in the korean war. now, finally, a hat once worn by napoleon has gone under the hammer in paris. its new owner paid £2.i gone under the hammer in paris. its new owner paid £2.1 million for the hat, called a bicorne, which was worn by napoleon dunng which was worn by napoleon during his rule over the french empire in the 19th century. napo euanne empire in the 19th century. napo elianne owned about 120 hats, though the one worn by joaquin phoenix in ridley scott's epic new film is just a replica . this new film is just a replica. this is gb news across the uk on tv, in your car, on digital radio and now on your smart speaker by simply saying play gb news now it's over to . cancel culture it's over to. cancel culture strikes again in the music industry. >> more anti—semitism on the streets of the uk and a politician in received her verdict in court after being prosecuted for quoting the bible. this is free speech nafion bible. this is free speech nation . welcome to free speech

nation. welcome to free speech nafion nation. welcome to free speech nation with me , andrew doyle. nation with me, andrew doyle. this is the show where we take a look at culture, current affairs and politics. and of course, we'll have the latest from those lovable culture warriors. unless they manage cancelled they manage to get cancelled before coming up on the before 9 pm. coming up on the show tonight, finnish politician paivi trial paivi rasanen has been on trial in which has major in a case which has major implications for free speech. the is in. she'll be the verdict is in. she'll be here tell us what happened here to tell us what happened and i'll to the band who and i'll speak to the band who lost gig because of an lost out on a gig because of an interview they to this show interview they gave to this show . and they've been accused of trans phobia. usual thing. anyway we'll be speaking to dr. peter hughes, who has been writing about how excessive kindness s to one group can mean cruelty to another. and of course , me and my fantastic course, me and my fantastic panel will be answering questions delightful questions from our delightful studio so my comedian studio audience. so my comedian panellist are the panellist tonight are the wonderful jojo sutherland and paul cox, who . welcome both . paul cox, who. welcome both. come down from scotland. jojo, i have well, no, i came from liverpool so you've been liverpool. you're always you're

all over the globe. >> trotter i am globe trotter. so what's this? >> what's going on in edinburgh? you told me there something you told me there was something to be parking. you told me there was something to lso3arking. you told me there was something to [so edinburgh >> so edinburgh council apparently make apparently are going to make parking pavements illegal. parking on pavements illegal. and scotland phoned me and so bbc scotland phoned me and asked me what my opinion on it and i thought parking it was, and i thought parking and already and pavements was already illegal. opinion illegal. so my opinion is that until becomes illegal, until it becomes illegal, i'm going stop on pavements. >> you really should because it's tricky to park around there. >> it's also really expensive. >> it's also really expensive. >> expensive. >> really expensive. >> really expensive. >> illegal >> in edinburgh it is illegal to park on pavements in london. that's place it is illegal. >> is that right? i did not know that. me either. you've been that. me either. no you've been to edinburgh? >> to edinburgh. yeah. >> you didn't know about the parking? >> didn't know. but never taken a car to anywhere? actually, no. >> would you? it's >> why would you? it's a beautiful place, by way. yes beautiful place, by the way. yes let's some questions from beautiful place, by the way. yes let' audience. 3 questions from beautiful place, by the way. yes let' audience. we've tions from beautiful place, by the way. yes let' audience. we've got; from the audience. we've got a question from armin. where's armin? evening. armin? good evening. hello. >> evening. the civil >> good evening. are the civil servants running the show? >> well, i mean, we've been talking a while talking about this for a while on show. there was on this show. there was a whistleblower this week. this was and a civil was in the telegraph and a civil servant the home office who

servant at the home office who claims that colleague, his claims that the colleague, his colleagues really colleagues are really, really happy because the happy this week because of the supreme against the supreme court ruling against the rwanda departure of rwanda plan, the departure of suella this suella braverman. but this whistleblower saying whistleblower is also saying that whatever the government tried regarding ring tried to do regarding ring migration, office, migration, the home office, the staff at the home office will scupper i suppose scupper it. now, i suppose i should say i can't verify the whistleblower. it was published in hope they've in the telegraph. i hope they've done basic done their sort of basic verification checks. i presume they have. but if it's the case, irrespective stand irrespective of where you stand on issue, isn't it on the migration issue, isn't it a dodgy the government a bit dodgy that the government would elected government would say the elected government would say the elected government would need this would say, we need to do this and the members of staff would say, well, we're just going to find isn't find a way not to. isn't that kind anti—democratic? oh kind of anti—democratic? oh completely anti —democratic. >> to think completely anti—democratic. >> to think i mean, >> but then to think i mean, when you people being put when you see people being put into government, when you see people being put into know, government, when you see people being put into know, your government, when you see people being put into know, your home'nment, when you see people being put into know, your home secretary you know, your home secretary one your health one day and then your health secretary then your secretary and then your transport. yes. i mean, they can't that knowledge can't have that knowledge of everything. be a everything. so there has to be a bafis everything. so there has to be a basis of staff that do have the sort workings of that sort of workings of that department. that's right. department. no, that's right. >> the staff should be able >> and the staff should be able to for whoever's in power. to work for whoever's in power. yeah, the point. yeah, that's sort of the point. >> the decision should >> yes. so the decision should come from the elected

representatives representation rather presume rather than because i presume that staff there that the staff are there regardless election. regardless of an election. >> exactly what >> well, no, that's exactly what it so that's that's way it is. so that's that's the way they're not to be they're not allowed to be partisan. yeah, but this is a weird thing because we can't vote we can't. that's vote them out. we can't. that's what about how what troubles me about this. how do know? what troubles me about this. how do maybew? what troubles me about this. how do maybe we should like the >> maybe we should like the european union, though. that's what can't vote what exactly? you can't vote them exactly. what exactly? you can't vote the this exactly. what exactly? you can't vote the this the exactly. what exactly? you can't vote the this the problem.xactly. what exactly? you can't vote the this the problem.xacthe >> this is the problem. or the house lords or any of these house of lords or any of these things. you know, there's an issue, this issue, isn't there? this is a huge issue. >> know, there is place >> we you know, there is a place for civil servants. i've for civil servants. and i've been a civil servant myself in the you? yes, yes, the past. were you? yes, yes, exactly. not not exactly. yeah. not for not not for long time. but you for a very long time. but you are taught should are taught or told, should i say, to be apolitical and largely in the past. in my experience, what experience, people were what they not now is apolitical. they are not now is apolitical. they take own with they take their own views with them they're them and they make sure they're perpetuated that strange? system. isn't that strange? >> mean, do you have any views >> i mean, do you have any views on you asked the question? >> i just think people should learn what they're told. >> the job. yeah >> the job. yeah >> oh, maybe. maybe. commercial dictatorship. just do. i am half german . german. >> i've been trying that policy at home for a long time and it's not working. >> all right, well, let's get a

question from amelia. where is amelia? oh, hello. hello. >> the propeller marches >> are the propeller marches getting of control ? getting out of control? >> well, this is a question because there bunch of because there are a bunch of marches . stormed the bull ring. marches. stormed the bull ring. yeah, which , you know. well, yeah, which, you know. well, isn't there harvey nicks there or something? yeah. so presumably were after presumably they were just after some do some accessories. yeah. what do you. think about you. what do you think about this stuff? well, is this sort of stuff? well, is again, sort of, you again, is this sort of, you know, into the bull ring know, going into the bull ring in birmingham and saying, you know, in birmingham and saying, you knoright in birmingham and saying, you kno right now stop, ceasefire. >> right now stop, ceasefire. it's like, ceasefire in it's like, what ceasefire in birmingham? i don't know what where just shouting. there's parts of birmingham where that would apply. but you're just going, are you trying to going, what are you trying to achieve? no, but that's it. >> some mps are getting >> just and some mps are getting nervous this. know nervous about this. i know one of of the shadow of the members of the shadow cabinet look , as mps cabinet was saying, look, as mps were a bit worried now because cabinet was saying, look, as mps we|ofa bit worried now because cabinet was saying, look, as mps we|of them/orried now because cabinet was saying, look, as mps we|of them are ed now because cabinet was saying, look, as mps we|of them are gathering cause cabinet was saying, look, as mps we|of them are gathering around lot of them are gathering around parliamentary and parliamentary constituents and sort shouting and screaming sort of shouting and screaming and can be bit intimidating. and can be a bit intimidating. >> and that's problem and can be a bit intimidating. >> anythingthat's problem and can be a bit intimidating. >> anything regardless)roblem and can be a bit intimidating. >> anything regardless of:)lem with anything regardless of gain. the subject matter gain. what the subject matter is, large of is, just having large groups of people en masse being a mob is

of course it's threatening. so i mean , they're not going out mean, they're not going out handing out candles and back massages, are they? no, they're not. >> i would be all for that. >> i would be all for that. >> i would be all for that. >> i would be great if i could just be mobbed by a sort of reflexologist. loads of them. just be mobbed by a sort of reflezwouldt. loads of them. just be mobbed by a sort of reflezwould have ds of them. just be mobbed by a sort of reflezwould have a; of them. just be mobbed by a sort of reflezwould have a back1em. just be mobbed by a sort of reflezwould have a back massage >> i would have a back massage for peace. >> i would have a back massage for quite. small mob, though, >> quite a small mob, though, wasn't >> quite a small mob, though, waswell, there was 100, 100 >> well, there was 100, 100 people in a shopping centre. >> no. well that's true. >> oh no. well that's true. i think were saying think what people were saying though it was though was that it was disruptive. protests disruptive. but then protests are mean, a are disruptive. i mean, it's a difficult because difficult one, isn't it? because you right to free you do want the right to free protest, think absolutely protest, i think is absolutely sacrosanct. yes. >> think and that's >> but i also think and that's what we're there is a nervousness because of all the protests you protests with just all, you know, kind of protests know, all the kind of protests going psyche going on, the psyche of the pubuc going on, the psyche of the public going, god, can public are going, oh, god, can we protesting? so we just stop protesting? so we're of basically walking we're kind of basically walking into know, of then into, you know, kind of then let's protest. but just stop. >> oil was smashing up paintings with that's >> oil was smashing up paintings witilegal that's >> oil was smashing up paintings witilegal . that's >> oil was smashing up paintings witilegal . so, that's >> oil was smashing up paintings witilegal . so, so that's >> oil was smashing up paintings witilegal . so, so that's that's >> oil was smashing up paintings witilegal . so, so that's athat's not legal. so, so that's a different kind . different kind. >> if we get so sickened by >> but if we get so sickened by protests that we then actually vote to ban protests, then that's going to be wrong. >> but then there's maybe it's about the police just applying

the law. i mean, there are a number of the protests where you see anti—semitic see openly anti—semitic declarations. you see people chanting killing jewish chanting about killing jewish people. can't the police people. why can't the police just intervene people just intervene when people overstep let overstep the mark and let everyone get on with it? everyone else get on with it? why doing why aren't they doing that? >> that's a great >> well, that's a great question, andrew. >> it's the question of >> i think it's the question of the i'm honest. i mean, the week, if i'm honest. i mean, l, the week, if i'm honest. i mean, i, believe that protesting is i, i believe that protesting is sacrosanct however i think sacrosanct also. however i think it's almost redundant now in the sense in the era, we're in sense we're in the era, we're in the of social media. one of the age of social media. one of the age of social media. one of the protesters leading this leading this march in the bullring was saying, we just want to heard. you think, want to be heard. and you think, are taking the whatsit? are you taking the whatsit? >> we really hear you. >> because we really hear you. >> because we really hear you. >> we hear you lot . there's >> we hear you a lot. there's nothing we hear. and it's nothing else we hear. and it's the same just stop oil. it the same for just stop oil. it feels a little bit attention seeking, particularly when it comes stop i mean, comes to just stop oil. i mean, they done some absolutely they have done some absolutely atrocious things that set atrocious things that have set their way . their course way. >> what do you think, jojo, about juxtapose works >> what do you think, jojo, ab art? uxtapose works of art? >> do you any thoughts >> do you have any thoughts about that? >> depends the isn't >> depends what the art isn't it? does really. i mean it? yeah, it does really. i mean there's some you on. yeah. >> get rid of it. i mean they

did interrupt a production of les miz. >> i mean, again, i'm not bothered, if it had been, bothered, but if it had been, i don't know, sweeney todd or don't know, like sweeney todd or fiddler roof, know, absolutely. >> better musical. >> it'd be a better musical. >> it'd be a better musical. >> so it's down to your >> so again, it's down to your own isn't it? no, own taste, isn't it? no, absolutely. think it's all own taste, isn't it? no, abs�*sortely. think it's all own taste, isn't it? no, abs�*sort of think it's all own taste, isn't it? no, abs�*sort of the think it's all own taste, isn't it? no, abs�* sort of the protestsit's all own taste, isn't it? no, abs�* sort of the protests and|ll the sort of the protests and it's i mean, it's like the football terraces, isn't it? chanting in, know, football chanting in, you know, football teams chanting songs . teams and chanting songs. >> think the interruption >> and i think the interruption of theatre like was went to of theatre like i was i went to see sunset the other of theatre like i was i went to see suchet the other of theatre like i was i went to see such a the other of theatre like i was i went to see such a good the other of theatre like i was i went to see such a good production. her it's such a good production. and i my head, if i was thinking in my head, if it's one of those just stop oil people, them interrupts people, one of them interrupts is i take a flamethrower to is i will take a flamethrower to everyone. is i will take a flamethrower to evewe1e. is i will take a flamethrower to evewe would have seen l for >> we would have seen l for andrew it would have been pretty horrendous . horrendous. >> okay. let's get to a question from where's hello, from carl. where's carl? hello, guys. from carl. where's carl? hello, guyis it acceptable for bullying >> is it acceptable for bullying on women's hour now? >> 100% every day of the week? yeah bullying a woman. that's what you want. >> women's hour, of course. is a radio four. i think it's the radio four show and so this is listen to it you would i'm the demographic clearly. well, actually there is a point to this because the recent guest is

a biological male who identifies as female, who is now running. i'm going to get this wrong. and endometriosis . dimitrios and endometriosis. dimitrios and endometriosis. dimitrios and endometriosis charity, which is a condition of the uterus. right and have you suffered with that? no, i haven't. and have you suffered with that? no, i haven't . but because the no, i haven't. but because the individual who runs it now identifies as female, i suppose they don't grow a uterus though do they? but the point is that that emma barnett was saying to this person, well, look, because because this individual, steph richards , was saying people richards, was saying people assigned female at birth and kept talking about people assigned female at birth. and emma the interviewer emma barnett, the interviewer said, is the word you're looking for. now people are for. woman and now people are saying barnett was saying that emma barnett was bullying person. bullying a trans person. >> well, nonsense . >> yeah, well, it's nonsense. >> yeah, well, it's nonsense. >> it's okay. well, just end the story. >> end of conversation. let's move on. >> but why are public representatives for groups saying they can't have tough questions on radio? exactly >> and that's that's the issue that we're it's a tough question. no, what we're again, we're sleepwalking into being in

a disagreement with somebody or asking, you know, because you don't disagree doesn't mean you're bullying somebody. no. do you're bullying somebody. no. do you so? i mean, point you mean so? i mean, the point whether having a trans woman as a of an endometriosis a ceo of an endometriosis charity is an issue that i've seen lots of debates online. >> a lot of women are not happy about that. >> but equally, they did >> no. but equally, they did point know, the point out that, you know, the ceo of prostate cancer is females. so something the females. so something the females . so it's as if you're females. so it's as if you're best kind of, you know , best kind of, you know, talented. do the job. you get the best person that makes regardless of gender. remember? yeah. so but i think the problem is that the particular person in charge has got some kind of history of being quite a trans activist and, well, even not using the word woman for that particular charity . particular charity. >> she strikes me as something that would disqualify you from working for that charity. i take your point. >> annoys me. >> annoys me. >> i know, but i take your >> no, i know, but i take your point female. point about male. female. i suppose if you're qualified. >> yes, course.

>> yes, of course. >> if you're qualified. doesn't matter. is not irrespective >> but this is not irrespective of gender, is it? >> because this is someone who started journey started out their life journey as now as one gender and is now transitioned to another? this is all about gender for the lady that's head of the prostate charity me. it's great. you know, we probably have more women as ceos , but she is women as ceos, but she is a biological woman who has remained a biological woman . remained a biological woman. this is a biological man who has become a woman and is assisting on people, calling her on other people, calling her a woman and this is what happens when remove bullying from when you remove bullying from schools, way, because schools, by the way, because we've now lost. wow. we've now we've now lost. wow. we've now we've we've now not we're now no longer able to identify what bullying is asking a question that you might not like is not bullying is it not, paul, it. not >> yes. i feel very bullied right now . right now. >> legs ogoun flamethrowers. oh come on. i feel very bullied. yeah paul? >> emma barnum. she was just doing a job, wasn't she? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> and i thought. i mean, i listened to the. to the item and. yeah, i think she was a

really good interviewer. she asked really good questions. yeah. >> did come across as aggressive? >> no, not all. not at all. >> no, not at all. not at all. and i mean, i do like play and i mean, i do like to play devil's advocate and it's devil's advocate and, and it's that sort thing a that sort of thing going as a woman, i have no problem with a trans being the head if woman, i have no problem with a t|suffer being the head if woman, i have no problem with a t|suffer endometriosis,| if i suffer from endometriosis, i wouldn't mind. i don't care who's in charge as long as they know how the condition know how to treat the condition and can help. >> does bother you if they >> does it bother you if they can't use the word woman? >> does it bother you if they canit use the word woman? >> does it bother you if they canit is.e the word woman? >> does it bother you if they canit is. it1e word woman? >> does it bother you if they canit is. it can't rd woman? >> does it bother you if they canit is. it can't though an? >> does it bother you if they canit is. it can't though of’ >> it is. it can't though of course it does bother me. can't use the word woman. but won't they? are we saying they can't use the word woman? they're just using different terminology to a degree, yes. but if we're getting rid of women. yeah, of course i'm going to. i'm going to start a protest and go and go in the bull ring with my uterus. >> i don't think we're i don't think we're quite getting rid of the word woman, but oh, my goodness me. the imagery has gone very graphic all a gone very graphic all of a sudden. a question sudden. let's get a question from shirley. >> where's shirley? shirley. >> where's shirley? hi shirley. >> where's shirley? hi shirley. >> the supreme court got >> has the supreme court got a problem with rwanda?

>> yeah. no, this was interesting because obviously we've had all these developments with supreme court, now with the supreme court, but now a the rwandan a spokesperson for the rwandan government is saying the government is saying that the supreme is insulting supreme court is insulting rwanda by saying, you know, this is an unsafe country to send people to the rwandan government is furious because they say, no, no, we have incredible facilities . facilities. >> we know what we're doing. we're doing this for ages. paul, have point? is this racist? >> they do. okay. >> they do. okay. >> if we start, are we >> so if we start, are we starting first principles here? the not the supreme court, it's not their the their opinion they're using the british available to british law that's available to them. they them. fair enough. and they can't different decision can't make a different decision whether or whether i agree with that or not, don't happen to agree not, and i don't happen to agree with it. i think we need third party immigration and countries to load to help us out with the load that moment. that we've got at the moment. however if this was a left leaning policy without a doubt we as racist , we would see this as as racist, without a doubt. but this is coming as a right leaning policy . we're saying, you know, we want certain want to remove certain immigrants and take them to a third party country and therefore, they're quite happy to it's not on the list. to say it's not on the list. >> but this difficult because >> but this is difficult because left activists now will

left wing activists now will say that lived that it's about the lived experience perception of the experience and perception of the individual. if person of individual. so if a person of colour says that they feel it's racist, then is. the racist, then it is. if so, the rwandan is saying, rwandan government is saying, well, so why aren't the left marching about this? >> i'm just really uncomfortable with experience with the term lived experience because all got lived because we've all got a lived experience. thing experience. but the only thing that the base line that anchors us, the base line that anchors us, the base line that us has to be the that anchors us has to be the truth. only one truth. so there is only one version the truth, and you version of the truth, and you really met any of these really haven't met any of these actors? them. i'm actors? i have met them. i'm speaking truth. >> exactly. just the >> yeah, well, exactly. just the truth. truth. >> just. that's >> it's not. we just. that's what out. laws rules what we set out. laws and rules and debate, and boundaries of debate, don't we? oh, you're so old fashioned. >> listen, isn't it? >> listen, jojo, isn't it? i mean , it does put some of mean, it does put the some of the activists in a bind. >> know, they the >> you know, they hate the tories and hate their tories and they hate their rwanda policy. they rwanda policy. and they say they're by sending they're being racist by sending them rwanda them to rwanda. but now rwanda is telling they're being is telling them they're being racist them to rwanda. >> so you're kind of it's a tncky >> so you're kind of it's a tricky we all have a drink and calm down. i mean, that's probably. >> is that thing. but >> but it is that thing. but when gets into letter of when it gets into the letter of the law. yeah, it's again, it's regardless of principle, law regardless of principle, the law is law. exactly. you is the law. yeah, exactly. you know, mean, law black know, i mean, the law is black and emotion in

and white. there's no emotion in law, seem to law, unfortunately, we seem to be to change the be using emotion to change the laws people's feelings. >> yeah, and look, you can't please in this please everyone. or in this case, anyone. anyone. well, okay. the okay. anyway next on the program, politician program, finnish politician paivi involved paivi rasanen has been involved in case which major in a court case which has major implications free speech. implications for free speech. that's the one where she quoted the in court. the bible and landed in court. stay find out what stay tuned to find out what happened.

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me andrew doyle finnish politician paivi racine went on trial in august after hate speech after publicly expressing christian beliefs , expressing christian beliefs, piv was charged with agitation against a minority group back in 2021 for sharing her beliefs on marriage and sexual ethics. in a tweet two years earlier, as well as a live radio debate and 2004 church pamphlet . so the verdict church pamphlet. so the verdict is now in. i'm joined by lorcan price legal counsel for adf uk,

and hopefully piv will be joining us down the line in a moment. but in the meantime, welcome to the show. >> lorcan thank andrew. so >> lorcan thank you, andrew. so could you explain to us, for those of us who have no idea about what's going on here, what is the background to this case? >> well, as you say, in 2019, a pithy tweeted criticism of the decision of her church, which is the finnish lutheran church, to sponsor the helsinki pride parade . and she said that parade. and she said that essentially why would they use church funds to do that? and she included in her tweet a picture of scripture and as a result of this, somebody made a criminal complaint to the police. they then opened an investigation into her. they went into things she had written in 2004. so nearly 15 years prior to that, where she talked about the purpose marriage in the purpose of marriage in the christian between man christian context between a man and that would not and a woman that would not include marriage. again, and a woman that would not incleas marriage. again, and a woman that would not incleas in marriage. again, and a woman that would not incleas in the rriage. again, and a woman that would not incleas in the contextlgain, that was in the context of a debate that going on in the debate that was going on in the finnish lutheran church at the time. because those two time. and because of those two things, brought things, they brought criminal charges her. things, they brought criminal chajust her. things, they brought criminal chajust forzr. things, they brought criminal

chajust for everyone, >> just clarify for everyone, because the accusation one because the accusation was one of that's right. of hate speech. that's right. what bible quotation what was the bible quotation that why was it that she included and why was it so was from so hateful? well it was from romans and what essentially what she was the bible quotation uses strong language about a man shall not lay down with man . i'm shall not lay down with man. i'm familiar with the verse so the problem with that is that somebody took offence to it. >> yes, but it's in every bible in finland and around the world. in the world. exactly that. and you can find bibles and libraries and churches and so on. but it was the fact that she tweeted it with a criticism of her church's decision to sponsor the and the the pride parade and then the pamphlet to do with the pamphlet that was to do with the debate gay marriage. debate over gay marriage. >> it? i know not >> now, how was it? i know not that this should be relevant because i believe in free speech. you say, speech. no matter what you say, but saying her view was but was she saying her view was that not that gay marriage is not compatible christian compatible with christian thought that thought or was she saying that gays and should be, you gays are evil and should be, you know, thrown into volcano or something? >> absolutely not. no. she was saying compatible with saying it's not compatible with homosexual such or homosexual behaviour as such or within marriage. right. and so her distinction was that

christians believe this is a sin, but that you should love the sinner, which is what jesus christ said when he was here preaching. and it was exactly what she said. christians believe. out her believe. and she goes out of her way pamphlet on a number way in the pamphlet on a number of and fact, the of occasions and in fact, the prosecution to admit prosecution was forced to admit this in court, to say that every person dignity , equal person has dignity, equal dignity, be dignity, they should be respected and discrimination, unlawful discrimination is wrong. yes, but christians believe this and they believe it for these reasons. >> so this does sound like pretty standard christian beliefs. doesn't sound like beliefs. it doesn't sound like it's in it's been framed in a particularly hateful way. why would be subject to would that be subject to a criminal prosecution? i think a lot of people watching be very confused by that because you can't prosecute. we can't prosecute. would we prosecute every waterstone's because of prosecute every waterstone's bec bible of prosecute every waterstone's bec bible on of prosecute every waterstone's bec bible on sale? of prosecute every waterstone's bec bible on sale? what's of prosecute every waterstone's bec bible on sale? what's going the bible on sale? what's going on well, this is precisely what >> well, this is precisely what confused us. and it's only when you at who made the you look at who made the prosecution decision , who was prosecution decision, who was then prosecutor, then the chief prosecutor, a lady she lady called raja torfaen. she said quite publicly that as far as she was concerned, finland was suffering from an epidemic of hate speech and that while you were entitled believe

you were entitled to believe what this is a quote what it says and this is a quote in the bible quran or in the bible or the quran or mein kampf, you weren't necessarily that necessarily entitled to say that out a way. out in a hateful way. >> put those >> so she actually put those three together as though three texts together as though they're comparable. >> correct. >> correct. >> mean, isn't that hate >> i mean, isn't that hate speech? it shows deep speech? well it shows a deep ideological position on the part of the prosecution services, and that concern all of us, that should concern all of us, irrespective what european irrespective of what european country you're in what country you're in or what country you're in or what country you're in or what country you in. country you are in. >> because if you have vague laws plus an ideologically motivated service motivated prosecution service or any institution , then you come any institution, then you come with these type of outcomes. any institution, then you come witiso 1ese type of outcomes. any institution, then you come witiso 1ese wasn'tf outcomes. any institution, then you come witiso 1ese wasn't promoting. any institution, then you come witiso 1ese wasn't promoting the >> so she wasn't promoting the idea that they should change the law make homosexuality law to make homosexuality illegal. certainly not or anything that. nothing anything like that. so nothing like so like that. so this is so confusing. so it goes to court anyway, prosecuted. what's confusing. so it goes to court anyverdict? prosecuted. what's the verdict? >> well, we had it in the helsinki criminal court two years and was years ago now, and it was unanimous acquittal. the prosecution can then have the power, strangely, under finnish law, appeal a not guilty law, to appeal a not guilty verdict they appealed the verdict. so they appealed to the court and then just court of appeal. and then just there month, we another there this month, we had another unanimous guilty verdict. so unanimous not guilty verdict. so she's put through two she's been put through two rounds court proceedings , two

rounds of court proceedings, two years of this case dragging on over 12, 15 hours. in fact , of over 12, 15 hours. in fact, of police interrogation. yes and all to arrive at the conclusion that was obvious to anybody paying that was obvious to anybody paying attention that she wasn't engagedin paying attention that she wasn't engaged in hate speech. so is this the end of it? >> because you say that now it's the appeal has been found that, again, guilty, unanimous. again, not guilty, unanimous. yes. try again? yes. can they try again? >> they can actually they can take they do take it. can they just do this endlessly? and that's endlessly? well, and that's that's a very interesting question. i mean, these guys will the of this will reach the end of this process appeal the process with an appeal to the supreme court and if we're acquitted there, that will be the we're found the end of it. if we're found guilty then bring guilty there, we can then bring it ourselves european it ourselves to the european court of rights. so we're court of human rights. so we're we'll wait and see. so we'll have to wait and see. so the itself is the process itself is a punishment? course, punishment? yes of course, you're message and you're sending a message and this deliberately, this is quite deliberately, i think prosecutor think what the prosecutor general here general was doing here to everyone society. everyone in finnish society. five well—known public five is a well—known public figure politician. if figure. she's a politician. if we drag her through we can drag her through the courts, can do it courts, this much we can do it to you as well. so you better stay quiet. yeah. >> now, i was in finland quite recently giving a talk and i didn't the extent that

didn't realise the extent that these kind of critical social justice ideology justice woke ideology has taken hold a lot of hold in finland. and a lot of people very, very people there are very, very liberals worried. liberals are very worried. they're is they're saying this is a disaster our country, this disaster for our country, this authoritarian movement that's sweeping through, have these hate speech laws always been on the books is this a the statute books or is this a relatively or the statute books or is this a reléthey/ or the statute books or is this a reléthey just or the statute books or is this a reléthey just being or the statute books or is this a reléthey just being applied or the statute books or is this a reléthey just being applied with are they just being applied with greater force given the ideological of those in ideological bent of those in charge? >> well, they came in in 2005. and interestingly, piv was actually a politician who voted for them when she was in parliament, but parliament, is that right? but she'd believed they'd be she'd never believed they'd be used of way. so it used in this kind of way. so it goes kind of goes to show you kind of unintended but unintended consequences. but they were introduced 2000 they were introduced in 2000 and sorry, since then sorry, 2010. and since then we've seen a new prosecutor come in who has since left, actually, and she has used them in this kind of weaponized way. i described the reason they're there is this is finland taking its obligations from international law on hate speech into domestic law. right. so and we the uk, has the same obugafionsin we the uk, has the same obligations in international law and have very concerning and we have very concerning laws in you know. in this country, as you know. >> and they're getting >> we do. and they're getting worse scotland introducing >> we do. and they're getting worsehate scotland introducing >> we do. and they're getting worsehate speech nd introducing >> we do. and they're getting worsehate speech laws, roducing >> we do. and they're getting worsehate speech laws, the icing their hate speech laws, the irish speech an irish hate speech bill is an absolute disaster for free

speech, that's a good speech, but that's a good example. ireland, lot example. so with ireland, a lot of critics are saying, well, this will be weaponised by activists to effectively criminalise anyone who misgenders someone who likes to use pronouns according to biological sex, not some sense of a gendered soul. now now that's a real problem. but the irish government is saying, no, that would never happen. don't worry, just put it on the statute never statute books. it'll never happen. of piv, happen. but this case of piv, she thought it wouldn't happen. she it it did she voted for it and it did happen. the happen. doesn't this show the danger such a vague, danger of putting such a vague, nebulous terms like hate onto the statute books without any definition at all? >> absolutely. as you unless you've already guessed, i'm an irishman . i've been in dublin irishman. i've been in dublin speaking members of speaking to members of the parliament that of parliament about that piece of legislation deeply legislation. it's deeply concerning. then minister concerning. the then minister for in ireland said that forjustice in ireland said that the reason they had left kind of an open ended category around gender quote unquote gender was to quote unquote futureproof new futureproof the law so that new gender identities that are discovered the would discovered in the future would also that. also be protected by that. that's astonishing . that's astonishing. >> also say, >> it's didn't they also say, when define hatred? when asked to define hatred? well, was

well, it means hatred. it was a circular definition, correct? >> yeah, right. >> yeah, right. >> this absolutely >> well, this is absolutely absurd. means that you're absurd. it means that you're left a position where you left in a position where you never know whether what you're saying in a group to your friends setting. friends is in a public setting. >> wherever or whether or not it actually crosses the threshold into prudent into hate. so the prudent decision would be then say nothing. exactly. don't get into controversy. and course, you controversy. and of course, you don't the views of a don't know what the views of a future government might be, how they might choose to interpret hate. >> they could interpret criticism of the government as hate. do you do i hate. what do you do then? i mean, be an mean, this seems to be an obvious problem me , but it's obvious problem to me, but it's not one that people i mean, not one that people are. i mean, a of the people who are a lot of the people who are would supportive the would be supportive of what the government aren't government did to pivi aren't really of how really thinking in terms of how the legislation might be used against them. one day. the legislation might be used aga exactly. n. one day. the legislation might be used aga exactly. i. one day. the legislation might be used agaexactly. i mean,iay. the legislation might be used agaexactly. i mean, you can >> exactly. i mean, you can totally disagree with what pivi said, you you have said, but if you you have to take the risk then a future take the risk then that a future government take government may not take a very different your own different view about your own position decide to position and then decide to prosecute giving prosecute you. giving institutional to institutional power to ideological prosecutors with vague, open ended laws is a recipe for disaster for everybody, irrespective of where they stand on different issues. >> lorcan price , thanks so much

>> lorcan price, thanks so much for joining me. really appreciate you forjoining me. really appreciate you . appreciate you. thank you. >> afraid we couldn't get >> so i'm afraid we couldn't get piper down the line due to technical difficulties, but i think lorcan fills in quite adequately. >> but next on free speech nation, i'm going be speaking nation, i'm going to be speaking to whom by fire, who to the band whom by fire, who found that one of their gigs was cancelled for the heinous crime of appearing on this programme. i feel very bad about that. see you shortly . who is it? you shortly. who is it? >> we're here for the show . >> we're here for the show. welcome to the dinosaur hour with me. john cleese . haha, that with me. john cleese. haha, that was married to a therapist and you survived. i thought we were getting hugh laurie second best. i'm bellissima. you interviewed saddam hussein. what's that like ? i was terrified. i'm playing strip poker with these three. oh no, thank you. >> my cds need to be put in alphabetical order. >> oh, are you going to be problematic again ?

problematic again? >> the dinosaur hour , sundays at >> the dinosaur hour, sundays at 9:00 on gb news. choose

radio show. >> welcome back to free speech nation. >> so later in the show, i'll be turning agony uncle with the help of my panel, jojo's sutherland and paul cox. and we're going to help you deal with unfiltered dilemmas. with your unfiltered dilemmas. so any problems at so if you've got any problems at all, to answer them. all, trust us to answer them. really at really do. just email us at gbviews@gbnews.uk . com and we'll gbviews@gbnews.uk. com and we'll do very best to not destroy do our very best to not destroy your life. so end based band whom by fire first appeared on this show back in july to discuss how they were cancelled from folk festival, from the lee folk festival, apparently questioning the apparently for questioning the sexualisation of children in school online. that appearance itself has had repercussions, though , and the band then found though, and the band then found themselves cancelled by a church where they were due to perform an evening of music. so here to tell more, i'm joined by band tell me more, i'm joined by band members eliza mills and dan

salamandras and their friend and promoter nathan dukette . so i'm promoter nathan dukette. so i'm going to come to whom by fire first. now you were on the show in july and you explained what happened, but maybe just explain again, you were supposed to perform at the lee folk festival. yeah. >> yeah, we were. were >> yeah, we were. and we were informed that due to social media comments that we were weren't going to be welcomed there. and they weren't specific. >> you were you were raising concerns about the sexualization of children in schools, right? >> it was . i raised >> yeah, it was. i raised a particular concern about a certain book reading that's in pride were promoting, certain book reading that's in pride were promoting , which pride were promoting, which advocated for paedophilia . it advocated for paedophilia. it wasn't an over 18 event. i thought it was a fair enough thing to question . yes. and thing to question. yes. and nobody's denied that. that's what it was about . what it was about. >> my understanding is that you would you would seen some previous posts by one of the organisers users which suggested a kind of tolerance that a kind of tolerance for that kind of thing. and you were criticising right. kind of thing. and you were crit and|g right. kind of thing. and you were critand|g rigessentially that.

kind of thing. and you were crityeahg rigessentially that. kind of thing. and you were crityeah . rigessentially that. kind of thing. and you were crit yeah . yeah.ssentially that. kind of thing. and you were crityeah . yeah. so, itially that. kind of thing. and you were crityeah . yeah. so, solly that. kind of thing. and you were crityeah . yeah. so, so what's. >> yeah. yeah. so, so what's wrong with that would be the first no love to know that if anyone knows. but did they and then they just cancelled the gig right? they tell you that they give a reason. no. give you a solid reason. no. >> went their >> just went against their ethics. how >> i'm not sure how. >> i'm not sure how. >> yeah, i think it was because they were inclusive. >> they were being inclusive. so it sounds to me like the kind of situation where they don't really understand what you were tweeting about and thought tweeting about and they thought you just that you were just attacking that particular something like that. >> but even if you were, do >> but even if you were, we do live society where we do live in a society where we do have speech. we express have free speech. we can express views disagree with. views that people disagree with. that shouldn't that should be okay, shouldn't it okay? it should be okay? >> so. definitely. >> i think so. definitely. >> i think so. definitely. >> so you weren't able play >> so you weren't able to play then came this show and then you came onto this show and then you came onto this show and then were about then they were annoyed about that. cancelled you this time? >> a church. a church? a local church we've played at church that we've played at before have welcomed us with before who have welcomed us with open and yeah, what am i, open arms and yeah, what am i, the antichrist or something? >> what's going on here? the antichrist or something? >> thist's going on here? the antichrist or something? >> this is going on here? the antichrist or something? >> this is ridiculous. iere? >> this is ridiculous. >> this is ridiculous. >> so, nathan, you were involved in tried to. in this? well, they tried to. you're. singer you're. you're a singer songwriter you've songwriter as well. you've performed together but were

performed together, but you were organising event, and these organising an event, and these same contacted you , is same activists contacted you, is that right? >> so i few messages back >> so i had a few messages back and forth, which chose to and forth, which i chose to ignore. basically saying ignore. yes. basically saying either cancel the gig or remove my friends from the line—up. it was us two us guys. you were sharing the bill? yeah. so i put the night on and i asked him by far as to come and play because they're amazing. um and the pressure put on to say, pressure was put on to say, either remove them just do either remove them and just do the light on your own or cancel the light on your own or cancel the i chose ignore. they the gig i chose to ignore. they went venue. the venue the gig i chose to ignore. they wentnothinglenue. the venue the gig i chose to ignore. they wentnothing as ue. the venue the gig i chose to ignore. they wentnothing as they he venue the gig i chose to ignore. they wentnothing as they should.a said nothing as they should. >> so did they come to you because feel you're because they feel because you're a person thought a trans person and they thought you share the animosity you might share the animosity against is that maybe what against them? is that maybe what it about? it was about? >> think were probably >> i think they were probably trying me in trying to put me again in a position their pride. i might fit into one of their letters. and so as such, they wanted to share the same views as me. and that's not i mean, i felt was right. >> that's kind of the problem that i feel. know, that i feel. you know, i'm constantly i'm this constantly told i'm part of this lgbtqia community, so therefore i agree everything i must agree with everything that everyone else says. but we're within

we're all individuals within that and disagree on that and we all disagree on stuff. that's fine. right? that and we all disagree on stu�*exactly. hat's fine. right? that and we all disagree on stu�*exactly. it's; fine. right? that and we all disagree on stu�*exactly. it's like a. right? that and we all disagree on stu�*exactly. it's like a. we're’ >> exactly. it's like if we're going everyone with an going to cancel everyone with an opposing would opposing view, all of us would be cancelled. well, of course, so. but also in terms of artistry, i mean, you're all musicians now. >> i know quite a lot about the history the and music, history of the arts and music, and really and there are a lot of really bad people, really bad artists who produced incredible work . who produced incredible work. should we really be policing the moral views of the people who produce art? >> no . >> no. >> no. >> well, it's a simple question and a simple answer. >> yes. sorry but that's. >> yes. sorry but that's. >> but why do you think this has happened? why is this going on at moment? any thoughts ? at the moment? any thoughts? it's a big question. >> it's a big question. >> it's a big question. >> nathan, do you have any ideas? >>i ideas? >> ihave ideas? >> i have a feeling social media might play a little role. really? that's my opinion . yeah, really? that's my opinion. yeah, well, it does seem to get people riled up, doesn't it? >> yeah. have you had any problems with social media? people since this people gone after you since this thing ? thing happened? >> i was . compared to >> i think i was. compared to hitler. yeah >> you're compared to hitler? yeah >> dan, that's nothing. i mean,

i get that every day. >> it doesn't mean anything, but did they you any sense of did they give you any sense of why by appearing on show in particular? >> yeah. would disqualify you from performing at a church? well, we've heard a few a few things this week, actually. >> just that gb news is far right. far right? yes. >> i mean, that's news to me. and i work here. yeah >> yeah. so we have to disassociate ourselves from gb news as a result. >> i think sporting anti—trans anti—woke , which i support anti—woke, which i support actually . actually. >> but i mean, that's just a misunderstanding of what i mean. this is often the case that a lot of activists make a decision about what's going on on the channel and then they just say that, it doesn't bear any that, but it doesn't bear any relation to actually relation to what actually happens on the channel. we have discussions and open debate and i that's they're i think that's what they're probably afraid of, isn't it? when emailed did you when they emailed you, did you what of tone did they take? what sort of tone did they take? was it a kind of was it was it a kind of demanding tone or it just demanding tone or was it a just a polite request? >> i'd say was >> i'd say it was quite demanding. yeah. >> i'd say it was quite derand ing. yeah. >> i'd say it was quite derand what yeah. >> i'd say it was quite derand what would yeah. >> i'd say it was quite derand what would they yeah. >> i'd say it was quite derand what would they have. >> i'd say it was quite derand what would they have been >> and what would they have been happy with then? just. just for

you capitulate , i suppose. you to capitulate, i suppose. >> do they were >> just to do what they were asking do, which again asking me to do, which again is making me man. yes. kind making me a yes man. yes. kind of happy to and do that. of not happy to sit and do that. and so you just your, your strategy was ignore . strategy was to ignore. >> yeah. than do anything >> yeah. rather than do anything else. very else. okay. that's very interesting. that's the interesting. that's probably the way isn't it? yeah way to do it, isn't it? yeah that's great. >> that's . dup. >> that's. dup. >> that's. dup. >> do you have any recourse ? >> do you have any recourse? because presumably this is a private venue . you know, they private venue. you know, they i suppose they get to decide who performs venue . is performs at their venue. is there anything you can do? can you is there anyone you can complain to? >> yeah , we, we are making >> yeah, we, we are making complaints we're to complaints and we're talking to the church as well. >> yes. we're going to be in communication them quite communication with them quite heavily on this matter because i think the whole church thing for me personally has cut deeper than the lee folk festival . than the lee folk festival. really? why is that? yeah, i was brought up in a christian household. i've i've been a christian for many years. yes and so the fact that this has happened from , you know, a happened from, you know, a church. yes it's not the god

that i'm kind of used to that i understand is doing this. it's. yeah but it doesn't sound very inclusive. >> if i may say. if i may use their word. yeah yeah. i mean be interesting if you want me to talk to them, it'd be interesting to see what they what they think is far right about me or the station, given i've tory. i've never even voted tory. i don't how they would. don't know how they would. i don't know how they would. i don't know how they would square don't know how they would. i don' really? how they would square don't know how they would. i don' really? how they 'any d square that really? have you any thoughts they've got this thoughts of why they've got this this their of it this sense in their head of it angers me . angers me. >> that's that's the truth . >> that's the that's the truth. exactly what you said about inclusion right now, excluding people under this guise of including people . yeah. and for including people. yeah. and for the church to do that says a lot. >> have you found any as this has happened to you before or has happened to you before or has it have you had any sense that this is happening more in the industry because it did happen to roisin murphy, for instance, posted instance, when she posted something on her private facebook ? it wasn't even facebook page? it wasn't even for public consumption , and then for public consumption, and then it largely attacked it was largely attacked and misinterpreted and all rest misinterpreted and all the rest of it. this a broader problem of it. is this a broader problem within music? >> it is going to become >> i think it is going to become

more more of a problem. it more of a more of a problem. it seems like the on the on seems like it's on the on the on the and not in a good way. the up and not in a good way. >> right. okay. okay. well, i do hope get through hope you're able to get through it. something more. tell it. and do something more. tell me your music and me a bit about your music and what do. what you do. >> yeah, well, it it's obviously very >> yeah, well, it it's obviously veryeah , not in the slightest. >> yeah, not in the slightest. >> yeah, not in the slightest. >> it's all about love, redemption, yeah redemption, freedom. yeah >> um, that sounds quite controversial to me. >> yeah, yeah, yeah. all of our gigs, everyone is actually welcome as well. yeah and, you know , nobody's normally injured know, nobody's normally injured or hurt at them, but that's the strange idea, isn't it? >> this idea that if someone doesn't agree with you about something, it's essentially harmful to even be in their presence . yeah, that's the odd presence. yeah, that's the odd thing. that's awful , presence. yeah, that's the odd thing. that's awful, isn't presence. yeah, that's the odd thing. that's awful , isn't it? thing. that's awful, isn't it? yeah. and is this a i mean, the church got a great church hasn't got a great track record. if you go back centuries, know, we could centuries, you know, we could potentially cancel them. you know, saying , i don't know, i'm just saying, i don't want anyone ideas, but want to give anyone ideas, but i think that's possible. think that's that's possible. and would love to is and what i would love to get is a representative the church a representative of the church to come on the show and have a chat about. chat with with you about.

>> incredible. >> it's incredible. >> it's incredible. >> well, i'm going extend >> well, i'm going to extend that now. i'm not that invitation now. i'm not going breath, but if going to hold my breath, but if you come on to the you do want to come on to the show, do. it won't be show, please do. it won't be combative. we'll have combative. we'll just have a chat because i'd chat about that because i'd be very to know what chat about that because i'd be very thought to know what chat about that because i'd be very thought aboutw what chat about that because i'd be very thought about it.vhat chat about that because i'd be very thought about it. sot people thought about it. so anyway, what? nathan, what about you? music? you? what about your music? what's what's your style? >> well, would say it can be >> well, i would say it can be a little bit sad, but with nice >> well, i would say it can be a little glimmer)ut with nice >> well, i would say it can be a little glimmer of with nice >> well, i would say it can be a little glimmer of hope. nice little glimmer of hope. >> well, that's good. >> yeah, well, that's good. >> yeah, well, that's good. >> we. nothing >> well, we. nothing controversial, nothing controversial. okay, look, really >> okay, well, look, i really appreciate you coming on and discussing think discussing this, because i think this too often this this is happening too often now. mean, final question. now. and i mean, final question. what is the way out of this? because it does seem like to what is the way out of this? becathe it does seem like to what is the way out of this? becathe example aem like to what is the way out of this? becathe example ofn like to what is the way out of this? becathe example of rocketman give the example of rocketman murphy cancelled, murphy when she was cancelled, very people within the very few people within the industry lot industry said anything. a lot of people a bit as in, people felt a bit scared, as in, if happens to that people felt a bit scared, as in, if happen s to that people felt a bit scared, as in, if happen too that people felt a bit scared, as in, if happen to us. that people felt a bit scared, as in, if happen to us. that's might happen to us. that's understandable, isn't it ? understandable, isn't it? >> absolutely. >> absolutely. >> so then how do you break through that and get people to talk more about it? >> i think you need to, first of all, support people that don't necessarily . necessarily. >> lily, you don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but are speaking out and, you know, agree to disagree with

them and just definitely don't apologise if you haven't done anything wrong . anything wrong. >> i think that's a really key idea . idea. >> i mean, we were just talking about a finished politician who's been prosecuted for quoting the bible because she believes that she doesn't believes that she doesn't believe in gay marriage. >> , i disagree her, >> well, i disagree with her, but i know that if i don't fight for her right to say that, it will come back on all right. >> exactly. >> exactly. >> it is kind of the same thing, isn't it? a broader problem >> it is kind of the same thing, isrstake a broader problem >> it is kind of the same thing, isrstake here, broader problem >> it is kind of the same thing, isrstake here, isn'tier problem >> it is kind of the same thing, isrstake here, isn't there?)lem >> it is kind of the same thing, isrsta well re, isn't there?)lem >> it is kind of the same thing, isrsta well look,1't there?)lem >> it is kind of the same thing, isrsta well look, thankre?)lem yeah. well look, thank you all so for coming on. it's been so much for coming on. it's been really fascinating about so much for coming on. it's been reall' story. nating about so much for coming on. it's been reall' story. whom about so much for coming on. it's been reall' story. whom by about so much for coming on. it's been reall'story. whom by fire?about your story. whom by fire? everyone . anas sarwar everyone who. anas sarwar fryston station . we're joined by fryston station. we're joined by dr. peter hughes , a philosopher dr. peter hughes, a philosopher and author who's written a book about how excessive kindness to one group can mean cruelty to another. see you in a moment.

welcome back to free speech nation. how is kindness become cruel and divisive? well, that's a theory. being advanced by dr. peter hughes, a philosopher and author who has written this week about how acting with extreme kindness to one group can lead to acts cruelty towards to acts of cruelty towards another . and to acts of cruelty towards another. and i'm delighted to say that dr. peter hughes joins me now. welcome to show . me now. welcome to the show. >> you much for >> thank you very much for inviting so peter, where inviting me. so peter, where does theory of yours come does this theory of yours come from? >> w comes from? >> comes originally >> well, it comes originally from the work of a polish psychiatry ist called andrew lobachevsky. wrote a book lobachevsky. he wrote a book when poland was under communist occupation called political ponerology. that's p o n e r ology. and that means the theory of the origin of evil. ology. and that means the theory of the origin of evil . and what of the origin of evil. and what really fascinated him was how a what he called a pathological minority, a minority of people who narcissistic, grandiose , who are narcissistic, grandiose, but mediocre and believed in themselves way beyond what their

competence would dictate, took it upon themselves. >> i know a few people like, but. >> but nobody but they took it upon themselves to decide what people could think, what people could what people could could do. yes. what people could say . and he was fascinated by say. and he was fascinated by this . and he wrote this book in this. and he wrote this book in collaboration other collaboration with other psychiater originally psychiater trysts. it originally they copy of it on the they threw one copy of it on the fire when secret police came fire when the secret police came around they around just in time, they smuggled another out to the smuggled another one out to the vatican, lost . and vatican, which got lost. and eventually recovered it eventually he he recovered it from memory and rewrote it from memory. missing a lost a lot of the statistical data. but the bafic the statistical data. but the basic points he made were true. and what i'm fascinated in is how pathological minority can how a pathological minority can come power , can hold power come to power, can hold power when the majority of the people do believe in what they're do not believe in what they're saying. and in our case, what we've pathologized in our society kindness. society is kindness. >> there's something very >> so there's something very interesting of interesting about this idea of i've seen kindness and being a victim. weaponized. yeah so that effectively the assertion of victimhood becomes a means to bully others and to cudgel others, which sounds

counterintuitive, of course, but we see it all the time. so we see it among activists. we've seen it on the streets of london. we've seen people chanting more effectively chanting for more effectively genocide death of jewish genocide and death of jewish people. and saying that they are victims. and that's why they're doing it. what's going on there? >> well, because you >> yeah, well, because what you do have a strong do is you have a strong allegiance your in—group and allegiance to your in—group and that strong allegiance to your in—group and that to strong allegiance to your in—group and that to your strong allegiance to your in—group and that to your outgroup. and aversion to your outgroup. and the more the more depth and virulence your virulence you support your in—group, likely you in—group, the more likely you are violent to your are to be violent to your outgroup. me give you outgroup. so let me give you some examples. we a case some examples. we had a case recently, obviously the wake recently, obviously in the wake of atrocities in in of the hamas atrocities in in israel. people tearing israel. we've had people tearing down posters of children who've been who've been taken hostage. we've had universal ortiz making statements condemning israel with no mention of hamas whatsoever . and we had yesterday whatsoever. and we had yesterday a student in, i think a canadian college called durham college saying that she supports hamas fully and believes they should do it in her words, again and again. and again and again. and it's all done in the name of

kindness for the oppressed. so once you divide the world into oppressor and oppressed, the righteous and unrighteous, righteous and the unrighteous, the sinful and the blameless, then you can unleash unlimited cruelty. >> but is it just because they have sort of these things have become abstractions to these people ? you know, they're not people? you know, they're not there the seeing the people? you know, they're not therknow,1e seeing the people? you know, they're not therknow, children seeing the people? you know, they're not therknow, children being|g the you know, children being burnt alive, people being raped alive, seeing people being raped and tortured murdered. and and tortured and murdered. and so, see this and tortured and murdered. and so,something see this and tortured and murdered. and so,something that's see this and tortured and murdered. and so,something that's happening as something that's happening far away and they sort of, far away and they can sort of, i suppose, romanticise it and change into something that it isn't. >> e- isn't. >> slightly different >> but it's slightly different from psychology >> but it's slightly different fronwhat psychology >> but it's slightly different fronwhat makes psychology >> but it's slightly different fronwhat makes it psychology >> but it's slightly different fronwhat makes it such sychology and what makes it such a catastrophe really is that the psychology is very is very psychology of it is very is very robust because we're really talking themselves . yes. talking only to themselves. yes. and what they're doing is that one person who believes in this type of pathological kindness will connect very with will connect very well with somebody doesn't . somebody else who doesn't. whereas of ordinary whereas for the mass of ordinary people, they have a very different understanding of kindness. kindness kindness. we understand kindness as being giving someone who as being giving to someone who has a need, who might be in trouble, might be struggling has a need, who might be in t|regardless might be struggling has a need, who might be in t|regardless ofiight be struggling has a need, who might be in t|regardless of what)e struggling has a need, who might be in t|regardless of what theiruggling , regardless of what their belief of belief is. one of the foundational stories for own foundational stories for our own civilisation good civilisation is the good samaritan and course, the

samaritan. and of course, the good samaritan someone who good samaritan is someone who who and helps who comes along and helps someone been robbed and someone who's been robbed and attacked, even though they come from different social groups . from different social groups. and the samaritan is the exile . and the samaritan is the exile. the other, if you want. and this these acts of kindness which ordinary engaged in ordinary people engaged in are being demonised because they're not using the correct language or that. >> but it is baffling to me. or that. >> but it is baffling to me . you >> but it is baffling to me. you know, saw that activist at know, we saw that activist at the trans pride rally calling basically to punch basically the crowd to punch women who disagreed with them and getting cheer and getting a big cheer right now . what's going on there? now. what's going on there? because are a group of because these are a group of people who saying they are people who are saying they are demonised and victimised, but they are the bullies quite clearly situation. clearly in that situation. >> well, lobachevsky estimated about 5 to a population about 5 to 6% of a population charleton, he called it. the pathological underbelly will drive these ideas. but drive these ideas. right. but what pathologies. what they do is the pathologies. then pathologize normal then they pathologize normal people else gets people and everybody else gets pulled catastrophic pulled into this catastrophic world in which that's interesting . interesting. >> so it's a minority. it's a minority that drives this. >> it's not a majority. well, i was going to say, because with all death threats rape

all the death threats and rape threats that towards j.k. threats that go towards j.k. rowling for having rowling simply for having an opinion people hold rowling simply for having an opinfor people hold rowling simply for having an opinfor a people hold rowling simply for having an opinfor a very people hold rowling simply for having an opinfor a very compassionatej and for a very compassionate opinion, happens it opinion, as it happens now, it would never occur me. would never occur to me. >> think of any scenario >> i can't think of any scenario where would behave like that. where i would behave like that. and these thousands and yet, you see these thousands and people doing and thousands of people doing that. can't think of any that. i can't think of any scenario i attempt scenario where i would attempt to like people to defend terrorists like people are is it just it's are doing. so is it just it's not that suddenly got not that we've suddenly got socio widespread socio apathy on a widespread level . no, it's that. level. no, it's not that. >> no, it's not. i think it >> no, no, it's not. i think it spreads and people can ally themselves to this pathological minority. but a minority that drives it. so if you look at the situation with hamas, for example, hamas went into the i we don't need to go into all the details about what they did, but we know horrific and we know how horrific and horrendous it was. and that is the pathological minority. these are people are jihadists who are people who are jihadists who will nothing to erase will stop at nothing to erase jews from the face of the i don't believe their supporters would could do that. but not only could they not do it, they couldn't even watch but yet couldn't even watch it. but yet they cheer. they will say, they will cheer. they will say, yes again and yes, let's do it again and again. okay, then here's a cudgel. an axe , here's

cudgel. here's an axe, here's a knife. it. well, i couldn't knife. do it. well, i couldn't do so to counter do that. so the way to counter these people , if there is a way these people, if there is a way to counter because they've to counter them because they've got so deep in our society into the bureaucracies that govern our institutions and our corporations. you have corporations. but you have to isolate the pathic rats, because most people want get on. most people just want to get on. most understand and most people understand and empathy. most people are capable of at other people and of looking at other people and seeing them as a fellow human being as sufferer, being, as a fellow sufferer, it's reclaiming . it's about reclaiming. >> it's humanity. >> it's about humanity. >> it's about humanity. >> reclaiming humanity and >> reclaiming one's humanity and one's collective humanity from the so finally, because don't >> so finally, because we don't have but there is have much time, but there is nothing about this insofar nothing new about this insofar as if go back the as if you go back to the inquisition, people were inquisition, the people who were strapping those those individuals to the rack and torturing think torturing them, they did think they were doing it for god. they did were the side did think they were on the side of it's perfectly of the angels. it's perfectly possible throughout human history for good people to do the horrendous things, the most horrendous things, horrendous things. >> what makes >> but what makes what makes a tyranny so dangerous tyranny of kindness so dangerous is can punish other is that people can punish other people. the outgroup endlessly take great pleasure in it and still remain virtuous. take great pleasure in it and still remain virtuous . yes. and still remain virtuous. yes. and thatis still remain virtuous. yes. and that is truly terrifying . yeah.

that is truly terrifying. yeah. and that and that is where we're at. and we have to understand the tyranny of kindness is also a tyranny of virtue, which, interestingly enough, we remember virtue remember the republic of virtue at french at the end of the french revolution, what revolution, which is what robespierre and is is, is robespierre and is and is, is fellow revolutionaries saw as the end point of the french revolution. and where did that end? ended in bloodshed end? it ended in bloodshed and the guillotine. is the guillotine. and that is where headed. unless we where we're headed. unless we isolate pathic rats, isolate these pathic rats, reclaim some normal kindness from pathological from from its pathological underbelly and reclaim words like love, hate and kindness for the mass of people of normal people. one final point is that and lobachevsky makes this really well , he said the only really well, he said the only crime that normal people commit, which makes them punished. so much for their views, is that they're and they're not psychopaths and normal ordinary normal people aren't ordinary people are well, they people are decent. well, they might . might. >> very quickly , i believe >> just very quickly, i believe in the in the decency of humanity. >> i absolutely do. but then i see these marches and i see most of them are not chanting anti—semitic chants or engaging in that kind of thing, but they are turning a blind eye when

other people are. that's what disturbs makes me think disturbs me. that makes me think that become so normalised that it's become so normalised in that movement. do in that movement. how do you reach people? i couldn't reach those people? i couldn't walk past someone calling for genocide i don't genocide and ignore it. i don't know. how you reach know. i don't know how you reach that . and once that point. and once you've reached point, it reached that point, isn't it a question of de—radicalisation rather persuasion? is. rather than persuasion? it is. >> is process of >> it is a process of de—radicalisation, but de—radicalisation, but de—radicalisation one de—radicalisation is simply one form realigning form of psychological realigning point. when ready, what point. when you're ready, what you're doing is you're enabling people to see that they've people to see that they they've got virus in their heads got this virus in their heads which is driving behaviour which is driving their behaviour , is against their , which is against their interests it's against interests and it's against the interests and it's against the interests fellow interests of all their fellow human including human beings, including those closest to them. nobody wins in this . nobody at all wins. this game. nobody at all wins. because ends is in because where it ends is in chaos bloodshed and who's because where it ends is in chaos to bloodshed and who's because where it ends is in chaos to gain»odshed and who's because where it ends is in chaos to gain fromed and who's because where it ends is in chaos to gain from that?i who's because where it ends is in chaos to gain from that? noro's because where it ends is in chaos to gain from that? no one. going to gain from that? no one. >> well, i think it's absolutely chilling stuff. dr. peter hughes, you so for hughes, thank you so much for joining me tonight. really appreciate . it. appreciate. it. >> well , that was a fascinating conversation. >> there is a lot to think about and a lot to reflect on in terms of what's going on in our world at the moment. but there's a lot

more to come tonight on free speech going speech nation. we're going to be exploring themes exploring some of the themes that were raised in that last interview. going to be interview. we're going to be asking left wingers asking why young left wingers have osama bin have started praising osama bin laden, of people . and we're laden, of all people. and we're going to be doing our cultural round up with david aldridge, bolt and me and my panel are going be getting some more going to be getting some more questions from absolutely questions from this absolutely delightful audience. delightful studio audience. please anywhere . please don't go anywhere. >> hello there . welcome to your >> hello there. welcome to your latest gb news weather forecast. we're looking ahead to the new working week. it's going to be a bit of a grey and start out there. for some of us it will turn drier during the middle part week, then part of the week, but then a good deal colder as we head towards next weekend. back to the now. we've still the here and now. we've still got area low pressure got this area of low pressure close still got some close by. it's still got some tightly packed isobars down towards so in case in towards the south. so in case in another blustery night, also keep eye this area of rain keep an eye on this area of rain as across parts of as it moves across parts of south southwest south wales and southwest england squally england could turn quite squally for a time as that moves through

elsewhere . good of cloud elsewhere. a good deal of cloud around of the skies around clearest of the skies over the east. but for over towards the east. but for most , as we over towards the east. but for most, as we monday most, as we start monday morning, on morning, we start off on a fairly note so that band of fairly mild note so that band of rain will continue to clear towards france as we go in course of morning. maybe course of the morning. so maybe a a commute some a bit of a wet commute for some of for many it's going of us, but for many it's going to be a bit of a grey day with some further outbreaks of rain. it turn briefly sunnier it may well turn briefly sunnier for across parts of for a time across parts of the midlands the east anglia. midlands and the east anglia. but us it's not going but a lot of us it's not going to be the most inspiring of starts new but it starts to the new week, but it will be fairly mild, a will still be fairly mild, a little cooler it has little bit cooler than it has been over weekend. thanks to been over the weekend. thanks to a of a northerly wind . a bit more of a northerly wind. and then going into tuesday, still on the cloudy across still on the cloudy side across a chunk of england a good chunk of england and wales further wales with some further outbreaks rain across the outbreaks of rain across the east. it does cheer up for a time across ireland and time across northern ireland and scotland some sunnier scotland with some sunnier spells but then later on spells here. but then later on some cloud and outbreaks some further cloud and outbreaks of rain moves in across the far northwest of scotland. middle of the brighter the week, dry and brighter in the

south there's plenty more still to come on free speech nation this week, including some questions from the audience for me and my panel from the audience for me and my panel, jojo sutherland and paul cox . cox. >> but let's get a news update first from tatiana sanchez . first from tatiana sanchez. >> andrew, thank you. good evening. this is the latest from the newsroom. the israeli military has released video footage of what they say are hostages being kept in al—shifa hospital . hostages being kept in al—shifa hospital. idf hostages being kept in al—shifa hospital . idf spokesman hostages being kept in al—shifa hospital. idf spokesman rear admiral daniel hagari gave his nightly presser this evening in which he alleges hamas have hostages trapped inside of the hospital . he hostages trapped inside of the hospital. he said one is from nepal hospital. he said one is from nepal, one is from thailand. they were allegedly taken from israel on october 7th. it comes as israel's ambassador to the us told abc news he's hopeful that a significant number of hostages

will be released in the coming days. will be released in the coming days . what will gb news days. what will gb news understands that russell brand has been interviewed by police. a man in his 40s believed to be the actor and comedian, an attended a police station in south london on thursday . he was south london on thursday. he was interviewed under caution by detector tvs in relation to three non—recent sexual offences as now people who live near new electricity pylons could stand to benefit by up to £10,000 over a decade . the government is set a decade. the government is set to announce the move to overcome planning objections and speed up the approval of new energy infrastructure. home owners could get £1,000 off their household bills every year, though the treasury hasn't specified where that money will come from . many buses and come from. many buses and electric vehicles have been sent to albania as part of a deal to return foreign prisoners. the arrangement will see 200 albanian nationals currently jailed in england and wales sent back home for the rest of their sentence. the uk has also agreed

to help modernise albania's prison system. the overall deal is expected to cost around £8 million, which the government says will save money for britain's prisons . a ceremony britain's prisons. a ceremony was held at the cenotaph in london today commemorating the 102nd anniversary of the first wreath laying by jewish veterans , service people and families of the fallen marched together down whitehall to honour those who fought and served for freedom since the first world war. the first star of david wreath was laid in 1921 by a group of jewish ex—soldiers. this year's parade also marked the 80th anniversary of the warsaw ghetto uprising and 70 years since the end of fighting in the korean war . and a hat once worn by war. and a hat once worn by napoleon has gone under the hammer in paris. its new owner paid £2.1 million for the hat called a bicorne, which was worn by napoleon during his rule over the french empire in the 19th century, napoleon owned around

120 hats, though the one worn by joaquin phoenix in ridley scott's epic new film is just a replica . this is gb news across replica. this is gb news across the uk on tv, in your car or on digital radio and also on your smart speaker by saying play . smart speaker by saying play. gb news. welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me andrew doyle. >> so let's get some more questions from our lovely studio audience . our first question is, audience. our first question is, alex, alex? hi alex is alex, where's alex? hi alex is the term coconut a racist term? yeah, this is interesting. this was a marcher at one of the protesters had a sign which had rishi sunak and suella braverman depicted as coconuts. and of course, the phrase we can actually that on the screen actually see that on the screen right course, the right now. and of course, the phrase been phrase coconut has been used often describe people from an often to describe people from an ethnic minority group who are perceived sympathetic

perceived as being sympathetic with white agendas that kind of thing. a lot of a lot of people consider it to be a racist term . consider it to be a racist term. i the police are looking i think the police are looking into what make into this one. what do you make of it, jojo? >> well, it's of it, jojo? >> well, again, it's one of those isn't it? it's those things, isn't it? it's like key. yeah. so, like context is key. yeah. so, i mean , think that mean, i think in that environment, mean, i think in that environment , then you could be environment, then you could be led to believe that it was very racist. but >> well, i mean, it's how it's received. >> but isn't there also something what do you think? >> do you think it's. yeah. >> do you think it's. yeah. >> what do you think? >> what do you think? >> think that >> well, i think that fundamentally implying that >> well, i think that fundaiwhitelly implying that >> well, i think that fundaiwhite is implying that >> well, i think that fundaiwhite is anplying that >> well, i think that fundaiwhite is a negative 1at >> well, i think that fundaiwhite is a negative could being white is a negative could being white is a negative could be seen as racist in itself. >> but in addition to that, aren't they suggesting that rishi sunak and suella braverman because they're conservatives, that they that they shouldn't be conservatives because they're not white? isn't that quite racist towards them as well? >> i think it works on >> yeah, i think it works on both sides. >> yeah. i mean, it does seem i just think steer clear of racial slurs when it comes to arguments. i mean, it should be that simple, right? >> yeah, it's irrelevant, isn't it? know, it is. it relies it? you know, it is. it relies entirely on their race. the

coconut gammon does coconut the same as gammon does in don't open in many ways, don't open that bottle bottle of worms. but bottle of bottle of worms. but i don't know if you get worms in bottles. i mean, i've seen it, but it is entirely but but yeah it is entirely relies entirely on race. therefore is racial in its in therefore it is racial in its in its very core. and there is it is irrelevant to the argument, you know, and the idea of someone being sympathetic to white causes , what are white white causes, what are white called. >> i don't know what that means. i know. >> but see, this is the problem. it's like, what? what, what are we talking about? do you know what i mean? it's like we have this idea. it's racist this sort of idea. it's racist and what are and it means it's like, what are you well, it's about you saying? well, it's about compartmentalising you saying? well, it's about compartm> it's just really regressive. >> yeah. feels like undoing >> yeah. it feels like undoing all of the sort of positive work of rights and completely of civil rights and completely sort against sort of going against the idea that, doesn't that, you know, it doesn't shouldn't about shouldn't matter about the colour or your religion. >> do you mean it's it's >> do you mean it's that it's that simple? >> really grim, isn't it, >> it's really grim, isn't it, seeing thing on seeing that sort of thing on a on a protest anyway, we're on a protest anyway, okay. we're all that all pretty unanimous on that one. going move on to one. we're going to move on to a question from alan. where's

alan? >> hi there, guys. >> hi there, guys. >> really ? oh, sorry . >> guys, really? oh, sorry. >> guys, really? oh, sorry. >> you've misgendered jojo . so . >> you've misgendered jojo. so. joe last week when there's three guys, i called them all ladies. >> so when jk rowling said, oh, i'll go for two years in prison for misgendering , so please for misgendering, so please excuse me. excuse me. >> excuse me. >> don't worry about it. alan. >> don't worry about it. alan. >> no. >> no, no. >> no, no. >> what's your question ? >> what's your question? >> what's your question? >> my question is. well my honorary president of the party that i'm standing for , it that i'm standing for, it happens to be in australia at the . right. question the moment. right. the question is , is going into the jungle a is, is going into the jungle a smart idea for political people? >> and you might be talking about nigel farage. >> i am. you are talking about. yes. and of course, he's doing that jungle show, isn't he? what do you think about that? well, i haven't watched it, but i will how. >> now. >> it's going to be fascinating. but well, they've doing it but well, they've he's doing it to to the younger side of to appeal to the younger side of our community who may not have heard of reform uk and nigel farage. well we do actually have

a clip of the kind of thing that he's going to be doing. >> let's have a quick look at thisj tree, tree, tree is correct . correct. >> oh, oh, hello. >> oh, oh, hello. >> this is your mate here. that's your time. >> start it . oh >> start it. oh >> start it. oh >> oh, mate . yeah. bugs. bugs >> oh, mate. yeah. bugs. bugs bugs, bugs. is correct. >> it's correct . >> it's correct. >>— >> it's correct. >> so, nick stahl will lower down. >> oh, you've just got to take it off with your mouth . it off with your mouth. >> all right , it off with your mouth. >> all right, all right. >> all right, all right. >> i'm very confused . but it's >> i'm very confused. but it's interesting what you say, ellen, about, like, nigel saying he wants to reach more young. that's actually what george galloway said when he went on celebrity big brother. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> oh, did it was. was the >> oh, did it was. it was the same idea it kind of worked same idea and it kind of worked or did it work or it kind of backfired. >> not when he ended up pretending a cat. yeah, pretending to be a cat. yeah, i mean, which is all we remember, isn't mean, which is all we remember, isn'that's true. we remember >> that's true. we remember the cat with rula lenska. >> absolutely. but >> yeah, no, absolutely. but it's think all

it's like anything i think all of like celebrity of these programs like celebrity strictly come dancing, whatever they called, all want, they called, they all want, whoever's going them has whoever's going on them has a goal want to, you goal that they want to, you know, that know, there is a reason that they're going it . they're going on it. >> yes. >> yes. >> at least he's being open about reason. about the reason. >> what's that matt >> yeah. so what's that matt hancock's reason . hancock's reason. >> wants be rehabilitated. >> he wants to be rehabilitated. didn't he. >> he wants to be rehabilitated. didyeah.. and he thought he >> yeah. yeah. and he thought he could show his fun side and didn't work. no no. well it did. well, it did well it did because people were like oh he was really funny. >> but then it generated a lot of resentment as well. >> difficult one. is it >> it's a difficult one. is it now show have to now because the show you have to eat? haven't seen it. i've eat? bug i haven't seen it. i've seen clips of it, you eat seen clips of it, but you eat bugs and you sort of sleep in a tent. is that a bit of a rice? it just sounds butlins, to it just sounds like butlins, to be honest. >> the only time feel it is >> the only time i feel it is the only time feel intelligent the only time i feel intelligent around you. andrew, is when we're popular we're talking about popular culture i can at culture and i feel like i can at least on the same level as least work on the same level as you this. that jungle show. you with this. that jungle show. >> bugs, >> you're eating bugs, you're far on this. far above me on this. >> you, but yeah, of >> well, thank you, but yeah, of course. exactly. there it's. it's show, it's like the freak show, isn't it? mean, thing i will say it? i mean, one thing i will say about farage is whether

about nigel farage is whether you not, of the 21st you like him or not, of the 21st century is probably the most prominent most prominent and arguably the most successful politician. so when he something like this, it he does something like this, it bnngs he does something like this, it brings judgement on it into brings my judgement on it into question because i think to myself, well, he thinks it's myself, well, if he thinks it's a maybe because a good idea, maybe it is because he's of things right he's got a lot of things right over years in of over the years in terms of making decisions political making decisions about political matters. to reach matters. and he wants to reach the younger generation. i'm still not convinced this is the right it, but it does right way to do it, but it does keep in in the public eye keep him in in the public eye when people watch it, don't they watch strictly dancing watch strictly come dancing have been idea. watch strictly come dancing have beemaybe. idea. >> maybe. >> maybe. >> know. i think what >> i don't know. i think what will because british will happen because the british pubuc will happen because the british public sadistic will happen because the british thhat sadistic will happen because the british thhat he sadistic will happen because the british thhat he will sadistic will happen because the british thhat he will get sadistic will happen because the british thhat he will get voted istic will happen because the british thhat he will get voted for: is that he will get voted for every single trial. >> oh, the public vote >> oh, so the public vote for the trials. the trial for the trials. >> so 100% the year that gillian mckeith did , it kept fainting. mckeith did, it kept fainting. they voting her in. and they kept voting her in. and well, even though was upset well, even though she was upset about it. >> yeah. because she was upset. >> was upset. so it is it's >> she was upset. so it is it's another form of bullying. and i completely as bullying completely it's just as bullying she'll get voted everything she'll get voted for everything but equally on twitter i know they've changed their name, but we it twitter. yeah, we still call it twitter. yeah, of it's called

of course. and it's called boycott celebrity. so boycott celebrity boycott, celebrity. so people are . why? because nigel people are. why? because nigel farage on it. well which is which is ridiculous. >> but that's what people do is they'll do that hashtag boycott celebrity will celebrity and everyone will watch it because people forget that not real life. that twitter is not real life. >> no one cares about what >> yeah, no one cares about what these activists on twitter. these activists say on twitter. it's not like a hashtag going it's not like a hashtag is going to show. yeah, to shut down the show. yeah, well, more people will to shut down the show. yeah, welichallenging re people will to shut down the show. yeah, welichallenging people le will to shut down the show. yeah, welichallenging people watched say challenging people watched it . it. >> jesus. >> jesus. >> all right. well let's >> well, all right. well let's get question now from vicky. >> well, all right. well let's get where ;tion now from vicky. >> well, all right. well let's get where is>n now from vicky. >> well, all right. well let's get where is vicky? from vicky. >> well, all right. well let's get where is vicky? frorvicky.y. >> well, all right. well let's get where is vicky? frorvicky. hi >> where is vicky? hi, vicky. hi >> where is vicky? hi, vicky. hi >> hello. >> hello. >> my question is, will the war in the middle east be the end of a joe biden? >> yeah, a lot of people think so, because wars are normally good for sitting presidents. so, because wars are normally go

than about six months, i think he's in trouble. than about six months, i think he"me, trouble. than about six months, i think he"me,troubl1but thing will >> me, paul. but i thing i will say is such an say is this is such an interesting for biden interesting position for biden to in because to find himself in because people saying this earlier people i was saying this earlier in the week on headliners people who lean hard will who tend to lean hard left will choose anything that's anti—american and go on the opposite side. >> and you're that. >> and you're seeing that. you're that sort of you're seeing that sort of popular movement with the biden with the osama bin laden , a love with the osama bin laden, a love letter to america in 2002, the way young people are picking that up. but biden would normally he's been trying to convince people he is on the left of politics. never left of politics. i've never really of really been convinced of that. but to support but he also has to support israel. just it's just the israel. it's just it's just the way so that if you're an american president, you have. >> yes so similarly, >> yes. yes so and similarly, people made the claim that people have made the claim that labour could suffer for the very same reason that a lot of their core support is from the pro—palestine and supportive of core support is from the pro-pro—palestine supportive of core support is from the pro-pro—palestine marches. 'e of core support is from the pro-pro—palestine marches. but the pro—palestine marches. but of course, starmer is not taking that or what view is he that view or what view is he taking? it's kind of difficult to but it does put certain to know, but it does put certain types in types of politicians in a difficult . difficult. >> but again, it comes back. i mean , war is good for a lot of mean, war is good for a lot of

people power because it makes people in power because it makes them of money. so it does, them a lot of money. so it does, but bad others. but it's bad for others. >> think the real good >> yeah, i think the real good for comedians because we used to do gigs, so. for comedians because we used to do oh, gigs, so. for comedians because we used to do oh, really? gigs, so. >> oh, really? >> oh, really? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> but do you think the reason that in fair enough. that get in there. fair enough. the biden though the reason that biden though it's so much israel, far it's not so much israel, as far as it's the fact that as i can see. it's the fact that he can barely speak. isn't that part issue? part of the issue? >> well, can't barely >> well, he can't barely speak and with stairs. and he struggles with stairs. >> he genuinely does. >> yes. no he genuinely does. >> yes. no he genuinely does. >> stair lift. >> he needs a stair lift. >> he needs a stair lift. >> so they've actually got a translator his meeting translator for his meeting in china. going weed china. who's going to just weed out the gaffes as they go along? that's that's insane. >> it comes back to that question again. you know that war is good for certain politicians is politicians. but but what is about the whole of getting about the whole kind of getting to principle getting to the principle and getting to the understand landing? yes. of peace rather oh, this is peace rather than, oh, this is what do . do. what we always do. do. >> mean, so and that's the >> i mean, so and that's the problem with ideology, it? problem with ideology, isn't it? that's is that's why keir starmer is actually good actually playing a pretty good game at the moment in game on this at the moment in terms of the ceasefire, because he's pragmatism and he's using some pragmatism and standing knows standing back because he knows he appeal the he has to appeal to the blue slash those people , slash red wall and those people, those people like like those people like things like truth and and they think

truth and honesty and they think that killing babies is bad. >> maybe his best bet to >> maybe his best bet is to actually just hide in a basement like biden did for the whole of that because it that was true because because it won it for him. because he just didn't do anything. okay. right. won it for him. because he just didn't going ything. okay. right. won it for him. because he just didn't going ythmovekay. right. won it for him. because he just didn't going ythmove on'. right. won it for him. because he just didn't going ythmove on to ight. won it for him. because he just didn't going ythmove on to aht. we're going to move on to a question marcus. where's question from marcus. where's marcus? you think that >> hi. do you think that glastonbury is now no glastonbury festival is now no longer it? longer worth it? >> very dare you. >> oh, how very dare you. >> oh, how very dare you. >> so , so glad to be sold out in >> so, so glad to be sold out in under an hour. >> that was this morning. it went on online. are you a glastonbury fan? >> oh, i am, yes. i used to live down there. i've been to the festival. like music , but i festival. i do like music, but i think no longer worth think it's no longer worth it. oh, really? think it's no longer worth it. oh,butlly? used live actually >> but you used to live actually nearby. to live in the town. >> i used to live in the town. yeah. yeah. >> you may as well go along >> so you may as well go along with it at that point. you've got free ticket, you free got free ticket, you got free tickets. yeah, yeah. >> yeah, yeah, yeah. okay >> yeah, yeah, yeah. okay >> you think it's >> but why do you think it's worth it? >> but why do you think it's worbecause i've got a free >> because i've got a free ticket it's commercialised. ticket and it's commercialised. it's no longer. it's no longer about was once about the music. it was once about the music. it was once about summer solstice, but it's about the music. it was once aborgone.|mer solstice, but it's about the music. it was once aborgone. meanolstice, but it's about the music. it was once aborgone. mean fiddler. but it's about the music. it was once aborgone. mean fiddler. andt's just gone. mean fiddler. and it's about music. is that it's all about music. is that right? >> my w“ w.- >> yeah. my issue is just sleeping mud and i'm not into that. >> that's peasant. quite

that. >> “that? peasant. quite that. >> “that? yeah.int. quite that. >> “that? yeah. yeah. quite that. >> “that? yeah. yeah. wellte like that? yeah. yeah. well maybe it's got sort of maybe it's got some sort of detoxifying properties the detoxifying properties for the skin. would skin. i don't know. but would you of these festivals. >> well, so have nothing to >> well, so i have nothing to compare to. did my very compare it to. but i did my very first glastonbury, cabaret first glastonbury, the cabaret tent, year. tent, not last year. >> and was that? absolutely >> and how was that? absolutely loved it. >> was honestly so because >> it was honestly so because i'm so the i'm from edinburgh, so the edinburgh always edinburgh festival people always say incredible festival say it's an incredible festival and you can't really understand it till you've been. yes. and i never experience never had that experience because so the because i grew up there. so the festival was always there. but glastonbury, was noise, glastonbury, it was the noise, the sound , the smells. it was the sound, the smells. it was over sensory. it was like over sensory. it was i felt like a playground because i've performed at a festival. >> i was at latitude and it's not like a normal gig because people aren't totally listening. maybe that was just me. yeah but they were mostly drunk and just and i've never seen so many middle class white people out of their depth and drugs. >> fair. >> to be fair. >> to be fair. >> well, there's that. exactly. exactly >> that's pretty much to >> that's pretty much close to being not they're being a no, they're not they're not ideal audience , are not the ideal audience, are they, not the ideal audience, are the not. not the ideal. lord, >> not. not the ideal. lord, would you ever perform at one of those sort of. performed those sort of. i have performed at like them ?

at festivals. do you like them? >> um, i didn't like it. my experience been there experience has been mixed. there was that i won't was one this year that i won't name you know, they name because, you know, they paid i'm all up for being paid me and i'm all up for being paid me and i'm all up for being paid but it wasn't. it's paid again. but it wasn't. it's a environment to be a difficult environment to be a stand comedian because you stand up comedian because you don't 100% don't necessarily get 100% attention it . attention and you do need it. >> i mean, they're >> you do. i mean, they're they're paid . but i did they're well paid. but i did feel halfway through i feel halfway through like i should a should have just bought a ukulele and cracked out. >> well, think marcus as >> yeah, well, i think marcus as well, the well, because you've got the history and history of glastonbury and you can do you mean we can compare it to do you mean we all to reminisce go back? >> oh, it's not like it used to be. i'm like that with the edinburgh festival. yeah, but i think like i say, first think for like i say, the first time went, i was like, it was time i went, i was like, it was amazing. it incredible. so amazing. it was incredible. so i think generation maybe think the next generation maybe we baton. we just pass on the baton. >> all right, maybe. >> yeah. all right, maybe. >> yeah. all right, maybe. >> okay, well, look, next on free nation, i'm going free speech nation, i'm going to be left kids are be asking why left wing kids are turning osama bin laden, turning to osama bin laden, of all role model. and all people, as a role model. and professor will be professor robert tombs will be here why oxbridge here to discuss why oxbridge dons been accused dons have been accused of white dominance . listen. go dominance. listen. don't go anywhere .

the only thing that will stop the only thing that will stop the boats. >> you're listening to gb news

radio . radio. >> please welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. >> so who are the heroes of young left wingers these days? che guevara , karl marx? jeremy che guevara, karl marx? jeremy corbyn? no. apparently it's osama bin laden. this week on tiktok videos of young people celebrating the virtues of osama bin laden have been going viral. and all because they've suddenly read his letter to america. that was a piece that was published on the guardian website in 2002. now, guardian has since now, the guardian has since removed the letter, which isn't the best approach because it lends of weird lends a kind of weird credibility glamour credibility and glamour to the nonsense that he spouting. nonsense that he was spouting. but you can imagine, in the but as you can imagine, in the letter, osama bin laden argues that all the west's fault that it's all the west's fault and no choice to and he had no choice but to murder thousands of civilians on 9/11. claims 9/11. in fact, he claims the right to murder civilians and very specifically mentions palestine the justification . palestine as the justification. then he's also clearly obsessed with jews using the word ten times in this very short letter in phrasing that let's be

honest, is reminiscent of the kind of anti—semitic conspiracy theories found in the protocols of the elders zion . so osama theories found in the protocols of tladen ars zion . so osama theories found in the protocols of tladen writeszion . so osama theories found in the protocols of tladen writes ,on . so osama theories found in the protocols of tladen writes , the so osama theories found in the protocols of tladen writes , the jews sama theories found in the protocols of tladen writes , the jews have bin laden writes, the jews have taken control of your economy through which they have. then taken control your media and taken control of your media and now control aspects of your now control all aspects of your life you servants life, making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense. and he wrote your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people who hold sway in their political parties and fund their political parties and fund their election campaigns with their election campaigns with their stand their election campaigns with theijews stand their election campaigns with theijews who stand their election campaigns with theijews who control stand their election campaigns with theijews who control yourtand the jews who control your policies. media and economy. it's what you might expect from an anti—semitic mass murderer. and yet the kids love him. so let's have a look at what some of them are saying. everyone is stop what they're doing right now and go read it. >> literally two pages. go >> it's literally two pages. go read to america and read a letter to america and please come back here and just let me know what you think because i feel like i'm going through like an existential crisis right now. and a lot of people are. so need people are. so i just need someone to be feeling this, someone else to be feeling this, too. >> you to stop what >> i need you to stop what you're doing read

you're doing and go read a letter to america. >> it's and everyone should >> it's wild and everyone should read . you read it read it. if you haven't read it yet, it . yet, read it. >> letter was insanely eye >> this letter was insanely eye opening . i really urge everybody opening. i really urge everybody to google read go read a to google and read it. go read a letter to america. seriously, go read it. type a letter to america and google or whatever you use and come right back because this makes a lot more sense. it explains so much. and i guarantee you it's going to blow your mind . blow your mind. >> this is pretty grim stuff . so >> this is pretty grim stuff. so tiktok has been frantically removing the videos. and as usual, when material is suppressed, it's become even more popular. and actually, we do need to see this because we need to understand the extent of the problem. firstly there's the issue of history. now, many of these been these young people have been taught activist teachers who taught by activist teachers who have twisted aspects have willingly twisted aspects of their history for their own anti—western agenda . historical anti—western agenda. historical revisionism is now the norm. look at the 1619 project, for instance, which tried to rewrite the story of foundation of the story of the foundation of the story of the foundation of the united states. i mean, that won prize was

won a pulitzer prize but was plagued with factual inaccuracies, even their own fact checkers raised concerns . fact checkers raised concerns. and just today, it has been reported in the telegraph that the prestigious academic journal history technology published history and technology published an unsubstantiated claim about henry cort, the 18th century ironware producer , saying that ironware producer, saying that he didn't invent the iron making process. he has long been credited for, but that he stole the idea from jamaican slaves. but when academics pointed out that there was simply no evidence for this claim , the evidence for this claim, the journal's editors claimed that the article's critics were taking , quote, narrow approaches taking, quote, narrow approaches to colonial era sources and were engaging in, quote, particular race relations by taking the view that facts are facts. well facts are facts. now if it turns out that the article is correct, that's fair enough. but the editors are wrong to simply assert that something is true and then dispute the importance of factual analysis . es and of of factual analysis. es and of course, they're doing so because this particular article is an article by an activist that is

calling for reparations. so there's an agenda there. and this is because ideologues from the critical social justice movement, what most people call the woke movement , are not the woke movement, are not interested truth. indeed they interested in truth. indeed they consider the very notion of truth to be a white western heteropatriarchal construct. they are multiple they say there are multiple truths and that we should prioritise lived experience over verifiable reality . and that's verifiable reality. and that's the lesson that the tiktok generation have taken on board. so if they feel that osama bin laden was a decent guy and that the 3000 people murdered in the twin towers were in fact colonisers who were complicit in the western imperial project, then it must be true because they feel it. in other words, historical illiteracy has been rebranded as virtuous, and it's not just tiktok. we've even seen some people on these marches that really don't understand the situation. so here are two protesters that have been chanting from the river to the sea , but they don't really sea, but they don't really understand the implications , you understand the implications, you know, which river and sea they're talking about . they're talking about. >> the way, i don't know the >> by the way, i don't know the

name river. name of the river. >> i know the mediterranean. it be the sea. but now i know the river. no >> okay. that's that's it. yeah. okay. perfect thank you. >> and here are two protesters who then are not even familiar with the attacks by hamas on october the 7th, when hamas invaded israel on the 7th of october. >> what was your initial reaction to that? i don't believe they did. >> the day hamas. i think so. >> the day hamas. i think so. >> honestly. like, i think i need to be a bit more clued up on like everything that's going on. so i feel like i'm not really qualified to answer that too. >> well, i mean, i'm not sure if iseen >> well, i mean, i'm not sure if i seen anything that shows that that's actually happened. i've actually correct . actually correct. >> so it isn't just that these kids know nothing about history. they don't know what happened last month. >> and of course, this is really dangerous stuff. >> we've seen explicit anti—semitism streets of anti—semitism on the streets of london and not in london, london and not just in london, but around the country london and not just in london, btoo. around the country london and not just in london, btoo. here around the country london and not just in london, btoo. here are und the country london and not just in london, btoo. here are some1e country , too. so here are some protesters in luton issuing a chant , which protesters in luton issuing a chant, which is the protesters in luton issuing a chant , which is the first verse chant, which is the first verse of an semitic chant about the

massacre of jews by muslim army at battle in the seventh at a battle in the seventh century. let's look. hey century. let's have a look. hey hey, my. >> yeah. yahoo hey, maya hoot, jason muhammad. >> yeah. yahoo hey, maya hoot, jason muhammad . say yahoo i say jason muhammad. say yahoo! say yahoo i jason muhammad. say yahoo! say yahoo ! hey, hey, my yahoo ! yahoo yahoo! hey, hey, my yahoo! yahoo jason. mohammed. say yahoo! jason. mohammed. say yahoo! jason muhammad. jason. mohammed. say yahoo! jason muhammad . yahoo jason muhammad. yahoo >> so a chant on uk streets invoking the massacre of jews. and we've also seen protesters calling for jihad and we've also seen protesters calling forjihad into farda. even one claiming that, quote , even one claiming that, quote, hitler knew how to deal with these people. that's an actual quotation from a protester. by the way, jewish schools have been forced to close. jewish people have been openly intimidated name intimidated and all in the name of peace. intimidated and all in the name of peace . well, of progress and peace. well, actually, what you're seeing here is fascism. and you don't have to read mein kampf to know that hitler wasn't a great fan of people . but with all of jewish people. but with all the attempts to rewrite what actually occurred during that horrendous terrorist horrendous genocidal terrorist attack the seventh,

attack on october the seventh, it's to become clear it's starting to become clear how holocaust denial happens because we're seeing it in real time. activists have spent years imagining fascists in every shadow , claiming that we live in shadow, claiming that we live in a nazi country, and they've now gone completely silent about open declarations of fascism on our streets. and some are even supporting osama bin laden. and if you think they couldn't sink any lower, i promise you this is just the beginning . now, as just the beginning. now, as i mentioned there, the academic journal history and technology has claimed the 18th century ironware producer henry colt stole his idea for an iron making process from jamaican slaves. but some leading oxbridge historians said there was no basis for the claim, only to be accused of white domination . so joining us now is domination. so joining us now is a leading historian at the university of cambridge, robert tombs. welcome to the show . can tombs. welcome to the show. can i first ask you about this

article? it's making some unsubstantiated claims, and critics have pointed out that these claims are unsubstantiated . what should the editors be saying to that kind of complaint ? >> 7- >> they ? >> they should be saying, we've investigated, we found that the claims made in this article were unsubstantiated . covid and unsubstantiated. covid and therefore the article is going to be withdrawn. it should be an apology for having published an argument that simply has no bafisin argument that simply has no basis in fact, has no basis in evidence. but what they've done instead is think that they can just brazen it out under a sort of, you know, smokescreen of verbiage. and as you say by playing the race card, well, they're suggesting that they're even calling into question the idea that saying that facts matter, that that would be a problem when it comes to historical investigation. >> why on earth are they doing that? well empiricism is a colonial construct is more or less what they say . less what they say. >> the facts are what we say they are because we're in the right and you're in the wrong because we are modern and you're

old fashioned we old fashioned and because we stand the you know, for the stand for the you know, for the global south and you stand for white domination, i mean, for me and i think for many people who are historians, whether henry cort or slaves in jamaica , cort or slaves in jamaica, invented this process, is not of any great importance . although any great importance. although the author of the article has, as you said, used it as a as an argument in favour of reparations. i mean, if it was if it was slaves who invented this process, i'd say, wow, that's really interesting. you know , let's look at the evidence know, let's look at the evidence and see. but there is there and see. but the there is there is no evidence. it's been carefully examined and it's just a succession of maybes and perhaps ipsis. and wouldn't it be nice if it's really basically that and presuming that their historians would be more than happy to change their minds if new evidence were to emerge ? new evidence were to emerge? well, certainly i would hope so. i don't see how one could not. do you know , historians spend do you know, historians spend all their time trying to interpret evidence. that's what we do . and if someone comes up we do. and if someone comes up with new evidence and an

exciting interpret version, exciting new interpret version, then most people say, wow, isn't that great? but this case, that great? but in this case, you just have to say, well, you know, the emperor's got no clothes on and this just doesn't make any sense . and the worrying make any sense. and the worrying thing, i think, is, is not particularly this claim . you particularly this claim. you know, young, young historians can make excessive claims . it's can make excessive claims. it's not uncommon. i may have done it myself younger days, but myself in my younger days, but to say, well, we don't really care , you know, we don't care care, you know, we don't care whether evidence is there or whether the evidence is there or not, because we know that we want to be true and want this to be true and therefore it is true. >> now, i've spoken to other historians who've said me historians who've said to me that that within the that they feel that within the discipline generally, that they feel that within the disciplcreeping generally, that they feel that within the disciplcreeping in generally, that they feel that within the disciplcreeping in more erally, that they feel that within the disciplcreeping in more and.y, this is creeping in more and more, actually more, that people are actually considering their own ideological wishful thinking, i suppose, to be more important than the facts . or how than the facts. or how widespread do you think this really is ? really is? >> it's quite widespread in certain areas. i mean, most in most history it's not it's not really a presence . but in really a presence. but in certain areas particularly

concerned with global history, the history of empire or post—imperial studies in that sort of thing. it's become it's become the norm. now, you won't have people who work on, you know, the history of the first world war or the or the of world war or the or the wars of the roses the or the roman world war or the or the wars of the rosdoing:he or the roman world war or the or the wars of the rosdoing this r the roman world war or the or the wars of the rosdoing this kind roman world war or the or the wars of the rosdoing this kind of»man world war or the or the wars of the rosdoing this kind of thing. empire doing this kind of thing. it's particularly in those areas which so ideologically which are so ideologically potent and controversial that this happens quite commonly. >> yes. i mean, one of the ones we've heard a number of times is the notion that winston churchill was responsible for the famine. and a lot the bengal famine. and a lot of the bengal famine. and a lot of the claim the people making that claim tend to omit an awful lot of evidence in order to make that claim. do you think at any point they think, well, if they reflect and think, well, if i'm having to fabricate things, maybe ? maybe i'm wrong? >> i think in this particular case, it's mainly the product of indian or hindu nationalism . um, indian or hindu nationalism. um, indian or hindu nationalism. um, i don't think there are serious historians, certainly not serious historians of churchill who believe this because as you say, once you start researching this subject, you realise that

it's an awful lot more complicated than that. so, you know, the people say , oh, know, the people who say, oh, well, deliberately well, churchill deliberately starved 20 million people to death are just saying, don't death are just saying, i don't understand what this is all about. heard somebody about. but i've heard somebody say say it as say this. i'm going to say it as well . well. >> so what do you think can be done?! >> so what do you think can be done? i this is a broader done? i mean, this is a broader problem more problem in academia more generally, idea of generally, where the idea of a lot of activists. well i suppose academics who are activists first second have first and academics second have an awful lot of clout and sway is isn't this only going to get worse ? worse? >> yes , i think it probably is. >> yes, i think it probably is. and i think the reason is that academic careers are now largely determined by the ability to raise research funding. and of course , by the ability to be course, by the ability to be published in journals like this. and therefore , you know what it and therefore, you know what it is you have to say in order to get money for your research , to get money for your research, to get money for your research, to get promotion or to get a job and to get yourself published , and to get yourself published, it's becoming more and more dangerous for people to go against the established orthodoxy, which is becoming more and more the sort of

orthodoxy that this journal embodies. robert tombs, thank you ever so much for joining embodies. robert tombs, thank you ever so much forjoining me today. >> really appreciate it. thanks for having me on. and next on free speech nation, it's going to be time for our monthly culture round up. we'll be discussing the mongol khan show at the colosseum and ridley scott's new film, napoleon. don't go anywhere .

radio. >> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. it's time now for our monthly look at the culture and the arts. and as always, i'm joined by historian and broadcaster david oldroyd bolt. everyone so david, so i want to start by discussing the mongol khan show at the coliseum. do you want to tell us about that? yes. >> this is a big spectacor that's coming to london. it started on friday. it's running till of december, which till the 2nd of december, which

is fictional story is telling the fictional story of mongolia. a thousand years before genghis khan, genghis , as before genghis khan, genghis, as they call him. and it's a spectacle of acrobatics of song and dance, of great acting. it stars all of mongolia's. >> we're seeing some of the pictures there on the on the screen right now. >> and it's interesting not only because a brilliant because it's a brilliant spectacle take all the spectacle that you take all the family see, but because family to see, but because the chinese the chinese authorities in the capital the inner mongolian capital of the inner mongolian province in china banned from province in china banned it from being in september. being performed in september. >> six >> it was supposed to have a six day run on the night of the productions opening . and productions opening. and apparently there was a power cut to theatre. the actors to the theatre. all the actors in cast the production in the cast and the production staff held in the theatre. staff were held in the theatre. they then in a hotel they were then held in a hotel for before being for six days before being bused out of the province by the chinese authorities. that's what happens cuts. chinese authorities. that's what happenvery cuts. chinese authorities. that's what happenvery normal. cuts. >> it's very normal. extraordinary. what extraordinary. yeah. so what is their objection? >> part of a program, >> this is part of a program, really, the chinese really, that the chinese communist party has been putting into effect recent years to into effect over recent years to try to eradicate mongolian history from the history and culture from the province of inner mongolia. there are mongolians in the there are more mongolians in the chinese province than in the

country mongolia itself. country of mongolia itself. right. since the beginning of right. so since the beginning of the instance, school the year, for instance, school classes mongolia classes in in inner mongolia have had to be taught in mandarin rather than the mongolian language. the chinese authorities are trying to suppress any evidence of mongolian culture. for instance, when this show was being rehearsed in the hohhot province, they were forbidden from wearing mongolian costumes while so because it's an while doing so because it's an outward sign of their pride in their history and culture. yes, well, revision of history well, the revision of history for ideological purposes. >> thought that >> who'd have thought that sort of on over here as well? of going on over here as well? a little bit. let's move. by the way, that's at the colosseum. is that right? >> the colosseum in london. it's running of running until the 2nd of december. i saw some of the previews. i'm going see it previews. i'm going to see it tomorrow it looks tomorrow night. and it looks like extraordinary show like a really extraordinary show . and i think given that it's 60 years this year since the initiation of cultural ties between mongolia and great britain, it will be a really timely thing. >> yeah, absolutely. and your second story tonight, david, is about ridley scott's new film. yes, about ridley scott's new film. yes ridley scott has gone on >> ridley scott has gone on record as saying he doesn't

really care what historical really care what the historical facts napoleon. really care what the historical factshe's napoleon. really care what the historical factshe's just napoleon. really care what the historical factshe's just going napoleon. really care what the historical factshe's just going imakeeon. and he's just going to make a film that likes . and he's film that he likes. and he's totally ignored the truth of napoleon in order to concoct his version of it. now i haven't seen the film napoleon, but what are the most egregious historical mistakes? well, for instance, he has napoleon firing a cannon at the sphinx, which didn't happen . so he has a didn't happen. so he has a napoleon and wellington meeting on hms bellerophon in plymouth harbour. wellington never went to plymouth harbour, and he certainly didn't meet napoleon on board the ship. he has wellington saying that he'd never to saint helena when never been to saint helena when wellington stopped at saint helena india . helena on his way to india. there are just massive glaring factual errors . factual errors. >> so the question then david, becomes about artistic expression, doesn't it? well is it? do you think that. so let's take, for example, a film like braveheart , where william braveheart, where william wallace has a sexual liaison with second wife, with edward the second wife, whereas in history she was ten years the time? yes. that years old at the time? yes. that he died . yes. if that did he died. yes. so if that did happen, a dodgy thing. now

happen, it's a dodgy thing. now are they fair? but they had an artistic reason for doing that. they wanted to stir up this sense of personal enmity between. yes, william wallace and king. and the king. >> that was artistic >> so that was an artistic that's of the hollywood that's part of the hollywood myth think that that that's part of the hollywood m obviously think that that that's part of the hollywood m obviously part hink that that that's part of the hollywood m obviously part of|k that that that's part of the hollywood m obviously part of the|at that that's part of the hollywood m obviously part of the fiction is obviously part of the fiction of the film rather than being purported as historical fact. i think the problem is that ridley scott has said that he doesn't care. he said that nobody is around now who was around then, so he couldn't possibly know the truth, which is just wrong. we have thousands of firsthand accounts of what napoleon was like as a man, how his campaigns proceeded, who said what to whom, and when . and we have them whom, and when. and we have them from all sides, from the and from all sides, from the pro and anti side, were . anti napoleon side, as it were. so as though there is so it is not as though there is a lack historical fact on a lack of historical fact on which a film. scott's a lack of historical fact on whi(decided, a film. scott's a lack of historical fact on whi(decided, sirfilm. scott's a lack of historical fact on whi(decided, sir ridley cott's a lack of historical fact on whi(decided, sir ridley ,)tt's a lack of historical fact on whi(decided, sir ridley , we; just decided, sir ridley, we should call him. sorry that he doesn't that none of us doesn't care and that none of us should this should either. and i think this is wrong. age say, is wrong. in an age when, say, 50 ago or the dawn of 50 years ago or the dawn of hollywood's golden the hollywood's golden age in the 30s when historical epics were being made they played fast being made and they played fast and this was and loose with truth, this was also an age when there was wide

historical and the historical literacy and the teaching schools teaching of history in schools was rigorous and was much more rigorous and factual is today. so if factual than it is today. so if you see, errol you went to see, say, errol flynn's robin you knew flynn's robin hood, you knew that had that probably nothing had happened. and this was a fiction. whereas if you were to see kevin costner a more see the kevin costner or a more recent think there's recent version, i think there's 1 i think as as gradual 1 in 2008, i think as as gradual historical literacy has eroded, the greater and greater the onus is greater and greater on people like sir ridley scott to stick to the facts. >> i tell you that point, i mean, i've even heard people i remember seeing shakespeare in love someone say, love and hearing someone say, well, and love and hearing someone say, welthink, and love and hearing someone say, welthink, well, and love and hearing someone say, welthink, well, no, and love and hearing someone say, welthink, well, no, it and love and hearing someone say, welthink, well, no, it was and love and hearing someone say, welthink, well, no, it was alld you think, well, no, it was all nonsense, know, and but and nonsense, you know, and but and you meant to treat it as you weren't meant to treat it as anything than that. anything other than that. i don't but, but. so anything other than that. i don�*think but, but. so anything other than that. i don�*think there's but, but. so anything other than that. i don�*think there's abut, but. so anything other than that. i don�*think there's a genuine so you think there's a genuine danger that when historical danger that when a historical epic out and it purports epic is put out and it purports to at least the to or at least gives the impression facts impression of relating the facts accurately, that has accurately, that it has a responsibility morally to do so, i it has a responsibility i think it has a responsibility to where we know to stick to facts where we know them be facts, where it is a them to be facts, where it is a matter of interpretation . matter of interpretation. >> and course you can have >> and of course you can have eliding characters because >> and of course you can have elidingonlyharacters because >> and of course you can have elidingonly got cters because >> and of course you can have elidingonly got cte sayecause >> and of course you can have elidingonly got cte say 2 ause >> and of course you can have elidingonly got cte say 2 orse >> and of course you can have elidingonly got cte say 2 or 3 you've only got to say 2 or 3 hours which to make your hours in which to make your story. so if you put two people together who with historically

really across together who with historically realfact, across together who with historically realfact, then across together who with historically realfact, then that's across together who with historically realfact, then that's one oss together who with historically realfact, then that's one thing. the fact, then that's one thing. but distortion of facts, but wilful distortion of facts, wilful of wilful misrepresentation of historical as sir ridley historical figures as sir ridley scott seems to have done here, according to what's been reported, something reported, is, i think something we worried about we should be worried about because strikes at the heart because it strikes at the heart of responsibility that comes of the responsibility that comes with the of speech and with the freedom of speech and expression, which is a responsibility, were responsibility, as you were saying in your previous segment, to objective fact. this to truth to objective fact. this is merely of is not merely a matter of interpretation. these are things that these are things that occurred. these are things that occurred. these are things that people said and did. that real people said and did. and therefore, it's onus is and therefore, it's the onus is on creative director in this on the creative director in this case, ridley scott, to case, sir ridley scott, to portray that accurately. >> might say , well, >> i suppose he might say, well, it's so long ago. i mean, people get upset films are get very upset when films are made recent events and made about recent events and things changed, they things have changed, but they might well, is, might say, well, the past is, you foreign country you know, it's a foreign country and play around with and we can play around with it. yeah you we can play with and we can play around with it. yea various we can play with and we can play around with it. yea various things, can play with and we can play around with it. yea various things, but| play with and we can play around with it. yea various things, but iflay with and we can play around with it. yea various things, but if it's with the various things, but if it's more elements more exciting to add elements that , what's so that didn't happen, what's so wrong that? wrong with that? >> it i think the >> i think it i think the problem is that it misleads. and if everyone sitting down if everyone were sitting down every say, andrew every night with, say, andrew roberts's thousand page or adam zamoyski's less weighty zamoyski's slightly less weighty book napoleon , in order to

book on napoleon, in order to compare what they were seeing in the with what actually the cinema with what actually happened, then that would be fine. but i don't think i hope i'm mistaken. i don't think most people will be doing that. >> maybe have a test >> maybe they should have a test before able to watch the before you're able to watch the film. yes, exactly. you've read the the cinema? the book exam for the cinema? >> like the plus. the book exam for the cinema? >> really? ke the plus. the book exam for the cinema? >> really? i; the plus. the book exam for the cinema? >> really? i think plus. the book exam for the cinema? >> really? i think it's us. the book exam for the cinema? >> really? i think it's going to catch thanks so much catch on. david, thanks so much for me tonight. really forjoining me tonight. really appreciate so next up on appreciate it. so next up on free speech nation, paul cox and jojo sutherland will be back for some social sensations and unfiltered dilemmas. don't go anywhere .

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. so it's nation with me, andrew doyle. so wsfime nation with me, andrew doyle. so it's time for social sensations. that's the part of the show where we look at what's been going viral this week on social media. and first up, david cameron back and the tories cameron is back and the tories announced his surprise announcement appointment as foreign secretary in typically

bizarre fashion as this youtuber pointed out. >> firstly, david cameron is back in government. do with that what you will. but secondly, why has the official conservatives account ? like our liberal account? like our liberal government tweeted , he's back government tweeted, he's back with a flame emoji as if he's a villain. reprising his role on eastenders he's he's eastenders. he's back. he's promoting british interests around the world. about around the world. he's about to get fistfight phil get in a fistfight with phil mitchell . we live in hell . mitchell. we live in hell. >> an extreme reaction, but honestly, david cameron mean, just when you thought just when you were worried the tories might have run out of ideas, you know, i think they have, yeah. >> i mean david cameron it does seem it does seem he disappeared. it seems odd. i can only that he was in rishi only assume that he was in rishi sunaks he was a bit of a sunaks ear. he was a bit of a mentor to rishi sunak in the background thought mentor to rishi sunak in the bewas'ound thought mentor to rishi sunak in the bewas'ound idea, thought mentor to rishi sunak in the bewas'ound idea, maybeought it was a good idea, maybe a distraction, but thought he'd distraction, but i thought he'd gone hibernation after gone into hibernation after brexit. he he just. he brexit. he had. he just. he skulked away. >> went wee wee, >> little piggy went wee wee, wee home. wee wee. all the way home. >> now, let's not get into that . >> now, let's not get into that. but i mean. i mean, what on earth is going on? are they going to bring tony blair back?

and, you know, i thought he is. >> not coming back with >> is he not coming back with the yeah. i he the idea? id yeah. i mean, he keeps he keeps keeps popping up. he keeps giving . yeah, unsolicited giving his. yeah, unsolicited moved on. >> that was tony blair's never gone away. >> david cameron i don't know perhaps they put perhaps he's been cryogenically for been cryogenically frozen for the maybe how depressing. the last maybe how depressing. >> next two good morning >> okay next two good morning britain an entertaining spat britain and an entertaining spat between ed? oh, no. oh, sorry . between ed? oh, no. oh, sorry. ed balls. sorry i don't know why i stumbled over that word. had a had a small spat with owen jones . so let's have a look at this. >> the vast majority of the media is supporting what israel is doing and refusing to call out war crimes. >> that's a fact. you don't like it? it's a fact. yeah. can we put some of these points to the shadow health secretary, wes streeting, very streeting, who is waiting very intellectually streeting, who is waiting very inte so ctually streeting, who is waiting very inteso childish. we not >> so childish. can we not i mean , look, that's that's a pure mean, look, that's that's a pure ad hominem. >> i mean, that's not what you should say in an interview. it was totally unnecessary. >> i mean, i agree with him , but >> i mean, i agree with him, but that's point . it's not

that's not the point. it's not the point. >> it's really not the point. >> it's really not the point. >> very the passive >> it was very the passive aggressive, catty way that he did he gave him no did it as well. he gave him no option. he did to camera like option. he did it to camera like he turned him he turned from him so he couldn't yeah, just couldn't reply. yeah, he just couldn't reply. yeah, he just couldn't and i couldn't do anything. and i think below balls do think it's below ed balls to do something like that. >> i think so. mean, >> i mean, i think so. i mean, i interviewed owen for a show and he shouted the whole he just shouted at me the whole time. it wasn't very time. basically. it wasn't very polite, thing polite, but the thing is, i still wouldn't do to him. still wouldn't do that to him. i wouldn't just slagging him off there on live tv and like, why would because you're not would you? because you're not for that's not for a start, that's not conducive sensible adult conducive to sensible adult debate, to debate, >> it's not conducive to debate, is and it's slightly is it? and it's slightly childish, yeah. it's childish, isn't it? yeah. it's like taoiseach. know, like taoiseach. like you know, taoiseach and taoiseach got you. yeah. and particularly he did it particularly the way he did it just away. just before cutting away. >> i mean, so i think we're all agreed was wrong . agreed that was wrong. >> news be >> i think gb news could be a safe jones. safe space for owen jones. >> i would love owen to come on this show and have a debate. i would i would love would love that. i would love it. he scared? why >> why is he scared? why wouldn't these whole wouldn't he? these whole principle things, isn't it? i think he's part of that think because he's part of that sort contingent sort of activist contingent of journalism to even journalism who feel that to even appear news dignifies it appear on gb news dignifies it in some way. >> but of course, the whole

point of the channel is we have multiple voices debating different absolutely. multiple voices debating diffandt absolutely. multiple voices debating diffandt still absolutely. multiple voices debating diffandt still give bsolutely. multiple voices debating diffandt still give me.utely. multiple voices debating diffandt still give me.uthard >> and we still give me a hard time. what you doing? go and time. what are you doing? go and gb really well, you pay my gb news really well, you pay my bills then? >> well, exactly. quite exactly. >> give me the money. the gb news you and i won't go . news pays you and i won't go. >> if they take you up >> let's see if they take you up on that. jo jo. >> let's see if they take you up on that. jo jo . okay, well, on that. jo jo. okay, well, next. we've all been there , next. we've all been there, haven't we? working out haven't we? you're working out the cameras all set up so you can footage can post the footage on instagram someone walks instagram and then someone walks past gets in the way . take past and gets in the way. take a look at this . look at this. >> here i recording my leg >> here i was recording my leg stretch session for the past 15 minutes, and this lady chose to squeeze between a narrow space and walk across my video. >> despite having a bigger space to walk through on the other side . mind you , the space side. mind you, the space between me and my phone is not that wide and it was obviously set up on a bright pink hydroflask . hydroflask. >> i just don't understand the tiktok generation. >> when you say it was obviously set up on a way out, now , i

set up on a way out, now, i don't know. >> i have no idea what she was talking about, but it's the narcissism of this. like i don't want to wants to see that? nobody >> who cares? nobody cares. and people that's the thing. people think do so think that people do care. so but thing i put but the thing is, if i put footage me working out on footage of me working out on on on twitter, reckon that on my twitter, i reckon that would quite a lot. would get retweeted quite a lot. i had my daughter who lives in dunfermline, i stay with her in scotland and she laughing scotland and she was laughing at something. you something. now as comedians, you put you try to put out content, you try to film clips out and you clips and put it out and you make sketches and work really hard to kind of break with your social media profile. and i said to was like, are to kira, i was like, what are you laughing went, i'm you laughing at? she went, i'm watching down steps. watching jars going down steps. and so she yeah. and you just 90, and so she yeah. and you just go, why am i bothering ? you know go, why am i bothering? you know what i mean? that's what you need to be watching. jar is going down steps. >> see if the things that do really well are just inane. you should just put jars. yeah, i'm thinking doing some jars. thinking about doing some jars. what this what do you think about this form? what do you think about this form mean. mean, would you >> i mean. i mean, would you do that because i know you're a you're bunny, you? that because i know you're a youyeah. bunny, you? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> well, you can see, >> well, as you can see, everyone see my body is

everyone can see my body is somewhat sculpted. everyone can see my body is sontemple,culpted. everyone can see my body is sontemple,culptmuch like you. >> temple, like much like you. >> temple, like much like you. >> if i did that, then i think that quite few that would be quite a few viewers very different viewers for a very different reasons. you seen reasons. i mean, have you seen anything than that anything more entitled than that apart from the last video that was like a couple was exactly like that? a couple of well, that's the of weeks ago? well, that's the way think. way i think. >> all so entitled. and >> they're all so entitled. and even the tiktok videos where they're lecturing their audience about kind they're lecturing their audience ab arrogant. kind they're lecturing their audience ab arrogant. unbelievable. ind of arrogant. it's unbelievable. it's never crossed their mind. they might be wrong. you know, you've got to do this. you've got me. they got to listen to me. and they always do upward inflection got to listen to me. and they al\the. do upward inflection at the end. >> yeah, least are >> yeah, we at least are generation opportunity generation had the opportunity to and arrogant away to be young and arrogant away from a camera that's from a camera lens. that's the point. >> that's true. yeah >> that's true. yeah >> social media, >> away from social media, they're just we they're essentially just we probably as full probably were just as full of our self—importance. probably were just as full of our selgotnportance. probably were just as full of our selgot to )rtance. probably were just as full of our selgot to see ice. probably were just as full of our selgot to see it.. probably were just as full of our selgot to see it. yeah. >> nobody got to see it. yeah. >> nobody got to see it. yeah. >> thankfully, it's all been buned >> thankfully, it's all been buried in the. >> you could deny it as well if there who there was someone who did remember could no. remember it, you could say no. >> gaslighting, isn't it ? >> yes. gaslighting, isn't it? that's what that is, thank god. >> yes. gaslighting, isn't it? that'mean, that is, thank god. >> yes. gaslighting, isn't it? that'mean, if|at is, thank god. >> yes. gaslighting, isn't it? that'mean, if it is, thank god. >> yes. gaslighting, isn't it? that'mean, if i was thank god. >> yes. gaslighting, isn't it? that'mean, if i was just1k god. >> i mean, if i was just speaking my online when i speaking my mind online when i was teenager, wouldn't was a teenager, i wouldn't be sitting was a teenager, i wouldn't be sitt i'd be me either. >> i'd be me either. >> i'd be me either. >> i'd be in prison. let's face it. now this is the it. okay, so now this is the part the where we talk part of the show where we talk through your unfiltered

dilemmas. our first dilemma dilemmas. and our first dilemma has spencer. has come in from spencer. spencer witnessed spencer says, i witnessed a customer local supermarket customer in my local supermarket forcing a sales assistant to scan self scan their items on the self checkout as it's not the customer's job. are they right? or just customer's job. are they right? orjust plain rude? but if there's a self checkout, then that's that's there for a reason, isn't it? yeah. so the self can check out. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> well that's what it. hence the clue's in the name. but is it just someone a power thing. is that what's going there. is that what's going on there. >> your life had >> imagine that your life had got a point. you had no got to a point. you had no control all that. walked control all that. you walked into extra and into a tesco's extra and thought, know i'm thought, do you know what i'm going i'm to get going to get? i'm going to get that assistant to scan that shop assistant to scan through that shop assistant to scan thr(they've do that. >> they've got to do that. they've got to earn their £8.40 an hour. >> yeah. there was >> yeah. yeah there was something about it, something recently about it, somebody done their somebody who had done their scanning but then someone at the check door was then check at the door was then checking people's receipts. yes. and i quhe and the woman i do think quite rightly scanned it, rightly went, i've scanned it, i've job. i'm not i've done yourjob. i'm not standing for check standing here for you to check my enough. my receipt. yeah. fair enough. if trust me to do the if you don't trust me to do the job, do remain my local sainsbury's. >> have to the receipt >> you have to scan the receipt to out on a on a on to get out on a on a on a infrared scanner to tell you the

best scam. >> and i've never tried it, but i'd love to know if it works. if you're brave enough, it's you're all brave enough, it's called buy one, get one so called buy one, get one free. so you all your you go and buy all your groceries you take groceries and you take your receipt then hand receipt and then you hand it immediately somebody outside immediately to somebody outside who buys all the who goes in and buys all the same are that same goods that are on that receipt with receipt and walks out with nothing, without nothing, all of that without paying nothing, all of that without paying is outrageous. paying that is outrageous. >> i just say it's not applause. >> i've never had i've never had the guts to try it. >> i reckon it would work. >> i reckon it would work. >> don't you us live, jojo. >> don't you us live, jojo. >> don't you us live, jojo. >> don't you, jojo , your >> don't you, jojo, your criminal tips just got a round of applause from the audience. >> that does not look good on us. >> us. >> that does not reflect well. no, sorry . next week how to make no, sorry. next week how to make a bomb stop. say all right. >> just got time for one more dilemma . dilemma. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> i can't get over that. this comes from tara. tara says i can't get a table for a local pub for a roast this evening. should i tell them it's my birthday? with hopes they will find for again. find a table for me again. you're liars . everyone's you're all liars. everyone's lying trying to cheat.

lying and trying to cheat. >> cheat the system? yeah it's like people that go and say it's their birthday when it's not. and a cake and they get and they get a cake and they get a drink. yeah. yeah. but if you haven't no, haven't done that. no, i actually i genuinely. haven't done that. no, i acthind i genuinely. haven't done that. no, i acthind of i genuinely. haven't done that. no, i acthind of one i genuinely. haven't done that. no, i acthind of one of genuinely. haven't done that. no, i actl kind of one of the uinely. haven't done that. no, i actl kind of one of the most '. haven't done that. no, i actl kind of one of the most too i'm kind of one of the most too busy out supermarket busy figuring out supermarket scams. . love i really scams. i'd to. love do i really want just on. want to try it just on. i couldn't because i would feel guilty for tara. guilty advising for tara. >> i wonder supermarkets. >> i wonder if supermarkets. >> i wonder if supermarkets. >> it doesn't >> well, if it's for it doesn't matter your birthday or matter if it's your birthday or not isn't it? there isn't a special reserved area for people who that day. who are born on that day. >> that's true. who are born on that day. >> so that's true. who are born on that day. >> so my that's true. who are born on that day. >> so my advice 's true. who are born on that day. >> so my advice forrue. who are born on that day. >> so my advice for tara is find somewhere eat you, wally. >> but they're if >> but also if they're if they're full, they're full. >> make space out of nothing. >> no, exactly. i think bottom line, just honesty. let's just go honesty and go for honesty. honesty and staying law. jojo, if staying within the law. jojo, if dodi tell the truth, if you don't tell the truth. we go. >> until your lovely. >> until your lovely. >> that's the moral of the show. thank you for joining >> that's the moral of the show. thank you forjoining us >> that's the moral of the show. thank you for joining us for free speech nation. this was the week took week when civil servants took charge dons charge of britain. oxford dons were called agents white were called agents of white domination and young lefties started celebrating the virtues of bin laden . thanks to my of osama bin laden. thanks to my panel of osama bin laden. thanks to my panel, jojo sutherland and paul

cox all of my guests this cox and to all of my guests this evening. and you want to join evening. and if you want to join us studio and be us live in the studio and be part wonderful audience, part of our wonderful audience, you easily that. go you can easily do that. just go to the address on the to the website address on the screen. moment, schroeder screen. at the moment, schroeder . audiences.com and come along .audiences.com and come along and stay tuned for the dinosaur hour with john cleese that's next. he's on tonight with rob schneider. and don't forget the headliners is on at 11. see you later . later. hey there. >> welcome to your latest dup news weather forecast. we're looking ahead to the new working week. it's going to be a bit of a great and damp start out there. for some of us, it will turn drier during the middle part the week, but then part of the week, but then a good deal colder as we head towards weekend. back to towards next weekend. back to the and we've still the here and now. we've still got low pressure got this area of low pressure close still got some tightly close by, still got some tightly packed isobars down towards the south. so indicating another blustery night. keep an blustery night. also, keep an eye this area of rain as it eye on this area of rain as it moves across of south

moves across parts of south wales and southwest england could turn quite squally for a time moves through time as that moves through elsewhere. a good cloud elsewhere. a good deal of cloud around of skies around clearest of the skies over towards but for over towards the east. but for most, as we start monday over towards the east. but for most, as we start off1day over towards the east. but for most, as we start off ony over towards the east. but for most, as we start off on a morning, we start off on a fairly mild note. so that band of rain will continue to clear towards france as we go in course of the morning. so maybe a wet commute for some a bit of a wet commute for some of but many it's going of us, but for many it's going to bit of a day with to be a bit of a grey day with some outbreaks of rain. some further outbreaks of rain. it turn briefly sunnier it may well turn briefly sunnier for across parts of the for a time across parts of the midlands the east anglia. midlands and the east anglia. but lot of it's not going but a lot of us, it's not going to the most inspiring of to be the most inspiring of starts week. but it starts to the new week. but it will fairly mild, a will still be fairly mild, a little bit cooler than it has been over the weekend, thanks to a wind . a bit more of a northerly wind. and going tuesday, and then going into tuesday, still on the cloudy side across a good chunk of england and wales further wales with some further outbreaks rain across the outbreaks of rain across the east. it does cheer up for a time across northern ireland and scotland some sunnier scotland with some sunnier spells then later on spells here. but then later on some cloud and outbreaks some further cloud and outbreaks of moves across far of rain moves in across the far northwest scotland . middle of northwest of scotland. middle of the drier and brighter in the week, drier and brighter in

the

south >> rob schneider is an old friend of mine. what i want to ask you, rob, is are you white? >> i'm white enough. >> i'm white enough. >> i'm white enough. >> i'm not asian enough. >> i'm not asian enough. >> you know, finally they're hiring people of colour and asians for movies. >> but i'm not asian enough

where it can help me. now you know. well, how asian are you? well, mother is filipino . well, my mother is filipino. your mother. well, my mother is filipino. yous0|other. 50% asian? yes >> so you're 50% asian? yes because i'm trying to get at a proper balance. you know your quota show and you're quota in the show and you're helping, but not a lot. >> yeah, the only real >> the only. yeah, the only real benefit asian is. benefit i get from asian is. well all my eyebrows fell out for one. so i have that and some other genitalia issues. but other genitalia issues. but other than that and not not in a beneficial way. >> all right. you silly man, you know all about america. america show business in hollywood. >> yes . well, i don't know all, >> yes. well, i don't know all, but i know a few things. >> you've been been around a long time. you've done movies. you don't you do a stand up, right? >> yes. it's been it's been a fun experience. the best thing, though , are the people that you though, are the people that you meet like yourself and the people that you look up to. and you you have opportunities to work with some actors. and sometimes you get a strange phone call. so would you like to go to the czech republic do phone call. so would you like to grmoviea czech republic do phone call. so would you like to grmovie with ch republic do phone call. so would you like to grmovie with ch repllandau do phone call. so would you like to grmovie with ch repllandau ?do

phone call. so would you like to grmovie with ch repllandau ? and a movie with martin landau? and the