la was this just tested under the wrong law that it shouldn't necessarily have been questioning a comedians. right? to make jokes about any subject to an audience that's paid to say them though perhaps they should have been another law that it went full, bullying, child protection, something else. i don't know very well. all the lowest, you know, canadian lows, but i can tell you that. i mean this might have been the right wanting fact. the 1st the appeal was successful for the mother and for the child. again, we have to give a clear message to old comics out there. you don't make these horrible jokes with children. don't let the children along their children. okay. and a lot of us wouldn't do that to with other people, but not what she had done. and more than that is that is a and, and ron me, well, i just want to say this in response to that, a lot of comedians and, and i would like to think i'm one of them. it is possible for us to have 2 thoughts in our head at the same time thought number one, that's a joke that

a lot of us would never make. i personally would never make a joke like that that's me. but another thought that i am also able to have in my head at the same time is i can see the dangerous slippery slope of having legal consequences for someone who chooses to make such a joke. even if i find it an incredibly poor taste. and you know, free speech is just her virtue that i think it's very important and without it, i certainly wouldn't have a job and i don't think you would either. so. okay, well, all 3 of you, certainly the pile owns and the canceling. it can be the hardening to a fan base or it can, and some careers really appreciate you. all 3 of you joining us on our team tonight . and this was not just some random guy. this was a celebrity. okay. okay, and i know what led the guy i live out of time. i think a disturbing thank you for have a guy. i know that he wants to make for have a home to an oncall story and on stage, but 3 of you. alright. alright. who'd be

a company on a comedy? no, i saw that. cit from all t for this hour. i'll have your next news and not 30 minutes. ah ah, i ah, i'm african retention. we're going underground not far from this week's arguable london show trial against journalism, coming up in the show 48 hours after another court hearing. in the case of julian, the son, jesse on the verge of being freed from bill mush prison. we ask the un repertoire

of torture who continues to allege the world's most famous publisher is being tortured by u. k. authorities and is cop 26 gets underway in glasgow. why did you k p. m morris . johnson's x, goldman sachs chancellor, just slashed taxes on fossil fuels and champagne in a country where one in 4 children live in poverty. all the small 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 router and torture niels meltzer, whose evidence has been used in julian sanchez defense. thank you so much. a neil's for coming back on you have been told by british politicians. i understand no to interfere with our court to the system in this specific case. we now know that the joe biden administration's a crown prosecution lawyer here, proxy lawyer here at james louis ques. he says, julian assange, his health is fine. he can be expedited to face a possible 175 years in,

in the united states, in jail. as you are traveling back on the show i'm, you know, obviously you would expect to say that, right? and they're 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. you know, we can to, with my own medical teeth and visited julian asunder, bel, martian bank of may 2019, he's 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, and neither in the 1st place, given that he's not committed any crime was, you know, this is what it's better about. as you know, he's a flight risk because he saw to political asylum and gained it in london. and all his journalism, as it were, does not protect him from the u. s. espionage act. that's what judgment as

a rates are said. that's why it's only his health. 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 sanji or you know, candle for during the sun from self 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 by not extra guiding him in the 1st madison court level. what that did legally speaking is that he puts the us in the position to appeal, otherwise hadn't been extroverted than julia sans 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 assassination and came having 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. at the u. k. 2 to have it arranged the other one. so they

don't extroverted him in the 1st instance they, they basically confirmed a whole narrative about yes, you're not act acquisitions of everything and set the precedent to criminalize investigative journalist for that matter. but they will only bring those questions to the appeals court that they weren't, that are considered. but juno sanders state of health and their prison conditions and now mind you, their present 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 with regard to the conditions of retention, which makes it very difficult for the high court now to refuse extradition. yes, james, those scuse, seem 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 sends him of a wiki leaks, lawyer edwards. gerald, you see to me in a way,

excepting the criminalization of journalism and appealing to the judges, all royd and burnett that look, he shouldn't be extradited because of that early a judgement. and this is what it is you, you know, the global south, 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 something that you, me 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 stance? but the question is, how much is that gonna help julian? the sounds of the legal proceedings, and yes, it is a scandal that you know the espionage actually the u. s. in itself is a scandal. but official secrets act in the u. k. in itself is a scandal because both of them criminalized disclosure of secret information, irrespective of public interest. the high court can change that. 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 appeal. it's just that the cross appeal, which then brings all those other questions before, but obviously will only be dealt with if the u. s. is 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 tv set of roaches journalist being gun down by and i got the gun ships for 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 cell 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 . is 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 is that clear? we have the evidence that george floyd was actually murdered and there was no, you know, there was not a medical crisis. there was not a case of self defense or something. it was just no justification. and, but in that case, the public protests against santa bullies police brutality which, you know, the authority not be able to avoid prosecuting those official. unfortunately, in the case of collateral murder, there are simply has been a completely different narrative of the u. s. going out parents 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, of, of policy making. they actually believe that narrative, very difficult for a late late people to actually understand that full picture,

i believe what the mainstream press 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 judy and sons, but there weren't so many groups to day. 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 him. 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 on human rights and human dignity on the integrity of our rule of law. institutions of our judiciary, 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 delegates 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 less. you have 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 human in 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, not even the 1st person who published those and redacted files. but he made them accessible on wiki leaks as well, after they have been made accessible by a passer being published by 2 guardian journalists and stayed in the weekly journal for 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, the leaks by those other actors. so what we know is that the evidence that she has that's not about people being threatened, that people being portrait, people being great. people being murdered, you know, under front of her running camera. and these people have never been trusted. have never been how to account and so this is really what this is about. it's about

protecting to impunity. 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 the half of the only one we can leaks 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 finely and i don't know whether that means the journalist himself, 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 should, guy in prison, he has effectively been tortured to death. that's the reality. i mean, i am not exaggerate, and i've 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 4 hours and no 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 boundary spiral. during the

sound is not mentally ill. yes, he has a slight form of autism as you know when 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 and because of abuse that he has suffer and you cannot, you cannot get someone to recover from torture by continuing, continuing to torture. and that's exactly what they do. they isolate trim, they keep in back limbo. busy and just put the record straight for everybody doing this and is not serving a sentence. he's not even accused of a any anything that will be criminal. he is being held in extradition detention to, as you said, to prevent his escape in case he should be extra bit 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,

that extradition proceeding of the did him and we have to somehow secure his presence, it can be in house arrest. that's what it is. it was the pin or say he was protected by the u. k. government to put them in the law. margaret thatcher visited him and brought him misty, and as soon as he, you know, a doctor attested that he had some problems to concentrate and had slight forms of amnesia he was fumbled out. are we not even facing a dutch do? his aunt who has been grave, you know, medical harm has been cause to him in the last decade to that, to a constant. you know, i solution defamation and abuse, and up a come from anxiety that he suffers. and he's being isolated absolutely unnecessarily and therefore unlawful. so she is continuously also arbitrarily to change. it would be a tragedy if she lost his life in those circumstances. he had 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 boys, johnson government, just sabotage. net 0 targets ahead of the weekends club $26.00 conference? well, the to more can we have about to have going underground. welcome back. i browser raised editor more as cop 26 summit in glasgow. morris, johnson's goldman sachs employee turned you. k. chancellor ritchie snack used his budget to cut his own car driving little undecided taxes on champagne. joining that from suffolk in england is an award winning advisor to governments around the world, the director of prime policy research in macroeconomics, and peasant. and thanks so much for coming back on big argument going underground had gorgeous. i have to say, because when you watch the television, they're saying, you know, not a bad budgets and a lot of slides of hand. some were saying, you know, one in 4 children are in poverty in this country, but i guess it's comp 26. so i got to start by asking you, why is they worth johnson, chancellor ritchie, select incentivizing airplane,

travel and car driving. i think that's one of the big disappointment that me she said i key seems to think that the financial system and the treasury sits 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 here, that the graph, the gravity of the climate breakdown of the crisis that we face of climate breakdown and biodiversity kept that gravity hasn't yet reached him. and that's extraordinary wiring boys. johnson had to sign off on this and his wife certainly is a keen environmentalist to be fetch the conservative government. they are going quite a lot further than we expected them to you and we have to ruin that, that market such it was one of the 1st to raise awareness of that climate crisis at the united nation many years ago. so it is possible for them to be aware of this,

but yes, not undertake the policy, a reforms that a needed to actually adapt asked to this threat. well, he did say the minimum wage is going up. i mean, is that emblematic of the slides of hand this wage boost ensures we're making work and keep us on track to meet our target, to end low pay by the end of this parliament without really figuring out what effect that'll have on say the lowest wages after tax national insurance, so some people, some people on some of the poorest households will see their income's 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, but what he is trying to do, and what i think is interesting, as at 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

a budget in 2010 am and it cuts to the public sector that have been inflicted since then and done enormous damage to the economy. then to get in to try and cover up the back that be getting to try and reverse that. and they're doing it in ways that are unfortunately still quite shallow. so for example, expenditure on education is going up, but it's intended to reach the same levels. it was in 2012, 10, the level of investment in 2010 by 2024. so and have are, as they are trying to improve on those cut so that, that austerity, it's a bit rarely minimal. yeah, but i mean, i. e is cartoon. the bank levy surcharge by infect 660 percent. why do you think he's doing that? well, getting 2 thirds of those on the welfare universal credit,

which he cut money from, no extra benefit from some the goal, the taper, our international views were wonder wouldn't earth we're talking about. but why? i mean, is he trying to count taxes on bank so that they remember him when they joined by british debt? what is it doing it? this is a populace to government with an atc majority and they want to maintain that majority in those constituencies. whether or not a lot of poor people are very few goldman sachs it. but it's 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 hole seat. 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 it,

you know, tax breaks to the bankers, but by increasing taxes on average. and is essentially by, by building up the level of taxation to 36 percent of g d p. you are, in fact taking money out of the economy are 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 low as long as the threat of interest rate sells. that means that the macroeconomy is not gain to expand is not going to be increased economic activity over the next period. and that was the poor as people spend everybody they are when the rich think, keep it in the bank or by offshore property arguably, you know,

we talked on this program, sheffield, but also because bricks it was, the ongoing impact of breakfast on the british economy is going to deepen the damage or failure to exploit bricks that of your brakes. a tier of history, sheffield. this is, vito said, the city of london cost the british economy for an off trillion between 9095201570000 pounds, a personal tune of years of output. i mean, we've set on this for you 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, you know, that the city of london is a major source of tax revenues for the government. and so yeah, that should it isn't the chevry 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 january. 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 global economy action. it would work. yes. so, but, i mean, i, i'm, 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 grow 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 book barrel of politics. so as they will face trouble over here, i mean, people going, this is a,

sounded laboratory 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 voucher, right? this is a left wing butchered. well, i mean on the one hand that is being said, and it's also the case that tory back bench is a very unhappy with the level of tax. right. and this is a tax and spend gum. and by the way, i, i resent the implication that it's keynesian kits, kansas is not a tax id, ben. 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 doesn'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 taxes and jumping 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. yet, 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 georgia, 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 i reduced expenditure to, i mean, the cuts were more than more than napoleonic wars. well, the point is that, i mean, i think it's ridiculous that they are pretending that there are different government. there are different political party that 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. again, i know you advised those governors of the you to advise mass privatization just to help our viewers here 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 having you tweeted out as well. danny blanche flora, a friend of the show was on the monetary policy committee. said the officer, budget responsibility is repeatedly got to say group productivity growth, wrong time and time and time again. and yet, john, let's 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 it i agree with you the o. 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, as shown. and it, i think it is beginning to lose credibility with media because it got so much wrong

in the spring of this year when it predicted said so things were going to be far worse than 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 notice this and i think it's quite ha, under its 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 u. r is actually just an extension of her majesty's treasury. there's never believe they say they really do detail 5 year for gas for the economy. the forecast company, the budget, a corporate via burglar tax, the very standard state. when we got from we obee are you being very kind to journalists, i have to say just finally quickly, on the aid that we've covered on this program, our aid has been 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 the more aid can be used as a foreign policy tool by governments, as the host of the of of cop trench 6 and this 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 grants to poor countries is as proved incredibly embarrassing and tories in the house of lords have objected to this story party has objected to this, so they beginning to pull back up. but you know, this again is just an example of the kind of chaotic and very difficult to understand politics of this, of this government. and, but it's, but it's cost of this package of, on the $1.00 hand, contracting the economy. on the other hand, you know, doing

a you turn on age to low income countries and sadly, 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. i'm heather. thank you. that's over the show will be back on monday when we discussed cop 26 with britain's former climate change minister in 11 years. it was sort of a month when wiki leaks, julian, the sons publish redacted hundreds of thousands of us diplomatic cables, detailing deceit on a global scale until then, keep in touch by social media. let us know if you think this week's london sons court hearing was a u. k. sponsored show tro ah, the test as for on the streets of rome, demanding the worldly does take action to stop climate change with the italian capital hosts the g. 20 summit.