ah some thought of that of but are one. why do you think that us them i mean on i be certain that we send it back. oh ah, a u. k. power plant once lauded as super green turns out to be the country's biggest carbon dioxide culprit. i made a blistering energy crisis in the country. twitter tests a new feature and a bid to make the conversations more healthy by warning users that things predict intense or heated. we put the plan up for debate they long ago lost control of their products. this is just another laughable way that they're yelling into the

breeze for a horse that has long ago left. the bar vacant, kick you off. they could put up signs. they couldn't throw pumpkins at you. it's their lot, they own it, they'd pay for it. the french government summons the country's top catholic, a bit shop over the claim that child sex allegations made during confessionals should not be reported. a big retailers in california will now have to make gender neutral shots shopping areas for children. however, critics warn the new rule will constrain business. ah, it's 4 pm here in the russian capital, and you're watching ortiz international. i'm your host donald quarter. welcome to the program. now the british energy crisis is deepening with warnings that there could be even more gas price hikes. industries are feeling the pinch and are saying

that they could go bust the question now is, are they ready to suspend their environmental aspirations at least for the time being? because it's been revealed to that a power plant in the u. k. once hailed as super green has turned out to be the country's biggest c o 2 emitter. the scale of wood burning by tracks each year means the power station is one of the top 5 or mrs. particulate matter. air pollution in europe, putting it in the same company as some of europe's worst coal power plants. greener kina, renewable energy is what the well, this cooling, fall back with an energy crisis looming in europe this winter. there's a rush to stockpile fossil fuels, a move that will perish, carbon dioxide emissions a far from where policy makers want it to be. and this power plant in drax, in the north of england, claims to be the onset to the dilemma by switching to been biomass or would rather than coal. the plot claims of emissions from binding wood and negated by the growth

of new trees, soaking up carbon again and replacing those harvested for burning sounds good, right? i don't know how they prove it and establish this carbon neutral. but if it is great, anything will max he out of it clean is going to be very well now. yeah, that's a good thing. i'd say we forgot to do for yourself completely. go comp and your to it. it shows kind of a quite a bit of where you go. yeah, i mean as far as i can see or tell that to haven't beaten it, anything different out of to it. but according to a report, the power station is far from green, and it's actually the country's biggest emitter of carbon pollution, was still it's the 3rd death year in europe. in fact, the address is the only by m, a facility to rank in the contents plan of c o 2 emitted. today you have it while selling itself as copper neutral running would actually bounces out more emissions and from burning coal,

you to its lower energy density than fossil fuels were to has to be burned in high volumes to produce the same amount of energy. brought in no attempt to clear the air. drax responded to the claim, saying the figures of false figures are inaccurate and completely adults with what the world's leading climate. scientists at the u. n. a into governmental panel on climate change, say about sustainable bio mass. been crucial to deliver in global climate targets. despite the figures the site still managed to attract more than 800000000 pounds, an u. k. government subsidies. that's a 2000000 pounds every single day in 2020 alone. because of course, why energy production reflects well on the government's climate record, but all of this is left the locals at boiling points, shock, and alienate to refer constantly 1000000. yeah, that's not very good. if that's true, that is of worry. yeah that's, that's not good. well, not very good actually. now, no rabbit go to some to go out there allied to the community more than anything can

light round there to build up a bit better in there for the children and zing. glad a lot more than oh, rather than go to were a bigger power station laila. so despite the neutral a negative pledges, in this case by our energy seems to be failing to protect the planet. in fact, it seems to be making matters worse. the government is trying to reduce carbon dioxide subsidizing something that is hugely covering. carbon dioxide seems to be a very strange way of spending government money. it's green when it wants to be positive in the new cycle, but it's not green. when he looks at the need to ensure that we have fuel security . it's because it's an ideology. they've almost got to the stage where it becomes a religion. for them, nothing matters more than ensuring that we remove carbon dioxide and move to the green agenda. of course, for many of them, there will be

a financial benefit. some of them will sit on boards of directors of the new green companies. others will be part of the non governmental organizations that receive funding from the european union and other countries that also support the green agenda. and now on to the realm of online discussions, twitter thinks it's got an answer for when conversations get rowdy and in its opinion offensive the social networks trying out a new feature that warns users entering an online chat that things could get quite heated. although some of the content flagged in the trial run as left users a bit confused. sh. whoa, there are intense conversation about the weather, bro. seriously, this is the lamest one yet. to return once intense about this conversation. come believe this is happening on here under intense conversations did to it's a,

i'm a generation x sir, is going to take more than an intense conversation to bother me. so how does it work? if twitter spots a chat thread with opposing views being thrashed out and someone wants to join in a message pops up saying heads up, conversations like this can be intense. it's still not clear whether or not twitter is scanning for contentious subject matter or the actual content of a conversation. my colleague collin bray discussed the issue with a panel of experts. this sound like a noble idea that's doomed to fail because if it's moderated by humans, it's open to claims of subjectivity. if it's algorithms, what we'll know how they can't really understand the nuances of language and discussion kind of work. no, no. is the very simple answer there and twitter itself has no idea how to moderate it, and winds up getting the vast brunt of some of the most insane arguments that bubble

up on that site. so they long ago lost control of their product. this is just another laughable way that they're yelling into the breeze for a horse that has long ago left the bard. this is no goose mistake. twitter is not fumbling the ball. they are not somehow incapable of managing their audience. it is going exactly as plan. imagine the idea when you watch television or anywhere the world and you get a disclaimer, the following contains lipstick. children be advised, do you want to watch it? yes, you do. the 2nd, they put up a warning saying whatever you do, don't touch that. dia, whatever you do, don't push the red button. i'm going to be the 1st in line along with millions of others to push the red button. this is the perfect brand new bait hook in the cheek off we go. is there a danger that there are certain people, certain company, certain subjects that can a full file be judged before any auto body is even taken place? absolutely, they,

this is already algorithmically put to the top of the queue. it's already algorithmically fed to everybody because there is at the base level, no difference between intense content and profitable content. the content that people want to engage with that stay on the site longer, and therefore give twitter more opportunity to serve ads in between everything else . it would be intellectually honest for us to remember that it is a free platform like facebook, a free platform. they make all the money you get to play on their front yard. they on the lawn, they can kick you off. they could put up signs, they can throw pumpkins at you, it's their lawn, they own it, they pay for it. we just go crazy on it. so pretending like a phone call where you have an implied, a privacy interaction is folly. the fact is were guests there at somebody else's dinner table and they keep throwing hand grenades and the

soup a know that the more engaged when you get the more rancor and the more engage when you get the more ads. but also you get more of a discourse on why there shouldn't be rancor. so twitter is, is to me the most incompetent of, of the people doing it because they are the most scared of their audience. but then again, if i worked at twitter, i'd probably be the most scared of my audience duke. when the free speech advocates like this, let's face it, they can be the noisy or end of the digital conversation county because no one's getting bad. no one's getting thrown off the conversation is still allowed to happen. that's a good thing, isn't it? well, in my opinion, it is what's offensive to you is not offensive to me. and who's to say what is offensive. so that's why it's again, again, it's private property. so we do have these issues and problems. think of the beauty though. if you're a politician, you can do horrible things. you can stand up and say, i'm going to defend little timmy was not even born yet. for something that may

offend it, and i'm squelch conversation to put up warning flags and all that. meanwhile, what they physically do, or legislative leave do, or to and policy is truly offensive, and there's no warning for that. it just happens. and then we all get caught facebook is feeling the pressure after ideas swirl in congress to hold the platform liable for content posted there. we unpack some of that for you. enjoy freedom of speech on social media. well, it sounds like it's about to change. the facebook was a bla has a plan on how to fix the evil and harmful system. a plan that may destroy the internet as we know it. and she presented it and frog in the senate. i strongly encourage reforming section 230. what a section 230 and why is it so important to provide immunity from liability to website platforms? for instance, it doesn't allow anybody to suit facebook for any content created bytes uses. mock

zuckerberg himself is far from a moral beacon. placement was widely criticized for an antique and sifted bias in recent years, face bulkhead purposely and routinely suppressed conservative stories disadvantaging conservative content century conservative bloggers blocking incense, aim, religious, conservative political content to the platform was never moderated from the outside . many guys on capitol hill that comp setting, the new a superstar whistleblower has found a perfect solution. user generated content is something that companies have less control over there, a 100 percent control over their algorithms. algorithms i based mechanisms which determine how your facebook feed looks. what post you see 1st thing in the morning, a picture of your friends, newborn baby, a viral cap video or an offensive political mean. right now the algorithms are controlled by facebook and the operating principles of far from transparent. the

company has long drawn criticism for not sharing many details on how the content is prioritized. these technological systems are walled off air, very complicated. they have put their astronomical prophets for people, money driven decision making, shaving, you'll fade so one fac, how about political sense? it algorithm was controlled by the u. s. government much better. what a great way to spread american values, all the majority party to the 1st quarters of the us, people lives in bob way, can't wait to appreciate it. with the proposed give mental body directly in charge of facebook algorithms, there would be no constraints. facebook seems to be eager to cooperate with the authorities. instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that belong to legislators, it is time for congress to act. the current algorithms are definitely far from perfect, but i bet will miss them. what's the government guessing charge? imagine what a u. s. since that the social media would look like videos of

a messy afghanistan withdrawal, definitely not interesting and to graphic. don't show it to anybody. first, the biden the stumbles on the steps. no, no, no. that's just offensive and digest your friends graduation bridges. ok. but as i have a look at the agenda, new to actor and the new web cinderella movie, i am your fabulous god mobile. no more inconvenient means and by didn't the old man jumps to be counted pre approved by the us government. well, if that's what happens to social media, maybe we'll find he's thought living in the real world. a debate over confessional, secrecy is raging in france as the country's top bishop says, it prevents the church from disclosing allegations of child sex abuse. that's after a report revealed that since the 1950s, more than 300000 children,

had been sexually abused by the french catholic clergymen and other individuals associated with the church. the bishop has been summoned to to discuss the issue with the countries interior minister. as charlotte to pinsky reports from paris. francis top bishop is getting ready for a grilling by the french government after suggesting that priests shouldn't go to the police after they've heard a confession where somebody says that they have sexually abused a child. he made these remarks in the aftermath of that explosive report that was released by the solve a commission law suite. that report found that at least $330000.00 children had been abused over a period of 70 years. and that 2 thirds of the victims were those who had been victimized by the priests themselves in the church. that 80 percent of the cases were boys aged between 10 and 13 years old. and that not only did the church do

anything to prevent what was happening, but it also failed to report it. that's not only anger the french government, but it angered people here in paris by much collectively, i believe that they should systematically denounce it. they are responsible for they press yes. so they must train them. isn't they in contact with the public so they have to check that everything is going well. they need to face up to the responsibility. am with a responsibility is just crazy. may i'd? yeah, i don't, i don't know how it continues to carry out. a resident mazama did on this. we're thinking this a bassetti. it took me away from the faith to dare no longer on turn to church because of that, they lose credibility. they lose their divine message. it's an acceptable today is an acceptable with all this. we now know. no, it's impossible. now the things here really documented. so act, thou know, to continue to hide behind the law of religion who are both now while senior

members of the catholic church in france and the vatican themselves, the pope have expressed shame about the contents that were revealed by the silver commission. many, this is just another one too many reports showing the abuse. it's been taking place in the catholic church for decades, potentially even centuries. and for one victim here in france, he spoken to us at r t. he says that what eric do not before has said it shows that there is a serious problem within the french catholic church. true bolcko's hillary lead them off. i think that this is the demonstration. once again, the comprehension and the out of touch, dimension of these men of the church, they have cut themselves off from society in the realities of life. and this has led them to be out of control when one is capable of committing so many crimes. when one is capable of carrying out such a work of death than its concealment, it does indeed leave an aroma of crime against humanity which raises questions

which raises serious questions him what is clear is that the saw of a commission support is exclusive as it was was perhaps meant to be the road for a reparations for the church to repairing its image after letting people know apparently, crimes. in reality, what it seems to be doing is undoing the church completely. you're watching art international now, coming up after the break. another sex scandal. sandra is main lines of defense is i have no recollection of information slide number, which is the equivalent of just putting his hands over his eyes and shouting, la la la la, la, la, la, wide spread, consternation after the police abruptly drop an investigation into the alleged abuse of a teenage girl by prince andrew, but he is still not off the hook as the pro continues in the united states.

lou, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy, even foundation, let it be an arms race, movies on, often very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult. time time to sit down and talk join me every thursday on the alex salmon. sure. i'll be speaking to guess when the world of politics, small business, i'm sure business. i'll see you then chinese banks are not countable lending against entrepreneurs necessarily. they only wanna

land against real estates regulation. so this was created the biggest real estate babylon history. that's now collapsing with oh, come back to the program. now if your child's looking to pick out a new barbie doll and a california toy store, you'll probably find it next to a g i joe action figure. that's as california's becoming the 1st us state to force retailers to present toys and other children's project products in a gender neutral way. the new law pushed by democrats doesn't completely forbid stores from having individual sections for boys and girls as long as they provide a gender neutral area. it also affects only the state's largest retailers. those

with more than $500.00 employees, archie contributor lauren chen says the law, while apparently well intentioned, is to constraining on businesses. i'm actually pretty open minded in the fact that i think if you're a little girl, wants to play with boys toys or use a bluetooth brush by all means you should let her. and likewise, it's not the end of the world. if your little boy wants a barbie doll, ok, there are just ways that children express themselves sometimes that don't necessarily mean anything deeper than i want this specific toy. and i think a lot of parents on both sides of the political spectrum can kind of drive themselves crazy. trying to needlessly psycho analyze every little decision their young child makes. oh, my little girl, played with a trained, is that mean she's trans or a lesbian? is like, you know, what, it's a toy layer could play with whatever they want to play with. and i know some popular say, nowadays, but by and large gender stereotypes exist for

a reason. and you know, little girls. there is a reason why they are more likely to want to play with make up and dolls is dresses and easy bake oven stuff than little boys. and all this california law does really is make stories needlessly designate gender neutral sections when it's like a right for 95 percent of their customers. you're going to know what the little girls want to shop. you're going to know what the little boys wanna look at. there's nothing a neatly wrong with having a gender neutral toy area if that's really what stores want to do. but like why, why mandate it? why has it gotten to this? if you're in california and you run a business, not only do you have to give an obscene amount of your money away in taxes, but the government is also telling you how to run your business, who you can hire, how much diversity you need to have. what things you can sell, how you can sell them, and what we need to understand here is that control is kind of a spectrum. no, california may not technically own your business if you choose to operate in california, but it is going to be taking large amounts of your revenue of your profit. and it

is going to be giving you a lot of rules and regulations over how you can operate your business child abuse allegations, a billionaire sex trafficking ring. and of course, that interview the case. prince. andrew has certainly been through the mill, but there seems to be little sympathy for his plight. and there's widespread shock at his case being dropped by british authorities as poly boycott explains. hapless prince andrew. the duke of york, the queen's 2nd son on the subject of the biggest car crash interview in living memory. it's almost a mental health issue to some extent for me under may be about to get away with it in a way that only a royal can. he stands accused of having forced sex with a go called virginia roberts, now jew frey, who was 17, back in 2001 i was traffic by suicide pito jeffrey epstein. one of andries main

lines of defense is i have no recollection of it from michigan to sled numbers, which is the equivalent. i'm just putting his hands over his eyes and shouting la la la la la la la, even. ready this didn't joke his memory, a picture of him with his arm around you fray. he claims it's vague, but then again, he also claims it was almost impossible for me to, to sweat many people with eyes suggest that the evidence against andrew is pretty compelling. but fortunately for him not compelling enough for london's metropolitan police which is dropping its investigation, the metropolitan police are taking no further action following a review of sexual abuse allegations surrounding prince andrew and jeffrey epstein . having reviewed the claims made by ju fray in a civil law suit in america and having questioned her in australia, the mat says it's going to let this one go. matt police chief crested and dick said

this about randy andy, back in august to see about the move. no one is above the law to phrase u. s. lawyers say grid. mccauley is not happy. she says that the match should re open its investigation into prince andrew, given the clear and compelling evidence against him on standby. it statement that no one is above the law. telling me, though, andrews. oh hi. emily appeared to be less convinced than the corpse over the weekend. it was reported that prince william, who's a 2nd in line to the throne, has made it clear that his dodgy uncle allegedly should never be allowed to return to public life. again. prince andrew is right now bunkering down at the queen scottish residence. that's right. andrews been hanging out at mummies, causal avoiding the legal papers, but accused him of abusing g for a while at the home of the 3rd person and not now notorious photograph to lane

maxwell. and as well as at properties belonging to jeffrey epstein, as we all know, epstein is conveniently dead, but might as well whose epstein ex girlfriend is set to go on trial in new york next month accused of sex trafficking, epstein just like andrew. she's pleading anason, and either way this is going to be a blockbuster, and you better stay in the queen's castle and pull up the drawbridge and may be no more interviews at the end of the day. a benefit of all the hindsight that one could have. it was definitely the wrong thing to do. now, despite the accusations made against him, prince andrew stepped back from all royal duties and 2019 to stop what he called disruption to the royal family. the prince has given an alibi for at least one of the alleged encounters in london saying he was not in the city at the time. former british home office minister norman baker has dismissed speculation. now that the

palace could have pressured the police to drop the case. and i don't believe that they would dismiss the case because prince andrew has been sandra. i think they're mostly got more tickets enough. but i think they also say the key point is that the michelson police police commissioner made made the comment in the release was covered just that it wasn't prod predominantly a matter of but just jurisdiction. because the allegations are like, predominantly to what happened on united states soil and a case going to the coach in america. so i think the may have taken a pragmatic view that as best left the to the states to take this matter forward. yes, so i mean, yes, he's innocent until proven guilty. we're going to an american talk case. so we'll see what that what that produces. of course, a problem with royal families is that they are not stackable. politicians are faculty members at all family punch. a lot of the problem if you'd like more

details on your top news stories, you can always check it out. check out our website, r t dot com or follow us on twitter. we'll be back with more news in just about 30 minutes. so stay tuned. ah ah, when i was in wrong, i just don't want to see how an engagement with the trail when they find themselves well to part we just to look for common ground when i see black, i see and i was growing young black american spoke to

me why destroyed it? did not. those who say black lives matter is a movement we are importing from america? no, nothing is who we are. i lived in a world where wide lives mattered. and i was not why. like mission. and i wasn't known from black america. i learned how to speak back to whiteness. aboriginal people here more every day. we're out wanted them now with the police were out we, she states, i'm scared them. what children are going to grow up in the country that think says no racism, but they're more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. then they're all the fellow friends in daycare

with this is boom bus. one bit of the show you can't afford to miss brenda bore, and i'm rachel. one is in washington and counting up the energy crunch continues with oil prices hitting 7 year high. well, take a look at how long it may last and what it could mean for the ongoing economic recovery. plus, after a week, the backlash over its plans to turn children into lifelong customers. facebook now says it is going to do the opposite, promising new content controls for kids. well, it's got an o e cd members have struck a historic deal on a proposed global minimum corporate tax. later on, we bring you the details of the land.