leon, a son, jesse on the verge of being freed from bill marsh prison, we ask the un router on torture who continues to allege the world's most famous publisher is being tortured by you k authorities and as comp 26 gets underway in glasgow, why did you k, be embarrassed. johnson's ex goldman sachs chancellor, just flashed taxes on fossil fuels and champagne in a country where one in 4 children live in poverty, all the same or coming up in today's going underground. but 1st, let's go straight to the case of the world's most famous publisher. joining me now from switzerland at this pivotal moment is the un rubber to her and torture, niels meltzer, whose evidence has been used in julian sanchez defense. thank you so much, niels for coming back on you have been told by british politicians, i understand not to interfere with our court. the system in this specific case are we now know that the joe biden administration's, the crown prosecution lawyer here, proxy lawyer here. now james lewis ques, he says, julian assange is his health is fine. he can be expedited to face

a possible 175 years in, in the united states in jail like you are on shrouding your back on the show. i'm, you know, obviously you would expect to say that right. and bear appealing be the 1st instance decisions i can talk, you know, based on extensive medical evidence that by the way, corresponds exactly to the findings. stats are, you know, we can to, with my own medical, cheaper visitor julian asunder bel martian bank of may 2000 and my cheese in no position to be extra either to a prison system or, you know, as the one in the us. and you know, i just like to take a step back here. the actual discussion is that he should not even be in prison. why? why is he being, you know, die that in the 1st place, given that he's not committed any crime was, you know, this is what is better. uh, better as you know, he's a flight risk because he sought to political asylum and gained it in london. and all his journalism as it were, just not protect him from the u. s. espionage act. that's what judge vanessa buried,

sir said, that's why it's only is help. that's a consideration. i'm really glad you mentioned that because that's the scandal in this case. if you look at that 1st instance judgement, that was, that's not a victory for the julian of sanji. you know, campbell for during the summer himself or for press freedom, one for that matter. it is a truck because in a little preceding prejudicial, always goes through 2 or 3 instance. why not extra riding him in the 1st madison court level? what that did legally speaking, is that he puts the us in the position to appeal. otherwise, had he been extradited, the junior signs would have appealed and he would have brought all those questions of press freedom of political offence, political motivation in that prosecution. the attempts of fascination and kidnapping, all those things he would have brought to the high court. maria after to switch much stronger independence and expertise, but it was quite smart by the u. s. and the u. k. to,

to have it arranged the other one. so they don't extroverted. and in the 1st instance they, they basically confirmed a whole narrative about you. if you're not act acquisitions of everything, and set the precedent criminalizing basic the journalist for that matter, but they will only bring those questions of the people that they want to have to consider. but just to the us and the state of health and their prison conditions and now mind you, their prison conditions is absolutely in their control. they can make diplomatic guarantees at any stage of to any extent to neutralize those concerns. they can offer medical services, they can offer no guarantees when they got to the conditions of retention, which makes it very difficult from a high court. now to refuse expedition. yes, james or his case, he seemed to be saying, we have a psychiatric asylum. we can throw julian sans into if he has mental problems once a extradited in given what you just said is it, and some of the wiki leeks,

lawyer edwards, gerald. you see, to me, in a way, excepting the criminalization of journalism and appealing to the judges, all right, and burnett that look and he shouldn't be extradited because of that early a judgement. and this is what it is you, you know, the global sales, you know, cases of torture all around the world. isn't it more normal for a defense barrister to be claiming this court isn't even as something that should be should be respected. you already criminalize journalism, your judicial system. we shouldn't accept anything from this court. well, the question is that the moral stands for the question and how much is that gonna help julian the sanction the legal proceedings? and yes, it is a scandal batch, you know the espionage actually the u. s. in itself is campbell, the official secrets act and the u. k. in itself is a scandal because both of them criminalized the disclosure of secret information irrespective of public interest. the high court cast changed and they can certainly

they can certainly, you know, be reasonable and apply the law to the the medical states that you know junior passengers and they know exactly what the prison conditions are like in the us. as far as i know, the defense team has also crossed the peel. it's just at the cross appeal, which then brings all the other question to the for. but that obviously will only be dealt with if the u. s. successful in it's. so before we get to that stage, just to be clear as things stand right now in london, if you were about to suddenly, i dunno and show me a t v sent over a reuters journal as being gun down by helicopter gunship. both of us could be tortured. we could be subject to a u. s. secretary of state claiming that we were a non state or sale actors. worthy was us nation on the streets of london that that president has already been said and could be extradited. that that's all fine. it's just the suicide risk. well, you know,

think about the murder of george floyd which was recorded on video and only because of that video. busy check that that clip. we had the evidence that george floyd was actually murdered and there was no, you know, that was not a medical crisis. it was not a case of self defense or something. it was just notice that the cache and, but in that case, the public protests against santa police police brutality which, you know, the authority is not being able to avoid prosecuting those officials. unfortunately, in the case of collateral murder, there are simply has been a completely different narrative of the us going out there and you know, fighting terrorism and so on. and it's very, very difficult for an average citizen who doesn't have privileged access to, you know, what actually happens behind the curtains of policy making. they actually believe that made it very difficult for lame lay people to actually

understand that full picture. i believe what the mainstream process is calendar. you know, when you started your special united nations investigation into the case of judy and assange. you were, you weren't alone there. lots of supporters of julian sons, but there weren't so many groups today. every major human rights and free speech organization in the world. a backs your allegations arguably have. why then do you think it's not a big a mainstream media story? it is here in r t. i cannot speak for them. i think it's a scandal that it isn't because, i mean, this is the absolutely key case on press freedom on freedom of expression, but far beyond that on human rights and human dignity on the integrity of our rule of law. institutions of our judicial independence of outer destroys the transparency right?

to know that people have a right to know what their governments are doing with the tax money and the power that we, the people delegate to our government. this is about our rights. you know, it's about your ability to oversee, to control and you know, the integrity of, of, of your government. because if that becomes a crime with union essentially done, you know, nothing that he has been accused except receiving and publishing. evidence for let's see, has been proven. you know, this whole section allegations have been dropped by sweden, not because it's, you know, expired or something like this. but because they didn't have enough evidence to even charge them of any offense whatsoever. after 9 years, this was instrumental iced to demonize. you know, this, the thing about him having blood is, i mean, it's a ridiculous claim because we know that the u. s. government for, you know,

what an a decade has not been able to advance a single case individual who may have been put in danger because of those publications. even know now that during the central lot, even the 1st person who publish those under acted files. but he made them accessible on we can mix as well after they have been made accessible by a passport being published by 2 guardian journalists and stayed in the weekly journal fi talking in germany. and she did so only after he had taken contact with the white house and tried to do damage control because of the leaks by those other actors. but what we know is that the evidence that she has that's not about people being threatened. that's people being portrait, people being great. people being murdered, you know, under front of her running camera at these people have never been processed. have never been how to account. and so this is really what this is about. it's about

protecting the impunity of criminals, of corrupt politicians. this is what this is about. so we want to intimidate the person who has come up with a general idea how to use the internet to allow whistleblowers to remain anonymous while transmitting. you know, millions of files that prove a government misconduct. obviously if that proliferates and you have only one which weeks that we have $15000.00, which leaks around the world, then you know, the kind of security establishment, but they're secrecy. they can pack up and leave with their business model. they really have to start then applying democratic principles being subject to democratic oversights, respect to rule of law, and that's just not today's reality. his finally am, i don't know whether that means the journalist themselves, their minds are arbitrarily detained. but i don't know whether you caught glimpses

of julian assange at the trial this week. he doesn't look well. his partner selim, or as his father john shipped and they, they will look worried. what will it mean for whistleblowers and publishers in the global south on torture? nobody detention what would it mean for, for journalism v if he, if he does, it's probably time. now when we start asking this question, if he dies in london under the jurisdiction of british authorities here. well, if you see a guy in prison, he has effectively been tortured to death. that's the reality of it. i mean, i am not exaggerate. it has been working in areas of war. i have long history of visiting prisoners. i visited during their sons and i have to specialize forensic doctors with me in a psychiatrist evaluating him for hours and you know, be all independently from each other kendra's conclusions. at that time his life was in danger. and he sure enough, a few days after we left the prison,

he entered the downward spiral. during the sound is not mentally ill. yes, he has a slight form of autism, as you know many people do, but he is very resilient, intelligent man. and. and so he does not belong in a mental institution, right? so if he has a mental issue now it's because of abuse that he has suffer. and you cannot, you cannot get someone to recover from torture by continuing, continuing to torture him. and that's exactly what they do, they isolate him, they keep him in that limbo. busy and just put his record straight for everybody doing this and is not serving a sentence. he's not even accused of a any anything that would be criminal. he is being held in extradition detention to, as he said, to prevent his escape in case he should be extra young. but he does not need to be in belmar prison for that. even if you,

even if we assume for the purpose of the argument that yes back expedition proceeding as a did him a, do you have to somehow secure his presence? he can be in house or us. that's what it is. it was the p. no say he was protected by the u. k. government to put him in a villa. my does. hatcher visited him, the brought embassy and as soon as he, you know, a doctor, a test that, that she had some problems to concentrate and had slight forms of amnesia. he was fumbled out. maybe not even facing a dutch do. nathan, who has been great, you know, medical harm has been close to him in the last decade to that, to a constant, you know, isolation, defamation, and abuse. and up, i come from anxiety that he suffers and he's being isolated absolutely, unnecessarily and therefore unlawful. so she is continuously also arbitrarily detained. it would be a tragedy if she lost his life in those circumstances. he went special opportunity

. thank you. thank you very much. after the break, the queen putin and she may not be going, but why did the budget of the boards, johnson government, just sabotage. net 0 targets. they had the weekends comp $26.00 conference? well, the to more can we have about to have going underground ah, ah, the russia, there's tons of car was discontinued north 20 years ago, a sort of a deal with just important doctors. it took 5 years to close the gap on the world car industry from the drawing board to the 1st finished model scripture, so we'll over certify, excellent roles, key of dealing with the funeral motion from a smartphone. bullshit for the commercial with crockett,

with, [000:00:00;00] with welcome back i browser raised the head of tomorrow's cop, 26 summers in glasgow, embarrassed johnson's goldman sachs employee to and you. k, chancellor richey snack. used his budget to cut taxes on car driving little into sledge taxes on champagne. joining me from suffolk in england is an award winning advisor to governments around the world, the director of primal policy research in macroeconomics and peasant. and thanks so much for coming back on big argument going underground headquarters. i have to say, because when you watch the television, they're saying, you know, not a bad budgets and

a lot of slight of hand. some were saying one and 4 children are in poverty in this country, but i guess it's called 26. so i've got to start by asking you why is they worth johnson's chancellor wishy select, incentivizing airplane, travel and car driving? i think that's one of the big disappointment. she should like. he seems to think that the financial system and the pastry fits of heart from something called the ecosystem, the environment and it doesn't. it's very much a part of it. so what the shows you is that the graph, the gravity of the climate breakdown of the crisis that we face of climate breakdown and biodiversity that gravity hasn't yet reached him. and that's extraordinarily wiring. boy, children had to sign off on this and his wife certainly is a keen environmentalist. ringback to be fetch the conservative government, they are going quite a lot further than we expected them to you and we have to ruin the market. such it

was one of the 1st to raise awareness of climate crisis at the united nation many years ago. so it is possible for them to be aware of this, but yes, not to undertake the policy, a reforms that a needed to actually adapt off to this threat. well, he did say the minimum wage is going up. i mean, these are emblematic of the flights of and this wage boost ensures we're making work brand, keep us on track and we don't talk to in low pay by the end of this parliament without really figuring out what effect that'll have and say the lowest wages of the tax national insurance. so some people, some people on some of the poorest households will see their incomes rising. but then the total effect of the other reforms, the reforms to the benefit system means that their incomes will in fact fall. so it's, it's a really difficult thing to untangle and what he is trying to do,

and what i think is interesting is that this conservative government is trying to cover up if you like, the mistakes that have been made of the last 11 years since dark george osborne's budget in 2010 and it cuts to the public sector that has been inflicted since then and done enormous damage to the economy. then to get it to try and cover up the back that getting to try and reverse that. and they're doing it in ways that are unfortunately still quite shadow. so for example, expenditure on education is going up. it is intended to reach the same levels. it was in 2012, 10, the level of investment in 2010 by 2024. so it's have, are they are trying to improve on those cut so that, that austerity it's, it's really minimal. yeah, but i mean, you know, he is cutting the bank levy surcharge by infect 660

percent. why do you think he's doing that? we're getting 2 thirds of those on the welfare universal credit, which he caught money from. no extra benefit on the call, the taper, our international viewers were wonder wouldn't earth we're talking about. but why? i mean, is he trying to contact his own bank so that they remember him when they drive by british debt wasn't doing it. this is a populist government with an atc majority and they want to maintain that majority in those constituencies where there are no for a lot of poor people and very few goldman sachs bankers. but at the same time, they of course are in hoc to the city of london and to their donors. and who are, you know, we're not from the red wall seats. so they've got to balance this, these, these different challenges. and they finding that difficult. but for me,

the really worrying thing action is that actually what they're doing is damaging the economy further. so from the macroeconomic perspective, you can do give, you know, tax breaks to the bankers but by increasing taxes on average earners essentially by, by building up the level of taxation to 36 percent of g, p, u r. in fact, taking money out of the economy, you're taking spending money out of the economy and simultaneously wage is not rising relative to re inflation. so we see a real cut in incomes. this combination of falling and stagnating comes on the one hand and tax revenues being taken out of the economy on the other. while investment levels of investment remain low and all gain to remain as long as the threat of interest rate sells. that means that the macroeconomy is not gained to expand. it's

not going to be increased economic activity over the next period. and that was because the poor people spend every penny they have in the rich think. keep it in the bank or by offshore property arguably, you know, we talked on this program, sheffield, but also because of bricks. it was the ongoing impacted breakfast on the bay. she called me as gate to deepen the damage or failure to exploit bricks that of your brakes. a tier of the stick, sheffield is over as the you know, said the city of london cost, the british economy 4 and a half trillion between 90952015. $70000.00 pounds, a personal tune of years of output. i mean, we've set it on this for instead of reducing taxes on the city of london. so would it be better for the economy for it to be burned down? i have to be honest the you know, that the city of london is a major source of tax revenues for the government. and so yeah, that's heard. it isn't the chevy university. so it was clear that if you add it all in all the hidden subsidies to the city of london, you add in all,

obviously there we have the bailouts from graduate. they are a net loss to this economy. there is no point in them being that's true, but that's also true for the globally can action it. wow. yes. so, but, i mean, i, i, as you know, i'm, i'm, i'm well known as the fact that i think the city of london is unhelpful to the stability of the british economy. but, you know, it's, as it is, and the government is determined to support it. and to defend it, as is indeed the governor of the bank of england and, and at the same time neglecting, if you like the real economy where things are made and grown and expanded. and that neglect is going to make it harder to keep land as an attractive venue for, for the global financial, for those active in global financial system. what do you think of how the

mainstream television media cover budgets in this country? there's been a lot of criticism of the stimulus package in the united states and barrel of politics as they were faced trouble over here. i mean, people going, this is a sanded labor torrie type of budget, which, you know, he's showing himself to be a keynesian. and so on and he's, he's a, he's not fatter, right? this is a left wing budget. well, i mean on the one hand that is being fed and it's also the case said, tory back bench is a very unhappy with the level of tax. right. and this is a tax and spend go and by the way i, i resent the implication that it's keynesian kits, kansas is not a texas bender. but the fact of the matter is that this is a government that is behaving very differently from previous conservative governments. and i think the media don't fully understand how to handle it, but it's definitely, you know, there's definitely

a populist government that is trying to appeal to much broadest way of the electric then with thrashing taxes and champagne and beer. i mean, because it was clear that when the minister was asked on television about whether this will raise the standard of living, they didn't want to be drawn on it. and one resolution foundation, things said that everyone is going to be worse off in the next few years. yeah, that's true. i mean, that there's a lot of contradictions analyst. there are a lot of contradictions in what this government is trying to do. but i would argue that it is popular in the sense that it's trying to deal away. and this distance itself from the 2010 to an 2016 torrie government under george osborne and distance itself from that kind of policies that were attach. right? we really difficult to separate yourself from the david cameron government, which is reduced expenditure to, i mean, the cuts were more than one of the napoleonic wars. well, the point is that,

i mean, i think it's ridiculous that they, they're pretending that they're a different government. they're a different political party, but i seen political parties change their, their colors in the past, and this is what they're trying to do well with us before labor, privatization, time them again. i know you advised those government or the you to advise mass privatization just to help our viewers in britain because they'll see the office of budget responsibility. what is what is that? because it's treated with such respect, my journalist and i think you treated that as well. danny blanch flora, a friend of the show was on the military policy committee, said the officer budget responsibility is repeatedly got to say, group productivity growth, wrong time and time and time again. and yet journalists go, let's go straight here for more information on every once in the future for everyday life in this country. well, i think in, as i agree with you, the i b r is incredibly orthodox in the way it approaches these that the british

economy and has made an awful lot of wrong predictions is danny blanche sherman. and i think it is beginning to lose credibility. media because it got so much wrong in the spring of this year when it projected said so things were going to be far worse and they've turned out to be. so i think you're being a bit unfair to the media because they do, they have noticed, i noticed this and i think it's quite ha, under it's new management for the o. b r to uphold its reputation as, as a sound, a sounding board for the government. we've all known all along the seattle or is actually just an extension of her majesty's treasury. there's never boy, they say they really don't until 5 year for god, for the economy. the forecast company, the budget, a corporate. mm. bye, good tax. the very standard statement we got for we, we are, you being very kind to journalists, i have to say just finally quickly on the aid and we've covered on this program,

our aid is being used to arguably a al qaeda link rebels in syria. it's used as an arm of the foreign office here and even the intelligence services they persuaded him to say, look, we will go back to point 7 percent aid so that a more aid can be used as a foreign policy tool by government as the host of the of of cop trench 6 and it's climate conference. the government has to pressure other governors into coming up with a $100000000000.00 a year, which has been promised to poor countries to help tackle climate breakdown. and the fact they've cut their own or source their own grounds to poor countries. it has proved incredibly embarrassing and tories in the house of lords have objected to this story party has objected to this, and so they are beginning to pull back on it. but you know, this again is just an example of the kind of chaotic and very difficult to

understand a politics of this, of this government and burn it. but it's part of this package of, on the one attaching the economy. on the other hand, you know, doing a you turn on age to low income countries and certainly just ignoring the security threat to the british people of climate break that an extraordinary thing is that in the opinion polls it is still maintaining public support. comp. heather, thank you. that's over the show will be back on monday when we discussed cop $26.00 with britain's former climate change minister and 11 years who have sort of a month. when wiki leaks, julian sans publish redacted hundreds of thousands of us diplomatic cables, detailing deceit on a global scale until then keep in touch by social media and let us know if you think this week's london fans court hearing was

a u. k. sponsored show trial ah, prices are just going up and people are hiding it by serving smaller portions and have the same prices. we've seen this the grocery store with packaged goods, packets, cookies, packets, toiletries like tooth paste, and mouthwash coming in smaller packages, but the same price. some people haven't noticed it, but things are getting out of control. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on offensive, very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful,

very critical time time to sit down and talk with ah, it was clumsy. wasn't allowed grace. time to apologize, jo, by to meet somebody on the chrome for the 1st time since the announcement of an australian submarine deal many in paris. so as a stop in the park with it alive, news event happening right now. we're going to take you to break it into a regular programming, rushes president so potent just speaking of the weekend, the g. 20 summit. let's cross village 31st or if i have to say that this is very much in line with what we're all doing today. sir, i see and rushes position. yep. willis. lucia was as far as i understood from the previous statements, is very much aligned with what our colleagues have said last year because of the