Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Fall of the BBC

All Episodes

Nov. 11, 2025 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

01:49:45

The Fall of the BBC

The enemy's capital is under siege.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi folks, how are you?
	It is an auspicious day today.
	The BBC is currently being besieged by many different forces and the entire metropolitan liberal elite class of this country is in total panic.
	They are freaking out.
	They are worried that they are going to lose their most important capital city because they know that the BBC is their instrument, which is why they've all come out in full-throated defense of it.
	Everything that they can muster, they have brought out.
	And they know that if the BBC falls, and when I say falls, I mean is taken away from them as an ideological instrument of propaganda, then their entire project fails in this country anyway.
	They are well aware that things are getting away from them and that actually a weakness has been revealed here and things will change if they don't maintain things.
	Now, we've actually arrived in a position that reminds me of the fall of Nineveh, which is what this picture is.
	This is a 19th century, I can't remember who painted it, painting, of what it was like when the Assyrian Empire was finally destroyed.
	And honestly, I'm getting exactly the same vibes, because the Assyrian Empire was destroyed by a coalition of people.
	It was destroyed by the Persians, the Medes, and the Babylonians, who all realized Assyria had overreached.
	Assyria had made itself vulnerable.
	And so they realized, wait, if the Assyrian army is a thousand miles away, we might not be able to beat it on its best day, but maybe we can beat it on its worst.
	And so they stormed Asher, Nineveh, and Nimrod.
	I can't remember the actual name of Nimrod now.
	And they raised them.
	They committed something of a genocide against the Assyrians, to which the Assyrians never recovered, incidentally.
	And that was the end of the most tyrannical empire the world had seen to that point.
	And honestly, I view the BBC in exactly that way.
	They know what they're doing.
	They know precisely the ideological games they play.
	And they know that honestly, the Islamic State had a good term for it.
	They called it the media halo.
	And what it is, is a kind of rewriting of history, a kind of way of propagandizing the masses with just this beam that goes outwards across the entire world and says, no, this is how things are.
	And they understand that having access and control of such a tool means that they can lie to you forever.
	They can lie and lie and lie.
	And no matter what you say, no matter what you do, their lies will always be louder and more powerful than your truth.
	And so they are very, very worried that actually the BBC, Nineveh, is actually vulnerable because it's overreached and it's going to be stormed and metaphorically burned down.
	So to give you an impression of just what's happened here, the BBC decided to lie.
	They decided to tell a bold-faced lie.
	One of the just an incredible lie, actually.
	So brazen that you would think they wouldn't have the balls to do it.
	But when you've been in the position where you've been the hegemon for such a long time and there's been no one around who can challenge you, I guess you get complacent.
	So this is the clip that everyone is objecting to.
	This is from Panorama.
	BBC's Panorama series, documentaries, quote unquote, has been very controversial and has been caught lying many times before, but we'll get into that in a bit.
	This is the latest lie, because normally the people that they lie about don't have the power to punch back.
	They don't have the power to do anything about the fact that the BBC just lies.
	And when I say lies, I'm not even saying misrepresenting the truth, although that is what happened in this case.
	In many cases, and we'll cover it in a bit, this is going to be a long stream, by the way, so strap in.
	We have got a lot to cover today.
	In many cases, they literally make stuff up.
	They make up things that did not happen and they tell you things that have no corresponding event in reality to map to.
	They've done this about me, they've done this about Jeremy Corbyn, they've done this about other people.
	They have done this about anyone that they please because they were the BBC and they could get away with it.
	And they thought we can just make something up about Trump.
	But actually, Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
	Donald Trump has a suite of lawyers at his beck and call.
	Donald Trump is a very litigious man.
	And Donald Trump fucking hates the media because all they do is goddamn lie.
	And so, I mean, am I pleased to see this?
	You're damn right I'm pleased to see this.
	This is so good.
	This is the best thing we could possibly have asked for.
	The BBC put in this precarious position.
	So this is the lie that they told.
	It's about January the 6th and Trump's Trump's speech there and his reaction to it.
	Let's watch this.
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you.
	And we fight.
	We fight like hell.
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol.
	So you can see there, Donald Trump, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be with you and we'll fight.
	Now that makes it sound like Donald Trump is leading an insurrection.
	And you'll notice that there are some cuts here.
	What's this cut about?
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol, cut, and I'll be there with you.
	Oh, well, I guess that that's just the contiguous statement of Donald Trump and they just flipped cameras during the broadcast.
	No, that's not what happened.
	Here's the actual broadcast.
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.
	We're going to walk down to the Capitol.
	You see the difference?
	He didn't say as they'd clipped it.
	So what they'd done, it was 53, 54 minutes later he had said that in a different context because, and believe it or not, I don't think Donald Trump was inciting an insurrection.
	You know what?
	I'm not even saying Donald Trump didn't want to incite an insurrection either, but I don't think that he did.
	From his statements, I don't think you can take that from them.
	And so the BBC obviously thought that too, which is why they spliced together two very disparate parts of his speech and published it in their Panorama documentary, aired it, and acted to give people the impression that Donald Trump was encouraging his followers to storm the Capitol.
	Now, this has gone down really, really poorly because this was part of a memo that was leaked to the Telegraph where a whistleblower, an internal whistleblower memo,
	pointed out that Panorama did completely mislead viewers by cutting key lines and not just cutting key lines, maliciously splicing together two parts of the speech so that the substantive content of what Donald Trump was saying was not the same as in the uncut version.
	That is a lie.
	That is deliberate.
	That was done on purpose.
	And as someone who's edited many hours of video footage, all I'm saying is this is explicit, right?
	You know what you're doing here.
	Because, I mean, they had to cut out the beginning of the cheer there as well.
	So they must have done some audio editing with it.
	And they spliced it in and they spliced this back.
	And it's like, sorry, you did this on purpose.
	This is a deliberate cut.
	This was not a mistake.
	This was not an accident.
	If it was an accident, it would be the wrong piece of footage.
	It wouldn't create a statement that one could understand as a common English sentence.
	No, that's not what's happened.
	And so we're going to go through the memo because there are so many people talking about this memo, but not actually reading from the memo.
	And as you can see, it's done by a guy called Michael Prescott.
	Michael Prescott says, I served as the political editor for the Sunday Times for 10 years in the corporate advisory roles since then, including as corporate affairs director of BT.
	I think it's important to say that I've never been a member of a political party and do not hold any hard or fast views on matters such as American politics or disputes in the Middle East.
	My views on the BBC's treatment of subjects covered below do not come with any political agenda.
	Now, whether that's true or not, and let's be uncharitable and assume that that's not true, the question is, are the points that he raises in this memo wrong?
	Are they inaccurate?
	And the answer to that, after reading the whole thing, is no.
	He's right as far as I can tell on every point.
	And those points I don't know about.
	Why wouldn't I assume he's correct if he's been correct on all of the other points so far?
	He says, what motivated me to prepare this note is despair inaction by the BBC executive when issues come to light.
	On no other occasion in my professional life have I witnessed what I did at the BBC with regard to how management dealt or failed to deal with serious recurrent problems.
	And so what a shock.
	So he begins with the US election coverage and Panorama.
	That's what we've just watched.
	And he points out that this created the impression that Trump said something he did not.
	And in doing so, materially misled viewers.
	Not the first time Panorama's done that and probably not the last.
	Although, if this all goes as it looks like it's going, maybe it will be.
	The next thing he goes on to is Liz Cheney and how Trump didn't actually say that he wants to take Liz Cheney out and shoot her.
	The next thing was US election coverage more broadly.
	And this is more interesting to me.
	Because of course, those individual examples are, of course, terrible.
	But things like this.
	The BBC ignored its own guidelines about not giving undue weight to a single poll and gave the rogue Iowa poll, which suggested a Harris victory days out from the election, excessive coverage.
	Well, that's interesting.
	Why did what's his name?
	The guy on Bloody the podcast with Alice Campbell, Rory Stewart, why was Rory Stewart persuaded that Kamala Harris was going to win when none of the evidence suggested that?
	Apart from this one Iowa poll.
	Well, I think it might be that the BBC had given excessive weight.
	And Rory Stewart, being a blind believer in the institution, thought, yeah, I can trust that, which is stupid, isn't it?
	The BBC focused too heavily on campaign issues promoted by the Harris campaign, such as abortion and women's rights at the expense of giving greater weight to jobs, the economy, and immigration, which proved to be a significant driver of how people voted.
	As in, people didn't vote for more abortion or more women's rights.
	They voted because of the real problems in their country.
	But why didn't the BBC cover that?
	Because it's ideologically committed to the liberal causes of abortion and women's rights.
	He carries on.
	Trump's wrangles during the campaign were always misrepresented.
	There's an overemphasis on certain events, such as Trump's comments about people eating pets in Springfield, which obviously turned out to be true.
	The BBC sometimes fell into using without attribution contested language, such as reproductive rights, which is because it's because they believe it.
	It's because they're liberals and they believe it.
	And we'll come to the question of bias later on in the stream.
	There was an overall tendency to frame issues in a way that was similar to the Harris campaign, unless fact-checking of questionable statements she made as opposed to Trump, which falls, which is a normal and like not normal, but is an expected extension of the campaigning mindset the entire political class of both America and here fell into.
	All the rhinos, all the Democrats, all of the parties here, apart from Nigel Farage, have fallen into this, right?
	Trump is the evil bad guy.
	He is the Sauron we have to defeat because otherwise he's going to destroy the liberal world order.
	And so they became hyper-partisan in their own cause.
	And so they didn't think, oh, we need to just, you know, why would we fact-check Kamala Harris?
	She's not a threat to the hegemony that we have.
	And so they didn't.
	And so this question of the BBC being neutral and unbiased, well, it blows up in their face.
	This is a bias.
	This is not neutrality.
	This is the BBC acting as an activist organization, which is not new.
	It's just a really good example of it.
	And then you've got the use of aggregate economic and immigration data, skew coverage, which it masked important class and regional variations, which contributed to the election result.
	And a balance of more in-depth programming.
	The balance of more in-depth programmes was markedly anti-Trump, pro-Harris.
	Not anything that we need to know, not anything that's surprising or we need to contest.
	Everyone knows it.
	The next thing is racial diversity and issues arising.
	Of course, the BBC, being exceptionally woke and liberal, is incredibly anti-white.
	It is against the native people of their own country.
	And so you get various kind of racial biases in favor of minorities showing in the BBC.
	It gives the example of the insurance swindle that never was, which is an alleged racial bias in insurance, which turned out not to be true.
	Then you've got the insecure drobs claim, which again was meant to be factors other than racial factors that made minority workers insecure jobs up 132% since 2011.
	It's not true.
	It's not true that it's excessively racial.
	And then the BBC push notification system as an outlier in ignoring immigration issues, as in millions of people subscribed to the semi-a notification when the BBC published a story on X subject, and it wasn't doing it for millions of users about stories regarding immigration.
	So again, deliberately crafting what people know about along liberal, woke lines on purpose.
	So among significant stories that were not covered by the PIN system, the government's promise of new staff to cut the asylum processing backlog, rejection of ELU asylum agreements, the Bibby Stockholm thing, the daily costs, 8 million daily costs in housing migrants to hotels.
	I mean, people should probably know that it's costing them somewhere around the region of £4 billion a year to house illegals in hotels, don't you think?
	But the BBC doesn't think you need to know that.
	Why?
	Why not?
	So anyway, carries on, right?
	Then you've got history programs that are factually inaccurate.
	Then it comes on to...
	So you've got everything covered in this, to be honest.
	You've got the Trump stuff.
	You've got the anti-woke racial stuff.
	Then you've got, of course, biological sex and gender identity.
	The BBC fully on the really radical claims of transgender activists.
	And we'll carry on.
	Then finally, towards the end, the sort of last third of it is talking about Israel and Hamas and Gaza.
	And this is exactly as you'd expect.
	Because they're woke international liberals, they're on the horns of a dilemma here.
	The fact that there are many dilemmas in all of this, because Israel has clearly gone too far in Gaza.
	However, they have a natural pro-Israel bias.
	And so there is a kind of fight that's going on on the BBC editorial board, but we'll cover that later on in the story as well.
	Because the thing is, there are layers to the BBC's hierarchy, and the younger people at the lower end of the layers are very anti-Israel.
	But the older people at the higher end, higher level of the layers of the BBC, are very pro-Israel.
	At least some of them are.
	And so you get a kind of mismatch in coverage.
	You get, you know, Hamas attacks that are just not properly covered and things like this.
	And then you get various allegations about Israel that may or may not be true.
	I'm not interested in getting into them.
	But then you have BBC Arabic.
	Now, it's going to surprise you to learn that BBC Arabic is actually not very neutral on the subject of Israel.
	And it's very tribalistic towards Palestine and Hamas.
	And so you can see it going on and on and on.
	There are real concerns about BBC's reporting on all of this, right?
	And it keeps going, it keeps going, it keeps going.
	So in conclusion, apologies again for the length of the note, but I thought board members who do not attend the EGSC, which is the governing body that monitors the BBC's editorial process, on a regular basis might find it helpful.
	There are clearly worrying systemic issues with the BBC's coverage in the areas set out from above.
	From what I witness, I fear that the problems could be even more widespread than the summary might suggest.
	As I started, I've been surprised how defensive Deborah and Jonathan in particular have been when the issues are raised.
	Firm and transparent action plans, blah, right?
	So Michael Prescott wants them to fix these problems.
	However, these problems are not a problem.
	These are a feature.
	These are not errors.
	They are features of being international liberals who control the BBC.
	And so we're put in a position where they have lied.
	The lie about Trump is the big lie, but then there is a whole suite of lies under it.
	Now, they've been doing everything they can not to talk about all of the other lies.
	They don't want to talk about the other lies because these are manifest and a regular part of daily life at the BBC.
	But they can't get away from the Trump one because, and we'll get to it in a minute, Trump is probably going to take legal action against them.
	And so they're just stuck with this.
	That his reputation has been trashed accordingly.
	The BBC made a bad mistake.
	They should have apologised for it much earlier.
	Game set and match, fine.
	But, you know, Trump's reputation behaving as if this documentary had made this fine outstanding champion of democracy, as evinced by his performance on January the 6th and had turned him into something completely different.
	That's just obviously not what that story is about.
	Right.
	That's interesting, isn't it?
	From Mark Damazer here, master of St. Peter's College, University of Oxford, former controller of BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 7.
	Now, one thing you'll notice is there's a lot of BBC and ex-BBC people who are coming out really hard.
	But what has Mark just admitted to here?
	Mark has just admitted to an intrinsic bias against Trump because he believes Trump tried to overthrow democracy.
	Now, he hasn't been convicted of this.
	He didn't actually encourage people on January the 7th to storm the Capitol.
	When people did go in the Capitol, he put out social media messages to tell them to leave, and then he was deplatformed from social media.
	So if you are unbiased, you would have to say, well, the facts are, as the facts are.
	Mark has instead read into it.
	He is divining out of the actual facts of the matter that he thinks Trump was trying to overthrow democracy.
	Well, there we go, Mark.
	That's very interesting.
	But the point being is that the BBC has been acting with an agenda and you have just enunciated that agenda, which is why we just bought in to the Democrat narrative of Trump because we are ideological cousins, not even cousins.
	You're kissing, you're like siblings, twins of the Democrats.
	You believe all of the same things for the same reasons and want the same results and view Trump in the same way, which is why you acted in the way you acted.
	What this is, is the kind of liberal core of the BBC, and not just the BBC, but like the Democrats and the Liberal Democrats, the left-wing parties on the continent, they all believe the same thing for a reason, because they all have the same ideology and therefore they all have the same intrinsic core biases.
	These are the things that they say are not biases.
	This is the whole point.
	This column of belief that holds up the entire worldview, they say is neutrality, independence, and impartiality.
	And that's fucking bullshit.
	This is the bias, the bias to globalism, to liberalism, to quite an extreme version of identity politics that is just assumed these days.
	They don't even necessarily enunciate it.
	All of these things, and these biases create an animus against the familiar, the parochial, and the local.
	They are completely against the native peoples of each country because they are white, because they are in the majority, because they have their own interests.
	This is the bias.
	This is what globalist liberalism is, and this is what it is against.
	It is crystal clear.
	Now, this has put Keir Starmer somewhat on the horns of a dilemma.
	And as I broadcast this, Keir Starmer has actually not made a comment on any of this yet.
	So I actually don't know what Keir Starmer's opinion on this is.
	But as you're going to see, this is a problem for Keir Starmer because basically he has to choose: is he going to defend the BBC or is he going to defend Donald Trump?
	BBC News learned that President Donald Trump has sent a letter to the BBC threatening legal action.
	BBC confirmed it's received this letter and will respond in due course.
	Does it surprise you?
	I mean, does that explain why we suddenly had the resignations last night?
	I think it probably goes some way towards suggesting, you know, that there may have been people thinking this is going to be easier if you two are gone.
	And, you know, look, the threat of legal action, Donald Trump, you know, issues a lot of litigation.
	His litigation lawyers are never having a quiet day because he threatens to sue absolutely everybody.
	But the BBC is a publicly funded organization.
	I'm very interested to see where the government ends up on this.
	Does the government defend the BBC and its impartiality?
	Or does it join in the attack with Donald Trump?
	for the past year the government has gone out of its way not to criticise honourable.
	And Lisa Nandy was quite...
	More than that.
	Way more than that.
	The government, the British government, Keir Starmer in particular, and we've covered this many times on the podcast, excuse me, has lied to Donald Trump about free speech in Britain, about our hallowed traditions, about what he thinks about Donald Trump politically.
	And so Keir Starmer has lied so sufficiently to Trump that Trump quite likes Keir Starmer because he has a completely wrong opinion of what kind of man Keir Starmer is.
	So what's Starmer going to do?
	Is he going to be like, right, the BBC lied about Trump?
	It lied in a really bad way.
	Our closest ally and quote-unquote a friend of Keir Starmer's.
	And now I've got to either defend Trump or defend the BBC.
	If he defends Trump, he's going to be horrifically unpopular at home.
	But hey, what's new there?
	Keir Starmer's already horrifically unpopular.
	So he doesn't really have a lot to lose in that regard.
	But if he defends the BBC, he's going to lose Trump as a friend and ally.
	So he's in a real pickle.
	Not my problem, though.
	Thank God.
	Thank God it's his.
	Anyway, let's move on.
	Like I said, I've got a huge amount to go through here.
	I've had to split it into different browsers.
	So let's talk about the poor, innocent BBC.
	Oh, God.
	I can't believe Evil Drump would pick on this such an innocent, sweet, baby, baby-like, naive, infantile, beautiful organization like the BBC.
	It's like, listen, you fucking paedophile defenders, right?
	And that hasn't come up for some reason.
	That hasn't come up.
	The sheer number of pedophiles that the BBC has harbored and given very lucrative careers to has not once come up.
	The fact that they have a paedophile statue outside the building in London is wild.
	And yet no one cares.
	No one says anything.
	About the Jimmy Saville stuff, no one cares.
	The Rolf Harris stuff, no one cares.
	Like the Hugh Edward stuff, well, I mean, people do care, but like the BBC, the political class, they don't care.
	They don't bring it up.
	They never mention it.
	Because this is the horrific secret with the BBC.
	And so they put out cartoons like this one in The Guardian.
	Oh, the BBC is just this thing that exists.
	And the predators, the evil right-wing press, smelling blood, they circle their prey.
	It's like, oh, my God, fuck off.
	The BBC is not this powerless, helpless thing that's being hunted down by evil Trump and the right-wing press.
	The BBC is a malevolent entity that has been harming us for decades.
	Absolutely decades.
	And there are parodies of the BBC in the 1980s, like spitting image in the 1980s, that in the parody say exactly the same things as we say about the BBC now.
	Because these problems are congenital.
	They have always been there.
	And it's because there is fundamentally a lack of public accountability for the BBC.
	And that's why any of this is happening, by the way.
	That's why this is happening.
	And if it wasn't for the internet, we wouldn't know that panorama edit was false.
	If it wasn't for the internet, we wouldn't know.
	And so we don't know what other lies they told in the previous century.
	We don't know.
	Because we didn't have access to citizen journalism and direct feeds on what's happening.
	But we do now.
	And this, this playing kitten, this, oh, no, I'm just a poor little bunny rabbit.
	Don't maul me.
	Fuck off, you savages.
	You absolute savage.
	I'm sorry, I'm trying not to swear, but this is just so infuriating that they would like just try and play it this way.
	And you get this all the time.
	Like, obviously, commentators like Matthew Stadlin, again, globalist libs, they're all coming out.
	In a world increasingly at the mercy of AI and miss and disinformation, with Elon Musk presiding over X, Democracy in Britain would be challenged without BBC News.
	It's like they lied a lot, but in this particular case, they lied.
	And you come out and say, well, I'm worried about miss and disinformation, which is why we need the BBC.
	No, they lied.
	They are the misinformation.
	They are the disinformation.
	They are the liars in this case, Matthew.
	How can you bring yourself to say this?
	And it's because, I mean, no one rational would say this, but this isn't rational.
	This is purely ideological.
	This is purely emotional.
	This is understanding, oh, our capital city is under siege.
	We have to rush to its defense, muster the troops, say, do whatever you have to do.
	Tell whatever lies you need to tell, Matthew.
	The BBC has to be saved or else the empire falls.
	That's what they're thinking.
	And that's why they will just come out and just lie.
	I mean, just literally like, oh, well, if it wasn't for the BBC, people might lie on the internet.
	It's off really, Matthew.
	Really, that's incredible.
	God forbid.
	Right, let's go through some examples.
	This is an example that the left will bring up all the time: BBC Panorama.
	This, again, like this is in 2022 when Jeremy, was it Jeremy Corbyn?
	I think it was Jeremy.
	No, it wasn't Jeremy Corbyn.
	But the point being, I can't remember who it was now.
	The point being, they decided to.
	In fact, I'll just play.
	I'll play this, in fact, because it's really bad.
	It's really, really bad.
	The interview is conducted by Ben Westerman, a party official who was Jewish.
	Ben Westerman received dozens of complaints.
	While interviewing one member, he was confronted with the very anti-Semitism he'd been investigating.
	And we finished the interview.
	The person got up to leave the room and then turned back to me and said, Where are you from?
	And I said, What do you mean, where am I from?
	And she said, I asked you, Where are you from?
	And I said, I'm not prepared to discuss this.
	And they said, Are you from Israel?
	What can you say to that?
	Well, that sounds quite bad.
	That sounds very anti-Semitic.
	However, if you actually speak to the two ladies that he was interviewing, they didn't say that, and they happened to actually record the conversation.
	Curious because I haven't been over party very long, and I've certainly showed what actually did happen.
	Curious because I haven't been over party very long, and I've certainly never been to anything like this informal interview before.
	And so I'm just curious about what branch are you in?
	Oh, I don't seem that's relevant.
	Oh, okay.
	I hope that's okay.
	I'm sorry, I don't think where I'm from is a little relevant to the investigation.
	I did ask Westerman what so he just lied.
	He lied, and Panorama, like, yep, we'll take the lie, we will publish the lie, and we will broadcast it.
	They do this all the time.
	And on the right, you may be familiar with Tommy Robinson's Panodrama, where this was six years ago now, but where Tommy Robinson knew that Hope Not Hate were working with Panorama.
	Now, if you want to talk about intrinsic biases, I think working with Hope Not Hate means you're not an unbiased organization.
	And John Sweeney, he's got loads of undercover footage of John Sweeney saying all sorts of things and basically admitting that he's trying to essentially stitch up Tommy.
	So this isn't just an independent, or like you know, a neutral, impartial BBC documentary on just the situation of Tommy Robinson.
	No, this was an attempt to destroy the man's reputation through lies.
	Now, as if they haven't done that enough, but he got caught, and Tommy basically played all of this undercover footage to him while recording a conversation and then published this.
	John Sweeney lost his job over this.
	Absolutely fucking disgraced because he was and should be.
	And so, but notice that they're not at all above just making things up.
	There are multiple examples of them making things up.
	And I personally have been the subject of this.
	You may remember Mariana in Conspiracy Land, episode one when that came out in 2023, where she lied about me repeatedly because of something happening in Totness.
	As you can see, there's conspiracies of the light and saga of a cad went down there.
	And she claimed that I campaigned there in 2019 for my MEP campaign, which I did.
	And then at some point that was indefined in the future after that, I returned to Totness and I had radicalized the entire town into my right-wing free speech views.
	And that was scary.
	And I was like, oh, really?
	I actually, at the time, I messaged our producer, John, John.
	Did we ever go back to Totness?
	And he was like, no.
	I was like, no, I didn't think so.
	Because I was like, did I do that?
	Why don't I remember doing that?
	And moreover, why is there no footage of me doing that?
	Do they think that if I went back to Tottenham and radicalized half the town, I wouldn't have publicized this on my social media?
	I mean, I recorded everything that I did for a reason, and I would record it and publish it if that was the case.
	And if they had stipulated a date, I could have probably accounted for my movements on that date as well.
	But of course, they didn't stipulate a date because that would have allowed me to pin them down on something and it would have been shown to have been a lie.
	Instead, I made a complaint to the BBC and they'd said, no, we think that we have it on good authority that you did go back to Totnes, that you did radicalize.
	And for some reason, you didn't take any photos and post anything on Twitter.
	And no.
	And when I escalated this to Ofcom, and they sided with the BBC saying, no, you definitely did go back to Tottenham.
	No, I fucking didn't.
	You liars, you have made this up about me.
	And then the thing is, I didn't even try to sue them over this because honestly, this doesn't hurt my reputation.
	It makes me sound amazing, but it didn't happen.
	It wasn't true.
	And the problem is that the BBC keeps life.
	Even in their verify section, where they're like, oh, yeah, we're going to debunk Miss.
	No, you're going to make things up.
	That's what you do.
	You make things up repeatedly for political reasons.
	It only ever goes one way.
	And so, do people trust the BBC?
	What's trust in the BBC like over time?
	You can imagine how well it's going.
	It is, in fact, declining.
	Where is it?
	It's in here somewhere.
	So it depends on, of course, what your position is.
	If you're some sort of centrist, 67%.
	So two-thirds of people.
	But that means a third of people who think of themselves as in the center don't trust the BBC.
	And of course, if you're on the right, less than half trust the BBC.
	And where's the left on this?
	67%.
	It's the same as the centre.
	Well, that's interesting, actually.
	Very interesting.
	But trust in the BBC has been declining for a long time.
	And we will carry on to the next tab.
	Hang on a second.
	Sorry, I actually have.
	I actually do have another thing that I've obviously forgotten to load, which I'm like.
	That's all right.
	I'll move on.
	Right.
	So, trust in the BBC going down, unsurprisingly.
	Anyway, carrying on from this, Trump is, of course, threatening to sue the BBC for this for a billion dollars.
	Why not?
	They decided they were going to tell a brazen lie about him that mischaracterized him and, in fact, tried to imply that he was some sort of revolutionary who was going to overthrow democracy in America.
	That's a pretty serious thing to lie about.
	It's a pretty serious charge.
	I'd be quite annoyed about that too.
	And so when they ask, say, Alan Dershowitz, he's like, well, to be honest with you, and this has been filed in a Florida court, by the way, not even filed in the British court.
	But the BBC has a good chance of losing, thinks Dershowitz.
	Now, I'm sure that he's just talking big over Trump's, on Trump's side, in order to essentially make the BBC feel under attack and capitulate and just give him a payout, which they'll probably do.
	I'm not a legal expert, but what I suspect will happen is that Trump will lay his case down and the BBC will say, yep, you know what?
	We're just going to pay you off.
	And it'll probably be tens of millions of pounds.
	It's not going to be a billion.
	But this is exactly the kind of thing that you would expect.
	Now, you've got the question of who is on the BBC side in this?
	What is their response?
	And so, I mean, this is just completely, completely what you'd expect.
	The BBC has apologised.
	And the what's his name?
	Sorry, I've got.
	I know that's not a paywall guardian.
	Go away.
	Please go away.
	Thank you.
	So the BBC chair apologised after the resignation of Tim Davey and what was the other woman's name?
	The CEO of News and the Director General.
	And so the people at the very, very top of this organisation have both resigned over this.
	And he apologised for that error of judgment.
	Error of judgment?
	I mean, it's not a mistake that happened here.
	What has happened here is not a mistake.
	And I mean, Tim Davey did admit or claim that they'd made a mistake.
	And he came out and gave this little speech, this little talk to the BBC 48 hours after resigning over a series of mistakes.
	Now, again, the issue with Trump was just one thing in that long list of things that they had done.
	It's the one they're focusing on because Trump's taking action.
	But it's not the only thing that is the problem here.
	But this is what he had to say.
	Morning, everyone.
	Good morning.
	Just want to say a couple of things.
	I'm here to lead and support the BBC.
	I'm very, very proud of our journalists in this building.
	They're doing work I think that's incredibly important.
	I want to thank every one of them.
	They're doing a wonderful job.
	Also, everyone across the BBC doing their thing for the UK.
	And personally, I'm here to lead and support them.
	The BBC's going to be thriving, and I support everyone of the team.
	I'm very proud of them.
	That was weird, wasn't it?
	Like, he is smirking here.
	Like, he is actually smirking at the idea that the BBC is going to get sued for a billion dollars.
	That's weird, isn't it?
	Why is he so chipper?
	Why is he so excited about this?
	And I can only assume it's because he thinks he can win or something like that.
	But that's really weird.
	And notice, oh, yeah, he comes out right.
	Yeah, I'm very proud of Argenna.
	Well, we read the memo.
	The memo is full of lies and misinterpretations and omissions of truth that are designed to distort the story.
	And he's proud of that.
	He's proud of the lie that they told about Trump.
	He's proud of the lie that they told about Corbyn.
	He's proud of the lies that they told about Tommy Robinson.
	He's proud of the lies they told about me.
	He's proud of the lies that the BBC tells.
	Why?
	Why is there no shame or contrition on the part of Tim Davey and the BBC more generally?
	There's no, no, none at all.
	Like, he finds this funny.
	This is funny to him.
	He's just lost his job over it.
	Maybe he's going to resign.
	I don't know.
	But just is this funny?
	Is this just funny?
	Is it?
	Right, okay.
	That's this, that's, that's weird.
	That's very, very strange.
	I honestly thought that there would be, again, more contrition of this, more shame attached to the BBC lying.
	But I think that really what they're doing is fighting this ideological war.
	I think to them, this is not about things that are shameful.
	I think that they think what they were doing is fighting in the trenches against the far right, the far left, whatever the enemies are.
	And this is what he said.
	So he gave a speech to the BBC.
	This was an internal thing.
	He told staff that we've got to fight for our journalism.
	But, okay, maybe, but your journalism hasn't been very good, which is why you're being sued for a billion or possibly sued.
	He says, we have made some mistakes that have cost us, but we need to fight.
	This narrative will not just be given by our enemies, it's our narrative.
	The BBC went through difficult times, but it does good work, and that speaks louder than any newspaper, any weaponization.
	Again, the language of war is coming out of the former BBC Director General.
	And that's really weird, isn't it?
	Because, I mean, Trump had asked for a full and fair retraction, and they didn't immediately give it.
	Right.
	So are we abandoning the pretense of neutrality and impartiality and being unbiased?
	Because, I mean, the Director General is speaking as if he's in a war.
	How is it that an impartial, unbiased institution can have enemies?
	How is it that they have a narrative, our narrative?
	This is ideological language.
	This is him saying, we are a front in a war against ideological, and he says, enemies.
	And, okay, this has been a setback in the war against Donald Trump, but we need to fight.
	That should never be something that could be said from what is purportedly a neutral and non-ideological, non-partisan institution.
	And the thing that that aspect of this is very, very important, but we'll get to it in a bit.
	It's not possible, if you were neutral or unbiased, to say, well, we're going to fight our enemies using our narrative.
	You don't have a narrative and you don't have enemies if you are neutral on a subject.
	You just say, I don't know.
	I don't care.
	Like, you know, has something happened?
	Well, we'll follow our rules.
	But we don't have an intentionality behind it.
	But what Tim has revealed here is a deep intentionality behind what the BBC does.
	Again, the fiction that they are neutral, unbiased, impartial is the thing that is being demolished by themselves, by their own words, as they try to defend themselves.
	Again, no contrition.
	The apology took a week or so to get and seems a bit mealy mouth at best.
	The guy was grinning as he's like, yeah, no, I'm super proud of the work that we've done and we're going to fight for our journalism.
	I mean, this is not, this is not.
	And I'd definitely be bringing this up in court if I were Donald Trump.
	This is not the act of people who are actually as they are portraying themselves to be.
	And the new CEO, this was, what's her name, Deborah Terness, after she resigned, she said, no, no, the corporation is not institutionally biased.
	Sorry, you have enemies.
	You must have a bias against your enemies.
	You must have a bias in favor of our narrative.
	Again, the BBC should never be able to say we have our narrative if they are just objectively looking for the truth.
	There isn't an our narrative unless you're towing a line.
	But they have the gall to come out and say, no, no, no, we're not institutionally biased.
	It's just a coincidence that we happen to deliberately lie about Donald Trump in the same direction as all of the other left-wing liberal lies.
	It's just a coincidence.
	It's all just a total coincidence.
	Don't believe your lying eyes, she says.
	But again, she's resigned and, you know, okay, fair enough.
	At least we've got some scalps out of it.
	And then you have like the former BBC chairman, uh, Lord Patton, who was on Radio 4 talking about this.
	And again, this was just remarkable because he was basically like, essentially, the country doesn't deserve representation on the BBC.
	The BBC is a thing that has a will of its own and that has a narrative and has enemies.
	And of course, if you have enemies, you seek to defeat those enemies.
	And the BBC works in the realm of propaganda.
	And so, I mean, this is what he had to say.
	This is remarkable.
	What do you think of the criticism, though, that there are issues at the BBC and that it has a worldview, a worldview that reasonably represents urban graduates who potentially are the dominant staff in news at the BBC, and that it doesn't connect with everybody in the country and doesn't represent views of half the people in the nation?
	Well, I don't know what the answer should be to that observation.
	Perhaps the BBC should refuse to take anybody who's been to a university.
	I mean, oh, come on.
	Come on.
	That's ridiculous, isn't it?
	What an absolutely puerile response from Lord Patton there, right?
	Now, the reason that this is important is because the BBC occupies a particular and unique station, not only in British public life, but in the, I guess, the moral framework of the kind of liberal class, the metropolitan elite.
	As the interviewer questioned, rightly so, doesn't it have a worldview?
	Now, we should suggest that actually, yes.
	And we've had the director general saying, yeah, it does.
	We have our narrative and we have our enemies.
	Okay, so it does have a worldview.
	They think that this is not institutional bias, but in fact, what this is, is institutional bias on display.
	And so if people are forced to pay for this, as in if you want to watch television, you have to have a TV license.
	And the BBC, just in case anyone was wondering, is something like, excuse me, 65% funded through the TV license.
	So without people being forced to pay for it, the BBC does not exist or it exists in a third capacity of what it is now, which would be amazing, to be honest.
	But so instead of taking that seriously, saying, right, okay, if the entire country is forced by law to pay you money and the bargain that the reason that this is legitimized is that one, you are neutral, you are independent, and you're unbiased.
	And two, you are going to accurately represent the country.
	For the former chairman to be like, yeah, well, not my problem.
	Why would I care what the fucking plebs think? is unacceptable.
	That's an unacceptable thing.
	It's unacceptable.
	Even if the metropolitan liberal worldview of the people who staff the BBC and run the BBC does not agree with the things that the rest of the public think, that doesn't matter.
	If you are actually going to fulfill your mission of being neutral and unbiased and actually adhere, even try to adhere to the principles.
	You don't have to do perfectly, but even try.
	I mean, the first thing, don't lie about your enemies.
	Like, you shouldn't have enemies, but if you do have them, don't lie about them.
	Secondly, you're going to have to platform a bunch of people you just don't like.
	And I really mean this.
	I think Tommy Robinson deserves a show on the BBC.
	It is unacceptable that he represents such a large portion of public opinion and yet is locked out of representation on the BBC.
	Because the BBC, it's owned by the government and it's funded by the public.
	So there's no reason for us to think it's not some kind of political institution.
	And if it is a political public institution, then why should we not be democratically represented in it?
	Why should there not be the Sunday hour with Tommy Robinson where he talks about whatever the hell he wants to talk about?
	Why is it that we have to pay for this?
	Why is it that our governments are in charge of it and yet we're not represented by it?
	Well, it's because, of course, they have our narrative and they want to protect our narrative from our enemies.
	And so, let's talk about the hour, shall we?
	Who is the hour in all of this?
	Well, I mean, you know exactly who the hour is.
	The hour is, I've got the wrong one up here.
	I think I got it in the wrong order.
	I think I've got it in the wrong order.
	The hour is, of course, the liberal class.
	Now, you get them complaining about all sorts of things constantly.
	Sorry, I just need to.
	Yeah, there we go.
	Yeah, that's fine.
	So, you get them complaining about all sorts of things.
	You've got Sir Max Hastings, again, former BBC, ex-BBC people, coming out and just saying, well, look, I mean, you know, the tearing down of institutions is led by Donald Trump.
	Well, why do people want to tear down your institution?
	If you weren't acting like a tyrannical, evil empire, deliberately locking out about half the population from representation in this institution, they wouldn't be there with pitchforks.
	They would just be on the programmes giving their point of view.
	But, I mean, and this is something you'll notice if you go and watch any of the BBC programmes.
	It's actually very unusual to find a right-wing position opinion on any of these, especially in the news programmes.
	It's such a closed circle.
	And it's like, for example, when Tommy had the rally where we had probably half a million to a million people out in the middle of London, it seems impossible to think that he wouldn't be invited to come and discuss the issues that mobilize such a large number of people.
	And in fact, that's the way to diffuse the tension behind that.
	That's the way to diffuse his movement is to come and accept the legitimate points that it makes.
	But not once was he invited to the BBC.
	Not once was any of us invited to the BBC to explain our position, to explain what it was we were complaining about.
	And it's like, okay, but you're the national public broadcaster.
	You're the state broadcaster.
	You're owned by the government and I'm forced to pay for it.
	So why am I not entitled to representation?
	And so you've got like Sir Max Hastings here.
	And again, you'll notice this pipeline through the BBC as we go through.
	Well, look.
	They spoke about weighing into the BBC, tearing up the BBC's vitals.
	If we lose the BBC, gosh, we're going to be sorry.
	Who's we?
	You're going to be sorry.
	We are going to be sorry.
	You are going to be sorry.
	The liberal class that thinks of itself as unbiased and neutral and lies to itself about these things, they're going to be sorry.
	Everyone else who wants to see you torn down, they're not going to be sorry.
	Why would they be sorry?
	Of course, then you have Labour MPs such as Luke Charters, the Labour MP for York Outer, who's like, oh, the BBC is hugely biased.
	Well, Nigel Farage is on GB News on the Nigel Farage show talking about Nigel Farage.
	Yeah, okay.
	And I don't have to pay for it.
	That's what the free market is, Luke.
	That's what a free country is.
	Nigel Farage has a show that is done independently, that is not owned by the government, that is not force every person in the country to pay for, whether they watch it or not.
	So yeah, he can be biased.
	That's fine.
	Like the same with any other broadcaster apart from the BBC, who have a special, unique position and are not allowed to break it.
	And that's what this whole scandal is about.
	That's why you're under siege at the moment.
	That's why you're going to be sued for a billion, right?
	But again, look at the people who are doing it.
	It's Labour MPs, ex-BBC, you know, sirs.
	And then you've got, when this loads up, Ed Davey.
	Am I just loading the wrong thing up?
	Somehow.
	Come on, Guardian.
	There we go.
	Then we have Ed Davey.
	What is this?
	I've got too much going on here.
	It's not showing me a bloody.
	Okay, right.
	Ed Davey is complaining.
	Oh, there we go.
	Finally.
	The first step towards saving our precious BBC.
	Remove Robbie Gibb from the board.
	Now, we'll talk about Robbie Gibb in a bit.
	Come on.
	What is going on?
	Okay, well, there we go.
	Let's come back.
	So, anyway, you can read through Ed Davy's article in The Guardian, right?
	We've got to save our precious BBC because Ed Davey is a true believer in the lie, in the lie of their own personal neutrality and their own lack of bias.
	They think their position is the unbiased position, and everyone else's position is full of bias, and therefore it's bad.
	Not true.
	And Robbie Gibb, oh, he's the person who's introduced bias to the BBC.
	The thing is, Ed, he's been there a while, hasn't he?
	Can't make the BBC, you can't make the claim that the BBC is unbiased if you've then been like, oh, yeah, we've had this biased guy on the board all the time because the rest of you are also biased.
	Like, everyone is biased.
	This is one of those critiques that the woke left made of just society in general that turns out to be true.
	People are biased.
	You do not have an unbiased institution because, at the very minimum, every institution is interested in its own personal survival, which is what you're saying here.
	To save our precious BBC.
	Again, this is massive amounts of bias on display for yourselves.
	For that thing that you think makes the BBC, the British, Britain liberal.
	This is an ideological bias.
	You're completely partisan on this issue.
	And so I don't want to hear it.
	I mean, should we search for quickly, if I can get the search thing up?
	I can't get the search thing up.
	Apparently, Guardian is killing my browser.
	I was going to say, should we search for the word impartial?
	Like, I bet he uses it all the time.
	This disturbing escalation on the BBC should be alarming to anyone who cares about truth, accountability, and democracy.
	He's writing this in the wake of the BBC lying about the president of the United States.
	He is literally, the BBC lied, quick, we've got to defend the BBC.
	It's absolutely insane the partiality of these people.
	And the Liberal Democrats are using their national platform to just campaign.
	And look how they've turned this into a partisan issue.
	The BBC belongs to Britain, not Trump.
	Listen, retards.
	He's not buying it.
	He doesn't want to own the BBC.
	He's not going to take it.
	He's not going to be the person who controls it.
	What he wants is accountability that you claim to so care about.
	He wants some accountability for the lies that you told.
	But instead, you've decided to go full partisan culture war.
	It's us and them.
	It's our narrative.
	It's our thing.
	And they are our enemies.
	And it's on full display.
	I mean, it's genuinely quite shocking how quickly they fell into this just friend-enemy distinction.
	And they'll tell you that they're neutral and partial, but it's not true.
	On LBC, of course, James O'Brien is like, what?
	How could they be so foolish as to fall into the right-wing trap of lying about the right wing?
	Didn't they?
	What's going on here?
	Didn't they realize?
	Didn't they realize that the right wing would react to this and would take actions against them on this?
	It's like, what do you No concern for truth, right?
	Again, full-on left-wing liberal culture warriors.
	These people want their destruction.
	Yeah, you're enemies because you've made enemies because of your lack of impartiality.
	And all we have to do is circle the wagons, defend ourselves from this.
	And then you get, this guy's a professor, just specializing in British colonialism.
	So as you can see, not an impartial, unbiased observer.
	It's astonishing that a man who's the director of communications for a political party and who set up a right-wing propaganda TV channel, he's talking about Gibbs, should ever have been placed on the board of a supposedly impartial and independent broadcasting service.
	I think I hear a bell ringing.
	That's right.
	It's not fucking impartial and it's not fucking independent.
	It is literally owned by the government.
	It is literally paid for by the taxpayer and is literally full of globalist liberals who have partial views on every single subject.
	The fantasy, the fiction of being like, oh, it's impartial and independent.
	None of it's true.
	None of it has ever been true and it never will be true.
	And so then you get like BBC staff.
	I'm just going to use John Simpson as the example presenter on BBC2.
	Well, the BBC is in real danger now and it's going to need the support of everyone who thinks that public service broadcasting as opposed to say the Fox News model is worth defending.
	But you fell into the exact partisanship of the Fox News model.
	And in fact, I mean, Fox News, do they fabricate stories with such regularity as the BBC?
	I actually don't know.
	I don't follow Fox between us, but like, this, you've done exactly what you accuse them of doing, making up stories.
	You have expressly made up a partisan story, and now your response is, we, us and ours, we, the globalist liberals, who have decided that we are the impartial truth of the world, even the midst of a fucking lie, well, we're going to have to fight it because the BBC is in real danger now.
	And that's interesting.
	It's in real danger.
	What's in real danger from?
	I mean, Trump, let's say Trump did sue it for a billion.
	That's not going to tank the BBC.
	It's not going to be the end of the BBC.
	What the problem is, is it's going to be the end of the BBC's reputation.
	The lie that they have traded on for all of these years, that it's the most trusted broadcaster in the world because it's so impartial and neutral and unbiased.
	That's what's in danger.
	And the thing is, that's what we need to destroy.
	That is the reason that they have been able to constantly enforce this liberal ideological worldview on the British public in the face of us constantly revolting against it, in the face of us constantly voting against all of these things.
	It is the BBC that is the media halo, that is the massive megaphone of propaganda, literally 1984-style propaganda that we have been witnessing.
	And so people are not happy.
	People are not happy at all.
	Sorry, I'll cover that one already.
	And you get, again, just everyone.
	Work and pension secretary, Pat McFadden.
	Oh, this is a much valued UK institution.
	To you.
	To you, it is valued.
	To the political class who agreed with the biases of the institution, it is much valued.
	But to the rest of us, we actually have quite a lot to say.
	What's the next one?
	Oh, yeah.
	Lisa Nandi was in parliament literally minutes before I started this saying that the BBC is a light on the hill.
	All of us should value it.
	Then stop lying about us.
	That's all you have to do is just not lie and actually give us fair representation on the topics that we're concerned about.
	That's all you have to do.
	It's actually not that hard.
	But the thing is, to you people, hearing a different narrative makes someone an enemy of yours and makes them a bad person as far as you're concerned, and is a threat to your entire worldview.
	We, by our words, threaten your political existence.
	And so, no, I'm not happy that you're going to come out and defend it.
	And in fact, we'll come back to Nisa Nandi in a bit.
	And then you get people like this.
	Sanjita Miska.
	Anyone familiar with Sanjita will know that she's a woke liberal leftist.
	I mean, that's the only way I think anyone would describe it.
	She probably got that in a bloody bio.
	Oh, she's got me blocked, so I can't check.
	She says, I worked at BBC News for more than 20 years.
	Yes, Panorama screwed up.
	Well, I mean, they lied.
	Yes, some felt that GC perspectives and trans coverage were sidelined.
	Well, constantly.
	Yes, it's possible that BBC Arabic Gaza coverage needed more scrutiny.
	Yeah, no shit, right?
	Was the BBC a hotbed of woke lefty politics?
	Absolutely not.
	Essentially, like the fish saying, is this fishbowl full of water?
	Obviously not.
	You live and breathe.
	Woke lefty politics.
	Your entire career has been woke lefty politics.
	And then you're like, well, the BBC isn't a hotbed of woke lefty politics.
	That's why I was there for 20 years.
	It's such.
	You can't claim this and expect the people, your enemies, to take you seriously.
	And of course, then you get the metropolitan elite coming out and saying, well, hang on a sec, guys.
	We're not the metropolitan elite.
	Anna Subry is the great example of this.
	I'm sick of the lies told about the BBC, notably that it's dominated by a mythical metropolitan elite.
	That's amazing.
	Anna Subry left the Conservative Party during Brexit and formed the Change UK Party, the Cuck Party, which was full of just Metropolitan Central Centrist elitists.
	And they absolutely tanked.
	They died on the rasp.
	There wasn't a constituency for it.
	They don't represent anyone outside of the Westminster bubble.
	They don't represent anyone outside of the ideology that they believe.
	And this is what this all comes down to.
	This is why you can see the whole thing's under siege.
	You can see that from all sides, the capital of the BBC has been laid, literally laid siege to.
	And they are just like, no, this isn't true.
	No, you are exactly an exemplar of the woke liberal elite, metropolitan elite.
	And then you get this former radio for controller Mark Damzer saying, yeah, mistakes were made, but this quality journalism does not happen by accident.
	Well, shit, man, I know.
	Telling lies is an intentional thing.
	You don't accidentally edit Trump to say, oh, let's fight and storm the Capitol.
	By accident, we know this isn't an accident.
	We know you're doing this on purpose.
	We know this is completely intentional.
	And we know the repeated lies.
	And again, remember, that was just one point in a big slew of points where the BBC had been lying.
	And they all admit.
	They all admit, yeah, yeah, yeah, we know that these are all problems, but we're not going to change.
	It's like, okay, just that's fine.
	You've got Matthew again.
	Some on the right have a visceral hatred of the BBC.
	Not because it's biased, but because it isn't.
	You can claim that your position is not an intrinsically biased position.
	You can claim it.
	But then I could claim the same.
	And the differences would imply that actually we are not dealing with something in which there is, in fact, a clear and neutral, objective, unbiased position.
	Because a lot of the time, the problem with all of this, really, isn't mostly a problem of interpretation and morality.
	Like, most of the time, it's not a question of facts.
	The question of who's lied about what facts comes after the interpretation of morality.
	The BBC, the Metropolitan Elite, they interpreted, they made the moral judgment that Trump is an enemy, and they decided they would just start lying about him and fabricating facts.
	Same with me, same with Tommy, same with Jeremy Corbyn.
	You fabricate these things about us because you perceive us to be enemies.
	That is an intrinsic and obvious expression of bias, and you would have to be a fucking moron to tweet the opposite.
	We're about halfway there, folks.
	I told you this is going to be a long one.
	Insane, isn't it?
	Absolutely insane.
	Anyway, you gov polling.
	Is the so do people think the BBC is biased?
	And the answer is basically yes.
	Everyone thinks the BBC is biased, apart from the people who either work for, have worked for, or are supported by the Metropolitan Liberal Elite.
	They're the only people that's like, yeah, but that's your favorite.
	Oh, fuck's sake.
	Hopefully, you guys can hear and see me.
	I can't tell, though, because my Firefox browser has gone fucking belly up.
	All my brows have gone belly up.
	I guess I had too much loaded up.
	Right.
	Hopefully you're still there.
	It was actually my streaming software that crashed.
	Fuck's sake.
	God damn.
	Now I've got to load it all back up again.
	Right, okay.
	Give me a second.
	Let me just see if I'm still live.
	Am I still live?
	I think I'm still live.
	Hey, man, this is not my, right.
	I am still live, right?
	Great.
	Not my fault, okay?
	Not my fault.
	The browser, I mean, I had a huge number of browser windows up.
	So I'll try and sort that out very quickly and hopefully not have quite so much on the screen as before.
	I did have a lot of tabs up.
	Right, so getting back to it.
	So, is BBC News politically biased?
	Well, half of people say yes, but nobody actually agrees how it's biased.
	So, as you can see from YouGov, yes, it's generally biased in favor of left-wing political views.
	Excuse me, 31% think that.
	Yes, it's generally biased in favor of right-wing political views.
	19% say that.
	And the only people who say it's not politically biased are 19% of people.
	Now, this is actually down, right?
	So, this from 2023 is an excellent article in politics code.uk, where Ofcom requires the BBC to achieve due impartiality of all its output.
	Well, where's the Ofcom intervention in the BBC's lies?
	Why won't Ofcom intervene?
	I mean, I complained to Ofcom, and they told me they just believe the BBC of me.
	So I was like, okay, that's fascinating.
	Thank you, Ofcom.
	Because Ofcom, of course, is ideologically the same as the BBC.
	So it regulates it in line with what the BBC already believes.
	But anyway, so as you can see, in 2023, 22% of people thought the BBC was generally neutral.
	So this is going down.
	They've lost 3% in the last couple of years.
	And this comes from both sides of the political spectrum because it is, if you are not a metropolitan liberal, you do not agree with the intrinsic bias of the BBC.
	That's what this comes down to.
	And this is, this, I mean, this is a, considering the BBC is like, yes, we are neutral and biased and impartial.
	To have half the country say, no, you're not, to have 31% of people saying, I don't know, bro.
	I don't know about that.
	And then to have 19% only agreeing with you is pretty terrible and completely undermines what you're saying.
	Completely destroys, in fact, what you're saying.
	And the thing is, as well, these concerns about impartiality, they might be more persuasive if former BBC people like Lewis Goodall weren't like, yeah, well, there was definitely a lot of bias there.
	Like, Lewis Goodall is complaining about David Grossman and Robbie Gibb, who are intrinsically behind this whole scandal blowing up.
	And so Lewis Goodall is saying, well, look, you know, these are repeated people I've dealt with.
	And in fact, he said it in a podcast I didn't clip actually.
	That Robbie Gibb had it out for him, apparently, and, you know, was biased against him.
	And then you've got labor lords like Fangum Debonair.
	As you can see by the facial expression, she's very concerned about this.
	You might remember her being on, I think it was BBC Newsnight the other day, where she was just leaning back, just like, yeah, whatever.
	I don't give shit.
	You know, you're a fucking twat.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah.
	She really lackadaisical about all of this.
	It's completely changed, hasn't it?
	Now she's like serious, focused, animated.
	This is important.
	And she says, yeah, there are methods of correction that need to be looked at again.
	Right.
	Okay, why would that be the case?
	You are admitting that things undoubtedly need to change because the BBC is not neutral.
	It is not independent.
	It has an agenda.
	As Metis said, Davey said, it has a narrative and it has enemies.
	And so this is not what it claims to be.
	And this is you admitting it.
	Jacob Reesmog thought the same thing on Newsnight where he says, I don't think it's party politically biased, although in many ways it is.
	I think it has a basically metropolitan view of the world.
	And the guests on here are just like, yeah, yeah, it does.
	Yeah, it's really about the liberal metropolitan elite.
	And this is true.
	And we can see this is true.
	We can see the hyper-liberalism that comes out of it because of the demented takes on things like gender, right?
	This has been something that, again, former chief writer at BBC Kath Lang was like, yeah, they had a really weird way of reporting on sex and gender, which, of course, is the most woke way, right?
	They believe that there is no biological sex.
	They believe that this wasn't something that was an imported ideological mess from America.
	And even Emily Maitlis said this.
	Again, Emily Maitlis, formerly of the BBC, said this on her podcast.
	In fact, we'll listen to this because it really tells you so much about the ideological capture of the liberal elite and the fact they can't see themselves as being captured.
	Even when Maitless is saying, yeah, I was terrified to cover the gender stories, the stories on sex and gender.
	Genuinely terrified to cover it.
	Oh, have I not got any?
	I think there was a bit of ideological capture, not just in the BBC, but actually in many institutions in public life in Britain.
	But I remember working at Newsnight with Esme Wren and Hannah Barnes and Deb Cohen.
	Oh, fuck's sake.
	Come on, Twitter.
	What is going on?
	Looking at the question of the Tavistock.
	This was okay.
	Well, she's talking about the Tavistock clinic and how she was nervous because she was worried about how the people around her would react.
	She was worried for her job.
	She was worried that she was tripping an ideological tripwire and she would be in trouble for it.
	Because let's be honest, she would be.
	This is exactly the sort of thing that the intrinsic metropolitan liberal bias is like, you know, we're pro-transgender.
	We are the pro-transgender people.
	And if you don't agree with men being in women's prisons or in their toilets or wherever, you are an evil transfer bigot.
	And that's us being fucking unbiased.
	That's us being neutral and unbiased, you see.
	And Emily Maitless is just like, yeah, I was terrified of bringing this up because they were so unbiased about it.
	They were just so neutral about it, you see.
	They were just so objective about the situation that it terrified Emily Maitland.
	The veil has to be torn back at this point.
	And of course, you've got everything else.
	This is the Telegraph debate, not debating, but talking about this in an article.
	Yes, the BBC's bias on saying Brexit.
	Holy shit, man.
	A scrupulous investigation shows there was a pro-EU bias in a roughly two to one ratio, which honestly, I'm surprised it wasn't higher, frankly.
	But that's exactly, we know, we know.
	We know that as an institution, the BBC wanted remain.
	We know, because that's what the liberal, globalist, metropolitan elite want.
	The EU is an institution built on the same principles and following the same ideology.
	We know.
	Like, this is not in any way a secret.
	This is something that's completely out in the open and has been completely out in the open for many a year now.
	And so it's great that finally we get a reckoning on this.
	Daniel Hannum was like, look, this was the time, this was what got me during the BLM era, right?
	As you can see, he posted these screenshots.
	More than 100 arrests after violent clashes with police.
	And you can see from the picture, these are white native British.
	A statement from the London Ambulance Service treated 15 patients, including two police officers, for injuries.
	Violent clashes.
	But the BLM one, 27 police officers injured during largely peaceful anti-racism protests.
	This was when one police officer was like, in fact, you can see her laying on the floor there.
	She was knocked off her horse by a sign that she rode into.
	And there was blood on one of the horses and stuff like that.
	Again, during the COVID lockdowns, when everyone else is at home, they're making excuses as to why the BLM protests won't spread COVID.
	Just fuck off, man.
	Like, it's so transparent and it's so naked.
	The anti-native and pro-minority, anti-Brexit, pro-globalist, anti-woman, pro-again, minority, transgender bias is so on display.
	Like, you can get it.
	So they will literally just come out and tell you this, right?
	It's just so naked that I can't believe there are people who are willing to humiliate themselves in public, saying, no, no, no, no.
	The BBC is neutral and imbipped and partial.
	And we need to protect it at all costs.
	And if this would fucking load, then I would show you what I think is probably the worst example of it.
	But apparently it doesn't want to load.
	Why not?
	What is going on here?
	Come on.
	Oh my god, man, my browsers.
	I don't know what I've done.
	Maybe I just need to upgrade my computer.
	I'm definitely going to get this, though, because this is important.
	I'll get it from somewhere else if I can't get it from there.
	Right.
	This is from the spectator, Toby Young.
	The BBC's anti-white rhetoric.
	Where she had said, quote, no one wants to watch white men explaining stuff on TV anymore.
	Said Cassian Harrison, the editor of BBC4.
	Like, sorry, this is, and Toby is absolutely correct to call it that, anti-white rhetoric.
	All of this, anti-white rhetoric.
	Brexit, anti-white rhetoric.
	That's what this was.
	And they know it's, it's been, again, this is from 2018.
	This is not a secret.
	It has been like this for a long time.
	Then you have, of course, the Jeremy Corbyn issue.
	Again, you know, you might not like Jeremy Corbyn, but he ain't one of them.
	He isn't one of those globalist metropolitan liberal types.
	He's got his own problems.
	He is a traitor to Britain.
	He supports every terrorist group under the sun.
	But my God, when they were able to nail him as like a pesky extremist, they did.
	They absolutely did.
	And so from both the right and the left, people are like, well, hang on a second.
	The BBC is biased and is not giving us a fair shake.
	I mean, this is your party's official account.
	The BBC is indeed biased against the left.
	Well, yes, but also against the right.
	And also against anyone, people from overseas.
	Also get anyone who's not a metropolitan liberal elitist is who the BBC is biased against.
	This is just inevitable, right?
	We agree, we understand.
	This is just one of those things where it's not even, we don't even need to debate anymore, right?
	It's so self-evident.
	And so what we're witnessing is the collapse of the centre into the metropolitan elite defending the BBC.
	Because this, again, Nigel Farage is like, yeah, the BBC has been institutionally biased for decades.
	Corbyn's party, the BBC has been institutionally biased against us too.
	And this is the fringes eating in at the centre.
	Labour and the Tories both on like 30% combined.
	Farage beating both of them combined.
	The Greens polling equal to or sometimes higher than the Labour Party.
	The fringes eating in at the centre.
	And this is what I mean about the besieged mentality of a metropolitan elite and their precious prize jewel, the BBC.
	Like, no, we have to hold them back.
	Hold them back.
	We've got to hold them back.
	It's like, no, no.
	Everyone is sick of your fucking lies.
	Everyone is sick of it.
	We've had enough.
	This is it.
	This is the end of it.
	Again, going back to the fall of Nineveh example, everyone is sick of being terrorized by the Assyrian army.
	Everyone is sick of you sacking their cities, of you humiliating us in public, of you writing horrible things, lies, just outright fucking lies about us.
	Everyone is sick of it on both sides.
	And actually, when you look around, you go, right, okay, well, we've got the people we made.
	Because you'll notice that a lot of the people that we've been talking about are people who have come up through the BBC.
	I've had to close the previous tab, never mind.
	The people who are defending the BBC are either in the BBC or ex-BBC or rely upon the BBC to disseminate their own narrative against their enemies, our narrative.
	They have only themselves to fall back on.
	Only 19% of the public think they're not biased.
	They have polluted their own reputation for such a long time that this is now just something that nobody is in favor of.
	Nobody is in favor of.
	And Nigel Farage is right.
	The BBC should get back to doing news, just doing straight news.
	If it can manage that, it has something of a future.
	If it can't, it has no future at all.
	Well, he's likely to be the next prime minister.
	He thinks the BBC has been institutionally biased for decades.
	And he's right.
	And if the BBC is showing no contrition at all throughout all of this, lying about his personal friend, Donald Trump, I mean, it's going to be completely within Nigel Farage's power to say, well, you know what?
	I'm abolishing the license fee.
	The BBC can be a subscription service with a Netflix-style paywall now.
	And if they don't like it, that's tough shit.
	He's going to have the power to do that.
	And you know what?
	should have the balls to do it too because my god you know it's not like the bbc hasn't oh my god Horrible, horrible to Nigel Farage, right?
	Like Nigel Farage has got no reason to love the BBC, just in the same way as everyone else who is outside of the metropolitan consensus.
	They hate him for Brexit.
	They hate him for being right-wing on social issues.
	They hate him.
	And they've never made a secret of it.
	And so fucking hell, it would be amazing if Nigel Farage gets that like 400-seat majority and just cleans it.
	Just say, nope, not my problem.
	Don't worry about all the unbiased stuff.
	You're a private institution now.
	People can volunteer to subscribe to you, but nobody's forced to anymore.
	So you be as biased as you like and see where it gets you.
	This will be completely in his power.
	So the question is, where did this attack come from?
	Because a lot of people are saying, well, hang on a second.
	This is an internal partisan faction that is trying to coup the BBC.
	Yeah, it seems that way.
	It seems that the Zionists are cooing the internationalist liberals because the Metropolitan Liberals were too sympathetic to Gaza.
	It looks like that's what's happening here.
	Robbie Gibb is the owner or the head of an anonymous consortium that bought the Jewish Chronicle.
	He's on the BBC board.
	And as Roseanne here points out, it appears that basically pro-Israel forces were upset at the BBC for not telling the Israel line hard enough.
	So in a nutshell, this was a coup orchestrated by pro-Israel forces and Donald Trump's speech edit was just a pretext.
	Yeah, it seems that that's the case.
	It does seem that's the case.
	Now, there are a lot of people like, well, I'm not on the Zionist side.
	I'm not happy that it's being done for the Zionists.
	It's like, yep, well, I'm not happy either.
	But to be honest with you, I don't really care.
	Like, like I said, going back to my Fall of Nineveh example, the Assyrians had been tyrannizing the Babylonians for hundreds of years, hundreds of years.
	And the Babylonians had had their city destroyed many times by the Assyrians, at least two or three times, I think it was.
	And they had to rebuild it.
	And then finally, they managed to get the Assyrians in a position where they can get them, except they needed someone else to do it.
	And what they used were barbarian steppe tribes from the Iranian steppes or nomad tribes from the Iranian steppes, mountains and highlands.
	And as a coalition, they went and besieged the capital cities of the Assyrian Empire and just destroyed them.
	And that's basically what we're doing now.
	The Babylonians were probably like, I really don't like these Medes and Persians.
	I don't like them.
	They seem to be barbarous, uncivilized tribes who are probably dangerous to have laying around and just leave running rampant.
	But we're never going to get an opportunity like this again.
	We're never going to have another opportunity to fucking destroy them and destroy them permanently.
	So whether we like these barbarian tribes or not, we're going to have to work with them in order to take this down.
	And it is better to not have the Assyrians running around sacking and levelling cities for not paying tribute than it is to resist the barbarian tribe because we don't like the barbarian tribes.
	The barbarian tribe is out for its own interests.
	It is better to just get onto the job, get this done, and then settle the dust afterwards.
	Navarro Media actually did a really good write-up of this, which is surprising, frankly, where they go into detail about the resignation of Tim Davey and the connections that Robbie Gibb has with the Conservative Party, with the Israel lobby and various other things.
	And it's like, yeah, that's very detailed and very well thought out.
	And you've got lots of people on the left who don't like Zionists more than they don't like the liberal elite, who are like, no, we shouldn't support this.
	In fact, Owen Jones is the paradigmat example of that, saying, look, this is a coup at the BBC because it was reporting on Israel's genocide.
	And therefore, the Israeli faction has couped the BBC.
	And I, Owen Jones has his own issues with the BBC, but he's close enough to the Metropolitan Liberal Elite.
	He's the left wing of the Metropolitan Liberal Elite, essentially, that he's like, oh, yeah, right.
	So I have to be against Israel and I have to support the empire in the face of these barbarians who are coming to burn it all down.
	It's like, well, sorry, I'm not.
	I'm not aligned.
	I'm not with the Zionists.
	I'm not with the pro-Israel faction.
	But I'm definitely against you.
	And I'm definitely against the Metropolitan Liberal Elite.
	And so I'm definitely in favour of the barbarians burning your capital city down.
	And what does that mean in this metaphor?
	What does it mean to burn down the capital city of the BBC and the Metropolitan Liberal Elite?
	Because what it doesn't mean is actually physically burning it down, right?
	The lie, and this is the cardinal lie that they've been trading on.
	The cardinal lie that the liberal metropolitan elite have traded on for decades now is their myth, the mysticism of objectivity, neutrality, impartiality, and then being unbiased.
	This myth is what has sustained everything that's happened to us.
	The liberal worldview has been imposed on this country through the BBC, through this propaganda network, and it has wrought havoc with the country.
	And so the lies about what immigration has done to the country, the lies about the grooming gangs, the lies about everything, the lies about Brexit, the lies about the partisanship, the lies about just everything that they lie about.
	The entire liberal worldview built on lies, the blank slate, the neutrality of institutions, the separation of powers, all of these fucking liberal lies are all headed in this nexus here.
	And all we have to do is make it so they can't claim the neutrality of the institution.
	And so if the Zionists take over the BBC, they're not going to claim the BBC is a neutral and impartial observer and journal of the world.
	No, they'll claim it to be a partisan Zionist outlet.
	And that means that they have to admit that they are not impartial.
	That means the reputation of the BBC, which is the thing that has made it what it is, will be finally and ultimately destroyed.
	Nigel Farage can come in and say, look, this isn't impartial.
	You're saying it's not impartial.
	And many leftists have been saying this for a long time.
	But the liberal elite themselves will end up saying it.
	And therefore, Nigel Farage will be able to just smother it.
	Finally, with a pillow, this old dying propaganda arm will be able to finally be put out of its misery.
	And Britain can become a normal country again.
	Like we can have normal discussions without the BBC dominating every political angle and gatekeeping and lying when they're not just making things up, but by a mission as well.
	Again, I come back to why isn't Tommy Robinson ever featured on the BBC?
	He is a famous, world-famous activist.
	He has literally millions of followers on social media.
	He can literally raise a million people in the streets because the issues are so dire.
	And not one of these people have invited him onto a show to at least hear him out.
	What is this about?
	Why is this happening?
	And it's because they know that this destroys the power that they have been wielding.
	The power is in the power of decision about whether we have those people who fall outside of the consensus of the liberal elite on or not.
	They're close enough to the left that they do have them on, but they still propagandize against them.
	But with the far right, they can't bring themselves to do it.
	And so the question is: will Robbie Gibb be fired?
	Now, Lisa Nandy today said, I can't because his conduct does not meet the threshold for sacking him.
	The conduct was to make salient a memo, an internal memo about the lies the BBC has told.
	And that's what they're all demanding he be sacked over.
	Now, you can say, yeah, he's part of the Zionist faction.
	Yeah, he is.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, he's part of the Zionist faction.
	But you're part of the internationalist global shitlib elite faction.
	So, like, you know, we're not going to pretend there are no factions inside the BBC, right?
	You are a factional organization, as any institution, any institution of that size will be.
	And you're complaining that he has you banged to rights on a series of things you have already apologized for.
	You've already apologized to Trump for lying about him, and you should apologize for all the other lies.
	Two people have already resigned.
	So why would Gibb be fired apart from your internal power struggle wrangling?
	Because as Lisa Nandi rightly points out, there's actually nothing he's done wrong.
	You're the ones who did something wrong.
	You fucking idiots.
	You're the ones in the fucking wrong.
	He actually did the right thing, even if it was for clever Machiavellian reasons.
	And the thing is, this is because I think last year they tried to coup him out of the BBC.
	And he has basically come back, played a blinder, and totally outflanked them and fucked them.
	And it's like, okay, well, look, man, like I said, I'm not on fair.
	I'm not with the Zionists.
	But if the Medes have found a way through the Assyrian walls and we can get the troops in and sack the city, I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.
	You know, we'll have to talk about the Medes afterwards.
	How long did their empire last for?
	Not that long.
	We'll look at that afterwards.
	But for now, it would be better to be rid of this absolutely oppressive institution that is completely on its own side and no one else's than step back and go, well, I just don't like the guys who are sacking the city.
	I don't care.
	I don't care.
	We'll deal with them afterwards.
	And again, all we have to do is burst the bubble of the neutrality and impartiality of the BBC.
	And then it fails, that it falls away.
	And then we get a more pluralistic political landscape just by the nature of that opinion.
	That's what's happening here.
	And so good, to be honest, good.
	I'm glad that they can't be sacked.
	I'm glad that they're doing this.
	And I'm glad to see the shitlib class.
	And they've never been weaker, have they?
	They've never been weakened.
	They've never been more vulnerable.
	And they know it.
	They know that this could go so horribly wrong.
	I hope Donald Trump does sue them.
	I hope that more heads roll.
	I hope that they realize how outflanked and outmaneuvered they are.
	And I hope that the BBC becomes a partisan instrument for something.
	I don't even care if it's Zionism.
	I don't care if it's, you know, whatever Corbyn's weird leftism.
	I mean, I should have brought up the green stuff, shouldn't I?
	I don't care what it's for.
	I just want it to be an openly partisan thing against whatever it is the Metropolitan Elite have in their heads.
	So as long as the Metropolitan Elite can't, with their heart of hearts, delude themselves into believing that it is a neutral, unbiased institution, we will win.
	That's the winning move for us.
	And everything else follows from that.
	Fucking hell.
	I've been talking for ages.
	My throat is like losing it.
	They're already partisan, but at the moment, they're partisan for themselves.
	And the trick is for us to make them realize that the BBC is partisan for something else.
	And when they do, it's all over.
	It's just all over at that point.
	And that is basically what we're aiming for.
	So I'll get the super chats up now.
	But that's what we're aiming for with this.
	Again, it's not about supporting Israel or anything like that.
	You know, I don't support foreign countries.
	But what this is, is watching a clever play, to be honest.
	It's been a clever play by Gibbs against all of these people.
	And it's like, great, great.
	Fucking wreck them.
	Fucking wreck them all.
	You know, it has to be done.
	It has to be done.
	Anyway, Generico says, BBC Delender Est.
	Yes, indeed.
	And furthermore, I believe the BBC ought to be destroyed.
	It's so true.
	Gray says, God save King Charles III.
	Oh man, maybe.
	I don't like him, though.
	Adam says, if Trump sues the BBC and stops taking the license fee, it's claiming bankruptcy.
	Trump sues and the BBC stops taking the license fee to claim bankruptcy out of spite of Trump.
	The British people getting what they want, not because we made it happen, though, funny but sad.
	Yeah, but I mean, we just don't have the leverage to do that.
	But it won't be that the BBC stops taking the license fee to claim bankruptcy.
	They'll get a bailout from the government.
	You know, if Trump were able to like Alex Jones the BBC and, you know, right, you've got to pay for a billion.
	They would get it from the government.
	Either way, you are paying for this.
	But it'd be nice if this gives the cast his belly to Nigel Farage when he comes into power to just be like, yep, no, that's over.
	No more BBC.
	I'm tired of the BBC.
	The BBC can suck it.
	How did it take so long for this to come out?
	I don't know.
	I don't know, to be honest.
	Good question.
	Angel for 50 somethings, but thank you.
	Says, after all the pedo scandals the BBC has had, I have no idea why it isn't defunded yet.
	Well, well, that's a great question.
	And always nice to see a veteran.
	Thank you.
	Glad you've been watching this 2015.
	Yeah, it's a great, great question.
	I couldn't answer that on YouTube or probably on the internet in general.
	But the point is, yes, it's not the Pedo scandals that brought it down, right?
	Like the Metropolitan Elite, they accept that.
	They accept that aspect of the BBC.
	They accept the Pedo statue outside.
	They accept Hugh Edwards.
	How many other Pedos are at the BBC as presenters or whatever?
	You don't know.
	And it's probably quite a few.
	And this is something, again, they're just fine with.
	It was the allegations of not being impartial that is what's doing them in.
	That's really interesting.
	It shows you like the nature of the lie, right?
	The lie, we're not a pedo organization.
	Well, okay, we'll just have all these pedos and Jimmy Sabble and whatnot.
	That's not a big deal.
	That's not earth-shattering for them.
	But the idea that their worldview isn't the worldview and other people are just bad people, that's the thing that's earth-shattering.
	And the thing is, that's such a weird conceit.
	It's such a arrogant conceit to think that, you know, we're the only good people in the world and you're all bad people and you're all liars while we fabricate lies about you is just remarkable.
	Absolutely remarkable.
	Generico says, they're lying.
	We know they know.
	We know.
	They know we know, but they keep lying.
	Yeah, and that's the thing.
	Like the again, like Matthew Stanley's like, oh, we need the BBC because of misinformation.
	It's like, but this scandal comes from misinformation spread by the BBC.
	So it's not like you can paint the BBC as being somehow innocent of this, being somehow, you know, alien to telling lies.
	Obviously not.
	Crime Spree says, divert all BBC funds to deportation efforts.
	I mean, yeah, personally, I would just defund it.
	I would just completely defund it.
	I would just say, look, you can't claim a license fee anymore.
	What you can do is panhandle.
	You can put out a thing saying, right, okay, well, we're going to have to put up a Patreon for the BBC.
	Join our website.
	Pay us £5 a month.
	Go join locs.com, by the way.
	Pay us £5 a month instead.
	Look at BBC.
	We don't make up lies.
	We don't make up stories.
	And actually, I tell you what, the podcast has been fucking banging recently.
	I was just looking through the just the list of things we're covering.
	And it's really stuff that no one else is actually talking about in in-depth ways.
	Like, for example, on Monday, I did a segment about how ethnic enclaves are the future of Britain.
	And just explain, look, the ethnic enclaves have been made by the choices of the immigrants themselves, right?
	Because you can go on the 2021 census and just click by identity.
	You'll notice the colours on the map moving around because these people generally don't tend to live that much by one another.
	They form their own colonies.
	And it's like, look, this is just the future.
	And I don't see anyone talking about this.
	Anyway, Orwell's Goon says, I sent an email with an excerpt of my translation of Napoleon's commentaries on Caesar for review and publication to you guys twice, but no reply.
	I haven't seen it.
	Email contact at locities.com and I'll get one of our guys to have a look for that.
	Hang on a second.
	Oh, fucking hell, my Discord's crashed now.
	My God, everything's fucking right.
	Okay.
	I will try and do that afterwards.
	Can I reload Discord?
	Sorry about this.
	I can't believe my...
	Mate, it's...
	It's not me.
	Like, the computer crashed.
	What am I supposed to do?
	Chilly, Academic Agent is wrong.
	Academic Agent is being very short-sighted.
	And you can complain about Israel and the Zionists all you want.
	But we are getting something really, really useful out of this.
	Really useful out of this.
	And so I'm not going to try and stand in the way.
	I'm just going to pile logs onto the fire.
	And if it helps, I've told him this, by the way.
	Go tattle all you want.
	He knows my opinion.
	Sorry, I'm actually gonna find those Napoleon commentaries because they do sound interesting.
	Um, Mike says, Would you ever write an autobiography of a wild story?
	Gaming Gate, Jess Phillips, Lily's, UKIP, Achille Hughes, Brexit, Necromancer.
	I'm not planning on it.
	I find autobiographies really self-indulgent, uh, and I don't like them, so I've no plan on doing it myself.
	Uh, Oops says, out of topic, uh, but thank you to introducing me to Lawhammer, Warhammer, and Lord of the Rings.
	Uh, well, uh, you're welcome, glad to hear that you're enjoying.
	Uh, Big Buck McCraw says, BBC, what new lunacy can we spend public tax on today?
	It's it's not even lunacy, it's it's a like again, Tim Davies.
	We have enemies and we have our narrative.
	This is a statement of being in a war and a culture war, and they have boundaries and trenches that they are patrolling.
	Right, that's what they're doing.
	So it's it's in like it's it's not secret, that's the thing.
	They are at the very least biased in favor of themselves, and that's what's been coming out of this.
	Oh, we have to defend the BBC because it's us, and it's like, yeah, okay, you do think that, but that's why we have to destroy it because it's you.
	Uh, generica says it's actually really easy just to tell the truth, you need a bloated media empire to create these elaborate lies.
	That's 100% true, and that's why we can just tell the truth on the podcast.
	And you know, it's really not that hard.
	And God give us the sagon that exists in the fevered dreams of lefty journalists.
	Presumably, we talk about Totnes.
	Yeah, I know, right?
	And the thing is, I can't even go back there now.
	Not that I think I'd have radicalized Totnes, but I'm sure I can radicalize somewhere else.
	Silver Camaro Camaro says, What's your issue with Shapiro's takes of if you can't afford to live here, you should leave?
	He's not saying it's immoral, you can't live here and you're no valid complaints, he's saying it's got to be practical.
	Um, well, I'm saying that it's actually the sort of neoliberal worldview that Shapiro has that has brought America to this point.
	And sorry, I actually think that people being able to live in the towns in which they grew up is more important than anything Ben Shapiro thinks.
	I think that's fundamentally the axis of what being a conservative or traditionalist is: is being able to actually live in the place where you're from.
	And I think that actually, if you force people to not live in their place that they're from, then you get all sorts of problems with it.
	And also, it's a really stupid tactic, too.
	But imagine going to Zohran Mamandi supporters of me.
	Like, yeah, well, if you can't afford to live here, you just leave, gang.
	It's like they're gonna vote fucking communists, you twant.
	That's not an answer to the problem.
	That's you saying things are going great for me, and I want more of the same.
	I'm sorry, that's not acceptable.
	That's not on, that's not a winning position, it's wrong, it's just a wrong-headed statement.
	And so, no, it's we the system will have to change, so people will have the opportunity to actually live in the place that they grew up.
	Patriot Nick says, fuck the BBC, so true, man.
	So, so true.
	Leo Wolf says, How sad is it that Gremer Wormtongue has more honor and integrity than the BBC?
	Well, I mean, it's basically that's what the BBC is: playing Gremer Wormtongue to the entire country and keeping us in the state that Theodon's in, where he's like, I don't know, in the kind of weird trance where he can't take any actions or do anything.
	And we need a Gandalf to come in and kick him down the stairs.
	If that's going to be the Zionists, okay, fine.
	Again, not my faction of choice, but as long as someone's doing it, like we need to get Theodin off his fucking throne and actually wielding his sword.
	And the greener worm tongue of the BBC and the liberal elite, they can just fuck themselves, man.
	Reform Sauron says, a century from now, the fall of modern left will have the shadow of Trump standing over it laughing.
	He'll age, well, overall, them.
	Well, hmm.
	And that's the thing.
	Like, this whole thing on the Liberal Democrats, Trump's coming from the BBC.
	No, they picked a fight that they couldn't finish.
	They picked a fight with someone bigger and uglier than they are, and they're going to get their asses kicked.
	And that's why you're terrified.
	Like, you did this to yourselves.
	You didn't have to lie about Trump.
	You didn't have to lie about anyone.
	This was all a choice that you made.
	Generica says the BBC is unbiased in the same way the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy.
	They declare it to be so, therefore it is.
	Correct.
	Again, they're just biased for themselves.
	Jez says they've been indoctrinated during the best years of their lives, and they just can't admit their student years were a waste of fucking time.
	Probably true.
	Russian says, Top Gear was the best modern product for the BBC.
	Now, the new Top Gear is so bad, they brought back 24-7 reruns of old Top Gear.
	I believe it.
	And of course, Jeremy Clarkson now is out to go to Amazon because he's not part of the Metropolitan Liberal Elite.
	Robert says, remember that one person in the BBC that said there are too many white people at the BBC?
	That was Jon Snow.
	I've never seen so many white people, I think, you were talking about.
	But there might have been another one, actually.
	Too many white people at the BBC.
	Yeah, there probably was.
	No, they wouldn't have been fired for that.
	Harry says, we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong.
	Yeah, grow up BBC.
	And that's the point, isn't it?
	Like, the closing of ranks has got a distinctly tribal feeling and flavor to it.
	Like, none of them have shown any contrition.
	None of them are like, yeah, we were telling lies for some reason.
	And actually, I'm not sure why we were telling lies, but we were telling lies.
	And we're really sorry.
	Like, the guy, Tim Davey, when he came out, he's like smiling.
	It's like, what is going on here, man?
	Brian says, 21 years ago, Dan Rather in CBS News faked a story about George W. Bush trying to sway the 2004 election, complete with demonstrably forged documents.
	Ever since then, I've assumed every news organization was scummy.
	Yep.
	How Robert Ross, that's an interesting niche reference.
	Strange that every single BBC presenter that goes solo happens to be openly left-wing, excluding Andrew Neal.
	Yeah, it is interesting, isn't it?
	And Andrew Neal defected GB News because of the culture at the BBC.
	Because it was a woke lefty culture.
	And that's why he defected to fucking GB News.
	And then he was like, GB News sucks.
	But what's really interesting is, again, what the BBC is, is a pipeline that creates the Metropolitan Elite propaganda class.
	And destroying that ends that pipeline.
	You'll get the same sort of thing coming out of Sky News or whatever, right?
	ITV, Channel 4.
	But the BBC, because of its special place, its unique place, it has so much more power and creates at such a larger scale than these institutions could possibly do.
	It's the only way they can keep a lid on the narratives, right?
	It's the only way they can keep a lid on things.
	There's no way Sky News could do it on its own.
	There's no way without the BBC, the Liberal Elite would be able to do this.
	Because the BBC is orders of magnitude more popular and more watched than anything else in the United Kingdom.
	So it's because it's the BBC.
	And so it's a good thing to have this happen.
	It's a good thing to get these biases out in the open.
	Steve says, you need to prep these clips, downloading them beforehand.
	Well, it's not clips, it's tabs in my Firefox.
	Yeah, I'm a boomer, and I know this.
	I also have Firefox open with five windows and 40,000 plus tabs in one of them.
	I haven't been doing this.
	Yeah, I know, I know, right?
	Well, I probably never had as many tabs I had loaded up for this as I did for anything else.
	So, sorry.
	Yes, Generico, shut up.
	Lucky Al says, I want to put this on the record.
	I 100% predict that Labour will implement proportional representation for the next election to hold on to power.
	Well, they won't hold on to power.
	But what they will do is essentially they'll leave us with a poison fruit because proportional representation will make everything really, really difficult.
	Like, on the plus side, like first pass of the post at least allows executive governments to form.
	It allows the government to do something.
	Even if that something is stabbing us in the back, it at least allows them to do things.
	Whereas proportional representation, coalition governments, like when you've got a coalition, like three or four parties, like in the Netherlands or whatever, it's like, this is fucking useless.
	And you end up with a kind of ideological conformity anyway.
	So it would be much better if we just had first pass the post.
	So the British public could at least decide when they want to decide.
	It'll be much harder to get proper executive governments.
	And I really don't want proportional representation.
	Even though PR is probably how I would end up in parliament.
	Like if I were to run for a sort of minor party, I'd probably like 5-10%.
	And that would get me into Parliament, which would probably be possible under PR.
	But I would rather have First Pass the Post because it's actually good for the country.
	Not that I want to be in Parliament, by the way.
	Like, fucking hell.
	But I would probably do it out of spite.
	I'd probably do it out of spite.
	Just fuck you people.
	You know, you keep ruining the country.
	At least I'll be able to get in there and tell you to your face.
	Barbarian urges rising.
	Yeah, I know.
	I know.
	Loan says, we've got to use Muslim tactics.
	Here, the lock arms of the LGBT.
	We should be flexible, but remember, these are allies of convenience.
	Maybe.
	I mean, that's basically how I feel about the Zionists.
	Robert says, so they're willing to spend a lot of time and effort investigating the police, but we're in the investigations into the mosques.
	You know why.
	Ian says, the organization that gave us yes, minister would be denouncing it as far right today.
	Well, the thing about yes minister is it tells you how the institution works for itself.
	But the BBC will be very similarly run, where it's people working for themselves.
	Angel says Ben Speer is a Civnat, not realizing civic nationalism is a nonsense term, but it basically means whoever believes in the current thing is British American, etc.
	Yeah, and Ben's already said he doesn't care about the ethnic composition of the United States as long as he gets to be ideological in the way that he is.
	So, whatever, there we go.
	Christian says, the most lethal plague today is of moral superiority complex.
	Yes, and but thankfully it's it's getting like again narrower and narrower.
	They've lost the hinterlands, they're losing battles, and now the capital is under siege.
	And basically, we need Donald Trump to sue the BBC to finally bring it down.
	Like, this is really going to help.
	So, it would be great if Donald Trump would do that.
	Anyway, my voice is going to give out, guys, so I'm going to have to go.
	I can feel it, like, in the back of my throat.
	It's a tightness in my throat.
	So, I'm going to have to go.
	But thank you, everyone, for joining me.
	Thank you for your generous donations.
	And just be aware, this is a big power play, and it's a long time coming, and it's totally deserved.
	They deserve everything that's happening to them.

▲