and that's as eight 23,200. and that's as eight migrants died overnight whilst trying to cross the channel. 53 migrants were on board a boat which got into difficulty off the coast of northern france around 51 survivors were rescued and six were taken to hospital, including a ten month old baby suffering from hypothermia. this news comes less than two weeks after a separate incident where 12 migrants died after a boat sank off the french coastline . sank off the french coastline. foreign secretary david lammy has defended the prime minister following allegations that sir keir starmer has broken parliamentary rules by failing to declare donations of clothing for his wife, the sunday times reported the gifts came from labour donor lord alli and covered the cost of a personal shopper, clothes and alterations for the prime minister's wife, victoria, in the election campaign . campaign. >> this is not a breach of transparency rules, it's a prime

minister that's acting positively to make sure that everything is above board and this money comes from a long standing over two decades. lord alli has been in the house of lords. he has been a big supporter of the labour party. he's a self—made man, and i think there is nothing to see here really . here really. >> and there's more trouble for sir keir starmer's government, as it's revealed pensioners could be left £1,000 worse off this winter. this comes on top of suggestions that labour could also axe the single person discount on council tax at next month's budget. the party has thus far refused to rule this out, stating that difficult decisions need to be made in order to fill the so—called £22 billion black hole left by the conservatives sir ed davey says the nhs cannot withstand labour reforms without more funding. the lib dem leader made the

comments during the second day of the lib dem party conference in brighton earlier this week. sir keir starmer said the nhs will not get any more funding without reforming, as he laid out a ten year plan to fix the health service. sir ed davey says he's concerned the government is talking about reform before investment . and reform before investment. and ukraine's president has pleaded for the uk and the us to give permission for ukraine to use western missiles to strike russian targets as vladimir putin's forces carried out another bombing raid. volodymyr zelenskyy called for decisiveness as he urged leaders to overcome the fear of making the choice. sir keir starmer and joe biden met in washington on friday for talks on giving ukraine permission to use long—range missiles to target russian airfields and military bases, but no decision was reached. the issue is likely to come up again when sir keir starmer, mr biden and zelenskyy all attend the un general assembly in new york later this month . but zelenskyy says he

month. but zelenskyy says he wants a quicker outcome and those are the latest gb news headlines. for now i'm tatiana sanchez. more from me in an hour for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . forward slash alerts. >> the trans identified head of edinburgh rape crisis centre resigns. the australian government cracks down on misinformation and trump says they're eating the cats and the dogs. this is free speech nation . dogs. this is free speech nation. welcome to free speech nation with me andrew doyle. this is the show where we take a look at culture, current affairs and politics. and of course, we will have the latest from those loveable culture warriors. they've really been going to town this week, coming up on the show tonight, i'll be speaking with the director of for women scotland, marion calder, about the trans identifying boss of a

rape crisis centre who had to quit after a report found a failure in providing women only spaces to sex assault victims. and the green party has been ordered to pay £90,000 to cover the costs of their former deputy leader, sara ali, who won a discrimination case over them in a row. over his gender critical beliefs. he's going to be joining us here in the studio . joining us here in the studio. i'll be speaking also to brendan o'neill from spiked online, who has some very concerning words to say about both of the us presidential election candidates . presidential election candidates. and of course, we have wonderful panel here of comedians today. it is cressida wetton and leo curse . leo, you're looking very curse. leo, you're looking very dapper as ever. thank you very much. you're so well turned out. is that a new shirt? >> it is actually, yeah. the present is a present. >> i didn't think you had that good taste. yeah someone else must have got it for you. yeah. very lovely. you've gone with the foliage. look. yeah. >> i'm autumnal. i like this, though. the kind of, like, 90s marble look. >> i really like it. >> i really like it. >> i'm just going to have to up my game. it's very depressing,

but i have no taste, so i can't possibly compete. anyway, we're going to get some questions from this lovely audience. and the first question comes from paul. >> hi, some might say using my best legalese, that australia has gone full tyrant and is looking to impose a 5% fine on any platforms which are deploying or support whatever misinformation is, in, in, globally as, as impacts upon australia. free speech advocates obviously are not in favour of this. other people say misinformation is a bad thing. what say you? >> okay. well, paul, i mean, this is interesting because australia, the australian government has tried to do this before where they've wanted to penalise social media companies for what is said globally, not just in terms of what australian users have said. this is particularly worrying, though. i think misinformation is a really vague idea. paul, do you have any sense of what misinformation actually means? >> well, i draw a distinction. what used to be called disinformation and that's intentionally wrong. propaganda

which is used by various government agencies. misinformation just seems to be getting something wrong. right. >> and how do we criminalise that? that's the question, leo. i mean, should it be illegal? i mean, i was worried about this. i saw this story on reuters earlier this week, but should it be illegal to get something wrong? >> no. i mean, we need to be wrong so that we can get something right. we need to be able to challenge whatever the sort of norms and beliefs are of the of they're seen as correct at the present to progress our knowledge. i mean, if galileo wasn't allowed. well, he wasn't allowed to say that, you know, the earth goes around the sun instead of the sun going round the earth. and, you know, it turns out he was actually correct, but he was, you know, he'd definitely contravened the australian facebook guidelines at the time. and the real problem with the misinformation is who gets to decide what's misinformation. if you've got, you know, these government apparatchiks deciding what's misinformation? i don't trust them. they've got vested interests. they've got they've got their own agenda to push. so they're going to be using it to

lock people up. and sometimes they push their own. sometimes they push their own. sometimes they push their own. sometimes they push out their own disinformation to push their own agenda. like when the hunter biden laptop scandal, which was completely true, would have would have definitely influenced the 2020 election in the states, showed hunter biden smoking crack, using prostitutes and all the rest of it, and that was that was spread by the democrats. and the tech platforms said that that was russian disinformation, that was russian disinformation, that was russian propaganda. and it wasn't it was true . wasn't it was true. >> they stopped that story from being shared. they even locked the new york post out of their twitter account for even publishing the article. that does seem quite strange. what do you make of this? i mean, leo makes a good point, doesn't he, that if galileo were alive today, he would have been arrested under hate speech laws? presumably. and to be honest, i think galileo was right. i mean, the jury's out probably on that, but i think right on his scientific opinion or on his earth going around the sun. i think that's probably true, isn't it? we can debate that one later. but i mean, what do we do about this when, as leo says, who? who do we trust to decide what is correct information?

>> i don't trust anyone and i trust everyone. i think you've got to spread it around, haven't you? the problem is always who is at the top of the tree and how long for? and i mean, this is where i side with elon musk. you know, just let it go. let everybody speak and let everybody speak and let everybody correct each other. yeah i appreciate that's not perfect. it's full of problems. but i can't see a better alternative. no that's right. >> things tend to work out don't they. if you if you let the if things if falsehood is out there truth tends to combat it and truth tends to combat it and truth tends to win. not always. i accept that. not always. >> and yeah twitter, twitter or x now has community notes which allows, you know, as cressida says, allows everybody to comment on and fact check things themselves. so it's good you don't have you know, you don't have one appointed government apparatchik deciding what's what's true and what's false. everybody can can chip in. >> i love the horror when like a guardian article gets community noted and those editors must be like, but we've been allowed to lie for ages. >> what's going on? okay next, we've got a question from jane. where's jane? hi. hi jane. how are you? >> hi. it's trump's cats and dogs conspiracy fantasy world stuff with real world

consequences. >> yeah, this is an interesting one. this is the haitian immigrants eating dogs and cats. can i just ask jane , do you can i just ask jane, do you think it's true? do you think there's any merit in it? >> don't know. >> don't know. >> don't know is a good answer. i think more people need to learn how to say, don't know. i mean, the thing is, i don't think there is. from what i've seen, there is no evidence as far as i'm aware, that they are eating cats and dogs in haiti, and so i'm going to say probably not. but since springfield isn't it, it's in springfield, ohio, to be specific, like so i have to be specific, like so i have to be specific, like so i have to be honest, and i know that leo's going to disagree with me on this, but i kind of think that when it comes to these presidential debates, i'd love it if the candidates weren't talking about cat and dog eating. and if it wasn't, if it was a bit more elevated in terms of its you know, i think what you mean is that 15,000 people that have descended on a town of 60,000, making it feel swamped by people coming in and people concerned about services and resources. >> that's a legitimate discussion to have. is that what you're getting at? yeah rather than talking about cats and dogs, which, by the way, i know leo is about to say no, it did

happen. >> yeah, sure it will. in a minute. we'll give him time. it's a free speech show. >> it didn't happen in springfield. and also the footage we've got of this one very unfortunate woman, presumably, is severely mentally ill. i don't think she's typical. and she's also not haitian. she's. she's born in america. yes. that's the point, isn't it? >> i mean, there are people who have eaten cats and dogs in this country at the same sort of rate as they're happening in springfield. so is this a big deal? >> well, yeah. i mean, i think i think it was dumb of trump to fall into the trap of going to the most inflammatory comment he could possibly make, which then, you know, steers people away from the real issue, which is the fact that it's actually 20,000 haitians have been sort of just airdropped onto this small town of 60,000 people, and they've just got to get on with it. and it's not as if it's a culturally similar country. and haiti, never mind cats and dogs, people get eaten. it's i mean, it's a completely failed state. it's war torn. it's run by gangs. >> it's cannibalism there. >> it's cannibalism there. >> there's i've seen i've seen videos of i mean, one of the main gang leaders there is called a barbecue because he barbecues people and eats them. >> the trouble is, i can't fact

check this in real time. but then. then to be fair, the people who are moderating the presidential debate didn't really do a good job on that enhen really do a good job on that either. yeah, feel comfortable. >> and regardless of what's being eaten where i mean, and i'm sure you know, you know what i'm sure you know, you know what i mean. >> the issues are important. >> the issues are important. >> yeah, the issues are important. i'm sure you know, now that the haitians are in springfield and they're getting, you know, the ebt and the government assistance and all the billions of taxpayers money being being pumped into them as benefits, they're going to be eating chicken from tesco. but the fact is that you've got, you know, it's had a huge impact in the community. it's pushed up housing costs, it's pushed up insurance costs. they're having a lot of car accidents because people are driving without insurance, without proper training. so, you know, they've just been left to sort of deal with this influx. and the real issue here is that a lot of this immigration that the haitian immigration, 81% of it goes to republican areas, and it's not being done as a sort of, you know, a sort of charitable, beneficent service to desperate people who deserve it. it's being done to tilt the electoral balance, because the democrats know that these people, once

they're registered, they instantly get registered. that's the first thing they do is register them to vote. they'll for vote the democrats. >> i mean, this is interesting. >> i mean, this is interesting. >> i mean, one thing, though, that struck me about the debate, cresta, is that i just i think it reminded me that trump is just not a good political candidate. he was goaded and he took the bait continually, which he really would have been so easy not to do. his ego took over. >> oven >> he really does come across as sort of narcissistic and easy to wind up. the thing is this dogs and cats thing. >> and then you had kamala before talking about being brat, whatever the hell that means. it feels like both candidates are just content to make this an instagram election. and i would like political candidates to be of a higher calibre on both sides. and i don't see any evidence of it. >> absolutely no, i completely agree. it's sort of it's like sport, isn't it? it's just ping pong. it's very surfacey. yeah. i don't not good. >> yeah. i'm not happy about it. anyway. we're going to move. i'm going to be talking, by the way, to brendan o'neill about the debate a bit later on. but our next question comes from anton. where's anton? oh oh, no. apparently it's from jeannie.

sorry jeannie, what's your question, >> given that they've that the ons have now decided that they're going to deflate, is it deflate downgrade , downgrade the deflate downgrade, downgrade the figures for the proportion of trans people, from the 2021 census, is there a chance that in some way, at least in part , in some way, at least in part, those figures were were intentionally inflated in the first place? >> so, i mean, what do you think about that, jeannie? because my instinct is always it's a mistake. you know, i'd never put it down to malevolence. i think it's probably just incompetence. what do you think? what i've read is that is that it could well be a number of people who don't speak english very well and didn't answer the question properly. >> you know, that's entirely plausible. of course. oh, absolutely. >> i mean, leo, there was with the last census, you know, there were an awful lot of people who identify as muslim also saying that they're trans or non—binary. something tells me that was wrong. >> no, there's an awful lot of look at the robes, look at the robes . there's, you know, could robes. there's, you know, could be anything under that burqa. you don't. >> no, no, i'm being this is my

prejudice. absolutely. but it looked more like to me that people were misunderstanding the question or the questions weren't phrased particularly well. and this is the first time, i think, where they've had to say a whole element of the censusis to say a whole element of the census is just wrong. >> well, this is the trouble when any sort of poll is conducted, the way the question is phrased and asked has a huge impact on on how the you know, the outcome of the poll. and here you can see people who might not have speak english particularly well, might not, might not have english as their first language, not fully understanding what the deep intricacies of transgenderism know. and because they might come from a culture where that's just not as not discussed as much. so, yeah, i mean, i think i think it's not a thing. >> yeah. yeah. >> yeah. yeah. >> there's always that as well, isn't there? i mean, what do you make of this, cressida? >> well, to be honest, i'm not surprised that there's some inaccuracy. and i don't think it's just down to language. i would expect, you know, older people not to know about it. people who aren't in the culture wars, not everybody speaking like this. >> the question is like, do you identify with the gender with which you were assigned at birth or something of this kind? yeah.

what does that mean? >> if you're not steeped in the i think it means stonewall are involved. oh, and it turns out they are. oh, really? okay. well, there's some links between the ons and stonewall. why wouldn't there be? it's 2024. >> i mean, it always happens that way, doesn't it? it's so everywhere there, like leos, are often you make the analogy of the wizard of oz, like whenever you pull back the curtain, stonewall is always there. >> they get in everywhere. that's it. exactly. >> anyway, we'll move on. anton, what's your question? >> do you think that notting hill carnival is too dangerous? >> yeah, that's a really interesting one, because every yean interesting one, because every year, of course, there are problems at notting hill carnival, the top met police officer is a guy called matt twist has said that it's not safe. but the point, leo, is like, can we be really shutting down whole social events on the ground that they're not safe? i go to quite a few social events that are not safe. you've probably been to quite a few things like that. football matches aren't that safe. >> yeah, and like a million people attend this carnival. i mean, obviously you get a million londoners together. somebody's getting stabbed, right? you know what i mean? >> this is this is london. >> this is this is london. >> so, you know, i think we've got to we've got to accept.

>> we've got to accept that being stabbed to death is part and parcel of living in a big, vibrant city. >> but in all seriousness, i mean, you know, with a carnival of that size. yeah, it's true that there will be crime. yeah, it would be the same for any event of that size, wouldn't it? >> there's crime at glastonbury, for example. not not enough stabbings, but there is. there is crime there. i think. why why can't we have just a cordoned off section, some sort of, you know, like a gladiator gladiators arena where people can stab each other? i don't think, you know, i don't i don't want to see random passers—by being stabbed. everybody can get together with their zombie knives and have a have a great time. >> so leo wants to kind of battle royale kind of situation or or hunger games. if you want the updated ripped off version. >> yeah, yeah. leo for pm, i think it's really difficult because i've got enormous sympathy with the people that go and enjoy it and have done for decades, you know, and you don't want things to get shut down. and also they're talking about moving it, making it ticketed andifs moving it, making it ticketed and it's all just getting a bit commercial. and look what happened to glastonbury. you know, it used to be kind of crusty and fun and then they

built a wall, a fence, i should say, and they started charging tickets. and now it's all centrist dads and everyone's paying centrist dads and everyone's paying £8 for a bottle of water. and it's like, oh, it's difficult, but it clearly two deaths is two too many. >> well, of course, i mean, it goes without saying. let's move on to gavin. where's gavin? >> yeah. good evening, is it okay for a protester on the palestine march? yeah to depict, sunak. and braverman calling them coconut. and they're not. >> they didn't get in trouble for it. that's right. i mean, so this is the. we must have seen this is the. we must have seen this placard, which was the, sunak and braverman called coconuts. so the guy who had the placard was eventually, has been found not guilty of racial abuse. the woman. was it a woman? yeah. was it a woman? no, i think we've got. yes. so that's what it looked like. there's the woman in question. i presume there's the sign with you can see as a coconut tree and sunak head and braverman head. and of course, you know, so the implication for those who don't know the idea of being a coconut white inside, brown on the outside, the idea is that even though they are from ethnic minority groups, they're actually the same as white

people because they're just doing everything that white people want. and i would have said, that's quite obviously racist. but i would also say i don't think they should be prosecuted for it. what do you think, leah? >> yeah, absolutely. >> yeah, absolutely. >> and the woman. marietta i think she's called she said, you know, this these hate speech laws are being weaponized to target ethnic minorities. it's like they're being weaponized to target everybody. like, if anything, you were protected . anything, you were protected. you escaped prosecution because you're from a protected ethnic minority. >> i mean, if she's an ethnic minority and she's talking about other ethnic minorities, that can't be racist anyway, can it? yeah. >> no , absolutely can be can be >> no, absolutely can be can be racist. i mean, shouldn't we get back to the martin luther king thing of like, people being judged based on the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin, and shouldn't rishi sunak shouldn't rishi sunak and suella braverman be allowed to have different opinions than what the guardian has decided? the guardian editorial board has decided that all brown people should should think. >> don't get me wrong, all of thatis >> don't get me wrong, all of that is completely racist. and the idea of assuming that black people and brown people must have a certain point of view is

about as racist as it gets. yeah. but i would say so. i'm not saying i'm not saying it's not saying i'm not saying it's not racist. what i'm saying is, i would rather people were allowed to be racist. if they choose to be, then i know who the racists are. and we as a society know who the racists are because, i mean, she's spoken about the ordeal she's gone through, said i didn't enjoy my pregnancy because all this was going on and i believe her. >> but she must have had a rather stressful time like everybody else does. that goes through. >> the pregnancy is not nice at the best of times, is it? >> apparently not. but so what's going to happen now is people are going to think twice about using that imagery, aren't they? it's not going to happen as much. and so we won't know where they are. so i think you're right, even though i don't agree with her. no, of course i mean, i think it's awful, but, you know, i just get very nervous about the idea of the government sort of stepping in, criminalising people for their speech, even speech. >> i hate like this. this should be obvious. i would have thought, if only someone had written a book all about it. anyway next up on free speech nation, i'm going to be speaking with the director of for women's

scotland, marianne calder, about the trans boss of a rape crisis centre who had to quit after a report found a failure in women women only spaces to

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me andrew doyle, a transgender chief executive of a rape crisis centre, has resigned following a report which found it had failed to protect women only spaces . wada, who was only spaces. wada, who was appointed ceo of the edinburgh rape crisis centre in 2021, quit after a report commissioned by rape crisis scotland found there had been a failure to set professional standards of behaviour. well, we're joined now by the director for women of scotland, marianne calder. thanks so much forjoining us, marianne. this is a very, very interesting case and a lot of people will be asking the question , given that a rape question, given that a rape crisis centre for victims of sexual assault really should be a women's only space, why was it

being run by a man for so long? >> well, as you correctly stated, it all started back in 2021 when rape crisis edinburgh put an advert out for to hire a new chief executive, and that advert quite clearly stated it was looking for a female. >> but then for whatever reason, marudo, who is a male, decided to apply for the job and then he was successful and was put in position. so fast forward to may this year, there was a tribunal case but taken by a member of staff at edinburgh rape crisis by ross, her name being ross adams. now ross being quite sensible, thought it was that females, users of the service rape crisis rape victims should actually know the sex of the individual that's actually giving the counselling service now. at that time riddell was employed and riddell is a male and there was also a non—binary member of staff who was female but didn't actually identify as being male or female. so you can

understand why ross was actually asking the question now. ross was successful in her tribunal and off the back of that rape crisis, scotland commissioned an independent survey into the actions and of edinburgh rape crisis, and this report came out on thursday and it was utterly. >> now, am i right in thinking that wada in a podcast, i believe it was the guilty feminist podcast, had said in an interview that women could be women who were victims of rape, could be bigots too, and that if they were asking for a female only spaces, that they needed to reframe their trauma. i hope i'm not misquoting there. can you just clarify for me? >> you're not misquoting at all. and in fact, he was actually suggesting that anyone requesting the sex of an individual shouldn't be. why is it necessary , and they should be it necessary, and they should be educated. so. no, you haven't misquoted at all. so this individual's views myrdal's views have been known for years

within scotland. i mean, this is an activist. this is a trans activist. so everyone has been aware that this is a male that wants to be kind of the rest of the public to actually see him as female, but he has been fettered by the snp. in fact, he was actually put forward to actually stand under to be an msp, mp, councillor and also subsequently the greens . so he subsequently the greens. so he is quite infamous, shall we say, in scotland, for his views about women like myself and others and males who actually believe that sex is biological and therefore it cannot be changed. and, and then a service like rape crisis that should absolutely be female only. >> well, that's the key question, isn't it? i mean, you know, if this were a case that this individual were applying for a job at the library or a job at the tropical fish centre or whatever, it might be, and they were discriminated against on the basis of their biological sex, then i think there would be a strong case there. but we're talking about a rape crisis centre. there are good reasons. good legal reasons why discrimination by sex is perfectly legitimate. in those

cases. >> surely it is. i mean, there is schedule nine under the equality act that allows services like rape crisis and or women's aid to employ females only. and it's quite categorically says this post is only available to women under schedule nine of the equality act. yet he applied for it. now that was wrong. but the point being is he was hired. that's not his fault. that was those that sat on the board that put him in that position. >> well, can i ask about that? because, you know, that sounds very much like the fault lies with those people at the rape crisis centre. the board of whoever it was was responsible for the employment. but in addition to that, the snp has taken a rather odd attitude about all of this. do you think that they were hiring wadaa to make a political point? >> it certainly feels like that. and certainly the women in scotland feel like that. i mean, the previous first minister stated that our views were not valid, and certainly what we found in the ross adams case that those who had complained to edinburgh rape crisis and or

rape crisis scotland , their rape crisis scotland, their emails had been been put in a hate folder so their views weren't valid . so edinburgh rape weren't valid. so edinburgh rape crisis we're not taking on the views of women, you know, stating that this was inappropriate, that they wanted to know the sex of the individual that was giving them counselling, and they were just completely and utterly discounted. so we ask and we're requesting have stated, as has jk rowling, that there needs to be an urgent review of the board at edinburgh crisis and of rape crisis scotland because now that this decision is damaged, sorry, now now that this decision has been has been made . been has been made. >> and of course, as we all know, jk rowling had to set up by this place the only rape crisis centre in scotland that is for women only. but do you think now, given this development, think now, given this development , things are moving development, things are moving in the right direction? maybe in scotland things can get a little better when it comes to women's rights. are you, in other words, heartened by what's happened?

>> i wouldn't say heartened . i >> i wouldn't say heartened. i think that women in scotland have felt utterly destroyed over the revelations that this report came out with last thursday. it is basically confirmed everything that we've been saying, whether that has been to rape crisis themselves and or to politicians, scottish governments across everywhere, this we've even though we managed to get rid of self—id, it still has infiltrated this ideology, has infiltrated every aspect of society here. but the fact that it infiltrated so badly into rape crisis just shows how, unfortunately, we're going to have a lot of weeding out to do over the next few years . and i think the years. and i think the repercussions of this report and of rape crisis scotland's decision was it basically sits with them as the board and the chief executive, sandy brindley. and i think this the report is going to have is going to have ripples and waves for very many months to come and next month will be the remedy. hearing for the individual ross adams. so again it's not going away. so

this will continue on and on and on. so there's a we would request an urgent review be taken by government into all women's sector organisations that receive funding for them to make sure that this never happens again. >> well, marianne, i'm sure that this is something that, as you say, is going to continue and i hope you'll be able to come back on the show to discuss it more. marianne calder from for women scotland, thank you very much for joining me. and next on free forjoining me. and next on free speech nation, the green party have been ordered to pay a whopping £90,000 to cover the costs of their former deputy leader, sara ali, who won a discrimination case against them over his gender critical beliefs. he's going to be here in just one moment. please don't go

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me andrew doyle. later in the show, i'm going to

be turning agony uncle with the help of my panel, cressida wetton and leo kearse. we're going to help you deal with your unfiltered dilemmas. i'm sure you've all got a lot of problems, but just message us at gbnews.com/yoursay and we will sort it all out, i promise you. and now the green party of england and wales have been ordered to pay £90,000 to cover the costs of their former deputy leader, who has won a discrimination case against them following a row over his gender critical beliefs, and the winner of this case, sara ali. i'm delighted to say, is with us in the studio. welcome to the show , the studio. welcome to the show, sara. some people may not have seen you on the show before. some people may not be familiar with the case. can you go back and just explain why did this case even come about in the first place? a subset of people in the green party took exception to the fact that i was appointed reappointed annually as a national spokesperson for policing and domestic safety , policing and domestic safety, and my role would be to cover home affairs and justice. >> and they took exception because i had a gender critical belief. and i was talking about

topics such as same sex prisons for women, which is extremely important, safeguarding and safety against male rapists who might choose to identify as women . and i said, well, there's women. and i said, well, there's a problem with that. there's a problem with that in green party policy. i was also speaking quite vocally around the gender identity development service, and we've seen since then we've seen cass. so everything that i'd been saying is a credible, experienced green politician. i've been vindicated on. and the trial followed their removal of me as a spokesperson in february 2022, and i took them to court around that. i said, you're discriminating against me on the bafis discriminating against me on the basis of my gender critical protected belief, as it was then , protected belief, as it was then, following the tremendous ruling of forstater. >> yes. no. this is very interesting to me , because i interesting to me, because i would have thought that the point of points of view that you were expressing the idea of protecting women's rights, women's safety, safeguarding generally, that these are in line with traditional green party policies. so i don't

understand why you would suddenly become persona non grata. >> they absolutely are in line with party policy. i was an experienced spokesperson, served dunng experienced spokesperson, served during the 2015 general election as a deputy leader, so i knew what i was talking about. written a couple of books in green politics, for what it's worth. so i always based and still do and have done my, in my do and have done my, in my still do and have done my, in my speaking engagements. i was speaking engagements. i was representing the party and i representing the party and i could have said , although could have said , although could have said, although i don't say this, i could have could have said, although i don't say this, i could have said that i was speaking contrary to actually as i said that i was speaking contrary to actually as i believed, but i was speaking in believed, but i was speaking in accordance with what the green accordance with what the green party should be saying at that party should be saying at that point. we have policy on, for point. we have policy on, for example, single sex wards for example, single sex wards for women in hospitals. you wouldn't women in hospitals. you wouldn't hear about this because the hear about this because the fanatics in the party don't want fanatics in the party don't want to admit that we do have gender to admit that we do have gender critical policy. critical policy. >> so it's in there in black and >> so it's in there in black and white. absolutely. >> well, even before the white. absolutely. >> well, even before the conservatives floated it. conservatives floated it. >> but even if it weren't the >> but even if it weren't the case, i mean, as you say, since case, i mean, as you say, since the maya forstater case, since the maya forstater case, since it was it has now been it was it has now been established unequivocally in law established unequivocally in law that gender critical views are that gender critical views are protected legally, then surely protected legally, then surely

the green party should be up for the green party should be up for discussion within its ranks. what's wrong with people having the debates? >> absolutely. we have always been, since i joined the party, over 20 years ago. for the majority of that time, up until about 2018, we were open to have discussion and debate and politics has to have open discussion and robust debate, because if you can't justify your decision making, you're going to be making extremely bad policy. we saw that with the scottish greens in parliament, the reason they're out of government now is because they tried to put through a harebrained, completely bankrupt policy of self—id, which was found to be contrary to our own equality legislation. >> and there's a number of parties that this has affected. obviously, the snp are another example. a number of the major parties in ireland are another example. there's all sorts of parties this seems to just infect the party so that discussion is no longer possible, why do you think this particular ideology has this power? >> well, the green party is often proud of saying that we do politics differently.

unfortunately we don't. we are the opposite of that. we're actually worse than the worst hypocrites of political corruption. so you could say it's to do with common or garden careerism in the party. we have a subset of people who are driving out, people who have rational environmental convictions like myself, in to order push themselves forward. sian right in thinking

>> but am i right in thinking that they had expected or hoped that they had expected or hoped that you would pay your own costs or pay their costs? >> indeed. well, it's extraordinary. so the judgement came out. the ruling came out in february this year, and then we went into denial mode within the green party of england and wales. in fact, there was a lot of briefing against oh, look, he's lost the majority of his claims and so on and so forth. and they completely misunderstood the judgement. if i can just say very briefly, because it's very important, you know, my forces have showed that gender critical belief, sex is immutable, is worthy of respect in a democratic society. i wanted to show that it was also worthy of respect in a political party. the consequences of not being able to engage openly in a political party have extreme consequences for democratic politics itself. moreover, you might suppose that within political parties, the threshold for free speech is higher. it should be possible, and i readily consent, as the judgement does itself, that politicians are putting themselves in the firing line. they may have to operate on a higher threshold of abuse. even. i wouldn't go so far as harassment. but what the

judgement said very clearly, under the equality and sorry, the human rights legislation in this country and european convention of human rights articles nine, ten and 11 to do with freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and freedom of expression and freedom of expression and freedom of association, respectively. he said that they are fundamental. you could call them fundamental human rights. so on the one hand you could say, well, that protects to some extent the abuser from being, you know, from from going too far. but on the other hand, it protects the green party is completely misunderstood, that part of the judgement, it actually protects us. the gender critical folk, from being able to carry on saying what it is we need to say robustly and rationally, without being subjected to transphobia. smear campaigns. yes. >> so finally, sara , all of >> so finally, sara, all of that, you've explained it extremely well . but on the other extremely well. but on the other hand, the party is still suspended . you. suspended. you. >> in fact, this is extraordinarily reckless. there are a number of greens, deep greens you might call them greens you might call them greens and sza who have been suspended even since the court

judgement in february. what you can't shy away from and what is the what was great about the cost win is that it's very hard. the way people are orientated towards money, to deny that you have lost and you have lost fulsomely the fact that they suspended me just a few weeks ahead of that final hearing shows how reckless and incompetent they are, and i'm afraid to say, and i'm to happy make the informal call to the 60,000 members of the party, not to just take back control of your party, but if the party does not revoke those no fault suspensions which have arisen due to a weaponized, politicised disciplinary process, then they will be facing another court, judge. they will be facing another court judgement from my end because i will be putting in another case against them for discrimination and victimisation this time, and they will lose that. >> well and strong words, but justifiable. sara lee, thanks so much for joining justifiable. sara lee, thanks so much forjoining me today. much for joining me today. i really appreciate your time . so really appreciate your time. so next on free speech nation, i'm

going to be speaking to brendan o'neill from spiked, who has some concerning words to say aboutthe to say about the us presidential debate. don't go anywhere.

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me andrew doyle. just some breaking news to give you. donald trump is safe following gunshots in his vicinity, his campaign has said in a statement. it says no further details are available. it is currently unclear where mr trump is. president trump is safe following gunshots in his vicinity. no further details at this time, the statement says . this time, the statement says. meanwhile, this week we saw kamala harris and donald trump face off in the latest presidential debate . one person presidential debate. one person who was not impressed with either candidate is brendan o'neill, the chief political writer of spiked online, who says he has never been more

convinced that america's elite needs to get off the internet and touch grass. we can speak now to brendan o'neill. brendan, thanks so much forjoining me, is it the case? do you think that this debate just reminded us that neither candidate is really up to much? >> yes, very much so, kamala harris was a bit more

>> yes, very much so, kamala harris was a lwheree >> yes, very much so, kamala harris was a lwhere american a bad sign of where american politics is going. >> so can i ask you about the cat eating immigrants? because, i mean, that seems to be the big takeaway from this particular debate. it's been turned into all kinds of memes and things. and of course, previously we've had the kamala harris campaign going on about how she is brat, which i still really haven't worked out what it means, but it does feel a bit like this is just a presidential campaign on both sides that is revolving largely around tiktok and instagram and social media. but that doesn't equate with how people vote, does it ? people vote, does it? >> no it doesn't. you know, this is the vibes election. that is how people are openly referring to it. they're saying that kamala harris has good vibes and therefore you should for vote her. but you know, vibes don't put food on the plate. why should people vote for vibes? it's completely ridiculous. you know, on one side, we have the childless cat ladies who are coming out in support of kamala. that includes taylor swift , a that includes taylor swift, a billionaire pop star who came out for kamala. this week. and then on the other side, we have this obsession amongst the right

with cat eating immigrants. i never thought the american election would be so much about cats. it's absolutely surreal and ridiculous. i think it sums up how shallow political debate has become because in springfield, ohio, where people are allegedly eating cats, there are allegedly eating cats, there are serious problems. you know , are serious problems. you know, the arrival quite suddenly of 20,000 immigrants from haiti is going to have a big impact on that community, on resources in terms of how people feel and so on. but instead of a serious debate about people's concerns, on one side, we have the democrats saying, if you raise concerns, you're racist. so shut the hell up. and on the other side, we have donald trump and his online minions obsessing over haitians eating cats, for which there is no proof . so it which there is no proof. so it really demonstrates how when you have a serious social problem, neither side of the political spectrum seems capable of talking about it in serious terms . and that's what worries terms. and that's what worries me about what's happening now. >> did it surprise you that it took until donald trump's closing remarks for him to really focus on kamala harris's

record as vp? surely that should have been the thing that he should have been talking about all along. and instead he got caught up in accusations that people get bored at his rallies . people get bored at his rallies. >> you know, he really fell for her bait continually. he let her run the show. that was his big mistake in this debate. you know, there were so many openings where he could have gone for her and really exposed her. so, for example, one thing that she's doing at the moment, she's constantly boasting about how she has the support of goldman sachs and all of the top 100 ceos. and of course, taylor swift and other incredibly wealthy celebrities . she is the wealthy celebrities. she is the candidate of the elites. she's the candidate of the rich. he had an opportunity to say, well, i'm here to speak for working class americans . and he didn't class americans. and he didn't seize that opportunity because he was so unfocused. you know, kamala harris is losing, working class votes for the democrats in a huge way, where she stands now with white, working class, non—university educated voters is far worse than where biden

stood with them in 2020. she's not appealing to working class voters. there is a whole base of good, decent, law abiding people in america looking for a candidate who can speak to their concerns . a lot of them thought concerns. a lot of them thought it was trump. it might still be trump if he gets his act together. but at the moment, i think a lot of those voters are thinking, well, we can't vote for kamala. she's the candidate of the rich, and can we really vote for trump if he's going to carry on talking nonsense about cats? so people need to be given a real choice in this election. and so far they haven't been. >> so what is the resolution to all of this? i mean, i think you're absolutely right that politics has been degraded generally, and i'd say globally, but in america particularly, they just don't seem to be able to find on either side a candidate who is who is, well, dare i say it, competent. it just seems to be that we're putting up these these, these cartoonish figures when we need to be having serious debates. what can what can each party do to kind of restore the integrity of political debate at the moment? >> well, competence is the first

thing they need. of course, you know, you need politicians who can string a sentence together and can focus in a debate that only lasts for an hour or an hour and a half. you need people who can, you know, have an honest, open, articulate discussion. but also we need a bit more principle and we need a bit more principle and we need a bit more principle and we need a bit more willingness on the part of politicians to listen to ordinary people. we need a politician who will take people's economic and cultural concerns seriously. their economic concerns in terms of their pocket being hit very hard by the current economic and energy crisis and their cultural concerns in terms of the way in which their nation is always being attacked by the cultural elites, their history, their way of life, their habits, their beliefs. people feel under attack by a pincer movement of economic impoverishment and cultural disdain. and if there was a politician who could stand up on both of those fronts and make a good case for people's freedom and increased wealth, they could do incredibly well .

they could do incredibly well. it's definitely not kamala harris, trump has got about 50 days or so to prove that it might be him . might be him. >> and finally, brendan, i just want to ask you, you know, we broke some news earlier about gunshots having been fired in donald trump's vicinity. the campaign has said he is completely safe. of course , this completely safe. of course, this follows an assassination attempt that we saw before , is it just that we saw before, is it just the case that american politics is now becoming the wild west? all over again? >> you know, the thing that shocks me most about the assassination attempt on trump a few weeks ago, that was as an assassination, assassination attempt. we don't know what the current situation is , is the current situation is, is the speed with which it was memory holed. i mean, people just don't talk about it. at the time i thought, well, this is it. he's got the election in the bag. there's that iconic photograph. he he was quite brave in that situation. he stood up and he punched the air and he said, fight, fight, fight. i'm not sure i would have had the courage to do that if someone was firing a gun at me. and i thought, there you go. he's won.

but it actually was brushed aside very quickly. people didn't take it as seriously as they should have. and i do think that if you demonise a candidate to the degree that trump has been demonised, he hasn't just been demonised, he hasn't just been criticised, which is fine . been criticised, which is fine. he's been called the new hitler a new fascist. the man who will destroy the entire american republic. i think when you do that, there is a danger you're going to inflame the crazy people out there. so we do need to withdraw some of that hysteria and hatred from contemporary politics and inject a bit more principle and good sense. that's what america needs, and that's what the rest of the world needs. as well. >> okay. well, brendan o'neill, thank you ever so much for joining me tonight. really appreciate it. thank you . just appreciate it. thank you. just a reminder of that breaking news. gunshots have been fired in donald trump's vicinity. his campaign has said this is their statement. president trump president trump is safe following gunshots in his vicinity no further details at this time. stephen chung, his campaign spokesperson, made that statement, according to the new york post, two people exchanged

gunfire outside the former president's golf club in west palm beach, florida. the outlet reported. the gunfire was not, quote, targeting trump. okay, well, that's all the end of the first hour on free speech nation. but please don't go away because there's a lot more to come between now and 9:00. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar, sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello, good evening and welcome to your gb news weather update brought to you by the met office. well, we've got high pressure dominating the weather this week, which means plenty of fine and dry weather and plenty of autumnal sunshine too to enjoy. next week to finish off sunday, though, we do have this cold front which is slowly moving its way towards the southeast of the country, so plenty of cloud here and some rain and drizzle through into the evening though, although still plenty of cloud across the south, that rain and drizzle will eventually fizzle out, and that means a milder night across the south compared to those recent nights to the north of

this , though, plenty of clear this, though, plenty of clear skies and light winds, which means it's going to be feeling much chillier and likely to see plenty of mist and fog overnight too, particularly in the northwest of england and wales, where we do have a yellow fog warning issued. otherwise, though, to start monday, there will be plenty of bright sunshine and that mist and fog will generally dissipate fairly quickly through the course of the morning once again across northern ireland, through into the scottish borders. plenty of bright sunshine, those mist and fog patches and rural spots. that fog may just be a little bit dense where we do have the warning issued. so do be careful for the monday morning commute and any cloud across the south will kind of lift and break through the course of the morning, and that does allow plenty of sunshine to develop across most of the country. so plenty of that warm sunshine to start the new working week. just a build of higher cloud into the northwest through into the afternoon. perhaps some rain and drizzle towards the outer hebrides, but otherwise plenty of warm sunshine. highs of 22 boxt boilers, sponsors of wewarm on boxt boilers, sponsors of wewarm sunshine. highs of 22

celsius down to the south. now of warm sunshine. highs of 22 celsius down to the south. now heading into tuesday, that high heading into tuesday, that high pressure is still dominating the pressure is still dominating the weather, so still plenty of fine weather, so still plenty of fine and dry conditions. after a and dry conditions. after a chilly start, that cloud will chilly start, that cloud will continue to build in the continue to build in the northwest. we may see some northwest. we may see some outbreaks of rain and drizzle to outbreaks of rain and drizzle to the far north, but as we head the far north, but as we head into next week, still plenty of into next week, still plenty of that fine and dry weather that fine and dry weather around. just feeling a little around. just feeling a little bit chilly overnight. bye for bit chilly overnight. bye for now . now . now. >> that warm feeling inside from now. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers, sponsors of boxt boilers, sponsors of weather on weather on

gb news. >> there's plenty more still to come on free speech nation this week, but let's get a news update first from tatiana sanchez. >> andrew thank you. let's start with that breaking news story

that donald trump's campaign says he is safe following gunshots in his vicinity in florida. mr trump was injured in an assassination attempt in pennsylvania on the 13th of july. it's 51

northern france around 51 survivors were rescued and six were taken to hospital, including a ten month old baby suffering from hypothermia. this news comes less than two weeks after a separate incident where 12 migrants died after a boat sank off the french coastline. the foreign secretary has defended the prime minister following allegations that sir keir starmer has broken parliamentary rules by failing to declare donations of clothing for his wife, the sunday times reported . the gifts came from reported. the gifts came from labour donor lord alli and covered the cost of a personal shopper, clothes and alterations for the prime minister's wife dunng for the prime minister's wife during the election campaign. >> this is not a breach of transparency rules, it's a prime minister that's acting positively to make sure that everything is above board and this money comes from a long standing over two decades. lord alli has been in the house of lords. he has been a big

supporter of the labour party. he's a self—made man, and i think there is nothing to see here really , sir ed davey's says here really, sir ed davey's says the nhs cannot withstand labour reforms without more funding . reforms without more funding. >> the lib dems leader made the comments during the second day of the lib dem party conference in brighton today. earlier this week, sir keir starmer said the nhs will not get any more funding without reforming as he laid out a ten year plan to fix the health service. sir ed davey says he's concerned that the government is talking about reform before investment and ukraine's president has pleaded for the uk and the us to give permission for ukraine to use western missiles to strike russian targets, as vladimir putin's forces carried out another bombing raid. volodymyr zelenskyy called for decisiveness as he urged leaders to overcome the fear of making the choice. sir keir starmer and joe biden met in washington on friday for talks on giving ukraine permission to use long—range missiles to target

russian airfields and military bases, but no decision was reached. the issue is likely to come up again when sir keir starmer, joe biden and zelenskyy all attend the un general assembly in new york later this month. but zelenskyy says he wants a quicker outcome and those are the latest gb news headlines. for now, i'm tatiana sanchez. i'll be back in an hour for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . forward slash alerts. >> welcome back to free speech nation. so let's just remind you of the news that gunshots have been fired in donald trump's vicinity. his campaign has said the following . president trump the following. president trump is safe following gunshots in his vicinity. no further details at this time, according to the new york post, at this time, according to the new york post , two people new york post, two people exchanged gunfire outside the

former president's golf club in west palm beach, florida. the outlet reported that the gunfire was not targeting trump, but this is interesting, isn't it, because it's reminding us it's going to remind the electorate as well of that assassination attempt and a point that brendan o'neill made to me during our interview before the break was that people seem to have forgotten about that rather monumental event, haven't they? >> absolutely. i mean, when it happened, it was huge, wasn't it? we had quite an exciting night here. breaking news. it was. it was a very busy. we thought it was a huge story. and within a few weeks. it's not something we're talking about as much anymore. and you're absolutely right. this will bnng absolutely right. this will bring it back, won't it? >> so why is that? i mean, you know, there's been a lot of focus in the media on kamala harris. they're trying to turn her into this sort of saintly figure and trying to make everyone forget how much democrats couldn't stand her. about two minutes ago. has that been the thing that's distracted away from this rather incredible news story? >> well, the media is roughly 85% pro kamala harris. so there's huge bias in the media against trump. so obviously they're going to memory hole

anything that might inspire, you know , some sort of solidarity know, some sort of solidarity with trump or remind people that trump, you know, showed some heroism. can you imagine can you imagine a democrat? can you imagine a democrat? can you imagine any left wing person? have you burst a packet of cnsps have you burst a packet of crisps next to them? you know what i mean. they're going to throw themselves on the ground and they won't be able to get up again because they're vegetarian. it's >> well, i do wonder whether this latest event, irrespective of what it was or who was shooting at whom, that actually this might reignite the memory. >> well, apparently it was two people shooting at each other , people shooting at each other, which suggests it was a it was a 16th century style duel over the honour of a maiden, which, i mean, it's good because we hear so much about, you know, socioeconomic factors causing crime and violence in impoverished communities. so it's good to see they're actually upholding some chivalry. >> right. let's bring back duelling. that's the motto of that story. let's move on. now. we've got we've got this audience here. let's get some questions. we've got a question from lawrence. where is lawrence? yeah. hello. oh, there

you go. lawrence >> okay, so the education secretary, bridget phillipson, said earlier this year that she was going to not go forward with the free speech act for universities. yes, but now just recently, there's been a big petition signed by hundreds of academics, including myself and more significantly, by quite a lot of nobel laureates. yes. do you think we have a chance to save this act? >> this is interesting, lawrence . >> this is interesting, lawrence. now, you say you're an academic. you've signed this this petition as well. and as you say, seven nobel laureates have signed this. and it was quite astonishing, wasn't it, because bridget phillipson just jettisoned this act, which parliament had cross—party support in parliament. people have been working on this for up to five years. it was an incredible act of political vandalism happened. she snuck it in just the day before parliament went into recess, so there couldn't be a debate in parliament about it. lawrence, do you think that this just suggests what i've suspected for a long time, which is that the labour party really not only just isn't interested in free speech, but is openly

antagonistic to it. >> it could be at the moment. it's not always been that way, though, with the labour party. so i'm hopeful that there may be quite a lot of people in the labour party who are for free speech. yes, maybe even people in the top rung, so i'm hopeful that the petition combined with the free speech unions legal action that they're taking, could combine to save something. yes. and if it's not saved, then maybe something simpler and less expensive for the universities might be an alternative. >> well, i had toby young on this show. i asked him about that, about how expensive this is going to be, and he said that that's just not true. it's just simply not going to be very expensive. and they're not being honest about that. actually they spend a lot more on much more frivolous things. >> well, and also, hasn't it cost universities a lot? the other side of the coin, you know, having to have security, if you do come and have a if you have a speaker who's, who's potentially going to upset people and cause problems, that must be extremely expensive.

well, quite universities, especially since apparently anyone can cause upsets, even the nicest people. exactly. you know. yeah. >> i mean, this is odd, isn't it, leo? because the idea of, you know, free speech at a university, surely we could all agree. i know there's various degrees of authoritarianism in the labour party, but surely we can all agree that when it comes to university, that's where we can have discussions. yeah it's like we were talking before. >> you've got to be free to you know, question parameters in order to advance knowledge and advance progress. anything that you see that contradicts, you know, the established paradigm is going to be offensive to somebody who's going to be, you know, there's going to be controversial. you've got to you've got to have that freedom to be controversial. yeah. and i admire your optimism that lawrence, that, you know, labour might house some people who believe in free speech because i'm pretty sure they don't like keir starmer is pretty much . keir starmer is pretty much. it's like he just wishes he'd been born in the soviet union in the 1940s, so he could be like giving people a knock at 3 am. and carton. father's off to the gulag to never be seen again. it's horrific. they love laws and rules, social rules that are

opaque and mysterious. you question, you're not really sure how they apply because then they can apply them to whoever they want. some of the people being sent to sent to jail for sharing memes. you know, they get they get time in jail. other people don't get time in jail for saying much worse stuff under communism. it was the same kind of thing the innocent people went to jail and criminals were freed onto the onto the streets. it keeps it keeps the population demoralised and confused and scared. >> okay, well, look, we're going to move on now to a question from jane. it's jane, hello . from jane. it's jane, hello. hello, hello. >> right. keir starmer is alleged to have broken rules over party donors gifts to his wife, and has made a late declaration of a personal shopper and clothes for his wife, paid for by lord alli. how do you think this should be? how should he be held to account? yeah, interesting. >> i mean, my understanding, cressida, is that this was a mistake. as well. we all know we all agree that it was a mistake, but my understanding is that he just. perhaps he didn't. he wasn't aware that this was some

kind of infraction like keir starmer. >> is it because we know that he's into admin and rules? >> that's true. >> that's true. >> being specific, that's true. what a funny thing to not be like keir starmer. >> it's a lot of money on clothes isn't it? >> i know, but my understanding. >> i know, but my understanding. >> isn't it true, though, that lord alli does not actually have influence within the labour party? you know, or are you suggesting that the buying of clothes. i mean, it certainly looks bad. i think it's the opfics looks bad. i think it's the optics that are the problem here, isn't it? >> yes. good old optics, what was the question? does he have influence? >> yeah. i mean, will him buy? you know, i can imagine that if he wanted to exercise some influence within the government, a bribe with a few coats isn't the way to do it, i don't think. >> you think he'd do something sort of deeper and bigger, i guess. hidden >> this all sounds a bit silly to me. well, yeah, it does, but it makes good headlines, doesn't it, i suppose. is it? am i right? is it a bit of a non—story? >> yeah, i think i think it's a bit of a non—story. i mean, we've we've seen this before, you know, during lockdown when, you know, during lockdown when, you know, during lockdown when, you know, billions of pounds of pubuc you know, billions of pounds of public money were being dished out to mates of the government and mates to anybody in

parliament, and instead they focused on, oh, you went to you went to a party, somebody had a birthday cake. it was, it was really weird, the stuff that they focus on, the stuff that just gets completely memory holed. and i think it's the same with this. there's huge examples of, you know, buying influence. i mean, look at the unions buying, you know, they donate to labour and then labour, you know, lavishes tens of billions of pounds on pay rises for union members. look at the green energy lobby. you've got these green energy barons like dale vince ecotricity, his company donates to the or he donates to the labour party . millions, by the labour party. millions, by the labour party. millions, by the way. but he gets that back like manifold over in subsidies to ecotricity. so these are the things that should be should be looked at. i mean, a few frocks for his for his wife. yeah. >> but you could say, you know, this is about integrity, that ultimately the leader of the country has to be squeaky clean. i mean, that's a fair point. >> no, i think i think we're too harsh on politicians. i think we should allow them to just be a little bit marcos. like every time, every every tuesday, every tuesday, first tuesday of the month or something. you get to be imelda marcos and get some free shoes from from. >> well, she's not mentioned enough on this show. i'm glad you brought her up. let's start

talking about carmen miranda next. i think with the fruit in her hair, anyway, i'm sure they didn't. they weren't buying fruit, a fruity hat. it wasn't that, was it? >> i don't think vic starmer would be seen in a fruity hat. >> no. well, she should. i think she could pull that off. vic, let's get a question now from sean. hi, sean. hi, >> do you think it's appropriate for keir starmer in parliament to push through the assisted dying bill? the way they're apparently going to. >> yeah. i mean, this is very interesting. this is a citizens jury interesting. this is a citizens jury has overwhelmingly backed the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill people. they had heard from experts over a period of eight weeks. i think, leo, a lot of people are worried about this because we've seen what happened in canada. you know , where there so much you know, where there so much for assisted dying that the government puts out adverts basically saying feeling a bit down, why not kill yourself? yeah, and i think that's the worry isn't it. >> and the only adverts you'll see white people in. but yeah, it's ridiculous. they've said i'm not, i'm not even joking. look at the advert. it's all white people, you know what i mean? everything else. it's like a university prospectus cover. but you know, this particular

advert or gambling or alcoholism or wife beating all of a sudden they can find some white actors. >> in all seriousness and bringing it back to the topic, i mean, the problem we do face is that actually a lot of people, perfectly healthy people who are suffering from depressive issues. yeah. are signing up to be euthanized. and that should not be something a government encourages and they're young, viable people. >> quite , quite frequently. and >> quite, quite frequently. and it's pretty disgusting in canada and in countries that have assisted dying, assisted dying is now one of the leading causes of death. and in canada, i mean, it's disgusting. a mother discovered that her son, i think he's 21 or 22, he had diabetes. he was blind in one eye and he had depression , which, you know, had depression, which, you know, i mean, those are those are serious conditions. but, you know, they're treatable. and you can you can live with them . he can you can live with them. he behind her back, he'd signed up and obviously a nosy mother who was going through his letters. that might have been another factor for him wanting to die, but he he had behind her back, signed up for assisted dying, and the authorities had said, you can die. so when, when the government in this country says,

oh, this will just be for people in the last six months, people with terminal illnesses, you'd be surprised how quickly that wedge the thin end, turns into the fat end. >> that's the worry, isn't it, cressida? because i think, you know, most of us would have sympathy. you know, some people are in terrible pain. pain that cannot be alleviated. and they're very old and, you know, yeah, it's a different question, isn't it? >> esther rantzen's, the face of it, she's become the poster girl and she's like the national treasure. so it all looks like a good idea. and of course, this six month thing is really significant because if somebody's only got six months to live, that drastically changes the argument. but to leo's point, that's the beginning of it. >> doesn't end there, does it? >> doesn't end there, does it? >> i don't think it will. i feel very cynical about this. but having said all of that, if they've gone and asked people, everyday folk and people want this, you can't get away from the fact that it's kind of democratic. >> yes, but once you implement it, it will affect people who didn't want it. it potentially could be open to exploitation 100%. so there's all sorts of reasons history would i mean, it's a bit dramatic, but you know, there's examples that some of the things the nazis did began with compassionate moves. >> i appreciate that's a big

leap . i understand what you're leap. i understand what you're saying. >> i understand what you're saying. >> that's definitely getting cupped >> that's definitely getting clipped out. >> yeah, but but it is a very serious topic. >> and i think this topic is going to be something we're going to be something we're going to be discussing more and more, because this is something that i think labour are very much for at the moment, or it seems to be the case. we've got a question from paul now. paul. hello. yeah. >> so the little poem 20 is plenty seems to be the only rationale that's been used in wales to impose. well said . 20 wales to impose. well said. 20 mile an hour speed limit. despite the fact that on a common sense basis, this massively increases delivery costs , and that it's a blanket, costs, and that it's a blanket, 20 mile an hour speed limit on link roads and residential roads means that people are more likely to be driving in residential roads and so, you know, from an engineer's point of view, you used to live in wales, they are now owning up fessing up to the fact that this is probably not a good idea. and should they do that?

>> it's interesting you say, paul >> it's interesting you say, paul, because the man who invented the policy, the policy of 20 mile an hour speed limits throughout wales on all roads. he's now said that he thinks it was a bad idea. so maybe there's something to that. but on the other hand, paul can i ask you the statistics have shown, have they not that deaths are by, by by road accidents and injuries by road accidents and injuries by road accidents have gone down since the implementation of this law. so isn't that something that we should be pleased about? >> well, from an engineering bafis >> well, from an engineering basis you have to look at, unforeseeable consequences. and as i say, the very fact that if you impose a 20 mile an hour on a link road as well as residential roads , the incentive residential roads, the incentive to use link roads, which are not around where children are, then in the long run, that very much, could lead to much more traffic within residential areas going straight through them and more casualties and more casualties. >> that's interesting. what do you think of that, cressida? is it you know, is it the case that they just hadn't thought in terms of what unintentional

consequences there might be? >> yeah. i think we should get paul running things, you know, and it sounds like it's ongoing. doesn't it? yeah. politicians just love to create new ideas and new bits of legislation. and there's lots of stuff to do, isn't it? yeah. >> well, what do you think? i mean, look, it is true, though, isn't it, that when people drive slower, less people die, fewer people die. sorry >> yeah, yeah. >> yeah, yeah. >> correct. grammar. well done. >> correct. grammar. well done. >> correcting myself. >> correcting myself. >> it's obsessive at this point. go on. yeah. i mean, i think the i think the slogan twenty's plenty if it's going to be used in wales, it should just be for huw edwards. >> but, i think 20 miles an houn >> but, i think 20 miles an hour, people who don't have cars might not understand how slow. 20 miles an hour actually is. there are some roads in london up there are some roads in london ”p by there are some roads in london up by hampstead heath and it's a straight road. you're not around houses. it's 20 miles an hour. and like you drive down it, i feel like i'm going to get picked up for kerb crawling. >> it's so slow. it's insane. >> okay, well, let's get one more question now from juliet. juliet. hi >> apparently, eu flags were banned, were confiscated from concert goers on the last night

of the proms , has the has there of the proms, has the has there been some confusion? well, at the royal albert hall. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> no, there has been juliet, because some of the people who were searching the bags or whatever they were doing, some of them thought it was okay to bnngin of them thought it was okay to bring in an eu flag. some people thought, oh, we can't let people go in with union jacks. but of course, there's been a tradition of audience members waving the union jack on the last night, i mean, it's an interesting question, though, isn't it, leo? should it be the case that the proms or entertainment generally, that we should just get politics out of it? >> yeah. i mean, are you still allowed to have the union jack? >> you are allowed to have the union jack. you're not allowed to have other political flags, right? yeah, but some some of the security guards didn't understand that. and they let in the eu flag. oh, i don't know. it's a big mess. >> yeah. i mean, i'm not too fussed about about eu flags being flown. i mean, i think it's nice to show, you know, our sort of solidarity and our connection to europe. i know people say it's a political flag, but really it's just a flag, but really it's just a flag for europe as well. >> so i mean, it's kind of does it mean europe though? >> i mean, the flag specifically means the member states. that's

what each star is about, isn't it? >> yeah. >> yeah. >> and i guess we're not one of them. now, did they actually have to reissue the flags with, like, a star taken off? >> do you know? >> do you know? >> that's a very good question. not one that i've ever investigated, but i'm going to look into that for you because i'm that boring. what do you think, cressida? >> well, we've all got very sensitive around flags, haven't we? we have. we have. >> i think it's hilarious that it sounds. if you read it in one way, it sounds like they're saying the eu is a proscribed organisation. yeah. security guards just panicked and thought, we can't have that in here, lads. >> yeah. no. well, i think they have said that you can't have the eu flag, but you can have the eu flag, but you can have the union jack. but is that political? >> well, it's the last night of the proms, isn't it? it is the proms. it seems a strange thing to stop people taking the union jack flag to that. >> it does. it does a little bit. okay, well, thank you to everyone for the questions. and next up on free speech nation, lorcan price from the alliance defending freedom international is going to join us to brazil's ongoing ban of the social media platform x. you won't want to

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. just a recap now on the breaking news that we've been bringing you. us president joe biden and vice president kamala harris have both been briefed after gunshots were fired in donald trump's vicinity. the statement reads president trump is safe following gunshots in his vicinity. no further details at this time. that's the campaign spokesperson. this has also been confirmed, by the way, by the secret service. and we will bnng secret service. and we will bring you any more developments on this story on gb news as soon as we get it . the advocacy group as we get it. the advocacy group adf international has written an open letter to the brazilian congress demanding the country's blanket ban on x, of course, formerly known as twitter. the letter has been signed by over 100 leading free speech advocates, including liz truss and michael shellenberger. so what are the next steps? well, to find out, i'm joined by lorcan price, the legal for counsel alliance defending freedom international. morgan, welcome to the show. thank you

andrew. let's begin just by explaining to anyone who doesn't know what has happened. elon musk's ex completely banned in brazil . who has done that and why? >> so the brazilian supreme court has a kind of a power to investigate and prosecute. it's a civil law system. and there's a civil law system. and there's a judge there called judge alexandre de moraes. he has decided that x is being used for, as he called the propagation of myths and disinformation. election result denials and this type of thing he regards as political violence . he regards as political violence. and as a result of that he started to fined the company because they wouldn't take down some of the content that elon musk defended. his free speech, and then he banned it completely. >> and that's specifically related to the recent elections. >> that's related to the brazilian elections, correct? but there has been a context now moving in a number of years in brazil, unfortunately, from both sides of the political spectrum to try and stifle free speech. but it has really reached a new level under president lula, who's back in power after the last election. >> and what is it that your organisation, the adf international, is trying to do about this?

>> well, we're trying to draw attention to this because it's a lot more serious, i think, than people think. and brazil is a democracy. it's a new democracy, granted. but this is one of the first times that a democracy has entirely banned a an online platform in this kind of way. and it follows after we saw the arrest of pavel durov by the french authorities . and we've french authorities. and we've seen the investigation into ex started by the eu commission. so taken together, these things constitute a type of real crackdown. i would suggest, on platforms online that allow free expression. you're more used to seeing this kind of thing in saudi arabia or china or iran, but not by democracies. and it's very worrying to see there's very worrying to see there's very little, in fact, nothing being said by the us state department in relation to this. and the european commission with the internal markets commissioner is writing very pointed letters saying we're going to see more action taken against x. so i think it's really a matter of time before we start to see bans against companies like x that facilitate free speech in the name of tackling misinformation and disinformation. and this is not unknown completely. i should say. remember, russia today was

banned completely across the european union after the russian invasion. so whatever you might make of that, x is a totally different category because it's a, it's a platform that facilitates discussion. and if you believe then that it's being used for propaganda or for misinformation, if you believe that the answer to that is to completely shut it down, then you're really crossing a very serious line in terms of censorship. >> so i suppose the counterargument would be something like russia today, which is funded by the russian government. putin is involved in that in that way financially. yes. that could be said to be propagandising in a war. but elon musk's entire principle is free speech is we're going to let everyone speak, irrespective of whether he agrees with them or not. a public, place where the marketplace of ideas can be exchanged. that's a very different thing. surely that's something that should be encouraged by all sides. i would have thought. >> absolutely, if you . and this >> absolutely, if you. and this is why i think it's important to highlight the brazil scenario or the brazil case to people. if you have a situation where you

cannot raise criticism of everything from covid lockdowns to the war in to ukraine transgender issues in sports , transgender issues in sports, you're really stunting democracy in a very fundamental way. and x for whatever you might think about. elon musk has provided that free speech platform. and we've seen now from the things that have been emerged from the us congress, investigations that facebook and google and others mounted a very serious campaign of censorship under pressure from the us government during the covid pandemic, for example. but without having a free speech platform like x, we're really going to see a real problem with challenging the narratives around all of these controversial issues, because, again , democracy doesn't have again, democracy doesn't have a pubuc again, democracy doesn't have a public square, as you say, a marketplace of ideas is a stunted democracy. it's a democracy that cannot function. we're simply being relegated to holding our own private thoughts and not being able to share them. and that's just not a way to be able to persuade people or to be able to persuade people or to influence decision making. >> and of course, over the past couple of days, we've heard that the australian government is

trying to impose very serious, crippling fines on social media companies over the propagation of misinformation . it feels as of misinformation. it feels as though very much that various governments are now saying, you're not allowed to be wrong about anything, but perhaps even more sinister than that. it's not about being right or wrong. it's about putting out information that is beneficial to a particular political worldview. is that an unfair thing? >> no, i think that's a fair description of what we're facing here. again, misinformation and disinformation . these are disinformation. these are completely elastic concepts and for example, alleging that the coronavirus was released from the lab in wuhan was enough to have you banned from old twitter before elon musk took over. it was enough to see people's accounts being taken down on on facebook and so on. so even discussing something like that, that's now that was at the time a controversial issue, and that now there's a lot of evidence to suggest in fact, that's exactly where the virus originated, is an example of the problem of locking down and banishing controversial points of view that conflict with whatever type of narrative governments are using. and the problem here

isn't, i think, necessarily that we're going to see more bans across, the west in particular against x and other platforms. you're going to see crippling fines being used. and i'm glad you mentioned that australia is looking at that. the european union is looking at that. i think it's only a matter of time before we see something similar happening in this country as well. >> well, that's a really interesting point because in the guardian newspaper, there have been multiple calls for elon musk's arrest. there was an article by jonathan freedland saying precisely that there was an article by robert reich. that's right. i mean, it sounds like i'm making this up, but you have people in a free democracy writing for a media outlet, openly advancing extreme authoritarian positions. so is it the case that under this new labour government, we are edging towards that reality? >> i think you cannot underestimate the threat that people in power feel from free speech, and they will take extreme steps to cut the amount of free speech that's permitted in society, to protect their narratives to and protect their power. and we've seen that

again. i mentioned all kinds of issues. whatever you think about the war in ukraine or covid or trans issues in sports and so on, if you see authorities using the power of the state to cut down on free expression, that's because they feel threatened by it . and our problem, i think, is it. and our problem, i think, is that elon musk certainly controversial, colourful , controversial, colourful, flamboyant figure, has now, as you say, quite correctly, been pilloried and being attacked in a very personal way. i think this is the first step, then to finding his company being attacked for the type of issues we described, and then the next step is the bans. >> so then what do you make of the counterargument, which would be that, you know, during the after the horrific southport stabbing, misinformation was put out there were people suggesting it was an asylum seeker. that wasn't true. some people have suggested that that whipped up raised the temperature to such a degree that actual real world violence was caused. what do you make of that argument that we have to police what people say online, otherwise people get hurt. >> there is a clear line between advocacy and cause incitement for violence , which has been

for violence, which has been a criminal offence for a very long time. in virtually every country in the world. and these new categories about misinformation and hate speech and so on, which have really the misinformation and disinformation is really in the last 5 or 6 years, particularly since brexit and the trump election. but hate speech is probably a little bit older, but they're still quite new compared to advocacy for violence. i don't think anyone supports calls for physical violence in the name of free speech, but if you get into a position where you're saying whether the government can police or not, the truth of contents of statements that don't advocate for violence, then we've crossed a very serious line. the government cannot be the arbiter of what is true and false. that's a matter for the marketplace of ideas. >> and finally, just to bring this back to brazil, >> and finally, just to bring this back to brazil , how >> and finally, just to bring this back to brazil, how can people find out more about your campaign and what is next? >> well, they can check out our website where we've set out the letter. it's been signed by a lot of people. the next step is to put as much legal pressure as we can on the brazilian government. that's either from the united states, from from the parliament there calling for other institutions globally to take action. and then the inter—american court of human rights, where we've taken legal

action ourselves. we can't allow these things to just become the norm , where entire platforms are norm, where entire platforms are being banned by democracies in the name of tackling mis and disinformation. if we allow this thing to happen there, it's going to start happening in many other places. australia across europe. we have to take action. we have to put a line in the sand that this is not permissible in free societies . permissible in free societies. >> morgan, bryce, thanks very much for joining >> morgan, bryce, thanks very much forjoining us. really appreciate it. thank you. andrew and next on free speech nation, author and journalist ella whelan will join us here in the studio to discuss the announcement from the government that they will not be rewriting planned changes to the equality act that were aimed at protecting single—sex spaces please don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. the labour government will not

be carrying forward plans to rewrite the equality act to protect single—sex spaces. and why is this so important? because the conservatives have planned to clarify the bill, to make it clear that sex in legislation means biological sex. so to explain this, i'm joined now by journalist and author ella whelan. welcome to the show . so, ella, a lot of the show. so, ella, a lot of people were saying that when the equality act was formulated back in the day, nobody would have doubted or even questioned the idea that the word sex within the equality act pertained to biological sex. what are the kind of sex is there? times have changed, and now activists are saying the equality act does not protect biological sex. are they right? >> yeah. it's well, in practice, it just doesn't work because there is this confusion between there is this confusion between the idea of someone's gender or someone's sex, which, as you say, i mean, even five, ten years ago wouldn't have been such a big deal as it is now. the sort of rise of gender ideology and the issue of trans, as we know, particularly among young people, has kind of skyrocketed. and it might be part of our vocabulary today,

but it certainly wasn't ten, 20 years ago, and in practice, this means that the confusion in the law, means that, say you run a rape crisis centre, which most people , most sensible people, people, most sensible people, and sympathetic people will understand as being places that as being places that understand as being places that are women only protected in sex are women only protected in sex and being that in that and being that in that particular instance, what body particular instance, what body you have is pretty relevant to you have is pretty relevant to the issue at hand , but the the issue at hand , but the the issue at hand, but the people who run those centres are the issue at hand, but the people who run those centres are now, if , you know, now, if , you know, people who run those centres are now, if, you know, if people who run those centres are now, if , you know, if they're people who run those centres are now, if, you know, if people who run those centres are now, if , you know, if they're now, if, you know, if they're going to apply by the law , now, if, you know, if they're going to apply by the law , going to apply by the law, potentially have to allow in going to apply by the law, potentially have to allow in trans women , potentially have to trans women , potentially have to trans women, potentially have to trans women, potentially have to have, you know, be basically have, you know, be basically they're in danger of being they're in danger of being discriminatory if they don't. discriminatory if they don't. that's a big problem for women. that's a big problem for women. also, in sort of more mundane, also, in sort of more mundane, but also sort of everyday but also sort of everyday important aspects of life, important aspects of life, whether it's swimming pools, whether it's swimming pools, infamously, the hampstead heath infamously, the hampstead heath and ponds being where a lot of and ponds being where a lot of activists are and talking about activists are and talking about this, that you just can't you this, that you just can't you can't say women only here can't say women only here

because women only means women because women only means women only. plus trans women. and the, you know, it was one of the very few things that the conservatives promised to do, right? they had their head screwed on before they got kicked out by saying, let's just clarify this. it's just a very simple thing. clarify this. it's just a very simple thing . let's just simple thing. let's just clarify. it's about biology, which is what most people understand it to be. and of course, you've got anneliese dodds who you know is both incompetent when talking about anything relating to the gender wars and also on the wrong side of it in terms of being overly sympathetic to the trans to trans activists coming in and saying nothing to see here. we don't need to change it. well, that's what i'm confused about, because we've had wes streeting saying the labour party will be implementing the findings of the cass review, suggesting that there is an understanding within labour of the importance of these issues. >> but as you say, there are other voices like anneliese dodds who don't seem to know what they're talking about. but surely clarifying it would help everyone. and can't everyone get behind that? >> well, no, everyone can't get behind that because we have to

remember there's quite a strong activist. pressure from trans activists, whether it's stonewall or any other organisation that still has the ear of the labour party. i mean, let's not forget that keir starmer, this is the ridiculous situation we're in. keir starmer didn't know what a woman was for a very long time. he had this confusion

a very long time. he had this confusi a| a very long time. he had this confusia real a very long time. he had this confusi a real effect on women's having a real effect on women's lives and not just on an everyday basis, but in serious cases in relation to rape crisis centres. but the interesting thing about the equality law is that, you know, and we've i'm donning the battle of ideas festivalt donning the battle of ideas festival t shirt, you'll notice which is happening on the 19th and 20th of october, and we've got this session where we want to look at equality law and ask whether it's a friend or foe and say, you know, from issues around free speech, protected characteristics in the news over the last week, there's been the suggestion that, afro hair, black hair would be might become a protected characteristic. we've had lots of other rules about political beliefs and stuff, and the equality law just keeps expanding, expanding, expanding. and we want to ask the question of whether or not it's fit for purpose and whether or not actually we're having these political cultural battles , these political cultural battles, and they're getting squashed into the arena of law. and whether we sort of have an issue with lawfare being the order of the day. so that's just, you know , as much as i hang my head

know, as much as i hang my head in despair about the incompetence of the labour party, i think there is an interesting tension there, which is that just if we fix the equality law, all of this isn't going to go away , and we should going to go away, and we should be careful about relying on courts and lawyers trying to fix what are deeply political and cultural issues. >> well, now that you've mentioned it, the battle of ideas coming up in about a month's time, as you say, for people who haven't seen, i mean, i'm at the battle of ideas every yean i'm at the battle of ideas every year, and i absolutely love it. and we film a special free speech nation show there every year as we're doing again this yean year as we're doing again this year. but for anyone who's watching, who doesn't know about this, this event, which you, of course co—convene, perhaps you could tell us a bit more about it. >> so yeah, this free speech nafion >> so yeah, this free speech nation takes place at the battle, and we're very glad that we've got another year of you guys coming down to do it, it is the we kind of call ourselves the we kind of call ourselves the home of free speech. there's lots of it's been great that there's been a proliferation of free speech organisations. i actually have to give a shout out to for women scotland, who are running a case in relation to the equality law. and there's lots of stuff going on, but it

feels like and we're very proud to have everybody pile into church house, westminster, and we become the home of free speech and open debate. our sort of tagline this year is conversations for the public, for the public, with the public, in public. because whether it's the labour party, conservatives, the labour party, conservatives, the last general election , the last general election, everything feeling like there's no space to talk about the issues that matter. we're going to be having debates on the endgame for ukraine, international issues in relation to what's going on in germany or what's going on in america. actually, we've got a kamala mania session related to what brendan was talking about. we've got discussions about free speech. we're really excited to be partnering with fire from america this year, who are coming over to bring an american perspective to the free speech wars. but also, you know, we are not just interested in the big p capital p political issues. we also want to look at arts and culture. we've got a really wonderful session on why js bach still matters, and whether or not you want to play some of his music, you know, a session asking what's the best ever joke, which will be in a

partnership with comedy unleashed? there's kind of something for everyone. the only thing you need to qualify for to come is, aside from getting a ticket, is that you are interested in free speech. people of all political persuasions come right, left, somewhere in the middle. don't know. >> that's really important, isn't it? because i whenever i've been at the battle, one of the things i love about it is heanng the things i love about it is hearing both sides quite genuinely. it's not that echo chamber thing at all. and that's getting more difficult, isn't it? with a lot of campaign groups saying no debate, we just won't talk. how have you found getting those people involved? yeah. >> look, we've, you know, the there are still issues in which we want to have massive rows. so i'm running a women's strand and a women's freedom strand, and there will be some really quite touchy battles on there of people who are still quite on distinct lines. but there are certain issues where, you know, for example, in relation to decolonisation, we've got a session on decolonising the curriculum in education where, you know, rather than having this sort of loggerhead, almost performative battle, we want to

have a conversation around the issues . so i think we can all issues. so i think we can all accept there's a there's something to talk about in relation to censorship. you know, i'm sort of done with the people who say, oh, free speech. you're all making it up as the storm in a teacup. i'm just. i'm done with that. yeah so i'm not going to have anyone like that on any of my panels. but instead, i think the conversations people want to have is, why is this happening? how deep does it go? what are the solutions ? so there are the solutions? so there are going to be some hot barney's and some people at loggerheads, but they're also going to be some really in—depth discussions, which is where our keynote debates come in on stuff like populism , two tier governance, populism, two tier governance, multiculturalism, all these issues that everyone tells you to shut up and not talk about. we want to talk about. >> so finally, where can people find out more about the battle ofideas find out more about the battle of ideas and how can they get tickets? >> you can get tickets at battle of ideas. org.uk, or just of ideas. org.uk, orjust message me or clare fox or anyone on related to the academy ofideas anyone on related to the academy of ideas on twitter. and if you're there's, there's deals for school students, there's deals for university students. and if you're completely skint and you can't afford it, join my volunteers team. you get free

tickets. so there really is no excuse to not be there with us. >> fantastic ella whelan, thanks so much forjoining me. thanks and next on free speech nation, it'll be this week's social sensations. you can find out what's going viral on social media. don't go

welcome back to free speech with me andrew doyle. so just a recap on the breaking news that we've been bringing you all night. us president joe biden and vice president joe biden and vice president kamala harris have both been briefed after gunshots were fired in donald trump's vicinity. we're currently showing you live pictures from west palm beach in florida , and west palm beach in florida, and this is the quotation from the spokesperson . president trump is spokesperson. president trump is safe following gunshots in his vicinity. no further details at this time. this has also been confirmed by the secret service. and we'll bring you any more

developments on the story on gb news as we receive them. so it's time for social sensations. that's the part of the show where we look at what's been going viral this week on social media. and first up is this video eating the dogs . video eating the dogs. >> they're eating the cats. eat the cat, eat, eat the cat. they're eating the dogs. they're eating the cats. eat the cats eat. eat the cat. eat the. they're eating the cats. they're eating the dogs. eat the cat. eat >> eat the cat. the cat eat. >> i mean, there's also lots of tiktok videos of very sort of young people dancing and singing along and miming to it. this young people dancing and singing along and miming to it . this is along and miming to it. this is the problem with trump is every time he says something inflammatory , it sort of inflammatory, it sort of benefits him. and maybe that's the whole point. i guess. right? >> he's the most hilarious and the most memorable politician of all time . like everything he all time. like everything he says, like even even when he's when he's talking, it's incredibly engaging. he's got a real sort of stand up comedian sensibility for what's funny and what's going to work in the room doesn't always translate to i don't know, maybe running the most powerful country on earth. >> that's the problem, isn't it?

that's the problem. but you just can't imagine anyone remixing what keir starmer has got to say. >> yeah, it just i don't know, i think i think that could work. >> yeah. do you think it would work? but not in his favour. >> but it does go back to this point. >> i don't mean to be boring, but it's like i want politicians to be dull and not to be memorable. right i want them to do a good job. >> you don't feel like that is going to lead to some serious debate. >> i mean, if anyone votes for him on the basis of that remix, i'll be very, very depressed. but it's actually not out of the realms of possibility. >> i would vote for him based on based on that, i want to see. i want to see what he does with power again. he's already had go. >> now he's out for revenge. >> now he's out for revenge. >> this is going to be the best sequel ever. >> okay, well next up we've got this video. let's have a look. we are in aukus rosemary shrager kwasi. >> after all, in our whole life, if you don't give your life to your father in tam fry emily carver madeline grant mar—a—lago soungen carver madeline grant mar—a—lago solingen jk rowling. >> so this is anti—israel protesters at a swedish supermarket and they're removing any items that are from israel.

>> yes, they're in there in lidl. that was about £4.80 worth of stuff in that trolley. that is i don't know. i've seen lots of videos of people going into shops, you know, with the placards and stuff and protesting against the hummus or the avocados because they come from from israel. >> really? yeah, yeah. >> really? yeah, yeah. >> for real. but they never do it. there's lots of countries around the world with far worse, more barbarous regimes than israel. and i never see them going in and, you know, ripping out, you know , leeks from out, you know, leeks from i don't know where do leeks come from , libya. from, libya. >> well, i mean, you make a good point. i mean, like , surely the point. i mean, like, surely the chinese treatment of the uyghurs is violates all kinds of human rights things. but, you know, absolutely. a lot of our stuff comes from china. >> well, but this is quick, isn't it? you can get that on social media. she'll see it by the end of the day. hope she sees this, bro. it's like it's a good way to appeal to people quickly. >> i think . >> i think. >> i think. >> okay, well look, this is the part where we're going to look at your unfiltered dilemmas. thank you for sending in your dilemmas this week. this first one comes from mark. mark says, my long term flatmate is

emigrating and has organised a dinner, a going away dinner, annoyingly , it's the same day as annoyingly, it's the same day as annoyingly, it's the same day as a football match. i already have a football match. i already have a ticket for . should i cancel my a ticket for. should i cancel my ticket or should i go to the game as i won't hear him moaning from sydney? oh, brutal. i mean cressida, what do you think? i mean , i think he's already made mean, i think he's already made a decision from the sound of things he has, hasn't he? >> i mean, i don't like football. not liking football is like not being a smoker. it just saves you having to worry about this thing that causes other people all kinds of problems. >> yeah, because people are passionate about it. it's like a religion for people. >> yes, exactly. i mean, people fall out over this and never speak to each other again. they're about to fall out. >> that's what's going to happen here. is it? so you think he should? >> i think you're right. he's made up his mind. he's going. he has. >> leo. am i right about that or do you think he should do something else? >> yeah. i mean, would you want to have a socially awkward meal with another man in a small flat that's like you know what i mean? yeah. i mean, i don't even like football, but go go to the football game because also football's expensive now. they pnced football's expensive now. they priced out working class people. it's one of the good things they

did. but they priced out. they made the tickets so expensive. only only middle class people who are pretending to be working class can go. and yeah, so you've already spent that £180 go. >> okay, well, leo, thanks for that commentary. thanks for joining us for free speech nation. this is the week when trump said that they are eating the cats and the dogs very famously, and there were various remixed memes about it. thank you very much to my panel, cressida wetton and leo kearse to all of my brilliant guests this evening. by the way, if you want to join us live in the studio and be part of our wonderful audiences, you can do that. you just go to sro audiences, dot com. the website is there on the screen, dead to easy apply now. stay tuned. we've got the brilliant mark dolan tonight. he's coming up next. please don't forget that every single night on gb news is headliners. headliners is the paper preview show that takes you through the next day's top news stories . but it does so news stories. but it does so with three comedians rather than a bunch of stiffs on whatever the other channels are doing. and it's a bit more interesting. so that's a really good way to not have to bother to read the papers the next day. you just have to listen to us talking about them. that's every night at 11:00. and that will be on, of course, tonight at 11:00, as

usual, leo is off and on. cressida is off and on and i'm sometimes on as well. if you need an extra incentive. so thanks ever so much for watching free speech nation this week. please do join me again next week. farewell . week. farewell. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello. good evening and welcome to your gb news weather update brought to you by the met office. well, we've got high pressure dominating the weather this week, which means plenty of fine and dry weather and plenty of autumnal sunshine too to enjoy next week. to finish off sunday though , we do have this sunday though, we do have this cold front which is slowly moving its way towards the southeast of the country, so plenty of cloud here and some rain and drizzle through into the evening though, although still plenty of cloud across the south that rain and drizzle will eventually fizzle out, and that means a milder night across the

south compared to those recent nights to the north of this, though. plenty of clear skies and light winds, which means it's going to be feeling much chillier and likely to see plenty of mist and fog overnight, too, particularly in the northwest of england and wales, where we do have a yellow fog warning issued. otherwise, though, to start monday, there will be plenty of bright sunshine and that mist and fog will generally dissipate fairly quickly through the course of the morning once again across northern ireland through into the scottish borders. plenty of bright sunshine. those mist and fog patches and rural spots. that fog may just be a little bit dense where we do have the warning issued. so do be careful for the monday morning commute and any cloud across the south will kind of lift and break through the course of the morning, and that does allow plenty of sunshine to develop across most of the country. so plenty of that warm sunshine to start the new working week . just start the new working week. just a build of higher cloud into the northwest through into the afternoon. perhaps some rain and drizzle towards the outer hebrides, but otherwise plenty

of warm sunshine. highs of 22 celsius down to the south. now, heading into tuesday, that high pressure is still dominating the weather, so still plenty of fine and dry conditions. after a chilly start, that cloud will continue to build in the northwest. we may see some outbreaks of rain and drizzle to the far north, but as we head into next week, still plenty of that fine and dry weather around just feeling a little bit chilly overnight. bye for now . overnight. bye for now. >> looks like things are heating up . boxt boilers sponsors of up. boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> good evening. it's 9:00 on television, on radio and online in the united kingdom and across the world. this is mark dolan

tonight developing this evening following an assassination attempt on the 13th of july which saw him almost killed. gunshots have been fired in donald trump's vicinity at the former president's golf club in florida . well, here are live florida. well, here are live pictures coming to us from the sunshine state. we'll bring you the latest live from the united states on this shock. new developments in the race for the white house. also tonight, the duke of sussex at 40. my verdict. will the prodigal prince ever come home? also tonight, our labour about to adopt a rwanda style scheme in albania. i'll bring you more on this surprise development . this surprise development. following eight more deaths in the channel and more record breaking numbers crossing this weekend . and the halo has weekend. and the halo has supped weekend. and the halo has slipped for saint keir starmer, who's embroiled in an almighty row over a cash gift to his wife for luxury clothes and accessories. i'll be tackling

this growing political scandal at ten. you