airstrikes in lebanon . its airstrikes in lebanon. massive consecutive strikes have hit beirut's southern suburbs, with israel claiming its forces have killed 440 hezbollah fighters in its ground operation in the south of the country . a in the south of the country. a record breaking 973 migrants across the english channel in a single day, to according the official figures. they arrived in 17 small boats, surpassing the previous record of 882 set in june. of this year. last. yesterday's surge also came as four migrants, including a young child, sadly died, making the journey. the total so far this yearis journey. the total so far this year is now 26,000. russia has launched more than 80 drones and three missiles at ukraine in a significant overnight attack. it comes as president zelenskyy prepares to unveil a victory plan during a crucial allies meeting in germany on the 12th

of october. this plan is expected to detail steps towards ending the war with russia . ending the war with russia. while specifics remain under wraps, us officials suggest it includes a revised request for an increased military support and long—range missile systems , and long—range missile systems, as ukraine nears 1000 days of conflict with russia. boris johnson says the russian president is bad, not mad. in a candid interview with gb news camilla tominey, the former prime minister shed some light on his interactions with vladimir putin, providing a glimpse into their complex relationship . relationship. >> he means no good for this country. he regards the united kingdom as their among their most important strategic foes, probably their most important strategic foes, which is a pity. but he's chosen that path, and we're now in a very, very unhappy position. and you know,

what he is doing in ukraine is criminal. and it is also a mistake. it's a mistake for russia. it's a mistake for putin. >> and finally, a new blood test that can detect 12 common cancers is getting a major boost thanks to a £148 million investment in cutting edge medical technologies. the health secretary says the funding will also help advance ai diagnosis and personalised treatments, with research hubs set up across uk universities. wes streeting, himself a cancer survivor, says the investment could save lives while strengthening britain's role as a leader in life sciences . well, those are your sciences. well, those are your latest gb news headlines i'm lewis mackenzie. more from me in an hour's time for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code or go to gbnews.com forward

slash alerts . slash alerts. >> the uk government gives away some islands. non—binaries get angry when asked what sex they are, and the home office goes after some sexist schoolboys. this is free speech nation . this is free speech nation. welcome to free speech nation with me , andrew doyle. this is with me, andrew doyle. this is the show where we take a look at culture, current affairs and politics, and we've got a lot to cover tonight . brendan o'neill, cover tonight. brendan o'neill, the chief political writer at spiked, will be joining me to talk about his new book that documents the reaction to the october 7th attacks on israel. one year on a free speech row has broken out at durham university, as the student union has banned its debating society from taking part in the freshers fair. stephen o'grady, from the free speech union will be here to talk about that case, and i'll be speaking to doctor heather ryan, who'll be joining me to talk about the role of physician associates in the nhs

as concerns are raised over the safety of patients and of course, i've got a wonderful comedian panel here to answer questions from our lovely studio audience. and my comedian guests this evening are josh howie and jojo sutherland . jojo. welcome back. >> hello. hello, lovely to be back. >> spending more time in england than scotland these days. >> i think i'm more down south. >> i think i'm more down south. >> yes, you're turning your back on your native land. yeah. it's too cold. it is to cold be fair. it is. >> and i miss it. i think it's lovely up there. >> no, it is lovely. it is. i drove the whole way today. did you? drove the whole way today. did you.7 yeah. drove the whole way today. did you? yeah. 6.5 hours get around. so much, don't you? and you're gigging while you're down. gigging? yeah. i'm here. and london. london. manchester. warrington. liverpool. back to edinburgh. you never stop. >> i don't know how you do it. joe and josh. what about yourself? >> yeah. i'm not doing much. you're not doing much. >> that's fine by comparison. not very much. although you were on the commemorative march today. >> yeah, well, it was a memorial in hyde park. it was 30,000 jewish people and allies. considering there's about 250,000 jews in the uk. that's a

that's a significant amount came out and it was great. it was a very it was very emotional. there was people talking, including the mother of one of the hostages, who's actually she's a british citizen, dual citizenship. and we just don't hear about her in the media at all. she's been held for a year by rapists , terrorists, and no by rapists, terrorists, and no one talks about it. >> well, i think it's fair to say the media has been pretty negligent when it comes to a lot of this stuff . of this stuff. >> not gb news, not gb news. >> not gb news, not gb news. >> i was clearly intimating all the other channels except for this one, but i'm going to be speaking to brendan o'neill later about his book on the subject as well. so stick around for that. but first, let's get some questions from the audience. our first question is coming in from mike. hello, mike. >> hi, andrew. should we be concerned about the increase in the far right in austria? >> yes. so this is the freedom party, austria's freedom party, which has won 28.9% of the vote, which has won 28.9% of the vote, which is almost three points ahead of the conservative people's party on 26.3%. but, josh, it is the case, isn't it, that it's one of these coalition situations because the conservatives who ran were runner up. they don't want to do

a coalition with the freedom party , but there seems to be party, but there seems to be a lot of cases where you have these parties like meloni in italy, like le pen's party in france , where their origins are france, where their origins are far right, they claim no longer to be far right, but they're the ones that are now winning across the board. can you help us understand? >> well, look, i just look , i do >> well, look, i just look, i do not like the far right as long as it is as it is the far right. and frankly, i'm just not willing to believe that label as much anymore, because the people who bandy it out, sort of anybody who is to their right of you being far left is far right. >> this is the real problem, isn't it? with the afd, there are some members of the afd in germany that have said some properly dodgy stuff, which i would classify as far right, but given that i constantly hear people being called far right, including people i know who are on the left , i now no longer on the left, i now no longer know, including yourself, including myself . and now i no including myself. and now i no longer know what it means or whether it means anything. >> exactly. and that's the problem with the distrust in the mainstream media that we've seen over the last few years, where you don't feel you can trust what they're saying anymore

because they're saying it with an agenda and not actually just presenting the facts. now, it could be this austrian party is far right and that's bad. but the way that they're saying it in the newspapers i read or the article i read in the guardian was like and the bbc was like, oh, they're far right because they're trying to control migration. well, i'm sorry that doesn't make you far right. that makes you a realist about how society is moving forward. >> and here's another problem is that people will gravitate to whatever party is going to talk about the things that haven't been spoken about. >> no, absolutely. and everybody has their own agenda, whatever it is. but i think we've lost the ability to basically give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they let us down. yes. and so, like you say, there's far right, far left, you know, it's basically we far right now is anyone that disagrees with my opinion. yeah. exactly. >> yeah. it's not very helpful is it? and of course, the migration issue for a long time people have just been branding people have just been branding people racist. if they even raise the issue. >> yeah. and i think people are just putting their heads in the sand and we've lost our sort of ability as well to sort of just trust our own intuition and our own experience around us. and if people are genuinely feeling

that things are changing around them and that there is a noticeable difference in their day to day life, and they're beginning to show concerns about it, even if you just start with a gentle question, if that is immediately slammed down with oh, you're a far right racist, you go, well, i'm not going to say anything. yeah, it's a real problem. well, it's dangerous andifs problem. well, it's dangerous and it's unhealthy. >> it absolutely is. okay, well, let's get a question there from jeff. hi, jeff. >> hello. it's been reported that some self—defining non—binary customers have been offered compensation by a firm because they've been asked whether they were male or female on a form or something. >> yeah, they were angry about this. and there were two firms. actually. it was moneysupermarket and transunion, and they've been forced to pay because they asked customers what their sex was. i mean, that's not that offensive, is it? >> i don't know if it's about being offensive . genuinely. when being offensive. genuinely. when i read that, i was like, actually, if you go back to the mr and mrs. question on a thing, yes, i didn't take offence, but i don't want to necessarily. that's why they made judgements.

yes. so i always i still use moos and i still use my non—married name jo white and i use my single name. and so the. i do think is quite interesting. i do think is quite interesting. i should clarify, it's not. >> this is the customers wanted to be known as. yes. >> so you've got mr and mrs. and you have miss mr and mrs. and miss and i actually don't see any problem with and i tell you for why. because there was a study done that was interesting in terms of people's initial judgements from things. so emails were sent with a woman's name and the same email was sent with a man's name, and the proportion of people that replied to the one with the man's name rather than the woman's. so if you're just giving a heads up without what your sex or gender is, i think it's quite nice to just put your to put in anonymously. >> so , josh, would you be happy >> so, josh, would you be happy if i call you howie? >> yeah. no. yeah. >> yeah. no. yeah. >> no, i mean, i think it's a lot more serious than that. and

i agree that there is something for blind sex. so certainly things where. but then when it is something in this case insurance where we know you know women drivers are no joking . but women drivers are no joking. but when they when it makes a going to lose any allyship, we've lost. >> we've lost every female. >> we've lost every female. >> let's just say men or women, if it's young men, then you are going to have worst case. you're more likely to be into an accident. the point is, sex makes a difference when it comes to car insurance. it just does. i'm sorry. and let's not get into why it makes a difference to accidents as well, because women don't have as many accidents. >> well, no. well, no they do well, they have worse accidents because seatbelts are not designed for women, are they? oh, there we go. yes, absolutely. >> well, let me make another point just to counter it a little bit. so, so the most thing i think is right. because what miss or mrs. did was force people to announce their marital status. yes . right. yeah. but status. yes. right. yeah. but what mux does is it implies that there is such a thing as being neither male nor female, which is not true. so it's an idea. it's a it's a statement of

ideological intent. so why should it would be like, i think an insurance company saying, what religion are you. you know, you must put your religion down or whatever it might be, you know, and i'm not sure that they should be compensated for being asked a question, which is legitimate, i think. >> and i mean, yeah, i see your point in that. and in terms of, you know, the statistics, when you know, the statistics, when you break it down to just male and female and teenage runaways. yes . yes. >> but you think insurance companies shouldn't know your sex. sex. >> sex. >> well, i think it does give. it's that absolute thing of going well , if you're a man, going well, if you're a man, you're likely to drive faster. or if you're a woman, i mean, there's a brilliant statistics, there's a brilliant statistics, there's a brilliant joke about there's a brilliant joke about the dodi lie—ins did going, you know, be very careful when you read those adverts. one careful lady owner, you know , she said. lady owner, you know, she said. yeah, this is one lady. careful lady owner drove for half an hour with a handbrake on. do you know what i mean? so it's like, to be fair, i'm sorry. yeah. >> can i say sorry? sorry. this issue, actually, i think has

gone slightly squiffy in that it's exactly what you're saying is this is the non—binary, which is this is the non—binary, which is not real being given legal protection. and that is a real problem now because they are they've been given a under the equality act in 2003. that was like there was something to do with finances. there was some court case a few years ago. >> non—binary identities aren't protected under the equality bill. >> this is the. no, but this is why it is like they're saying this court case says it is, and this court case says it is, and this is. or it should be, which sets more precedent so that people could just it's just made up. it doesn't exist. and now it exists in at least some part of law. and it's a creeping situation. >> what you're saying, and, you know, it's not just about money supermarket, is it? it's about everything's about money. supermodel issues at stake. right? we've got a rupert in the audience, which i love because we never have enough. >> rupert, you haven't got the trousers on. >> no, i know, but it's true. but it's a good name, rupert. >> right. i'd like to ask the panel >> right. i'd like to ask the panel. there's a story today that the home office are trying to bring. prevent the terror

investigation unit to look at misogynist children and bring them under the terror act. and i wonder what the panel. >> i'm all for it. >> well, well, jojo, is it terrorism for josh to say the things he does? >> no, because it's again, it's an opinion . >> no, because it's again, it's an opinion. it's >> no, because it's again, it's an opinion . it's whether you act an opinion. it's whether you act on it or not. and interestingly again, that article said teenage boys. yes. i mean girls are misogynist as well. do you know what i mean? so do teenage girls come under that banner? >> but if a teenage boy says or josh says women, women should be in the kitchen or they can't drive as well, i agree. >> no, i don't, by the way, i should point out i'm the one who cooks at home. >> yeah, exactly. >> yeah, exactly. >> and you cook for a lot of children. i do the you know, it's no mean feat, but i mean, this is i mean, should we really be involving a counter—terrorism unit in school children at all? i get very nervous about this. >> well, this is it. >> well, this is it. >> we're getting back to that whole, you know, what you say and what you actually do, and, you know, so if somebody, you know, have we lost the sense of humour and we talk about this

all the time, if somebody said, oh, a woman's place is in the kitchen as a joke, we can't define what a joke is anymore. so if that's now going to become , so if that's now going to become, you know, i mean, it seems like absolute again, just such an exposure i think like so josh, i think if you know, as you know, i was a school teacher, i think if i would have spotted signs that a child was coming from a family who were, i don't know, radical islamic fundamentalists or whatever it might be, there should be some way that i could pass that information on if there was some sort of danger there. >> but if a child says something sexist, i, as a teacher, am perfectly well equipped to challenge that in my own way without involving the state. absolutely, yes. >> and i think that there is an issue with misogyny amongst young boys and men, and it grows up to them being young men. it can come out in terms of violence and whatnot. it's a problem. it's a real issue. it needs to be dealt with by teachers, by getting in there. but this event was set up as an anti—terrorist organisation or to prevent it, particularly islamic fundamentalism. already there was a report coming out last year that said that they've lost their focus, they've moved

on to other forms of extremism and stuff like that. now, if that's important, and that's where all the people, the reason they're getting killed is for those reasons. cool. but that isn't. no, but it never is. >> but all these things are always weaponized. i mean, i'll give you an example. later on in tonight's show, i'm interviewing a reverend doctor bernard randall, school chaplain, who was reported to prevent the counter—terrorism unit because he gave a sermon to the school on identity politics and suggested you should be able to think about things from all sorts of different angles. and that and he was reported as a potential terrorist by the school. my point is, and i think josh's point as well, is whenever they set these things up , good intentions, but then up, good intentions, but then they get weaponised with good intentions, but also, again, actually, i'm going to ask josh, really, in terms of i know you're saying, you know, misogyny is a problem and it is, you know, not young people. >> and the sort of andrew tate's are always quoted. but again, my experience you know, i've got, you know, 21 year olds and 23 year olds and their friends and young men that i know that i know . that sounds awful. i know know. that sounds awful. i know a lot of young men. no, but young men that i know are probably the most polite , probably the most polite, respectful, charming young men

that i've come across for a long time. friends of my daughters, which . which. >> so that's not i think that's the same too. but but but that but that's not to say that there aren't people raised in misogynistic households or with domestic violence who complete those patterns. >> josh. >> josh. >> well, i honestly think that no, no, i you know, i don't think no. >> and parents, i do too, but i think teachers combined with some sort of lessons or something , i don't know which something, i don't know which could teach them about, you know, they get when they're teenage boys and they just get stupid and they but to direct their those energies better, i just, i just teenage boys are always going to be stupid. it's their hormones and they're stupid directed a bit, but certainly they don't need to be reported as terrorists. >> okay, let's move on to ant. where is ant? hello. >> good evening. panel. where is ant? hello. >> good evening. panel . after >> good evening. panel. after yesterday's terror march in london, should mark rowley, the impotent met commissioner, be made to carry a i love hezbollah placard and transferred to a terror tunnel in hezbollah's

lebanon? well, given the way you phrased that question, i think i know where you stand on this issue. >> we don't need to. but it is interesting, isn't it? because of course, we saw marches yesterday in london, also in dublin, and we actually saw banners openly in support of hezbollah and also in, in support of hamas. i mean, it it boggles the mind. i don't know where you even begin with. >> these marches have been going on for a year. they've been going on before israel even went into gaza, before they responded to the 1200 people murdered, the 250 people who were kidnapped, people were out on the streets celebrating these organisations terrorist organisations. and it's terrifying that it's taken in itself, which is illegal. the police instead arrest the person who's got a poster saying hamas are terrorists. yes. and they are terrorists. yes. and they are and have just sort of ignored all this other stuff for the past year. and the chickens are coming home to roost because it's emboldened them that they feel like it's acceptable. but the other crazy thing is that you've got people who consider themselves the progressive left

allying themselves with or even carrying these posters themselves of organisations , themselves of organisations, terrorist organisations who for stand the, the control of women , stand the, the control of women, the covering of their hair. yeah, exactly. homophobia as long as as well as, of course , long as as well as, of course, anti—semitism and whatnot. so it's just it's mental. >> there's a real kind of. well, i'll be i'll be talking to brendan o'neill about this later, but there's a real failure, a real demonstration of moral cowardice or a moral failure to understand this situation. and i don't, you know, one of the points i mean, josh mentioned, jojo the way in which someone holding a sign saying hamas are terrorists, they're the ones that are arrested and they're pulled away for their own safety. but i would have thought that anyone who's genuine, who genuinely cares about the palestinian people would be the first to condemn hamas. people would be the first to condemn hamas . why aren't they condemn hamas. why aren't they doing that? >> and i honestly don't know. and i'm with you, josh. not in any way. the way you must be deaung any way. the way you must be dealing with it is mind blowing that the people around me again, we've gone from the knowledge of

the absolute barbaric behaviour long before this, just in everyday life, there was no wars, just the treatment of women in afghanistan, saudi arabia, bahrain , everywhere. we arabia, bahrain, everywhere. we have not had knowledge of this . have not had knowledge of this. for ever since i've been alive. i've been fearful of the way that other women have been treated in other parts of the world. that may break my heart, and to then see that be not only completely forgotten, but basically backed up , going, basically backed up, going, what? are you free? what are you freeing palestine from? because it's not the jews, it's not israel. they were under the hamas have got the most horrific record in looking after their residents , the money that residents, the money that they've been given for from , you they've been given for from, you know, countries, lebanon, all that iran has supported them has not yet has not been used to protect . so, okay, let's have it protect. so, okay, let's have it their way. okay. let's get rid

of israel. let's free palestine and watch those poor people be absolutely murdered, battered , absolutely murdered, battered, bruised, sexually. it's actually legal. it is legal to rape your wife in palestine. it is legal to sexually assault. it is legal to sexually assault. it is legal to marry a child. it is legal to cut off women's genitals. is that what we're freeing them for? is that what we're going to give them back? well done. us. okay , very quickly, before we go okay, very quickly, before we go to break, i just want to come back to and i think you wanted to make one more point. >> just one thing, though, to follow up on radio four this morning, the biased broadcasting corporation, on the anniversary of the 7th of october pogrom, referred to it as a cross—border raid. this is shameful. >> that's incredible. that's absolutely terrible. okay, well, we will be covering this a lot later when brendan o'neill comes on to talk about his book. but we must take a break. so i must say that don't go anywhere because we've got professor joe

phoenix after the break, who's going to be talking about a new report that she's co—authored which summarises the slew of gender critical victories in courts over the past few years and what the significance of that might be. so please go

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. professor joe nation with me, andrew doyle. professorjoe phoenix nation with me, andrew doyle. professor joe phoenix has co—authored a new report on gender critical belief discrimination in employment tribunal judgements. discrimination in employment tribunal judgements . the tribunal judgements. the summary, entitled don't get caught out , explores what the caught out, explores what the implications of victories in the courts may have . so here to tell courts may have. so here to tell us all about it is professor joe phoenix . joe, thanks for coming phoenix. joe, thanks for coming back to the show. so i want to ask you about the report that you've co—authored. what are the chief findings? >> there's one startling finding ,

>> there's one startling finding, normally with belief discrimination cases, about 50 to 60% of them are settled, either through acas or, you know, fall out of the system. and only about 9 to 12% win, right? however, with the gender critical cases that we've seen , critical cases that we've seen, admittedly, it's relatively small numbers in comparison to the 5 or 600 a year of belief discrimination. but what we're seeing is exactly the opposite. so with the gender critical cases, particularly the secular gender critical cases, we're winning at an 83% rate. >> now, that's astonishing. and just to clarify for people watching. so these are individuals , academics who have individuals, academics who have made gender critical points of view perfectly legitimate beliefs protected by law, and have been harassed, bullied and intimidated at work. have been harassed, bullied and intimidated at work . this intimidated at work. this happened to you? yes, indeed. to such a severe extent that you were eventually diagnosed with ptsd. terrible behaviour at the open university, correct . so

open university, correct. so it's absolutely clear from your report, from what you're saying is that this is clearly illegal and everyone who's engaged in it will continue to lose in the courts. >> yes, yes. »- >> yes, yes. >> so why do they carry on doing it? >> well, that's a great question. so i once asked akua reindorf kc , who is a specialist reindorf kc, who is a specialist in these matters, how we can turn these judgements into justice. because that's really the question that you're asking, isn't it? you know, how can we create organisational change? her retort to me was the judgements are justice. so there is a problem because the employment tribunal system doesn't work to change employment places, you get compensated for the horrible things that happened to you, but it doesn't. you know, if an employer wants to carry on discriminating, they can. so i think what we're beginning to see, though , just in the last see, though, just in the last few cases. so we've got the ross adams edinburgh rape crisis coming up. we've had lizzie pitts who settled on the steps

to the court. we're beginning to see in these cases the legal teams going after costs. right. that's unusual in employment tribunal. right. and the only time you get awarded costs is if the other side has behaved so badly that it offends the court in effect. but we're beginning to see costs awarded now. and money talks. oh, money talks. yes . money talks. yes. money talks. >> and this is the thing, isn't it? when you have this kind of degree of ideological capture, it's almost as though these judgements aren't going to matter. i mean, in your case with the open university, yeah, they should have just come out straight away and said we were wrong. i can't believe this happened. it'll never happen again. that didn't happen did it? >> oh my goodness. it did not happen. no. and in fact, treating myself as an example rather than myself, if you follow what i mean, if you look at the progression of the cases. so we had a for starter sexism mutable and that's a protected belief. then we have bailey and the tiny bit that got added to the tiny bit that got added to the case law. there is that it

also covered sexuality. right, right . and then we had denise right. and then we had denise fahmy's judgement, which has also been on this show. >> yeah, yeah. >> yeah, yeah. >> who's also been on this show and, and that, that was actually just about how a workplace organisation where her colleagues had issued a petition and acted appallingly, the managers tried to intercede, but they didn't do it quickly enough. so suddenly we're getting okay, what's the managers doing right in the cases? and then my case comes and that's that's quite a ground shift because the judgement in that case actually said there's a dominant workplace gender affirmative culture. and in a situation like that managers well in the oh you managers were institutionally fearful institutionally fearful institutional cowardice. right. so they didn't act and that's where they fell down. and then by the time we get to ross adams, there's yet another layer that's added. and that was

extreme gender ideology. >> so is it the case that these have a cumulative effect? >> yes they do. i mean, nobody has to pay attention to an employment tribunal judgement, right. it's advisory only but they still accumulate. >> so the ou of course commissioned their own response to the judgement. in your case. yes. i'm gathering. you're not impressed by it. >> sorry. i don't mean to actually smile and laugh, but i can smile and laugh a year later now. yeah. the dandridge review i feel for nicola dandridge. she took the job on the terms of reference are just about as rotten as you can get because they are . how to balance they are. how to balance academic freedom and freedom of speech with edi and equity. >> diversity and inclusion. yeah, equity . diversity of yeah, equity. diversity of course is an ideological stance. >> yeah, exactly . so how do you >> yeah, exactly. so how do you as soon as you put anything after balance academic freedom, freedom of speech with. yes. doesit freedom of speech with. yes. does it matter what it is.

right. it's going to go hideously wrong. >> absolutely. >> absolutely. >> so it was supposed to be an independent review, but professor dame nicola dandridge was in fact the ceo of the for office students. at the time that i was suffering at the ou, the office for students has a regulatory function over universities and in fact , some universities and in fact, some of your audience may realise the higher education freedom of speech act. that was that labour just halted recently that gave the office for students new powers to enforce universities to uphold academic freedom . so to uphold academic freedom. so she has some knowledge about why it is that we needed an enforcement mechanism. yes. didn't do anything about it. she accepts a brief that balances academic freedom with edi. she embraces everything. i think looking at it on the higgs decision. right. that's, you know, the as maya forstater once called it, the sniff to test see if the ideas are offensive. but

then what she does, which in my head just partly blows my mind and why i keep giggling about it, is she treats . she speaks to it, is she treats. she speaks to about 100 people at the oau. she asked to speak to me. i declined the invitation and she speaks to them and she treats what they say at face value. so quite a few of the people said we find gender critical beliefs offensive and they take away our rights. she didn't subject that to any question. she just took it at face value. >> well, as you say , she's >> well, as you say, she's balancing this idea of academic freedom against other people's feelings. yeah, effectively 100%. so finally, bridget phillipson, the education secretary, has curbed the higher education, freedom of speech act. she did it the day before parliament went into recess to prevent any debate from happening. or at least that's what it looks like to me . how what it looks like to me. how can we make people understand that there is a problem with academic threats to academic freedom? >> well, i actually think i

believe i want to believe that that the fact that it's a problem has already been established. right? right . so established. right? right. so the real question is how can we make people want to do something about it now, the do something that we need universities. and, you know, i'm one to say, this having been cancelled by two universities, get away with what they get away with because there's no enforcement mechanism right apart from a very expensive employment tribunal and there's no enforcement mechanism . if i'm a speaker, as mechanism. if i'm a speaker, as we found out at an external speaken we found out at an external speaker, as we found out from the reindorf report. so the higher education freedom of speech act, it needs to be implemented. and i think the, you know, if i was going to give one message, it's kind of like it's a non—partisan issue that needs to be implemented because universities cannot and will not sort themselves out. >> professor joe phoenix, thanks >> professorjoe phoenix, thanks so much forjoining me tonight. so much for joining me tonight. thank you . and next on free thank you. and next on free speech nation chief political

writer at spiked, brendan o'neill, will join me to talk about his new book that documents the reaction to the october seventh massacre yeah year. don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nation. later in the show, i'll be turning agony uncle with the help of my panel, josh howie and jojo sutherland will help you deal with your unfiltered dilemmas. so if you've got a problem, just message us gbnews.com/yoursay. we'll help you deal with all of your problems. one year on from the 7th october attacks on israel , 7th october attacks on israel, chief political writer at spiked, brendan o'neill has written a new book called after the pogrom 7th of october israel and the crisis of civilisation, which documents the reaction to the events of last october throughout academia and beyond . throughout academia and beyond. and i'm delighted to say that brendan o'neill, the author of the book, joins me right now.

brendan, thanks for coming on to the show. i want to start by congratulating you on the book. it's fantastic. and i want to ask you , you talk in the book ask you, you talk in the book about how we in the west failed about how we in the west failed a moral test. can you explain what you mean by that ? what you mean by that? >> yeah, i think 7th of october primarily. it was a grotesque pogrom. it was the worst attack on the jewish people since the holocaust. and that's what we should remember tomorrow on the first anniversary. we should remember that this was the worst act of racist violence of modern times. that's the thing that we need to focus on. but i also think that side by side with that, it posed a test to the western world, you know, hamas alongside its grenades. it also laid down a gauntlet. it essentially dared us to be decisive. it dared us to show our principles, and it dared us to stand with the jewish state against this army of anti—semites. and we failed . we anti—semites. and we failed. we refused to do it, and we failed to do it. and across the west in

the in the academy, on university campuses, on the streets, in left wing political circles, many people actually took the side of the pogromists rather than the pogromists victims. and i think it really raised to the surface a lot of the moral rot in our societies, and it really demonstrated how serious our crisis of civilisation has become. >> and can i ask you, you also describe in the book you say that israel, you describe it as the most hated state. do you think there's a way for people to criticise the israeli government without slipping into anti—semitism? because what i've seen from a lot of people who attempt to do so actually do slip over . attempt to do so actually do slip over. and it seems to me that's very common. >> yeah, people say it's not racist to criticise israel. of course it's not racist to criticise israel. if you go to israel and you don't like the food or you think it's too hot or you hate the government, that's fine. that's how we feel about lots of countries. but we're not talking about criticism of israel . what we've criticism of israel. what we've seen over the past year is boiling irrational hatred for

israel, dreams of israel's destruction, open chants on the streets, dreaming that israel will one day be erased from the map of the earth. a real venomous hostility, one that crosses the line so far from criticism, rational political criticism, rational political criticism into something far darker, far more elemental, far more guttural. so the point i always make is criticise israel as much as you want. but what we have on our streets and on our campuses and in many of our newspapers right now , is this newspapers right now, is this myopic focus on the jewish state as the most evil state. and that makes me feel very suspicious. >> can i ask you why you think people who self—identify as left? i mean, not all people, of course, but a significant proportion have a real blind spot when it comes to anti—semitism. they seem to say that they're completely anti —racist that they're completely anti—racist in all circumstances , anti—racist in all circumstances, but here they are supporting hamas , iran groups that openly hamas, iran groups that openly state their intention to eradicate jews, not just israel , jews. >> it's astonishing. you know ,

>> it's astonishing. you know, tomorrow will be the first anniversary of the worst act of racist violence of modern times. and i can guarantee you that self—styled anti—racist and self—styled anti—racist and self—styled anti—fascists won't say anything. they will not put up a black square on their instagram page. they will not have any candlelit vigils. they will not shed a single tear because they don't see jews as being as deserving of their progressive sympathy as other minority groups. it's as simple as that. and in fact, over the past year, it's got even worse. they see jews as deserving of hostility as deserving of contempt, as deserving of opprobrium. and i think it's really down to the politics of identity, because when you have this politics that actually sorts people into racial boxes and which accords moral worth depending on skin colour. so if you're white, you're privileged, if you're brown, you're oppressed and they see everything through that narrow prism. and that's how they read the israeli conflict. so they just see israel as a white supremacist state, a white privileged state deserving of

nothing but contempt. and then they translate that onto jews more broadly. so the greatest losers from the politics of identity, right now, alongside women, of course, is jewish people. and that's something we need to get to grips with. >> one of the most astonishing things was that after the pogrom and the incidents of sexual assault, there were many mainstream commentators denying that there was sufficient evidence. and these are the same commentators that were part of the metoo movement, who had supported the idea that we must believe all women. and you make a very good point in your book. you say that that phrase, believe all women has now changed into believe fascists. >> absolutely . you know, i had >> absolutely. you know, i had a bit of an issue, actually, with the metoo cry, believe all women. not because i think we should disbelieve women, but because i think innocent until proven guilty is an important principle and we need to go through due process, etc, etc. but what was so striking was the way in which that slogan absolutely evaporated. on the 8th of october, 2023, they

stopped saying it, and in fact they said, we don't believe these women. we don't believe there was sexual assault and rape in israel on the 7th of october. and they said they basically said, we believe hamas because hamas issued really fervent denials that it carried out any such attacks against all the evidence that we have showing that they did. and so , showing that they did. and so, essentially, these people have gone from saying, believe women to believe hamas, believe terrorists , believe fascists. terrorists, believe fascists. and that turnaround, i think , and that turnaround, i think, really demonstrates the paucity of modern virtue signalling feminism. but more broadly, the absolute lack of principle on the so—called progressive left when they can ditch their slogan. so swiftly when it no longer suits them. >> and finally, brendan, some of the quotations that you provide in the book are quite astonishing. of figures who are celebrated by by the left people like judith butler, a celebrated gender philosopher describing hamas as progressive. of course , hamas as progressive. of course, jeremy corbyn described hamas as his friends. what can the left do about this when their

figureheads seem to be so intent on supporting? well, let's put it , frankly, terrorists, you it, frankly, terrorists, you know, it's the left is quite lost at the moment, and i feel sad about that. >> as someone who originally comes from the left, i used to think the left was a pro—freedom pro enlightenment, pro—democracy movement, and it was once upon a time. but it has changed dramatically. it now takes the side of anti—enlightenment against enlightenment and i think the commonality. people always say, how can we have queers for palestine and all these gender fluid idiots supporting a movement that would throw them off the roof of a building given half a chance? it's a good question. i think the commonality between the progressive left and hamas and hezbollah is that both of them have a burning hostility to the west, to modernity , to reason, west, to modernity, to reason, and increasingly to the jewish people. so there is this creepy commonality between these two movements in the west and the east, and the left needs to get its house in order before it really loses the plot.

>> well, brennan, the book is absolutely brilliant. it's called after the pogrom. it's available now. thanks so much for joining me. thank you . and forjoining me. thank you. and next on free speech nation, a free speech row has broken out at durham university as its oldest student society was banned from taking part in the freshers fair. a member of the free speech union is going to be here shortly to talk about it. don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me andrew doyle. earlier this week, the durham union society, known as the society, was blocked from taking part in the university of durham's freshers fair. the society, which was founded in 1842 and includes more than 3000 current and former students, has been banned from advertising at the fair because of an alleged failure to meet the requirements set out by the student union.

well, to speak about this now, i've got stephen o'grady, the legal officer for the free speech union . welcome to the speech union. welcome to the show. >> thanks very much for having me on. so, stephen, this sounds a bit crazy. >> a debating society banned. i mean, isn't that kind of self—defeating? it is rather. >> and it's one of these sort of ironies. on the surface, it might just look like a student politics spat, but it really goes , goes a lot deeper than that. >> well, what's their justification for banning their society? >> is down to their failure to meet particular edi requirements that the student union expects them to adhere to. this is in them to adhere to. this is in the context of a long running dispute between the union and the society that goes back several years. >> well, i heard the word racist bandied about. i mean, what do they mean by that accusation? >> well, there have been a few things. about four years ago, the student newspaper at durham published an expose in which they accused the society of being colonial apologists based on certain allegations about what individual members of the society had said. since then , society had said. since then, there's been a changing of the

guard. you know, it's a student run society, so it's a new executive committee every year. the people in charge of it now are not the people who are even present. four years ago. and there was one subsequent isolated incident of one member using a racial slur against another member. the society investigated it and they kicked the member out. so it's hard to think what more society could reasonably do than well. >> i mean, yeah, it sounds like they dealt with that quite swiftly. i mean, is it to do with the types of guests they're inviting to debate? >> well, this is this is what we think the real issue is here is that the students union has a problem with the fact that the durham union society invites both sides to debate a particular issue, rather than you wouldn't have a debate, would you, if you didn't do well. exactly, exactly. it would be monologues, and they'd be very, very little point to that. >> so are they is the implication that basically, unless you invite all the people we agree with, you shouldn't be able to have a stand at the freshers fair? >> well, they haven't put that in terms. well, they wouldn't it's rather more insidious what they're doing that they have imposed these these edi

requirements on them. and each year they tighten the ratchet on these requirements so that they have to do more and more to prove that they are doing the work and being better. and all the sorts of catchwords that we associate with that sort of thing, and nothing they can ever do is good enough to satisfy the students union that they have met the requirements. >> but edi in of itself is in equity, diversity and inclusion is an ideological position to take to begin with. so what if you disagree with that position? >> well, there's very little opfion >> well, there's very little option there. and it's sad in a way because what the what they're missing out on there is they're missing out on there is they're just looking at demographic diversity instead of diversity of thought. and diversity of thought. and diversity of thought. and diversity of opinion. you know, the way in which somebody fills in a census form is probably not a very interesting characteristic about them, but they're what they think about they're what they think about the issues of the day. that's far more interesting. but the students union doesn't seem to think that that's important. it's merely whether they can tick the right boxes and have the right offices and policies in place, and the free speech union has got involved in this particular case. >> is that right? >> is that right? >> that's right. we've written to the pro—vice chancellor of durham university to remind the university of their duties. this

is a bit of an unfortunate position because the university has some legal duties to secure freedom of speech on its campuses, taking reasonably practical steps to do so . practical steps to do so. however, the higher education, freedom of speech act would have placed duties on students unions in order to safeguard freedom of speech. but unfortunately, the education secretary, bridget phillipson, put an end to that when she stopped commencement. >> well, let's talk about that a little bit because the free speech union is also raising a legal challenge against bridget phillipson for precisely that action. correct. what's the update on that? >> well, at the moment we've had the government's initial response and we're currently waiting for permission to be granted on the papers, which we are reasonably confident will happen. >> is it just that the labour party doesn't believe that there is a problem with academic freedom or freedom of speech on campus, in spite of the fact that this bill was agreed by all parties? >> well, i think it would be very difficult for them to deny with with all the evidence. that's available of various

issues in various domains, that there is a legitimate problem there is a legitimate problem there . what i think they're there. what i think they're actually afraid of is that people will be able to speak their minds, that that worries them a little. and so they've switched off the bill. >> and is there any chance that the freedom of speech act will be resurrected, or has bridget phillipson put the kibosh on it? >> well, as yet we believe we will be successful in our case, and if so, then it will spring back into life, as it were, because it was due to commence on the 1st of august and we have every confidence that a court will agree with our argument. >> could you just finally let us know where people can join the free speech union, and why it's so important that they do? >> well, you can go to w—w—w—what free speech union .org, and as a member you're your contributions help us to take on issues like this, to take on issues like this, to take on, to stand up for individual members who find themselves cancelled. we support themselves cancelled. we support them throughout their their process there and to raise awareness about free speech issues. >> fantastic. well, stephen o'grady, thanks so much for joining me. really appreciate it. thanks for having me on. and

it. thanks for having me on. and it should be noted that the free speech union's numbers are going through the roof, because there are more and more examples of this coming up, no doubt. so do join . that is the end of the join. that is the end of the first hour on free speech nation. but please don't go anywhere because there's lots more to come between now and 9:00. >> heavy showers. first thing will be followed by a warm, cosy day . boxt will be followed by a warm, cosy day. boxt boilers will be followed by a warm, cosy day . boxt boilers sponsors of day. boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb news. >> good evening and welcome to your gb news weather update from the met office. as we go ahead into monday, the rain should be clearing. then sunshine and showers for many of us before turning colder later into the week. so the unsettled conditions are all to do with this area of low pressure out towards the west, and these fronts driving cloud and rain, so there could be some early evening sunshine towards the south—west, but otherwise cloud

and rain continuing to move its way north and eastwards, affecting much of scotland to start monday morning. clearer skies behind that, turning dnen skies behind that, turning drier. we'll still see a few showers around, but temperatures generally staying up at around 10 or 11 degrees, so it is going to be a damp and gloomy start across scotland. we've got outbreaks of rain persisting. this will gradually move its way northwards. we've also got a strong easterly wind as well, giving a chilly feel to start the day. cloudy conditions remaining across northern ireland with some showery outbreaks of rain here and pushing into north western parts of england further towards the south, hopefully waking up to some brighter skies. but also there are going to be some showers around so that band of rain across scotland will gradually move its way northwards, affecting much of orkney and shetland. otherwise it's a case of sunny spells and scattered showers. some of these could be heavy, containing the odd rumble of thunder, perhaps merging to give some longer

spells of rain. at times too. but where you do dodge the showers , we'll see temperatures showers, we'll see temperatures rising up to 17, possibly 18 degrees towards the south, but unpleasant towards the north. further spells of heavy rain moving their way northwards across northern ireland and into scotland , and then towards the scotland, and then towards the south through tuesday . another south through tuesday. another cluster of showers again could be on the heavy side. some places may dodge these to see some sunny spells and that continuing through wednesday too . continuing through wednesday too. but as we go later on in the week, it is going to be turning colder from the north by. >> expect a warm front moving from the kitchen right through to the rest of the house. boxt boilers weather on

crimes against jews rise in hate crimes against jews and muslims. writing in the sunday times, he's also raised fears of a direct conflict between iran and israel, which he says could have catastrophic global consequences. the pm's warning comes as israel expands its airstrikes in lebanon. massive consecutive strikes have hit beirut's southern suburbs, with israel claiming its forces have killed 440 hezbollah fighters in its ground operations in the south of the country . a record breaking 973 country. a record breaking 973 migrants crossed the english channelin migrants crossed the english channel in a single day, according to official figures. the they arrived in 17 small boats, surpassing the previous record of 882 set in june of this year. yesterday's surge also came as four migrants, including a young child , sadly

including a young child, sadly died, making the journey. the total number of arrivals this year has now reached 26,000. russia has launched more than 80 drones and three missiles at ukraine in a significant overnight attack. it comes as president zelenskyy prepares to unveil a victory plan during a crucial allies meeting in germany on the 12th of october. this plan is expected to detail steps towards ending the war with russia , while specifics with russia, while specifics remain under wraps. us officials suggest it includes a revised request for an increased military support and long—range missile systems , as well as missile systems, as well as ukraine nears 1000 days of conflict with russia. boris johnson says the russian president is bad, but not mad. in a candid interview with gb news camilla tominey, the former prime minister shed some light on his interactions with vladimir putin, providing a glimpse into their complex relationship. >> he means no good for this

country . he regards the united country. he regards the united kingdom as there among their most important strategic foes , most important strategic foes, probably their most important strategic foes, which is a pity . strategic foes, which is a pity. but he's chosen that path, and we're now in a very, very unhappy position. and, you know , unhappy position. and, you know, what he is doing in ukraine is criminal. and it is also a mistake. it's a mistake for russia. it's a mistake for putin. >> and a new blood test that could detect 12 common cancers is getting a major boost, could detect 12 common cancers is getting a major boost , thanks is getting a major boost, thanks to a £148 million investment in cutting edge medical technologies. the health secretary says the funding will also help advanced ai diagnosis and personalised treatments, with research hubs being set up across uk universities. wes streeting, himself a cancer survivor, says the investment could save lives while

strengthening britain's role as a leader in life sciences . well, a leader in life sciences. well, those are your latest gb news headunes those are your latest gb news headlines i'm lewis mackenzie. more from me in an hour for the very latest gb news direct to your smartphone, sign up to news alerts by scanning the qr code or go to gbnews.com forward slash alerts . slash alerts. >> welcome back to free speech nafion >> welcome back to free speech nation with me , andrew doyle. nation with me, andrew doyle. let's get some more questions from this lovely audience and our first question is from jill. >> hello. >> hello. >> recently there's been a lot of controversy around keir starmer's decision, unilateral decision to give up the chagos islands. what do the panel think is behind this? >> yeah, josh, there wasn't much of a debate about giving the chagos islands to mauritius, was it? >> i just think he was frustrated by how we're meant to

pronounce it. is it chagos chagos? he's like , you know chagos? he's like, you know what, take them back. i don't too much hassle. i've got to, you know, stop pensioners getting their winter fuel. >> yeah. what do you think about it though? i mean, it's not the same as the falklands. >> this is a continuation of tory policy, but the difference is that they had gone through 11 implementations of trying to negotiate the this happening . negotiate the this happening. and labour did it in two. now the question is , is does that the question is, is does that mean that labour are brilliant negotiators or does it mean they kind of went well. yeah. >> but since the decision in 2018 saying that it does belong to mauritius or should belong to mauritius, aren't they just implementing implementing that? >> no, it is a continuous sign in terms of giving them autonomy. i think there are a lot of people who who are looking for anything to attack starmer with, and some of it's justified and some of it's not, but some people are saying this is a gift to china. well, there is that problem there. there's also the signals. it sends about falklands islands, whatever. thatis falklands islands, whatever. that is a different situation. >> but shouldn't there be a debate? i mean, there is going to have to be a vote. apparently

this is the latest on this. there will be a vote in parliament before this actually goes through. but surely he should have welcomed that to begin with. right. and it just looks a bit underhand. >> yeah. i mean, first things first though. i mean, i have heard of the chagos islands. i had no clue we had such a thing in the same way that i didn't know we had the falklands islands until we invaded them. >> and i feel the same way about scotland. >> no, no, exactly. but everyone knew. but everyone thought the falkland islands, including myself, was an island off the top of scotland . so, i mean, top of scotland. so, i mean, let's find out where it is first. do we need it and give it to lord alli? because he's been very generous. >> that's true. >> that's true. >> he deserves to get some payback. okay, well, let's move on. we've got a question now from. is this peter? peter? >> yeah. hello? hey, andrew. >> yeah. hello? hey, andrew. >> does this past week's vice presidential debate. is it a sign that american politics can become civil and polite? a change, a marked change from donald trump and his lies and bullying and assorted other bad

behaviours. >> peter, you're from america. yes, you can tell, i can tell. yeah. you haven't disguised it well. what do you think about this? because, i mean, i sense from what you're asking is that you think this was a far more civilised debate than the presidential debate, and i would agree with that. it felt like two sort of adults talking and disagreeing and retaining civility, i suppose. >> no, exactly. and i think it's healthy to have a discussion about the issues and, and talk the truth that way. the american voters can decide who they want as opposed to just lobbing insults. that's not healthy for democracy. out of interest. >> do you know where your vote, who you're voting for? you don't have to tell us what, but yeah, ihave have to tell us what, but yeah, i have a pretty good idea. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> i mean, i think with the american election at the moment, it was a relief to me, to watch that president vice presidential debate. i thought it was i thought lots of interesting points were raised. i enjoyed the moment when jd vance fact checked the fact checker. yeah, i thought that was a really nice, nice thought. >> we all have to do now. >> we all have to do now. >> and we just do, don't we at the moment. but any any particular highlights from it? >> yeah, i liked tim waltz's nodding. some people, some like agreeing and some people took that to be a weakness. and

initially i was like, oh, this is funny. he's just sort of agreeing with it with with vance's comments. and but actually, you think, you know what? if your political opponent makes a good point, then acknowledge it and maybe then 90, acknowledge it and maybe then go, yeah , you know what? i'm go, yeah, you know what? i'm going to take that. i agree with that. so rare now isn't it? yeah, absolutely. because it's become tribalism. >> yes. and actually both sides have been attacking waltz and vance in the most insane, crazy ways. i mean, do you remember with the vance thing where they made up something some scurrilous sexual thing from his book hillbilly elegy, which wasn't in the book, where anyone could have checked the book , and could have checked the book, and yet they still ran with it. and it's like just this is what children do, isn't it? >> yeah, but this is the world we live in now where we have, like you say, with the fact check, we have to fact check everything. and now we can't even fact check the fact checkers. bbc verify is not fit for purpose. there was a report that came out this week about how they were trying to prove where the missiles landed in israel from iran, and they got they deliberately said things were here and there were five miles away. these are the people who are meant to verify stuff.

>> yeah. we have to really worry about fact checkers. do you have about fact checkers. do you have a preference in the debate, vance, or who do you think won? >> well, i think as well. i completely agree. there's something quite reassuring about watching two adults have a discussion where they do agree, because i think that's part of the thing, is, we're all so turned off by politics because it's like watching children squabbling, and it's so frustrating when people are just arguing. you can't get a point across. even if i don't like, you know, listening to the trump one, it's like, i don't like you, but at least let me hear what he's got to say. yeah, so that's the frustration. >> but this felt like a step up from a, you know, they're eating the cats. they're eating the dogs. >> i know all of that kind of thing. >> but it's again, i think politics really does need to go back to i mean, at least some respect instead of it's like a roast battle and a comedy show. exactly. it's ridiculous. >> and they're trying to produce memes. they want a meme more than an actual point. >> that's it. >> that's it. >> cats and dogs. on the one side, you've got kamala harris going on about being brat, whatever that means. but what about this other key point that was raised in the debate when they were talking about free speech? and tim walz effectively

did say that hate speech should not be covered by the first amendment. and he said it. while vance was speaking. so it was missed by a lot of people. but that's actually quite scary, isn't it? because what he's saying is we can carve out exceptions to free speech as and when we want. >> absolutely. and you're right, he's he's in a way, he's lucky that it got swallowed up. but it is scary. and for americans, that's a huge deal. the ability you know, free speech is there right there in the in the core documents. so it is a concern. but of course that is the people who haven't thought about these issues. that's their kind of default point before they realise the dangers of saying or trying to even implement something like that. >> what does hate speech even mean? because i know two governments can agree on what it means. no, the scottish government definitely doesn't. >> no. absolutely not. and it is. there's a guy that wrote a fabulous poem poem called the right to hate. and it's, you know, you should be allowed to hate people because we can't. >> it's a human emotion. >> it's a human emotion. >> it's a human emotion like grief and fear and vulnerability. do you know what i mean? you can hate something that's fine as long as you know

you hate it. >> very clever. let's move on now to a question. >> joke. sorry. from anton. >> joke. sorry. from anton. >> where's anton? hello. >> where's anton? hello. >> hi. do you think that keir starmer knows what a lady rights means? >> and does he still believe in them? >> well, i assume you're alluding to the rosie duffield resignation. and i have to say, that letter by rosie duffield was a pretty scathing stuff . and was a pretty scathing stuff. and i'm surprised she stuck around as long, because she's had so much abuse. she couldn't go to the labour party conference because of all the threats she was getting from trans activists . was getting from trans activists. she's only she's been trying to stand up for women's rights to single—sex spaces. totally legitimate points of view , which legitimate points of view, which nadia whitham, on her resignation, then attacked her for and said she was trying to marginalise the most vulnerable people in society now, when so . people in society now, when so. so starmer, as far as i can see, josh, as someone who is a labour voter, starmer is siding with the most reactionary and frankly stupid elements in his party, the nadia whitham's of the party. and why isn't ? why?

party. and why isn't? why? firstly, why didn't he apologise for rosie duffield ? why didn't for rosie duffield? why didn't he sit down and talk to rosie duffield? he never met with her. of course she's going to resign. >> of course. i mean that naughty tweet, the most at risk people in our society are women. they're the ones who are being murdered at a rate of one every two days. yes. but yes, keir starmer, i think, is that is a fundamental weakness of his. it seems to be this ability to admit culpability. you know, he changed his position as we all have the right to do. but when doing so and throwing her out to the rosie duffield out to the walls in the meantime, go. you know, i changed my position and i've looked at that the way she was treated. and to never have a meeting with to her talk it through is a failure of leadership. >> and then, you know, on this gender issue, he's got things. so, i mean, he lately said that not what was it, 99.9% of women don't have a penis. so you'd think he'd know that his dad was a toolmaker. it's a weird one, though, isn't it? >> like we'll give you that. brilliant. >> but, brilliant. >> but , jojo, it is worrying >> but, jojo, it is worrying when the leader of our country doesn't quite know what a woman

is and punishes the women in his party for trying to explain it to him. no. >> he knows exactly what a woman is. he's a coward. he just doesn't. he doesn't dare. he's so eager to please that he changes his opinion. he does 360. i mean, there's so much evidence of him saying i absolutely won't do an interview with the sun. and then he does an interview with the sun. i won't, you know, i won't, you know, our pensioners need looked after and i will protect our pensions and then so i mean, keir starmer says whatever keir starmer thinks will get him into power and keep him in power, so is it that he's afraid of the activists? he's a coward and i well, i was a labour voter then. i was an snp voter. basically everything i vote for goes to . everything i vote for goes to. >> yeah, okay. well, i think a lot of us are with you, jojo. a lot of us are with you, jojo. a lot of us are with you, jojo. a lot of us are feeling quite politically homeless, aren't we? i mean, you're still a labour voter. >> well, i did, because i thought he was saying what he wanted to get into power to then do good. unfortunately, it seems like he's continued that pattern and that makes me sad for this country. >> i don't know if it's necessarily anti—female thing. i think he's a bully and i think

he's yeah, i think he's a coward. and i think power corrupts. and then, you know, it's just like he needs everyone to toe the line with whatever he's decided is what he's whatever his opinion is that he. >> okay, well, we've got one more question now from joe. where's joe? >> i'm here. >> i'm here. >> there you are . hello, joe. >> there you are. hello, joe. >> there you are. hello, joe. >> good evening. good evening. panel. hello . hello, hello. a panel. hello. hello, hello. a lot of joe's. a lot of joe's , a lot of joe's. a lot of joe's, a lot of joe's. a lot of joe's, a lot of. >> yeah. joe. joe. joe. joe. joe. >> joe. joe. joe. > joe. joe. josh' >> joe. joe. josh! >> joe. joe. josh! >> yeah. josh. and we had another joe earlier. >> yeah. josh. and we had anotherjoe earlier. it's a another joe earlier. it's a theme tonight. >> it's a joe. »- >> it's a joe. >> joe, what's your question? >> joe, what's your question? >> sorry. my, my question. allegedly, the nhs are suggesting that fish and chip shops should perhaps be turned into selling fruit and veg because it's more healthy and will make the nation healthy. >> what do you think about that? >> what do you think about that? >> i think it's i think we ought to be allowed to make our own minds up. >> why controversial? yeah, i mean, that's that's really going against the grain like a nice fish and chips supper on a friday night, don't we? well, look , i read this article, and i

look, i read this article, and i thought it was bizarre insofar as just to explain, the nhs bosses are saying a particular fish and chip shop should sell fruit as well, and fruit and veg so that it's got more of a balance within its menu. but surely, jojo, you don't go to the fish and chip shop for some broccoli, do you? >> no , exactly. and this is >> no, exactly. and this is again, this is people just bending themselves and going, oh god, i'm trying to keep everyone happy. like keir starmer is a fish and chip shop. but it was when mcdonald's would then force the vegetarian and greggs to do vegan. and you're just going sell what you sell. and if people want it, they'll go to your shop. if i want a fish and chips, i'll go to a fish and chips, i'll go to a fish and chip shop in the same way that if i want, you know, a bra, i'm not going to a mechanic's do. i mean, it's hard selling bras and mechanics. it'll be great. >> depends on your anatomy, maybe, but, i mean, what do you make of this, josh? >> well, if it's a deep fried broccoli, i'm all right with it. yeah. that's true. yeah. yeah, yeah.the yeah. that's true. yeah. yeah, yeah. the way. yeah. >> i mean, well, potato chips are essentially a vegetable. >> yeah. but as you say, it's not fit for purpose. people go out to a fish and chip shop for a treat at home. they'll cook

the broccoli and the carrots with their dinner. and when they go out, they want to eat badly. >> but can i ask you about this, jojo? because the snp have a track record of being a bit nanny state ish, you know, trying to ban two for one pizzas, trying to raise minimum pricing on alcohol. shouldn't people just decide for themselves as as joe is saying, 100%7 100%? >> and the other thing, because i travel so much is, you know, quite often going to garage and i just want i want a fizzy juice. and the amount of times i go and i cannot get a full fat anything, i have to have something that is low or zero. a spartan is vile. and how dare you tell me that you know i can't have a fat because they're doing it. be so people aren't overweight. hello. i'm fine, thank you. because i make. i know how to eat. yes, yes. stop. >> yeah, well, we're all a bit angry about that one, aren't we? who would have thought that would be the most controversial topic of the show? anyway, next on free speech nation, the role of physician associates is raising questions in the nhs. doctor heather ryan is going to be joining me to discuss recent calls for an independent review, as some are suggesting that the lines between pa and doctor are being blurred. don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. the academy of medical royal colleges called last week for an independent review of physician associates known as pa physician associates are trained for only two years. whereas doctors train for between 4 and 6 years. pa cannot prescribe medication, but they can order scans, take medical histories and conduct physical examinations, and there are now more than 3000 pa's in england. but the nhs workforce plan has called for them to be increased to 12,000 by 2036. pa have come under a lot of criticism surrounding safety and clarity of their role. so with me now to discuss this is doctor heather ryan. doctor ryan, thank you so much forjoining me. i just want to first clarify what

physician associates actually are. my understanding is that they are not medical practitioners . practitioners. >> yes, you're quite right. so the role of physician associate is a relatively new one in the uk healthcare system. they're healthcare professionals who have done either a two year master's degree after doing a science related first degree or an integrated four year undergraduate master's course . undergraduate master's course. and they're not doctors, and their training is much shorter. so to become a doctor, you either have to do a five year undergraduate degree or a four year postgrad degree, and then to become a gp, which is what i am. you then do a further five years of postgraduate training after leaving medical school, two years of foundation training and three years of gp training. so to be a gp and a gp surgery, you've been training for 9 or 10 years in total, whereas to be a pa in general practice you've been training for two years, so it's, you know, although pa do have some training, it's nowhere near equivalent to the training that gp's get. >> and of course one can understand the nhs being under—resourced and you know

this, this is a method of helping patients ostensibly. but the problem seems to be that a lot of people think that they are doctors and are misled into thinking that they are being treated by someone who has been trained appropriately. is that is that the problem here? >> yeah. i mean, i think the job title is inherently quite ambiguous and interestingly, the royal college of gps recently surveyed its members on the use of pa in general practice. and one of the big themes identified by that survey was that patients often don't understand who they're seeing. and actually, some doctors have directly observed pa not introducing themselves correctly. and so i think i think you're right. i think i think you're right. i think there's ambiguity about the role and about the title. but also, you know, there have unfortunately been cases where patients have been harmed as well. >> yes. now, i've heard there have been allegations of deaths, even people who have been well, isuppose even people who have been well, i suppose , are prescribed things i suppose, are prescribed things that they shouldn't have been prescribed. or maybe they've been given the wrong advice. how common has that been? >> so again, i mean, there's

been a few high profile cases. so, you know, several cases in the media, we've all heard of the media, we've all heard of the sad case of emily chesterton, who at the age of just 30, died after she was misdiagnosed by a physician associate. she had a blood clot in her leg which spread to her lung and killed her. but the pa she saw thought it was a sprained calf and anxiety . and sprained calf and anxiety. and there were there was a case in there were there was a case in the daily mail recently in which a gentleman went to his gp surgery with headaches, saw a physician associate was misdiagnosed as having tension type headache and it later turned out to be a bleed on the brain. and again, harking back to the chp member consultation. again, many responses. there highlighted diagnostic errors and examples of incorrect treatment , and examples of incorrect treatment, including cases where cancer diagnoses have been delayed , as well as simpler delayed, as well as simpler things like tonsillitis and there's also been a scandal, which was reported on this week at the alder hey children's hospital in liverpool. >> could you maybe tell us a little bit about that ? little bit about that? >> yeah. so alder hey is a big

children's hospital here in merseyside, not far from where i live. one of my children's had treatment there and i believe they've been employing pa for a few years now, and it's recently emerged that alder hey had a pa working within the safeguarding team, and they were undergoing child protection medicals. and so i believe that the physician associate did child protection medicals on children who it was suspected, had suffered neglect or physical abuse . and now alder or physical abuse. and now alder hey have clarified that the physician associate didn't do forensic exams on children who'd been sexually abused, but they were involved in the wider assessment of those children, including assessing their physical health. and earlier this year, alder hey redeployed that physician associate to do other work within the hospital because concerns were raised externally that the courts might not feel able to rely on the evidence of a physician associate. and so actually use of a pa in that context might be increasing the risk of a miscarriage of justice. and it's really interesting because guidance for doctors says that child protection medicals should be carried out by paediatricians

who are registrar level or above. so these are doctors who, as well as medical school, have done two years of foundation training and at least three years of specialised paediatric training. so it's really shocking to me that alder hey felt it was acceptable that a physician associate with much less training could be a substitute for a specialist doctor in that situation. i mean, this does sound very shocking to me, particularly that people don't understand who it is that they are consulting. >> my understanding is that a pa should be supervised by a qualified doctor. it sounds as though that's not happening all the time . they have, as you say, the time. they have, as you say, a two year course. some of those courses i've read have 100% pass rate. they're sometimes called medics, referred to as medics when they're definitely not. they're they're referred to as cancer specialists. and so people assume they're getting an oncologist. but that's not what's happening here, is it? i mean , this should be a much mean, this should be a much bigger scandal than it is. surely . surely. >> indeed. and i think , you >> indeed. and i think, you know, i think i think many doctors have become increasingly concerned about about this situation. and, you know , again,

situation. and, you know, again, i think it's important to say, you know, everybody makes mistakes. you know, i'm a doctor. i'm not infallible. i've certainly made mistakes in my career. but, you know, on a systems level , you know, people systems level, you know, people that are less well trained are more likely to make mistakes than people who have, you know , than people who have, you know, more specialised training. and i think it's, you know, it's really important that we keep patient safety at the focus of this rather than, you know, resorting to personal attacks. you know, we just need to remember this is a systems issue. and this is about making sure that that vulnerable people, patients are kept safe. >> yes. that's an excellent point. it's really about the system and whether the system is working. but there has been this open letter in the british medical journal from 28 leading medical practitioners. now they're alleging that their college and the general medical council and the department of health and social care have effectively colluded to mislead parliament in claiming that the college approved legislation going through going through to parliament regulate physician

associates. is there anything to that open letter? it's quite striking that this has come from a large number of leading medical practitioners . medical practitioners. >> so i think to the background to this is that the royal college of physicians represents hospital doctors who are specialists in medicine. and they've in recent years hosted they've in recent years hosted the faculty of physician associates. so i believe that's going to close later this year. and earlier this year, there was an extraordinary general meeting of the royal college of physicians to discuss the wider issues around physician associates . and it wasn't associates. and it wasn't handled well to the extent that various senior leaders within the college, including the president, stepped down and its aftermath. and afterwards, you know, learning was done. the royal college of physicians commissioned the king's fund to undertake an independent learning review of how the issue had been handled, and the report was pretty, raised significant concerns about organisational governance. and it suggested that there was some organisational bias within the royal college of physicians to the extent that the membership survey they did may have been, you know, carried out with the aim of validating a

predetermined point of view and what the king's fund report says is that if the extraordinary general meeting had been called earlier, it might have had an impact on the passage of the relevant legislation on pa regulation through parliament. so the delay in calling the agm has potentially had massive ramifications. now, whether that is a conspiracy or whether it's just, you know, a mistake, you know, i can't say no. >> absolutely. but there is a suggestion, isn't there? or there are certainly fears that there are certainly fears that there is a kind of ultimate objective here to end up with a two tier medical system in other words, if you're rich enough and you can go private, you can get a medical, medically qualified doctor. if you're not, you might get a non—doctor. if you can't afford it, you might get someone who's not qualified, but you might not necessarily know that. i mean, is that fear reasonable ? i mean, is that fear reasonable? >> i mean, i see this being borne out in my day to day work, to be honest. so i do some work as a private gp. my husband and i set up our own private gp service in formby, where we live, and we find that a lot of patients who come to consult us

explicitly are paying to see a private gp because they want to see a doctor. now, i think again, it's important talking about systems issues, i would not blame, you know, plenty of the local surgeries use physician associates, but it's not their fault. and due to the way gp funding works, until recently, they've not been allowed to use the same. that money to pay for gp's and so it's you know, they have the choice. there's this thing called the additional roles reimbursement scheme and literally they can claim reimbursement for the salaries of non—doctors, but not doctors. so i don't i don't blame gp surgeries for feeling that they, you know, have to use physician associates in that situation. but yeah , i mean patients do but yeah, i mean patients do sometimes tell us that it wasn't immediately clear to them that they were seeing a physician associate when they went to their nhs, gp surgery . and yeah, their nhs, gp surgery. and yeah, i mean, again, i think i think we are at risk of moving towards a two tier system where those that can afford to pay will pay privately to see a gp and those

who can't will see, you know, non—doctors on the nhs. >> and i do understand your point about let's not target or blame individuals, but you know, we have had nhs trusts advertising pa posts as assistant physicians and my understanding is it's not legal to call yourself a physician when you're when you're not. so there must be some people who have made serious errors here. and the buck has to stop somewhere, doesn't it ? somewhere, doesn't it? >> yeah, sure. i don't. i don't disagree, but as i say, i think, you know, this is why it's very positive that there's now an increasing awareness , i think increasing awareness, i think certainly within the medical profession. and, you know, more widely that, you know, the rollout of pa has been, dare i say, you know, perhaps relatively rushed. it's quite a new role, quite a new professional role. and actually now, you know, increasingly , you now, you know, increasingly, you know, professional bodies are calling for a pause and i'm, i'm speaking in my own personal capacity, but i'm a member of the council of the royal college of general practitioners, and

certainly , you know, chp, you certainly, you know, chp, you know , the official policy now is know, the official policy now is that we oppose the use of physician associates in general practice. you know, i think my personal view is that we all just need to stop, pause, you know, and perhaps do some research, you know, actually look at the evidence . what can look at the evidence. what can physician associates safely do, which settings can they safely work in, if any? you know, is this a role, bearing in mind that physician associates are paid at band seven on the agenda for change pay scale, which is about £45,000 a year starting salary? so it's a relatively high salary for perhaps quite a defined, quite a narrow scope of safe practice. so, you know, long term, you know, i think questions have to be asked is this actually a useful and workable role. >> and as you say, more research. but also more discussion, more debate rather than things being forced through without the public knowledge. i mean, do you think now following these revelations and these

scandals , that this target of scandals, that this target of 12,000 pa by 2036, that that will now be unlikely to be reached ? reached? >> i mean, that's a political decision for the politicians to make, but i sincerely hope it isn't reached . i mean, i think, isn't reached. i mean, i think, as i say, we need to stop and take stock again. you know, we need to look at what role is there. you know what, given that it's quite a highly paid job role. you know , is the is there role. you know, is the is there much point in rolling it out if the safe scope of practice is very narrow. and so hopefully we can all slow down and, you know, take time to make sure that, you know, this is being done properly. >> well, doctor, heather ryan, thanks so much forjoining me in explaining that so clearly to us.thank explaining that so clearly to us. thank you. thank you. >> bye. now . >> bye. now. >> bye. now. >> and next on free speech nafion >> and next on free speech nation we're going to be joined by reverend doctor bernard randall, who was banned from preaching for five years after he gave a sermon telling children they should question or be open to questioning certain teaching on lgbt relationships.

he was eventually reported to prevent the government's counter—terrorism unit. so don't go anywhere .

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me, andrew doyle. the reverend doctor bernard randall has been barred from preaching for five years after he gave a sermon telling children that they could question teaching on lgbt relationships after losing his job at trent college in nottingham, he was reported to the terrorism watchdog prevent and was also deemed by the church of england as posing a risk to children. the archbishop of canterbury, justin welby , has of canterbury, justin welby, has continually refused to allow doctor randall to bring a misconduct case against the bishop of derby , who barred him bishop of derby, who barred him from preaching. this is despite

a case saying this decision was plainly wrong. the church of england and the diocese of derby said that they could not comment on the matter during an ongoing legal case. so joining me now is the reverend doctor bernard randall. welcome to the show. thank you very much. thanks for having me. well, welcome back to the show, because, of course, you were here a few years ago to talk about this. but for those who didn't see that episode, maybe if you could explain what on earth happened here, what happened was that we had one of these very aggressively pro lgbtqia+. the whole acronym. yeah. the whole thing. yeah. >> came into the school to do some training, ostensibly to talk about eradicating homophobic bullying, which is good, but actually their aim was to embed gender, gender identity and sexual orientation in the life of the school. and they had staff chanting about the need to smash heteronormativity, which which if you want to smash heteronormativity, you're entitled to think that. >> but as a as a christian minister that rang, all sorts of alarm bells were you in the meeting where you were asked to chant, i was there, smash

heteronormativity? >> i did not join in. well, i don't blame you. so i mean, it sounds quite extreme , doesn't sounds quite extreme, doesn't it? the idea of the activists coming in with a clear ideological point of view. and so then you gave this sermon explaining that actually, it's okay to have a different point of view. >> that's right. >> that's right. >> because one of the people said to me, can you talk in chapel about how come we're told we have to accept all this lgbt stuff in a christian school, which i have to accept? that's a really important question. so i said, no, you don't have to accept. you make up your own mind when it comes to ideologies. >> yes. >> yes. >> and differences of opinion. and you make up your own mind. no one can tell you what you have to believe, so you may accept the church's teaching that marriage is properly only of a man and a woman. >> you may believe that we're male and female and you can't change sex. >> sometimes it matters. >> sometimes it matters. >> you may look at gender identity, language and think doesn't make sense. >> can't be more than partly true, but i emphasised repeatedly respect the people you disagree with. >> love? yes, love your neighbour as yourself doesn't mean agree. it means respect that disagreement. respect the sincerity of the other side.

>> and i can back you up on this because i read the full text of the sermon and it wasn't. and we have to be clear, you weren't saying attacking people for being gay is okay or bullying people for this, or it was about respectful. >> i explicitly said discrimination is wrong . discrimination is wrong. >> no excuse for personal attacks or abuse. yes , attacks or abuse. yes, repeatedly said that because i wanted to make it absolutely clear it's about the ideas. it's not about the people . not about the people. >> so where did the complaint come from? you were you were reported to a counter—terrorism watchdog prevent by the school itself. is that right? by the school? >> by the safeguarding lead at the school? who i, i would suggest maybe fairly convinced of the lgbt activist position. >> i would guess so if he or she considers this to be a form of terrorism, the idea of open discussion and debate is subtle steps towards terrorism. it's oh, is that right? >> make up your own mind to today and next week i'll be advocating holocaust and genocide. and so i think that is thatis genocide. and so i think that is that is that the logic of it that is that the logic of it that appears to be her logic. yeah. >> i mean, that's absolutely

astonishing . so what happened astonishing. so what happened then? when did you first hear about the fact that you'd been reported as a potential terrorist? >> well, i've been suspended by the school pending investigation. and as part of the process there, they will send you papers of what's going to be in the investigation and just hidden in the papers really was a reference to reporting me to prevent. and so they didn't have the courtesy to tell me directly. they didn't tell you? didn't tell me i had to find it out accidentally. >> that's the sort of thing you'd quite like to know. >> well, absolutely. yeah. and when we had the disciplinary meeting with the head and one of my questions was, do you think the church of england is a terrorist organisation to which ihope terrorist organisation to which i hope the obvious answer is no . i hope the obvious answer is no. and he said, oh, yes, we should have told you the referral came back, didn't meet the criteria . back, didn't meet the criteria. >> right. >> right. >> the relief in that moment. yes. you should have told me. yes. you should have told me. yes . goodness me, you should yes. goodness me, you should have told me that. >> but as you say, the beliefs that you were espousing are no different from those of many mainstream religions. yeah. >> and absolutely the, the teaching of the church of

england, which. okay, it's going through a process of discussing these things, but it remains the official teaching of the church. that's all i was advocating. you may believe i wasn't even pushing it. >> one thing i don't understand, though, is why that wasn't the end of it. why were you ultimately barred from preaching for five years? >> because we live in a mad world. i honestly, honestly, i can't give a better explanation than that. >> but this has come from the bishop of derby. >> so yes, so the school reported me to prevent and to the local authority designated officer for safeguarding. they subsequently reported me to the teaching regulation agency and the disclosure and barring service. all for this sermon. all of those secular authorities cleared me. the local authority designated officer within a day had said doesn't meet the criteria for safeguarding. this is just a dispute about beliefs between reverend randall and his employer . between reverend randall and his employer. but the between reverend randall and his employer . but the school also employer. but the school also reported me to the church safeguarding authorities , who safeguarding authorities, who

continue with the idea that somehow teaching the church's own doctrine is a safeguarding risk. it could cause harm to people. so wait a minute to hear a sermon of this kind. >> the church of england is, is apparently saying that to teach their own value system is potentially terroristic. >> that appears to be the kind of line they're taking. okay. certainly harmful. okay. >> so and what's happened now there's a judicial review going on. yes, yes . on. yes, yes. >> so because i lost my job at the school, i have to have permission from the bishop to minister to preach anywhere. and she refused to give me permission because of this safeguarding concern, so—called. so i can't it's illegal for me to preach anywhere in england, possibly anywhere in the world. i'm not quite sure. so i complained about the bishop's conduct because i thought, you know, this is clearly not something a bishop of the church of england ought to be doing. and there is a process to safeguarding. she is supposed to tell me what the concern is still , five years plus later, still, five years plus later, don't actually know what they

say. the safeguarding concern really is. i'm left to guess and work it out. >> is she intimating that all church of england priests are breaking the law? >> well , that's the logical >> well, that's the logical conclusion that that that all church of england clergy are a safeguarding risk, or at least those who accept the church's teaching would . yes. and but of teaching would. yes. and but of course, they i lost my job, and therefore i am subject to. i have to wait for her to give permission . permission. >> so what are the recourse is there though? >> so? so all all i could do is make a formal complaint about the bishop. i've also got employment tribunal proceedings against both the bishop and the school. those are ongoing. legal things take forever , things take forever, unfortunately, but my formal complaint was rejected by the archbishop of canterbury because when you complain about a bishop, it goes to the archbishop and he he said nothing to see here at all. on what grounds? on, on the grounds that he didn't think there was any anything wrong. >> he doesn't think there's anything wrong with the church declaring that their own teaching should be criminalised, that are your words, not mine.

well, yeah, that's what it sounds like to me. >> i hesitate to criticise him too hard. he's doing a very difficult job. >> well, you have to say that, of course, but. >> and genuinely he is doing a hard job. but he rejected it. i appealed and this is where we had the opinion by the kc, who said he was plainly wrong. yes. went back to the archbishop. he got the response from the bishop and he said no case to answer. so he dismissed it again. i appealed again and you know the answer came back yes again, clearly wrong . you have to let clearly wrong. you have to let this go forward. so it was investigated . and then it goes investigated. and then it goes to the president of tribunals , to the president of tribunals, who's the sort of chief legal officer . and she went back to, officer. and she went back to, oh, there's nothing to see here. so we're judicially reviewing that decision. and if i win the judicial review, then the bishop of derby would, would face court proceedings in a church court for effectively discrimination against her. yes, minister on religious grounds, because i'm too christian.

>> i mean, it's absolutely astonishing. and of course, you know, the archbishop can't fall back on papal infallibility, can he? he doesn't have that. no, he can't. he can be wrong. >> he can be wrong very much. he can be wrong. and the thing that really bothers me is that he has stood in the house of lords and talked about the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. but when it comes to his own backyard, he's not going to lift a finger, not even to try and bring some reconciliation and work out a solution. and, you know, if the church of england is established for any reason, it's to allow freedom of religion and freedom of speech for all in our society, and this should bother everybody , because religious everybody, because religious people, people with strong philosophical beliefs, particularly religious people, are more likely than most to say things which wider society thinks are odd, difficult, offensive, whatever it might be. and if the church of england can't say yes, our own beliefs, which many of you find odd and you're allowed to, but they must be freely spoken. the church of england can't say that, for its own doctrines. how is it going to support the free speech and

the freedom of religion of all the freedom of religion of all the other people in the country? >> it's a very good point. and you say it's a mad world. i would urge people to read the full sermon so they understand just how crazy this story is and how this has all blown up out of nothing. now, is there somewhere where people can read the sermon and find out more details about your case? >> well, they can search me online. there's plenty of stuff, but i've been supported by a wonderful group called christian concern who have been giving legal support to me, but also pastoral care, you know, keeping me in one piece emotionally, spiritually and christian concerned. dotcom slash bernard will take you to a page where there are links to more information about my case and also a link to donate to their legal fund . if people are able legal fund. if people are able and willing to do that because these things don't come cheap. >> absolutely. well, thanks so much for coming back on to talk about this. doctor randall, thank you so much for your time. thank you. thank you . and next thank you. thank you. and next on free speech nation , dawn on free speech nation, dawn butler contributes to black history month , bongo's bingo

history month, bongo's bingo goes bonkers, and boris johnson talks about a roman statesman. it'll be time for social sensations in just one minute. don't go anywhere

welcome back to free speech nafion welcome back to free speech nation with me andrew doyle. it's time for social sensations. that's where we look at what's been going viral on social media. and first up, this rather bizarre video from labour mp dawn butler. >> you are the wrong one. the violent one, the weird one. whereas i, i am the chosen one because i am of the first ones. you see this skin i'm in this beautiful mahogany brown. this skin you don't like? i believe so why do you try so hard to achieve by burning yourself in the sun? for me there's no need because i am the chosen one. for

i am of the first ones i know i'm black and beautiful and african freedom fighter. my skin is my protection. and you, my friend, don't matter now. >> it's very interesting because this isn't just being proud of being black or being proud of her race. this is a this is about a kind of ethnonationalism, isn't it? can you explain a bit more? >> yeah , it's, as you say, >> yeah, it's, as you say, nothing wrong with being proud of your ethnicity. brilliant. yeah, but actually that is the previous version of it. she, she then had to edit it and put it out again, because in that version, as you saw, there was a sort of montage of faces. yes. and it turns out a bunch of them were rapists and terrorists and anti—semites and whatever. and they that was sort of identified to her, and also that image of the skull and saying that, you know, we were the first the first i mean, it sounds a bit dodgy. also, this idea that, you know, you have to go and get tanned to be like me or you, you want to burn your skin or i don't know, it's just like it's more division. that is not you're not going to see martin

luther king put out a video like that. that's that video is all about division. >> and i mean , and again, if >> and i mean, and again, if we're going to have free speech division, but you're a labour mp, you represent your constituents who are of all ethnicities, who are of all ethnicities. so you've basically announced to your constituents that, you know, you mean less than me and you're the violent one. >> you're that's the point, isn't it? why the why the division? what's the purpose of that? i mean, anyway, it's and as you say, she's free to do it. absolutely. >> she's absolutely free to do it . but if >> she's absolutely free to do it. but if you're >> she's absolutely free to do it . but if you're representing it. but if you're representing people who who put their faith and trust, you've just put fear into them. >> yeah, absolutely. well, have we got time for another quick video? let's have a look . that video? let's have a look. that was at the bingo. apparently, i've always thought the bingo was a dangerous place. >> yeah, i'm pretty sure that was me. yeah. >> i mean, it's the sort of thing you would do, to be fair , thing you would do, to be fair, i would do. i thing you would do, to be fair, iwould do. i mean, i've seen i would do. i mean, i've seen you do stuff like that . you do stuff like that. >> drinking beer at bingo is my

thing . thing. >> bingo is so much fun. yes. bingo is brilliant. not pouring pints of beer over your head , pints of beer over your head, but bingo. >> a serious case for bingo. >> a serious case for bingo. >> there . anyone who's done >> there. anyone who's done bingo knows how much fun it is . bingo knows how much fun it is. josh howie wasted loves bingo. >> that is a bombshell we can't top that. so we're going to end the show right there. thanks so much for joining the show right there. thanks so much forjoining us on free much for joining us on free speech nation. this was the week when durham university student union cracked down on free speech. the potential vice presidents in the in america went head to head, and the uk government gave some islands away that we'd never heard of. but thanks to my panel, josh howie and jojo sutherland and to all of my brilliant guests that you've seen this evening. and by the way, if you want to join us live here in the studio that's dead easy. you can be part of this audience. all you need to do is go to sro audiences. dot com and apply there and then come along. no one puts a w—w—w anymore, do they? i don't know why i said that. anyway, do stay tuned because mark dolan tonight is coming up in just one moment. and don't forget that headliners is on every night at 11:00. that's the late night paper

preview show, except we have comedians taking you through the next day's news stories instead of boring old commentators that you see on the other channels. thanks ever so much for watching free speech nation. i'm andrew doyle and i will see you next week . hey . week. hey. >> we can expect clear skies leading to a light and warm day ahead. lovely boxt solar sponsors of weather on gb news. >> good evening and welcome to your gb news. weather update from the met office. as we go ahead into monday the rain should be clearing, then sunshine and showers for many of us before turning colder later into the week. so the unsettled conditions are all to do with this area of low pressure out towards the west, and these fronts driving cloud and rain. so there could be some early

evening sunshine towards the southwest, but otherwise cloud and rain continuing to move its way north and eastwards, affecting much of scotland to start monday morning. clearer skies behind that, turning dnen skies behind that, turning drier. we'll still see a few showers around, but temperatures generally staying up at around 10 or 11 degrees, so it is going to be a damp and gloomy start across scotland. we've got outbreaks of rain persisting. this will gradually move its way northwards. we've also got a strong easterly wind as well, giving a chilly feel to start the day. cloudy conditions remaining across northern ireland with some showery outbreaks of rain here and pushing into north western parts of england further towards the south, hopefully waking up to some brighter skies. but also there are going to be some showers around so that band of rain across scotland will gradually move its way northwards, affecting much of orkney and shetland. otherwise, it's a case of sunny spells and scattered showers. some of these could be heavy, containing the odd rumble of thunder, perhaps

merging to give some longer spells of rain at times too . but spells of rain at times too. but where you do dodge the showers, we'll see temperatures rising up to 17, possibly 18 degrees towards the south, but unpleasant towards the north. further spells of heavy rain moving their way northwards across northern ireland and into scotland, and then towards the south through tuesday. another cluster of showers again could be on the heavy side. some places may dodge these to see some sunny spells and that continuing through wednesday too. but as we go later on in the week , it is going to be the week, it is going to be turning colder from the north by. >> we'll see a cold snap which will quickly develop into a warm front. boiler

gb news. >> good evening. it's11:00. i'm lewis mckenzie here in the gb

newsroom. we start this hour with some breaking news. more massive explosions are happening in southern beirut . these in southern beirut. these pictures are the emerging ones now showing where the latest israeli strikes have just happened. these are the latest escalations amid ongoing hostilities between hezbollah and the idf. will of course, bnng and the idf. will of course, bring you the very latest in this developing story. on the eve of the anniversary of the october 7th attacks, the foreign and commonwealth office have now advised against all travel to the area close to the border with gaza and all but essential travel to the rest of israel and the occupied palestinian territories . and in the last territories. and in the last hour, territories. and in the last hour , the prime minister has hour, the prime minister has also released a statement ahead of the anniversary, saying the 7th of october was the darkest day in jewish history since the holocaust. one year on, we stand together to remember the lives

so cruelly taken . but closer to so cruelly taken. but closer to home now, starmer is facing fresh turmoil as his chief of staff, sue gray, has resigned. her exit follows reports of tensions in number 10, including the prime minister's chief adviser, morgan mcsweeney , who's adviser, morgan mcsweeney, who's now stepped into her role. the conservative leadership candidate, robert jenrick says her departure exposes a vicious labour infighting and claims that the government is in freefall. in response, downing street has announced five new senior appointments with sir keir starmer insisting the changes will strengthen his team as he approaches 100 days in office. a record breaking 973 migrants crossed the english channelin migrants crossed the english channel in a single day, according to official figures. they arrived in 17 small boats, surpassing the previous record of 882 set in june of this year