are until those responsible are caught. here in the uk, the leader of the scottish national party has been speaking before members on the final day of conference in edinburgh. the keynote speech by scotland's first minister, john swinney, who took over the party from humza yousaf in may, highlighted child poverty as a priority. plus, a ceasefire in gaza. >> humza was one of the first and remains a leading voice, demanding an immediate ceasefire and the return safely of all hostages in gaza. but the message from this conference be heard loud and clear. the killing of innocent men, women and children must end, and it must end now . must end now. >> two teenagers have been arrested over the murder of a 13 year old boy in oldbury , west year old boy in oldbury, west midlands. police said the teens are being questioned in connection with the fatal stabbing in lovett avenue earlier this week. the family of

the 13 year old killed are aware of the developments, and the met office has extended thunderstorm warnings across a large part of the uk. much of england, wales and scotland is now covered by the alert for today and tomorrow. forecasters say there is a risk of flooding because of heavy showers and hail, and those are your latest gb news headlines. i'm will hollis with more in one hour for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . slash alerts. >> the bank of england claims that human beings can change sex. the taliban continue their war against women and labour want the police to start recording non—crime again. this is free speech. nation . welcome is free speech. nation. welcome to free speech nation with me ,

to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. this is the show where we take a look at culture, current affairs and politics. and of course, we'll have the latest from those loveable culture warriors who never seem to tire of sucking the joy out of human existence. coming up on the show tonight, we have the founder of gen spect, stella o'malley, who's going to be talking about her forthcoming conference in lisbon, portugal. the taliban have enforced more rules on women, not allowing them to display any part of their body in public, not even their body in public, not even their hands. so we're going to be speaking to someone who grew up under taliban rule, and we're going to be taking a look at some stories from the world of culture with historian and broadcaster david oldroyd bolt. and of course, i have two wonderful comedians as my panellists this evening we have cressida wetton and paul cox. both. good week. paul, are you happy? >> lovely week and a little drive in through london. there were people speaking freely and smoking outside because that's all going to be nostalgia before we know it. so they're making the most of that right now. >> i saw that as well. and i also drove past abbey road, you know, where the zebra crossing?

yes. people stand there mimicking the beatles, taking photos, and i'm trying to get to work. it's outrageous. it's really annoying. also against the law. don't do that. how are you? >> i'm very well, thank you. are you well? yes. still enjoying you well? yes. still enjoying the sunshine? i keep hearing the sunshine? i keep hearing it's raining everywhere. not it's raining everywhere. not where i live. where i live. >> no. well, you're still on the >> no. well, you're still on the boat? >> no, no no, no. i've upgraded. boat? >> no, no no, no. i've upgraded. i've got a fridge and i've got a fridge and everything. >> okay, well, it's been everything. >> okay, well, it's been interesting. couple of weeks. interesting. couple of weeks. well, you know what? i'm doing a well, you know what? i'm doing a toun well, you know what? i'm doing a tour. a comedy tour in a couple toun well, you know what? i'm doing a tour. a comedy tour in a couple of weeks in ireland, we have of weeks in ireland, we have three, three venues, and one of three, three venues, and one of them pulled the night because them pulled the night because activists got in touch and said, activists got in touch and said, we don't approve of this show. we don't approve of this show. however, we found a venue that's however, we found a venue that's twice the size and it's already twice the size and it's already almost sold out, so that'll show them. isn't that weird though? i almost sold out, so that'll show them. isn't that weird though? i mean, why didn't the venue just mean, why didn't the venue just say to the activists, you do say to the activists, you do realise buying tickets isn't realise buying tickets isn't compulsory? yeah, that would compulsory? yeah, that would have solved it, right? have solved it, right? >> it would be in their world, >> it would be in their world, though, because they love though, because they love communism, wouldn't they? or communism, wouldn't they? or some sort of dictatorship where some sort of dictatorship where everyone had to buy tickets for everyone had to buy tickets for what the government wanted them what the government wanted them to see. to see. >> why can't you just like if >> why can't you just like if you don't want to see a show, you don't want to see a show, don't buy a ticket at the show don't buy a ticket at the show and then the problem solved. and then the problem solved. >> absolutely. i'm absolutely >> absolutely. i'm absolutely

delighted they've enabled you to delighted they've enabled you to get a larger venue. well, yeah. >> i mean, it always backfires. it's the streisand effect, isn't it? okay, well, look, we've got a lovely audience here, so let's get some questions. our first question comes from stephen.

get some questions. our first question comes from stepbe1. human, thing that cannot be controlled, cannot be legislated against. >> and of course , what we're >> and of course, what we're really talking about here is free speech. so the so the ability to be able to say what you think about a subject freely give an opinion at that time. now that is the we say this all the time, but it is the bedrock of any democracy. but it's not just the bedrock of any democracy. it's the very essence of any public debate. and you can't solve any if you don't have public debate, you end up with riots. sure. i mean , with riots. sure. i mean, cressida, i guess what yvette cooperis cressida, i guess what yvette cooper is saying here is, you know, she's seen what's happened with the riots. >> she's worried about the rise of the far right. and she's saying, you know, i want to eliminate hateful views from the world. what's wrong with that? that sounds lovely. >> well, first of all, how do we define them? i mean, that's that's a bit woolly, isn't it? this will be open to interpretation and obviously, as paul said, it's a natural human emotion. you can't. i bet the police will be absolutely delighted. it's not as if they haven't got enough on their hands at the moment. >> well, there's that as well.

exactly. i'm going to be talking later to a labour party member. i did invite a dozen labour mps to come and defend this decision. weirdly, none of them said yes. >> all in i'd be, for i'd imagine. >> i imagine they are throwing some shapes. nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with. >> we don't we? >> we don't we? >> we don't mind angela rayner dancing. i think she's a good dancen dancing. i think she's a good dancer, i don't mind. >> just an observation. >> just an observation. >> we'll probably get on to that later on, won't we? anyway, i will be interviewing a labour party member about that question because i think it's a very interesting one. we're going to move on now to another question. this is from steve. where is steve? hi, steve. how are you? >> hi, should the bank of england force its employees to declare their pronouns? >> yeah. this is a new gender neutral language. just a second, because i want to ask you about this. do you think i mean, this is the new training. leaked training materials from the bank of england. but they've gone as far as to suggest that gender critical views saying that that, you know, a man is a man and a woman is a woman and you can't change sex, that that should not be encouraged or allowed. what do you make of this? >> well, that sounds like common sense. i hadn't associated the bank of england with common

sense, but that's to be the bank of england is having a go at it. >> they're saying you can't say that. you know, if a member of staff says, oh, human beings can't change sex, that's just bafic can't change sex, that's just basic biology. the bank of england will come down on them like a ton of coins. >> could that be why we're in such a mess? >> yeah, it's bizarre, isn't it? >> yeah, it's bizarre, isn't it? >> chris, do you have any views on this? i mean, this is pretty standard training material from any kind of institution that's stonewall captured effectively. yeah, absolutely. >> it feels like activism. i think what will happen is most people will go along with it for a quiet life. and then every now and again, you'll run into j.k. rowling types who absolutely won't do it. and at that point, the bank will lose because you are allowed to believe that sex is not changeable. >> well it's protected. protected by law? exactly. but the problem with this is it always happens. and it keeps happening. and then someone brave enough stands up. and then there's a lawsuit, and they usually lose the first one, and then they win on appeal. and then. and then the institution loses a lot of money, but they never learn and they just go back and do it again. >> and thankfully now we're still in a job. >> yeah, it's weird though, isn't it, paul? i mean, can't we just say, you know, no more? why should the bank of england be

training its members of staff to be ideologically skewed one way or the other? i mean, i'd be just as concerned if they were training them to be marxists or to be conservatives or to be whatever it might be. >> absolutely. you know, i mean, what do you do? you want robots within your business or do you want human beings? >> i mean, they work better with free thought they would work better. >> yeah. you don't have to. that's a good point. >> no holidays, but ultimately they've all got a sort of a left leaning algorithm. >> so there is that there will still be a job for us. yes, but, you know, i mean, the language used within the article that i read said that these employees as as is true of all these big organisations, are going to be told, yes, told that they have told, yes, told that they have to like it's mandated now, you can't in order to tell someone you then have to agree. everyone has to agree that it's important to everyone. pronouns are important, which is just not true. if you went and said completely off the record to every employee within the bank of england, what do you think on this? at least i believe 60, 70, maybe even as much as 80% would say they don't care for it. it doesn't make any difference to them. >> it's always a minority who care about this. >> so on that basis alone, where where at what point in time did

it? was it stonewall? i don't know, but what point in time do things diverge to the extreme that somebody the minority's opinion is what has to overtake the whole philosophy? >> stonewall had a pretty good racket. you know, the diversity champions scheme, where they effectively give institutions points for doing what they said. so they go up the ranks for following stonewall and they pay stonewall. yes, it is like a mafia racket going on as consultants. >> yeah. that's right, that's right. we're going to come in and consult us and we'll tell you what we think you should do, and then you can pay us. yeah >> even if it's not necessarily in accordance with the law because they have a habit of misrepresenting the law as well. so, i mean, look, the truth is that announcing your pronouns or someone expecting you to announce your pronouns is effectively like a purity test. it's effectively like saying, are you on board with our sacred creed? i mean, that's really what that's all it is your thinking. >> that is all it is, though, because you gain nothing. do you? unless you know, you're not too sure. >> yeah. and also you don't refer to someone with their pronouns. it's when they're not in the room. when i talk about you, paul, then i use your pronouns. you certainly do believe what i say. it's absolutely outrageous. okay, well, look, let's move on. we've

got a question now which came in via email. this is from jeremy c. he asks, was the bond market crash liz truss's fault? which is an interesting one because she's now saying that it definitely wasn't because apparently there's been some analysts within the bank of england who have produced this report, and they found that the majority of the bond market crash under under liz truss's tenure was actually caused by certain practices within the pensions industry. this is interesting. a lot of people have picked up on this. the washington post as well. a lot of people sort of saying this is it's you know, maybe liz truss was right all along. >> what do you think? i mean, i've been banging the drum on this for ages. you're a big trust fan. i love economics. i just found out today i've been using lash risk all wrong. it doesn't mean when paul says, let's just go for one, right. yeah. it looks like it wasn't her fault, doesn't it? >> well, i mean, at the time there was this sense that the markets were spooked and a lot of people said that she should have just held the course. really, because she's the first conservative leader for a long time who has actually been in any way fiscally conservative, which is quite interesting. but

she didn't or the tory party didn't. they decided just to reverse ferret immediately. yes. which maybe wasn't the right thing to do. but so do you feel a bit sorry for liz truss? >> well, i yeah, i definitely i mean that's just generally i do with the lettuce and the, the press haven't been very kind to her. >> no they haven't you know because she's very much like the lady jane grey of politics. you know, she was only there for a very short while. there was a historical reference. >> it was. yeah. >> it was. yeah. >> some people, some people will get that. what do you think, paul? >> well, she was the fall guy for the woman. because the reason i say this is because anyone i know that i speak to about economics says that her form of economics could have worked. yes. was definitely worth the risk considering where we were. however, one thing she probably did do wrong is she tried to get about five years of economics into about, you tried to get about five years of economics into about , you know, economics into about, you know, 49 days, which which made it easy for everybody who didn't want to her pursue that economics to attack her. christine and i were talking about this beforehand, as we often do, and we were always talking about economics . we talking about economics. we really tedious, endless people tell us to be quiet. but, you

know, essentially the parliamentary conservatives wanted rishi sunak. there wasn't really many people within the parliamentary gang that wanted liz truss there. it was the members that voted her in and they were looking for an excuse. and as soon as they sniff blood and of course, you know, whatever happened, it would be really interesting to find out. ihopeifs really interesting to find out. i hope it's independent in some way, because a lot of people, the flip side of this is a lot of people's mortgages were really impacted, and therefore a lot of people are a lot poorer now than they were then. >> yeah, they wanted rishi sunak. that worked out really well. so they did well then didn't they? >> how clever they are. >> how clever they are. >> i mean, god love, i feel bad for her. but you know, she's got a book out now and she's doing pretty well. >> oh, and this is just surfaced. fascinating. >> yeah. so she's good. yeah. yeah. exactly, exactly. but you know, look, if it's not her fault this has come from within the bank of england, it's their own. analysts have said this, although they are subsequently refusing to comment on that. but, you know, it does look pretty for good liz. yeah. no, she should write a sequel. >> well, i imagine she will. >> well, i imagine she will. >> yeah, i was right. yeah, yeah. okay. we've got a question now from jackie. hi, jackie. >> hi, should a domestic abuse

charity be permitted to employ men who identify as women? >> so this i presume, is scottish women's aid. so that's a taxpayer funded organisation. obviously, this is a post for survivors of domestic violence, sexual abuse. and they've said, you know , this this role 47,000 you know, this this role 47,000 a year just for women. but if you identify as a woman and you're not a woman, you can apply as well. jackie, what do you think of that? well my knee jerk reaction is, no, we shouldn't allow a man who identifies as a woman. well, particularly with this, i would have thought. i mean, it's definitely. yeah, i mean, it is. it's domestic violence. it's a refuge centre for women. and you would have thought that among the militant, the more militant kind of trans activists who are determined to break down any nofion determined to break down any notion of single—sex spaces, they would at least leave this one alone, because we are deaung one alone, because we are dealing with people who are in a very vulnerable, you know, and there's a good reason why a woman who's been through that kind of trauma doesn't want men around. that would have seen a no brainer to me. it doesn't do the trans cause any good, does

it? >> it's like , pick your battles, >> it's like, pick your battles, guys. i mean, this is this is about the worst thing. you almost think you're dealing with somebody who's who's purposely making things worse. it feels antagonistic. >> but this is coming from scottish women's aid. so they themselves have made the decision that we're going to open this up to, to men. >> it'sjust open this up to, to men. >> it's just utterly bizarre. i mean, i don't know to where begin explaining that. obviously they're used to working with extremely vulnerable women, i don't know. i wonder whether there's some activists within scottish women . probably. yeah. scottish women. probably. yeah. >> well, that's probably it, isn't it? i mean, we got to the point, isn't it, that j.k. rowling had to fund the opening of bear's place, which is a refuge centre for women who've been sexually assaulted. but there were no other single sex facilities of that kind in scotland until j.k. rowling turned up. it shouldn't be the case that we are relying on philanthropy from authors to do this kind of thing. what the hell is going on? >> well, i really don't know. and scotland, of all places, as well, you know, it seems to be idealistically captured , idealistically captured, particularly within the political environment within

scotland. but i don't see that filtering down into the regular people in scotland. you know, i spenti people in scotland. you know, i spent i spent a bit of time in scotland, got family up there and i never hear anybody talking about the trans debate. i hear people talking about how it's been captured by the trans debate. and of course this these charities are often got government funding or have heavy links to politics. >> well, the snp is totally on board with this stuff. oh, of course they are. >> i mean i'm not the snp, right? don't seem to have any concern about what's going on in scotland unless it's to do with independence, gaza or men dressed as women. >> yeah. so they're not really interested in the scottish things . things. >> no, they don't seem to be at all interested in scotland. >> it is absolutely bizarre, isn't it? well, i mean, hopefully things can move on from this, but i would have thought that, well, women in particular are kind of getting sick of it, aren't they? at this point. >> i should think they are, yeah. >> is it still the case that there is a man who identifies as a woman running the edinburgh rape crisis centre, even after the controversy there? >> great question. i don't know, but i mean, it probably is the case, isn't it? i could imagine it would be. >> well, let's see what happens. we'll obviously keep an eye on

that as we go forward. but next on free speech nation, i have the founder of gen spect, stella o'malley. she's going to be joining me in the studio to discuss her upcoming conference in lisbon. don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle jen specht is an international organisation which is committed to promoting a healthy, evidence based approach to sex and genden based approach to sex and gender, which collaborates with a range of professionals to advocate for non—medical solutions to gender distress. there's a forthcoming conference for gen spect in lisbon, portugal, and so i'm delighted to be able to say that the psychotherapist and author and founder of gen spect, stella o'malley, joins me now. welcome to the show, stella. thank you. now you're going to have to explain to us what gen spect is about and how long have you been

running what we've found a gen spect originally for parents, because so many parents had come to us in distress as psychotherapists, but the idea was to kind of promote a non medicalised approach to gender dysphoria. >> we're aware there's a huge explosion of gender distressed young people and our approach is, well, why do you have to actually medicalize your body? why can't you have your identity dress whatever you want? like j.k. rowling said, dress. however you please, you know, but there's no need to actually medicalize there's no need to actually change your name or your pronouns. you can just try on different identities. >> now, when did that explosion really begin and when did we move from a kind of psychotherapeutic approach to people who have these problems to drugs? >> yeah, a in and around ten years ago, it was extraordinary. it's very, very similar to the smartphone ownership among teenagers that suddenly like this was a huge explosion in the kind of early 2013, 2014, and an awful lot of kids went online. it's been studied to death. why did suddenly so many children

suddenly seek medical transition ? suddenly seek medical transition? everybody has a theory, but certainly they found each other online, and it was very much promoted by what seems to be a multi—billion dollar industry who are delighted to get more and more people who want to medicalize their bodies , because medicalize their bodies, because that means they will be medicalized for life. so people who believe that this is a good option, they believe it to the, you know, the depths of their soul. yes while other people say, well, shouldn't we try least invasive first options first? >> so that's very interesting because of course , the cass because of course, the cass review for years in the making has come out along along your perspective and said that there is no evidence for the gender affirming care approach in other words, if a child or young person turns up at a clinic and says, i think i'm in the wrong body, you shouldn't automatically just say yes, you are. here are the drugs, because that's effectively what's happening, isn't it? >> that's exactly what's happening. so what happens is a kid feels that maybe they go through puberty, maybe they're lonely , maybe they're in lonely, maybe they're in distress or autistic, or there might be, let's say they might have same sex attraction and

they don't quite know it yet because they're mixed up and distressed and young, and they think that they're in the wrong body. they hate their body. a lot of 14 year olds hate their body. absolutely. and somewhere online, they get the idea. you've been born in the wrong body. you can be a different person. you can have a different body with a different name and a different identity. and it might be just like that cool youtuber you follow and they fall for it because they're gullible and they're young who shouldn't be falling for it is the doctors and the professionals who are actually should be looking after these people. >> why did that happen? why did it come to the point where doctors en masse started saying , doctors en masse started saying, yes, we're just going to affirm whatever the child says, rather than let's have a conversation about what are the potential co—morbidities or other circumstances might be appropriate . you know what? appropriate. you know what? >> years ago, there was always a tiny , small, small number of tiny, small, small number of people who sought medical transition, and nobody really explored who they were and why they wanted it. and should they really be medically transitioning? and is it good for their bodies, and is it good for their bodies, and is it good for their bodies, and is it good for their psyche ? and i'm not for their psyche? and i'm not saying whether what should have been done, but we never explored it and it's only the focus,

frankly, from the parents who the parents of these teenagers who are suddenly saying , why are who are suddenly saying, why are they doing this? they're going to end up with sexual dysfunction. they're going to end up infertile. they're going to end up with huge amounts of medical complications. so why why it happens. there's always been a small number of people who have sought to be something different. yes, that's not new. what's new is like you said, the doctors suddenly en masse, said, yes , psychotherapy. i'm yes, psychotherapy. i'm a psychotherapist. we've lost our way . we've become something that way. we've become something that rather than, if you came to me, i'd offer you. i would hope to offer you a therapeutic process. and that would be back and forth. and it might be challenging and you might not be very happy. and there would be some exploration and there'd be a lot of truth, and it could be quite difficult . while it's quite difficult. while it's turned into therapeutic support rather than a process. oh, i see, so it's almost like the samaritans, where i make well, i'm supposed to, according to these new days , i'm kind of these new days, i'm kind of sympathetic noises and go, yes , sympathetic noises and go, yes, but you're advocating a therapeutic approach. >> now, there are some people in the labour party, actually,

there are some people in the conservative party as well who say that what you're advocating there is trans conversion therapy, that these young people have an innate gendered soul or identity or whatever you want to call it, and you're trying to fix them. you're the same as those people who used to wire up gay people to electrodes and try and heterosexual them. what do you say to that? >> i'd say a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. that's what i'd say to them, because they don't know what they're talking about when they're talking about when they're talking about when they're talking about psychotherapy, because psychotherapy, because psychotherapy is fundamentally conventional . psychotherapy is conventional. psychotherapy is an exploratory process. it isn't an exploratory process. it isn't a case of whatever you like, whatever you like, whatever you like. that's not ever. that's not what i studied for. that's not what i studied for. that's not what i studied for. that's not what any psychotherapist has studied for. but politicians certainly kind of making pronouncements about what psychotherapy should be and shouldn't be is , frankly, shouldn't be is, frankly, they're out of their lane and they're out of their lane and they don't know what they're talking about. >> it's so strange to hear politicians speaking about things they know nothing about. i've never heard of that before. okay, so this is your approach. and this is what gen spect is for. and you have the backing now of the cass review completely come out. all of the expertise, all of the research

is going your way. so there is progress being made. you have an annual conference and it coincides with another conference. you want to tell us about this? well what happened was we realised that w path were the self—identified kind of authorities on transgender health care. >> the only reason they're the world professional association for transgender health care. they started as kind of this loose affiliation of trans people and doctors and lobbyists and people who were interested in it back in 1979, and they kind of they were experts and authorities because nobody else was challenging for this position. it was a fringe kind of very much a fringe activity that nobody was interested in. and they over the years got a lot of funding , and over the lot of funding, and over the years they became less and less fringe, and they became quite mainstream. and they have regular conferences . but their regular conferences. but their big kind of response to any challenges for example, from jens beck saying, well, what challenges for example, from jens beck saying, well, what about a non medicalized approach? why do you have to medicalize these people? and there was was the kind of hashtag no debate. we don't debate this . and which is about 5— who owns a

debate this. and which is profoundly inappropriate for a lot of reasons. and so our response to their no debate was, well, we'll have a conference at the same time in the same town everywhere. you have conference. >> yes. so that means you get to go to lisbon? yes. they're holding it in lisbon this year. >> and we've already we were in killarney last year and we were in denver, colorado last year because they were in denver, colorado. so wherever they are, we are and we're saying, yeah, well, you're saying no debate. we're saying, why don't you come over to our conference? and they have they have invited we've ianed have they have invited we've invited them and we've said they're free in if they want to come over. and we'd be delighted to explore this . to explore this. >> i wouldn't hold your breath, stella, but i'm glad that you've extended the invitation. you did? when i did a show about the w path on the w path files. yeah.i w path on the w path files. yeah. i invited over 30 members of w path, and they all said no. so, you know , they're not the so, you know, they're not the most conversational. so w path, however, seem to have the upper hand. they've been able to influence all sorts of medical institutions, including the nhs , institutions, including the nhs, although the nhs is now nervously backing away. but they are. they have had that power haven't they. >> they've had a huge amount of power, but because they were in

position years before anybody else was because nobody else wanted it, nobody else was interested in it. and most doctors didn't have anything to doctors didn't have anything to do with this profession. and then, like you say, there was a kind of a mindless affirmation that happened between 2010 and 2020 where doctors just kind of nodded along, not quite knowing what they were nodding along to, generally under the kind of inappropriate idea that being trans is kind of like being gay. so i'll just nod along because i don't really get it. and actually, this whole thing freaks me out, so i'll just nod and it'll go away quickly. >> i truly think, yeah, i mean, you could have a point there because a lot of it, a lot of the things that people are saying are pseudoscience are not evidence based. they even know that themselves. that was the leaked w path files revealed that they know that a lot of their own patients cannot possibly consent to the treatments, that they're embarking on. so there's a danger to the influence of path. >> the path files revealed not only that w path were causing harm, but that they know they're causing harm, that they actually know that there are problems with the treatment they're giving and they're choosing to continue. so it does feel like w path is on its last legs. it

might take a while, but certainly they've been discredited so badly and the cass review is so strong as a kind of an antidote to the kind of pseudoscience that they've been living for on decades, that i do think that their day is oven i do think that their day is over, but it will take some time for everybody else to catch on. >> so in the interest of transparency, i should say that i am speaking at the yes, the jones event in portugal. could you tell us about the event? are there tickets left? >> there are tickets left. so go on to gemspec. org and you can get some last minute tickets. it's going to be great. it's very much a kind of a gender festival for want of a better phrase, or maybe a gender critical festival, but there's some brilliant speakers we've juue some brilliant speakers we've julie bindel will be speaking about parental trauma, which i think is going to be fascinating. caitlin stock will be talking about something interesting called something like lesbian lesbian as a as an identity. then there's people like graham linehan will be speaking as well. and he's he's always a pleasure. there's some brilliant people, people like matthias desmet who spoke a lot about covid. and he talks about mass formation psychosis. so he's going to be speaking about

speaking truth in a time of propaganda. and frank furedi is going to be talking about the eu and its obsessive policies around gender mainstreaming. so we're kind of coming from everywhere. fantastic. just to kind of, for gender nerds like myself to kind of further expand our minds in this weird time that we're living in, where everything is kind of everybody's repositioning themselves and figuring out left is right and right is left, and up is down and down is up and we're kind of we're having this festival, the festival, this conference to kind of, i suppose, make sure that everybody comes together and realises there's some serious harm being done. we need to look for some solutions. and helen joyce will be speaking about how we might get back to reality and so that we can kind of move forward. there'll be some detransitioners speaking. one lovely detransitioners called emily kohler will be saying, if true trans was a thing, i would be it. yes, she's a trans . okay, great. >> and remind us of the dates of the. >> oh yeah. the 27th to the 29th of september. good. lisbon is

gorgeous. yes it is. >> it's beautiful. it'll be fantastic. so it will. hopefully people can come along. stella o'malley, thank you ever so much for joining me. thank you . and forjoining me. thank you. and next up on free speech nation, we're going to discuss how women are being even further suppressed under taliban rule in afghanistan. don't go anywhere

>> are the newspapers getting you down? >> my wife didn't divorce me that month , struggling to that month, struggling to separate the wheat from the chaff. >> i know that it's a bit of a circus at the best of times. >> well, don't worry, headliners has got you covered. we'll take the burden of reading the day's news. and if we get depressed, who cares? it's an occupational hazard, frankly, that headliners on gb news from 11 pm. till midnight and the following morning, five till 6 am. on gb news, the comedy channel. nah. just kidding. britain's news channel.

>> welcome back to free speech nation. later in the show, i'm going to be turning agony uncle with the help of my panel, paul cox and cressida wetton will help you deal with your unfiltered dilemmas. so message us at gbnews.com/yoursay and we'll help you sort your life out. up next, a very serious topic now on how women are being even further suppressed by taliban rule in afghanistan. now you can see a picture of how women must now dress with their full faces and their whole bodies having to be covered with absolutely nothing visible, not even their hands. and we're going to be speaking now with doctor weeda mehran, who is a lecturer in international relations who grew up in afghanistan under taliban rule. doctor mehran, thank you ever so much for joining doctor mehran, thank you ever so much forjoining me on tonight's much for joining me on tonight's show. can i ask you firstly about your own experience with the taliban , the taliban, >> thank you very much. glad to be here with you. yes. i grew up in afghanistan, and the first time around that the taliban were in power , i was in were in power, i was in afghanistan. and like millions

of girls that nowadays experience a school closure, we experienced a school closure by the taliban in the late 1990s, a lot of the laws that the taliban have passed nowadays are and are implementing in the country, have a very eerie resemblance to by certain extent, exactly or the same as the laws and regulations that they put in place in the late in the late 1990s, when the taliban were controlling afghanistan. and that's when i was in afghanistan, such as capital punishment for women, a strict shana punishment for women, a strict sharia laws, coverage, certain types of coverage for women , types of coverage for women, implementation of, sharia law, based on basically taliban's very strict , very strict sharia very strict, very strict sharia law, application of sharia law

in the country, closure of schools, women's restriction of women's movements, so on. and so forth, so and i can see right now that the taliban are implementing exact same regulations and afghanistan is gradually and slowly returning to the type of, taliban time, afghanistan that was, in 1990s. >> can i ask you about the vacuum that has been left, obviously, since the us withdrawal? immediately after that, we saw members of the taliban claiming that this was a new taliban, almost taliban 2.0, and they would be more progressive and would be more supportive of women's rights. were they just lying? >> there is no taliban 2.0. the whole discussion and narrative of the taliban 2.0 was based basically promoted by the taliban itself, and a number of, politicians and policy makers ,

politicians and policy makers, basically in washington, dc, to actually justify the type of , actually justify the type of, agreement that was signed with the taliban. the taliban has been extremely clear from day one that they have been formed, that the group was formed in 1994. they have been clear when they were in power that they wanted to implement the type of shana wanted to implement the type of sharia law that they are implementing right now, even when they were fighting against the nato troops and the afghan republic government, the nato troops and the afghan republic government , they were republic government, they were very clear in their publications what kind of vision they had for afghanistan in case they were in power . and another evidence power. and another evidence since they have taken power, they have been following all the rules that they have been vocal about and saying that this is how we are going to govern the country. so there is no taliban

2.0. it has always been taliban 1.0, the same as they were in the 1990s. >> and can i ask you about the treatment of women in afghanistan? presumably. i know that the taliban has a degree of support in afghanistan, but i see a lot of these videos of women breaking the taliban's restrictions. and singing publicly. and these videos are obviously going viral online, what must it be like from their perspective? and what kind of danger are those women putting themselves in by taking that? protesting stance that is, you described it very well. >> it's a protesting stance by women and day by day that space is shrinking for women. the last law that the taliban adopted actually last week imposes a very lengthy list of repressive provisions on women, including mandates how they have to what kind of outfit they have to

wear. you. you show a picture of it on the show a few minutes ago, that they have to cover their entire bodies. there is a ban on women's voices heard in pubuc ban on women's voices heard in public and also there are further restrictions on their movements . and if they can go movements. and if they can go out without a male relative accompanying them, that would be also considered a violation of taliban's regulations. so once this law has been put in place, which was also going back to what i said, exactly the type of laws and regulations that the taliban were implementing in the 19 in the 1990s, then any violations of it can be seen can be met with punishment . and all be met with punishment. and all these women who are protesting , these women who are protesting, taking out on the street, raising their voices either physically and in person, in pubuc physically and in person, in public spaces, or even on social media such as x or facebook.

they face, they face punishment by the taliban. a lot of these women who are human rights activists and not even not only women, men as well, who are activists, who are criticising the taliban for their policies. journalists who raise their voices, they they can easily be targeted by the taliban. they are persecuted by the taliban. they put them in jail. some of these women have also been sexually harassed by the taliban when they were in custody and imprisoned . some of them have imprisoned. some of them have been killed under very suspicious circumstances, a whole number of women since the taliban have taken over have been this have disappeared. forced disappearances have happened, and forced marriages have increased that the taliban also the taliban in general, their members are forcing some families to marry their girls and daughters to the taliban. >> well, it's very disturbing to

hear you explain that, but i do appreciate you coming on to help raise awareness of what's going on there. doctor amir, and thanks so much forjoining me. thank you for having me . so next thank you for having me. so next on free speech nation, we're going to be taking a look at some of the stories from the world of culture and the arts with the historian and broadcaster david oldroyd. bolt. don't go

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. so let's now take this opportunity to have a look at some stories from the world of arts and culture. and who better to discuss them than the historian and broadcaster david oldroyd? bolt, welcome to the show. welcome back to the show. of course, david. so what have you been looking at this week? >> well, this week was a great week at the proms, which is drawing to its close. last night i had the great privilege of

heanng i had the great privilege of hearing the rolls royce of orchestras, the berlin philharmonic play at the albert hall, the first half with the most intriguing soloist i've heard this year. the icelandic pianist vikingur olafsson, who is very well known for playing bach. last night he was playing the schumann piano concerto, which is a work of the mid 19th century, quite virtuosic, full of fireworks and pathos, and it was a really interesting mixture of a pianist not known for this sort of repertoire and seeing how he dealt with it. yes. i mean, as you would expect, the orchestra was magnificent. it really is one of those orchestral performances where you think it can't be better done. yes, they are so well drilled. the sound envelops you in a way that very few orchestras ever manage , and i orchestras ever manage, and i think they worked well with olafsson. my qualm was that he his sound was nowhere near big enough for the piece . right? he enough for the piece. right? he had also picked a really quite odd piano. it was very tinny and harsh in the top register, i think, because he knew that he didn't have a great deal of projection in his powers, so he was trying to make up for that with the instrument, but it came

across as rather thin. but then his encore, he played bach, of course , and i don't know if course, and i don't know if you've ever heard the sound of 5000 people holding their breath. it's the most extraordinary feeling when you know that everybody in the auditorium is straining every nerve to pick up all of the nuance. it was one of the most exquisite performances i've ever heard of, of bach. he was playing a transcription of an organ piece, and he began by saying, you know , this should be saying, you know, this should be played on the instrument behind me, but i'll try and do my best with this. >> i mean, of course, a lot of people go to the proms because they want to see the greatest hits, don't they? but but as you say, sometimes, every now and then the bbc does something a bit left field and they well, this was a really it was an interesting pairing. >> and then in the second half this year is the bicentenary of the czech composer bedrich smetana. they had the whole of his symphonic cycle of six symphonic poems, ma vlast. the most well known of them is the third, the vltava, which all of your viewers will know. it's played in adverts, it's played in films. it's one of the classic fm things. it's on all the time and it's an evocation of the river, but it was wonderful to hear it in the context of the other five

pieces, because you realise that this is a essentially a symphonic cycle. again, the berlin phil pulled out all of the stops. it was such a pleasure to hear it and we've got, i think tonight there is another berlin phil prom. so any of you watching this on catchup, ihope of you watching this on catchup, i hope that's where you've been rather than somewhere more frivolous. and then another two weeks of the proms. it finishes on the 14th, so plenty more to go. but unfortunately this will be the last proms review of this season. >> fantastic. and what else? i believe you've been reading book. >> well, we have robert harris's new book, precipice. robert harris is one of the best known of current english novelists. i think this is his 16th book. >> not to be confused with thomas harris, the author of hannibal. >> no. slightly different. yeah. he's also a wonderfully well known scriptwriter. he's gone into historical fiction mode, which he's done before brilliantly with the roman trio based on cicero. this is a really intriguing, i'm sorry to use the word again, but it is intriguing concept for a book because he's essentially using letters as the basis for the plot. this is the prime minister

dunng plot. this is the prime minister during the rac of this. so this is the prime minister during the first world war, herbert asquith. yes. h.h. asquith, who was obsessed at the age of 61 with the 26 year old fellow aristocrat venetia stanley, whose father was lord stanley of alderley edge in cheshire. they were big landowners there, and in wales he had a correspondence with her that by the time the affair reached its fever pitch dunng affair reached its fever pitch during the most trying months of the first world war, during the gallipoli campaign, he was writing three long letters to her a day . all of his letters to her a day. all of his letters to her a day. all of his letters to her are extant. he burnt all the ones he received from her, and robert harris has gone, and he acknowledges this in the book to the family and said, look, everybody in history and everybody in history and everybody in history and everybody in political history knows about this. but apart from the fact that they were published in the 70s, it's sort of fallen out of public knowledge. >> so they've been in the public domain. >> they have been. and so he has used this as the basis to explore what became, by the end of it, an obsessional relationship between the prime minister and this young woman. it is said that society knew

about it. but i think what he does very well is to explore to what degree it is possible to run any sort of organisation, never mind the country in wartime, when your entire attention is on a love affair. >> and of course, these people are still human beings, and it's are still human beings, and it's a fascinating subject for fiction. yeah. >> and i think it looks at the transgressive nature of that relationship between the 61 year old and the 26 seven year old. like a lot of modern historical fiction, it suffers from not being able to decide what register it wants to pitch itself. at times, he's trying to capture the speech patterns of the of the early part of the last century. at other times, he lapses into the sort of dialogue that you'd hear in friends, and it's really. yeah, it's quite incongruous. there are times when, for instance, he has churchill saying, talking about his wife who's just given birth. oh, she'll be fine. don't worry about it. you know, that sort of flippancy which anybody who knows churchill's speech style would know that it wasn't part of him. and just i think at times he struggles too hard to help a modern reader understand the context of the period. >> but that's an interesting point that you raised as to what extent do you think that

creatives like robert harris have the right to have this license, where they can sort of mess around with history a little bit, a bit like in i, claudius? >> you know, you have to do and you have to make a decision as robert graves did with i, claudius, as hilary mantel did with the trilogy in the tudor period, as patrick o'brian did with the aubrey—maturin novels. you have to make a decision whether you're going to pitch it in the, as it were, the historical vernacular, or whether you're going to reinterpret that for the modern audience and stick with it. and i think this is a problem that ken follett, the historical fiction author, also , in my fiction author, also, in my view, has this problem. they can't quite decide which register they're using. it comes across, i think, as jarring to the reader. now, thankfully, harris doesn't , he's not harris doesn't, he's not pedantic towards the reader. he's not didactic. he he understands that actually, most readers will go and google something if they don't understand who someone was or what an event was. so the narrative flows well. it's just that slight oddness in the dialogue. >> but he has a fealty to the historical truth. >> he does? >> he does? >> yeah. and he's he's very good. he imagines venetia stanley's responses to asquith and by and large, i think it's a

believable correspondence. i mean, the very fact that asquith is during cabinet meetings at the height of the collapse of the height of the collapse of the gallipoli campaign, writing these mad, impassioned letters to her that if you were to read them out without knowing what was going on, you'd think these were the scribblings of a 14 or 15 year old boy in the flush of first love, and did that representation accord with your perspective of asquith from your studies as a historian? well, i knew about the letters, but i've never read them. so now, having read this novel, i've gone away and ordered the letters because it is a fascinating historical document and asquith was an extraordinary man. he was the son of nonconformist in yorkshire, who died when he was very young. he was then sent to board with a puritan family in islington , got a good school islington, got a good school place, became a brilliant barrister. he's the last ever leader of a liberal majority government in this country. but he had immense failings. he was a drunk. his nickname was squiffy . he clearly had these squiffy. he clearly had these infatuations with younger women because after venetia stanley, there were a couple of others, although very touchingly the last visit he ever made in his

life, she broke it off with him in 1915 to marry someone else. the very last visit of his life was to her in 1928, before he became too ill to leave his house, so i think in his mind, he never fell out of love with her and it's a fascinating and deeply impressive look into the contrasts of power and responsibility and how much of your personal life you must put aside in order to have and to assume this great responsibility, which perhaps recent politicians haven't necessarily done terribly well? >> absolutely . so remind us, >> absolutely. so remind us, robert harris, the book is called precipice. >> yes , it's out now. i believe >> yes, it's out now. i believe the book launches this week. if any of you are lucky enough to be going, do send us a line about it and you do recommend it. >> i do recommend it. >> i do recommend it. >> i do recommend it. >> i think you know those gripes about register aside, it's a very well done novel. as you would expect of harris, and i can well imagine it being filmed. >> david aldridge boult, thanks so much forjoining me. >> david aldridge boult, thanks so much forjoining me . so so much forjoining me. so that's the end of the first hour on free speech nation . but don't on free speech nation. but don't go away. there's loads more to come between now and 9:00. don't go anywhere.

>> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello there. welcome to your latest gb news weather forecast from the met office . it stays from the met office. it stays unsettled over the next 24 hours or so. the risk of heavy showers and thunderstorms staying rather cloudy and particularly humid as well. low pressure in charge of our weather pattern at the moment. slow moving areas of rain across the country. however, this area of high pressure just starts to introduce some fresher air as we move through into the beginning of next week. this evening time, we do have areas of showers and thunderstorms pushing north across england and wales into southern parts of scotland. band of rain also starts to move in from the atlantic to affect parts of northern ireland. humid tonight, warm as well with a lot of cloud cover . temperatures in of cloud cover. temperatures in the mid to high teens.

uncomfortable for sleeping for some of us. so on monday morning an unsettled start to the new working week. areas of showers pushing northwards across parts of scotland. some of this could lead to some local disruption. first thing cloudy across northern ireland. showery outbreaks of rain here, which also extends into parts of northern england . north wales northern england. north wales some thunderstorms around a lot of cloud. humid start to the day. further showers and thunderstorms in places too. across the rest of england and wales through the day. what we'll see is it generally stays cloudy across most areas. there will be some bright or sunny spells in between, but we do have lots of bands of rain and showers pushing north and eastwards through the day. some of this will be heavy and thundery. could see some local disruption . temperatures disruption. temperatures a little lower, particularly in the southeast. 25 degrees but still rather humid for many of us and into the evening and overnight. those showers continue. fresher air starts to move in from the west on tuesday. a mixture of sunny spells and showers. showers most

frequent the further north and west you are here, some of them heavy. the best of the drier, brighter weather will be further south and east and temperatures just a little lower once more. generally dry for wednesday ahead of further showery rain pushing in for thursday. see you soon. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers . sponsors of boxt boilers. sponsors of weather on gb

jens beck saying, well, what about 55 who owns a rental jaz athwal, who owns a rental portfolio of 15 homes and three commercial buildings in london, said he was shocked and sickened by the conditions. to germany now and a party on the hard right is expected to be the biggest in at least one state of the iday of5

biggest in at least one state of the iday of the conference in final day of the conference in edinburgh. the keynote speech by scotland's first minister, john swinney, who took over from the party, took over the party from humza yousaf in may, highlighted child poverty as a priority. plus, getting a ceasefire in gaza was one of the first and remains a leading voice demanding an immediate ceasefire and the return safely of all hostages in gaza. >> that the message from this conference be heard loud and clear. the killing of innocent men, women and children must end and it must end now. >> two teenagers have been arrested over the murder of a 13 year old boy in oldbury , west year old boy in oldbury, west midlands. police said the teens are being questioned in connection with the fatal stabbing in lovett avenue earlier this week. the family of the 13 year old, who died in his own home, are aware of those developments . and finally, developments. and finally,

thunderstorm warnings across a large part of the uk as the met office increases its alerts, much of england , wales and much of england, wales and scotland are covered by the warnings for tonight and tomorrow. forecasters say there's a risk of flooding because of heavy rainfall and those are your latest gb news headlines. for now, i'm will hollis and i'll be back at 9:00 for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . forward slash alerts. >> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. >> now, before we get to our audience questions, let's have a look at something different. the writer graham linehan this week shared a shocking resignation letter from a john lewis employee on his substack , leslie employee on his substack, leslie pickup, who was a selling

partner at john lewis cheadle branch, describes how trans activists within the company are seemingly compromising the safety of female staff and customers. she writes without negotiation, unilaterally, arbitrarily and without their consent or any say in the matter whatsoever, they , as in staff whatsoever, they, as in staff members, are now expected to be completely and without question subservient to the needs of their male colleagues. she goes on to describe how female colleagues live in fear of speaking out, as men who identify as women at work are given access to female only spaces, according to miss pickup. john lewis has told female staff unhappy about the situation that they can just use the disabled toilets and if they disagree with biological men in the female changing rooms, they will be provided with a small locker, a little distance away. so this is how miss pickup ends. the letter, she says i will not be serving out my two weeks notice, as i am not prepared to set foot in an establishment, either as an employee or a customer that chooses to treat its female members of staff with such disregard when it comes to

their safe spaces. so all of this, this letter can be read on graham linehan, substack. so i urge you to check that out, we did invite john lewis to provide a representative to talk about this this evening, but they declined. cressida, what do you make of this? this is quite a shocking resignation letter, isn't it? >> it is shocking and it isn't. i mean, they've got form. we know john lewis had a magazine in february this year for their staff. it went out to 70,000 people and it had content in it that was really promoting mermaids ideas. the activist group. yes, it was talking about chest binders and giving advice to potentially trans children and their parents and telling parents how to educate themselves, which is extraordinary , because you extraordinary, because you think, what on earth has that got to do with an in—house publication about selling candles? i have no idea. yes. so this sort of is in the same area, isn't it? but what do you make of that? >> i mean, if you were an employee at john lewis, you would expect to be able to get changed in a female only space. i mean, not too much to ask, is it?

>> of course it isn't. and what's so shocking about this is that the staff haven't been consulted at all, and we hear so much about consent. that's like a really big topic in our society. haven't bothered with that. it'll be fine. we're just going to do our activism and you can get on with it. >> yeah. i mean, this is a it's pretty poor form, isn't it? and i think it's particularly bad that john lewis won't comment on this at all. yeah. >> for me, that's a really important point. we all understand the ideologies way out there and i think mad in many ways, yes. however, i think i think the real culprits here are the people that just wilfully accept it , despite all wilfully accept it, despite all the blind spots, like 50% of their staff might be put off by it. and of course we all discuss this as men in women's spaces because they just accept it carte blanche. they don't accept that it's men in women's spaces. they accept it's women in women's spaces , irrespective, as women's spaces, irrespective, as this lady said in her letter. and as you say, i would go and read this substack because the full letter is quite, quite something to behold really, she says. there are actually men that you know, are men outside of work, are married men, have all the dangly bits, men have,

and then when they go to work, they want to dress as women and be women. that's the difference in their lives. and okay, so they are men, actual men going into women's spaces, into their toilets, into their locker rooms. why would that not? i'd be more worried if it didn't unsettle you. >> okay, now it's interesting because i understand that there are some people who claim that to be a woman is an identity category. it's not a biological thing, and that's a point of view. but i would suggest that that point of view is held by a very, very small minority. and i would suggest that the majority of female staff at john lewis don't subscribe to that view. so why weren't they asked about this ? this? >> well, because because that's that very small view is so well protected that if you were to speak out about it, you could lose. you know, this lady worked there for 20 years, you could be well into a career and thinking, all i really want to do is earn more money and climb the ladder in order to do so. you know, we all know this. when you're in a big organisation, you've got to play big organisation, you've got to play along with the game. now, the game is pretending men are

women and i think it's too far because, i mean, you won't get promoted if you if you stand up and say something in trouble. >> yeah, we should say i mean, the media hasn't really picked up on this at all. this hasn't been a story. the only place you can currently read about it is on graham linehan's substack, and i would like to speak to anyone from john lewis about this topic. so if anyone at john lewis would like to come on next week or any week, indeed, that is an open invitation. i would love to have that conversation. i think it's important that your members of staff can hear that conversation, especially since they haven't been consulted in they haven't been consulted in the decision making process. i want to just ask you, though, cressida, there's an extra element to this, which is to do with, there will be some women . with, there will be some women. as leslie pickup points out in her resignation letter, there will be some women statistically working at john lewis who have suffered sexual abuse, who have suffered sexual abuse, who have suffered trauma at the hands of men who have very good reasons to want to be able to get change without men around. shouldn't they be prioritised in all of this? >> absolutely. and they also shouldn't have to go and use the disabled loo and identify themselves as having these problems . they themselves as having these problems. they might not want to talk about it. and there's also an issue with safeguarding children. she makes reference to people working there who are under 18 at john lewis. i don't

know what the what john lewis are expected to do to safeguard those children, but if there are men in girls spaces, they're clearly not doing it. yes. >> okay. well, i'll just reiterate john lewis, open invitation to come and talk about this. and if you want to read that full resignation letter that's on graham linehan substack. so let's get a question from our audience here. we've got a question first from john. where is john? oh hello. welcome back. >> thank you , it's robin >> thank you, it's robin diangelo, a plagiarist . diangelo, a plagiarist. >> well, robin diangelo, i should clarify, is the author of white fragility, which is this book that became a huge bestseller after the black lives matter riots. did you read white fragility, >> no , i read other books. i >> no, i read other books. i think you mentioned it in your book, the new puritans. >> i did, thanks for the plug. there >> various other people, douglas murray and various other people. >> well, they read it so that i didn't have to. >> well, there we go. i mean, the reason why we all comment on

this book, in particular in our books, is that white fragility became the go to book for people trying to understand this notion of systemic racism, even though it's written by a white woman who's and she's effectively saying all white people are racist. society has been organised for racist purposes to uphold white people at the expense of everyone else. and if any white person disagrees with that, they are suffering from white fragility and that therefore proves the point that she's making. it's a bit like the kafka trap she can't lose. right. it's a bit like if the witch drowns, then she, you know, you know, the story ends, does it? >> i think we have to continually re—educate ourselves . continually re—educate ourselves. >> right, exactly. and which is lucky for robin diangelo, because she earns tens of thousands of dollars to go into corporations and berate their white staff and tell them to, quote, try to be less white. that's one of the that's the advice she gave at coca—cola. how do you try to be less white? how do you try to be less white? how do you do that? >> well, i haven't read it ehhen >> well, i haven't read it either. i'm like, john, i've just read your books. >> oh, we should get back to the plagiarism point. it turns. it

turns out robin diangelo has been ripping off whole passages from get this, minority ethnic writers . right. so this white writers. right. so this white woman. and it's interesting because the black press has picked up on this, but a lot of people in mainstream, left leaning, very white press, they're a bit embarrassed. think. >> i bet they are. yeah. >> i bet they are. yeah. >> so do you think we should. it's time for robin diangelo to be binned. >> what do you think? well, it'd be great if she came on here, wouldn't it? and discussed it with you. oh, my god, to. you know, she might want to repent. she's into that sort of thing. yeah. yeah. not not a good look. >> i would love robin diangelo to come on this show. i mean, she absolutely wouldn't. she never likes being challenged. so she's only ever interviewed by people who are completely on board. although i think matt walsh and his new film disguised himself and got a conversation with him. i could be wrong about that. someone told me that. >> what was the disguise? that's worrying. >> no, he didn't he didn't do a justin trudeau. no, he didn't do that. i think he just wore a man bun or something and looked looked a bit vaguely to look. >> woke 101. yeah a bit vaguely hipsterish and annoying. >> so are you a fan of robert jenrick? have you read white fragility? >> no, i have definitely read more of it than john. and i've

read the two books that you referred to as well, i couldn't read it all. i find it very divisive. she is responsible for the most, i think, the most dangerous and divisive policies, particularly within american schools in the last ten years. she is she's basically created a whole curriculum around telling white people and white children that they are bad, and if they don't think that they're bad, then they're double bad for thinking that they're not bad. yes. and you know, it's amazing. you know, she'd written a book just on how to manage children. that would have been better. >> yeah, surely. well, i should say that she absolutely denies the charges of plagiarism. i've seen the parallel texts . there seen the parallel texts. there are lots of phrases that appeared in other people's work, but i suppose it depends on your definition of plagiarism, doesn't it? let's get a question from anton next. hi, anton . from anton next. hi, anton. >> should jess phillips be treated differently in a hospital situation? >> yeah, this is a big story. this week. and of course, as you know, jess phillips was giving some kind of talk somewhere at some kind of talk somewhere at some kind of a festival. and she made this evening with jess

phillips, and it was called an evening with jess phillips. god who buys tickets for that? and anyway, she was giving this talk and she made the point that she went to a hospital for some reason. and she said that, well, she claims that she got preferential treatment from the doctor because the doctor recognised her saying, oh, you're jess phillips and you voted in favour of a ceasefire in gaza, and i'm palestinian, so i support that. so i'm going to give you, i don't know, an extra injection or something. >> he didn't say that. no. the bit that's in quote marks is him saying, i like you, you voted for a ceasefire. yes. she's added, and therefore i got quicker treatment, but it's not really clear what she said. we haven't seen a clip of this. >> yes, exactly. >> yes, exactly. >> we've just read reports of it. so i'm not entirely sure what her point was. i think. >> no, i know i think it's very unclear, and i think it's a bit unfair for us to be assuming anything about this until we see the actual recording or get some clarification. jess phillips's team have said this. this isn't the way it went down, because if it were the case that there was a two tier nhs, that would be pretty shocking stuff. >> well, i think we're well on our way to a two tier nhs for a

number of reasons. actually, the nhs doesn't work and you can, you can get a better version of the nhs if you pay. and i think we're going that way anyway. with regards to jess phillips, the, the sort of context of this is she's gone into hospital, she was breathless. her lips had gone blue. she thought about identifying as a smurf, and then she she, she she got into the hospital. she saw the absolute state of the a&e so far on board. but from what we can tell anecdotally, from what we've been told from this evening with jess phillips. oh my god , that jess phillips. oh my god, that she said that she quite clearly got specialised specialist treatment, not specialist treatment. privileged treatment because of who she was, which that's possible , but also that's possible, but also because of the way she voted on the gaza ceasefire, because it was a palestinian doctor with a palestinian doctor being quoted as saying, i like you because of the way you voted. so for me, let's say let's just let's just say for argument's sake, a lot of that's true. i think it's really insightful. a she feels comfortable within that environment to talk openly and

say those things . and b because say those things. and b because it does sound a bit like a humblebrag. i'm an mp, i can have this. i voted this way, i can have that. and then she's supposed to go back out and talk to the wider public because labour are now our government, and for us to buy into her ideas. >> well, you know, we don't know. let's just be fair to jess phillips. you know, she might be being misrepresented here. maybe it's just one of those situations where, you know, when you're in these sort of q and a's, you're just being a bit honest and just, you know, you're just speaking a bit too freely. maybe. maybe she misspoke. who knows. we don't know do we? >> i don't know, i think she was trying to say the nhs is in a state. lucky me. i got through raisi. i think that's the point. yeah, it was clumsy to be revealed, but she just didn't think about. i mean, it's so open to interpretation. >> yeah, it has, it has caused a real storm. but maybe we should all of us just back off a bit and wait until the facts come out, you know? anyway, we've got a question now from matt. where's matt? >> oh, very good evening. >> oh, very good evening. >> but before we go to that question, just deal with the most important thing. obviously we're on gb news, the most important news topic of the weekend. and to all the millions of viewers and listeners, even if you didn't get oasis tickets

for their reunion, don't look back in anger. >> oh for goodness sake. we're not talking about that tonight, matt, what's your question? >> can i ask questions of andrew and paul, what do you agree or even disagree with the position of our socialist labour government that we have inherited in the uk, that they are considering banning smoking and vaping in the social, recreational areas of licensed premises and other social recreational areas. interesting. >> i would say we didn't inherit them. we did vote them in. but anyway, that's a that's a different question. what do you think about this? would you rather see smoking ban in public gardens? >> i think that there is a definitely it needs to be considered as a non—smoker, someone who's never smoked and obviously i understand why people smoke because it's addictive. but obviously i relate to the football situation . relate to the football situation. obviously being a regular football attender, a well known league team in the south coast, we were not allowed to smoke or vape in a football ground since, sadly, the bradford fire so many years ago, and obviously that

benefits everybody. so surely isn't there a social benefit for everybody that smoking apart from in your own home, in your own garden, smoking should be illegal? okay. >> well let me put that to cressida because that's an interesting argument. you know, this this obviously there's passive smoking. there's the potential that, you know, not everyone chooses to be around smokers. do you buy that? >> no, i don't i mean we could we could go around giving out all sorts of prescriptions for people, couldn't we. it's for 75; sorts 1525, 555555555 555 5555 matt unfortunately supports 75; sorts of': 555555555 555 5555 matt unfortunately supports 55— sorts of prescriptions555 5555 matt unfortunately supports 55— sorts of prescriptions for 555 all sorts of prescriptions for people, couldn't we. it's for your own good. you've got to go your own good. you've got to go jogging your own good. you've got to go jogging your own good. you've got to go jogging at 6 am. every day. i jogging at 6 am. every day. i think you know, the first think you know, the first smoking ban. we got used to that smoking ban. we got used to that indoors. maybe okay. fair indoors. maybe okay. fair enough. but this one. no. and enough. but this one. no. and it's going to have a huge it's going to have a huge detrimental effect on pubs and detrimental effect on pubs and more importantly , people getting more importantly , people getting more importantly, people getting together at nightclubs in the more importantly, people getting together at nightclubs in the smoking area. >> yeah, there's a whole smoking area. >> yeah, there's a whole industry as well. what are they industry as well. what are they called where people sit outside called where people sit outside with those big sort of with those big sort of elaborate, ornate smoking shisha elaborate, ornate smoking shisha things? what are they? what are things? what are they? what are they called. >> yeah, yeah, they would they they called. >> yeah, yeah, they would they would be entirely banned. would be entirely banned. >> they would be banned. they >> they would be banned. they would be banned. so that's a would be banned. so that's a whole industry that is really whole industry that is really being affected there. what do being affected there. what do you think about this, paul? are you think about this, paul? are you think about this, paul? are you think about this, paul? are you a smoker? >> i'm not a smoker. you a smoker? >> i'm not a smoker. >> i'm not a smoker. >> i'm not a smoker. >> i have smoked in the past. >> i'm not a smoker. >> i'm not a smoker. >> i have smoked in the past.

matt unfortunately supports matt unfortunately supports portsmouth just like me. and i'm just going to have to agree with the first portsmouth fan that's ever come on here, because i don't i don't agree. i mean i understand bradford happened in 86 that stand burnt down and killed people because it was a wooden stand. yes. that is not the same as smoking in a garden . the same as smoking in a garden. and also because we were having this kind of debate during the break. for me, it's much less about , you know, the safety about, you know, the safety aspects of it and the burden on the nhs. it's about freedom of choice. you

just get back to the point of saying you know, the risks? we've told you the risks. you get to decide what you do with your body. >> i mean, there's lots of nuances, isn't there? because obviously we don't say, oh, heroin, help yourself. you know, there are points. depends where you live. well, that's a very good point, andrew. very good. yes. but in this case, there's a huge amount of money that the government collects from smoking. and already there's concerns that a lot of smoking is done through criminal activity. anyway, you can buy cigarettes where you don't pay any tax, this is just going to make that ten times worse. okay. >> well, this is going to rage on and on. i'm sure we will. we will revisit it at some point, but look next on free speech nation. we're going to be debating the us presidential election with doctor roger gewolb and bob wiener. it's going to be a fiery one. don't go

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me. andrew doyle kamala harris gave her first

election campaign interview on cnn this week , and was roundly cnn this week, and was roundly mocked by republicans as it lasted just 27 minutes. however, the democrat nominee is still ahead of donald trump in the polls. trump campaign insiders say the former president is struggling to connect with key voters. can he turn it around before america chooses its next leader in november? well, let's cross the pond now and get the thoughts of democratic strategist and political commentator robert wiener. and here in the studio, i've got the us political analyst, doctor roger gewolb. but i'll come to you first. bob, thanks ever so much for joining you first. bob, thanks ever so much forjoining us on free much for joining us on free speech nation. it's been 39 days of silence, but now we've had an interview with kamala harris. how do you think she did and how do you think her campaign is going? >> well, thanks for having me, andrew. it's great to be back with you and roger. good to see you again. i don't know if we'll have us smiling or snarling and throwing names again, but it's always fun to be with you and audience. hello again. and thanks, andrew to your producers who do such a magnificent job. >> we'll keep the snarling to a

minimum, i promise. >> okay? you know, it's like the old, what's my line? i don't know if you ever saw will the real donald trump stand up? and when he does, he's the multiple convicted felon for paying women to shut up before an election with his university and foundation and his involvement in businesses shut down for fraud and $500 million penalised a court documented and punished sex abuser and penalised

a court documented and punished sex abusso and penalised a court documented and punished sex abusso thispenalised a court documented and punished sex abusso this isnalised a court documented and punished sex abusso this is a lised a court documented and punished sex abusso this is a it'sd a court documented and punished sex abusso this is a it's now arizona. so this is a it's now past where you can say is it a honeymoon. that's dying. well it's a moving rushing , surging campaign. >> i want to ask you specifically, you know, i might be reading between the lines here, but i get the impression you don't like trump . however, you don't like trump. however, what i want to ask is, what do you think about kamala harris? you know, are you impressed with her performance? so far? >> she is the happy warrior and it works. it's trump is trying. it looks so fake on him. you fighting prices surging. and so she's got an agendeist's fighting prices surging. and so she's got an agendeis trying. it works. it's trump is trying. it looks so fake on him. you know he's trying. but but she is know he's trying. but but she is the happy warrior after the happy warrior after everybody knows his demeaning everybody knows his demeaning vindictive vendetta. that is his vindictive vendetta. that is his theme and his posture. but but theme and his posture. but but she is the happy warrior with a she is the happy warrior with a with a with an agenda, with with a with an agenda, with coming out and saying she's coming out and saying she's going to help fight inflation, going to help fight inflation, it's even now under 3%. she's it's even now under 3%. she's going to keep going with that. going to keep going with that. and she's going to work on and she's going to work on housing with $25,000, toward housing with $25,000, toward everybody's home buying. that's everybody's home buying. that's a fantastic plan. food and gas a fantastic plan. food and gas fighting prices surging. and so fighting prices surging. and so

she's got an agenda. it's she's got an agenda. it's for the middle class. trump, meanwhile, of course, wants i think we've just lost bob there. >> but we get the gist. roger, he's making the case that she has some very good policy ideas. do you think that's true? >> none that i've ever seen . >> none that i've ever seen. >> none that i've ever seen. >> well, how do you think she's doing so far? a lot of people are saying, you know, she's she's actually made quite some good headway early on. >> i mean, she's she's very similar to joe biden. >> she's an empty, vacuous puppet. she's she's she's barack obama's new puppet because the old one failed. >> okay. but then did you see the interview with cnn? yeah, she performed okay there. >> look, i mean, to his credit, bob covered a whole lot of subjects there. i'm sorry he's not with us. >> so i think he's back now so he can hear you. >> yeah. >> yeah. so. >> yeah. so. so >> yeah. so. so if >> yeah. so. so if i >> yeah. so. so if i can >> yeah. so. so if i can answer them . it was admirable. the them. it was admirable. the number of topics that you dealt with. so effectively. bob. let me try to answer them. first of all, the various lawsuits and prosecutions, i mean , these were

prosecutions, i mean, these were kangaroo courts. these were politically appointed judges and prosecutors in democratic strongholds like new york city, where trump couldn't sell a gold bar for $5. and they dreamed things up. e jean carroll you referred to the $85 million suit, but you forgot to tell us all that the new york state legislature

to my legal system with your lawfare. you have perverted it, and i will never , ever, ever and i will never, ever, ever forgive you. and neither will most american lawyers. i think it's an absolute perversion of justice. and even the us. supreme court has stepped in and said, we've had enough of this. so as far as the lawsuits go, really, that's a lot of nonsense. >> i want to move us away from the lawsuit just because it strikes me that whenever we talk about kamala versus trump, it becomes about how awful trump is rather than how good kamala is. yeah, and i'm really interested to know whether anyone thinks that kamala harris is actually an impressive candidate. >> i'm moving on to that. exactly. but i wanted to cover that point very quickly. >> roger. and then i'll go back to her. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> i mean, kamala harris is known for and has been criticised by the democrats, her own party and the republicans for being inconsistent. she's a chameleon and a not very good chameleon. she will say and do whatever is necessary, depending on whom she's talking to. her positions on criminal behaviour by the police , marijuana

by the police, marijuana prosecutions, they up and down and nobody knows what her position is because she doesn't have one. she would make a terrible president . she is such terrible president. she is such a bad leader that the voting rights law called for the people. bob, you know perfectly well she couldn't even get that ruddy thing through. she's pretty useless. let me just say this to you . if you wanted this to you. if you wanted somebody to be president of the united states and the president of the united states had just said, i'm not running, wouldn't you make them the president tomorrow so they can show their stuff and what they could do? no.the stuff and what they could do? no. the reason joe biden, who doesn't even know what time it is half the time, is still president is because if they put kamala in, she's going to screw things up before november. the fifth. and that's it for your party. >> i'm going to put that specifically to bob, because in the cnn interview, she cnn interview, she was asked whether she stands by her view that joe biden is as fresh as ever. and full of vigour and vim. and she said, yes, she absolutely stands by all of that. and yet and yet

he did have to step down. and a more combative interviewer might have asked her that question why on earth would he have to step aside then? but cnn didn't do that. what do you make of this, of this point? >> what do you expect her to say? oh, he's decreasing in his ability to talk loud . he's ability to talk loud. he's smart, but he really doesn't make great presentations. you expect her to say that ? expect her to say that? >> and you think she can string that many sentences together? all right, so look, here's the point that trump has been flailing. >> and andrew, i mean not andrew. roger, you sound just about like him. trump is flailing every other minute on abortion. he can't get his position straight. and you know that his position is let me finish. i didn't interrupt you . finish. i didn't interrupt you. >> just quickly let bob finish that point and then we'll come to you. i promise. >> and on mail voting, he can't get it right, i want it, i don't want it, i don't want it. i want it. so this guy and now on marijuana, you know, he's all over the place. so it's just. and he doesn't even know how to vote on the florida referendum. he can't get right what it says .

he can't get right what it says. so this guy is and the american people recognise a flailing, vindictive negative , racist the vindictive negative, racist the way he talks to her and calls her kind of a guy and they don't want it. they want the happy warrior. and the way she blew off his the question on on race was, was amazing. just she fluffed it off to the point has been taken. >> i just want to hear roger's response to that. >> i'm not going to worry about i'm not going to respond to all the accusations of name calling. it's silly what i am going to say is this the democrats and kamala deserve each other because, i mean, you're so disorganised , you're so disorganised, you're so desperate. she's all you've got. and the position is very clear. you know as well as i do as a fellow american. some states in the bible belt are evangelical christians. they don't want abortion . okay. other states are abortion. okay. other states are modern and progressive. they say they do. trump's view is neither here nor there. it's leave it to the states. so the local demographics, which are far more valid than a bunch of people sitting on capitol hill in

congress, can decide what they want to do about abortion. >> okay, bob, i want to ask the flaw in the logic. >> i got to get at it one second, bob. >> let me get at it. >> let me get at it. >> i have to say, it strikes me again that yet again, we're talking about trump and not about kamala. and it does feel as though we're constantly moving away, as though people can't bear to have a conversation about this. can i ask you specifically? you know, she's not going to have a conversation about it. >> there's no substance, no substance. >> it seems as though that she's very she's confused in a policy. where does she stand on open borders? where does she stand on fracking? why did she change her mind on fracking? these things weren't really pursued in the interview. we don't really know what she thinks about much. so, bob, does that not concern you as a member of the democrat party? wouldn't you like someone who was a bit more robust about their policy decisions and a bit more clear about where she stands on things? >> the democratic party, by the way, it's a little bit annoying when people get that wrong because the republicans try to make it sound more harsh by calling it democrat party, but on on abortion , roger, even on on abortion, roger, even kansas , even kentucky, the kansas, even kentucky, the entire country. you can't find me one state that's going to support, taking away people's

right to choice. you can't find one. so you're wrong about that. it is not a matter of which state. it's the legislatures. it's the legislators themselves, the male chauvinists, who are taking away women's rights. >> can you talk about kamala harris? >> she admitted . she admitted >> she admitted. she admitted that she's changed her position and, and they've explained that, you know, when you are the president or the vice president of the entire united states, you're different. your difference is not no longer a california senator with respect and on the border, she explained very well . let me help answer very well. let me help answer andrew and bev. >> let me let me say it to you one at a time, please. >> roger gewolb with respect, andrew's question. i'll come back to you, bob. don't worry. >> i'll come back to you. just one second. roger >> make your point, bob. >> make your point, bob. >> let me say this to you in american, in case you didn't understand. andrew, can you name one single point on which kamala harris has a solid , substantive view? >> okay, over to you, bob . >> okay, over to you, bob. >> okay, over to you, bob. >> abortion. and you are wrong on your take on it, roger. >> okay. but but that one, bob, were you impressed with her?

were you impressed with kamala harris's interview? do you feel a slight concern that she isn't really able to explain why she pivots so significantly when it comes to her team? >> i sent her team that she blew the first question, taking two minutes to spiral around to the answer, where she finally got to lowering prices and housing and gas and food prices , and getting gas and food prices, and getting a peace and a truce in in gaza. she should have gotten right to the point. and it was a little bit like rob says, i'm giving you an honest answer. it was a little bit like roger mudd's interview of kennedy, where he didn't answer the question right away of why are you running? but she got better and better and better in the interview. >> okay, roger. >> okay, roger. >> well, you know, a lot of people are saying that kamala has been rather impressive, that her speech at the dnc was very impressive as well. >> i was there, you were there. >> i was there, you were there. >> there we go. so roger is it not the case that maybe we've been underestimating kamala harris all this time? >> i don't think so. and the argument that she'll get better with practice as leader of the free world doesn't wash with me.

i want somebody who can solve the world's problems today, like donald trump . donald trump. >> okay, well, bob, final thought to you on this, bob, any any final thought you want to make , make, >> she's surging and she's moving, and i usually don't have that kind of confidence in a race. but when she says the same old, same old, i think she blows him off. that's much like reagan. there you go again. >> okay, well, this has been fascinating. i think we kept the snarling to a minimum. i would love for both of you to come back on and debate this in the future. thanks ever so much, bob and roger. and next on free speech nation, i'm going to be interviewing a labour commentator on the party's reported plan to reverse limits on the police recording non—crime hate incidents. don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. now, the labour government could be set to strengthen hate crime laws, specifically the home secretary, yvette cooper, is talking about resurrecting non—crime hate incidents. that is to say, the police can record non—crime against any citizen if they have said something that is perceived to be offensive against any particular protected characteristic . i did invite characteristic. i did invite labour to come on to the show. i had 12 different mps that were ianed had 12 different mps that were invited on the show, and all of them either declined or didn't get back to me. however, i am delighted to say that i have here political commentator and labour party member susie stride. thank you so much for joining me tonight. i want to ask you about that, though, susie. first and foremost, you know, this is a very controversial idea that yvette cooperis controversial idea that yvette cooper is pushing through, bringing back non—crime hate incidents for the police to record. but why won't labour come and defend that point of view? >> i mean, i can't speak for why labour mps can't come on this

evening. they may well be busy. they may have church, you know, matt church. absolutely. well, there you go. there you go. i go to church this morning. but anyway, no, i'm very sensitive to the fact that you are not speaking on behalf of yvette coopen >> no, no, but i would love to try to understand her perspective, or at least the labour party's general perspective on this. >> yeah, i think look, i think it's a positive thing that, you know, we don't want people being able to incite violence through hate , hateful speech, whether it hate, hateful speech, whether it is anti—semitic or islamophobic or anti—christian or whatever . or anti—christian or whatever. however, i, you know, i'm very aware and i expect the labour party are very aware that at the same time, one of the things that makes this country great is that makes this country great is that we are a democracy and we do believe in freedom of speech. you know, we're not like china or other countries. and i think thatis or other countries. and i think that is a balancing act. but i think it's really important for people to know i think our home secretary, yvette cooper, understands that . understands that. >> well, let me ask you specifically about non—crime hate incidents. so the idea that anyone could phone the police, there's no evidential threshold. they say i perceive that someone said something that wasn't criminal, but it was against my

protected characteristic that goes on your record that can affect your job prospects and all sorts of things. it feels a bit more like iran or china, the kind of thing where we're monitoring people's opinions . monitoring people's opinions. isn't that a danger? >> i mean, i think if you describe it in that way and if it manifested in that way, then that would i would have concerns with that. i don't think that's what we're talking about here. i think what we're talking about is when you are having people that are using their language to incite hate, that could then lead to violence. and what we're talking about, we're talking about nipping things in the bud. and actually, i think that is all of us want that . like, you all of us want that. like, you know, i'm proud of this country. i wasn't particularly proud that people were smashing up shops, you know. >> no, but that's obviously criminal and distasteful. >> however, how did that start? it came because people were going on social media and saying, oh, you know, this incident that happened, it happened with someone from this background. all of that wasn't true. built it, built it up. you know ? and it, built it up. you know? and look, obviously the riots were complex and you can't just say

it all came from that. but the fact is, is, you know , we've got fact is, is, you know, we've got to have a grown up conversation about this. we want to be a mature. let's talk about that because i mean, that's obviously you're talking about incitement to violence, which is already illegal. >> yeah. but let's separate incitement to violence from what yvette cooper is talking about, which is not actually someone who's written anything online thatis who's written anything online that is inciting violence. it's someone who has caused offence. i mean, let me give you an example. so with the non—crime hate incidents, famous case with harry miller, who was an ex—cop, he retweeted a poem that someone deemed to be transphobic. a police officer visited him and said, we need to check your thinking. that was recorded as a non—crime hate incident. there was a boy, a schoolchild in west yorkshire had a non—crime hate incident recorded against him because he brought a copy of the quran into school and accidentally scuffed it. we're not talking about people who are saying, go out and smash up that mosque or do. we're talking about people who may be in a gauche way, say offensive things. yeah yvette cooper wants those people to have a record. yeah. >> see, i don't agree with that. i think, look, they are examples which ultimately, again, as a country , i mean, look, you know, country, i mean, look, you know, people are having crime happen

and you call the police and the police don't come. you know, i'm just being honest with you. yeah, yeah, yeah. i've had a few instances of those where i'm calling the police and the police aren't coming, so ultimately you can't be using the police up for things like, you know, someone's retweeted a poem, but that's what that's what she wants. and look, there always are going to be these examples. no, i don't think that is what she means. i think there always are going to be these examples which all of us agree. well, that's just you know, we don't agree with that. it's a bit silly. we're talking about in the last six months in this country, there has been a ridiculous increase and appalling increase in anti—semitic, hate crime. you've got people not wearing their religious symbols. got people not wearing their religious symbols . like, if religious symbols. like, if i wanted to wear a cross on this show, i don't want to be fearful walking down the street that someone might hit me in the face for wearing a cross. and you've got jewish people that felt they could not wear their religious symbol. i mean, we read about that in history and we look at what happened, you know, in, you know, hitler's germany. and we say, sorry, not on our watch, but i'm sorry, but on our streets in the last six months, that's what was going on. and i know you don't think that's acceptable. i don't think that's acceptable. i don't think that's acceptable. and i think we all

expect our home secretary to do something about that. and i think that is what we're seeing here. and i think we need to be very wary of then saying it's going to be these other things. however, i do want to say one of the things i love about this country is we're not a country. i don't think we are a country of extremes. you know, i don't think we are like that. so you have to balance that off with freedom of speech is important. it's okay to say that's what i mean. >> i think actually we're probably in agreement here insofar as , you know, the high insofar as, you know, the high court did the court of appeal did rule that non—crime the recording of non—crime was a threat to freedom of expression. and they said that this was effectively unlawful and shouldn't be done. yeah. successive home secretary said, you can't do this one. home secretary amber rudd was hit was was recorded as having a non—crime on her record because she described she used the phrase migrant workers in a tory party conference speech. but yvette cooper i mean, i know you're saying that you don't think these things should be recorded, but yvette cooper is saying that she wants to bring back the recording of non—crime hate incidents . hate incidents. >> no, i think it's what she has said. i'd quite like to quote it, but i don't know if i can find it. what she's actually saying

is proportionate and necessary to protect particularly jewish and muslim individuals and communities, abusive and hateful comments . that's what we're comments. that's what we're talking about here. abusive, though. >> that's difficult, isn't it? because surely in a free society, we have a right to say something that might insult someone else? isn't that part of freedom of speech? yeah, yeah, i think it is. >> and that's what look, this is why these things are a balancing act and this is why it is important you've got to you've got to challenge, you know, we've got to challenge our politicians. absolutely i agree with that. but i don't think we need to be fearful here. it's right that this comes back on the agenda. and i think there is a way. look, we've all policy. it's about how it's implemented. and i think, you know, i think there's a few things here. i think that yvette cooper is a level headed person. i think she understands the complexities here. and i don't think you are going to have i mean, i think it is ridiculous for people to have a criminal record for, you know, retweeting. >> i mean, it's not a criminal. >> it's a record on there and it can affect their job prospects. exactly. >> which is bad, right? >> which is bad, right? >> of course it's wrong. it's ridiculous. >> but the estimates say that roughly a quarter of a million non—crime hate incidents have been recorded since the practice

beganin been recorded since the practice began in 2014. so it's quite obvious, isn't it, that the way the police do this is over the top? and you know , i take the top? and you know, i take the view they shouldn't be investigating non—crime at all. >> i mean, look , this is what >> i mean, look, this is what i would say a that was under the tories and we are now under a different government, the labour government. and i think hopefully we will do this better, number one. but number two, i think there is a broader picture here about how we stop these kind of things. and i think there and i think it's important to say this things like how we teach things like education in schools and all of that. education in schools and all of that . we've got to also talk that. we've got to also talk about that. and i think that is another way. and an important way of dealing with, you know , way of dealing with, you know, hateful, abusive, you know, speech and, and all of those other things. >> susie, thanks ever so much for joining me tonight. really forjoining me tonight. really appreciate it. thank you . and appreciate it. thank you. and next on free speech nation it will be this week's social sensation. so don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nation. it's time for social sensations. that's the part of the show where we look at what's been going viral this week on social media. and first up, we've got this video earlier with the black kid . with the black kid. >> dresses like a writer. does he know anything you are racist . he know anything you are racist. >> okay, i'm not quite sure what that's about, paul. i think it's trying to teach people to be woke, i suppose. >> yeah , and less racist. but by >> yeah, and less racist. but by the way, i'm white. yeah i can't be not racist as robin d'angelo makes clear, it's. i'm born racist. yes, i so maybe if you played that computer game, you would be healed. i didn't understand any of that. >> no, but then it's not really our we're not the demographic are we? >> for computer games? >> for computer games? no, >> for computer games? no, no >> for computer games? no, no , >> for computer games? no, no , i >> for computer games? no, no, i haven't seen that before. >> i don't know what i was watching. >> oh, probably just as well really. but we have got another . really. but we have got another. we've got another one now this of course has been going viral all week. i think it speaks for itself. i think since we said that we would stop friends. >> but i'll admit that i was

glad it was over. >> okay, so that's angela rayner in ibiza, i believe, and she's dancing in the dj booth. you see, if you've got contacts, you get that sort of access, i don't see why anyone cares about that. so what? she's dancing. she's having a good time. why shouldn't politicians be human beings? >> it feels controlled and released to the public. it's like , oh, i'm on holiday, don't like, oh, i'm on holiday, don't film me. but obviously i'm going to end up on the internet. it's to end up on the internet. it's to appeal to the kids, isn't it? >> you think that's what it is? do you think it's that cynical? do you think it's that cynical? do you? >> it doesn't look like she was saying. can you delete that, please? she's obviously very happy about it being out there. >> well, you know, she's a lovely mover. what do you think, paulif lovely mover. what do you think, paul, if she's a good mover or not? >> yeah. i'm not commenting. i have absolutely no issue with it whatsoever. i've tried all week. i've tried to muster up some dislike for this. >> yeah, some people are getting very angry about it. >> i've seen it. people i tend to agree with. i've seen them get quite irate about it, but i don't care. >> no good. me either. glad we

covered that then. all right, let's let's move on. this is the time of the show where we talk through your unfiltered dilemmas. thanks so much for emailing in. as ever, our first dilemma has come in from louis, not louis schaefer , i hope. i'm not louis schaefer, i hope. i'm sure he isn't. he says the marks and spencer three for £8 deli deal has ruined me. it could be louis schaefer. i now have a crippling addiction to rollitos, particularly the chorizo and chilli cheddar ones and the serrano ham and manchego ones. what do i do? i don't know what any of that means. what is that? >> somebody from herman's trying to plug the good stuff. >> sounds like it. what is that stuff? >> i don't know, i don't know , >> i don't know, i don't know, sausage and chilli and stuff. >> all right. so just flavours. so basically , you're saying that so basically, you're saying that he likes them so much that he's spent a lot of money on. well, just a bit of temperance. it's not that difficult, is it? self—restraint, you know. what do you think? >> well, don't come to me for the self—restraint. comment >> what an odd dialect. it's not really a dilemma, is it? no it's not. >> it's a humblebrag, isn't it? yeah, exactly. i can afford all these delicious spanish sounding sausages. >> i think it's someone from m&s selling their goods. okay, we'll

get this dilemma now. this is from tony. tony says i somehow managed to get two oasis tickets. who are you sleeping with? tony. okay. i was supposed to go with my dad , who has had to go with my dad, who has had the liam gallagher paul weller haircut since the millennium. however, i would much rather take a friend. what do i do? i mean, it's tricky. i mean, they are like gold dust, aren't they? i think like a million sold within the first day or something. >> jason said he got one and he wants to swap it for a four bedroom house. >> well, i mean, it's probably about the same value, isn't it? you know. are you a fan of oasis? >> i do fit the mould, don't i? huge fan went to knebworth in 96. oh you did, i did, did the whole thing. you know, loved oasis. i still would like to go. inever oasis. i still would like to go. i never actually tried yesterday. no. so the group of friends i went with in 96, they were all going, and i'm not going with them at the moment, but it crashed the internet. >> from what i hear. but what about this dilemma, though? what should he do? i mean, we haven't got much time, but i think just to take your dad. right. >> maybe. yeah. you know, he'll die on that lovely note, i'm never inviting paul cox again.

>> thanks for joining never inviting paul cox again. >> thanks forjoining us never inviting paul cox again. >> thanks for joining us for free speech nation. this was the week when the new labour government continued its authoritarian drift. kamala harris finally sat down for an interview and angela rayner showed off her dance moves . showed off her dance moves. thanks so much to my panel. paul cox, the dark grim reaper. everyone dies. paul and cressida wetton, and of course to all of my brilliant guests this evening. and if you want to join us live in the studio and be part of our lovely studio audience, that's dead easy. you just go to sro audiences .com, come along. we've got food, we've got drink, we've got company. it's a lot of fun. stay tuned. because the brilliant ben leo tonight that's coming up next. and also please don't forget that headliners is on every night at 11:00. now that is the paper preview show that takes you through the next day's news stories. but the key difference is it has comedians telling you the news so you don't get bored. so do join us for that. cressida's on it. paups for that. cressida's on it. paul's on it. i think paul's on it tonight. >> aren't you on it tonight? >> aren't you on it tonight? >> there we go. so come back at 11:00. make sure that you do that. and please do join us next week for another fantastic

episode of free speech nation. thanks so much forjoining us this week. see you later . this week. see you later. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers, sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello there. welcome to your latest gb news weather forecast from the met office. it stays unsettled over the next 24 hours or so. the risk of heavy showers and thunderstorms staying rather cloudy and particularly humid as well. low pressure in charge of our weather pattern at the moment. slow moving areas of rain across the country. however, this area of high pressure just starts to introduce some fresher air as we move through into the beginning of next week. this evening time, we do have areas of showers and thunderstorms pushing north across england and wales into southern parts of scotland. band of rain also starts to move in from the atlantic to affect parts of northern ireland. humid tonight ,

parts of northern ireland. humid tonight, warm as well with a lot of cloud cover. temperatures in the mid to high. teens uncomfortable for sleeping for some of us. so on monday morning an unsettled start to the new working week. areas of showers pushing northwards across parts of scotland . some of this could of scotland. some of this could lead to some local disruption. first thing cloudy across northern ireland. showery outbreaks of rain here, which also extends into parts of northern england. north wales some thunderstorms around a lot of cloud. humid start to the day. further showers and thunderstorms in places too. across the rest of england and wales through the day. what we'll see is it generally stays cloudy across most areas. there will be some bright or sunny spells in between, but we do have lots of bands of rain and showers pushing north and eastwards through the day. some of this will be heavy and thundery. could see some local disruption temperatures a little lower, particularly in the southeast . 25 degrees, but still southeast. 25 degrees, but still rather humid for many of us and into the evening and overnight. those showers continue. fresher air starts to move in from the

west on tuesday. a mixture of sunny spells and showers. showers most frequent the further north and west you are here, some of them heavy. best of the drier, brighter weather will be further south and east and temperatures just a little lower once more. generally dry for wednesday ahead of further showery rain pushing in for thursday. see you soon. >> looks like things are heating up. boxt boilers sponsors weather

gb news. >> good evening. it's11:00. i'm will hollis in the gb news newsroom. protests in israel as thousands of people in tel aviv and jerusalem fill the streets after the killing of six hostages in gaza. protesters blocked roads while police used water cannons to disperse

crowds. idf soldiers recovered the bodies of the hostages, who israel says were killed. moments before troops reached them. the hostages families forum , which hostages families forum, which represents relatives of those held in gaza , blame the deaths held in gaza, blame the deaths on prime minister netanyahu's failure to secure a deal with hamas back in the uk. the leader of the snp has been speaking on the final day of the party's conference in edinburgh. the keynote speech by scotland's first minister, john swinney, who took over from from former party leader humza yousaf in may, highlighted getting a ceasefire in gaza as a priority to humza, was one of the first and remains a leading voice, demanding an immediate ceasefire and the return safely of all hostages in gaza. >> but the message from this conference be heard loud and clear. the killing of innocent men, women and children must end and it must end now.

>> to germany now. and