ah, hoteliers, poor on to the streets of rome, demanding world leaders take action to stop climate change. as the italian capital hosts the g. 20 summit doctors in france warned that budget cuts are leading to staff shortages that comes as top scientists claim. the national health care system is on the brink of collapse with the pandemic taking hold. once again. i c, g, cause it's the government. this to blame for the shortage of medical personnel fronts is the only country in the world that's been cutting funding during the pandemic. medical staff, the outraged brightness and ready to quit over and wanting to tell me, ah, and trash piles up in new york as sanitation workers protest against the covey dot inoculation mandate on vaccinated city employees are to be placed on unpaid leave from monday because you're headlines at this hour that does it for me,

but don't worry, my colleague sandy farmer will be here in just under an hour's time with a full and fresh look to news. this is our international collab had with us. ah, i mean, ah, i'm african retention. we're going underground not far from this week's arguable london show trial against journalism, coming up with the show 48 hours after another court hearing. in the case of julian, a son, jesse on the verge of being freed from bill mush prism, 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 called 26,

get some to way in blinds go. why did you? k p. morris. johnson's x, goldman sachs chancellor, just lashed taxes on fossil fuels and champagne in the 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 to the system in this specific case. are 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 is a, his health is fine, he can be expedited to face a possible 175 years in, in the united states in jail as well. thank you very much for holding you 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 a medical evidence that by the way, corresponds exactly to the findings that, you know, we can to, with my own medical cheaper visit a 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 i that in the 1st place, given that he's not committed any crime was, you know, this is what it's better. uh, better 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 breakthrough said, that's why it's only as help. that's a consideration. i'm really glad you mentioned that because that's the scandal in the states. if you look at that 1st instance judgement, that was, that's not

a victory for the julian of sanji. you know, capital for, during the assumption itself or for press freedom and for that matter, it is a truck because in a little preceding prejudicial, always goes through 2 or 3 instance by 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 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. that a tense of assassination and came having all those things he would have brought to the high court. maria of georgia switch, much stronger independence and expertise. but it was quite smart by the u. s. and the u. k. 2 to have it arranged. the other one, so they don't extroverted him. in the 1st instance, they basically confirmed

a whole narrative about yes, nice act acquisitions of everything and set the precedent to criminalize message the journalist for that matter. but they will only bring those questions that they want to have to consider. but just to me as under 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 with regard to the conditions of attention, which makes it very difficult for the high court. now to refuse expedition. yes, james, the excuse. he seemed to be saying we have a psychiatric asylum. we can throw julian sans into if he has mental problems once a extradited and given what you just said, is it sensible for wiki leaks, lawyer edwards. gerald, you see to me in a way, excepting the criminalization of journalism and appealing to the judges, all right, in 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 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 a something that you me, should we respected you already criminalize journalism, your judicial system? we shouldn't accept anything from this court. well, the question is, that's a moral stance, but the question is, how much is that gonna help julian? the sounds in the legal proceedings, and yes, it is a scandal. but you know, the espionage acting, the u. s. in itself is a scandal, but official secrets act in the u. k. in itself is a scam, or 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 that the cross appeal which then brings all those other question before, but that 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 t v center, or roger's journal is being gunned down by helicopter gunship or 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 sal 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 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. there was not a trace 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 narrative, very difficult for lane 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 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 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 judiciary, independence of outer, destroys the, you know, 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 leslie has been proven. you know, this whole sexual 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. 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 you know central not even the 1st person who

published those and redacted files. but he made them accessible on we can as well after they have been made accessible by a password 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 at these people have never been processed. i've 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 which leaks that we have $15000.00, which leaks around the world, then you know, the kind of security establishment with their secrecy, they can pack up and leave it their business lay really has to start. then, applying democratic principles being subject to democratic oversights, respect the rule of law, and that's just not today's reality. his finely am, 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 selah morris, 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 die. now when we start asking this question, if he dies in london under the jurisdiction of british authorities here. well, if you should dying prison, he has effectively been tortured to death. that's the reality of it. and i'm not exaggerate. and i've been working in areas of war. i have a 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 candidates 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 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 by keeping him back limbo and just was put his 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 you shouldn't be extra bit young. but he does not need to be in belmar prison for that. even if you isn't a free, assume for the purpose of the argument that yes back extradition proceeding as a did him and we have to somehow secure his presence. he can be in house or us.

that's what it is. it was the pin or say he was protected by the u. k. government to put them in a belie my does. hatcher visited him abroad, kamisky, 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. maybe not even facing a dutch do. nathan, who has a great, you know, medical harm has been close 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. it would be a tragedy if she lost his life. in those circumstances. he went special epitaph, 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 tongue. it's the head of the weekends. comp 26 conference.

well, the to more can we have about to have going underground. ah hello, goodbye dreamer shapes bankers are those with there's sinks. we dare to ask join me every thursday on the alex salmon show and i'll be speaking to guess in the

world of politics. sport, business, i'm sure business. i'll see you then. mm. ah. welcome back. eyebrows raised the head of tomorrow's cop. 26 summers in glasgow. embarrassed johnson's goldman sachs employee to you. k, chancellor ritchie 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 had gorgeous. i have to say, because when you watch the television, they're saying, you know, not a bad budget and a lot of slight of hand. some were saying, you know, 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 i worth johnson's chancellor wishy sort of 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 treasury sits. ringback apart from something called the ecosystem, the environment and it doesn't, it's very much a part of it. so what this 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 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 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 undertake the policy reforms that are 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 brand. keep us on track to me to target, to envelope a by the end of this parliament without really figuring out what effect that'll have on say, the lowest wages of the taxi 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 door does borne's budget in 2010 and, and it cuts to the public sector that has been inflicted since then and done enormous damage to the economy. then to get in to try and cover up the back there to get in to try and reverse that. and again, 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 201210 level of investment in 2010 by 2024. so and so are they are trying to improve on those cut so that that austerity it's, it's really minimal. yeah, but i mean 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 cut money from. no extra benefit from something called a taper. our international views were wonder wouldn't we're talking about. but why amusing trying to contact his own bank so that they remember him when they drove by british debt wasn't doing it. this is a populist government with an 88 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 hall seats. so they've got to bounce this, 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 d p. you are 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 low as long as the threat of interest rates holes. that means that the macroeconomy is not going to expand is not going to be increased economic activity over the next period. and that poorly because the poor people spend everybody, they are 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 brick set, at course the ongoing impact of breakfast on the british ms gate deepened the damage or failure to exploit bricks that if you're a bricks, a tier of the stick, sheffield is, if it has the you know, said the city of london cost, the british economy 4 and a half trillion between 9095201570000 pounds, a personal tune of years of output. i mean we've set it on this brew instead of reducing taxes on the city of london. oh, 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 showed it isn't the several university survey was clear that if you add it all in all the hidden subsidies to the city of london, you add in all of you see there, we have the bailouts from january. they are a net loss to this economy. there is no point in them being here. 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 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 book barrel of

politics. so as they were 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 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. but this is a tax and spend government. and by the way, i, i resent the implication that it's keynesian pits, cancer 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 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 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. 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 a way. 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've really difficult to separate yourself from the david cameron government, which is 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, they're 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 advise 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 getting 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 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 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 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 seattle or is actually just an extension of her majesty's treasury. there's never been a crazy retail until 5 year for god for the economy. the forecasts a company, the budget, the corporate, via by good tax, the very standard state. when we got really, we are 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 the mora aid can be used as a foreign policy tool by governments. 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 grants to poor countries is as proved incredibly embarrassing and tories in the house of lords have objected to this, the tory party has objected to the they're 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. 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 aid to low income countries and certainly just ignoring the security threat to the british people of climate break. doctor, 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 and 11 years. it was sort of a month. when wiki leaks, julian, the sons published 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 means london. such court hearing was a u. k. sponsored show trial ah, join me every 1st on the alex simon.