gb news. >> very good evening to you from the newsroom. free speech nation, up next. first, though, a look at the headlines. just after 7:00, the labour conference has wrapped up for the day after speeches from the deputy prime minister and foreign secretary, david lammy , foreign secretary, david lammy, opening the afternoon session today. cabinet minister darren jones called for to labour hold power for five terms and to make it the natural party of government. well, earlier, angela rayner declared now is labour's moment, promising to bolster workers rights to build high quality homes and strengthen communities. take listen. >> there will be no complacency. we've seen where that leads. don't forget what they did

partygate, covid contracts, the lies divisions , scapegoating and lies divisions, scapegoating and the unfunded tax cuts for the richest that crashed our economy. don't forget any of it. the tories failed britain and they tried to cover it up. a crater in the heart of britain's economy, a puncture in the pocket of every working family and a £22 billion black hole . and a £22 billion black hole. >> well, that conference is running until tuesday ending, of course, with sir keir starmer's leader's speech, which we will bnng leader's speech, which we will bring live to you here on gb news. but the labour leadership is gearing up for a major conference showdown tomorrow over cuts to the winter fuel payment. trade unions are demanding a u—turn on the policy, which is set to remove payments from 10 million pensioners across the country. unite has launched a billboard campaign and is set to hold a protest outside the conference, calling the cuts cruel and politically inept. but chancellor rachel reeves insists the move is necessary to fix a

£22 billion budget shortfall . £22 billion budget shortfall. elsewhere in politics, reforms leader nigel farage sat down with gb news political editor christopher hope at their party conference yesterday. speaking on chopper's political podcast, mr farage said in order for reform to make an impact at the local elections next may, the party will have to complete ten years of evolution in the next six months. however, that hasn't stopped him from setting quite the target. >> we've got enough people to have 2300 candidates. the question is, are they the right 2300 candidates? because we will be held to a higher standard than everybody else. and i'm aiming in those elections to win hundreds of seats. >> and you can listen to that full interview on all media platforms. just for search chopper's political podcast. in other news, 31 people across the uk have been arrested in a home office crackdown on people smuggling gangs. the three day nationwide operation involving the national crime agency, police and international partners targeted locations

including belfast, liverpool and luton. over £400,000 of cash and fraudulent identity documents were also seized during checks at ports , airports and some road at ports, airports and some road networks. minister for border security dame angela eagle says the government is cracking down on criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people and profiting from their despair. we've heard tonight that a second man has been arrested over what police are describing as a shocking kidnap of an 87 year old man in oldham. the pensioner was dragged into a car, attacked and then dumped miles from his home, leading to serious injuries. greater manchester police say he did find help by knocking on a door after that incident. two men, aged 24 and 39, have been arrested on suspicion of kidnap, one of them already released on bail . and finally, they've bail. and finally, they've always been there for . us. well, always been there for. us. well, that's for the past three

decades anyway, as today marks the 30th birthday of one of the most iconic series of all time. yes, it's friends. the show premiered for the first time back in 1994, fast becoming one of the most watched programs on tv, lasting for ten whole series . tv, lasting for ten whole series. those are the latest gb news headlines. for now, i'll hand you straight over to free speech nafion you straight over to free speech nation for the very latest gb news to direct your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gb news. >> .com forward slash alerts . >> .com forward slash alerts. >> .com forward slash alerts. >> the irish government drops new hate speech laws. the chief executive of rape crisis scotland refuses to resign after a recent scandal and security guards storm a free speech event in brighton. this is free speech nafion in brighton. this is free speech nation . welcome to free speech nation. welcome to free speech nafion nation. welcome to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. this is the show where we take a

look at culture, current affairs and politics. and of course, we'll have the latest from those loveable culture warriors. they've really been working overtime this week. coming up on the show tonight, members of free speech brighton claim they were kicked out of a pub in the city earlier this week after they discussed gender ideology in schools. i'll be joined by two individuals from the group to hear what happened. bernadette spofforth, the woman who was arrested for allegedly publishing false communications onune publishing false communications online after the southport knife attack, has had her case dropped by police with no further action. i'll be speaking to her about her experiences, the bar standards board has launched a consultation to include new equality , diversity and equality, diversity and inclusion measures for lawyers to follow. family lawyer sarah phillimore will be here to tell me about what these changes mean. and of course, myself and my wonderful panel will be answering questions from this rather cheeky studio audience. my rather cheeky studio audience. my comedian guests this evening are paul cox and jojo sutherland . are paul cox and jojo sutherland. hello, joey. hello down from scotland, down from scotland, up

from i have. >> yes. gallivanting as always. as always . as always. >> you are jojo. the gallivanting. >> jojo the gallivanting. living on the m6. i feel like at the moment. oh, is that right? pretty much. yeah. have you been well? >> have you? >> have you? >> very well. very good. annoyingly well. annoyingly >> annoyingly well. and for a contrast, let's go to paul. yeah. >> suspiciously still alive. you are still alive. i know i've travelled quite far this weekend as well. i started my first gig this weekend was in barnstaple, in devon. and then i've come all the way back over to here. >> so you're really travelling, working well, you've got to go when you're me, you've got to go wherever the work is and sometimes it's with places where they've never heard of you or seen you before. >> and sometimes it's a basement in paddington. >> yeah, exactly. yeah you'll do anything for the money. okay, let's get some questions from this audience. our first question comes from jackie. hi, jackie. hello >> hello, is free speech safe in ireland? >> it's a very good question, of course . we've been covering the course. we've been covering the threats to free speech in ireland for a number of months now because the irish government was sort of determined to push

through its new hate speech bill, which by the way, in which it's legislation defined hatred as hatred. so that's convenient. yeah >> basically mean anything at all. >> but now the minister for justice has dropped plans for this. helen mcentee has said that she's not going to include the hate speech element in the hate crime legislation. but joj'0, hate crime legislation. but jojo, there is still potential problems with this legislation. anyway because it uses terms that a lot of people don't agree with. yeah, but it is good news, though, isn't it, that they're not going to criminalise hatred when the government themselves can't define what it means? >> yeah, well, that's part of the difficulty is not being able to decide what is what, but also it's only a temporary measure because she's determined to get it through. >> now, of course, you you come from scotland? yes. they push through their hate speech legislation that turned out to be a bit of a disaster. well, it was a disaster because humza yousaf ended up having however many complaints against him as soon as it was introduced for, hate speech and his inaugural speech when he was saying that scotland was too white, the judiciary was too white, the

police was too white. >> and yeah, i remember, yeah, there was hundreds of complaints against him that he it was hate speech and that's that just proves the point, doesn't it? >> that if you can't define what hate is, anyone can phone up and say, well, i perceive that to be hateful. >> yeah, well, and that's the thing. it's interpretation rather than and also is we have hate speech laws. do you mean you're not allowed to, you know, say things and be inciteful to against rules, against incitement to violence? yes. incitement to violence. but how do you say something and if you're saying something in a particular way against something thatis particular way against something that is a crime? so if you're pointing out something that someone's done hideously, you know, grooming gangs or whatever, yes. if you say it in the wrong manner, that is a crime. rather than the crime. >> and that's happened a lot. which is it, paul? you know, people saying things about what happened with the grooming gang situation have found themselves speaking indelicately and being arrested. >> yeah, absolutely. and you should be able to speak. speak without being delicate at all about that particular crime. it's disgusting. >> and we've also had people, of course, given really draconian

jail terms recently for admittedly horrible tweets. but my issue with that is i don't think the police should be arresting people for even saying horrible things, because we that's the price you pay for living in a free society. >> no, absolutely. and i'm an advocate for free speech. i mean, i probably don't believe it's absolute. so there is some there is some grey areas. however, i find myself in a very peculiar situation in agreeing with sinn fein, sinn fein . yes, with sinn fein, sinn fein. yes, i've chosen , i've chosen today i've chosen, i've chosen today to come out because sinn fein, are they ? if you read what they are they? if you read what they say about this, they don't believe in this hate speech law ehhen believe in this hate speech law either. they're completely against this. either. they're completely against this . and it just goes against this. and it just goes to prove a point and that there is no consensus across the irish government, across the irish parliament for this, as there isn't in the british or scottish or welsh parliaments either. and that's the problem. nobody can define what hate speech is. and i'm actually rapidly forming the opinion that hate speech is no issue whatsoever. and it's something that's been invented

by politicians to get them elected. well, this is the point. >> well, if you if you say that hate is illegal and then a future political party says, well, we think that criticising the government is hateful, then you have a legislation that justifies them locking people up. >> so it's not a law as such, but in terms of how behaviours have changed. so obviously i'm a stand up comedian and i do these clips online and blah blah blah, and i'm clearly in a comedy club. i've got a microphone, it's got a comedy club sign, hot water, whatever, but videos will get taken down. so i do a joke about my daughter and that she needs shooting. it's taken down because it's inciting violence and you're going, it's a joke. it's clearly a joke from a comedian about her child. yes, but there's no recourse. you can appeal it. >> and by the way, something that many parents have said about their children. >> yeah, but this is the thing as well. but this is what we're talking about. this is what we're we're actually looking towards making criminal. well, because so at the moment it just gets yeah. context is key. it's getting taken down off my instagram. annoyingly after a million views. really? yeah. because you've gone viral inciting hatred against your daughter. yeah so that can be

taken down. there's no criminal charges. but what we're discussing here is that potentially that is what we're looking at, that my saying that on a video clip is hate speech. >> very disturbing. and it sounds insane what jojo is saying, but actually the scottish police were receiving training on to what do with offensive jokes delivered by comedians in a comedy club . so comedians in a comedy club. so it's not out of the realms of possibility. we're going to move on now to a question from an, an hello , hello, hello, hello, >> should sandra brindley resign as chief exec of the rape crisis in scotland? >> yeah, this has been a huge jojo striking . jojo striking. >> yes. i mean , it's a huge >> yes. i mean, it's a huge story i should explain for the people at home because sandy brindley is chief executive of rape crisis scotland, and she, of course, presided over the recent scandal where you had a male trans activist hired as the head of edinburgh rape crisis centre, and i would have thought quite obviously, jojo, women who have suffered sexual assault wouldn't want to go to a space where there are no men present.

>> that's a legitimate request. this is not bigotry. this is not hateful. so why won't sandy brindley take responsibility for what's going on, >> because we're ever moving into that situation. people don't want to say what they think that people don't want to heat think that people don't want to hear. it's that she's terrified of being piled on. she thinks she's on the right side of gender politics, gender identity and this isn't about whether somebody who's, you know, trans women running as ceo. it's about the women that have been through a situation. and i you can argue with me till you're blue in the face. if you've been brought up as a man, if you have lived in a society where you've been treated as a man, if you have lived in a masca, the, trans ceo grew up in india, a particularly male dominated society where women are marginalised and you are incredibly ingrained with that thought process. i know when i'm speaking to a woman ,

when i'm speaking to a woman, compared to how i'm speaking to a man, and whether you feel like a man, and whether you feel like a woman, you have been brought up and you have been treated as a man and there is no way on any earth you can tell me that, you know , because i adopted ways of know, because i adopted ways of coping as you're growing up, as a woman and a woman's space. how we live in a different arena to men. we know this. so do not come and tell me that you are a woman, because you will reply and respond as a man, even if you're identifying as a woman. end of. >> and of course, there's another issue, isn't there? which is, you know, we could say that if this individual was being discriminated against in employment terms for a job at a supermarket or something, or a job at a library, whatever, it might be, we'd all be saying, well, you shouldn't discriminate based on their biological sex, but this is a rape crisis centre. this is a different this is where you are allowed to apply the sex discrimination law. >> 100%. >> 100%. >> because if you have been raped as a woman, as i have, sadly, and i'm sure probably not the only one in here that a man

will never understand how that feels. now, i'm not saying that cindy yu doesn't understand sexual assault or, but it is a different type of sexual assault. we have been brought up to walk , you know, looking over to walk, you know, looking over our shoulders and being careful . our shoulders and being careful. they were brought. they went to school in an all boys catholic school. so again, that the way that you are, your product of your environment and the frustration, i it's not about not accepting people who are trans. it's not about not saying, you know, trans women, trans women are trans women. of course they are. but they're not women. they can't be women because until you have lived and walked in my shoes as a woman, you will never know what it's like. but other women do. yeah, but if you've been brought up with a male brain and a male environment, it's not about how you feel. it's about other people, how they treat you. and if you've been treated as a man, your response in a civilised situation is to respond as a man. >> very interesting , paul, that >> very interesting, paul, that i mean, i think jojo makes an

excellent point and i don't think it should be considered bigotry or hateful to acknowledge that trans people who identify as trans women are trans women, but they're not women. and that's it's as simple as that. it's a matter of fact, quite frankly, i think that sandy brindley should watch what jojo sutherland just said. >> and politely hand her notice in. >> can i ask in.— >> can i ask a in. >> can i ask a question? actually, and obviously physically not possible for me to as a black woman, can i begin to as a black woman, can i begin to understand or know how you have been brought up, the situations that you've felt and how you've been treated in society as a black woman compared to a white woman? i would say no , no. would say no, no. >> okay, so if i jojo, we can't we can't hear the audience, unfortunately. but but the point you're making is that obviously we all grow up in our own situations. we all know what we have experienced, and i would be absolutely hammered if i said, well, i'm absolutely yes, i know

how to live as a black woman, i would be i'm exactly the same as a black mc to our audience member. now if you want to talk. yeah. is that is that mic working? >> is it working? yes. yeah. yeah. no, i don't think you could possibly know what it's like to walk in my shoes. >> so, if i could become a black woman, you would accept me as a black woman and say, yes, you absolutely get how i. how i am. >> well, once again, you couldn't just become a black woman overnight because you'd have had to have been born and lived the life. so, yeah. >> and it's the life you meant what you're saying. >> you mentioned that because it's , again, it sounds it's, again, it sounds impossible, but there was a woman called rachel dolezal, a white woman who identified as a black woman and became the head of the naacp . and that, you of the naacp. and that, you know, so these things you know, they do happen and it sounds made up, but it's absolutely real. anyway, we're going to have to move on. fascinating topic, but we will have to move on. at this point. we're going to a question from kim. >> oh, i am kim. oh kim, do you sit here, darling? >> you come and have a seat

here. >> it's going to become your show. yeah it is. get out of that seat , that seat, >> my question is , should >> my question is, should feminists be allowed at party conferences? >> you know, i'm glad you mentioned this because there have been a number of cases where certain groups have appued where certain groups have applied to be at the labour party conference or the liberal democrat party conference and been turned down. i'm thinking in particular of lgb alliance, actually, of course, who's who's founders have been on this show, and the latest case of discrimination along these lines is plaid cymru party of wales. and they've now admitted that they unlawfully discriminated against a feminist charity. this is a charity called philia, it's a feminist charity, women's rights charity. and they'd been in contact with plaid cymru and they said, we want to be at your store. we want to we want to be at your conference. we want to have a stall at your conference. but less than 48 hours before the conference was due to start, the conference was due to start, the charity had the booking cancelled and philia is just the latest example of this. as i said, this has happened at other conferences. why can't it just be the case that political

parties say we're about politics, we're about discussion. let's have all people at the conferences and you know, this is a women's rights organisation. it's not like you're asking the kkk to come in. >> no, no, hopefully they don't. >> no, no, hopefully they don't. >> oh, there needs to be. >> oh, there needs to be. >> i would actually draw the line. yeah. >> but this is the this is the point isn't there's kind of this narcissism around this ideology now where one person or an oligarch of a few people believe that because they support a view that because they support a view that their view must be, must be the must be the view that everybody else follows. plaid cymru is a broad church. yes. you know, in the sense that its members, its voters don't all think and say the same things. so you have to invite people to the conference that have different views, i think. and what was very interesting about this is yes, they apologised, but they apologised, saying we have to because of the law as it stands now, because it's the morally right and not because it suggests a it's not the morally right thing to do. and b they would change the law if they could. i think that's more terrifying than turning down this woman's opportunity to speak 48 hours before

conference, a few parties that have had this problem. >> the snp has another party of this kind, liberal democrats, green party. i've had former deputy leader of the green party on my show, talking about how he's been through a court case with his party, because they get this wrong. shouldn't it be the case that that irrespective of the views of plaid cymru, of the people in charge of plaid cymru, they should say let them come along and make their case? >> yeah, absolutely. and that was what was the most disturbing thing about it was it was basically the accusation that they had a different opinion. >> that's it. that was it basically. >> wow. so i mean, why, why, why are we having this discussion? what are we talking about? let's all just, you know, inject ourselves with something and think the same way, and then we'll all be fine. >> yeah, that seems to be the way we're going. >> right? how dull. yeah, really dull. >> a disagreement is fun. >> a disagreement is fun. >> yeah, of course it is. >> as long as you don't hurt anyone physically. >> exactly. >> exactly. >> so, paul, no punching people in the face. >> no. >> no. >> yeah, i told you i wouldn't again. >> good, good. >> good, good. >> well, look, next up on free speech nation, the group free speech brighton claimed that they were kicked out of a pub

this week for having a speaker who wanted to discuss gender ideology in schools. so i've got two members of the group are going be joining me in just one moment here in the studio.

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle this week, free speech brighton, a sister group of the free speech union, claimed that they were kicked out of a pub in the for city discussing trans issues in schools. the group booked a room in a pub for an evening of speeches and discussion. when they claim security guards came and asked them to leave. after one speaker began to talk about this topic. now a clip of the evening was in fact posted to social media. let's have a look at this. >> this is britain doesn't have to be offensive. yes >> what's the complaint? who from? >> from the management of this property. well, they tell us no, they don't have to . okay . this

they don't have to. okay. this is a private person. anyone >> now you have been asked to leave. >> anyone refusing is now trespassing. >> okay, we did contact the pub for comment. however, they did not respond. but with me now are two members of free speech brighton laura king and emma wall . welcome both to the show. wall. welcome both to the show. laura, i want to come to you first as chair of this of this group we saw there in the clip, the security guard actually pulling away the speaker or attempting to dismantle your equipment. yes, it seems very heavy handed. can you give us some background to what happened, what the event was for and why you booked it? >> we our normal pub was being refurbished so about three weeks ago i went in and booked a pub, ago i went in and booked a pub, a local pub for a meeting and they didn't ask any questions about what sort of meeting it was in a back room. it was mainly, a secluded from the rest of the pub, so i thought it would be fine. but anyway, they didn't ask any questions. they took my booking. we arrived. i set up the first speaker,

started speaking, who's a retired teacher who was concerned about trans in schools and how that affects children, but she was talking purely about children. she was not talking about adults who have protected characteristics, obviously, and then towards the end of her speech, i became aware of security guards standing behind me in the room. so i went to have a quick word with them and see what they wanted. and they said, oh, we've had a complaint. and i said , what's the and i said, what's the complaint? and they wouldn't say, then they said, oh, will you come and talk to the landlord? so i went to the front of the bar and they indicated this chap was the landlord, but he looked about 20. so i don't think he was the landlord. so i said, oh, i hear you have a complaint about us. can you tell me what it is? and he couldn't. and i said, look , we're doing and i said, look, we're doing three different talks, completely different subjects. we're in an enclosed space. please tell me what the problem is. and he wouldn't . is. and he wouldn't. >> so that sounds very kafkaesque, as though you've

committed a crime. but they can't tell you what the crime is. >> that's what i couldn't understand, because, you know, you might. obviously, they can't tell you who the complainant is, but they should be able to tell you what the complaint is. >> what were the other talks that you had scheduled for that night? well, the next talk was actually by the champion of direct democracy in this country, neil petrie. >> and ironically, the third speech was by a lady called simone on, ironically, government overreach . so government overreach. so government overreach. so government overreach. so government overreach. yes. >> okay. well, there we go. so emma, can i bring you in now because you witnessed the whole thing? yeah. this sounds extraordinary. you know, a free speech event. we've seen a number of gender critical feminist events being being booted out or having this kind of treatment, which is also appalling. this actually wasn't appalling. this actually wasn't a gender critical feminists event. this was a free speech event. this was a free speech event. yeah and had people presumably disagreed with what the speaker was saying. there's a forum there to discuss it. isn't that the case? >> there is. it's i'm not sure they're completely aware of that. they could easily it would have been far less antagonistic if they'd just come in and said, we don't actually agree with what you're saying. yes. i couldn't exactly tell. there was

a curtain, and my friend who was sat next to me said she could see somebody beyond the curtain who was obviously kind of ogling someone overheard, i think so, and maybe just picked up snippets because it was very much about the safeguarding of children and those . it was about children and those. it was about what's going into schools that we're not aware of. and but yeah, there were there were other there were other topics coming up. >> and then what did the security guards do? >> they came in and they said , >> they came in and they said, well, obviously we've had a complaint , well, obviously we've had a complaint, and we need you all to leave, basically. and we're a bunch of people who kind of know our rights. and we were saying, well, we haven't done anything. why? why are they asking us to leave? we're not committing. there is no victim here. we're just quietly having a chat. yes, but they were they were very heavy handed. >> well, we can see that from the video of course. and so what eventually happened, laura did did you all, in fact leave the pub, >> well, actually, they first i thought i'd sorted it out and then i saw them advancing into then i saw them advancing into the room. and then the speaker, somebody tried to grab the

speaker and it was still plugged in and it was my speaker. so i intervened and said, you can't steal that speaker. you can't damage it. it's mine. and it's still plugged in. and they tried to ignore me, and they grabbed my arm and i said, that's assault. i'm going to report you to the police. and then they like, let go of my arm. and i managed to get the speaker back. and meantime the rest of them were pouring into the room and saying to everyone they have to leave. and people were pretty incredulous, and they had drinks incredulous, and they had drinks in their hand and they said, why do we have to leave? we haven't done anything. yes. and it was literally 50 people of like 25 to 80 age range, just enjoying a listening to the speaker. and then they were going to get a q&a afterwards. and then the next speaker after the drinks break and, and the security guards look pretty hefty to me. they they had stab vests on. it was ridiculous. >> i mean, you look very, very dangerous, laura, i have to say. i mean, i mean, this is just an absolutely astonishing thing to have happened. and now i believe the free speech union have got involved. they're looking into this because the views that the speaker was espousing are protected by law under the equality act. of course, the

gender critical views are protected. so booting someone out on those grounds of course, it's difficult, isn't it, because the pub haven't said why they did it or they haven't said what the complaint was, how what was the general atmosphere in there? like how did people feel? >> well, the free speech is free speech. that is at the end of the day, it doesn't actually matter what you're talking about. we have to have the right if we're not, if we're not able to speak about everything we want to speak about, then we're living in a police state. yes. and maybe we need to have signs made up to invite people in, because obviously we get an email telling us that this thing is happening. we're members. yes. but it's just yeah, i mean, we've we've had other talks in, in another pub about i've done a couple of talks there and nothing's ever happened. been a problem. no. it was obviously that it was that subject for sure. >> it must have been i mean, i certainly know as well that in brighton in particular, there's a high, shall we say, concentration of activists with this particular obsession. >> and they, the brighton and hove city council, i believe, created the, the ticket, the trans identity toolkit, which was being talked about. right.

really this friend of ours, she's a 30 years, 30 years as a teacher, retired teacher , and teacher, retired teacher, and she is just concerned that this is not that children. yeah. yeah. okay. so they say they're a cat one week. so you don't start feeding them. you don't start feeding them. you don't start feeding them whiskers, you just let them. i would just not. and puberty blockers i mean she mentioned the fact that puberty blockers are puberty is a natural process. and if children aren't allowed to go through a natural process, then they're not going to develop normally. >> so these all seem like reasonable points to discuss. i discussed them here every every time on my show and the police and the security guards don't come in here, so well yet. anyway, so tell me now what's going to happen next, laura, >> well, obviously the free speech union are doing doing their thing with their barrister, and i'm not quite sure what action they're going to take just yet. we're due to have another meeting next month. our pub has been refurbished. we'll have to see if they allow us back, but maybe we'll actually suspend talk about this particular subject for a while because we have covered it recently now. and but we do

talks about all sorts of things. we've even had one on hunting, which is something that triggers me a bit because i don't agree with hunting, but she was a lovely lady. she made a lot of good points and she was pro hunting. she was pro hunting. >> you didn't complain and get some security guards in to kick her. >> i was chairing. it would have been embarrassing to complain against myself. >> well, this is the whole point of free speech is about discussion. >> absolutely. and treating with respect. and one of the guards said something about hate speech, and i said, look in that room. can you see any hate going on? i can't see any hate going on.and on? i can't see any hate going on. and we've got julie burchill there, for goodness sake. yes. you know, she's a well—known journalist. she she won't be involving herself with any. yeah. anything scurrilous, you know, a lecture on hate from people wearing stab vests is. >> that is quite funny. yes. oh well, i really appreciate you both coming on, laura king and emma woolf. >> thanks very much. thank you. next up on free speech nation, bernadette spofforth, the woman who was arrested for inciting racial hatred and sending false communications on the identity of the southport killer, is going to be joining me after

cheshire police said no further action will be taken her. please don't anywhere.

welcome back to free speech nation. later in the show, i'll be turning agony uncle with the help of my wonderful panel, paul cox and jojo sutherland will help you deal with your unfiltered dilemmas . if you've unfiltered dilemmas. if you've got any problems at all, no matter how personal. well, actually there is a limit there, but you know what i mean. just judge it carefully. just send us a message at gbnews.com/yoursay and we'll get some advice from my two panel members. now, you've all probably heard the story of bernadette spofforth. she was arrested on the 8th of august on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred and sending false communications after she was accused of sharing incorrect information on the identity of the southport killer on x. despite adding the caveat to the post if this is true, and deleting the tweet when she discovered the information was

false, spofforth was arrested and held in custody for 36 hours this week. bernadette shared that cheshire police have now decided to take no further action due to insufficient evidence, and i'm delighted to say that businesswoman bernadette spofforth joins me now. bernadette welcome to the show. i want to ask you first and foremost, what happened, because a lot of people watching may not be aware of the situation, but you you tweeted something out that was considered quite inflammatory. can you tell us a bit about it? >> yes, i, i was quite distracted that day and obviously everybody was and they've been watching the news and i scrolled just for news on my phone and they termed southport , and i'd seen a post southport, and i'd seen a post of a guy whose children had been in, in that particular class that day, and i clipped that. i scrolled again, i saw a name in a sentence, and i copied and

pasted it, and above it i put if this is true, there will be hell to pay . and posted it, put my to pay. and posted it, put my phone down and went outside again. now i know that i did not source that tweet and had i given it ten minutes more thought i would have deleted it because i hadn't sourced it myself . but i went outside and myself. but i went outside and i didn't come back to my phone for an hour or so. when i came back to my phone, i did immediately just delete it because i knew that i hadn't sourced that information for myself and that was it. >> that's the question , isn't >> that's the question, isn't it, bernadette? >> because of course, to say it's an asylum seeker, it's rumoured to be an asylum seeker with this name, but this was completely false. a lot of people will say, well, you should have done due diligence. you've got a large account. do you accept that, yes. >> i do accept your immediately jumping to the line that my detractors jumped to . you see,

detractors jumped to. you see, for me it was about the mental health excuse. again, again you know, we hear this all the time. there's lots of attacks. the little girl was murdered last yeah little girl was murdered last year. we had three people killed in a park. we'd had a soldier killed on the friday. and what the press are reporting is this is a mental health issue . and is a mental health issue. and i'm quite interested in local issues. i'm very interested in, in national issues, one of which is this constant issue about we don't have enough resources for mental health. and if you look at that , we had 150,000 at that, we had 150,000 institutional beds for mental health in the 80s, and now we have 17,000. but our our population is 10 million people larger . so we definitely do not larger. so we definitely do not have the resources for people who are, i don't know , asking who are, i don't know, asking for asylum here or coming here from traumatic circumstances. we can't look after them, which

means the government can't look after us. now, i appreciate that that wasn't how that post came across, and that's why i deleted it as well as source. the information. >> so let's be clear about that. so you've tweeted out false information. it was a mistake when you recognised that it was a mistake. you deleted the tweet. but by that point the police had got involved. now what happened then? the police did they they visited you at that point. is that correct? >> no. for the next 3 or 4 days, there was this huge concerted effort on social media to, engage the police. they wanted the police bought into this situation. and within 24 hours there were newspaper articles . there were newspaper articles. they they all claimed i was guilty of sending this post. first of making up this information and inciting riots. which of course i didn't do. and you think you believe in the

justice system? you know that if you don't do something, then then you're innocent and it will be fine. but people didn't care about that. this huge pile on of people who perhaps didn't agree with me and people who didn't know me but wanted to blame me anyway, triggered this response from the press. and once the media had me in their sights, then the police, i think, were pressurised to act. >> and there's a big question here, because you spent 36 hours in a cell for saying something that wasn't correct . well, a lot that wasn't correct. well, a lot of people have said things that weren't correct. the head of hope not hate, put out a tweet around this time saying that muslims were being attacked with acid that was completely false. i don't believe anyone's arrested him at this point. the bbc put out a report saying that the idf were targeting medics at a hospital in gaza. completely false. they admitted their mistake and it was all wrong. and so isn't this a broader question about why are the police getting involved with human beings making mistakes

about information which they later correct ? later correct? >> well, i think the cynical part of me would say that if you're not protected by the badge of journalism and you are just a normal person, but you have quite a large following, then you can be made an example of and i think i was made an example of, you know, five, five police people turned up three cars, a van. they came and they searched me. they dragged me off to the police station. they held me for 24 hours, and they had my devices. they could easily download what i'd done. it was quite obvious all the information was there , all the information was there, all the evidence was there. but they then held me for another 12 hours and still knowing that they had nothing because i'm really, honestly on my devices. there are bonsai trees and dogs, still knowing i hadn't done anything, they put me on bail. but extraordinarily, my bail

condition was that i could not engage on social media at all, so i couldn't tell anyone what had happened. i couldn't defend myself. i couldn't reply to the press. i was completely silenced because they knew there was nothing. >> but you've had help from the free speech union around this time, hadn't you? >> they were wonderful . >> they were wonderful. honestly. everybody should join the free speech union because they were on the phone immediately. i was arrested to my husband . they provided i my husband. they provided i already had a solicitor, happily, but they provided solicitor help , barrister help. solicitor help, barrister help. but not only that, andrew, you know there's other help you need. they have press specialists and even more importantly than that, you know my life was utterly destroyed. it has been utterly destroyed. and they provided psychologists , and they provided psychologists, psychotherapy people to just talk to you, help you balance what had happened, help you not

drive off a bridge. honestly i ask you about that because that's really important, isn't it ? it? >> the fact that what this has done , this has changed your done, this has changed your life, hasn't it? effectively and going forward, it's going to be harder, isn't it, for you in all sorts of realms of life as a consequence of this action? >> you have to think about this really seriously, andrew. and i would say that to everybody. the press and the authorities took a coach and horse through my democratic right to the presumption of innocence before proven guilty. they named me. they decided what i'd done. they decided why i'd done it. and they described me as this hideous person destroying my career and my reputation that i've built for many, many years , i've built for many, many years, just destroying it. and there's no comeback on that. i have to

pick up the pieces. but i was innocent of what they were charging me of . how can that charging me of. how can that possibly ever be fair ? and possibly ever be fair? and that's the big thing about free speech. they don't have to legislate about it. they don't have to stop you speaking. they just have to terrify you into not speaking because the process is the punishment. >> absolutely. well, bernadette spofforth, i really appreciate you coming on and telling your story. thank you ever so much. indeed. >> thank you andrew. thank you . >> thank you andrew. thank you. >> thank you andrew. thank you. >> okay. well, next on free speech nation , the bar standards speech nation, the bar standards board has published new guidance on equality, diversity and inclusion for lawyers. and sarah phillimore is going to be to here discuss what means. don't go

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech

nation with me, andrew doyle, the bar standards board , the the bar standards board, the organisation that regulates barristers in england and wales, has recently launched a public consultation on new rules to promote equality, diversity and inclusion at the bar . one inclusion at the bar. one particular core duty has been replaced from saying barristers must not discriminate unlawfully against any person to you must act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion. well, joining me now to discuss this is family lawyer sarah phillimore . welcome, sarah phillimore. welcome, sarah. now that's quite an interesting development isn't it. the change of language to actually saying that lawyers have to be proactive in the promotion of a certain value system. what's going on there ? system. what's going on there? >> i wish i knew it's very odd because i thought generally there was a move in organisations, corporations, corporations to move away from edi because it's counterproductive, it's harming productivity, it's encouraging the workforce to report microaggressions and be divisive . microaggressions and be divisive. >> this is equality, diversity and inclusion. >> but now we have the bar standards board getting rid of a perfectly necessary and

serviceable duty. you must not discriminate. you must not harass, you must not victimise. of course you must not. and that's pretty to easy identify when that's happened. they want to replace it with terms that they haven't defined and they can't define. and my fear is i know what they mean when they say diversity , inclusion, say diversity, inclusion, equality. they mean including people who think as we do. they don't mean diversity of political thought. and because this duty applies to us, it's not merely about hiring and firing and interviewing people. it applies to everything we do in our work. so if i have clients, which i often do, who say things that might be a bit racist but misogynist, they might be a reform voter, what am i to do then? am might be a reform voter, what am ito do then? am i to might be a reform voter, what am i to do then? am i to say might be a reform voter, what am ito do then? am i to say i ito do then? am ito say i can't represent you? you're not promoting diversity, inclusion and equality. that's actually, i think , unlawful because our duty think, unlawful because our duty as barristers very clearly is we take the briefs we're given. if they're within our competence and we're paid fairly for them, we do not say in advance we will refuse to act for certain individuals or categories of individuals. >> this is astonishing because the bar standards board, if you

know this is a legal body that should understand the need to be specific when it comes to the definition of terms. so they've really made no effort at all to define what it is they're asking people to do. >> well, there's sort of links to discussions of the usual word salad that comes out of social justice, critical race theory. and of course, we know it's a nonsense. we can't be equal. we won't be equal till we're dead. that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to promote diversity where we can, because of course, it's useful. as matthew said has written, if you don't have a diverse workforce, then you fall into groupthink. you don't challenge your ideas, but the mistake that's being made is simply by saying, by virtue, say, of me being disabled or me being black. i would therefore automatically must be pushed forward, given a position, because i possess those characteristics that in and of itself is something that must be promoted. and that's really dangerous. >> now, a lot of organisations have been infected with the edi thing . to the extent that group thing. to the extent that group identity is the thing that is prioritised above all else. but people have thought that the law is the one remaining sphere

where that where the ideology can't penetrate, because if it does, that impacts everything , does, that impacts everything, doesn't it? >> well, the biggest shock to me when i received news of the bar standards board consultation, was to be told that solicitors have actually been under a similar duty since 2018, and i was sent a blog post by someone called professor vaughan, who said , imagine this, a client said, imagine this, a client comes to see you and they want to, i don't know, promote fracking in in another country where it's legal, but do you give life to your client's instructions or do you think, hang on a minute, how does this impact women disabled people, people of colour? now that is, if i if i may use the technical legal term insane. it is not any lawyer's job to stress test their client's case against their client's case against their own internal version of what is worthy, what is correct, and what should be included. our rights are to promote our clients fearlessly, independently. obviously, we have a duty to the court, which often transcends the duty to the

client, but it's never been any part of a lawyer's role to say to a client, well, your case just doesn't fit within the parameters of what i inwardly feel is proper. >> so when will this come into force? these new guidelines, i hope never. >> there's a consultation on at the moment, and it does seem to have caused quite a stir. i've got at least six barristers now who are going to join me in a judicial review if it does become a core duty, because i believe very firmly, as you probably gathered, i think it is unlawful. it's preventing us doing our job. everybody has a doing ourjob. everybody has a right to legal representation, even the unpopular. we spoke a while back on your show about the declaration by julian, maude and others that they wouldn't act for big oil and they wouldn't prosecute anyone who had committed crimes against big oil. and i said to you then, and i repeat it now, they should be disbarred. that is contrary to the fundamental ethics of what being a barrister means. >> you have to be able to defend anyone, irrespective of your own personal views. but i suppose your detractors might say yes, but this is just making sure that a lawyer isn't treating someone differently because of the colour of their skin or

their well, then you have the perfectly serviceable rule that we mustn't discriminate . we mustn't discriminate. >> that's absolutely necessary. of course, i'm 100% behind that. i'm disabled. i'd be horrified if someone discriminated against me for that. i'd equally be horrified if i found out i'd been given a job or a case, just because i was disabled. that is insulting to me as a disabled person. it doesn't promote equality because then people see i've been promoted above my competence. i'm a diversity hire . competence. i'm a diversity hire. it causes problems and division and resentment. it is dangerous and resentment. it is dangerous and it is bad and i think we have to now. i have been naive. i thought lawfare would sort this out. i thought we'll achieve a few clear cut victories in the court, which we did, and everything would go back to normal and people would stop being mad. that hasn't happened because the people who are pushing this ignore the law. so i'm now firmly of the view . so i'm now firmly of the view. we've gone as far as we can with lawfare. i mean, obviously i still jr the guidelines. i think they're awful. but we need to be very clear who these people are. i think it's a small group of people with positions of power and influence over a great many

institutions. we need to know who they are in the institution. we need to know who they are and we need to root them out. otherwise, i'm really concerned that this insanity will not end because we can't keep going back to the courts at some point. the penny has to drop and people have to realise what the law actually says and does and means. it's essential to have any kind of society worth living in. >> well, sarah finnemore, i really appreciate you coming on and explaining this to us. thank you very much indeed. thank you. well, that's the end of the first hour on free speech nation, but we've got plenty of fantastic interviews coming up, as well as some questions from our beautiful studio audience. please don't go anywhere . please don't go anywhere. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on gb news . news. >> hello there. good evening. welcome to your gb news. weather forecast provided by the met office. hope you have managed to have a decent weekend. although some of us have been dodging heavy pulses of rain around and

they'll be continuing into next week as well, even throughout the end of sunday evening. parts of wales central southern areas of wales central southern areas of england have those heavy outbreaks of rain to contend with. it is slightly drier further towards the north, with some clearer spells holding on for parts of western scotland at least, and underneath that things could turn a little bit chilly. some rural spots seeing a touch of frost, but for most of us underneath the cloud and rain, it certainly will be a mild, muggy night. temperatures around 15 or 16 c, an amber weather warning does come into force from monday morning, and that stretches from parts of gloucestershire, herefordshire up through the midlands and over towards the humber and the wash, where we could see over a month's worth of rain falling on monday. so some localised flooding and disruption is possible. so do please take care over the course of the day. quite cloudy for northern ireland and generally cloudier as well. for much of scotland there are a few sunnier breaks, hopefully holding on for the likes of dumfries and galloway, but we will start to see some rain arriving into very far north of scotland during the day, and that will continue to push its way southwards into the likes of the highlands of lewis and harris. later on, those

outbreaks of rain will continue on and off for much of wales central and north eastern parts of england during the day, with a few brighter spells trying to poke their way through across the south east. still, though, with a few showers here, temperatures in that sunshine managing to climb towards 21 c, but elsewhere generally feeling cooler between 15 or 16 c. the low pressure that is bringing this area of heavy rain will gradually move its way off eastwards as we do head into tuesday, so things will be turning drier and a little bit calmer for wales and england on tuesday itself, though still relatively cloudy and very many bright spells. fairly limited. we'll also see that rain gradually push its way southwards across more areas of scotland, with some brisk winds around at times, and those northerly winds will start to feed in some cooler air as well. so things are set to be turning colder for many of us as we head over the forthcoming week. by that warm feeling inside. >> from boxt boilers , sponsors >> from boxt boilers, sponsors of 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 sam francis . update first from sam francis. >> andrew, thank you and very good evening to you. it's just gone 8:00. the top stories tonight. mps, officials and ministers have been in liverpool today for the first party conference of an incoming labour government since 1997. the deputy prime minister wrapped up day one at an event on housing, promising to protect social housing by fixing what she called flaws in the current system, which allows council homes to be sold at a discount. she stressed the need for a balanced approach, allowing long term tenants to buy their home, but ensuring homes can still be replaced . angela rayner has also replaced. angela rayner has also promised the biggest wave of social housing in a generation, saying it could be crucial for people's wellbeing and future security. >> i make no apologies for some

of the housing targets and some of the housing targets and some of the housing targets and some of the changes we've made within the planning reform system, and we've got to make sure that within that we won't we won't meet our 1.5 million homes target within five years unless we've got that mix of social and council housing, whether whether i wanted them or not, that is the only way we're going to meet that target. i think everybody knows that, but i actually think it's a moral mission of the labour government to recognise the problem to and build the social housing. we need. >> angela rayner there, speaking at a fringe event in liverpool. well, the conference is running until tuesday ending, of course, with sir keir starmer's leader's speech. but the labour leadership is also gearing up for a major conference showdown tomorrow over cuts to the winter fuel payment. trade unions are demanding a u—turn on the policy, which removes payments from 10 million pensioners. unite has launched a billboard campaign and is set to hold a protest outside the conference in liverpool, calling those cuts cruel and politically inept. chancellor rachel reeves, though, insists the move is

necessary to fix a £22 billion shortfall in the budget . and it shortfall in the budget. and it could also be trouble for sir keir starmer elsewhere in the uk, as the snp's westminster leader, stephen flynn, has said that the new prime minister is failing to deliver on the change he promised to scotland in the july general election. he claims that despite the snp being willing to work with labour, sir keir starmer is, he says, completely out of touch with scotland and the issues the country faces. it comes after the prime minister's already faced criticism over those cuts to the winter fuel allowance and his acceptance of clothing donations. well, earlier, our scotland reporter tony maguire asked the people of glasgow if they feel secure is delivering in three months, give or take, this labour government. >> how do you think they are performing for scotland? >> one out of ten. really? >> one out of ten. really? >> yeah. again i'm a pensioner. >> yeah. again i'm a pensioner. >> they've taken my winter fuel allowance and it's wrong. >> i had high hopes for keir starmer and now it's all gone.

has there been any ? has there been any? >> i haven't really noticed much to be honest . to be honest. >> i'm ashamed to say i'm a glaswegian, really. when i see the state of the place and i've watched 13 years of snp , we're watched 13 years of snp, we're in big, big trouble. well, no, no , we might be out of the no, we might be out of the trouble now with the labour run. i don't know, it's just a matter of wait and see. >> well news away from politics, andifs >> well news away from politics, and it's been reported that four people in the us have been killed and dozens others left wounded after a mass shooting in alabama. the birmingham police department have said that attack took place in the five points south area around 11:00 last night. authorities also believe multiple shooters were involved, though no arrests have been made so far, according to local media. those officers that responded found multiple victims at the scene. sadly, three were pronounced dead while a fourth later died in hospital . and later died in hospital. and finally, an update on news in the middle east. the foreign secretary says there needs to be an immediate ceasefire between israel and hezbollah, following what he's called a worrying

escalation in the region. david lammy says the ongoing hostilities are in nobody's interest and advised british nationals to leave lebanon. it comes as hezbollah's deputy leader has said the terror group is now in an open ended battle of reckoning with israel. he made those comments during a funeral for a top hezbollah commander killed in an israeli strike on friday. those are the latest headlines for now . we'll latest headlines for now. we'll be back with you at 9:00 now, though, over to andrew for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code, or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . slash alerts. >> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. we've got a wonderful audience here. let's use them to their full. our first question comes from gordon where is gordon. gordon's over here. how are you gordon? very good, >> given the resource

constraints in the nhs, does it really make sense to ban the use of physician associates in gp offices? >> okay, now, this story broke this week and it's probably requires a bit of explanation. i've been following this online, the royal college of general practitioners has basically voted to ban physician associates, what they call pa from working in practices. now, people might not know what pa are . they're staff members who are. they're staff members who don't go to medical school, and they instead do a two year postgraduate training on top of a degree in a subject like biomedical sciences. now, in other words, paul, you have a group of people called physician associates. they used to be called physician assistants. now they're physician associates. sleight of hand. there people think they're getting medical expertise. they think they're getting medics. and my understanding is actually it's against the law to describe yourself as a physician, unless you're a doctor. but there's been all these people working as though they were doctors, or at least people have been getting that impression. >> yeah, it's on the face of it. it's quite dreadful. i think. however, we've got this crisis

in the nhs in our country for a whole raft of reasons and it's a it's a symptom and a reaction to that problem. there is a couple of things there. first of all, you're absolutely right. the patient should be entirely aware that derek , whilst he's looking that derek, whilst he's looking at your rash, is not entirely qualified to do so. >> yes. >> yes. >> well, they used to do things. the pa used to do things like help with blood tests and things like that where you, you know, fine. >> and that's okay. >> and that's okay. >> that's fine. but when you're deaung >> that's fine. but when you're dealing with people who are basically taking the role of what doctors should be doing, there's actually a real risk to there's actually a real risk to the health of patients. >> and that's the second point i was going to make. there are actually, sadly, people who have died as a result of being misdiagnosed by pa's now doctors misdiagnose people are humans, and humans make mistakes, but doctors are experienced and qualified and we accept that occasionally things will go wrong. very unfortunate. but when you discover in that process, particularly as a grieving family, that that was a pa who probably wasn't anywhere

near as qualified nor experienced enough, it creates a huge issue. and it's all about trust. if you lose trust in that first contact with the nhs , then first contact with the nhs, then you're not going to trust any other contract. contact >> my understanding of this is that the pa, there's 100% pass rate on this course, right? so in other words, these people who are not masquerading as doctors but are being perceived as doctors, i mean, anyone can do it. >> i genuinely had no idea that these they existed. did anybody know about them? i have no, absolutely no clue. and i live in i used to live in a small village. so, you know, the doctors, the doctor's surgery. but i didn't know there was such a thing as physician assistants . a thing as physician assistants. but it's the i think the terrifying thing is that you don't necessarily know that's what they are. sure. and secondly , there's google. yeah. secondly, there's google. yeah. i mean, yeah. so there's that i mean, google would be just as helpful in terms of diagnosing as if that was a physician's assistant's job. >> well, yeah sure. well, exactly. >> well , in a exactly. >> well, in a way, it's a good thing that the chp has now had

this decision. they've had this vote and this comes after a long time of various medical practitioners really pushing for it. but i'm pleased to say, because obviously this involves we require more expertise. i think i will have a medical expert coming on to discuss precisely this story in a couple of weeks time. so do join us again. then. we're going to have to move on, though. we've got a question coming from geoff. where is geoff? >> hello. >> hello. >> does calling a dog male describing a dog as male transphobic? >> well, geoff, i mean is it just part of the insanity that's infused into this nation? geoff, why have you been describing dogs as male when they're not racist? >> not me, not me , no, not you. >> not me, not me, no, not you. >> i mean , a number of us have >> i mean, a number of us have been reading about this this week. we were talking about it on headliners. what it is, is there was a zoom meeting, >> stop it, stop it, stop it . >> stop it, stop it, stop it. has somebody given you acid? what is happening ? what is happening? >> let me explain the story first, and then we can react . first, and then we can react. cambridge county council, basically they were employees on a zoom. someone had a dachshund, a zoom. someone had a dachshund, a sausage dog, and described the

dog as gender fluid . and another dog as gender fluid. and another member, lizzie pit, who was also an employee, expressed that she has gender critical views and doesn't recognise the gender identity of the dog and this became a big legal battle. it apparently cost taxpayers about 63,000 because the dog was called pablo kwasi was, which i think is a very clear there's pablo. they're gender neutral dachshund in a dress and what looks like a tiara. anyway, obviously flamboyant sausage dog. i don't take that away. but really, does this need. there's the dash. and on a trans does the dash. and on a trans does the dog on a zoom being misgendered or having someone else say that they don't recognise the idea of a gender fluid dog? does this need a big court case, i should say that the social worker, lizzie pitt, she was reported. someone else was reported as well. they were deemed to be transphobic. non—inclusive and the employment tribunal did conclude that miss

pitt had been harassed for having gender critical beliefs. she's been awarded over £55,000, £8,000 in legal costs. but why did it happen to begin with? jojo? why did i'm not playing? >> i'm not playing. i'm having nothing to do. i'm not playing. it's ridiculous. >> a gender neutral dog. >> a gender neutral dog. >> stop it! >> stop it! >> well, we can't stop it because it's news. because it's no, i know, but if we don't. women were dragged through the courts for this. >> how do we stop this? >> how do we stop this? >> seriously? come on. it does. do we all feel that we're on some kind of trip? that something something's not? i can't bear it. >> try hosting this show for three years. oh my god. after a while, you start thinking you're in the twilight zone. >> is it? is it the 1st of april? it is not. >> it is not. well, the thing is, paul, i'm continually feeling like jojo is that at some point you just think the lunacy has got to end. people have got to wake up. we shouldn't be having sex. we shouldn't be having sex. we shouldn't be having discussions about gender neutral decisions. >> we absolutely shouldn't. i'm glad we do because i've got bills to pay, but it's ridiculous. there should be at least one jojo or one andrew in that whole process. it should

never get to the point where it goes to court, and we're talking of tens of thousands of pounds. somebody at some point should go, this is ridiculous, or go back to school and behave yourselves. the other thing, of course, is go to your room. exactly that. but the whole thing about the trans ideology debate is it's about self—identification. do you see that dog? it looks entirely embarrassed by the situation. that dog has not identified itself as anything other than it was probably called dave. and all of a sudden he's now pablo and wearing a dress, and he's there going, what is all this about? >> there's no way that that dog identifies as gender fluid. >> no way. >> no way. >> well, probably when it's having a pee, it's fluid. but apart from that, i'm just i know it's ridiculous. >> right? well anyway, it's a very cute dog. >> very cute dog. and actually, i'm going to get social services involved and have them take him off him. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> doesn't quite extreme reaction, but maybe by the way, we should we should we have to give a right to reply the council spokesperson has said this. we strive to create a safe, inclusive and compassionate environment for people to work in and recognise this needs to be balanced with everyone being entitled to express their own views and beliefs. we will reflect

carefully on this final outcome, as well as undertake a review of our policies and procedures accordingly. that's the council's statement on their gender neutral discussion. okay, let's get a question now from jenny. where's jenny? hi, jenny. hello. >> hi. so do you think rachel reevesis >> hi. so do you think rachel reeves is right to remove paintings of men from a state room in downing street? >> yes. so this is an interesting one. this is a new chancellor of the exchequer. rachel reeves has demanded that pictures of men by male artists are removed from the state room in number 11, downing street. and i suppose this is a. well she wants to make a point, doesn't she? she wants to kind of celebrate amazing female figures. but but keir starmer, just a few weeks ago , demanded just a few weeks ago, demanded that the painting of margaret thatcher was taken down. so i don't know what's going on here. mixed messages. >> i think it's how it's interpreted, isn't it? and in terms of, yeah, i mean, the way it's being said, get rid of men, i don't think. well, that might be what she's trying to do. i have no problem whatsoever of filling the walls of downing street with, with women, with

with women? what do you mean? because why not? i mean, do you object to the margaret thatcher picture being taken down? first female prime minister. >> that's quite a big deal. >> that's quite a big deal. >> it is a big deal. i mean, i can ican >> it is a big deal. i mean, i can i can also understand i wouldn't like her breathing down my neck if i'm trying to eat my sandwich. >> aesthetic point of view. yes. >> aesthetic point of view. yes. >> so, i mean, i can understand maybe why take her down, but put her up somewhere else. and if you're going to celebrate. but i wouldn't celebrate margaret thatcher. but that's not my. >> what about you, paul? what do you make of this? >> i did some cursory researching of rachel reeves, actually. the first thing is she's the same age as me, which is upsetting, the second thing is upsetting, the second thing is she's got two children. one's a daughter, and one's a son. so in our in our living room at home, i assume she's taken down all the pictures of her son. well right. >> and so. >> and so. >> and so. >> and just put up the ones of her daughter. >> fair enough. well good for you, rachel. let's move on now. got a question from luke. where's luke? hi, luke. hi, guys, >> should the fourth plinth in trafalgar square be reserved for a monument to our late monarch,

or continued to be used for wokeist sort of transgender things? >> yes, i get the gist, did you use another word there, didn't you? today? and i saw the new monument and it is bad. let's be honest. it's a if it's art, it's not good art. basically, it's hundreds of plaster face casts of transgender, non—binary and gender non—conforming people. theidea gender non—conforming people. the idea of the sculpture is that it disintegrates over time. it's one of those sort of highly conceptual art forms. i know there are people who get like this. this sort of stuff leads me really, really cold. i kind of think, shouldn't we, on that fourth plinth, use that as an opportunity to try and produce something great that will stand the test of time, that will not just something that is basically ideological propaganda, because thatis ideological propaganda, because that is all it is really, isn't it? >> and it's been that way for some time, even way before these culture wars as we see them now. there have been a number. you've only got to look to see what's been on there, and you'll be able to see that most of it's not in sort of some sort of genenc not in sort of some sort of generic taste. it's always used to something to be standing out in, in some way. yeah, it would be great, considering it's been two years since queen elizabeth ii died to have her on that fourth plinth, just for a year

or so. it might calm things down. the idea that it that this thing disintegrates over time. i'm hoping that's a metaphor for the whole culture war. yeah, maybe. >> i mean, it's interesting. i've got nothing against, you know, people enjoying modern art and conceptual art and all the rest of it. that's absolutely fine. i mean, this is but this is quite a high profile public plinth. trafalgar square, i think. i think we should aim higher, that's all. just just a matter of taste, really. and i also accept that some art can be, propagandistic. but i find propagandistic art to be really boring. i don't like it when i'm being preached at when art is concerned. >> what was on the plinth before? >> well, nothing for a long time. and then there were various. do you remember there was the one of the, the whipped cream with the fly on it and the drone on it. yes. which was also absolutely terrible. so i mean, and again, i mean, there is terrible art and we have to accept it. >> and again, it's like comedy. it's subjective. sure. you know, but although i haven't met anyone who liked that whipped cream flying. >> no. >> no. >> and we've got something similar in scotland. it looks like a sort of turd on the top of john lewis. >> okay, so maybe that's just

john lewis describing their wares. >> exactly. but i think it's interesting when we come to sort of public sculptures and statues and things, that there's still the ongoing row about the eric gill sculpture inside the bbc, which has been vandalised again, and bbc are furiously trying to keep it there when it's by someone who, as we found out, was a who had been, well, had been sexually abusing his children. >> so that's really interesting because the eric gill statue, which is above broadcasting house, obviously eric gill was discovered later in the publication of his diaries to have been a sex offender. and i don't think anyone i think everyone recognises that's absolutely abhorrent and disgusting. but this raises the question of can you separate the art from the artist? yeah my feeling is that if you get rid of art because the artist has done something morally repugnant, you're going to lose a lot . a lot. >> yes, because artists, when it comes back to the sort of, you know, the slave traders and things, isn't it, that you can't. yeah. where do we stop with history or. yeah, where do we stop with the western canon? >> do we bulldoze the parthenon because they were a slaving society? do we paint over the sistine chapel because it is alleged that michelangelo did

some terrible things? >> no, none of those things? no. it's very difficult because you you can't. and in the end, you really can't separate the art from the artist when you know, you can't unknow something you learned. and when it's as abhorrent as child sexual abuse, you know, you you can't separate that. there will be no hugh edward statue outside the bbc, but there might be. >> actually, huw edwards had painted something as good as the sistine chapel. i still would have.i sistine chapel. i still would have. i still would object to people painting over it. >> well, we'll never know. we'll never know. >> we'll never know. yeah, we don't. >> bombshell. let's move on. next on free speech nation , next on free speech nation, ireland's minister for justice has confirmed that she has dropped plans to introduce new hate speech laws. i'm going to be joined by irish writer and political commentator john mcguirk to explain what's been going on. don't go

welcome back to free speech

nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me. andrew doyle, the minister of justice for the repubuc the minister of justice for the republic of ireland. helen mcentee has confirmed that she has dropped plans to introduce new hate speech laws. miss mcentee said that there was no consensus for the hate speech laws at present. the minister did say, though, that she wants to push forward with the hate crime element of the legislation. the proposed legislation. the proposed legislation has received a lot of criticism from the likes of elon musk, and also opposition parties. so joining me now is irish writer and political commentator john irish writer and political commentatorjohn mcgurk irish writer and political commentator john mcgurk . john, commentator john mcgurk. john, welcome to the show. i want to ask you for just some welcome to the show. i want to ask you forjust some background ask you for just some background here to the irish hate speech law, which has been seemingly dragging its heels for a long time now. what has the controversy been all about ? controversy been all about? >> well, the controversy has basically been that that the law is exactly what it sounds like. it's a law to regulate speech, andifs it's a law to regulate speech, and it's to a law to regulate pubuc and it's to a law to regulate public debate. and there have been significant concerns raised both by those of us in the media or some of us in the media and

many in, in politics that suggest that , look, the law is suggest that, look, the law is much more than simply about regulating hatred and the, the, the, the issue. that's arising is that if you look at, for example, in irish law, the definition of gender. gender is defined as male and female. there are only two. but the hate speech law made. it made it potentially a crime to criticise somebody's gender identity down the line. so there was that. there was a there was a conflict between the definition of genden between the definition of gender, both in irish law and, and the definition of gender in the bill, which raised the prospect of people being prosecuted for restating what the irish legal definition of gender is. that's just one example of the problem with the law. andrew the other example, the other problems with the law were straightforwardly that it was very clearly intended, and many ministers had spoken in these terms to be to have a chilling effect on on speech. every time they talked about this bill, it was in the context of protests around immigration

protests around the covid 19 pandemic, for example , where pandemic, for example, where they were pretty much straightforwardly saying , look, straightforwardly saying, look, we need to regulate this kind of speech. so. so they were specifically crafting legislation that was overtly intended to chill one corner of the political spectrum . and now the political spectrum. and now i think that's a, you know, and many people said, this is a this is a fire alarm going off in our democracy. when you have the government kind of overtly stating, or at least implying that this is their intention because frankly, in ireland we don't want to become, like you guys are in the uk. and i was watching the other day or just over the weekend, somebody getting arrested in london for allegedly expressing support for allegedly expressing support for a terrorist organisation. and it strikes me that if you're prosecuting the speech, you're ignonng prosecuting the speech, you're ignoring the bigger problem , ignoring the bigger problem, which is the support for the terrorist organisation and the fact that people feel free to articulate those views, and i think there are many of us in ireland and thankfully, a consensus across the political

spectrum who came to the conclusion that, you know, to take away free speech and to regulate people from saying things is a little bit like country with a heart disease problem, banning heart monitors, you know, when you when you start to eliminate free speech, what you do, in effect is to take away that vital signal that there might be something wrong by simply telling people that if they use a different form of words, you know, they'll be fine. whereas there are many people , thankfully, in the people, thankfully, in the country, i think, who still value the idea that, you know, even if there are unpleasant things being said, it is much better for society to be aware that they're being said than to hide away and criminalise them and pretend that that deals with the problem. >> one of the concerns, john, has been the wording of the legislation that was proposed and specifically the definition of hatred and the definition of hatred appeared to be hatred against anyone from a protected characteristic. but if you have a circular definition in law , if a circular definition in law, if hatred just means hatred, doesn't that leave it wide open to future exploitation by governments? as yet? unconceived

>> that was certainly the fear i mean, hatred is a is a is, as you rightly point out, it's a it's a term that is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. i mean, if i say that i hate liverpool football club, as a manchester united fan, does that, what does that mean? is that is that the same kind of hatred somebody might feel that is expressed in a racist or bigoted way towards a racist or bigoted way towards a different group of people, the, the, the that was one of the, the, the that was one of the concerns. but it wasn't the only concern. i think there were deep concern. the, the concern was that it was bad legislation, but bad legislation being set out to achieve a bad purpose. and like when you have legislation that is specifically targeted at the idea that, you know, we will we will go after people for saying things we don't like. and when you have, then also loosely defined, as you point out, those things that we don't like as being generic hatred, then the question ultimately becomes , well, well, ultimately becomes, well, well, who are we? who are we? and what does the we represent? so what hatreds are we particularly upset about, so for example, i

mean, this is not new or revelatory stuff, but i mean, there are many different groups in society who express various hatreds and some of it, some of it in ways that everybody instinctively recognises as racist and bigoted and offensive, and others in ways that perhaps we don't recognise as much. so. so like, what about, ageism or anti—catholicism or expression of contempt towards christian views? is that a hatred on the same way, on the same level as a hatred towards migrants or lgbt people or whatever you may have? so yeah, there are loads of questions around that. >> and how do you feel? helen mcintyre said she's dropping the hate speech element of the hate crime bill, but there's all sorts of potential problems still within the remaining legislation. and are you really convinced that this hate speech element won't rematerialise in some other form? >> no. and i mean, there's no guarantees that it won't. i mean, ireland is due to have a general election before february on or before february next year. so, i mean, i think we're

probably safe until then. but i mean, there are political parties in the oireachtas which is the equivalent of westminster in ireland who are keen to bring this back. who may, we don't know, get into government, and as you point out, the legislation is proceeding with this hate crime element, which will be a common knowledge for people living in the uk, what hate crime is. but i mean, to me that looks like criminalising people for their thoughts. i mean, as far as i'm concerned, if you are attacked on the street, you're attacked on the street, you're attacked on the street, and that is the crime. and saying that one person who's attacked on the street has had a more significant crime committed against them because of what the person who committed it was thinking in their head strikes me, and i think a lot of people, as illogical. but at the same time, that is that is, you know, problematic, but not quite as problematic, but not quite as problematic as what has been stripped from the legislation, which was an overt attempt to regulate and criminalise people for expressing their political or other viewpoints. >> and what do you make of critics of yours who might say, well, you know, we've seen civil unrest. we've seen disruption on the streets and we've seen open

declarations of hatred towards migrant communities and people from other cultures. and there needs to be some way to tackle that. do you accept that point of view? >> i think there are two things here. i think, first of all, people on the right have been very committed to a long time for winning the right to freedom of expression and protecting what you call the marketplace of ideas. and i think we've just accomplished that. we've protected the marketplace of ideas, but protecting the marketplace of ideas is not the same thing as winning in the marketplace of ideas. and this is what i would say about those criticisms, the irish national broadcaster rt, a few days ago ran a documentary, program about some immigration protests in which they showed on camera people using disgusting racial slurs and epithets to describe migrants and other people of colour. and chose to broadcast that. now, why did they do that? they chose to do it, i think because that kind of free speech is valuable in its own way, because it is illustrative of a kind of problem that's there in our society, when you actually

can see people using extremist language or extremist phrases, you are at least aware of the problem, and you are able to address it and you're able to identify it and you're able to say, look, we have to tackle these people and defeat them in these people and defeat them in the marketplace of ideas. when you start banning that and essentially give people like, these are the lines in which you must stay when you're speaking verbally or or expressing yourself in writing . well, yourself in writing. well, you're not actually getting rid of those ideas. you're simply obscuring them from the rest of our view. and this is what i was saying about the gentleman in london who was expressing or alleged to have expressed support for hamas. if you arrest him and ban him from using that particular form of words, that doesn't mean that he's suddenly going to reconsider his views. it simply means that he won't express them in public, and you won't have a clear sight of the problem. so i would say in relation to that, that you have to judge ideas on their merits and you have to. i think we, all of us in society have the right to free speech, must live with the reality that some people will abuse it and just as people

abuse every right and every, every, every , you know, every, every, you know, entitlement granted to them by the state or indeed their natural rights. so but it's for the rest of us to be vigilant and to, to combat that and call it out for what it is. it is not for the state to simply prosecute these people , sweep prosecute these people, sweep their arguments under the carpet and make martyrs of them, which is what what happened? because all of a sudden, one moment you've got somebody shouting racist language at black people on the street and the next moment you've got that person in prison saying, i've been sent to prison saying, i've been sent to prison because i said something bad about, you know, this group. but look at what these people are saying about my group. and then all of a sudden you're making them into a martyr. it's a very silly road to go down. and i'm glad that for now, we've put an end to it in this country. >> john mcguirk, thanks so much for talking to us about this issue. really appreciate it. and next on free speech nation, we're going to get the latest from the world of arts and culture with and broadcaster david bolt. don't go anywhere.

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me , andrew doyle. so nation with me, andrew doyle. so let's get a roundup now from the world of arts and culture. and who better to discuss them than historian and broadcaster david oldroyd ? bolt. welcome to the oldroyd? bolt. welcome to the show, david. okay, david. so tell us what's been going on. >> well, very briefly last week was sir antonio pappano's first week as chief conductor of the london symphony orchestra , where london symphony orchestra, where he's come from the royal opera house, covent garden . i was house, covent garden. i was lucky enough to go last sunday to hear him conduct. he had as his soloist the extremely celebrated chinese pianist yuja wang, who i must say, i didn't quite get the fuss about and it was a it's very apparent that already the ls0 and san antonio have forged a great rapport . he have forged a great rapport. he bnngs have forged a great rapport. he brings all of the verve and precision of an opera conductor of 20 years at covent garden, and before that , many years and before that, many years elsewhere to the orchestral repertoire and i predict off the

bafis repertoire and i predict off the basis of that one concert, plus listening to reviews of the others, that this is going to be a seriously good thing for london. >> oh, well, that's great news. and then you have another story. >> yeah, well, i've just come back from the cliveden literary festival, which was established by the historian lord roberts. andrew roberts and natalie livingstone, who is also an historian and whose husband owns cliveden house in buckinghamshire, famous for its involvement with the profumo scandal. in 1963, which was i say this every year about cliveden. it is the finest literary festival in this country, and the line up this year was astonishing. we began yesterday morning with a discussion between the historian sir neil macgregor and the former head of the secret intelligence service, sir alex younger, about what sir alex thinks of the current situation in security around the world and the future of it. somewhat sobering, but absolutely fascinating discussion today , fascinating discussion today, the hollywood actress rachel weisz was in conversation with emily maitlis, which, you know, to get rachel an actress of rachel weisz standard to a literary festival was extraordinary. it was particularly nice to see her and

daniel craig at the dinner last night, but i think you're rubbing shoulders with the well , rubbing shoulders with the well, no they weren't. they were 20ft away. >> right. okay, fine. >> right. okay, fine. >> don't worry. they were safe, i think the standout though, that everybody would agree on was yesterday's discussion between the novelist sir salman rushdie and ian mcewan, particularly rushdie, talking about the attack in august 2022, where he was stabbed 15 times while on stage at an event in new york by, well, and we must say, his alleged attacker because he still hasn't been convicted or indeed gone to trial was a lebanese—american who apparently had read two pages of rushdie's famous book, the satanic verses, but was motivated by the fatwa against the satanic verses and against rushdie, which was imposed in 1989 by the ayatollah khomeini of iran with a $3 million reward. if i dare say that the ayatollah hadn't read the satanic verses either. i'm not sure he would have done. and this was famous at the time,

because rushdie had to go into hiding for many, many years. the japanese translator of the book was stabbed to death. the italian translator was stabbed and grievously injured, as was the norwegian, i believe, anyway, rushdie over recent years has not had security at events . he's felt years has not had security at events. he's felt able or he felt able to live a normal life. and he said while discussing this book that in fact, when he was being stabbed and laying on the floor while the attacker was held down by members of the audience, he thought this is an anachronism. why now? why are you doing this now? but throughout the novel, throughout the memoir and throughout the discussion yesterday, despite what has happened to him, despite , you know, his, despite, you know, his, i suppose rather you could say would be rather reasonable for him to think that people saying he should be killed should be suppressed. he was virulent in his defence of free speech. absolutely unconscionable without any conscience whatsoever. sorry, he just said no. there must be free speech. and even if it leads to people being in danger, even if the ideas themselves are

inflammatory, they must be heard. they must be argument about them. i mean, this is fascinating. >> i read his previous memoir, joseph anton, which of course details his experience of going into hiding, having the security services all the time, terrible experience for anyone to go through. but not just that, but the endless debates on tv about whether he brought it on himself. >> well, including people like a book, john le carre for instance, who had said at the time, well, you know, he should have been more responsible, he should have thought about the consequences. and perhaps you can make the argument that he should have thought about the consequences. but he the argument that he should not have published it. yes, i think coming from any author is bizarre. absolutely. and i think it was rather heartwarming. the audience was clearly very moved by the discussion. mcewan and rushdie have known each other a great many years, so it was a really amusing discussion between two old friends. yes, but as your viewers may know, rushdie lost his right eye, so he now wears a pair of spectacles with a blacked out lens. he lost the use of his left hand. he was severely injured. 15 stabbings, including to the torso, to the liver, and so on. so it was a moving thing,

but it was also galvanising. and does he give a sense of what he writes in this new book, knife. >> it's called. yes i mean, is he at that point now where he thinks that, you know, free speech has been lost because i don't think the satanic verses or something akin to the satanic verses could be published today. >> he basically made that point, he said, you know , while the he said, you know, while the book was being published, bear in mind that it was published in 88, the fatwa imposed in 89. and throughout the world the translations are going on. he and his publisher had to fight and his publisher had to fight and fight and fight to get that to happen, to get there, to be translations and for it to remain in print and he basically makes the point that it just wouldn't happen now, because there isn't the appetite for it. >> and it's very interesting to hear him being such a vehement defender of free speech when, as you say, there have been some vociferous critics against him and saying that he ought to shut up. he's responsible for everything that happened, all of the rest of it. but even when the rest of it. but even when the stakes are that high, he recognises well, not just in terms of politics, but also in terms of politics, but also in terms of politics, but also in terms of arts. free speech is at

the core, surely. >> well, again, this is a point that both mcewan and rushdie made that without the freedom to express ideas and to debate them, and to be controversial, to be perhaps inflammatory . you to be perhaps inflammatory. you you have no artistic freedom. you have no freedom of conscience and the freedom to express those views and it is perfectly reasonable. i think we both agree that if someone says something which is straightforwardly inciting, say , straightforwardly inciting, say, violence, then they should be censored for it. censured. i mean, not censored. yes. you know, they should be held to account for it, but there should still, in my view, be that freedom to make that point. and you take the consequences whether social consequences of ostracisation or the legal consequences of prosecution. if, for instance, something you said , for instance, something you said, say, leads to someone being murdered. yes. >> but when it comes to literature, i mean that we have to have the assumption of complete freedom for any kind of experimentation, any kind of risk taking. what do you think this has done to the world of literature more generally, to have this kind of, awful, ominous example that has been set by the treatment of rushdie?

>> well, i think we'd both agree that it's stifled the publishing industry and that the publishing industry and that the publishing industry has stifled itself on so many subjects. and if you think of the history of freedom, of publishing in this country, really it goes from the lady chatterley trial in 1963, through to probably that time of the fatwa issued against satanic verses, maybe through the 90s. there were some controversial novels, you know, bret easton ellis, michel welbeck, the french novelist whose works been translated. but i think most publishers now simply lack the spine. they lack the backbone to for stand up controversial ideas and the right for them to be expressed, and for the right of authors to push the boundaries. >> well, there seems to be a double thing, doesn't there? because, you know, there were bookshops that were burnt, firebombed at the time of the satanic verses fatwa. so there's that pressure from repercussions from from lunatics, frankly. but you've also got people within publishing saying, no, we have a responsibility to send out the right moral message. you have the implementation of sensitivity readers and that kind of thing. >> yes. and warnings on on books, history of fiction , books

books, history of fiction, books published years ago, warnings that these do not reflect the attitudes of the time. well, of course they don't. that's one of the reasons we read books written in a different age or context from our own, is to be exposed to those differences. but there seems to be this pusillanimity now that people can't possibly comprehend something that is without their very small limits, and that if they were exposed to it, they'll somehow disintegrate. well, good. those people deserve to be, as it were, intellectually disintegrated. if they're so weak and feeble as to be unable to deal with something that is challenging. i don't know about you, but i find books that challenge nothing utterly boring. it's the equivalent of it's the equivalent of a glass of water. it may be in some way nourishing, but it has no flavour . it has no challenge. flavour. it has no challenge. >> i particularly like the university that put a warning on juuus university that put a warning on julius caesar, two students of engush julius caesar, two students of english literature saying it contained a murder. you know, i think, i think if you don't know that already, you probably shouldn't be studying it. >> well, and the same has happened at the globe and at the royal court and at stratford that, you know, shakespeare, coriolanus, for instance,

although they don't seem to give the very worst ones, which we just discussed before, the graphic warnings, they deserve. >> well, titus andronicus, yes, exactly. yeah, that's fine. you can cut up two kids and serve them to their mother in a pie, and that's okay, apparently. well, look, david aldridge, it's always a pleasure to have you. thanks for coming. thank you . thanks for coming. thank you. next up on free speech nation, donald trump's comments about immigrants take a musical turn . immigrants take a musical turn. ed davey sings abba and angela rayner reminds us once again what sir keir starmer's father did. it's time for social sensations. go go anywhere

not to have brit school with me. andrew doyle 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 the dreaded social media. first up, there's this video which gives a musical take on donald trump's recent

comments. they're eating the dogs. >> whoa whoa whoa whoa. >> whoa whoa whoa whoa. >> they're eating the cats. miaow miaow miaow miaow. they're eating the pets of the people that live there. >> they're eating the dogs. whoa whoa whoa whoa. they're eating the cats. miaow miaow miaow miaow. >> they're eating the pets of the people that live there . the people that live there. >> so that's gone. absolutely viral. >> i mean, i can see why that's really catchy. >> it's quite catchy. isn't it? really catchy. yeah. >> donald trump had such a good voice. >> no, indeed. >> no, indeed. >> but it's interesting. he's the most meme able politician who has ever existed, isn't he? you know, i mean, when i saw that, i just thought, why? why are you degrading the debate again? can't we have a proper discussion? we don't have to talk about cats and dogs being eaten, but actually the tune is pretty good. no, it's great. >> i was dancing away. but there's another meme as well. there's one where they compare donald trump with the assassination. >> of which one? abraham lincoln. >> no, no, no. when obama is doing about the assassination of bin laden. oh, yes. and it's just really sort of presidential

speech. and then, they compare donald trump talking about another one. yeah. yeah. >> well, when you compare donald trump to other statesmen, it doesn't always come across as well as he'd hoped. what do you make of that clip? >> i love all that sort of stuff. but you know, quite seriously, when donald trump does these things, he just he just absorbs all the energy away from anything. now, for the same reason, i'd like to see him debate slightly better. yeah. because there's a good chance he could become leader of the free world once again. however he that's in some way i don't know if he's accidentally genius. genius. he he he's able . that's genius. he he he's able. that's all we're talking about. i can't remember anything. kamala harris said. >> but kamala harris did a similar thing where she tried to make herself about the brat generation and the taylor swift endorsement and all that, but i kind of wish we get back to politics. you'd think so. >> no, i'd like some politics, and i do quite like kamala harris's, thing about, autonomy rights for women. >> okay, well, there we go. so that's a policy thing. there we go. so something actually political. let's let's move on to this video from the lib dem conference this week. that is a thing by the way. oh, ed davey

here. and he's grabbing the headunes here. and he's grabbing the headlines once again. let's have a look. so me leave me. >> let me go. and be around. you got no place to go. you're being banned. >> he just doesn't care . after >> he just doesn't care. after all, it's all falling off the canoes and the trip wires. >> but that was his whole sort of campaign, wasn't it? it was to be a sort of man of the people and. >> no, isn't it just they've decided they are a joke party. they're just embracing it now. >> yeah. go for it. >> they're going for it. right. >> they're going for it. right. >> well, absolutely. i mean it hasn't. it's worked for him. he managed to double his his mp or quadruple his mps. just by going to the theme park and falling in water. >> i know, i know, but it's just so daft. >> it is ridiculous. but that just i think that shows us just how ridiculous our politics are now, because there is room for that. >> yeah, sure. >> yeah, sure. >> that is. that is the third biggest party in our country. >> other people have done it. theresa may did her dance, didn't she? and that was a big

deal didn't she? and that was a big deal. yeah. >> and i used to get comparisons because my haircut with theresa may as well. and that doesn't help that you all laughed in agreement, but at least theresa may dressed really well. >> she's she's got great taste. i mean, that i think she's got oh come on. right. no, i'm going to go on. >> was that a bad. >> was that a bad. >> are you saying that i don't dress well? >> well, i mean that was a i don't think that was a deliberate insinuation. >> maybe on some level. you asked me on angela rayner. >> now she dragged up a favourite topic of discussion at the labour conference today. let's have a look. oh you may have heard me mention that it was a trade unionist. >> and if you don't know that, i should probably tell you that keir's dad was a toolmaker. >> well, at least he laughed about it. he's going along with it. but you know, he's made a lot of hay out of his father being a toolmaker, he has, and his dad definitely is toolmaker. >> look at him. that is one of them. >> oh very good. that's just me. >> oh very good. that's just me. >> how long did that take you to? >> nothing. >> nothing. >> it didn't take anything. >> it didn't take anything. >> he's been dying to say that. exactly. >> that's been stored in his little back pocket.

>> he was hoping that would come up. look, we haven't got much time left, so we're going to have a look at your unfiltered dilemmas. thanks ever so much for writing in as ever. we got a dilemma here from jane. and jane says, i always offer to buy my colleague something from the shop when i nip out at lunch. most politely decline, but one always asks for me to buy her a can of pop. i still say pop. okay, usually i let it slide, but i reckon i've spent more than £50 on drinks now. how can i recoup my losses? jojo that seems like a lot. i mean, at some point you've got to send her out to get the pop right just because. >> your turn lady. >> your turn lady. >> so that's your view on that? what about you, paul? what do you think? >> yeah, you have to do that, p0p- >> yeah, you have to do that, pop. that's what i got stuck on for me. i was just thinking, who is it? i was imagining my nan in about 1984 asking a vimto. yeah, well, it would have been sodastream. >> maybe it's someone who's so posh that they think they've got staff. yeah, maybe they'll get me some pop. >> don't get me some pop. absolutely. we don't know, jane. >> we shouldn't judge. okay? we're going to move to on a dilemma from alex. alex says i've just moved into my

girlfriend's flat and thought i should make a big effort with gifts and presents to celebrate the move and start on the right foot. i'm now a bit worried. i've set the bar too high, too early. any advice? what did you buy her like? what was it like? >> anne diamond. >> anne diamond. >> but why would you buy a gift? she's already invited you to live with her. yes. what's the what? what does it. what does it? what do you mean? start off on the right foot. just be nice, mate. put the bins out. >> no, but i mean, if you buy a whole bunch of faberge eggs or whatever it might have been. no exactly. >> but bucha your eggs. >> but bucha your eggs. >> yeah. where do you think a posh thing. i think people have posh thing. i think people have posh people are surrounded by faberge eggs. isn't that right? >> but he's just on a classic sort of, you know, trying to impress a woman by buying all these things. and then he'll just go down and go, oh, stop it. just. >> yeah, a pot noodle. yeah, yeah. >> that's it. jojo. what women want or do women want? >> i have no idea. >> i have no idea. >> i've never met one guy. >> i've never met one guy. >> i'm not one, apparently. okay we've got a final dilemma this week from elliot. >> elliot says i've been discussing christmas plans with my family this week. how do i

tell my nan that at age 22, i no longer want to sit on the kids table for christmas lunch? >> it's tough. what do you think? >> no, i'm absolutely. because, when we had a big family christmas and there was 26 of us and my elder children who were older than that had shared the kids table because there wasn't enough chairs around the big table with the grownups. >> so there's a pragmatic element. you're not trying to patronise them. >> no. and yes, it's just the seating arrangements and also the fact that you never grew up in a household. the children are always the children, regardless what i think. >> that's right. i think that's right, listen, i'm sorry you can't go to paul because we've got no more time. but thank you for joining us for free speech nation. this was the week when there was a further scandal at rape crisis scotland. angela rayner reminded us all that starmer's dad was a toolmaker, and the irish government apparently remembered that free speech does indeed matter after all. thanks so much to my wonderful panel, paul cox and jojo sutherland, to and all of my brilliant guests this evening. and by the way, if you want to join us live in the studio and be part of our lovely studio and be part of our lovely studio audience, that is dead easy. just go to sro audiences.com. the website

address is on the screen right now. you can apply there. come along and we feed you. we give you drink. we ply you with alcohol so that you laugh more freely. that's the trick. especially when paul's in. that's what we have to do. >> but do stay tuned. we've got the brilliant mark dolan tonight that's coming up next. >> and also don't forget that headliners is on every night at 11:00. that's the late night paper preview show, where comedians take you through the next day's top news stories. thanks ever so much for watching free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. i'll see you next week . week. >> that warm feeling inside from boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello there. good evening. welcome to your gb news weather forecast provided by the met office. hope you have managed to have a decent weekend. although some of us have been dodging

heavy pulses of rain around and they'll be continuing into next week as well, even throughout the end of sunday evening. parts of wales central southern areas of wales central southern areas of england have those heavy outbreaks of rain to contend with. it is slightly drier further towards the north, with some clearer spells holding on for parts of western scotland at least. and underneath that things could turn a little bit chilly, some rural spots seeing a touch of frost, but for most of us underneath the cloud and rain, it certainly will be a mild, muggy night. temperatures around 15 or 16 c. an amber weather warning does come into force from monday morning, and that stretches from parts of gloucestershire, herefordshire, up through the midlands and over towards the humber and the wash, where we could see over a month's worth of rain falling on monday. so some localised flooding and disruption is possible. so do please take care. over the course of the day. quite cloudy for northern ireland and generally cloudier as well for much of scotland there are a few sunnier breaks, hopefully holding on for the likes of dumfries and galloway, but we will start to see some rain arriving into very far north of scotland during the day and that will continue to push its way southwards into the likes of the highlands of lewis

and harris. later on, those outbreaks of rain will continue on and off for much of wales central and north eastern parts of england during the day, with a few brighter spells trying to poke their way through across the southeast. still, though, with a few showers here, temperatures in that sunshine managing to climb towards 21 c, but elsewhere generally feeling cooler between 15 or 16 c. the low pressure that is bringing this area of heavy rain will gradually move its way off eastwards as we do head into tuesday, so things will be turning drier and a little bit calmer for wales and england on tuesday itself, though still relatively cloudy and very many bright spells. fairly limited. we'll also see that rain gradually push its way southwards across more areas of scotland, with some brisk winds around at times, and those northerly winds will start to feed in some cooler air as well. so things are set to be turning colder for many of us as we head over the forthcoming week. by looks like things are heating up boxt boilers sponsors of weather

gb news. >> it's 9:00 on television, on radio and online in the united kingdom and across the world. this is mark dolan tonight in my opinion. following an avalanche of sleaze allegations has this new government already lost the confidence of the british people? also tonight is tory leadership hopeful. robert jenrick writes that the small boats crisis is opening the door to terror , and in a mark dolan to terror, and in a mark dolan tonight exclusive, i'm joined in the studio by mohamed al—fayed's biographer following allegations that the former harrods owner assaulted more than 100 women in assaulted more than 100 women in a reign of terror that is feared to have lasted decades . and at to have lasted decades. and at ten, in a take at ten special, the events of this week raised serious questions about the prime minister's character and judgement. i'm putting starmer

in the dock and