banned now from speaking in public and there were these pictures going around online of the women, everyone completely veiled over everyone completely veiled over every like, not even any element of the face left. i mean, it shouldn't be a surprise that the taliban are deeply, grotesquely misogynistic. they really, obviously are. but is this a problem that the international community is really dealing with or even addressing? keir starmer will be, because that's extreme

misogynist as you pointed out. >> so keir starmer would have them all here. it's well, it is. this is the whole you know what come first. yeah but of course this all emanates from our abandonment. the us and uk and the west abandonment of afghanistan just a few years ago under under joe biden, we just we just left and left, you know, £4 billion worth of kit there and just left them to it. and of course, if you leave them to it, it's gone right back to where it was, which was the dark ages. and i say the dark ages by comparison with our culture in the west, of course, against the backdrop of their own culture, it's perfectly normal. but we don't look at it through that lens. our paradigm is much, much different, and the way they treat women to us is abhorrent. we can't understand it. we don't understand it at all. >> i mean, there's a real problem with cultural relativism, isn't there? i mean, i've interviewed iranian journalists on this, and they were talking about, you know, the women in iran tearing their veils off, burning them in the street, dancing the courage it takes to do that is intense because they could actually be killed. they could actually be imprisoned. and these, these

journalists were saying, but where are the west? where are the western feminists? where are people speaking up? where are the left in the uk? where are they? >> well, the guardian is running opinion pieces saying, oh well, actually veiling women is a feminist thing to do, right? but actually, i mean, i think there could be advantages to to, veiling women, not not just the ugly ones, but it makes it makes women harder to hit with a plate in nando's. so that is going to give if people don't know the story you're alluding to there, it just sounds psychotic. >> but there is a muslim, a muslim man recently hit a woman in the face with a plate in nando's. >> okay, there you go. context. context. >> that's the context . context >> that's the context. context to that. but yeah, i mean, do you think there's an issue with like, you know, the labour party currently saying they want to redefine talk about the definition of islamophobia, which could mean not and at the same time, they want to tackle extreme misogyny, but there's a lot of extreme misogyny within certain elements of the islamic community. >> yeah, but they can't address that because that would be islamophobic, right? i mean, am islamophobic, right? i mean, am i wrong about this? >> yeah. i mean, they're going to have a tough time. i mean, islamophobia doesn't work as a concept because you've got to be

able to criticise religions and ideas and also, you know, islam, islam is a sort of form of societal organisation and structure and politics and everything. it's not just the religion. so, you know, as you can see in iran or afghanistan, it's not as if they've got like a secular state and people just go to, you know, the mosque . go to, you know, the mosque. it's part of the way the country is run. >> paul , is run. >> paul, isn't it also a is run. >> paul , isn't it also a little >> paul, isn't it also a little bit patronising to suggest, oh, you know, you can't criticise islam because i mean, the implication is that muslims are uniquely kind of combustible, whereas actually all of us surely should have our beliefs ridiculed and criticised. >> i mean, that's part of living in an open and free society. >> absolutely. i'm a professional comedian. believe it or not. and, we should. and the whole point is that we should be able to openly criticise or make fun of anything, you know, within reason. okay, i accept there might be some reason, but everything should be fair game. i really don't know where we go with this. you can already see through the advert advertising campaign. this is going to protect that part of the community. there's nothing in the advertising campaign about misogyny or extreme misogyny,

which is yet to be defined, by the way. and who's defining it could be a worry as well. >> well, i might add that. isn't labour guilty of extreme misogyny for their treatment of rosie duffield and the fact that keir starmer hasn't even met with her, hasn't even apologised. should they be sort of putting the microscope on themselves? >> they should. they should be, i think keir starmer and rachel reeves , any of them. jess reeves, any of them. jess phillips should start every day by apologising for everything they've done. >> okay. well that's a nice balanced view. but obviously when it comes to the taliban in afghanistan, there's nothing we can do about it, but we should criticise it obviously. anyway, i've got a question from bev. >> hello. hello. and my question is, do you think that public opinion has changed on puberty blockers? >> that's a really interesting one because this is northern ireland now have banned puberty blockers. do you think it's going in the right way bev? i do because a lot of people weren't on board at first. but then we had the cass review and that's kind of been a bit of a game changen kind of been a bit of a game changer. and now finally northern ireland, they've realised, you know, drugging kids who are overwhelmingly statistically autistic or gay or

just confused, trying to drug them and sort of heterosexuals them and sort of heterosexuals them effectively isn't really a progressive thing. >> yeah. but i don't know. i mean, there's all this fuss about puberty blockers and should we give them to children? but i've been taking them since i was a little girl, and i'm absolutely fine. >> you are. >> you are. >> but no, i mean, it seems obvious. it's like one of those things. you don't need to be an expert. you don't need to do. you don't need to do a gender studies degree to work out or be a doctor to know that giving hormones and puberty blockers and drugs to confuse children is and drugs to confuse children is a terrible idea. and the only upside i can see of it is it's all these liberal parents who i don't like them anyway, so i want them to have a horrible family life, and i want them to have awkward christmases. and i want i want them to have their children saying, why did you let me do this in ten years time? >> well, actually, within that there is a serious point, isn't there? which, you know, in years to come, it's going to be all sorts of lawsuits and kids saying, why did you why on earth did you let me take these drugs? well that's exactly what's going

to happen. >> and these parents are going to have some big, big questions to have some big, big questions to answer because puberty blockers are for, you know, even within the cash support, they say that there is the minutest benefit for them, for the minutus percentage of people out there, there's no evidence for their usefulness, you know? >> so what that does mean very likely, as this is now a scientific report, is that there will be tens of thousands of children potentially , that will children potentially, that will be affected by this. >> and, you know, it used to be that these parents that you talk of would have like a silly little to dog carry around with to prove that they were liberal. now they've got to have a trans kid and it's going to affect them for the rest of their lives. yeah, and some liberals like megan fox, like all three children. >> impossible. i mean, that's like statistical odds. she should buy a lottery ticket. that's just insane. the statistical odds of that, it's really ruined things for former child soldiers in africa, because it used to be that a helicopter would land and madonna would get out and you'd have a wonderful life be taken off or a wonderful life in hollywood. and now, you know, the helicopter lands, charlize theron gets out and you get taken off to hollywood. but six

months later, you got your hair in pigtails, and she's talking about how you could tell you wanted to transition as soon as you got in the helicopter. >> right. >> right. >> we're going to move on. let's get a question from john. hi, john. >> good evening. hello. an issue which has been troubling me for many years, should businesses be more vegan friendly? >> i mean, are you a vegan? >> i mean, are you a vegan? >> no way. am i a vegan. oh, right. >> you're quite a robust carnivore , aren't you? carnivore, aren't you? >> yes, a robust carnivore. >> yes, a robust carnivore. >> yeah, that's the way to describe it. well, this is because of. well, it's peta again, isn't it? the. i can't remember what they. what? >> i hate that guy. yeah. >> i hate that guy. yeah. >> they're basically the. oh, there's something for the ethical treatment of animals. you know that american group and they're talking about, paint companies like farrow and ball and they need to change the paint colour names to make them more vegan friendly, because a lot of them apparently normalise the exploitation of animals . the exploitation of animals. >> right. what do they mean by that? well, one of them is called dead salmon. >> so i don't believe i don't believe they have a point. they have a point at all whatsoever. but one thing i will say, given,

you know, six weeks of labour and what it looks like we're going to get for five years, i'd let them rename every paint colour if they promised in return to do something, anything about knife crime. because i couldn't care less about the names of paint we are doing . names of paint we are doing. absolutely. i mean, that is just a massive distraction. who cares? imagine, peter, in this environment now thinking all they can do is discuss the names of paint. >> yeah, but they are monomaniacs . i mean, they're monomaniacs. i mean, they're obsessed with this, so they will. you know, i remember peter putting out this thing about don't don't use gendered pronouns for, for pigeons because they might not identify as male or female. i'm not joking. they put out a picture of a pigeon with they. them. >> yeah, next to the pigeon. >> yeah, next to the pigeon. >> i don't think they fully understand the concept of paint. they haven't, like actually squeezed a salmon to get that colour into the pot. it just looks a bit like salmon. although dead salmon. that's an awful name for a general name. what should what should we paint the kids bedroom? oh, dead salmon. >> dead salmon in the wall. >> dead salmon in the wall. >> yeah, but they have very pretentious names. don't they have, like, elephant's breath?

>> yeah. what colour? >> yeah. what colour? >> i think the kids room would be in winning sperm pizza, which is an off white. i think you need to go after. >> they need. they need to go after lily allen. cos i heard this week that lily allen took her dog back. yeah, she did, because it ate her palestinian flag. >> so is this a joke? no, that's true. >> some of it is. i mean, i ate her passport, didn't it? >> and she ate her passport. didn't eat the palestinian flag? no. >> well, she's got spears, i should say. >> okay. >> okay. >> poor dog. okay, so next on free speech nation, i'm going to be speaking to timandra harkness. she's going to be joining me live in the studio to discuss the role of social media in the riots that we've recently seen on our so please don't anywhere.

welcome back to free speech nation. following the riots earlier this month, the role of social media has come under a

lot of scrutiny. last week, the national police chiefs council said that 1127 arrests had been made since the disorder began and 648 charges laid. and of those, 29 people were charged with offences involving social media or other online activity. sentences for crimes such as publishing written material to stir up racial hatred have ranged from a three month custodial sentence to 20 months in prison. so with me now to discuss this is the writer and broadcaster timandra harkness. timandra, thanks so much for joining me on the show. i want to ask you about this because of course, you've written a book called technology is . what's the called technology is. what's the title again? sorry, timandra. what is it? >> technology is not the problem. >> oh, look, there it is. live on screen. >> so if technology is not the problem, why is it that lots of people are being arrested for social media posts at the moment? >> well, that's the that's the perfect question, because i do think it's crazy that people are getting prison sentences for posts on social media that are

not that far off the prison sentences for actually throwing bncks sentences for actually throwing bricks at the police, or trying to set fire to a building with people inside. and i think that that shows a couple of very worrying things. one is that the people who are actually doing stuff on the streets are not really deemed to be responsible for their actions. it's like if you were that easily influenced that you just see some social media posts and immediately rush out and set to fire buildings, then are you really a fully fledged adult? and i do think people should be held to account for their actions and should be responsible for actually doing stuff, but the other side of it is that it really lets off the hook. any investigation into why these things happen? because if they did happen in a number of towns and cities around the country, it clearly wasn't a one off fluke. there's clearly something going on there about people's relationship with the authorities , especially, and authorities, especially, and relationships with other people in their communities, and that really needs to be taken seriously and looked into. and

you can't just write it off and say, oh, well, no. people saw things on social media. i mean, there have been riots before. there were riots in the 1980s, long before there was social media or even really the internet. and nobody then said, oh , well, it's the problem of i oh, well, it's the problem of i don't know what they blamed the phone lines. they didn't blame the form of communication. they said, i suppose what you're talking about, the idea of a of a scapegoat, that it's kind of easy to say, well, there were these people saying these horrible things online. >> that explains the violent behaviour which which happens all the time. if you think about the james bulger case that was blamed on a film, on the film child's play three, a horror film which had nothing to do with the crimes, the horrific crimes that were committed. so is it just the case that we, perhaps the media generally is uncomfortable with the idea that people can turn violent and they just need to find something else to explain it? >> well, i think it's a mixture of things. i think there is partly that that we don't like to think that people would

normally do that kind of thing. and so there is an urge to go, well, there must be some explanation. and obviously if there's some easy explanation that also happens to be the thing that people are blaming for other stuff already, like we've been talking non—stop about social media being to blame for everything bad for the last, i don't know what, five years at least . so if you can years at least. so if you can then tag the new thing onto that, then that's kind of convenient. i mean, i was really worried there was actually a an opinion poll of normal people after the normal people, there was an opinion poll of uk citizens after the riots and they said, who or what do you blame for these riots? and to be fair, the biggest answer was the people actually doing it. they were most responsible. but a lot of people said, i think about half the people they asked said, oh yeah, social media are partly responsible. and that does suggest that it's got kind of bedded into our minds as this is this is the cause of lots of bad

stuff in the world. >> but tom and ellie, you've looked into this and you've studied the impact of technology and all the rest of it, is there any solid evidence for the idea that the public will react on cue to messages that they get from a russian bot on facebook? >> no, actually, there's very little evidence for that. and a lot of people have looked into that and including people who started off going, oh, this is obviously the explanation. and then they did some research and found that it has very little influence. i mean, what it tends to do is like other forms of communication, it tends to reinforce what you already think and what you want to think . so, and what you want to think. so, and what you want to think. so, and i'm as guilty as anybody. if i go online and somebody posts something that backs up the thing that i already believe , thing that i already believe, i'm, i'm so inclined to just share it and go see this proves what i already thought. and i have to really stop myself and say, hang on, just check this just is this true? or is this one of those things that emerges one of those things that emerges on the internet? but but the good news is that we're not

actually that quickly influenced by these things. what it tends to do is reinforce what we already think. but i'm very worried about the massive focus on it, because i think there's already a move to censor and restrict what we can say on the internet and on social media. i mean, the online safety act that came into force earlier this yean came into force earlier this year, but but has not actually been fully enacted yet because they're still working out the codes of practice. and that puts a duty on social media companies to control the content that , you to control the content that, you know, ordinary people that we post. and it's a duty that kind of goes beyond posts that are illegal. because obviously, if i actually posted, i don't know, a picture of somebody's house and their address and said, this person is a child murderer, go around and set fire to their house. that would be direct incitement to violence, right? so that's already a crime. whether you do it in person or onune whether you do it in person or online or whatever . but the online or whatever. but the what's being called for now and even the stuff that's already in

the online safety act goes far beyond. they have this concept of legal but harmful material, which they ended up taking out of the act because they realise this is just an impossible concept to police, but they're talking about putting it back into the act or, you know, putting it into a new act. well, so that social media companies have a duty to remove legal but harmful content and on penalty of large fines and if you're a social media company, you've got no incentive really to stand up and say, no, i'm afraid we believe in free speech. and so we're going to defend people's right to say anything that's lawful there. obviously, the incentive for them is to on the side of caution and take things down and hide content that is perfectly reasonable. opinions that, you know, there might be opinions that we don't like. i mean, the world is full of people with opinions. i don't like, but it worries me. the idea that governments want social media companies to remove

some of those opinions from the pubuc some of those opinions from the public view because they are legal but harmful. >> well, on that note, that rather chilling note. we're going to have to close it up. but thanks ever so much for joining me today. >> thanks a pleasure. via technology. >> and the book is called technology is not the problem. so do check that out . so next on so do check that out. so next on free speech nation in a landmark legal case in australia, a women only app, giggle has been found to have discriminated against a trans identifying male. and the ceo of that app , sahil grover, ceo of that app, sahil grover, will be joining me very stay tuned

welcome back to free speech nation. later in the show, i'm going to be turning agony uncle with the help of my panel, leo and paul, we're going to help you deal with your unfiltered dilemmas. so just email us or message us rather at gbnews.com/yoursay now, in a

landmark case in australia, sahil grover's women only app giggle has been found to have discriminated against a trans identifying male after he was barred from using the service. the judge ruled that roxanne tickle had suffered indirect discrimination , and sal grover discrimination, and sal grover was ordered to pay $10,000 and costs. i'm delighted to say i'm joined now by the ceo of giggle, sal grover. welcome back to the show, sal and i'm sorry about your loss here. can you explain to us whether you were expecting this or did this come as a great surprise? >> hi, andrew, and i always just anticipated the absolute worst because, i mean, we just live in such bizarre times. i think that you kind of have to, however, because i've just always known that the case would go to the high court because either i would appeal it or the other side would appeal it. i'm just i'm sort of not that shocked in that sense of i always knew that this was just part of what was

going to be a long journey. >> yes. now, the judge actually said during the trial that sex was changeable and not necessarily binary. and this has caused some confusion because obviously sex is not changeable as a matter of incontestable fact, however, the defence of the judge is that, well, this is simply the law as it stands, since the amendments that were made to the sex discrimination act in 2013 by the then government, is that right ? government, is that right? should we be blaming the judiciary, or should we be blaming the former government of australia , australia, >> the former government of australia, the legislation, the legislation is muddled. i wouldn't actually say that. it is clear that sex is changeable , is clear that sex is changeable, or that it was sort of a slam dunk for the other side at all. you can definitely interpret the australian law that women's rights matter. it's just that that hasn't happened. i mean, i think it's i think the intention of the sex discrimination act was based on biological sex when it was written in 1984, because back then we weren't in this

bizarre zeitgeist of men claiming to be women. but i think it's also worth noting that, you know, having something ruled that sex is changeable. now, obviously that sex is not changeable. no, no human being has ever changed sex. but the, the charge was gender identity discrimination. so i think another layer of this that highlights just sort of how confusing and, that gender ideology is in general is that when you have a claim of gender identity discrimination , identity discrimination, suddenly you have the answer to thatis suddenly you have the answer to that is sex is changeable. and it's like, well, which is it sex or gender identity? because if anybody actually genuinely thinks that a man has turned into a woman, well, that would be sex discrimination, not gender identity discrimination. >> yes, absolutely. so this was a character called roxanne tickle. i think we've got an image just so that people can understand. and now i don't i wouldn't suggest that, you know, this is obviously a male , who this is obviously a male, who identifies as female and of course, we're all free to

identify however we want. but i suppose we're not free, are we, to decide that we can go into women's spaces if we are men simply because we identify as women? now, what i just want to know about this is, does this mean now that in australian law, women are not allowed to gather by themselves, even if it's, say, a lesbian dating group, correct? >> yeah. women cannot gather without the presence of men in australia. we cannot, i mean, just if a male person was to walk into a bathroom or change room, all he has to do is say, i'm a woman, and we literally have no right to say anything else to him. it'sjust. off have no right to say anything else to him. it's just. off you go then. so obviously that's absolutely devastating. but at the same time, women like myself and in australia like cath deaves, louise elliott, keely smith, angie jones, everybody has been screaming about this for you know, years. sorry >> and sorry.

>> and sorry. >> it's my daughter, >> it's my daughter, >> we've been screaming about this so this is actually just confirmed. >> what we what we've been saying, what we know to to be be happening. so, you know, in that sense , to have, like, you know, sense, to have, like, you know, confirmed that we're not conspiracy theorists, we're not crying wolf. this is actually happening. i think that that is actually quite significant . and actually quite significant. and it's not a loss in that sense that we can now actually go everybody. what we're seeing is really, really serious. and if everybody had listened to us in the years leading up to this, maybe we wouldn't be in such a disastrous position. >> can you just give a bit of background of how this actually happened? how did roxanne tickle get onto the app? and how did you discover that there was a male on the app? >> so, men would attack the app daily. so a male getting on the app daily. so a male getting on the app wasn't actually a unique experience at all. so we had i to try and have a gatekeeping that would aid us in ensuring that would aid us in ensuring that the app was female only. now it's technology. we had it

set to 94% accuracy. of course, technology is not perfect. some men pass through. it doesn't mean that they're women. women it's just technology is not is flawed . and so i, at some point flawed. and so i, at some point i just would have when i was just checking, i would have seen a male and removed him. i don't remember doing it because as i said, it just wasn't an event. and i just removed him on the bafis and i just removed him on the basis of being male, which is correct, he never, like, spoke with any woman. he didn't connect with anyone. he didn't he wasn't active on the app. he literally was on the app. i looked for a little bit and then was removed. so it's not like when i removed him. i've removed him from sort of a network of women. he was interacting with the sex discrimination commissioner , actually, who had commissioner, actually, who had intervened in the case as amicus cunae intervened in the case as amicus curiae , to interpret the law, curiae, to interpret the law, and that sort of why we're in this situation and the sex discrimination commissioner in australia is on the side of gender identity , which makes it gender identity, which makes it all even crazier. but she'd said sort of after the ruling, that this, that the applicant just

wanted to go on the app to, you know, talk about recipes and just, there was it was very sort of, sexist stereotypes, what she used for what a woman is. and i was like, but he could have done that. and he literally never did. right. he left and then he was removed . so i, i just was removed. so i, ijust i actually don't accept any of that. and this person has, you know, i've obviously been, i have to pay $10,000, in part because i laughed at a meme in court . and then i've sort of court. and then i've sort of been accused of, you know, sort of harassment or damages or whatever it is. this person has stalked me online behind a block on twitter for years . yesterday, on twitter for years. yesterday, he mocked a media appearance that i did. i don't know this person. i wish him well. as you said, i think that anybody can identify however they want. it's just the moment that my rights are going to be removed because of this apparent right to identify. that's when i've got a problem with it. and i just think women and girls should have female only spaces. that's all it comes down to. so i just, i don't think i'm the

controversial one here and finally doesn't this sort of imply that this notion of gender identity, the idea that we have a kind of gendered essence which very, very few people actually believe, it's a very kind of niche belief system. >> why is it do you think that that very small belief system is now being imposed on everyone by the judiciary and by every major institution? i mean, that would be like imposing the belief in transubstantiation on everyone completely. >> i think that it's being imposed like this because it gender ideology doesn't work unless it's imposed, because it's such a ridiculous claim that men can be women. and, you know, most people aren't going to actually believe that by choice, because most people aren't sort of falling into this cult of gender ideology. so the only way to make it work is to enforce it. because if you have people that are allowed to say or believe or that it's not true, or associate separately from these people , then the from these people, then the whole thing crumbles. so it only works and continues to have life if it's imposed, which is, yeah,

the problem. >> well, sal grover, i hope you'll come back and give us some more updates as this develops. thanks ever so much for joining us. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and next on free speech nafion >> and next on free speech nation we're going to talk to olga sehgal cuthbert from don't divide us . olga sehgal cuthbert from don't divide us. he's going to talk to me about her new paper on the riots. and violent disorder. don't go

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle, a forthcoming report from the group, don't divide us has looked extensively at the role pubuc looked extensively at the role public policy plays in relation to violent social disorder. and the author of that report and also the director of don't divide us, is here right now. it's alka sehgal. cuthbert, thanks for joining me. >> thank you . >> thank you. >> thank you. >> andy al fayed you run. don't divide us. do you want to just quickly tell us what don't divide us does. >> yeah. we're the campaign that aims to make sure that a common

sense approach to questions about race is kept in the public sphere and not kind of delegitimized by more radical critical race type theories, and we think it's apart from not dividing us by race, we also think it's very, very wrong, particularly for schools and libraries, to divide us off from our past and our cultural heritage, not because we're all kind of gammons or jingoistic waving you know, but because those are cultural resources that belong to us all and are very important for us. so that's , very important for us. so that's, that's and you've written this paper which is, which is going to be published on the don't divide us website. >> and you are looking specifically at the riots. and of course, we have seen though examples of racist behaviour, people attacking mosques, people saying racist things. you're someone who has experienced racism yourself. this can't be something that we can support, is it? >> no, no, no, of course i mean that that that that is not what we're questioning or looking at.

the point is you'd have to be very, very kind of facile to think that the explanation for thatis think that the explanation for that is just the far right or just social media. those are very, very kind of superficial, explanations. there's obviously something much deeper going on. and i was very frustrated at the whole debate during that week when the riots were happening, because it just seemed, you know, we were just ending up with this, you know, it's these far right thugs or it's a white working class ethnicity or it's the muslim and the islam and, and i just thought, this is there's got to be more to this than that. and then i thought of things that i've studied before and went back to it and worked on this, this paper that will be out tomorrow, and you can see that what has happened, what we see happening increasingly, these kind of very arbitrary outbreaks of episodic violence, they sit on a huge, much longer thing that's been happening, which is actually, i think, more to do. this is what i argue it's to do. this is what i argue it's to do. this is what i argue it's to do with the

disenfranchisement of huge swathes of british people. and that's been going on for years. it's been politically, you know, this was the riots happened one month after an election where the majority of people who could vote did not vote. right. >> so there is a and you also mentioned, don't you, that that multiculturalism plays a part in this. >> how do you define that? >> how do you define that? >> and because there's a lot of disagreement about what it even means. >> yeah. okay. so multiculturalism is not just having different ethnicities living in a country that's been happening in britain for decades and decades from the, you know, early , early 20th century, early, early 20th century, primarily probably a bit more before, but and then largely after the second world war, that is not what we're talking about. multiculturalism is an official ideology. it's an on top ideology. it's an on top ideology. and it's really a way of managing social relationships. and it's it came at a time the actual first multicultural, multicultural intervention in schools in britain was in 1985, and it was

actually under the conservative party, which i think people will be surprised to hear. it was obviously then picked up and taken and driven, you know, like with bells on by new labour. and it's continued ever since . and it's continued ever since. and what it does, it's basically a renunciation of a social, the social contract that existed pnor social contract that existed prior to that, where the compromise was that the interests of business people through the unions and, the politicians that kind of corporate tripartite way of organising society through the welfare state was a way of actually bringing people together. you know, the welfare state was not just about doling a bit of treatment here or there. it actually brought people together and organised the way that they could work with relative freedom and autonomy. that's why my parents came over , you know, it could. came over, you know, it could. its reach was that wide. >> so there was a shared kind of british. exactly. >> there was a shared. there was a shared. people could buy into it. you know, it's not like they

didn't feel indian anymore or canbbean didn't feel indian anymore or caribbean or. but they could feel that and feel genuinely that they were part of britain. >> so does that mean that multiculturalism as the ideology you're describing, effectively reinforces difference? >> yes. it says, you know, it says instead of i mean, have, you know, it's sectionalising us, it's envisaging us and inviting us to see ourselves as communities, as different, you know, have you when did you ever hear anybody apart from possibly king charles address the nation or the general public? it's like, we've got to make sure we're going to reach all communities, the hard to reach communities, the hard to reach communities, the hard to reach communities, the lgbtq, xyz communities, the lgbtq, xyz communities, the lgbtq, xyz communities, the black communities. and it's like , no, communities. and it's like, no, you know, i just want to say, you know, i just want to say, you know, i just want to say, you know, no, the community is just what people do of their own volition on your street. like if you have a little local neighbourhood community, you keep the state out of it and then all public things need to address us as the public. >> concurrently with this idea, there's also been the rise of

identity politics. and you've written about this as well. so do you want to explain why that that can have a damaging effect? >> well, identity politics is it's through multiculturalism, if you like, was the embryonic version. and then when you have identity politics, it's you've already got the social fabric carved up into different groups and then identity politics is, is making that even more fractious through valorising materially and through cultural status and through moral, you know, goody rewards and baddie rewards. if you say the wrong thing, it's then attributing values to, to different, you know, on that hierarchy of communities, and that is , that communities, and that is, that is really, really dangerous because what we've lost, if we as we have allowed that to happen, is any sense of a common humanity. if we don't have a sense of a common humanity, then really we're back to hobbesian fight. you know , whoever has the

fight. you know, whoever has the biggest stick, whoever has the loudest voice is going to rule. so it's very how do we change that? >> because what you're talking about really is resurrecting a view that had been established but has been since been dismantled, which is this common shared identity. there's more that connects us than divides us. this kind of idea that skin colour , all the rest of it colour, all the rest of it shouldn't matter in our relations . but but we do live in relations. but but we do live in a hyper racialized society thanks to the rise of identity politics. is it going to be easy to, i don't know, get back that old progressive value? >> well, it's not going to be easy, but there are some things in our favour is that i said, i do believe that this is an elite thing. it's not something that the majority of people believe in, but i think what's happened is that the, the common sense of ordinary people has been really marginalised. it's been, you know, we're made to think that just common sense isn't enough. you need an expert for this. you need an expert for that. you need an expert for that. you need an expert to feed your kid, to read, to your kid. you need

an expert to do things that previous generations for hundreds of years have done without experts and done quite well. so we need to just be more confident. there are groups all around who are beginning to push back , it is, i think, a very back, it is, i think, a very a more serious and profound political moment than i think is often realised. but that's an opportunity to. so ultimately it's up to us, i think, to think deepen it's up to us, i think, to think deeper, question more , be more deeper, question more, be more courageous in our workplaces. you know , if it doesn't make you know, if it doesn't make sense to you, all you have to say is, i'm sorry, i don't agree. or, you know, can you explain why why people are very scared of that because they don't want to be branded as racist. well, that's true. that's why i don't divide us and say you're not racist, right? you know, if you need support or need or need, you know, want to run over an argument or you want to just like reassurance that you're not racist because you've just got a legitimate question about some affirmative action in your place, then contact us. we can talk you through it and help you a bit and stand up. and you know, you have you have common

sense on your side and you've got all sorts of resources and things on the don't divide us website. >> is that right? we have the website. >> we've got resources for teachers, we've got, you know, sort of sections on the vocabulary that people use, we're a small organisation, so we'd love to do a lot more support our work if you can visit our website, but this is this. you know, we're not going away. fantastic >> anneliese don't divide us.com. >> that's right. >> that's right. >> i took a guess and i got it right. thank you very much. alpha. sagal. cuthbert thank you. that's the end of the first hour on free speech nation. but don't go away. there's lots more to come between now and 9:00. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on gb news >> hello there. welcome to your latest gb news. weather forecast from the met office. there's an

improvement in our weather as we head into monday, a bank holiday. for some of us, there will still be some showers around, but more in the way of sunny spells and it will just feel a little warmer. low pressure moving off the sea in a brief ridge of high pressure moving in ahead of the next weather system, which does come in late monday and into tuesday, but an improvement anyway through the rest of the day. overnight into monday morning, there's still quite a lot of cloud across the uk. this band of cloud across northern ireland, southern scotland into northern england will continue to give some showery rain. elsewhere, a mixture of clear spells and showers and temperatures milder than they have been of late, generally staying in the mid teens. so a mixed start to monday morning. bright skies across much of scotland with a scattering of showers, particularly across the north and the west, driest towards aberdeenshire on the fresh side . temperatures around fresh side. temperatures around 9 to 11 celsius. this northern ireland seeing a mixture of sunny spells and showers, but this cloudier zone across

northern england into wales , northern england into wales, giving some showery outbreaks of rain in places brighter for the rest of england, but some showers across southeast england initially clearing away along with a brisk, brisk breeze here, but then generally through monday winds falling light. we'll see a scattering of showers through the day, largely across the northern part of england into northern ireland, nonh england into northern ireland, north wales , southern scotland. north wales, southern scotland. elsewhere dry but some sunny spells and with lighter winds it will feel warmer. temperatures lifting to the high teens to low 20s, up to around 23 across south—east england on tuesday. wet and windy weather spreading in across the north and the west of the uk. some of this rain will be heavy at times, but further south and east we'll start to import some warm air winds coming in from the south. plenty of sunny spells and temperatures lifting towards the mid 20s, perhaps even higher by wednesday. approaching 2829 celsius before turning cooler again on thursday. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers, sponsors of

weather on gb

>> and there's plenty more still to come on free speech nation this week, but let's get a news update first from san francis . update first from san francis. >> andrew, thank you and good evening to you just after 8:00, the top story tonight , the man the top story tonight, the man accused of killing three people at a cultural festival in western germany has been accused of being a member of a terrorist organisation, the 26 year old syrian, identified by prosecutors there is named eissa al haj. he's also been charged with three counts of murder, attempted murder and dangerous bodily harm. islamic state says it was behind friday's knife attack, which also left eight people injured . well, a church

people injured. well, a church service has been taking place today to remember and pay respects to those who lost their lives in that attack. the victims include a 56 year old woman and two men aged 56 and 67. four of those wounded are still in a life threatening condition . flights between the condition. flights between the uk and israel have been cancelled today after tensions in the middle east escalated overnight. israel says it carried out strikes in southern lebanon in self—defence, while hezbollah fired rockets and drones in the other direction. following the assassination of a senior commander. both sides are reported to have said that neither wants to see a full scale war in the region . an scale war in the region. an urgent search is continuing tonight for a missing british journalist, who is believed to be trapped under the rubble of a bombed hotel in ukraine. he was part of a six strong team from the reuters news agency caught in a russian missile strike in kramatorsk. a ukrainian and a us national were also injured in

that strike. the billionaire founder of encrypted messaging app founder of encrypted messaging app telegram has been arrested in france today, according to reports. pavel durov was detained after his private jet landed at an airport in north paris, according to officials. the 39 year old was arrested under a warrant for offences related to that messaging app and russia. the embassy in france is taking immediate steps, they say, to clarify the situation . police say they have situation. police say they have made 38 arrests and recovered four knives on day one of notting hill carnival in west london. more than 7000 police officers are on duty, with around a million people expected to attend europe's biggest street festival. we're also heanng street festival. we're also hearing that a man believed to be in his 20s has been stabbed, though his injuries aren't life threatening. and finally, his majesty the king has appointed a composer of the london 2012 paralympic games as master of the king's music. errollyn

wallen was also commissioned to compose pieces marking the golden and diamond jubilees for the late queen elizabeth the second. the belize born 66 year old was the first woman to receive an ivor novello award for classical music, and the first black woman to have a work featured in the proms. those are the latest gb news headlines for now. i'll be back with you at the top of the 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 . slash alerts. >> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. we have a wonderful studio audience here. so let's get some questions. our first question comes from abdi. >> how are you doing. hello. good evening. are we finally going to recognise the sovereignty of the chinese communist party over british

universities? >> yeah, i think that sounds like an old question, i'm going to have to give some context for that one, because what we all know about labour, the bridget phillipson, the education secretary coming in and scuppering, the higher education free speech act, which had been set up, was all ready to go. and she did it the day before parliament went into recess. so there couldn't be a debate about a free speech bill, but anyway, it turns out it's just been reported that one of the reasons why british universities didn't want to have this free speech act is because they wanted to protect their operations in authoritarian states, such as china. so if a major university has a campus in china, they can't be pro—free speech because the ccp will have an issue. yeah. >> and of course, china often takes quite a tough stance on student free speech, such as in tiananmen square . and i'm sorry tiananmen square. and i'm sorry for anybody watching this in china because i've said those words, you're now going to get a knock at the door, but yeah, this is ridiculous. we're sort

of bending the rules in this country to kowtow to the rules in other countries. and they're not they're not rules that we should be following. if anything, we should be propagating british values of fairness and tolerance and equality and free speech around the world. and instead, we're we're sort of bending britain to fit other regimes. >> although it's interesting that because there was a report, the other day about how the british taxpayer is funding chinese feminist opera, so they are trying to spread certain views in china, aren't they just not the free speech stuff? yeah, and that was foreign aid as well. >> so, you know, people in this country, poor people in this country, poor people in this country are being taxed to pay for opera in china. >> nothing wrong with opera. >> nothing wrong with opera. >> what do you, paul, what do you make of this? because i'm not so sure. it's just about the communist countries. i just think the labour party just don't really like free speech. >> well, they don't like free speech. you're absolutely right. and it's convenient for them to stand behind this particular argument because who's going to argue with china? well, that's true china. but of course, you know, we've put ourselves in a situation now where there are

more university spaces than there are students available to fill them. so anyone who's got like anywhere near a d or an f is going straight to oxford at the moment. but, well, one thing, one thing we need to be able to do is preserve our own, our own cultures and customs. and one of the universities have always said this wherever they are, particularly in the western world, should be the bastions of free speech, because you should be able to debate anything at that point. these are places of learning. >> but it's so weird, isn't it, because because labour are sort of suggesting there isn't really a problem with free speech. but we've had i mean, i've interviewed people on this show, people like joe phoenix, who was harassed to the extent that she got ptsd because she has gender critical views. that's not free speech. that's not academic freedom. how can they continue to deny that there's a problem when there are so many examples? >> yeah, and in some ways we're worse than china because, you know, at least in china, when the government imposes these draconian restrictions on free speech and enforces what people are allowed to say and share on social media, they're doing it to sort of make the country stronger and preserve chinese

culture and tradition and all the things that make people feel proud in their country. whereas in this country, any, any of thatis in this country, any, any of that is actually the thing that they're making illegal. if you say you're proud to be british or anything, you've immediately got a target on your back. >> yeah, you're a bigot, leo. yeah. there we go. let's move on to a question from bob. >> hello, bob. hi. >> hello, bob. hi. >> good evening, has the home office undermined the presumption of innocence? okay well. >> that's interesting. so, yvette cooper has been accused of suggesting that everyone, everyone arrested in connection with the riots is guilty. did you read about this? >> i did indeed, and that's an abhorrent comment. i mean, by itself. should they should be investigating themselves on that comment alone. >> she said everyone was criminals . criminals. >> all the 1000 odd people who had been detained were criminals, but they haven't been through a trial. >> now you're a criminal. once you've been, you know, convicted of a crime, you're presumed innocent until that point. and for the home secretary to undermine that whole premise ,

undermine that whole premise, which, you know, which which underpins the legal system in the west, the presumption of innocence is abhorrent. i can't find any other word for it. >> yeah. and there is a tendency i've seen with all these debates to lump everyone in. i mean, do you remember there was that image of the guy with the swastika? i think it's fair to say that's that's a neo—nazi. i think, you know, he's outed himself right there. yeah, but that doesn't mean. >> or he might be a pro—palestine protestor. right, exactly. >> yeah, it's hard to tell, but. but, you know, that doesn't mean that you can say that everyone at that march has the same values as him or the rest of it. i think you could say people are breaking the law and smashing stuff up. they should be arrested. no problem. but there will be people who are protesting peacefully as well. >> well, yeah, they're locking people up for sort of being in the vicinity or shouting. there's a guy who shouted at a police dog, you know, people, another guy who waved a flag, you know, he was near a mosque, you know, he was near a mosque, you know, he was near a mosque, you know, so it was intimidating. but a lot of it seems to fall far short of violence or incitement to violence, which you know, i

think we can all agree is reprehensible, and i'm not sure due process is being followed because they've got these 24 hour courts. so people don't have time to seek legal counsel, and they're being told that, you know, even if you plead not guilty, you're going to be jailed anyway. you're going to be held on remand. so, which seems like prejudicing, you know, their innocence already. so i think we're going to see a lot of appeals in the future and a lot of these ridiculously long sentences could get rolled back. >> and they're being overt about it. the judges are saying, i'm giving you a long sentence to set an example, and they're saying that very clearly. >> and a judge in belfast even said, if you're at the riot at a riot or a protest, even if you're just observing, you're still going to be held on remand. so we're going to treat you, you know, as if you're guilty, you're going to be given jail time if you're just observing. so in britain, never mind the right to protest. we don't even have the right to look at a protest. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> on tv, everyone in this room has watched the riots for three years each. >> yep. okay well, it could happen. let's move on to a question from josh. this is coming on email, let's have a

look. where's the question? i can't see the question on the autocue, so we'll not bother with josh and we'll move on. is there another question from john? john. hi, john. >> hi, andrew. our nukes gay enough. >> sorry, john. that really made me laugh. what a what a question . right? >> but this is because of the, this is someone in the biden administration. this is from the department of energy. this official has , praised queer official has, praised queer theory and said that queer theory and said that queer theory is important to america's national security . and this is a national security. and this is a man called sneha nair said queer theory informs. i've got the quotation here. queer theory informs the struggle for nuclear justice and disarmament. queer theory helps to shift the perception of nuclear weapons, of instruments for security by telling the hidden stories of displacement, illness and trauma caused by their production and testing their bombs. >> yeah, they're not gay, but look at the shape of them. oh

leo, you had to go there, didn't you? the one. >> the one that was dropped on nagasaki was even called big boy. >> yeah. this is. i don't think it's as sexual as you think, but, i mean, this is insane, right? >> this is coming from the biden administration. this isn't like some crazy activist with a twitter account. >> yeah, this is the biden. this is the government. >> this is like what they're saying about welsh buildings all being racist, but they're doing it with bombs and queerness. and by the way, queerness doesn't mean anything like gay means something. it means, you know, you have same sex relationships, but queerjust means you but queer just means you identify as queer. so it's a way of, you know, getting some of the victim points and the virtue points of having a, you know, a non, you know, unusual sexual identity . yeah, but without identity. yeah, but without actually, you know, doing any of the hard work or. well, no, it's not hard work, leo. >> believe me . but but >> believe me. but but statistically , statistically, statistically, statistically, most people who identify as queer are in fact , just queer are in fact, just straight. yeah, they've just got a kink. i mean, it's like when dannfi a kink. i mean, it's like when dannii minogue came out as queer and then she did an interview saying, oh, i wouldn't ever do

anything sexual with a woman. well, you're not queer then, danny. go back to singing your trashy, cheap songs that are nowhere as good as your sisters, right? what do you think, paul? >> absolutely. trash danny minogue. superb. well, of course, you know, this is ridiculous, isn't it? yeah. it's the idea of queering nuclear. the most devastating bombs available to humanity. yeah, it's about as useful as me going to the notting hill carnival and trying to promote gb news. it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. you know what i like about this? >> it's like when they did the pride parade in arlington, texas. this year was co—sponsored by lockheed martin, who make really inclusive deadly bombs. okay well, next on free speech nation. who or what is to blame for all these recent riots? we're going to be discussing that. so please don't go

welcome back to free speech

nation. a new article written by the barrister, sam fowles, argues that the recent riots in the uk were a result of years of journalists and politicians spreading far right tropes. he says that influential figures bear responsibility for the violence, and that politicians have a vested interest in not referring to the riots as terrorism. so i'm delighted to say that i'm joined by the author of that article, barrister sam fowles and toby young as well from the free speech union. thank you both so much for joining speech union. thank you both so much forjoining me. sam. it's your article, so i want to come to you first and discuss this with you. can you just firstly clarify what you mean by far right, because the article mentions examples of really horrible far right terrorist behaviour, ethnonationalism, all these really repugnant things. but you also refer to people who have got concerns about immigration. do you think that they're all far right or is there a very clear distinction in your mind? >> i think if you are demonising or blaming people of different ethnicities to you for your problems based on

misinformation, then yeah, that thatis misinformation, then yeah, that that is probably far right for me . me. >> okay, sam, i want to give you an opportunity as well to just outline your key argument in the article that you wrote for the magazine . magazine. >> sure. well, the basic point is that for about 30 years, politicians have systematically made a lot of people in the country poorer. we've become less socially mobile. and over the last austerity period, the richest people in the country doubled their wealth and increased their incomes by about 4.7%, while the poorest fifth lost income by about 1.6%. now obviously, politicians can't we can't say, oh, we're really sorry we've made you poorer and essentially made your lives a whole lot more difficult. so they try to focus anger elsewhere, ie on people of different ethnicities, people of different ethnicities, people of different colours, people of different colours, people of different religions. and they do that by adopting far right conspiracy theories. and so a

good example of that is, suella braverman claiming that the majority of grooming gangs are muslim, which is in fact, according to her own, then her own department's, data. absolutely untrue. in the majority of grooming gangs are white. >> so just to be clear, sam, are you arguing that statements like the one you just quoted from suella braverman , those kinds of suella braverman, those kinds of statements from politicians that they are directly responsible for the riots, that ensued? >> no, i'm arguing that that they create the context for the riots. people have to take responsibility for their own actions. the immediate cause of the riots were people deciding to choose violence , rather than , to choose violence, rather than, google and a conspiracy theory onune google and a conspiracy theory online and realise that it was completely untrue. >> okay, i want to bring toby young in. now at that point. so sam's got a point, hasn't he? is that the various politicians potentially have raised the temperature, but ultimately the rioters are responsible for their own actions. what do you think of that?

>> well, i'm reluctant to blame, senior politicians, heads of think tanks , journalists, dating think tanks, journalists, dating back 15 years for the recent disturbances, i would have thought that the reason so many ordinary people, particularly in depnved ordinary people, particularly in deprived areas, and i wouldn't quibble with sam's criticism of previous governments for not doing more to level up, but i would have thought the reason they are angry about excessively high levels of mass immigration is not because they believe in conspiracy theories, not because they've been led down a rabbit holes by irresponsible politicians, but because they can see in their own communities the impact that the rapid influx of people with very different cultures, people who come from far flung parts of the world, they can see the impact they're having, they can see the impact

they're having on on wages in service jobs. they know that , in service jobs. they know that, in some cases, they are responsible for violent crimes, particularly violent crimes against women and girls , they're aware of , girls, they're aware of, various, ways in which people who've recently arrived in their communities disdain them, don't have any respect for them or the british way of life . and i british way of life. and i think, you know, the public have been expressing their unhappiness about the current level of immigration for, you know, a long time the current i think, migration watch found out that a majority of the british people, certainly not just people, certainly not just people on the far right, want to reduce the overall level of inward migration. >> well, let me ask sam about let me ask sam about that specifically. sam. i mean, can you envisage a situation where it is it's not a far right thing to have some legitimate concerns about immigration, whether that is to do with wage depression or

whether it is to do with the perception that certain individuals aren't assimilating. >> well, if your concern is about wage depression, then it's not a legitimate concern because wage depression isn't caused by immigration. and in fact, toby was was again misleading there because he said , in fact, because he said, in fact, anti—immigration sentiment is highest in places with lowest or no immigration in there. and pro—immigration sentiment is highest in the places with the highest in the places with the highest levels of immigration. and so to say that old people are seeing immigrants coming and stealing our jobs, or raping our women, or committing high level of sexual assault again, toby was wrong to suggest that they don't . there's no evidence for don't. there's no evidence for that. it is simply wrong. it's based on misinformation. >> i'm going to bring toby in. do you want to respond to that, toby? >> well, i don't think it is based on misinformation. i mean, you may quibble with what suella bravermans description of a majority of the perpetrators in

the various grooming gang scandals as being muslims or being of pakistani origin, but certainly they represent a disproportionately large number of the people involved in grooming gangs. and i think , grooming gangs. and i think, what about what about the various wait, let toby finish his point and then i'll come to you. >> sam. >> sam. >> but, sam, are you suggesting that only you know the percentage of people in grooming gangs who are of muslim pakistani heritage is no higher than their percentage in the local populations where those grooming gangs have been active. that's surely absurd, sam. >> is that what you're suggesting? >> the percentage of people convicted of child grooming of asian origin is 6%. that is lower than the percentage of people of asian origin in the population. so yes, that's what i'm saying. >> but what about in the areas where the grooming gangs have been operating? sam, it may be that nationally the figure

you've just quoted is correct, but what about in places like bradford, in places like rotherham, surely the number of muslims in grooming gangs is far higher than their overall percentage of the population in those localities ? those localities? >> well, given that the no one actually collects that data and multiple freedom of information requests have been made to try and obtain it, i think it's completely irresponsible for you to be alleging that based on zero evidence and in fact, when the national evidence points in the national evidence points in the opposite direction and that is the text, we're having a discussion here about about the evidence and about the arguments, and that seems to me arguments, and that seems to me a very healthy thing to do . a very healthy thing to do. >> but it seems but it's saying things based on zero evidence. well, it seems okay, but it seems to me that that discussion, you can say that you think that that is based on zero evidence and toby can counter it, and we'll get somewhere. but maybe there's a point to be made that by suggesting that even having the discussion or saying some of the things that toby is saying is in some way creating

the conditions for violence that that might be a step too far isn't discussion. the more healthy approach discussion when it's based on some, has some semblance of fact. >> when you're just making things up and the things that you're making up have, as we've seen, contributed to discourse with which actually endanger people, then? no, i think yeah, we have of course, we have freedom of . freedom of. >> let me give you another example. let me give you another example, sam, of that just to see if this applies across the board. so in february you wrote an article for the new european where you said something that was factually incorrect about a group of gender critical women, including jo phoenix and maya forstater and alison bailey. and you said that these people have been publicly attacking trans people. that was factually wrong . people. that was factually wrong. the article had to be taken down. you were accused of libel as a result of that. and those women, by the way, have had death and rape threats from people who have read things in the press that have got them very angry, like your article. so do you accept that you are responsible for those death and rape threats? would you like to say now on air that you're sorry

for causing those death and rape threats? >> no, because i didn't cause those death and rape threats. >> right. so there isn't necessarily causality between having a conversation and getting things wrong. as you did to the thing. the crimes that occur. occui'. >> occur. >> you're alleging that i got things wrong. >> you did factually get things wrong. yes, i that's why you were accused of libel. that's why the publication took the article down. sam. >> well, actually, andrew, you're alleging a lot of things there. >> and yes, i know i'm not. i'm not. you were accused of libel at the time. that's a fact. >> i was accused of libel at the time. and no case was brought because the. >> so would you like to again publicly accuse those women of publicly accuse those women of publicly attacking trans people, which they didn't do? by all means, feel free to make that statement if you still stand by it. >> i think that publicly attacking is the uses. the cambridge dictionary definition, and that definition is, and i can't quote it exactly . but i'll can't quote it exactly. but i'll give you a precis, which is to use very strong language to

criticise people. i think they didn't when joe phoenix did not criticise trans people, joe phoenix was talking about women's rights and the importance to maintain women's spaces. >> it is factually wrong to say she's actually been very open and extremely explicit about her support for trans rights. so you are, again, saying something that's wrong. now, i'm not saying that you are responsible, and i'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to say things that are factually wrong, but you can't then say that other commentators who say things that, in your view, are factually wrong, lead to violence. it's an inconsistency. can't you see that look, because, well, firstly, every time i try to , you challenge me time i try to, you challenge me to repeat something on air and then interrupted me before i set it out. >> secondly, so i will look up what i say because i want to i'll quote it exactly, if you want to come back, come back to that point. >> okay, well, i can do it for you. you said that denise fahmy, rachel mead, allison bailey, maya forstater, and joe phoenix had publicly attacked trans people, or that gender critical feminists in particular, had

publicly attacked trans people, i want to come to you, though, toby. >> that's not the quote you've absolutely misquoted me. >> the quote is publicly attacked trans people. >> i argued in that article, was that a deficiency in the equality act allows statements which i consider to be attacking trans people, which is a statement of opinion . yes, absolutely. >> and you're free to that opinion and you're to free misrepresent the law. that's fine. but my point to you is that the law. yes you did. you said there was a loophole in the law to enable gender critical feminists to attack trans people. that's not true. >> no, i didn't i said it's not true in the law, which allows that because the law applies in the workplace, but it does not apply the workplace, but it does not apply in the same way outside of the workplace. so if you make statements which may not be allowed in the workplace , allowed in the workplace, outside of the workplace, then you're treated by a different. >> that's absolutely fine. people are free to go and check it themselves. oh no, they can't, because the publication tookit can't, because the publication took it down for fear of libel. okay, toby, but what do you think about this? i mean , i

think about this? i mean, i think about this? i mean, i think what i'm trying to demonstrate a point here that it should be okay to have robust conversations to get things wrong, to express opinions that i consider quite extreme. i consider sam's opinions on that subject quite an extremist position, but i don't think he's responsible for the violence or the threats that ensued. am i wrong about that? >> no, i don't think you're wrong about that. andrew i think i read sam's article and i think my biggest issue with sam's article is that he completely dismisses the concerns that people in areas with high levels of inward migration, he completely dismisses their concerns as almost beneath contempt. they've been led astray. they've the information they've been fed is false. they believe in conspiracy theories , believe in conspiracy theories, etc. i would have thought that surely the way to address if you think those people are just completely mistaken, if you think they're wrong about the costs in their communities of

mass migration, the way to address their concerns is not to try and demonise them. smear them as members of the far right, or people easily gulled by conspiracy theorists. surely you take their concerns seriously and you engage them in robust debate in the public square. that is the way to try and resolve your differences. i mean, there's a great quote that someone came up with when i was on a recent free speech union tour of australia, which is that if you won't let the people you disagree with speak their minds, how can you hope to change them? >> well, let me ask sam that. i mean, what would you like to do? you and i obviously robustly disagree on an awful lot of things, and i think that's fine. i don't think i don't think it's a problem that you think i'm very wrong. and i don't think you should think it's a problem, that i think you're very wrong. but toby just made the point that the conversation seemed to be the best way forward. are you suggesting i'm not putting words in your mouth? i want you to answer the question in your article. what do you think is the solution to this? if you're

saying there are people who are perpetuating far right tropes or misinformation, and that that's leading to problems of violence, what's the solution to that? is it is it, as i think, more conversation, or is there another alternative censorship perhaps? what is it that you would like to see happen? >> well, i've got to note that people generally have this conversation when they when they're supporting the free speech of people they agree with and not the people they, they disagree with, but i think the, the solution is to cut down on misinformation. i don't think free speech includes the right to mislead people. i don't think, well , to mislead people. i don't think, well, i think it is legitimate to derogate from the right to free speech, to limit people misinforming people, and i think the way to the way to deal with the rise of the, of the far right, is to cut down on on people lying to each other with impunity. >> so how do we do that? i suppose what i'm asking is how practically can you do that? because obviously people i mean, everyone makes mistakes and everyone makes mistakes and everyone says things that are mistaken. and that's part of being human. and particularly now we've all got access to the internet. so what what i suppose

what i'm asking is on a practical level, how would you counter misinformation? >> well, i'd like to see politicians held to account properly for deliberately misleading people. and i'd like to see social media companies held to account, not required to sort of whack a mole, various bits of misinformation, but required to publish their algorithms. so they, they don't those algorithms don't encourage the repetition of misinformation. >> toby, final word to you is that. fair enough? >> no. sam's talking as if, whether or not something is misinformation is completely straightforward. it's something that's apparent to everybody. and that's never going to be any disagreement about that. but as we know, andrew, often misinformation is just a word. people use to describe an opinion of their opponents that they disagree with. and there have been plenty of examples of things which have initially been dismissed as misinformation, like the lab leak hypothesis about the origins of covid 19, about the origins of covid 19, about concerns people expressed

about concerns people expressed about the cognitive decline of joe biden , initially dismissed joe biden, initially dismissed as misinformation not because they were misinformation , they were misinformation, because that was just a way of trying to discredit and delegitimize a point of view you happen to find inconvenient or disagree with the problem sam is given. it's never obvious what is and isn't , or often isn't is and isn't, or often isn't obvious what isn't isn't misinformation. who gets to decide? the authorities, the police? the government? do you trust them to get it right and never just call something misinformation because it happens to be in their interest to do so? i don't trust them. surely let people make up their own minds about what's false, what's true, what's misinformation, what's reliable information. and if it's misinformation, it will eventually lose the contest in the public square in a free and open fight. >> okay, well, final word to sam. what do you make of toby's question there? what do you think of that? >> it's pretty easy to determine if a lot of the time, if something is misinformation, and i'll give you an example from toby's website where he claimed that a person has had been imprisoned for three years for doing no more than saying

anti—establishment things. when you actually look at the report of that, it is clear that that person was imprisoned because he repeatedly encouraged violence against against muslims . against against muslims. >> well, since since you've now cited something that toby, toby published, i have to give him a right to reply. toby. toby there was a bbc report about why a particular woman who was sent to prison for things she said on social media, and in that bbc report on the bbc news website, it said one of the things not the only thing, but one of the things she'd been sent down for was anti—establishment rhetoric. >> now, if you're telling me that was misinformation produced by the bbc, maybe you're right, but i in that case, i made the mistake of trusting the bbc. >> okay , now, listen, the pair >> okay, now, listen, the pair of you. look, we could argue all night, and i'm sure we would and quite enjoy it. but i really appreciate you both coming on. it's great to hear different perspectives. sam falls and toby young, thank you so much. and next on free speech nation, we're going to discuss whether the decline of religion has

given rise to wokeness. don't go

yeah, yeah. welcome back to free speech nation with me. andrew doyle debates surrounding the role of religion in society and community have been reignited by the rise of wokeism. some have argued that the decline in religious practices and worship has fuelled or exacerbated this rise of wokeism, a belief system which provides individuals with a set of ideas they can invest in. in other words, a different kind of religion. now, author and cultural writer helen pluckrose counters that view in a recent article that she wrote, and she's here to discuss it. helen, welcome to the show. hello. thank you. >> so a lot of people have said this, that what they have perceived within wokeness is a kind of proselytising, a kind of religious like intolerance, a view that you're either with us or against us excommunicating people for heresy or wrongthink.

>> there seems to be a lot of parallels, and i myself am guilty of writing about these parallels. but is it the case, as many commentators claim, that the decline of christianity in the decline of christianity in the west has left a kind of vacuum into which wokeism has emerged? >> no , i don't think that this >> no, i don't think that this is how how ideas work in a society. i don't think that the way that people have been speaking as though we have a god shaped hole or nature abhors a vacuum. this, there are always a number of ideas in society. there are always people who are inclined to be zealous. the majority of people are inclined not to be zealous . we've seen not to be zealous. we've seen a decline of , of religion over the decline of, of religion over the last century. now the argument i'm specifically taking issue with is the one that's mostly coming out of the us. with is the one that's mostly coming out of the us . and it is coming out of the us. and it is saying that it is the decline of religion in the us, which is correlating with the rise of wokeness. and i have written a number of times to ask americans

to look outside their own borders for this , because if the borders for this, because if the decline of religion specifically caused something like wokeness, the last place we would expect to see it would be in the united states. >> i mean, that's a very interesting point, isn't it, that, you know, america and evangelical christianity in particular is booming over there. and yet, as you say, a lot of these theories seem to emerge, particularly from higher education over there . so you see education over there. so you see that as a sort of the two cannot coexist. it cannot be the case. >> i mean, it certainly it's unlikely that somebody who is very devoutly orthodox christian would also be woke. but there are an awful lot of christians in who are woke. i've been, people that have reached out to me for support with wokism in their , their churches, their, their churches, particularly baptist, evangelical , protestant, not so evangelical, protestant, not so much in catholic churches. so i think things are really just much more messy than this. if,

as i think the underlying argument goes, that humans have certain social and psychological needs that can only be filled by a big grand narrative, a transcendental experience, a community. and so when religion dies or declines, then something else with all those elements must rush into yes, now that's something that's been said a lot about ireland, because, of course, up until relatively recently, the catholic church was so dominant in ireland. >> and as that faded and as we got the vote for same sex marriage and that kind of thing, suddenly wokeism has has come into ireland in a big way. i mean, i was in dublin recently and the progress pride flag was absolutely everywhere, like a new state religion. it was even etched onto a door in the dial in the irish parliament that i saw permanently etched there, that does feel like some some new belief system has, has, has hegemony. now i would i would not argue with that. >> i a few years ago did a did a panelis

>> i a few years ago did a did a panel is critical social justice a religion and we came to the conclusion no but it has so many qualities in in common with it that it could be called a quasi religion. and this, this is something a different way to think about this. i think humans do have certain social and psychological needs. we are drawn to overarching frameworks and religion is one of them. so if a religion fades, there are still going to be people who are going to be wanting this community. they're going to be wanting a simple sort of, good. and bad narrative. what should should i do to achieve the right outcome? and and wokeness is something they could pick on. they could also tick on to something else. nationalism or any ideology. yes anything. and this, this is where i think people don't seem to always pick up that. we always and we have always had a number of different kinds of beliefs. it isn't that

if you are christian that's filled up all of your space now your gods , and now you have no your gods, and now you have no other ideologies, no , you may other ideologies, no, you may well be as well a conservative. you may well be very patriotic. you may well be very patriotic. you may well be very patriotic. you may love a particular football team. you may feel very strongly about veganism. we always have these, these these strong values and beliefs and the idea that it's just sort of “neat the idea that it's just sort of linear. we have religion and that feels satisfies most people, then that declines. and something goes whoosh in and it's something horrible. is it? i mean, i've always i've been thinking about this a lot and i just wonder about the rise of critical social justice, as you call it, or wokeism, as most people call it. >> is it just something to do with the idea that within a human nature, there is something that lends ourselves to authoritarianism? there's an appeal to the authoritarian instinct that we have to kind of suppress through civilisation, through that process . and hence through that process. and hence people want to censor ideas that they don't like or or harass people who have the wrong views

or that it feels like it is an authoritarian project. >> it is. it feels very much like it is that human, that human drive. we want to have a common good. we want to have a social contract. we want to have shared values. there's this feeling that if we can get everybody on the same page with this, then the fighting will stop. things will get better. wokeness is one attempt at a common good that it's trying to bnng common good that it's trying to bring people around . it's doing bring people around. it's doing it in a horrendously authoritarian and irrational way, and alienating a lot of people. so we are certainly seeing, i think, the rise of people cleaving more strongly to other systems and saying, look, here is another common good, this common good is actually better. this this common good isn't good. >> but can i ask you about your very specifically you've written a lot about liberalism. you've got a new book out called the counterweight handbook, which is a fantastic book which helps people who are facing struggles in the workplace with wokeism. so i think if anyone is watching who is facing those struggles, this is a great resource, but what is it about liberalism that

you think, can sort of resolve this or, or help us through this at a time when a lot of people think liberalism has failed? >> well, i think with liberalism has that negative quality at the it's that it's the overarching thing of essentially leaving people alone unless they're hurting you . so and a positive hurting you. so and a positive encouragement of the free exchange of ideas. so in itself, it does not have that ideological core that, that, that people can get very inspired by and think they know right and wrong for. but the ways in which it can help us in our current situation is to try to navigate the rising authoritarianism that we're seeing now. wokeism definitely is a very, very prominent one. it's the one that i focused on. it's the one that i focused on. it's not the only one we are seeing. we do see authoritarianism on the right. we do see it in islamism. we see it in pockets all over the place. >> it's because the far right is an authoritarian movement as well . extreme islamism an authoritarian movement as well. extreme islamism is an authoritarian move. all of these

things have that shared. >> and you wouldn't say , >> and you wouldn't say, particularly with the far right, with the christian nationalists. clearly, the decline of religion hasn't caused them to produce what what neil shenvi and other christian conservatives are calling the woke right . so calling the woke right. so i think this simplistic thinking stops us getting at it . what stops us getting at it. what i think that we do need more of is, is community. we need to actually have a stronger sense of community again, which doesn't mean that everybody has to have exactly the same religion, but that we can and do feel invested in each other's well—being. there's i think social media has played a big part into this. a lot of people are getting dispersed all over the place, trying to get everybody to go back to christianity isn't a realistic goal christianity isn't a realistic goal. even if it wasn't for the fact that god continues to appear not to exist. >> well, there we go on that bombshell. helen pluckrose, thanks so much forjoining me . thanks so much forjoining me. and next up on free speech

nation. i'm sure i'm going to get lots of letters about that. we're going to be looking at our social sensations. we're going to get our panel to answer your unfiltered dilemmas. please don't go

welcome back to free speech nation. 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. first up, it's this video . this video. you got all this year. see, that's why you don't go to festivals. you know, that's green fields in cheshire . have green fields in cheshire. have you ever been to a festival like that? >> there have been loads of festivals and the ones in scotland are usually like that. just as a matter of course.

yeah, i think, but if you've got your £10 tent from decathlon, that's not going to be able to deal with this. >> well, that's the problem, isn't it? they're all cheap tents. these days and they all leave them behind because they're so cheap. it's more expensive to unpack them. so they sort of deserve what they're getting don't they. >> yes. >> yes. >> yeah. there we go . >> yeah. there we go. >> yeah. there we go. >> blooming young people are having fun . yeah i know in having fun. yeah i know in fields don't remember any of it actually i did, i did did you do that sort of thing. yeah i did, i quite enjoyed i did i was in latitude in a tent one year. >> i hated it. >> i hated it. >> we're doing comedy. >> we're doing comedy. >> well, it's meant to be, but let's not talk about that now. it was a very bad experience. they had coloured sheep. they dyed the sheep pink. i thought that was disgusting. anyway it's just animal abuse. let's move on. we've got your unfiltered dilemmas. a dilemma came in from alan. thank you, alan, for emailing. you've said i went for an x ray last week and i was not asked if i was pregnant. i am a male, but they should have asked should i sue my local health authority for bad practice? well, this new nhs guidelines are saying that you have to ask

men not even people who identify as as men or women, just men. >> yeah, and it's a great idea because there's not enough paperwork involved with the nhs. that's true, that's true. extra boxes to tick. and, you know, asking a 73 year old man if he's pregnant. i mean, i can't think of a better use for nhs time. >> absolutely . inclusivity. fair >> absolutely. inclusivity. fair enough. right. >> absolutely. i am going to say yes every time and they are going to have to prove me wrong. andrew. >> absolutely. okay. well, let's get another dilemma from catherine. catherine says i've got a new boss at work who's usually really great. but the other day he left our shift early to go out with our colleagues while i had to close up shop by myself. how do i make it clear that i'm not impressed? my it clear that i'm not impressed? my senior chose to abandon me when he should have stepped up. now that's a tricky one because you don't get in trouble with the boss, do you? and you know he obviously doesn't like her very much. no, he doesn't like her. >> she she maybe smells, so she probably ought to check. she probably ought to check. she probably ought to check. she probably ought to check that first. we might check. if you smell, ask someone you trust. >> good advice from paul. sound

solid advice? let's get some more from leo. what do you think? >> i still think go with the smell thing. yeah sounds. i'm getting the sense. i'm getting the sense. this person smells. >> okay, well, all we've done there, we haven't solved your problem. we've just insulted you.so problem. we've just insulted you. so that's our job done. let's move on to another dilemma. this comes in from david. david says, my boyfriend has decided to grow a mullet as thatis has decided to grow a mullet as that is the new trendy thing to do. i think it's the ugliest hairstyle possible. i don't think i can be with him if he makes that choice. how do i tell him it's a bad idea? that's quite extreme though, isn't it? to leave your boyfriend over a haircut? i would say this isn't real love. >> yeah, and also, it's not the new trendy thing to do. the new trendy thing to do is to transition. so i want her boyfriend to get some breasts put in. and then at least when she leaves him, he's got some breasts to play with. >> you're confusing me with. you're confusing me with all the genders and pronouns. i think it's a gay couple here. all right, leo, but you know, that's your head. they can probably incorporate that. then that's your heteronormativity show me. what do you think, paul? >> well, i always think it's best to talk to your partner rather than put it on national

tv. no i disagree, i think it's ourjob. andrew, tv. no i disagree, i think it's our job. andrew, this tv. no i disagree, i think it's ourjob. andrew, this is our job. andrew, this is ridiculous. >> i like this, i think just send us your problems and then, you know, have a row. you sort it out, they'll be watching it, won't they. and then they're going to have a row now that's what this was all about. you just wanted to stimulate that argument, didn't you? that was what was going on there. yeah. >> well, you know, it's a haircut. i can grow out can't it? so. >> and also. yeah, exactly. it's a mullet. who cares? it's not like you. you're getting like one of those nose rings or something. i don't know why i looked at you when you did that. >> i wouldn't give him extra ideas. >> no, no. that's true. well, look, that's all we got time for. thank you so much for joining for us free speech nafion joining for us free speech nation this week. this was the week when an australian judge ruled that sex is changeable. apparently, more people were imprisoned for unpleasant social media posts. and it was revealed that the labour party has ditched the new law to protect free speech on campus because it didn't want to upset the chinese government. thanks to my panel, leo kearse and paul cox and all of my brilliant guests this evening. and by the way, if you want to join us live here in the studio and be part of the audience, that's easily done. just go to sro audiences .com that's there on the screen. you can come along. we've got food , can come along. we've got food, we've got drink, we've got good

company and stay tuned. by the way, i say good company. it's paul and leo and people like that. but you know we're nice in our own way. we'll keep you entertained, but stay tuned because ben leo tonight is coming up next. and also, please don't forget headliners is on every single night on gb news at 11:00. that is the late night paper preview show that goes through the next day's news stories for you. so you don't have to bother reading them. and it's all comedians as well, so it's all comedians as well, so it won't be boring. so it's people like leo and paul and our other roaster, bruce devlin, louis schaefer, he's a bit mad. maybe avoid the nights that he's on, but lots of people like that. so please do check out headliners. i host it a couple of nights a week, but not tonight . and by the way, tonight. and by the way, actually, that's all i've got time for. thank you so much for watching free speech nation. i'll see you next week . i'll see you 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 from the met office. there's an improvement in our weather as we head into monday, a bank holiday. for some of us, there will still be some showers around, but more in the way of sunny spells and it will just feel a little warmer. low pressure moving off the sea in a brief ridge of high pressure moving in ahead of the next weather system , which does come weather system, which does come in late monday and into tuesday. but an improvement anyway through the rest of the day. overnight into monday morning, there's still quite a lot of cloud across the uk. this band of cloud across northern ireland, southern scotland into northern england will continue to give some showery rain. elsewhere, a mixture of clear spells and showers, and temperatures milder than they have been of late, generally staying in the mid teens. so a mixed start to monday morning. bright skies across much of scotland with a scattering of showers, particularly across the north and the west. raisi towards aberdeenshire on the fresh side . temperatures around fresh side. temperatures around 9 to 11 celsius. this northern

ireland seeing a mixture of sunny spells and showers, but this cloudier zone across northern england into wales , northern england into wales, giving some showery outbreaks of rain in places brighter for the rest of england, but some showers across southeast england, initially clearing away along with a brisk, brisk breeze here, but then generally through monday winds falling light. we'll see a scattering of showers through the day, largely across the northern part of england into northern ireland, wales, southern scotland, elsewhere dry but some sunny spells and with lighter winds it will feel warmer temperatures lifting to the high teens to low 20s, up to around 23 across southeast england on tuesday. wet and windy weather spreading in across the north and the west of the uk. some of this rain will be heavy at times, but further south and east we'll start to import some warm air winds coming in from the south. plenty of sunny spells and temperatures lifting towards the mid 20s. perhaps even higher by wednesday. approaching 2829 celsius before turning cooler again on thursday. >> looks like things are heating

up boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

>> very good evening to you. it's just after 11:00 and the top story from the newsroom tonight. a british man has been found dead , buried under rubble found dead, buried under rubble after a russian missile hit a hotel used by journalists in the east of ukraine. the 38 year old, named as ryan evans, was a former british soldier and had been working with the reuters news agency guiding journalists in the conflict zone. two of the journalists he was supporting were also injured in that attack. one of them seriously. while the rest of the team is believed to be safe . german believed to be safe. german prosecutors have now named the man suspected of carrying out a knife attack that sadly killed three and injured eight. he's

been named as isa al—haj, the 26 year old syrian national is accused of being a member of the terrorist organisation and of sharing islamic state ideology. he's also been charged with three counts of murder and attempted murder . while the attempted murder. while the suspect, who had reportedly appued suspect, who had reportedly applied for asylum in germany, handed himself in to police following that attack . a church following that attack. a church service has been taking place today to remember and to pay respect to those who lost their lives in that attack in germany, the victims include a 56 year old woman and two men, one aged 56, the other 67, and four of those wounded are still in a life threatening condition . life threatening condition. well, in the last few minutes, we've heard from the middle east that talks aimed at securing a gaza ceasefire have tonight ended without a deal, according to security sources from egypt, both hamas and israel have reportedly refused to accept the latest compromises , despite the latest compromises, despite the efforts of mediators. it comes

as warning sirens have been sounding in tel aviv in the last few hours, with hamas claiming to have fired a rocket across the border. the militant group said that that latest strike was in retaliation for what it is calling israeli massacres against civilians . a royal navy against civilians. a royal navy warship has conducted major drug busts in the caribbean . cocaine busts in the caribbean. cocaine worth a street value of more than £40 million, was seized and three alleged smugglers have also been handed over to us authorities so far this year, hms trent has seized close to seven tonnes of drugs worth more than £500 million. and we'll just bring you an update on some breaking news from the metropolitan police regarding the notting hill carnival this weekend. we now know that 90 arrests have been made so far. on the first day of that carnival , 15 officers, they say, carnival, 15 officers, they say, have been assaulted. fortunately, at this stage, the

metropolitan police say that none have suffered any serious