All Episodes
Previous Next
May 20, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
30:57
Debating a Protester in #Truro
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Right, it goes into this chap's point here.
Right, so you were shouting something from the back.
Can we have, instead of shouting, can we have a discussion?
I'll take a microphone instead.
What I was shouting was you're talking about banning something and then flippantly saying, I'll just pay the 5p and take one anyway.
And that sums up the politics of you and your party.
Isn't that?
No, no.
That's exactly what you said.
Yeah, but I don't use plastic differences.
Why?
Because it's the path of least resistance.
And that's the answer to the problem.
Yeah, because often I have something more important than what bag I'm going to carry my home in.
Often you do not.
What about the day before?
Or the day before you didn't?
Sorry.
Sorry, go on.
Say again.
The day before you didn't.
I didn't.
Did you drive a car?
No, I don't, no.
You take a bus.
Yeah.
Carry some sort of bag on the bus and drain?
Sometimes, yeah.
Then take a bag for me.
Yeah, but I'm not a raging environmentalist.
My politics are just different.
What are you raging?
Free speech advocate.
Okay.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's a thing.
Just rage yourself.
Your entire contention here.
How now?
Your entire contention here is I don't share your interests, and I'm sorry, I just don't.
You don't know what my interests are.
Well, you've come here saying, well, you're a hypocrite for not doing X on plastic bags.
You don't share my interest in destroying hypocrisy.
I don't think there's such a thing as destroying hypocrisy.
Point to a person you think isn't a hypocrite.
Oh, that's not.
But I'll tell you what.
So there's no point hunting down hypocrisy because what that is, is just an ad hominem.
That's a way of avoiding a conversation about a particular issue.
Sure, but what I will point out is people that are hypocrites but aren't standing up pretending to be better than people that aren't.
Oh, who's saying they're better than who?
Well, you're putting yourself at the front here.
Yeah, but that doesn't make me better than anyone, does it?
You're right.
It doesn't make you better than anyone.
And I think that if you knew anything about me, you'd be very aware that I advocate what I call an eye-level worldview.
As in you don't see yourself above other people, especially when it comes to moral posturing, which is what I think you came here to do in the first place.
Let's be honest.
I didn't come here to do that.
That's exactly what you did when you were yelling at me, my friend.
No, no, no.
That was reacting.
That was reacting.
But that's not a problem.
That's talking about caring about something.
Is it not?
Can I score that?
Can I score that?
Like the last one was a solid eight because he wasn't.
I was talking about reasonable, respectful.
I was reacting to a comment that struck me as hypocritical.
Yes, but that's moral posturing.
And I was called.
Any allegation of hypocrisy is moral posturing.
Okay.
Of course it is.
There can't be anything.
In which case, my reaction to your comment was moral posturing, and I don't apologise for it.
I didn't agree with your comment.
I think it's unreasonable to be so flippant about something that is a massive issue and to do so in front of people who take the words that you use on board and.
Come down.
They're rational thinking beings of their own.
I mean, these people are.
Well, I've had a couple of conversations this morning that would suggest.
So you're saying you're better than them.
I'm not saying in any way, shape or form.
That is exactly how it sounds, my name is.
No, no, no.
I had a wonderful conversation with your supporter right here.
A wonderful woman.
Very interesting to talk to.
Halfway through our conversation, one of your supporters joined in our conversation, got in my face.
Yeah.
I wasn't.
Did they assault you?
Well, I've been assaulted twice since I've been there.
No, and that's disgusting.
Oh, well done.
Well done.
We got condemnation for assault.
We've got one from the opponent.
Absolutely.
Good job.
Do you get it up?
And what happens now then?
How do we hold that person who assaulted me to account?
Do you not feel that he is undermining the democratic legitimacy of this entire country by assaulting personality?
Absolutely.
So what do we do about it?
I think we ask the question.
Firstly, I think we ask, why does someone feel driven to do that?
Why does someone feel stronger?
Because I was wearing a short skirt, that's why.
Victim blaming.
Did I ask you?
See, look at this.
Look at this.
No, I'm not.
Do I disarm this?
I'm not accepting.
Is that acceptable?
But do you think?
I don't accept that.
That's how you think.
I don't.
Let me repeat.
I don't think that's acceptable.
I'm not blaming you as the victim.
Not blaming any victim.
What I am saying is, you need to ask the question: why do people feel so driven pointing at you?
I can tell you why.
Because they're whipped up into a frenzy by lies in the media.
Where does that sound familiar from?
Because it's real.
It happens all the time.
And yeah, sure, undoubtedly, Daily Mail reporting about straight bananas in the EU.
Yeah, that's media bullshit too.
But there's also a lot of bullshit that's been whipped up.
I mean, like, this lady doesn't know me.
I'm married.
I have children.
I pay my taxes.
I have no criminal record.
And yet she's there hysterically trying to get away from the story.
She's verbal assault.
Only because he stopped.
But do you think, no, no, no, no, do you think that that is the product of someone who just woke up and watched one of my videos and came down and said, sir, I have strong principled opportunities.
No, can I be honest about it?
Someone's been whipped up.
Can I be honest?
I think that's the product of someone who's been raped or knows someone who's been raped and doesn't think the rape jokes are funny.
Well, that's funny.
And I think that's a conversation that we can have, I guess.
I think you'd think they were a lot less funny if your wife had been raped.
I think you too.
I don't think you should make assumptions.
So how about we stop there?
But we can discuss the ethics of jokes if you'd like.
I'm more than happy to do that.
Do you feel equipped for it?
I don't feel equipped, but I'll give it a go.
Okay, well, do you want to find one of the people that you think might be equipped for it?
One of your fellow protesters.
Hey, I just popped up technically watching and get fixed back.
You've got one of their banners, so I really like this.
I mean, you don't really liked it.
I'm not going to throw it away.
You're not going to touch it.
Well, it's not your banner, is it?
No, you're right.
Touch it away.
I've been told that before.
I mean, you look quite like a protester.
I am quite like a protester.
Just quite.
Just quite like a protester.
Do you feel he's schooled you on a school?
I feel like I've had a conversation.
Has he learned anything?
This is one of those.
But I've spent a long time being schooled, so I was expecting that.
That was too much, but I would like, and I know this is a low bar to clear, which is sad, but I would like to at least thank you for admitting that political violence is unacceptable, which I have to say is very rare from people who come out in public to challenge conservative and right-wing politicians.
It's very unusual to get them to admit or you shouldn't be able to protect.
That's an unacceptable method of any form of discourse or discussion.
There is no advance to be made for violence.
In fact, violence is exactly the reason that the nation is where it is now.
Violence stretching back centuries is what's brought us from what you're doing.
Why are you standing on the side that does violence now?
I'm standing on a side, some of whom do violence in exactly the same way as you can't blame.
You can't blame.
Let me finish the sentence.
You can't blame.
I can't blame every UKIP supporter for the behaviour of one UKIP supporter in the same way.
You can't blame the behaviour of one protester among the people.
Way of three or four protesters, how many until I can start blaming them?
Well, you can blame all of the individuals, 100% of them.
And you stand with them even though they're doing violence.
I stand with them.
For example, if these chaps over here with the flags, these lovely gentlemen, if they started going over and attacking them, I would be talking to them and not the people who are in the middle of the day.
But you're not talking to your side, you're talking to me.
Absolutely.
Denouncing violence to us, but not to your own.
How do you know what I've denounced to them?
Well, go ahead.
That's a big assumption.
Have you denounced them?
Way ahead of them.
How have you?
Way ahead.
What did you say to them?
I said it's completely unacceptable.
It won't achieve anything.
It's personal notoriety over actual achievement.
I agree.
I think that's correct.
And I think that's correct.
But then I think you're equally as guilty of that.
You've used anyone.
Of sensationalization for personal achievement is what I was talking about.
What achievement have I made?
I think the joke that's caused these ladies to be so upset, I personally think, was a joke.
I accept the fact that it was a joke.
I accept the fact that lots of people make jokes.
The mistake is, I believe, the difference is rather than the mistake is that it doesn't feel as if there has been anywhere near enough.
Actually, you know what?
I'm not making a joke personally about you being raped.
Well, I don't make any joke about that.
I don't think there's been anywhere near enough back down from that.
It's been whipped up by your supporters.
No, not at all.
It's been whipped up by the media.
No, no, no, it's been whipped up by your supporters as an example of free speech being taken away from people.
Which it's not.
Absolutely not, right?
Nobody seems to accept the fact that free speech is, one, not a law in this country, and two, doesn't come without consequences.
And you have the ability to have free speech.
Hang on, hang on.
Right, you've got a bunch of things mixed up here.
No one's saying that speech doesn't have consequences.
Okay, what do you think?
Well, some people are, just so you know.
Okay, but I'm not, right?
I'm saying it shouldn't have legal ramifications if it's just discourse.
There's incitement to violence, fine.
But if it's someone talking to someone else, and in this case, I wasn't even talking to Jess Phillips or these ladies.
You would talk this to hundreds of thousands of people.
Yeah, but this is the atmosphere of a comedy club.
This is my channel.
You have to go there.
You have to find it yourself.
I'm not a daytime TV presenter.
I'm not broadcasting to everybody.
Can I correct you there slightly?
It's not like a comedy club because in a comedy club, if I sat there with my mobile phone filming and live streaming that comedian to people unlicensed, I would be asked to leave.
Your tweet stream.
I have the license for the stuff that I put on my channel.
But your license is retweeted by distinctions.
So it's not private.
A lot of it is screen captured and shared online.
You said it's like a comedy club where people have chosen to look at it.
That's where the public go to watch comedy.
But the chosen public, the public have chosen to go.
People are exposed to what you said via social media.
They're exposed to what you said by.
They're not.
Well, they are because I saw it.
Yeah, but you didn't see it on my channels.
You saw it from the media.
You saw it from other people.
I saw it from other people.
Exactly.
You didn't see it from me.
But that is completely the difference.
In a comedy club, I'm not sure.
So I'm responsible for someone else sharing something else on social media.
No, the point that I'm making to you is that you used an example that your stream is private like a comedy club that people are.
I didn't say private.
Sorry, that it's like a comedy club in so much people have to go there to see the act.
Yes.
What's the difference between someone trying to gin up outrage by quoting a line in a book I've published?
I mean, it's not public in the sense that you have to buy the book, but if someone takes a line out of context and puts it on the front page, like for instance, if somebody takes a joke out of context and puts it on the front page of the Metro, that person is doing the sensationalism, not us.
And if you hear about it, I was trying to make it.
From us, if you're hearing about it from them and not from us, they are the ones responsible for trying to get you mad by wrenching a remark from context, knowingly robbing it of the meaning that it originally had.
So UKIP supporters are intentionally trying to get me mad.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, that's what you just said.
I'm going to hear it from a UKIP supporter.
You heard it from the press.
I've heard it today.
You heard it from the press.
I've heard it today.
Because now it's a thing and it was made a thing by the press.
So when does it stop being the press doing it and start being a thing?
You draw that line between the people.
People stop talking about it.
That's the point.
So when it goes away.
Hang on, hang on.
I didn't put this in front of your face.
I didn't put it in Jess Phillips' face.
I put it in front of the face of people who knew what my channel was about and wanted to see it.
And then shared it.
And if you did that, no.
What do you want me to do about people who are doing it?
I don't do Twitter much.
Can you turn sharing ability off on your Twitter?
I don't have Twitter.
Instagram, Facebook.
I've been banned for years.
If you had the ability to turn off the sharing on all of your social media, would you do it?
No, why would I?
Well, because then people wouldn't be able to share it out of context.
That's fine.
That's why you're doing it.
They're allowed to share things, but ask us.
Listen, you're not engaging with the substance of what we're saying, right?
There is a particular time in a particular place.
It's not daytime TV.
It's something you have to navigate to yourself to find.
And people have been taking that as if this is somehow some sort of particle political broadcast.
As if this is a reasonable thing to take out of the context of the people.
Let me tell you, Mark DeStefano of BuzzFeed was the one who started it.
And then every other Marcus, nobody retweeted a tweet, reshared a video, nobody's going to be able to do it.
That's not a good idea.
An unreasonable standard.
But that's why you're not.
Let me give you another example, right?
Let's say that you're going to listen to Frankie Boyle, right?
At night, and one day Frankie Boyle decides to run for office.
He wants to run for Labour because he hates the Tories, all the rest of it.
Not an inconceivable scenario, right?
But then people take things that Frankie Boyle said in a book or on Twitter or in a nightclub two years ago and present them on breakfast television as something that somebody standing for public office said with a straight face.
You would rightly consider that to be a disingenuous, dishonest representation of what's going on.
If they took a rape joke or something like that.
Are you telling me you're asking me?
Well, I'm okay, I'll rephrase it as a question.
Wouldn't you rightly consider that to be an unreasonable misrepresentation of his intent if he made a joke, for instance, about women or about whatever, and it was previously.
Frankie Boyle has made jokes about a lot of things.
A lot of jokes about a lot of things.
I'm trying to answer your question.
And if it were presented as an object of moral outrage at 9 a.m. in the morning, would you not think something a bit off about that?
Not if it's morally outrageous, no.
What happens next is what's important.
So you don't have context masses there.
No, absolutely not.
What happens next?
What happens next?
What happens next is what matters.
What happens is the reaction, isn't it?
Okay, so.
Entirely what happens next is the reaction of the person that you're talking about if we're talking about yourself.
If we're talking about Frankie Boyle, if we're talking about anyone who's not a person, you seem to think they should have more protections, not less than the average citizen.
If he said this about a random person, it wouldn't be in this trouble.
He's in trouble.
Well, not in trouble, but it is a furore because he said it about an MP.
We can't make it.
And because he is a political critic, because you are a political critic.
We can't make strong criticisms, even up to the line of outrageous jokes.
So you're comparing a strong criticism with a rape joke.
Yes, yes, I am.
We can't make jokes about elected officials who have the power of the state behind them to say that.
Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to make a rape joke about a female MP.
I don't think Frankie is allowed to be able to do it.
And that's okay, so don't surprise me.
And that's okay, so don't be allowed.
Okay, hang on, hang on now.
So don't vote for him.
You have to say no.
Not in a public forum.
I'm interested in that.
You don't think it should be allowed?
In a public forum, I don't think it should be allowed.
Not without consequence.
Actually, I should rephrase that.
You can say whatever you want.
We had this conversation earlier.
What do you want to happen to him?
He made a difference.
I don't want anything to happen to him.
Well, no, you just said you don't want it to happen without consequence.
What consequence do you want from him?
The consequences should be that you should be held accountable, whether that be by public and by the furore that that's created, or whether that's by some legal system that's in place because you've made a job.
Which isn't accountable for what?
Telling a joke.
Again, in my opinion, it isn't a joke.
It's not something that's available.
It's a joke.
If you and I sit in that van driving back to wherever that van came from, and you crack a joke, and I might say to you, Carl, dude, that is close to the knuckle, man.
Back that.
End of.
It's gone away, isn't it?
That's a joke.
Freedom of speech.
I get it entirely.
But when you put that out into the public forum, you have to expect that backlash.
You have a list of what's jokes and what's not jokes.
But when do you take your hand out of his ass?
Because this is the guy that I want to talk to.
He's the brains of the outside.
I'm trying to sort of.
So what accountability does Frankie Boyle have for the jokes that he's told in public?
Oh, I think he is held entirely accountable.
An awful lot of people don't like Frankie Boyle.
He gets an awful lot of abuse on social media.
If he crosses any lines legally, I'm sure he would be prosecuted.
But he's free to walk the streets.
He's given platforms on TV, even though he said all of these terrible things.
Absolutely.
And you don't protest him, do you?
Actually, no, I wouldn't.
And I'll tell you another question.
Because there's an important difference.
It's okay for you, Kip.
No, it's not.
It's because he's a comedian.
What do you think I do?
Well, I don't think you're a comedian.
It wasn't a very fucking funny joke.
But I was making a joke and I'm an entertainer on the internet.
It's not the same thing, is it?
I take it exactly.
Just don't want it to be the same thing because you want it to be a special rule for the person you like.
No, no, no, no, no, no, I don't like it for the person you don't like.
Again, you're telling me who I do and don't like.
I didn't say I don't like you.
I said I don't agree with you.
Okay.
I didn't say I like Frankie Boyle.
Okay, that's fair.
At all.
But for some reason, I don't meet this bar that Frankie Boyle meets.
No, you mentioned that.
There's no bar for you.
I'm not comparing you to Frankie Boyle.
He's really funny.
I'm not comparing you anyway.
Yeah, you're right.
I'm not comparing you to Frankie Boyle.
It's not about a bar, is it?
It's about a line.
Yeah, but that's a good idea.
And it's about entirely, it's my opinion, and that's why I'm making statements of my opinion.
And it would also appear to be the opinion of some people that think that it's appropriate to throw milkshakes, and people think that it's appropriate to hold placards, and people think that it's appropriate to share stuff on social media.
It would appear to be appropriate to them as well.
Yeah, but it's not appropriate to a far larger number of people who have come out to hear you speak.
Actually, do you know what I reckon?
I reckon if I said, well, everybody here who is here to witness this, but not actually in support of this gentleman, would you all turn around and or walk away?
I reckon you'd lose about 25% of your audience at least.
It's not Hyde Park, is it?
I think we've got kind of.
Have you ever been to Hyde Park?
Yeah, I have.
It's not normally that busy, is it?
It used to be, is it?
I've not been that busy.
I went there fairly recently.
It wasn't that busy.
You sure it was nothing to do with you being there?
No, they didn't know I was going to be there.
Social media, my friend.
Social media.
A little bit of advertising.
You'd have whipped up a crowd now.
No, I wasn't trying to.
You didn't surround yourself by good people that are capable of creating advantage.
I think I might have managed that already.
But seriously, I think that what you're doing is just drawing a distinction based on your own opinion that isn't actually anything based in principle.
For example, you're saying, well, I don't consider you funny, therefore I consider Frankie Boyle a comedian, but not you.
No, no, no.
I consider him a comedian because that's what it says in his tax return.
I consider your joke not my tax return.
It doesn't say comedian.
How do you know?
Okay.
Does it say comedian?
It says YouTuber.
That does not say comedian.
So what's a YouTuber define a YouTuber?
That's a pointless question.
There is no definition.
A YouTuber is someone who uploads videos to YouTube.
Exactly, but there's a comedian.
There are implicit assumptions there.
It's an entertainment economy.
It's an attention economy.
You have to be entertaining.
You have to be engaging.
But it doesn't make you a comedian.
No, really, it's not that much different.
There's no sacred connotations to the term comedian.
Do you know what I mean?
A comedian is someone to someone that doesn't want to themselves.
Maybe there are some sacred connotations towards the word rape.
I don't agree.
I don't think there are any sacred connotations towards any words.
Specifically aimed at one specific person as opposed to generic, as opposed to just a general sweeping statement.
You would defend the use of a rape joke combined with one individual's name over a generic.
It's a joke about rape.
All right, well, we'll talk.
We'll talk in a second if you want, sir.
We'll talk in a second if you want.
I think he would dare do it, and I applaud him for doing so.
I don't think he's got any lack of bollocks.
I think he's got a lack of morals when it comes to rape jokes.
That's the point.
That's exactly where we are.
So the thing is, you're acting as if I went up to Jess Phillips' face and said this.
No, I didn't.
No, I'm not.
Again, you're making another assumption.
Sorry, that gentleman over there.
What I'm acting as if is if you intentionally released something out into the wild, if you will.
Completely intentionally, correct.
And I think that it was an inappropriate thing to release into the wild.
I think that what happened next was that a group of people on one side of an argument took that and spun it against you and turned it into milkshake flinging.
And I think a group of people that stand on the other side with you turned that into an argument about free speech.
I think one half of that argument has completely deflected from the fact that what you did was made a joke about raping a specific woman.
Yes.
Not raping specifically, obviously.
I mean, you do know the wording of the tweet, don't you?
Yeah, I understand entirely.
You used the word nothing.
So what I was actually doing really, yeah, the intention was to call Jess Phillips ugly, obviously.
Absolutely.
But I'm allowed to do that, Amana.
You're allowed to do it if you choose to do it.
There's no law to stop doing it.
Unless it causes distress, harassment, fear.
Sure, but I don't think you can say that calling someone ugly is going to cause distress, harassment.
Then why didn't you call her ugly?
Sorry?
Then why didn't you call her ugly?
I did.
Why did you need to add the word rape?
Because I knew they wouldn't be able to resist it.
So intentionally, you used the word rape to incite a reaction.
Yes.
Then you, my friend, got milkshake thrown at you because of your own behaviour.
Really?
You think that's comparable?
You had a physical assault.
You just said.
You have just said that you used that to incite a reaction.
Yeah.
Well, now you know what reaction is.
The reaction has to be modulated by the person giving it.
I mean, just because you might be offended doesn't give you a right to insult me, does it?
Insult?
Assault.
No, absolutely.
I agree with you.
Absolutely.
And you've just justified that.
No, I haven't justified it.
No, no, no.
You just did.
No, I didn't.
I said you've got the reaction that you've got.
I'm not justifying it.
Of course you just did.
You said that's why it happened.
That is why it happened.
That's not justifying it, that's explaining it.
Okay.
But the point is, why aren't you asking why I felt the need to do that?
Because to be honest, it's a rape joke.
I don't care why you felt the need to do it.
See, isn't that interesting?
Isn't that interesting?
Now, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm trying to address.
It's the idea that they think if...
Oh, no, I'm...
No, not that, just me.
It's not just you.
There are lots of other people of this opinion.
You've done something to offend me, therefore, you are not a legitimate political entity in this country.
No, you've done something offensive.
Not to offend me.
There is no such thing as objective offense.
A lot of these people are not offended, so don't act like it is inherently offensive.
No, no, absolutely.
It's your subjective opinion.
It's a choice to be offended with.
I don't care if you're offended.
That's the problem that you have with me, because I'm not saying, oh, I'm so sorry.
I'm so sorry.
I'm so sorry.
I am instead interested in tabling a discussion on certain issues.
But not rape.
And rape jokes.
Rape is certainly something we can talk about.
Okay, how about this?
In the UK, you cannot legally rape a man.
Okay.
Do you have a problem with that?
Of course.
There we go.
Now we can have a discussion about it.
Of course I do.
I have a problem with it.
Right, okay, so what can we do about it?
Do you think that men should have legal protection in that regard?
Absolutely.
Is it in the UKIP manifesto?
No, it's actually not, but I didn't write the manifesto.
But now, do you think it's appropriate for a feminist MP to block a discussion on that kind of subject?
What about male suicide?
Number one killer of men unfortunately.
Why would a female MP, a feminist MP, block a debate on that in parliament?
To be honest with you, I don't know the answer bigger than that.
Yeah, well, I do know the answer.
That's the thing.
So that's unfair of you to explain.
But now you understand that I am presenting principled opposition to what it is that Jess Phillips herself is doing.
Principled about a rape joke.
I didn't say the joke itself is.
Oh, okay.
I misunderstood.
I said that I'm here to oppose what Jess Phillips is actively doing in Barlow.
Well, I try, but do you know what happens?
You get blocked.
You deplatformed.
You get ignored.
You get locked out of the conversation because they don't like you.
So I had to do something.
Which platform have you been deplatformed from?
Twitter.
By Jess?
Not by Jess, but she blocked me, obviously, on Twitter.
Which, obviously.
So she wasn't interested.
Yeah, but I didn't start by saying, Jess, you're a bitch.
I started by saying, Jess, why are you doing this?
Why are you blocking a discussion on issues that genuinely affect men and men are suffering under in parliament?
Why did you laugh at the idea of even talking about it?
That's what I asked, and I got blocked.
And so how long do I have to continue arguing from behind a block as to why we should have a debate on these things?
People are actually suffering.
Am I not entitled to?
Do you want to do something offensive to get their attention?
I don't think you are entitled to do something offensive to get their position, but I think you are entitled.
So I should sit there politely while she laughs and makes life more difficult for me.
Well, you should sit there being as polite as you expect protesters against you to be for definitely.
Well, I certainly don't assault them.
No, absolutely not.
But you did, however, cause distress.
And they can come over and tell me why they're distressed.
They can talk to me all they want.
Because nothing.
No one has ever got anything on me that's not just words.
But I have a lot on them that is actual violence done to me.
And this is the point.
It is the establishment defending itself from reasonable principled criticism.
And now we can actually.
We've had this discussion already.
You've agreed with me for a while.
Reasonable criticism.
You have agreed with all of it.
Yeah, but the joke is not part of the criticism.
The joke is the mechanism by which I get your attention.
And you agreed with everything I said.
Men should be legally allowed to be raped, as in counted as being rapable.
Men shouldn't be allowed to be raped.
It should be illegal.
Let's just get that straight.
Can I just add the headline, please?
Carl clearly said that men should be allowed to be raped, and that needs to be tomorrow's headline.
Looking forward to the next BuzzFeed headline.
Yeah, I'm writing it with my third hand in my pocket as we speak.
You said it far better than I can.
It should be illegal that men can be made illegal to rape a man.
Do you want me to say it?
Yes.
It should be illegal to rape a man.
Thank you.
You also.
Hang on, Sexer.
Yeah, I know you.
So we actually do have a chap who's the victim of this problem.
And my uncle committed suicide.
I want an investigation into why men are killing themselves at such high rates.
I'm sure you agree with that too, don't you?
Of course I do.
And how much of your platform are you using for those two subjects?
All of it.
Well, not all of it, but I've mentioned this many times.
I've done many, many videos about these subjects.
I called a men's rights activist.
Sure.
When I talk about these things.
Until the subject was brought up, I didn't hear one word about that today.
Will you get into that later?
We're getting to it right now.
And this is the point.
You sit there and think, well, this is the thing.
I wouldn't say anything.
I didn't think anything.
Well, this was offensive, therefore, you know, it can't possibly be talked about.
But at the end of the day, I've got you to agree to everything that I sincerely believe in front of a library.
No, you definitely haven't got me to agree.
You just did.
You just said it.
I agree.
I agreed to several points that you made that are general points that any person would agree to.
No, Jess Phillips does not agree to it.
Jess Phillips, she went out of her way to block this.
Jess Phillips did not go out of her way to block an introduction on legislation.
She absolutely did.
She absolutely did, sir.
Jess Phillips.
Yes.
She was on the parliamentary committee where Philip Davies was tabling the motion, and she laughed at him.
And she said, you'll get your debate when I get 50% representation of women in parliament.
What an unbelievable standard for her to put forward to Philip Davies.
He's not in charge of how many women are put in parliamentary.
No, absolutely.
And that's an argument that's well-versed amongst the people.
Of course it is.
Because I've heard that again.
So why would she use that?
Why would she use that?
Why was she even there then?
Why was she given the opportunity to block that?
She's the most powerful person in our parliament regarding male rape.
She's a most powerful person.
Well, hang on.
So how has she managed to stop us?
She just happened to be on the committee.
Sure, and her on the committee made the change.
Yes.
No, obviously not just her.
Absolutely.
Have you read her book?
No, I haven't.
I've read her book.
In her book, she describes a sisterhood, a feminist sisterhood within parliament that operate in each other's feminist interests.
And they are the ones who got that blocked with her.
I don't believe that.
I don't care if you don't believe it.
I know it.
You don't know anything about what you're talking about here.
You haven't seen the video.
You haven't read her books.
You haven't listened to the TVs talking about it.
Yeah, but the thing is, I have, and I know this is true.
So you are telling me as a statement of fact that a sisterhood in Parliament.
According to Jess Phillips, in her words, quote, sisterhood.
Hang on.
Now, there's a massive difference here that we're skipping slightly over.
Go ahead.
She said it.
Don't make it true.
No more than it makes it true if you said it.
So Jess Phillips is a liar.
I didn't say that either, did I?
Well, that's the same thing.
I'm asking the question.
You're accepting what she said as fact.
Because not because it suits your rhetoric, because you wouldn't believe her if she said many other things.
No, I think that that's something that she's saying that is true.
I don't see any reason to think that she's a liar anymore.
Do you think?
We seem to even know the names of them, people like Yvette Cooper.
We actually seem to know who these people are.
They sit on the bench together.
You see them clustered around each other.
Of course they do.
And we agree that it exists.
No, no, of course they sit together.
That doesn't mean it exists.
They sit together and discuss the rhetoric.
It does.
I'm not going to doubt her on that.
I don't see why she'd lie.
It's unfair of you to put me on a spot given.
Well, I'm sorry that you don't have this information.
Absolutely.
I'm sorry that that's the case, but I do.
This is what I do.
I must have done about six or seven videos on this.
Like, this is something I've had to look into in depth.
I've read her book, for example.
This is genuinely something that's happening, and she is actually going out of her way, using her executive power as an MP to block debates on real issues that are really affecting men in this country.
That has to stop.
I agree with you entirely.
You agree with its fact.
That needs to be stopped.
And what I don't understand is how a minority in the house has such an effect.
I agree, it's a complex system, and I don't want to have to go through explaining it right now because you probably wouldn't believe me anyway.
I have no reason to believe or disbelieve you, but I will do my own reason.
No, no, please do.
Please do, because you can just look on my channel.
Just search for Philip Davies on my channel.
I mean, I might look elsewhere first.
But I'll come to Costa.
Well, I've gone through and collated all the information for you.
All of the information or all of the relevant information?
Because you would see what I think is relevant.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But relevant to your argument as opposed to relevant to.
Yeah, okay.
Why would I include things I don't think are relevant to my argument?
Well, because that would lead to the truth.
If you don't, if you only live in a vacuum, if you only include in your vacuum things that suit your argument.
No, I include things that I think are true about the situation.
Okay, yeah, I accept that as a change.
I'm coming on your words rather than your inference.
I'm not going to start bringing in irrelevant information, but I'm not going to leave anything out either.
And you can, I list all the sources that I'm using.
You're not going to leave out anything full stop, or you're not going to leave out anything that's not relevant in your opinion.
Anything that is relevant to the conversation at hand, I'm obviously going to include.
Even if it's against me, you know.
But I mean, I don't think I've been.
Have you got an example of that?
Well, sure.
I mean, oh, God, now, you know, there are times.
Yeah, you put me on the spot a couple of times.
It's fair.
It's fair.
That's fair.
Okay, so, yeah, there have been, like, so, example, I did a video about the gender pay gap, and I made a bad job of it.
You know, it's one of those times where I'd been lazy, and I got called up on it by another YouTuber.
So, what I did is put a, you can put a mask over the video in YouTube, and I said, right, you know, I don't stand by this video anymore.
I've left a link to the video debunking the one I'd done in the description.
Yeah.
So you can go and look at that instead.
That's the best example I can think of off the top of my head.
And that was a fair cob.
I'd been lazy on that particular regard.
In fact, it was a good way of giving me a kick up the rear and getting me in line.
Exactly.
It hasn't happened again.
Yep.
You know, because I haven't needed to make it happen again.
But that's the point.
Or maybe because other people got lazy.
No, no, no.
I think that they really hate me enough to actually go and fight something.
That's a terrible word.
Well, that's true, though.
I think they do.
But yeah, no, no, I think they do.
But that's okay because that keeps me on the straight and narrow.
So that's fine.
But should we call the next?
We can go to the next one.
Absolutely.
Yeah, interesting conversation.
But I really, honestly, I really enjoyed it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cheers.
I would listen to the job there.
You should take him with you.
Take him to Plymouth.
I really enjoyed that.
Take it up.
▲
Export Selection