by the nhs, children are treated by the nhs, is due to be published in the coming week. health secretary wes streeting set out labour's plan to tackle the nhs crisis . plan to tackle the nhs crisis. >> reform agenda is about is about three big shifts out of hospital into the community, so we get the gp appointments that people need, the social care that people need, care closer to people's homes, better for patients, better for value taxpayers. it's a shift from analogue to digital, so we're not working with outdated systems and allowing the waste in the nhs to go unchallenged. and then thirdly, from sickness to prevention, making sure we're supporting people not to just live longer, but to live well for longer through good public health and prevention measures. those are the pillars of labour's reform agenda . labour's reform agenda. >> meanwhile, shadow health secretary victoria atkins told gb news that she's concerned that labour are using this report to cover their plans to increase taxes. >> concerns me about the way that labour is seeking to report

this report is that they seem to be chasing headlines. you know, lord darzi is a very respected eminent surgeon. of course, he is also , it's fair to say, is also, it's fair to say, a former labour minister and a former labour minister and a former labour minister and a former labour peer. but this report should be about what the state of the of the nhs is and providing solutions. and what worries me is that labour is using this report as cover for the tax rises they plan to raise on us all at the budget in october, oasis have announced they'd send out an invite only registration form for people to join a private ballot for tickets, and this comes after millions of people attempted to obtain tickets last weekend for the band's gigs next summer. >> but many were left disappointed. oasis and ticketmaster have also faced criticism following so—called dynamic pricing being used, leading to an investigation being launched and the king has sent his heartfelt congratulations to the

paralympian athletes from great britain and also northern ireland, and from across the whole commonwealth. ahead of tonight's closing ceremony , his tonight's closing ceremony, his majesty added your example has succeeded in inspiring, encouraging and lifting the hearts of all. while team gb have won a huge number of medals today, including in the kayaking with a gold and a silver in the women's 200 metre kl2, a gold in the women's 200m kl3 and a silver in the men's 200 metre vl3 and those are the latest gb news headlines. for now i'm tatiana sanchez. more from me in an hour for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone , news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com >> forward slash alerts . >> forward slash alerts. >> forward slash alerts. >> the british medical association faces an internal revolt. the bbc has been found to have breached impartiality guidelines and a woman is visited by police for owning an anglo—saxon helmet. this is free

speech nation . welcome to free speech nation. welcome to free speech nation. welcome to free speech nation. welcome to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. this is the show where we take a look at culture, current affairs and politics. and of course, we'll have the latest from those loveable culture warriors. but coming up on the show tonight, new model policy has been announced by sex matters to clarify the use of pronouns in schools, helen joyce will join me to share why they're calling on the department for to education adopt a similar framework. are we seeing the rise of left conservatism? populist parties have experienced success in regional elections in germany and fraser myers from spiked will be here to unpick the results and analyse what this means for european politics more broadly . and as elon musk's broadly. and as elon musk's social media app x is banned in brazil, adf international has asked the inter—american commission on to human rights intervene and overturn the ban. lois mcclatchey miller will be here to tell us all about that.

and of course, i've got a wonderful comedian panel here who are going to be answering questions from this rather lovely studio audience. and my comedian guests this evening are josh howie and lewis schaffer. how are you both? >> very well. >> very well. >> you've been abroad, josh, you're looking very happy and content. >> although on the way out my monique said, my wife said that she'd read an article and she thinks that i'm depressed. what? but it's a specific type of depression. like male depression where you don't show it in any way. oh. so i don't know what she's talking about. >> you can't win in that situation. >> i know she's just. she'sjust >> i know she's just. she's just attacking me, and that's making me depressed. >> and is this why you're a fan of marriage? is this why you. you are. well, no, let's not go into it, actually, because it's quite a dark. >> he's he's the epitome of marriage. he's got five kids. yeah. it's too much. no, he's totally married. >> yeah. have you had a good week, lewis? >> no, no. i mean, my problem is i see you asking me how am i doing? and i always think that that's like a real question, and yet no one cares. >> no, i absolutely care. yeah.

todayi >> no, i absolutely care. yeah. today i flew back from new york, and, boy, your home, of course. >> and boyd is your jet need refuelling. >> yeah, it really does. that's that's that's a we're just going to be about riddles. >> what was in new york for you? >> what was in new york for you? >> well, i went to a sort of an area where, you know, lewis schaffer, sort of pioneered the comedy industry in new york. >> oh, you did okay. did they mention my name? >> lots of people mentioned your name on every street corner. you're very well, beloved. there. you're missed. you should go back. yeah. >> i think you pushed. >> i think you pushed. >> anyway, look, we've got this audience, so let's use them and get some questions. we've got a question from john. where is john? hello? hello, >> has the british medical association lost the plot on the gender issue? yeah. >> i mean, we've spoken a bit about the bma, and of course, they came out and said , you they came out and said, you know, this is obviously the union for doctors throughout the country. and they came out and sort of said the cass review, we need to reject it, even though it's the most significant research into paediatric gender care ever undertaken. and it was done by dame hilary cass, four years, four years and just rejected by the bma. but now

there are signs that within the bma, because a lot of people in the bma weren't happy about this, and there's been an interview for the observer with doctor jackie interview for the observer with doctorjackie davis, interview for the observer with doctor jackie davis, who interview for the observer with doctorjackie davis, who has told the organisation that effectively what this has done is threaten the reputation of the bma. and what do you think of that, josh? because, you know, if they're just rejecting outright scientific studies in favour of pseudoscience, can we trust doctors anymore? >> it's not the doctor. well, it's the leadership of this union. yes. so the question is how culpable are the rest of the doctors out there who are part of this union? and frankly, i think they are, because i'm sure they're sensible. i'm sure they don't want to damage kids, which is exactly what's been going on. and they have allowed this union to be overtaken by ideologues, and now they have to fight back . and now they have to fight back. >> so but a lot of i mean, what this what is it, a leak? it's a whistleblower. whoever it is has said that actually within the broad community of doctors, a lot of people don't agree with this and they're unhappy by the bma. i don't care that they're unhappy or they don't agree. >> do something about it. you have allowed your union that now

that represents all the doctors who take care of all of our health, including the children, to basically take over and spread and perpetuate this ideology that has proven now to be damaging. so, doctors, get off your butt and sort it out. it's your union. >> strong words from josh. harry. yeah. tell lewis he'll have to beat that. >> no , you should tell josh it's >> no, you should tell josh it's a comedy program. oh no, the program is. >> i'm very depressed at the moment, so . moment, so. >> no. >> no. >> lewis, we deal with serious issues as well. it's you know, it's about. >> but he's a comedian, and he should know. >> lewis, the appeal of this show is the blend of comedy and tragedy. >> well, well, that's in me. that's what i have. >> you embody that? yeah. >> you embody that? yeah. >> i mean, what do you want me to say? i think i think number one is this is the problem with this country. they have this cass report, which is one lady getting a lot of money. and for four years, it's. no, it's not true. no, it is, it is. no, it is true. because if it was openly discussed and a more open way, instead of waiting four

years for some lady to come back with her report, it's just like they came back with the grenfell report after seven years, you know, say. and then the guy says, we need to deal with this immediately. it's been seven years. yeah, but sometimes it takes this time. >> i mean, doctor cass was entrusted to look at all of the available evidence into gender affirmative care and found that it was severely wanting and it was a rigorous and comprehensive. >> how do we know anyway? it doesn't matter the point is, is there are different layers of people who are who are on one side or the other. this is a war. i've said it for years now. it's a war on the top level are the people of the government and of the people who are the pushers of these drugs, gender affirming things, which is just giving more money to people to mutilate children? sorry. and that's what it's for. and then maybe some doctors underneath who and the union that supports it. and then there's some doctors. >> who is this the comedy bit. right. yes we do, we do however, have a broader problem, don't we, with with ideologues taking over institutions. >> and it just goes to show that science is not immune. right.

>> it's not they're not ideologues and they're ideologues. >> when you're when you're ignonng >> when you're when you're ignoring scientific evidence and you are supposed to be representing doctors. yes, yes, you're an ideal no, because they think that they're actually helping these kids. >> they believe they do. that's what they think the evidence doesn't support. if a if a three year old is saying, i'm a girl and they were born, let's say with boy things is that is that you're doing them a disservice by not getting them on the path. >> young children say an awful lot of stuff. yes. and we don't just affirm it. >> that's the other side. you're you're you're basically de—man, tuc, whatever. you're reducing the you know, the word you don't you don't get to make the point. >> let's move on to a question from anton. where's anton? hi, anton. >> do you think the bbc should be more robust about their presenting? >> well, i mean, the bbc, of course, this week has announced that they're. well, they're cutting ioo that they're. well, they're cutting 100 jobs. however however, they're also spending about £80 million on a diversity drive. now your diversity hire. yes >> you know what? you make a

joke about it. but. but it is true. i'm like, i was unhirable in america, but you know. >> but you are. you're an immigrant. your ethnicity. yes. >> you're old. yes. >> he's also slightly insane. and unemployable as you admit yourself different to say you go on to other things which we can't mention on air. yeah and i won't mention the criminal record or anything, but what do you think about. no. well, what do you think about this? does the bbc need to be really need to be spending another 80 million on on a diversity drive? because i would have thought that the bbc is already diverse enough. isn't it? >> the bbc should spend whatever money it has that that it doesn't get from me to spend it any way it wants. you pay your licence fee? no, i don't pay it. >> do you watch the tv? >> do you watch the tv? >> no, i don't watch tv. >> no, i don't watch tv. >> okay, okay. >> okay, okay. >> no, i don't, i don't watch any of those programmes. >> and you know, you watch yourself on, on repeat. basically, you're like, yeah, like that woman in a sunset boulevard. >> i don't even watch myself. i'm horrible. oh, really? but but unlike josh, who thinks he's amazing and. i'm depressed.

lewis >> now, josh, do you think 80 million diversity. you see, the thing about we know from all the studies that actually in terms of minority ethnic sexual, whatever, all categories are overrepresented, not just on screen but also on bbc staff. yeah. so why do they need to spend even more money for a problem that doesn't exist? >> no, exactly. they want it to go behind the scenes from 20 to 25%. they already spent 250 million on diversity. that 80 million on diversity. that 80 million should be spent on making the best shows possible. >> it will never catch on. >> it will never catch on. >> it will never catch on. >> it should not be. no, it should not be. you should reject it. the bbc is the state propaganda network. that's what they do. they they come. they come from the team world philosophy of telling. they think they know better than we do, than the people know. we shouldn't be watching it. we shouldn't be watching it. we shouldn't be watching it. we shouldn't be paying for it. we shouldn't be paying for it. we shouldn't be paying for it. we shouldn't be having it. >> well, for a bit of balance, let's get a statement from a bbc spokesperson who says, we have been clear that the significant funding pressures we face means that every division in the bbc needs to make savings. while challenging. we aim to make these savings as far as possible

through voluntary redundancy, and we can confirm that we expect to deliver the changes without closing any major services. >> right. but what they're doing is, is i didn't check the actual numbers, but, you know, the people that they're firing are going to be older white men. they're going to they're going to be. we don't know that i know it, of course you know it. that's a supposition. and then where is the money going to diversity hire. so they're basically they're saying, look at us. we fired 80 white guys. and now maybe that's why i can't get a job there. >> that's not the only reason. let's move on to a question from mike t. where's mike t hi, mike, is the bbc biased in its reporting of gaza? okay. all right. this is a we're going to open a can of worms here because i think i think definitely. and we've now just had a report into the coverage. and they took four months worth of coverage from the bbc. and this is kind of an incredible result because this was a trevor asserson who's a lawyer, found that the bbc had breached its own editorial guidelines. more than 1500

times. so just like we've heard of the occasional, you know , of the occasional, you know, newsworthy breach, like , for newsworthy breach, like, for instance, when the bbc claimed that the idf were targeting medics in a hospital in gaza , medics in a hospital in gaza, which was completely false, and the 500 people can be killed, and then it turns out it was actually a yeah, a missile from, from islamic fundamentalists. >> and, and it hit a car park. right. >> exactly. so these are checkable things. it's anti—semitic propaganda, which they then had to apologise. i mean, they admitted the mistake and apologised and all the rest of it, but 1500 breaches. what's going on? so, yeah , mistakes going on? so, yeah, mistakes happen and that's going to be across any news organisation. >> right. of course. but this is the first ever like systemic evidence of what people have seen all the time. but to see it like that presented in numbers and sort of black and white, just shows the, the there is just shows the, the there is just constant evidence of reporters working for the bbc outwardly supporting hamas. this

is again taxpayers money, our money going to pay their wages. and it's by and by the way, this isn't just something that's happened since in the last year this has been i was on this show three years ago talking about how bbc news accused young jewish teenagers of being racist towards these people. and it turns out they hadn't. it was proven. and the jewish board of depufies proven. and the jewish board of deputies had to get british board of jewish deputies had to get on and hire a, a linguist to come and prove this audiotape didn't say that, that it was actually they were speaking in hebrew, all this stuff. the point is, this stuff goes back decades. and this is, again, ideologically driven. and what makes it so frustrating is that they are meant to be impartial and that is that's in their charter. that's exactly. so it's a betrayal of the charter. it's a betrayal of the charter. it's a betrayal of the charter. it's a betrayal of the people who pay for that. and it's also anti—semitic. it's leading to hatred towards jews out there. >> i get that you're going to have in the in the organisation

lots of people with different opinions. but so what? it's about impartiality. is it true at the moment that still the bbc does not refer to hamas as terrorists, even though that is factually true? they are a proscribed terrorist organisation by the uk government, so it's wrong not to refer to them in that way. >> they had to be pulled, kicking and screaming to refer to them now as they have been proscribed as a terrorist organisation. they used that's exactly which. they don't always fall into. >> i mean, again, this comes back to the question of ideological capture, doesn't it? i mean, and i think from what you've said, lewis, you're not a fan of the bbc, right? >> no, i'm not i'm not a fan of the bbc and nobody who watches. well, i mean, if you if you want to choose to be on the bbc side, of course you can. they say 40,000 a side, right. >> they shouldn't have a side. >> they shouldn't have a side. >> they shouldn't have a side. >> the bbc, everyone has a side. but at least we need to know who. the person who's fronting the money. and that's their side. but the fact is they're sitting there saying that they're impartial. nobody can be impartial. organisations can't be impartial. no individual. >> i agree that no individual can be impartial. but when you have an organisation whose charter is all about impartiality and that's their

responsibility, they have they have not to do something. >> they have not been impartial since they were founded in 1920, whatever year they started, this is a failure. >> i mean, the same goes it isn't a failure. >> it's they're they are on they are not on our team. they want to kill jews. >> no, no, i don't agree with that at all. lewis of course they don't want to kill jews. that's a preposterous thing to say. >> okay, but that's the point. but it is systemic. this is not like just 1 or 2 cases. this is across the board. and the real problem is, of course, that they mark their own homework. >> so if someone complains about it, they go, oh yeah, we're going to look at it. >> we're going to look at it. it doesn't go to ofsted. >> the bbc have to approve before it goes to ofcom. when there's a complaint, it's ridiculous. and it's not just by the way, it's not just the question of israel and the middle east generally. it's also the gender issue. they've just recently announced a gender identity correspondent who wrote an article that was full of factual errors and full of ideological statements masquerading as fact. so it's that that question as well. well, you have a real problem with what you or me, if we go there and we say they're reporters and they should be held to a higher standard,

that's just giving in to them. >> they're not reporters. they work. they work for emotion. >> lewis. >> lewis. >> it's not even okay. but. >> it's not even okay. but. >> but what i'm saying. >> but what i'm saying. >> comedy. comedy >> comedy. comedy >> but what i would say is, i think there are a lot of people in the bbc who are trying their best, but there are also a lot of people who have to, you know, they've got a whole identity. >> i was asked, i was veto stuff. i was asked to do some programme on itv. yeah, okay. and when you work on itv you're helping rtv. you can't you're chosen to work for those people. they've chosen to hire you. and the truth is, is those people they're taking our money. i say to them , i don't care. you want to them, i don't care. you want you want to pay the money, you pay the money. i can't, i can't. >> well, lewis seems to think that bbc is irredeemable. is it possible that it's fixable? this. >> well , i this. >> well, i mean, there was a report that came out 20 that they self—financed 20 years ago looking into this, and they never released it, proving how biased they were against israel. they wouldn't release it, and they actually had to be taken to court, and they still wouldn't release it. >> maybe with this report they'll actually do something about it. it's too glaring. it's too overt already. >> they're trying to say, oh, the data they're doing what the,

the, the british medical association are doing with acas. they're trying to poo poo it. and rather than just going, you know what, we've got a problem. let's sort it out. yeah. >> okay. >> okay. >> no, they're not going to sort it out. >> the people here i think i have to give her. sorry. i don't want to cut you off. obviously it's a free speech show. although there are limits. the limit is lewis schaffer basically. i don't know why he's here. >> should i say i'm sorry? should i say i'm sorry if you if you if you apologies ring very hollow. but there's still an apology. is if you sit there and you want to support hamas , then you want to support hamas, then you want to support hamas, then you want to kill jews. it's as simple as that. i hate to say it. >> okay, now you've clarified. that does make sense. of course. yeah, it does make sense because thatis yeah, it does make sense because that is in the hamas charter. yes it is number one. >> the first thing is we want to eliminate the from from israel or from anywhere from everywhere. >> all right. well, if only if you'd have said it that clearly before, we wouldn't have a problem. >> well, okay. >> well, okay. >> well, okay. >> we do have a statement from the bbc. they've said we have serious questions about the methodology of this report, particularly its heavy reliance on al to analyse impartiality and its interpretation of the bbc's editorial guidelines. i think they're quite clear,

aren't they? the editorial guidelines? okay. we don't think coverage can be assessed solely by counting particular words divorced from context. however, we will consider the report carefully and respond directly to the as they throw it into the toilet, as they throw it into the. you know what i mean? i know what you think about this, lewis. anyway, let's get one more question quickly from luke. where's luke? >> good evening guys. should the possession of anglo—saxon artefacts be against the law? >> yeah. i mean, this is bizarre. so this is, the organisation fair cop, who we've had on the show a number of times, has reported that a 19 year old woman was visited by an anti—terrorist unit and merseyside police. this week. she wasn't told what she was accused of , but she was accused of, but she was reportedly asked about her politics and why she owned an anglo—saxon replica helmet. why that was in the house they confiscated property, including a replica decorative sword which was hanging on her parents wall, and apparently the officer reportedly said to her, bite your tongue before talking

online. now all of the stuff we've been talking about, josh, about the heavy handed policing of people's opinions. this, if true, is insane, isn't it? >> well, we don't know exactly. like it's the counter—terrorist unit, so it's like i want more information. so do i about, you know, before i go into it, i will say that owning i mean, it might be a sexual thing owning the helmet . the helmet. >> i don't know why you would want to own that, but. >> well, i don't know how you have sex, but sometimes you need hair. >> but, josh, we can't really be scrutinise people's possessions. i mean, you've got a house full of board games. >> i don't use them to make love, but. >> well, that's not what i hear. yeah. lewis, any thoughts on anglo—saxon helmets? >> well, the truth is , the >> well, the truth is, the anglo—saxons were invaders to britain and they brought unbelievable harm to to the the what is called today welsh

population. >> the british population. anglo—saxons are un—british and so maybe they should be destroyed . destroyed. >> but i think i think there have been quite a while ago. anyway okay. we have got this statement from merseyside police has said we can confirm that the officers who attended were from counter—terrorism police north west, as part of enquiries into an investigation they are carrying out. so we'll keep an eye on it as josh says, we don't have enough details. i think he's absolutely right about that, but an interesting case nonetheless. next up on free speech nation, a model new policy has been created by the organisation sex matters to provide clarity on the use of pronouns in schools. helen joyce is going to join me shortly, and we'll be calling on the department for to education adopt similar measures. so please don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. sex matters has written a new

model policy for schools in an aim to provide guidance on gender confused children and issues such as pronoun use. many consider this a grey area as to whether teachers should be legally required to use a child's preferred pronouns. the organisation's policy against such a move explains that if teachers did use a child's preferred pronouns, it would encourage the expectation that the status of the child's sex and requirement to follow sex based rules have changed or will change during their school career. so with me now to discuss this model policy is the director of advocacy at sex matters , helen joyce, welcome matters, helen joyce, welcome back to the show. thanks for having me on. so helen, we've been looking at this schools guidance for a long time. schools have been crying out for guidance for ages. and finally, the tory government got round to it. there was a draft form. where are we now with the guidance. >> so the tory government, as you say, published a draft for consultation. that consultation came back, it was analysed and the results were sent privately. we haven't seen them to the dfe about a half a second before somebody called a snap election.

>> right. i see, so yes. so what, what was the broad element of the guidance and what sort of things were they suggesting we should do? >> they seem to have worked on it for years and years quite hard. and what they got to the point of was understanding that you know what kids are both boys and girls and boys can't become girls and girls can't become boys, right? they worked out that you can't tell the boys they can use the girls spaces and vice versa. you can't get the boys to play the girls sports and vice versa. but they got stuck on this idea that you might call the boys girls and the girls boys. >> so that's interesting, because what you're describing there are surely legally , there are surely legally, legally protected spaces in schools. and yet we've had a lot of schools just sort of making it up as they go along more than making it up as they go along. >> what they've been doing is taking dictation from the trans lobby. organisations like stonewall and mermaids have claimed that it would be discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment. if you don't let a boy who thinks he's a girl use the girls spaces, and missing the point that actually there's legal requirements on schools to provide girl only spaces , and letting boys in spaces, and letting boys in would be discrimination on

grounds of sex. also very unsafe. >> yes, of course i mean, it's not just about the potential for sexual assault. we've seen the case going on in county loudoun in virginia, but also just privacy and dignity. and i'm sure teenage girls just don't want to be sharing their spaces with boys, right? >> no, i mean, you've been a teacher. yeah. boys and girls are different in many ways. and one of the ways is that boys are messrs. >> yes, yes. »- >> yes, yes. >> and they're messrs. in the loos, as well, like they do. they do things like, you know, wadding up the toilet paper and throwing it over the top of the toilets and things in a way that girls don't quite do. no. >> they're barbarians, i know that. absolutely true. but you said it, not i, but no, this guidance is really, really important because i know a lot of school teachers who used to be a school teacher myself, a lot of people don't know what they should be doing. and a lot of schools appear to have taken the approach that we will socially transition the children. that's right. we will use the pronouns they prefer the names that they prefer. but am i right in thinking that the cass review did quite explicitly state that that could be a psychological intervention that could have damaging consequences? >> it is a psychological intervention, and the cass review said, yes, that could be. but it's not quite exactly that

that we're saying we're saying schools are institutions that deal with children. children can't change sex. everybody has a sex. everybody has sex based rules. so mostly you don't discriminate between children on the basis of their sex you don't like. it's not like when i was a little girl and you taught the boys woodworking and the girls cooking, you know, that would be direct sex discrimination. we don't do that anymore. yes. so when you separate boys and girls, when you have a rule about boys and girls, there always has to be a reason. and that reason can't be set aside because that child is confused about their sex, because the reason has to have been there for something meaningful. yes. so you would be putting the trans identifying child or the gender confused child outside the normal framework that is there for a reason. and that reason is often to keep children safe . safe. >> so then what do you do with a child who is suffering from confusion? and they feel that if a teacher doesn't use their preferred pronouns, that is a form of abuse or an insulting approach, that that one's a difficult one, especially if you've already started down that path. >> and we think that the dfe is going to have to give schools guidance on how to wind back

from when they've got this wrong. yes. but when it comes down to it, the fact is there are sex based rules and you know , are sex based rules and you know, rules are written in words and they're conveyed in words. and teachers make sure that children are sticking to the rules by using words. so if you say, oh, this boy is really a girl and i'm going to call him she, but he's not allowed to go into the girls spaces, like, how are you doing this? there's a sort of a contradiction here that you're saying you know, priscilla's a lovely girl like all the other girls , but she's the sort of girls, but she's the sort of girls, but she's the sort of girl who can't go into the girls toilets. well, what's the reason? well, because she's that sort of girl. yes. no, it's because she's a boy. >> you know, i don't think people appreciate what's been going on in schools. i mean, i had a school teacher, friend of mine saying that he was told by his headmistress to lie to the parents effectively. in other words, use the names that the child wanted, but not to do so on the report. home. yeah that really compromises the teachers. well, ethical position, doesn't it? >> so that's a good link to something else that this government has got. right. i mean, you asked what's happening with the schools guidance and the answer is that it's with the dfe. and i mean, i'm not worried

about that. there's been a summer, there's been an election. we're now in autumn. i hope that they're going to deal with it. and, you know, i don't think they've delayed at this point what they have done that's really, really good is they have finalised something else that sounds like really small technical thing, but is actually very large. so alongside this schools guidance, there's a separate thing which is called keeping children safe in education. that's statutory guidance. and it's the most important thing that teachers do. it's about safeguarding. and that's from the dfe. yes. and as i say it's statutory . if i say it's statutory. if a teacher disobeys this that's disciplinary. and you could get struck off right, right. and in it at the behest of stonewall some years ago, they put in a thing that said, if a child is lgbt, that's not a safeguarding risk . but lgb lgbt, that's not a safeguarding risk. but lgb and t are different. >> yes . >> yes. >> yes. >> like lgb isn't in itself a safeguarding risk , like safeguarding risk, like a child's usually a teenager. a teenager's sexuality isn't in itself a safeguarding risk. the risk might be if there's an adult, usually a man, grooming or of course interacting the wrong way. and that's a safeguarding risk. t is pretty

much always a safeguarding risk, right? >> can you explain why ? >> can you explain why? >> can you explain why? >> well, t means that you think if you're a boy, you think you might be a girl or you're unhappy being a boy or and the other way around? yes, you might be looking for drugs online. you might be to talking strangers online. you might want to breast bind . at the very least, you're bind. at the very least, you're not comfortable in yourself . not comfortable in yourself. yes. so that's the sort of thing you'd tell a parent, of course. but schools, as you say, have been under this impression that it's something you don't talk to. parents about because you might out the child. right. that's what might be the danger. >> and that's very interesting because the idea of lgbt as, as you say, these are very, very different ideas. the idea of sexual orientation and gender identity have nothing at all to do with each other. so actually, that's a really significant linguistic shift, isn't it? >> it is. and they aren't even saying t what they're saying is children with gender distress or children with gender distress or children who are unhappy about their sex, or i forget the exact wording, but it's they're moving away from the concept that there is such a thing as a trans child. yes and it really gives me heart that the dfe is doing

this because, you know, i bet you that was a fight behind the scenes. you know, i don't know, but it was a fight behind the scenes under the tories. so i bet you it's a fight now. >> yes, absolutely. well let's talk a bit about that because the labour government, historically speaking, or at least i say historically the last ten years or so have not been really on top of these issues. they've been very disappointing when it comes to the gender identity issue. they seem to be taking this kind of this faith in such a thing as gender identity and saying that's more important than sex. but we've seen a slight change now with wes streeting response to the cass review, do you think that labour is moving in the right direction on this? >> well, i'd start by saying that i think that most politicians have been very disappointing. i mean, remember the tories were in government since 2010. all of this happened under their watch. yes. you know, we cannot say, oh, they were doing brilliantly. and in comes to labour mess it all up. absolutely. theresa may was the person who wanted gender self—id. but as you say, wes streeting really does seem to get it. so he, you know, he accepted the findings of the cass review and he has continued the ban on puberty blockers, and that's under a great deal of

pressure. so, jolyon maughams good law project, for example, jolyon maugham tweeted about how there would be parents would be coming and putting the ashes of their children outside the department of health. if wes streeting continued in the path that he was going. >> that's such a reckless thing to say. i know, and i know what this is like. >> i personally know what it's like when people say that because of what i say, i'm causing the deaths of children. it's the most painful thing someone can say to you. it's a wicked and vicious thing to do. and wes streeting has had that since he became health secretary, and he has stood up. >> and that's something that the cass review did directly address. there is no evidence for this, this idea that these children will kill themselves unless you use the names they want you to use. >> more than that, the evidence is. that's not correct. right. like we've debunked that. that was a false claim. >> that's hugely significant. as well, because that has been a thing that has been parroted by politicians over and over. a lot of it's fear, isn't it? i suppose. yeah. >> i mean, i think the thing is that the worst thing that could happen as a parent is that your child dies and my sympathy goes out to anyone. this has happened to in any circumstances. of

course. you know, as a parent myself, i can't imagine the pain they're going through. yes, but to then use that fear of that pain to basically manipulate and emotionally blackmail parents into doing something that we now know does not help. yes, it's a wicked thing to do, but we've seen, haven't we? >> so many groups just ignoring the evidence of the cass review we saw with the bma. of course, we saw with the bma. of course, we were discussing that earlier in the show. so is anything actually going to change? because i know when the draft consultant consultation period was was underway , there were was was underway, there were activist groups telling teachers you should ignore the guidelines. is this thing that is just is it just impervious at this point? >> i mean, it took a long time to get it in. i think of it as like bindweed or japanese knotweed, you know, and i spent the afternoon gardening. if anyone can see my nails, they're anyone can see my nails, they're a disgrace. they all broke and they're all dirty. you know, pulling weeds out is just an endless task. and what happened is we allowed this to spread everywhere, and now we have to pick it out. i do think we can do it, but i think we just have to keep pushing and it really

heartens me that wes streeting understands that. and then that. bridget phillipson at the dfe, the dfe has kept this guidance about keeping children safe. i hope that that's a sign that the schools guidance will be too . schools guidance will be too. good and what we've done in our model policy, the point of it is to operationalise what the dfe's draft guidance will say. yes, because every bit of ambiguity gets manipulated and taken advantage of by the trans lobby. >> so you're saying you should foolproof this? >> in other words, yes . and what >> in other words, yes. and what we would like to see is that the dfe says to schools, to school leaders who are often much more sensible than school teachers because they're the ones who talk to the lawyers and the insurers and the like. we're saying to the dfe operationalise this, right, a model policy tells schools that if they follow it and they get sued because of course, there are activist parents as well. we'll stand behind you . right. and stand behind you. right. and then schools will step in line. it won't matter whether it's statutory or non—statutory. what schools want to know is to be told what to do and to be told it's legally safe. yes. well helen, thanks for clarifying that for us. >> is there any way that people can find out more about it on

the sex matters website? yes. >> if you go to our website, which is sex matters.org, you can download it. and we'd love people absolutely love it if you gave it to your own school and went in to talk to them about it. >> fantastic. helen joyce, thanks so much forjoining me. and next on free speech nation . and next on free speech nation. german regional elections have made the headlines in recent weeks and fraser myers will be joining me to unpick the results and look at what trends can be uncovered. please don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nation. later in the show, i'm going to be turning agony uncle with the help of my panel, josh howie and louis schaefer , and howie and louis schaefer, and we'll help you deal with your unfiltered dilemmas. so if you've got a problem, just message us at gbnews.com/yoursay and we'll deal with your issues. the historic victory of the afd alternative for germany in

thuringia last week has been widely discussed in a story that hasn't received as much attention. another party, the bfw, had striking success coming third in both saxony and thuringia. both parties have a populist base, but they come from different ends of the political spectrum the afd from the right, while the bfw was recently formed by the german left. so to discuss the consequences of these parties success is the deputy editor of spiked fraser myers . thanks for spiked fraser myers. thanks for coming on the show. >> thanks for having me . >> thanks for having me. >> thanks for having me. >> so this seems to be evidence of what we've been seeing all along. across europe throughout for over a number of years now. the rise of what they call populism. would that be fair? >> absolutely. populism is surging across europe and in germany in particular. germany is supposed to be a very, you know, boring, stable, sensible country. and yet even there , country. and yet even there, people are voting for populist alternatives . these state alternatives. these state elections were anticipated for a long time . this is when the afd long time. this is when the afd was expected to make a big breakthrough. there's been a lot of nervousness about it for months and months, in the german

establishment. but, you know, we all expected the afd to come first and they came second in thuringia. they came second in saxony. but as you said before, what's been really interesting is the rise of this other force coming third in both places. the wagenknecht alliance or the bfw for short, which is kind of a left conservative party, which is kind of that might need a bit of unpacking , but essentially, of unpacking, but essentially, how does that work? >> is that not an oxymoron? >> is that not an oxymoron? >> it sounds a bit, but actually it's traditionally left wing in terms of economic policies. so favouring, you know, redistribution and things like that , but a redistribution and things like that, but a bit more conservative in terms of social policies . so the woman who leads policies. so the woman who leads it, zahawi arconic, is named the party after herself. it's a bit of a cult of personality around her. >> well, macron did that with macron did exactly, exactly with en marche, >> but basically she is a stalwart of the left. she has been involved in delhi—ncr, which is the germany's, germany's left wing party, further to the left than their centre left government like if we had the corbynistas had a party. yes, and they actually are a successor to even the east german communist party. she was involved way back in, you know,

left wing politics even in the days of communism. yes, but what she's realised is that the left has completely abandoned the working class, it's become what she calls lifestyle leftism. it obsesses over questions of, you know, people's consumption habhs know, people's consumption habits over identity politics, all things that are either not of any interest to working class people, but also in many ways antagonise working class people. you know, it's what we what it's actually what we would call over here woke basically. >> so might might a sensible comparison to be the sdp or to a party of that kind. >> i think that would be a very sensible comparison in this country. yes. where you have this sort of blend of left wing politics, but more, you know, social conservatism. yes. but really, i mean, what she would say is that it's the left that's changed, not me , because, you changed, not me, because, you know, the left wasn't always, you know , insanely going on you know, insanely going on about race, gender, those kinds of issues. i mean, they cared about equal rights, as sarah arconic does. yes. you know , she arconic does. yes. you know, she is one of the big issues, for instance, to give you an

example, is, is immigration, you know, the left now favours open borders. she doesn't the left and many left wing parties traditionally wanted to limit migration, partly for, you know, economic reasons to , you know, economic reasons to, you know, not have an unrestricted supply of labour. she very much falls into, into that kind of camp. yes, but she's not anti—migrant. so, you know, she herself comes from an iranian background. many of the leading party members are from migrant backgrounds. she's anti—racist, but not, you know, pro—open borders. and i think it's entirely possible to have that position, but that feels more authentically left to me, you know? >> you know, we have a left now that obsesses, as you say, with identity politics and the nofions identity politics and the notions of race, gender, sexuality. and it's very bourgeois and working class voters don't care about your pronouns. they care about whether they can feed their kids. >> yeah, and she wrote a book. absolutely tearing into this new sort of middle class left. the book was called the self—righteous. it won her a lot of enemies in her old party. and then it it kind of got to the point where she felt she had to

leave and start her own, her own movement. and it's interesting because people will say, oh, you know, the culture wars don't matter. the culture wars don't win elections. but actually, here's an example of where it's quite clear that lots of, you know, older working class people who are still loyal to her old party, they're now voting for her, the breakaway version, because they're seeing that actually, this is much more in line with what they want. and she you know, she says we have to meet people where they are. we shouldn't be preaching as politicians. we shouldn't be preaching to people telling them what to do. we should be, you know , giving people what they know, giving people what they want, you know, making people focusing on people's living people's living standards, essentially not, you focusing on people's living standards, essentially not, you know, not questions of personal know, not questions of personal morality or their consumption morality or their consumption habits. >> and finally, fraser, do you habits. >> and finally, fraser, do you think that this is indicative of think that this is indicative of some kind of trend that we might some kind of trend that we might see across europe when it comes see across europe when it comes to tackling what we might call to tackling what we might call the woke ideology? i suppose i the woke ideology? i suppose i think so, and i think it's also think so, and i think it's also a sign of the fact that the a sign of the fact that the populist movement is going to populist movement is going to get broader. >> it can't just be down to the get broader. >> it can't just be down to the right to or, you know, to right to or, you know, to challenge the establishment consensus or to challenge woke. challenge the establishment consensus or to challenge woke. and one of the fascinating and one of the fascinating things that's happened here in things that's happened here in

these elections is that it these elections is that it didn't dent the afd's vote. there are more people out there who want to vote for populist parties who might think , oh, the parties who might think, oh, the fd is a bit dodgy. yes. you know, they they're members and, you know, leading figures have said some dodgy things. and you see that across europe there are some parties that, you know, they are slightly a bit out there on the right, but people want you're using them as a weapon and maybe something more socially acceptable, or maybe something that aligns with people's values, you know, will be a better, more useful vehicle for that, for that, for channelling that anger. >> well, let's hope i think that's a really positive thing. fraser myers thanks so much for joining me . and next on free joining me. and next on free speech nation

for welcome back to free speech nafion for welcome back to free speech nation with me andrew doyle

filmmaker vaishnavi sundar has become well known for her work on gender ideology, particularly focusing on trans widows. her new documentary , behind the new documentary, behind the looking glass, looks at the lives of women whose partners have or want to transition. let's take a look at a short clip here about the women who stay. >> some of them will now say that they're lesbians. the story of women that leave is hardly covered at all. >> joining me now is the director of lime soda films , director of lime soda films, vaishnavi sundar. welcome to the show. thank you so much for having me, angela. so congratulations on the film. perhaps you could just tell us a little bit about it. >> sure. it was three years in the making, and we had a worldwide premiere on the 30th of august. so in about eight days of time, we are heading towards 100,000 views. we have been successfully shadowbanned and demonetised by youtube. so which means i could call it a hit . hit. >> absolutely. now this is something that people have mentioned to me before that whenever they put something up

that youtube doesn't approve of ideologically , that or any of ideologically, that or any of the social media platforms indeed that they will stifle its reach. but where can people see it to sort of circumvent this ? it to sort of circumvent this? >> well, it is available on youtube at the moment, but they're not able to search for they're not able to search for the film if they type in the words on the search bar. but you know, it is there on my channel. and apart from that, i have on my social media made sure that the links are available plenty everywhere in every tweet i post and thankfully the feminists have been really encouraging in that they have been doing their bit and sharing it and promoting it everywhere possible. so if you just look it up, it's available. it'sjust you just look it up, it's available. it's just going to it's just going to take us a little bit more time to find because of the shadow ban. >> now of course, in terms of the substance of the film, you've spoken with, there's a lot of interviews with what you call trans widows, and people might not be familiar with this, this, this concept. perhaps you could explain what is meant by that. >> transmitters has been the terminology that these women have collectively decided to use

for themselves. they identify with this terminology because it has just brought them together worldwide. people have been able to associate themselves to the word widows because they feel like their partners have pretty much died, because in one sense, you could say that it is so because if you call them by their previous name , apparently their previous name, apparently it is dead naming. but somehow the wives of these men aren't allowed to call themselves trans widow, so they get a lot of stick for it because from real widows , that is because widows, that is because apparently it is offensive to do so. but then it really is a terminology that has brought them all together and if that is what has brought them together, then that should continue to use it. i feel it's basically just women whose partners have died or have or want to transition, really, and they consider themselves trans widows worldwide in terms of your investigation for the film and speaking with these women, what kind of impressions have you gleaned from from their experiences ? well, it is of experiences? well, it is of particular interest to me

because i've always centred women in all my projects and violence against women has been one of my one of the very important topics that i've touched upon in all my projects. in this particular case, there are multiple layers, even though it is considered domestic violence, where the husbands are being abusive. in any other scenario, these women would have been given the platform to speak about it would be provided with help and assistance to come away from this abusive relationship . from this abusive relationship. but when it comes to this particular situation, they aren't allowed to talk about it, their speech is stifled and they aren't even allowed to say that they are being abused because they are being abused because the person who is abusing is this stunning and brave trans identified male, so they aren't allowed to talk about it. they aren't allowed to reach out to other women because they are considered to be liars, and they are being accused of making this whole transition thing about themselves, while all the women are doing is just saying, don't abuse me. i don't want to be part of this relationship. let me out. >> so they have the trauma of the situation of the relationship coming to an end in this wildly unexpected way . and

this wildly unexpected way. and then in addition to that, they are abused for speaking out about it. is that what you mean ? about it. is that what you mean? >> yes, you're absolutely right. and when they seek out help in the form of, say, therapy or in support groups and things like that, they are being told that they should affirm their husband's views. they are being told that they are supposed to just enjoy this because many women apparently enjoy this as part of their sexual activity. so they should just be quiet . so they should just be quiet. and probably one one woman was told that she should have a tranquilliser and just get on with it. >> wow. okay well, i think everyone should see the film. it's called behind the looking glass and you can find it on lime soda films, youtube channel. is that right? >> yes, that is correct . >> yes, that is correct. >> yes. fantastic. vaishnavi, thanks so much forjoining me. really appreciate it. >> thank you so much, andrew. thank you . thank you. >> so that's the end of the first hour on free speech nation. but please don't go away. there's a lot more to come between now and 9:00. don't go anywhere .

anywhere. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on . gb news. >> hello there. welcome to your latest gb news weather from the met office. low pressure has beenin met office. low pressure has been in charge , bringing heavy been in charge, bringing heavy rain and thunderstorms. some localised flooding does stay unsettled next week, but the winds turn to a northerly direction and it turns increasingly cold, particularly by the middle of the week. low pressure at the moment still giving outbreaks of heavy rain across southeast scotland, northern england down into wales, parts of the midlands as well. thundery showers across the southeast and as we head overnight, this will slowly pushes its way eastward. still some heavy bursts of rain possible. dry across northern ireland and scotland with a few showers here under the clearest skies across scotland, temperatures dipping into single figures elsewhere under the cloud and rain holding up around 12 to 14 celsius. so much of england and wales starting quite cloudy. outbreaks of rain but

clearer skies across scotland. a few showers across the highlands and islands, but some bright spells elsewhere. just so still some thicker cloud across the southeast with some patchy rain in places. bright skies across to northern ireland start monday morning, though rather cloudy across much of england , though. across much of england, though. sunny spells starting to develop across wales and the west country first thing on monday morning and then through the day. the bright spells across the west just slowly start to push eastwards. it does mean, though, central eastern parts of england staying cloudy for longest, the cloud thick enough for some outbreaks of rain at times. sunny spells across northern england, wales, the west country though starting to cloud over across northern ireland and scotland, with rain arriving in the west later on in the day. temperatures cooler for all, generally near average for the time of year 16 to 18 celsius, perhaps locally 20 towards the southeast. turning more unsettled on tuesday as a weather system pushes southeastward, some outbreaks of rain showers following the southeastward, some outbreaks of rain showers following the winds, picking up some strong winds, picking up some strong and gusty winds across northern and gusty winds across northern

and gusty winds across northern and western parts of the uk as and gusty winds across northern and western parts of the uk as well. starting to feel colder, well. starting the and that cold theme continues through the week ahead as well. temperatures falling below average for the time of year. see you soon! >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers. sponsors of weather on gb some outbreaks of

the world. earlier today, the king and queen attended a church ceremony near balmoral , where ceremony near balmoral, where the late queen was a regular worshipper. they were there for a sunday service with prayer and remembrance of his late mother, who passed at the age of 96. the prime minister has hit out at the previous government this morning, saying the nhs has been broken in ways that he called unforgivable. these comments come as a labour commissioned review into how children are treated by the nhs , is due to be treated by the nhs, is due to be published in the coming week. health secretary wes streeting set out labour's plan to tackle the nhs crisis. >> former gender is about is about three big shifts out of hospital into the community, so we get the gp appointments that people need, the social care that people need, care closer to people's homes, better for patients, better value for taxpayers. it's a shift from analogue to digital . so we're analogue to digital. so we're not working with outdated systems and allowing the waste in the nhs to go unchallenged.

and then thirdly, from sickness to prevention, making sure we're supporting people not just to live longer, but to live well for longer through good public health and prevention measures. those are the pillars of labour's reform agenda. >> meanwhile , shadow health >> meanwhile, shadow health secretary victoria atkins told gb news that she is concerned that labour are using this report to cover their plans to increase taxes . increase taxes. >> concerns me about the way that labour is seeking to report this report is that they seem to be chasing headlines. you know , be chasing headlines. you know, lord darzi is a very respected, eminent surgeon. of course he is. also, it's fair to say, a former labour minister and a former labour minister and a former labour minister and a former labour peer. but this report should be about what the state of the, of the nhs is. and providing solutions. and what worries me is that labour is using this report as cover for the tax rises they plan to raise on us all at the budget in october. >> and lastly , police are

>> and lastly, police are investigating the unexplained deaths of a woman and child in cornwall. devon and cornwall police said officers were called by the ambulance service just after 10:00 this morning, following a report of concern for the welfare of two people in the bodmin area. the force said emergency services were called to a property in the fletchers bridge area, where a woman and a child were both given medical treatment, but both were confirmed dead at the scene and those are the latest gb news headlines. for now, i'm tatiana sanchez. now it's time for a free speech nation for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com >> forward slash alerts . >> forward slash alerts. >> forward slash alerts. >> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. we've got a wonderful studio audience here. so let's get some questions out of them. our first

questions out of them. our first question comes from mike j. hi mike j. >> hi. >> hi. >> is keir starmer right to justify labour's stance on the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance? >> that's really interesting. what do you think about that mike. are you a fan? >> absolutely not. i think it's cruel and unnecessary. >> yeah, it's i mean, it's obviously been all over the press, and this is a tricky one, isn't it? because he, you know, starmer had said a pledge, you know, everyone's going to lose £300 off their, off their energy bills. and it seems to be going the other way doesn't it. >> i think it should be more. >> i think it should be more. >> really. you think people should pay more? >> no, ijust should pay more? >> no, i just think what i think it is the idea that it's a blanket payment. and the reality is there are lots of wealthier baby boomers and who don't need that money. so the question is, are the are the people who don't have that money, who are losing that money going to be protected and be safe? they're saying that they they will ensure that that's the case. i mean, whether you have faith in this government or not that we'll have to see when. yeah. but he's acknowledging that this is going to be really, really unpopular. >> so in a way you could say that's quite a noble thing, that he's sort of making that

decision anyway. but it's not necessarily the right one is it. >> no, i think it is the right one. you do. yeah i don't think that there should be a blanket payment that's gone out. it's only a recent thing. it's only a few years old. it's not. >> well, i agree, i don't think there's a place for government at all practically. and this is taking, you know, whenever you. yeah, yeah. you know, where you're an anarchist. where is the £500 coming from? and it's coming to me because i'm. i know you don't think i'm that old. i'm 67, so i'm getting. i got a check and this year i think i'm not getting a check this year, i think. but the point is, is this where is all where is all the money coming from? he's he's right. there shouldn't be. the budget is £12 trillion. >> i love how he just makes up. >> i love how he just makes up. >> no, by the way, just because i'm saying that doesn't mean that i think that the money that's alternatively being spent on things like the increase of wages for the train, you know, they go, oh, we need this to do this. i don't think either are right. >> you know, i don't think the government should be running trains. i don't think the government should be doing anything. i think i think people here, they have to take a stand where anti—government, the less

money that goes to the government and the more money that just remains for us. yeah. i mean, you're a libertarian, then. i'm also i also have two pensions and well, let's move on. >> let's get a question from barbara . where's barbara? barbara. where's barbara? >> hi, barbara. hi. hi. should schools ban short skirts? wow. >> yeah, this was a school. now i could sort of couldn't believe this when i read this. this is a school called ryde academy , and school called ryde academy, and this is on the isle of wight. and the girls were, they were made to line up and have their skirts measured when they were coming back to school. this is a secondary school, that's got to be quite degrading, isn't it? no. what but but you think that's acceptable ? is that not that's acceptable? is that not sort of shaming them for what the problem is? >> there's a lot of. a lot of these kids are trans. they need these kids are trans. they need the skirts need to be long enough to cover the testicles. this is not. >> this is not what's going on here, josh. i mean, look , it here, josh. i mean, look, it sounds a bit victorian, though. >> it sounds like the sort of

thing they would do back in the day. >> but this has been proven that this, this sort of stuff strict, school uniform works, and this is part of it. and so you're teaching them conformity , so teaching them conformity, so that they will then be good drones for the rest of their life or, or they fight back against it . either way, you have against it. either way, you have to learn the rules, and then you can learn later to on actually, to be fair, when i was at school, you know, we had very strict uniform codes. >> you couldn't undo your tie or anything. >> it was an all boys school, right? >> no, it wasn't i wasn't okay. >> no, it wasn't i wasn't okay. >> no, it wasn't i wasn't okay. >> no, sorry. >> no, sorry. >> that was why did you assume that, do you know what? let's not go there. this is my last show , show, >> louise, do you think that's right? do you think we need really strict, conformist rules for kids when it comes to uniform and things ? and then uniform and things? and then hopefully they don't break any other rules. is that the idea? >> no. >> no. >> we don't need any rules. we definitely don't need the government to be. >> oh, this theme again . >> oh, this theme again. >> oh, this theme again. >> this is it's all the same thing. i'm sorry. it's the centralisation. >> you want a free for all, louis? no. you want kids? if you

have a school, you want lord of the flies. >> that's what you want. >> that's what you want. >> well, in a way, if you have a school, if you have a school, and the people who go to and this school says we're going to measure your dresses or whatever the dress that you're wearing and you decide to send your kids there, well , that's their there, well, that's their business. but it shouldn't be coming out of london where they where they have to have a it's not coming out of london. >> it's coming from the school. yes. no. and it's from the, from the, the leadership of the school. but, but but schools are it's been proven that school uniforms make a difference to discipline and behaviour. >> so you're saying, josh, you're in favour of school uniforms. >> let me tell you something on on the school uniform tip. my, one of my kids just started secondary school. they've got rid of the ties they've got. they've got clip on ties. now what the health and safety . what the health and safety. >> so now they can't do ties properly. >> they can't do. >> they can't do. >> it's got. they've got a clip on tie. that's wrong. >> yeah. no. >> yeah. no. >> but to be fair, when i was at school you'd often get your tie sort of shoved up your neck. >> good. and. yeah well, it wasn't character building, if

that's what you're saying. it was for me. >> no, no, i didn't enjoy that. >> no, no, i didn't enjoy that. >> let the let the. you shouldn't have done it. decide what they want. if this was if this was a question whether whether measuring is good or bad, that's not really a free speech issue. >> well, not the question isn't is measuring good or bad? i think you might have slightly misinterpreted the topic there, but let's move on to a question from solomon. solomon. solomon is here. how are you doing? >> i'm fine sir, thank you. my question is today is should we tax smartphones to help artists out in particular? yeah, this was an interesting one. >> so there's been over 4000 artists have called on the government to create a levy on smartphone sales because they want to fund the visual arts, because there's been all sorts of cuts, which has been going on for years. obviously, it's been studio closures , but key as well studio closures, but key as well is there's been the rise of generative ai and, you know, some leading artists are saying this is a problem and they need more money. what's wrong with funding the arts? >> well, it's where does that money come from? it's also who then allocates the money. there are lots of problems. yes. of course. is that money given to ideological organisations? a levy on smartphones that sounds

like a smart phones and ipads and computers and all the other stuff. >> creative way of taxing. >> creative way of taxing. >> well, they do it in 45 other countries, so there is this sort of proof of concept to a degree. yeah and there is a crisis within the visual arts. there is . within the visual arts. there is. and i, of course, as well the fact is, you have you have the opfion fact is, you have you have the option now to just say if you type in a few words and you will get this insane, amazing picture. >> i mean, that has really affected particularly those in graphic design and that kind of thing. if you wanted a design for a poster or an even an album coven for a poster or an even an album cover. yeah you just type it on a computer. now. i find it terrifying. >> so with that, but then of course, the question is. you know, should then is this a form of subsidising an art form that that doesn't exist, that shouldn't exist? >> i mean, i think surely all artists need to have a patron and we should be, you know, it's one of the pillars of our civilisation. >> i think we should tax banksy. >> i think we should tax banksy. >> oh, well, i mean, i wouldn't, and he should pay for the rest of all the he's a millionaire. so. yeah. exactly. what do you think, lewis? if you were a fan

of the arts, aren't you? >> i am a fan of the arts. i'd like somebody to give me money. you give me money by hiring me here, i do, and pretending you don't like me. and i consider it outreach. >> you know i'm helping, but that's the point. >> if i. if you weren't a patron, get a patron. but it shouldn't be with government money like the bbc is doing. it should. you should leave the government out of this because it's our money. it's so simple. how do you not know this? >> i think geniuses like you. comedy geniuses should be funded . comedy geniuses should be funded. that's why i get. that's why i keep booking you the truth. i'm your patron. >> yes, and i appreciate that. but the truth is. is that what these. these are 400 or 4000 people who sign this petition. they're all losers. >> okay, let's get . i don't know >> okay, let's get. i don't know what to say to that. let's get a question from anton. >> very trumpian. >> very trumpian. >> that was very it was very trumpian. anton, how you doing? >> should, should the education, what was it again? should the education secretary, secretary , education secretary, secretary, >> have you forgotten your question ? anton? it happens, but question? anton? it happens, but luckily, i know what it was

supposed to be. so you know . yeah. >> yeah, that's how good he is at his job. yeah, yeah. >> it's not just preparation. it's also kind of psychic ability. it's crazy . so should ability. it's crazy. so should she reverse her plans to shelve the crackdown on campus culture? but, you know, i will be talking to a guest later on about this, but i was a bit shocked. i mean, i was genuinely shocked about this. i don't know if you remember, basically the day before parliament went into recess, the education secretary, bridget phillipson, just ditched this, this, this bill, the higher education freedom of speech bill, which had been people have been working on this for like 4 or 5 years. and there is a crisis on campus. and she just ditched it overnight . and just ditched it overnight. and by doing it in that way, it meant there couldn't be a debate in parliament about it. and this is about freedom of speech. and i think it just shows, josh, i don't think this government gets freedom of speech. i don't think it's a priority. i don't think they care about it. >> no, i agree with all of that. and this is dangerous . and what and this is dangerous. and what i suspect what it's really about

something i read was it's about china. it's about investment from foreign countries, places like qatar, china. they part of their soft power is to invest in our universities and, and have outlets in their countries. and if they can't be criticised, they don't want this is part of it, isn't it, that people were worried that, say, if oxford or cambridge had a campus out in china or a department out there, they wouldn't. >> you couldn't have freedom of speech under the ccp. yeah but why are we changing our laws on the basis of, well , exactly. the basis of, well, exactly. >> they're soft. they're soft. power is top trumping our soft power. >> but you haven't explained you haven't explained what what it is. >> it's the idea was that they would set up what they call a free speech tsar. it meant that if you were an academic and you were being punished and harassed for exercising your academic freedom, as happened to joe phoenix, who was on this show talking about what happened to her, that you would have some recourse that you could go to the government, and the government would insist . government would insist. >> so how is that free speech? it's just well, you know, look,

academics need to have academic freedom, don't they? that is the thing is an academic freedom. the thing is, is that all your decisions oxford university are now going to go to the go to london and london is going to look at them and say, oh, you didn't allow louis schaefer to do a stand up comedy show, but you have. now you have to allow louis schaefer to do a stand up comedy. >> what would be so bad about that? >> because it's more government spending money telling people what to do. the government should be as small as possible. i'm like ronald reagan now. the government should be as small as possible. >> louis schaefer should not perform stand up. that's absolutely right. >> yeah, well, that's what they say. >> this. but louis, you know that a gig in drogheda, which i'm going to be at and you're going to be out, was cancelled because activists contacted the venue and the venue got scared. and i think it's because you were on the bill. >> it could be because i can't even perform at the ivy house in nunhead, because supposedly this is what i was told. maybe they just the people didn't realise that you'd been cancelled from another venue . another venue. >> i've been cancelled. >> i've been cancelled. >> everyone's cancelled. the point is, we need a smaller government as possible. especially when the government

is such. is. is i can't even use the word. >> can't use the word? definitely not pre—war. >> that is his stand up set. >> that is his stand up set. >> yeah, yeah, he just talks about the government, the bbc being state propaganda. >> i was never this way. honestly. something's happened in this country. you just hate the government. >> it's something in the water. let's move on to, oh. actually, we've run out of time for this section at least. but next on free speech nation, the free speech union has launched a legal challenge against the government over their decision to revoke the act protecting freedom of speech in higher education. and i'm pleased to say that toby young will be here to talk about that just in a moment. don't go

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle, the free speech union has formally commenced legal proceedings against the government following the education secretary's decision to shelve a crackdown on cancel culture on university campuses.

the telegraph has also reported that the government's own free speech tsar, professor arif ahmed , will have the opportunity ahmed, will have the opportunity to take part in the free speech union's legal challenge. well, who better to discuss all of this than the general secretary of the free speech union, mr toby young, who . are you must be toby young, who. are you must be very busy at the moment. there seems to be a lot of things going on, but this is a key development, isn't it? you're actually going to challenge what happened. we were talking about it earlier on the show, but can you just give us a precis of what went on with the act and why was it ditched? >> so, this was a new act of parliament that was going to strengthen the protections for academic freedom and free speech more widely on english university campuses. and it was going to do that essentially by creating two new enforcement mechanisms to make sure universities actually keep faith with their own free speech policies, because all english universities say they believe in

free speech and will uphold free speech. but those declarations are more often upheld in the breach than the observance or two. >> aren't they already legally required to do so? >> they are under the education act 1986. they're legally required to uphold free speech on campus, but they haven't been doing a great job. and one of the great innovations of this new act is that it would create these two enforcement mechanisms. so the main one is if you think that a university has breached your right to free speech, whether you're a student, an academic, a visiting speaken student, an academic, a visiting speaker, you can complain to the new free speech tsar arif ahmed at the for office students. and if he upholds your complaint, he can then fine universities. so we think that's much more likely to make them observe their own fealty to free speech in future. but in addition, it created this new statutory tort. so you can sue a university in the county court if you think it's breached your speech rights. as well. and this was much debated in the

last parliament. various objections were raised , mainly objections were raised, mainly by the higher education sector. they were addressed. the bill was amended. there was a great deal of horse trading and compromise. eventually, the bill that ended up on the statute books enjoyed the support of both houses of parliament and enjoyed cross—party support as well. so, you know, parliament had expressed its will. it wanted to do something to better protect free speech on english university campuses. it acknowledged that there's a problem and it needs to be addressed. bridget phillipson within three weeks of entering office as the new education secretary, effectively revoked the statutory instrument that had been laid in the last parliament that would have commenced the most important clauses in this act. the clauses creating the new statutory talk, creating the new statutory talk, creating this new complaint scheme at the for office students, and so forth, including a clause which would have required universities to disclose where their overseas funding is coming from which they didn't like, not least because many of them are dependent on funding from china

as a financial lifeline. if we can talk a bit more about that, if you like, yes. but so within three weeks, she effectively torpedoed the act. she didn't do it by trying to repeal the act in parliament, which would have been perfectly proper for an incoming majority government to do, if that's what it wanted to do. no, she said, i'm simply not. i'm simply going to revoke the statutory instrument that would have made the remaining clauses, or the most important clauses, or the most important clauses, would have meant that they'd be commenced. and we think that was just before parliament statement. just before parliament went into recess, as you say, no opportunity to debate it in parliament. and she gave various reasons. we can go into those reasons. we can go into those reasons. i think they're all bogus. but the essential principle here is that a minister of the crown, this has been a principle of the english constitution for at least 350 years. a minister of the crown cannot set aside the will of parliament. so we think it's a fundamental breach of a really important constitutional principle and is therefore unlawful. and that's the basis of our legal challenge. >> has this happened before? has an incoming government just completely torpedoed a something

with cross—party support? yeah >> there are there are 1 or 2 occasions on which it's happened before, but only in very special circumstances. one of the arguments i think that bridget phillipson is going to make is that the special circumstances apply that the special circumstances apply because things have changed since the time the act received royal assent last year. and now i think she's going to argue that october 7th, the attack on southern israel by hamas has led to a rise in hate speech on english university campuses. yes. and that hate speech would have been harder to shut down, harder to object to if this bill, if this act came into force, is that true ? into force, is that true? >> because there are jewish students on campuses at the moment experiencing anti—semitism. i don't see how this it's a completely bogus argument. >> and it was it was it was an objection raised to the bill when it was going through parliament. and addressed numerous times the reason it's a bogus argument is because the free speech that would be protected by the bill will be subordinate to article ten. in

the european convention on human rights that that is the gold standard. the speech that this bill, this act would effectively permit would be no more than speech already permitted by article ten. and article ten doesn't permit anti—semitism. it doesn't permit anti—semitism. it doesn't permit anti—semitism. it doesn't permit holocaust denial. so the claim that this new act would somehow be a tory hate speech charter, which is how one special adviser we think described it in the times. it's completely bogus. and we dealt with this in the last parliament. that was much debated. it's ludicrous to say, oh, i've only just become aware that this is a tory hate speech charter. anti—semitism is on the rise. we can't permit more anti—semitism on campus. the act wouldn't permit more anti—semitism, and they've had doubts about this. >> are endless debates . but then >> are endless debates. but then what about the financial issue? i know that it's been suggested that it's too expensive to implement. >> well, this is another complete canard . so the complete canard. so the department for education did an impact assessment to assess how much it would cost for english universities to comply with the new legislation. and they

estimated £4.7 million a year. to give you an example , to give to give you an example, to give you a sense to put that in context, in 2021, english universities spent £550 million on access and participation plans. so the idea that they can't afford 4.7 million a year to comply with this new scheme to comply with this new scheme to defend academic freedom and free speech at their universities. it'sjust nonsense. >> so then what is if all of these arguments that they have ostensibly promoted are just bogus? what is the real reason here? is it just that labour is against free speech? >> well, judging from how labour has behaved since entering office, it clearly doesn't attach much importance to free speech. we can see that in numerous ways , and we can go numerous ways, and we can go into some of them if you like. i think i think it's part i think i think there's a kind of i think there's a trivial reason and a more fundamental reason. i think one reason is that british universities , vice chancellors, universities, vice chancellors, the russell group lobbied bridget phillipson and said if, if, if this if this act is

implemented in full, it might endanger our relationship with various authoritarian regimes, particularly china. so the russell group back in may wrote to the then conservative education secretary and said , education secretary and said, well, how is this bill going to work in our overseas campuses? nottingham, for instance, has two campuses in china. will we be expected to uphold the this new duty to defend academic and academic freedom and free speech on our campuses in china in the uea, uae ? so? so that was uea, uae? so? so that was a concern. i think that it might might have made might have made it more difficult to expand in these authoritarian countries. >> surely that's a principle worth upholding, especially in such cases? well, you would think so . think so. >> and i think they didn't like the obligation to disclose their overseas funding because so many universities are now dependent, financially dependent . if vice financially dependent. if vice chancellors want to continue to pay chancellors want to continue to pay themselves big salaries and bonuses each year, employ as many administrators as they do,

constantly embark on these capital projects. they require all this overseas funding, and they were worried that it would jeopardise their funding from authoritarian regimes who don't want to see those regimes challenged, even on english university campuses. right. so i think i think, but the more fundamental reason is that i think the labour party, keir starmer's administration, he claimed it would be an administration unburdened by doctrine. i think the truth is they are they believe in radical progressive ideology. they are essentially like kind of a secular religious fundamentalists. they believe that certain, certain values are sacred and shouldn't be challenged , and they don't want challenged, and they don't want to make it easier for people to challenge those values on university campuses. they want people to be scared. they want people to be scared. they want people who do challenge the values they consider sacred to be cancelled. so they didn't want they weren't in favour of a piece of legislation which essentially tackled the scourge of, of cancel culture on

university campuses. >> and of course, that would be in line with their other policy decisions. recently we've had yvette cooper saying that she wants to increase or bring back non—crime hate incidents and actually lower the threshold for how they might be recorded. do you have any thoughts on that? i think that's i mean, one of the achievements of the free speech union in the last parliament, one of the few legislative achievements was that we managed to persuade the government to pass a statute to create a statutory a new statutory code of practice, which essentially said to the police, you have to end perception based recording of non—crime hate incidents. >> you have to abandon the practice of, of recording an episode as an nchi every time there's a complaint, if the victim perceives the aggressor to be motivated by hatred, regardless of whether there was any other evidence that they were entirely subjective in the eye of the victim, or indeed any witness, that was absurd. and that led to the extraordinary over recording of ncrs . we over recording of ncrs. we calculated through a combination

of f0! and internal research, that about a quarter of a million ncrs have been recorded since they were introduced by the college of policing. >> that's a quarter of a million non—crimes being recorded by the police. >> that's 65 a day you wonder why, in something like nearly half the regions in england, not a single burglary was solved last year. it's because the police are investigating 65 non crimes a day, so they're not investigating actual crimes. they don't have time. they're too busy policing our tweets. >> so let me ask you about that because of course the government seems to think that it's online speech and speech generally that has led to the civil unrest that we've seen on the streets of, of england, but surely, i mean, another analysis would be that violence erupts when people feel they haven't been heard, haven't been able to speak. aren't they sort of, by by clamping down on free speech? aren't they just exacerbating , perhaps the cause exacerbating, perhaps the cause of the problem to begin with? well that's certainly my view, >> the government and the college of policing and people

who support what they want , this who support what they want, this increase they want in the recording of ncs, they want to put the threshold back to where it was. so the police continue to record them at the rate of 65 a day. their rationale is if people if people are warned that what they've said, whilst not meeting the threshold to be an actual crime, they're not going to be prosecuted for it . but it to be prosecuted for it. but it is a non—crime hate incident. they think that if they tell people who say supposedly hateful things this it'll make them less likely to commit actual hate crimes. it's just this sort of almost a kind of minority report idea that their their attack, they're prosecuting , their attack, they're prosecuting, punishing pre—crime in the hope that that will reduce actual crime. but i mean, you said harry miller, head of fair cop, who had an nwcr recorded against him and then went to battle with the college of policing in the high court. the court of appeal famously won his case. that's one of the reasons the government passed this law, getting the police to rein in the number of nches they're recording, he submitted various foi requests to say,

well, okay, if you really think that recording ncs reduces the number of hate crimes, where's your evidence? have you done any research? have you tried to connect the number of inches and the number of hate crimes taking place in a particular region? if you record more ncs, does the number of hate crimes actually go down? which seems to be what you think. they've made no attempt to gather this evidence attempt to gather this evidence at all. >> that's particularly disturbing, isn't it? i mean, the crime survey for england and wales shows that hate crime has been consistently falling for over a decade now, so they don't really have any evidence at all. it seems like it's just based on some kind of ideological fervour. >> well, i think that's exactly right. they don't actually think there is any utilitarian instrumental purpose to things like recording ncrs to locking people up for saying supposedly inflammatory things during the summer riots. they dress it up as well. this is a way to address crime. this is a way to

prevent these kinds of civil disturbances happening in future. they don't really believe that they've done no research to substantiate those claims. what it's really about is just stopping people saying things they regard as sacrilegious. they want to punish people for trespassing on what they consider to be their sacred values. if you question the virtue of mass immigration, if you think that lgbt rights have gone slightly too far, if you don't think that gays should be married in the church of england, if you prosecute on these, if you trespass on what they think of as these sacred principles, they just want to shut you up and punish you. they don't want to debate them. they don't want to debate them. they don't want to debate them. they don't want to debate in the pubuc don't want to debate in the public square about these policies. they just want everyone who has doubts to just keep them to themselves. they regard it as beyond debate. >> that's very disturbing stuff. and obviously the free speech union is going to be very, very busy at the moment. but is there somewhere where people can find out more about the free speech union? join the free speech union, which i would urge people

to do, but also about this particular legal challenge, if they want to find out more about our challenge to the education secretary and our efforts to save the freedom of speech act. >> i've just put on my twitter account. i've just pinned a tweet which links to our crowdfunder, which has a detailed explanation of what we think the basis of the legal challenge is. if people want to help out, they can donate there and the trouble with judicial reviews is they are incredibly expensive, can cost upwards of a quarter of £1 million. so to find that if they go to at todd meister, that's my twitter handle on on x, they can see my pinned tweet . and it's my most pinned tweet. and it's my most recent tweet as well. they can find it and they can click on the link in there and they can find our crowdfunder, find much more detail about that case. and of course if they want to join the free speech union w w w free speech union .org/ join slash. >> fantastic. and one day toby i'll ask you about that toad meister nickname because i honestly don't know where that came from. anyway, toby young, thanks very much. thank you. thank you. so next on free speech nation following the ban

on social media app x in brazil, one organisation has urged the inter—american commission on human rights to intervene to protect freedom of speech. we're going to be discussing that in just one moment. please don't go go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me . andrew doyle. so nation with me. andrew doyle. so brazil have banned elon musk's social media app x in a row over disinformation. the alliance defending freedom has now intervened, calling on the inter—american commission on to human rights get involved and protect freedom of speech. the alliance's work has been noticed by the ex boss, who thanked the organisation for petitioning the commission. with me now is the senior legal communications officer at the adf, lois mcclatchey miller. thanks very much for joining mcclatchey miller. thanks very much forjoining me. mcclatchey miller. thanks very much forjoining me . so some much forjoining me. so some people might need some

background to this, but what happenedin background to this, but what happened in brazil? >> yeah. well, don't miss this because brazil is at the front lines of the global war on free speech. what has happened in brazil is really unprecedented for a western country. now, it actually began in 2019. authorities began censoring voices that were critical of the government of support for donald trump, support for brexit, support for policies that were not approved by the government at various conservative voices as well, who were giving out messages. the pro—life message criticising materials, going into schools, this kind of thing. yeah, and this built up and built up. and now we have a situation where they asked twitter x to censor those voices. elon musk and the company x said, no, they wouldn't. and now x has been bannedin wouldn't. and now x has been banned in brazil. people are not able to access it. and if they do via a vpn, they can be fined thousands of dollars a day. >> i mean, that's astonishing. so even if they use a vpn to go around the system, they will be fined extortionate amounts of money. but doesn't this mean

that brazil is joining the likes of north korea , iran, china? you of north korea, iran, china? you know, this is not a gang that you want to be a member of, is it? >> yes. i mean, in— >> yes. i mean, i was it? >> yes. i mean, i was looking just before i came on the show with a list of countries that have also banned x in their countries, and i believe north korea and china do grace that list of about 8 or 9 countries around the world. so it is shocking to see a western democracy like brazil join those ranks. but we shouldn't too be, surprised, because if you have been tracking the censorship, particularly of tweets and of posts online around the world, you'll be noticing a trend towards this direction. brazil are merely the first to get their yes to ban x in a western. >> well, we've seen the guardian over the past month or so call for the arrest of elon musk, i think on three different occasions. and of course, what elon musk has done is enabled free speech to flourish on the platform, which means that you see opinions. you don't necessarily agree with all the time. that's the whole point. this troubles certain governments, doesn't it? >> well, no man has ever been more wanted for simply allowing

people , citizens to speak their people, citizens to speak their mind and to engage in conversations. but as we know the right to freedom of speech is a human right, it's baked into international human rights law. and that's why adf international have asked the inter—american commission on human rights to intervene in this situation. and that's a top human rights body. it has jurisdiction over brazil. its entire function and purpose is to hold countries to account for their human rights record. and that's why it's so important that's why it's so important that institutions like this , that institutions like this, this is their time to act. this is free speech under pressure. this is human rights under pressure. if they have a role to play pressure. if they have a role to play in this, the role is now and they must act because a lot of people can get complacent in this country and they say, well, we would never ban a social media platform in the uk, for instance. >> but do you envisage a time when that might be happening? because i was just talking to toby young about the current labour government's encroachments on free speech. there is a trend developing here. >> there's certainly a trend and we've been marking it across europe . at adf international, europe. at adf international, we've had cases , all over the we've had cases, all over the world that are moving towards this direction of censorship on

twitter. think about finland, you know, a very western european nation. we have a supporting the defence there of a grandmother and politician who has been on criminal trial for five years for a bible verse tweet in 2019. now over in australia, we've got billboard chris, known to many, i think , chris, known to many, i think, on this show. he tweeted criticism of the who's appointment of activists to articulate on gender policy for kids around the world, and now he's been censored in australia. so more and more we are seeing governments clamp down on tweets and if brazil can get away with banning twitter altogether, it would not surprise me if we see this flourishing across all these other countries who have endorsed censorship this far. >> this is fascinating that governments are reacting in this way. and of course, historically speaking, social media is a relatively new phenomenon and we now know as well, thanks to the leaked files, the twitter files that elon musk leaked to various journalists, people like matt taibbi and michael shellenberger, that this has been going on for a while, that

governments, the american government, was effectively asking twitter, saying, we don't like these tweets. can you do something about it? and i believe both parties, the democrats and the republicans were doing that, weren't they? so this is this is the way certain governments react. is this just the norm? >> well, i think it's easy to underestimate how much of a threat that free speech can be to those in authority. and twitter x is really the last bastion where people can go onune bastion where people can go online and have these very free and frank discussions without fearing censorship. now, whether that's about politics or whether that's about politics or whether that's about politics or whether that's about gender or any kind of controversial policies that are coming in materials going into schools, any controversial conversations and any other forum really are marked by censorship these days. and twitter is one of the last forums, the last digital public square where people can hold these conversations. i think that's why x in particular is coming under so much attack, and that's why we must rally to defend it. not for x itself, not for because of the company

itself , but because it is itself, but because it is protecting free speech. and if it's the last one, we can't let that drop to, because surely the free speech should be something that each individual user, you know, if there's something they don't want to see, they can block, they can mute, they can curate their own experience. >> but once government starts saying the platform itself has to decide which opinions are acceptable, we're in a really parlous state at that point , parlous state at that point, aren't we? >> that's right. and it's done under the guise of disinformation, of course, you know, they're not. governments aren't going out there and saying, i want this, this and this banned. they're saying, i want disinformation banned, i want disinformation banned, i want fake news banned. and using these titles that it's easy to persuade people that are wrong and bad. but of course, if you unpack what disinformation really means, we know we don't know what it means at all. there is no clear boundaries around what is to be banned as disinformation or hate speech or fake news, and with fake news sometimes what fake news one day can turn out to be real news the next. >> and the previous twitter regime decided that saying that a human beings can change, cannot change sex, or can change

sex was hate speech, right? so, you know , and as you say, you know, and as you say, sometimes we've had a theory about a lab leak in wuhan , for about a lab leak in wuhan, for example, for example, which, you about a lab leak in wuhan, for example, for example, which, you know, people were kicked off know, people were kicked off youtube for saying, turns out youtube for saying, turns out it's probably true. so is the it's probably true. so is the solution ultimately just to open solution ultimately just to open up the marketplace of ideas, let up the marketplace of ideas, let everyone say what they want to everyone say what they want to say, what do you take any kind say, what do you take any kind of, do you have any kind of of, do you have any kind of sympathy whatsoever for the sympathy whatsoever for the alternative view that there are alternative view that there are just some opinions that are just some opinions that are beyond the pale, that we have to beyond the pale, that we have to crack down on? crack down on? >> well, i think most people in >> well, i think most people in the free speech movement agree the free speech movement agree that incitement to violence is that incitement to violence is in a different category. and if in a different category. and if people are saying, let's go and people are saying, let's go and be violent towards a particular be violent towards a particular person or this particular place, person or this particular place, then of course that is a crime then of course that is a crime as already has been established as already has been established in uk law and law elsewhere. and in uk law and law elsewhere. and however, throwing in words like however, throwing in words like hate speech or standards that hate speech or standards that are unclear is always going to are unclear is always going to lead to a situation where some lead to a situation where some voices are unfairly silenced. voices are unfairly silenced. and i think the price of having and i think the price of having a free and fair democracy is a free and fair democracy is that sometimes we feel that sometimes we feel

uncomfortable by what we see or uncomfortable by what we see or what we , for what we hear, and sometimes we feel offended even by the views that are out there. but as you say on a platform like

that are out there. but as you say on . platform like that are out there. but as you say on . it's|tform like that are out there. but as you say on . it's almost ke that are out there. but as you say on . it's almost time for groove. it's almost time for social sensations. don't for groove. it's almost time for social sensations. don't

>> we watched wes streeting talking about his new policy, his new education policy. >> i thought it was because the guy walked in the background. >> oh, was that what we were meant to be watching for? >> i didn't even i didn't even see that i was waiting for him to come back in. what? what am i getting from this? >> see, the trouble with this is we deliberately don't let the panellists see the videos in advance because we want a spontaneous reaction. but sometimes it's just not clear what they're meant to be reacting to. what do you think, louis, >> there we go . >> there we go. >> there we go. >> no, we haven't, we haven't. okay, guy . okay, guy. >> it's just a okay, guy. >> it'sjust a guy okay, guy. >> it's just a guy walking behind . behind. >> this is this is a low point on this show. i >> i actually thought we were meant to be reacting to the policy. this is why it's very confusing. let's move on. no, no , confusing. let's move on. no, no, louis, there's a point to be made. >> the point is, is why should the government be paying for our education? >> yeah, well, that's true, but i think and tax it and own tax it. >> just stay away from the whole thing. >> let's go on to another one. have we got another video. let's have a look. let's not be someone walking. >> one of the things you've done

to make it more comfortable is take down the portrait of margaret thatcher that was put there by gordon brown, a labour prime minister. is that not a bit bit petty or was she really making you feel uncomfortable staring down at you in the study? >> well, the first thing is gordon brown didn't actually hangitin gordon brown didn't actually hang it in the study. it was hanging somewhere. it was commissioned in the hanging somewhere else. just this is not actually about margaret thatcher at all. i don't like images and pictures of people staring down. i've had it all my life. when i was a lawyer, i used to have sort of pictures of judges. i don't like it. i like landscapes, so, okay, i don't buy that. >> i mean, so he he made this big point about removing the margaret thatcher picture, but there must be other pictures in downing street of individuals looking down on him. right it's an ideological thing, surely. >> i'm sure that doesn't make that seems like after the fact i would have thought. and also, that's such a weird sort of thing to admit to. oh, i don't like people looking down on me. why are you talking about. >> yeah, i don't buy that. what do you think? >> i think margaret thatcher was the was a great one. and it just

proves what a what a loser this guy is. okay. >> all right, well, look , we >> all right, well, look, we have got some time. oh, i've got a round of applause. >> okay. >> okay. >> not a partisan audience whatsoever. let's let's have a look through a couple of unfiltered dilemmas before we leave. we've got a dilemma from diane in hackney , not diane diane in hackney, not diane abbott, is it? oh, it might be. i'm dating a guy whose idea of a good time is taking me to on a date to highgate cemetery, so he can visit the grave of karl marx. is the guy a weirdo? yeah. very funny. you thought i wouldn't know. you thought i'd be tricked. but that's a hoax. >> it's a red flag. >> it's a red flag. >> that is a red. >> that is a red. >> it's definitely an anti—semite. >> that is a that's a red flag. isn't that a red flag? >> it could be like, you know, literally a red flag. >> well, you might she might want a guy with a red flag. >> she might want to date a guy who's a communist. well, actually. >> so diane abbott's new book is coming out and she does talk about how she, when she was dating jeremy corbyn, he did say, i'm going to take you out for a good time. and she got

dressed up and she was really looking forward to it. and they went to highgate cemetery to look at the grave of karl marx and made love. yeah. no, it didn't say that. that's your embellishment. >> okay. that's my fan fiction. >> okay. that's my fan fiction. >> that's your fan fiction? yes. okay okay, let's move on now. and we've got this one. coming in. this is from tom. says my girlfriend's family are coming to visit from overseas, but it's the weekend. we're moving flat. should i rope them into the move, or is that taking a liberty? well, i think surely everyone should help out, shouldn't they? in those kind of situations. >> do you think? of course. absolutely. i mean, unless she's moving out, is who's moving who? well, yeah. someone like this, i think it's the family coming over and they're moving flat up or anything. >> no, they're not breaking up. no, no. yeah, i think that's fair enough. you should. you should chip in, shouldn't you, louis? >> no, you shouldn't. moving is one of the most horrible things ever. one of the most horrible things ever . and it can destroy ever. and it can destroy friendships. i've had it. ever. and it can destroy friendships. i've had it . what friendships. i've had it. what it can. of course it can, because it's so horrible. if you've got enough money to move, you've got enough money to move, you've got enough money to pay a couple of kids , a couple of couple of kids, a couple of hundred pounds to move. and i love the way they call in this

country. they call them removal services. like they're just taking your stuff and they're just taking it out and dumping it somewhere. >> okay, so lewis's advice is don't don't help your family to don't don't help your family to do anything unless this is some sort of immigration policy. okay? look, we don't have time to go into this. thank you so much for joining to go into this. thank you so much forjoining us for to go into this. thank you so much for joining us for free speech nation. this was the week when efforts were ramped up to overturn brazil's banning of x, and it was announced that the government faces a legal challenge over its scrapping of the freedom of speech bill. thanks so much to my panel, josh howie and louis schaefer to all my guests this season. don't applaud yourself , my guests this season. don't applaud yourself, louis, and if you want to join us, live in the studio and be part of this audience, just go to sro audiences.com. stay tuned for mark dolan. he's coming up in just one moment. and also headliners is on tonight at 11:00. that's the paper preview show with comedians taking you through the next day's news stories. thanks for watching free speech nation. i'll see you next week .

next week. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers, sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello there. welcome to your latest gb news weather from the met office. low pressure has beenin met office. low pressure has been in charge bringing heavy rain and thunderstorms. some localised flooding does stay unsettled next week, but the winds turn to a northerly direction and it turns increasingly cold, particularly by the middle of the week. low pressure at the moment still giving outbreaks of heavy rain across southeast scotland, northern england down into wales. parts of the midlands as well. thundery showers across the southeast and as we head overnight, this all slowly pushes its way eastward. still, some heavy bursts of rain possible. dry across northern ireland and scotland, with a few showers here under the clearest skies across scotland, temperatures dipping into single figures elsewhere under the cloud and rain holding up around 12 to 14 celsius. so much of england and wales starting quite

cloudy. outbreaks of rain but clearer skies across scotland. a few showers across the highlands and islands, but some bright spells elsewhere just so still some thicker cloud across the southeast with some patchy rain in places. bright skies across northern ireland to start monday morning, though rather cloudy across much of england, though. sunny spells starting to develop across wales and the west country. first thing on monday morning and then through the day. the bright spells across the west just slowly start to push eastwards. it does mean, though, central eastern parts of england staying cloudy for longest, the cloud thick enough for some outbreaks of rain at times. sunny spells across northern england, wales, the west country though starting to cloud over across northern ireland and scotland, with rain arriving in the west later on in the day. temperatures cooler for all, generally near average for the time of year 16 to 18 celsius, perhaps locally 20 towards the southeast. turning more unsettled on tuesday as a weather system pushes southeastward, some outbreaks of rain showers following the winds, picking up some strong

and gusty winds across northern and gusty winds across northern and western parts of the uk as well. starting to feel colder, and that cold theme continues through the week ahead as well. temperatures falling below average for the time of year. see you soon. >> looks like things are heating up. boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> good evening. the top stories from the gb newsroom hollywood actor idris elba will join the prime minister in downing street to launch a new effort to tackle knife crime. elba is an anti—knife crime campaigner. will join sir keir starmer tomorrow morning as he launches the coalition, which aims to stop young people from being dragged into violent gangs. the coalition will bring together campaign groups, families of people who've lost their lives to knife crime and young people who have been affected by it, as

well as elba and the home secretary, yvette cooper, ministers have already taken steps to ban so—called ninja swords and plan to strengthen the laws around the online sales of knives . in other news, today of knives. in other news, today has marked two years since the passing of britain's longest reigning monarch, queen elizabeth the second. she was on the throne for 70 years and was beloved by the nation and around the world. earlier today, the king and queen attended crathie kirk church near balmoral, where the late queen was a regular worshipper. they were there for a sunday service with prayer and remembrance of his late mother, who passed at the age of 96. the prime minister has hit out at the previous government this morning, saying the nhs has been broken in ways that he called unforgivable. these comments come as a labour commissioned review into how children are treated by the nhs is due to be published in the coming week. health secretary wes streeting set out labour's plan to tackle the nhs crisis.

>> former gender is