Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 19, 2021 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:08

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #244

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast The Lotus Eaters for the 19th of October 2021.
	I am joined by...
	Crap, I forgot the name.
	Are you serious?
	Yeah, I forgot.
	Harry!
	Harry!
	I'm Harry.
	Rory did earlier, now you...
	Christ.
	I need to make more of an impression.
	We've been going to lunch and stuff as well.
	I don't know why I just blanked for a minute.
	Thanks, Callum.
	Oh, Carl.
	Harry here.
	Yeah.
	So, today we're going to be going through Stonewall being under siege, Savid Javid encouraging GPs to see more patients, and then the GPs deciding that that's some kind of harassment.
	And also the Danish Islamist who committed the terrorist attack in Norway.
	Because, you know, mean tweets or something.
	Yeah, probably.
	Anonymous accounts.
	Well, thanks for that intro, Tom.
	Sorry.
	I don't know why I blacked.
	Anyway, some stuff to mention first on the website.
	So the first thing here being an article that was up previously, a premium one, a free speech and the trope of gay parenthood by John Tagney.
	And now has an updated voice here for silver and gold tier members, so go and check that out if you'd like to listen instead of read, because reading's a pain in the ass, and I agree.
	Anyway, so if we go to the next one here, we have the free article, Stop...
	Sorry, Sport Broadcasting Decision into Woke Kleptocracy by...
	Dissension.
	Sorry.
	Dissension, sorry.
	You've thrown me out now.
	Sport Broadcasting's Dissension into a Woke Kleptocracy.
	Yeah.
	You threw me out with the name thing and now I'm just broken.
	This whole thing's going to be a mess.
	He's skipping now.
	Yeah, so this is by Thomas.
	So go and check that out.
	That's free, so you don't have to sign up for that one.
	And then the last one to mention is the Loudon County School Board.
	We kept calling it London because we weren't sure.
	Loudon.
	Loudon.
	Loudon, Loudon, Loudon.
	Yeah, well, that is actually quite relevant to this one because this is a premium podcast which we had to make premium.
	We were going to do it as a segment on the podcast, but...
	YouTube decided to give Steven Crowder a strike for talking about this.
	So, well.
	Yeah, Carl was going to cover it on the one that I was on last week on Thursday and it was just, nope.
	Yeah, no, no, we couldn't.
	So go and check that out.
	So that's in Loudoun County.
	the father there, the chap who's being arrested, is being arrested because he turned up to talk about the transgender bathrooms in which his daughter was raped.
	And the county didn't want to admit that, even though the police had got a positive rape kit and said that that was the case.
	And because he started a comeuppance in the school board, they ended up arresting him.
	And also the school had continued to make efforts to try and deny that anything's taken place, which is just evidently not true.
	Yeah.
	Wow.
	Much justice.
	It really is the worst of the worst of the left, you could imagine.
	And, you know, the conservatives, the spooky conservatives are like, ooh, this thing might happen.
	Now it has.
	So now what?
	Yeah.
	Anyway, sorry.
	It's a completely, really depressing situation.
	Well, we're there now.
	Yeah.
	Speaking of things that would never happen.
	Yes.
	Okay, so let's enjoy.
	The Stonewall terror is finally coming to an end, so people may not know Stonewall, who are foreigners.
	You have your experience with Stonewall, don't you?
	Yes, I got in touch with them for a media documentary I was doing in my university course a few years ago and they just never got back to me, presumably because my wallet wasn't big enough.
	Because they make tons of money from the state.
	They're doing much more important things like determining who can go into a bathroom.
	So Stonewall is, it comes from the Stonewall Riots and has always lobbied itself as a gay rights organisation and then was infected with intersectionality, presumably, and has now become the LGBTQ plus organisation that it is, which means that they stand for intersectionalism, not for tolerance.
	No surprise, they were ripe for infection.
	So this is the first story here, so people may remember, just dug memories.
	So Stonewall boss defends the new strategy amid criticism, the new strategy here being to accuse anyone who criticizes them of being an anti-Semite, which was impressive.
	Also giving illegal advice to multiple organizations that they were paid to give, which again makes them look terrible, and also public bodies finally defunding Stonewall.
	You know, the D of LA, Ofcom, BBC, even at this point, are saying they're not going to pay them the money anymore to terrorise them.
	So, the end of that racket.
	So you point and go, not enough gays.
	Yeah, I mean, not really worth the cash.
	I don't think it ever was.
	You could get an intern to do that.
	I'll do it for free.
	There you go.
	I'm walking to the BBC, not enough gays.
	I'll see you tomorrow.
	So if we go to the next one, we have the other news on this.
	So why is Stonewall such a piece of S organisation?
	Well, you can see an example here.
	Scotland's civil service has agreed to delete the word mother from maternity policies after Stonewall's pressure.
	So, I mean, this is their job.
	This is what they do.
	A real service to society right here.
	Yes, enforcing leftist dogma into public bodies in Britain.
	So if we continue, if we go to the next one, we also have a film which they were involved with, which ends up being rather funny.
	So Parent condemns BBC's educational film describing 100 gender identities.
	And in the film, she actually says, that's the 100 we know of.
	Right, okay.
	We've got the archaeologists unearthing more as we speak.
	Yes.
	And the BBC did that with the advice given from Stonewall as to what to say.
	And this was meant for kids, as you can see there.
	Relationships, sex, education.
	Yeah, absolute trash.
	Don't let the state teach your kids about sex.
	So everyone has pretty much noticed at this point that this is mad.
	Stonewall are mad.
	And that's why they start getting defunding.
	But a nice turning point, I think, has come about.
	So if we go to the next one, this is Noland Investigates.
	So this is from the BBC, and it's an investigation into Stonewall.
	Except, it's only from the Northern Irish BBC radio sector.
	Trust the Irish?
	Yes.
	The London sector of the BBC have not cooperated with them at all, and you can go watch all of these episodes in your spare time.
	I haven't had a chance to watch them all, so if I missed something out, sorry.
	But there's enough in there, I think, that we can successfully put this down as what it is, which is essentially just a really good condemnation of Stonewall and why they're awful.
	Fantastic.
	I was looking forward to actually giving this a listen when I had the chance.
	Yeah, and I highly recommend it.
	But the thing there being, as they mentioned, that the BBC refused to help with any of that at all.
	Yeah, of course they didn't.
	Especially they refused to send any representatives to ever give any statements about their position.
	This organisation that has thousands of people endlessly on TV. And they've just cut ties with them.
	Why not?
	They couldn't spare a single soul to go down and have a word or get on a Zoom call.
	Nope.
	They also, Nolan Investigates, called up the BBC London office and said, hey, could we have all the correspondence you've had with Stonewall so we can scrutinise it, as they can do in this country with governments, regularly.
	The BBC said no.
	No.
	You're not allowed it.
	Pretty clear divide right there.
	So they asked for a redacted version, you know, all personal information redacted, whatever.
	Still no.
	Nope.
	We're not going to send you anything.
	They know they're guilty.
	Yes.
	And I think it's fantastic.
	They are hiding something.
	Yeah, the obvious point being that Stonewall is also a lobbying group and the BBC cannot be involved with that sort of thing.
	You will recall this is how British Voldemort ended up getting John Sweeney his job.
	Because remember, John Sweeney ended up leaving after colluding with an organisation called Hope Not Hate.
	And, well, the BBC is not allowed to do that because they're explicitly partisan.
	Well, yeah.
	Funded by taxpayer money, so...
	Yeah, and hope not hate specifically being communist in that case.
	Anyway, so we go to the next one here with episode one, and I thought we'd go through some of this fantastic stuff.
	So I thought we'd first mention that Stonewall has a policy of never debating, ever, if they can help it.
	So let's play this first clip.
	Police, NHS, all of these organisations have brought Stonewall in, presumably aware that Stonewall hold some controversial views.
	So why did they bring them in and allow them to influence their own policies?
	And can they then say that they are truly independent?
	When my guest today, Ruth Hunt, became chief executive, she extended its work to include the trans community.
	But many Stonewall members have been upset at the line the leadership has taken on gender recognition, that anyone can declare themselves to be male or female, and at their refusal to share a platform with anyone who disagrees.
	Translides and not debate!
	Translides and not debate!
	When you consider how controversial some of these issues are, Stonewall's position of often not debating them has just meant that the potential policies that Stonewall are advocating for can't be scrutinised and can't be debated.
	So that's part of the reason why they've been so successful.
	Yes.
	Agree with our suppositions or else.
	Yes, nothing is up for debate.
	And that's why you have clips of, say, the lady who went to the BBC to call TERFs anti-Semites, compare them to anti-Semites.
	She was not on with someone else to debate this, because they don't invite debate.
	Yeah, as a tactic it is, sadly, very effective.
	But it's also very telling.
	They know their ideas can't stand up in debate.
	Yes, of course.
	So if we go to the next one here, Stonewall also decided to talk to the BBC about setting up an allies scheme, so for non-LGBTQ plus people, you know, the demis.
	Yep.
	They're the ones who are going to be the allies, and the way they were going to do this is put badges on them, and then they could speak for the LGBs, Qs and Is, or whatever else.
	I thought the whole thing was that if you're not actively involved in the community was that you can't speak for them and you shouldn't speak for them, you horrible bigot.
	No, you can use your privilege to speak for them.
	Ah, yes, of course.
	Because they don't have to spend time educating us.
	Right.
	So let's play the second clip from episode two.
	You have to look at the relationship between the BBC and Stonewall and how this started.
	Because the reason we're doing this podcast was because I saw something on the BBC staff website which made me think, well, where's that coming from?
	So there was a statement on their page which said, it was about the BBC ally scheme, you know about the ally scheme.
	And this one line struck me.
	Interventions made by non-LGBTQ plus people as they are not done out of self-interest can have a greater impact than if raised by LGBTQ plus staff themselves.
	So here we have the BBC issuing a UK-wide initiative across the organisation.
	And is it a coincidence that it was taken from a Stonewall policy document?
	Hello everyone, I'm James Purnell.
	I am the sponsor of the LGBTQ plus work stream.
	We spoke to lots of you and one of the suggestions that came back was to have an allies program.
	We work with Stonewall on the review and they emphasize that as well.
	What critical thinking was there within the BBC before it recommended straight staff would wear badges indicating that they were available to speak on behalf of LGBT people because, quote, they can have a greater impact?
	Can you imagine if you were saying to a woman, We're going to get a man to speak on your behalf because he might be listened to more.
	Exactly what they said, right, was interventions made by non-LGBTQ plus people, because that's the BBC's new term that they use, as they are not done out of self-interest, kind of a greater impact than if raised by LGBTQ plus staff themselves.
	And I love it.
	You're literally going to get a little rainbow sheriff's badge.
	Yep.
	Yeah, I speak for the game.
	That's literally the meme of the black woman going, I'm not oppressed, and them going, yes you are, let me speak on your behalf.
	Yes.
	Jesus Christ.
	That was an actual policy Stonewall came up with, and then the BBC developed it to.
	The BBC doesn't even seem to have had any sort of scrutiny to this at all.
	Stonewall, just say it, we do it.
	Yeah, there was some clips later on that I haven't had time to include, but it was essentially just they interviewed a bunch of people and they were all like, what?
	Are you mad?
	Like, why would I need some guy to speak for me because, you know, he's got the gay badge.
	It's so patronising.
	Yeah, there was no critical thinking whatsoever in that decision.
	There's also the point that the term LGBTQ +, is not a term that is generally used throughout public organisations.
	It is advised by Stonewall to be used, though.
	Of course.
	So therefore the BBC using that term It's a direct lineage.
	Yes, there was also the framing of that where they were saying that non-LGBTQ +, so it's like, so we're just framing LGBTQ +, as the norm.
	The alphabet.
	Yes, the alphabet soup.
	Are they just the norm?
	Are they the standard at the BBC? That's the standard.
	You can't just say, oh, straight people.
	Yeah.
	Normal people.
	Yeah, no, they use that term.
	But it's a direct lineage from a lobbying group who uses that term and no one else to the BBC's editorial output and advice within its own staff, which is a big no-no because they are still governed by the Royal Charter and all the rest of it.
	Anyway, so if we skip forward to episode 10, as you can see here, this is where things got a bit spicy and I enjoyed.
	So if we go to the next clip, there was a debate about pronouns in here.
	Between Nolan, the Northern Irish BBC chap who's looking into Stonewall, and the Pink News CEO turned up to debate after he ran away from his last debate.
	Carl's favourite.
	Yeah, and the Pink News guy says some pretty shocking stuff, so let's play this play.
	I have a feeling there's a script that you could probably get everything they're about to say off of.
	I wouldn't expect him to say that he was going to break the law, but he did, so let's go.
	BBC told staff that they were keen to move up the Workplace Equality Index and they set that as a goal.
	And they listed some examples of things that they have done which have improved LGBTQ equality as part of that.
	And one of those things was the use of promoting gender pronouns for staff, which obviously is controversial with some people.
	Why is it controversial?
	But anyway, I'll let you carry on with your question.
	Well, you know the debate as well as I do, Benjamin, but...
	Help me here between the two of you.
	Why is it controversial, David?
	David can explain why it's controversial, and I can tell you why I don't think it is, which is funny.
	Well...
	Well, looking at this, there are two sides to this debate, aren't there?
	It's about sex versus gender, essentially, and gender identity.
	So a lot of people who argue sex is more important than your gender identity will argue that if you start to bring in pronouns into organisations, you're essentially taking a political position on the side of gender identity.
	Well, that's what those people argue.
	So I'll give you my perspective as an employer.
	So we do have a pronouns policy.
	On our email signatures and on Slack, which we use for internal messaging, our pronouns are declared.
	And when we do a meeting with someone external or when there's a candidate coming to be interviewed for a job, I'd say, hi, my name's Benjamin, my pronouns are he, him.
	But Benjamin, as an employer, if you had a member of staff who held gender critical views and they didn't want to take part in that and they didn't want to put their pronouns on those emails, should that be compulsory?
	Would you make an employee do that?
	I would say that it's unlikely that someone with gender critical views would either apply for or be successful in being employed at.
	You couldn't discriminate on someone based on gender critical views.
	I can't discriminate against them based on, well, the recent thing would say that it's a protected characteristic as a belief, right?
	I think it would be incredibly unlikely that someone who holds views that are contrary to the stated mission and values of Pink News would wish to work at Pink News.
	I love that.
	Yep.
	So you've got this stupid pronouns debate, which I don't really care about because the answer is obvious.
	But the amazing point there being that he lays out that, well, if someone applied to Pink News with gender critical beliefs, they would be unlikely to apply, but also unlikely to succeed.
	So they come into the office, no, you don't want to apply here.
	Yeah.
	You don't want to come near us.
	You might think that's not a big deal, but gender-critical beliefs, as he mentioned subsequently, are a protected characteristic in law in Britain.
	I mean, it's so obvious that, like you say, he's just backpedalling.
	It would be nice if he just came out and just said, I can, and I will.
	Yeah, I won't hire people who disagree with me on this.
	Yeah.
	Because we have in British law that you are protected on your race, class, blah, blah, blah, blah, on employment, also belief, and gender-critical beliefs are now protected under those.
	So the fact that he said that they wouldn't be successful, it is actually the legal equivalent of him saying, yeah, well, at Pink News, we don't hire black people, and if they did apply, we wouldn't promote them or accept them.
	It's like, okay.
	Well, we wouldn't get them applying here, would we?
	Yeah, but even if they did, they wouldn't be successful.
	It's like...
	Okay, Benjamin.
	Yep, alright.
	That's how the law is written.
	Both of those things are equally protected under the Equality Act, so...
	Big admission from Pink News there.
	I'm sure they would like it if the Equality Act only went one very specific direction.
	Yes.
	We want our police protected, no one else's.
	Exactly.
	Big shook.
	Anyway, there's also the last exchange from him, which I've had to include because it's really funny, which is the CEO of Pink News, Mr.
	Benjamin, saying that he can't really fathom a world in which we don't exchange pronouns when we meet.
	You can't think 15 years back, well, three years back.
	Can't imagine it.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Let's take this outside of Pink News and let's look at, you know, government institutions.
	Should an employee be compelled to write that it's he, she, they, them?
	Honest answer is, I think there's a very specific thing at an organisation like Pink News, but I think that at a public sector body, of which the BBC is one, I think that it should be probably described as good practice.
	Why?
	Stephen, would you not want to know whether someone you're working with or whether you might be inadvertently offending or upsetting someone that you're working with?
	But if you're in a working environment and you have a good relationship with your colleagues and there's a good working environment...
	Well, how would you have a good...
	How would you have a good working...
	How would me and you have a good...
	Can I ask you what's your preferred pronoun, David?
	I love it.
	It just breaks down.
	He's like, just tell me your pronoun.
	I want them now!
	How do we live side by side if we don't know each other's pronouns?
	Nolan?
	Yep.
	Okay.
	You can see the difference there between the normal human beings and the people who are London-centric.
	It's amazing how insulated in their beliefs are they that all it takes is, but why, though?
	And they're like, oh god, no, no, Jesus.
	I wasn't expecting this one.
	Yeah, anyway, so we're going to move on from that, which is also there is a direct line between Stonewall's guidance and BBC editorial, as mentioned previously, there's some of this.
	But also in the internals, the fact that they ask for what gender you were assigned at birth.
	Because remember, you were assigned your gender at birth.
	It's not a description of reality.
	It's the doctor putting you down on a list somewhere.
	Yes.
	Anyway, let's play the next clip.
	Sam Smith, a former BBC journalist, says she felt that the language used by Stonewall was filtering through to editorial output.
	The Style Guide advised journalists that they should refer to people as the sex of their choice.
	So if a man says he's a woman, you refer to that person as a woman, in all circumstances.
	There don't seem to be any exceptions to that.
	So that's essentially self-identification.
	Yeah, it's self-ID. Okay, so if you apply for a job in the BBC and you start to fill out the recruitment form, the form asks you whether your sex or your gender is the same as the gender or sex, I can't remember which, that you were assigned at birth.
	OK? Now, believe me, when you have a baby, no one phones you up and asks you, oh, congratulations, what sex was it assigned at birth?
	OK, this is not normal language.
	This is not common parlance.
	This is political language.
	This is campaigning language.
	And it's the campaigning language which is used by organisations who are on one particular side of that political campaign, the most prominent of which is Stonewall.
	And when I queried this, because I did start to query some of this stuff, I was told that the BBC kind of checked this with Stonewall, and Stonewall were fine.
	They were fine with it, and therefore the BBC was fine with it.
	How has the BBC got itself into a position where rather than making decisions for itself, It is taking what Stonewall tell it.
	I thought all these managers in this organisation were in this organisation to take decisions on behalf of licence repairs, not to defer them to a lobby group outside of the BBC who have one particular agenda, their agenda.
	I love it.
	I mean, something we've known for a long time, as you can just see it, evident in the BBC's output.
	But it's finally being showcased, and in a way, where the BBC can't ignore it, because this is actually against their own charter.
	They can't just work with some lobbying group to decide issues that are not settled.
	And the way they were deferring decisions to it as well.
	Are we sure about this Stonewall decision?
	I know, let's ask Stonewall what they think.
	Maybe they'll have the answer.
	Yes.
	This also continues, so if we go to the next one, we have the term cis also being used.
	Let's play the next one.
	Cis is a word used by, again, one side of this particular political campaign to make women sort of a subset, biological women, a subset of women as an identity, okay?
	And people on the other side of this argument really object to that.
	They find that word cis incredibly offensive.
	Does the BBC now use the term cis?
	I've seen it in our editorial.
	Yeah, I've seen it on our website.
	I've seen it on our website.
	Are we using it because Stonewall have told us to?
	You know, sometimes...
	Well, maybe we could find out if the BBC would answer our freedom of information.
	I mean, this is presumably what we're going to get with this stuff, is exactly what the advice was from Stonewall.
	Were they saying, in editorial output, you should no longer use these terms and you should use these terms?
	And there has been a shift in BBC language.
	For example, if you see in BBC Copy now, it says LGBTQ +, which is something that is quite new.
	That's now, whether they asked for it or whether it's led through, but that's now being used in editorial output by the BBC. So again, more terms being used directly from Stonewall.
	And the last one here I wanted to play was just an amazing thing, which is the BBC have now redefined what homosexual means.
	So for all time, it's been people who are same-sex attracted.
	Yep.
	So we're of the same sex.
	If we were attracted to each other, we'd be gay.
	Throwing that one out there.
	That would be one definition, but that's not the BBC's definition.
	Nah, they're going to tell you who is gay.
	And it's on gender lines.
	Let's play the last one.
	Our understanding is that when the BBC Style Guide was being updated, diversity and inclusion had an input.
	Diversity and inclusion?
	Yes.
	So diversity and inclusion, which are supposed to be, the whole message has always been, it's an internal matter, it's about HR, all of this.
	But diversity and inclusion had an input into the BBC Style Guide, the language we use.
	But the language...
	Look, I've been in this organisation a long time, and you're telling me...
	Diversity and inclusion have a major input into this.
	Into how we speak?
	Into the language we use, and it's particularly on this issue around sex and gender and sexuality and all of these different terms.
	So there's a piece in The Spectator, and it's entitled the BBC's Woke Guide to Gender, and they're very critical of some of the way the BBC defines some of these terms.
	And the key one is around the definition of homosexual.
	So the BBC has in its official paperwork how it defines homosexual.
	Yes, so we've got that.
	We've got the new style guide.
	There's been a lot of fuss over this and it's been mentioned for a long time.
	It's now come out and the BBC say homosexual means people of either sex who are attracted to people of their own gender but take care how you use it.
	Of their own gender?
	Yeah.
	Most people who listen to that might not notice that, but that's very significant in this whole debate.
	Attracted to people of their own gender, because a lot of gay people will say it's not about gender at all, it's about sex.
	They're same-sex attracted.
	So the BBC defining homosexuality as attracted to your own gender, not sex.
	Therefore they are literally taking the position of suck the dick bigger.
	Absolutely.
	You gay, bro.
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	If a lesbian doesn't want to have sex with a trans woman who has a penis, she's a bigot.
	She's a bigot, and she's not gay.
	Yes, she's not really gay.
	Yeah, it's...
	It's homosexual, John says, not homo-gender-al.
	True.
	It does remind me of those TikToks you see of teenagers going, let me explain why I'm a lesbian who goes out with a guy.
	Yes.
	That is literally a position.
	It's how you end up at that position.
	And it's mad.
	And I just wanted to go through some of this as well, some of the stuff in the culture.
	So if we get this up, this is some thing that's taking place in Portsmouth Council.
	If we get the first image, you can see just the array of random gender flags.
	And if we keep going, you've got the graffiti from the supporters of Stonewall's Worldview.
	F-Turfs.
	We go to the next one.
	We have Transphobes can suck my pink strap.
	Right.
	And if we go to the last one here, we have the signs they're holding.
	Suck my dick, you transphobic C-word.
	Yes.
	Rightio.
	Keeping it classy.
	Again, just the tolerance is unbelievable.
	I also love how this comes off, if we can get the next link up, as this.
	I mean, literally, that's all it reminds me of.
	It does a little bit.
	If you're putting people in a position where, due to gender ideology, they are having to get with people who have the genitals that they're not attracted to, what are you saying?
	Yeah, you literally have to do it or else.
	Yep.
	Or else face the woke mob.
	Yeah, anyway, so let's move on from this.
	There's another thing that this obviously ties into, which is BBC Question Time.
	So this was a clip in which Professor, what was it, Robert Winston, who's a professor of biology, specifically around fertility and reproduction and stuff, and I've actually seen him live when I was a kid, and he's a great guy, and he knows his stuff because he's a scientist, not an ideologue.
	And if we can play this clip, he just decides to point out that you can't change your sex, and in response, Fiona Bruce, the host here, tries to slap him down and be like, no, no, no, people disagree.
	Damage control immediately.
	Yeah, so let's play this clip.
	Academic freedom has been talked about in a number of areas in recent years.
	I was rather hoping that you'd be interested in my opinion as a biologist, which seems rather more important.
	Well, I'm just saying only because the issue of academic freedom isn't solely limited to trans.
	I'm about to say something which will mean that you'll probably want to edit the programme when I finish.
	But basically...
	Right.
	Okay, we're all graced for it.
	I will say this categorically, that you cannot change your sex.
	Your sex actually is there in every single cell in the body.
	You have a chromosomal sex, you have genetic sex, you have hormonal sex, you have all sorts of different kinds of psychological, brain sex, they're all different.
	And we are very confused about this, unfortunately, and regrettably, it's got into this Argument that people will now accuse me of being transphobic.
	Well, there are trans people who say you absolutely can do that.
	Overall, I think it's a very sad thing that we can't discuss biological science without actually getting completely caught up emotionally with something which is really completely wrong.
	Well, as I say, there are people who would vehemently disagree with you, so I'm just going to make that clear.
	Yes, and those people are wrong.
	Yes.
	The idea that somebody who at most has read a Judith Butler book can disagree with a biologist on something like that.
	I must say, he's such a charismatic guy.
	And he's done his work, he's dedicated his life to the subject of fertility and sex and all the rest of it.
	And then he's there like, yes, so here's all my research, my knowledge, all the rest of it.
	And she's like, yes, but some people disagree.
	And despite...
	He was putting it forward in a very casual, very sort of friendly way, just like, let me just explain to you very calmly.
	Like, this is the science, and if you disagree, you're a science denier.
	Yes, and you can be sure if he said that to anybody outside of this kind of environment, he would be met with screeches.
	Yeah, but I also love the fact that he's like, well, we're very confused on this.
	Well, who's doing the confusing?
	Yes.
	We weren't confused on this 10, 15 years ago, were you?
	Anyway, so if we move on from this, you have this tweet in which summarized it perfectly.
	The reason Fiona Bruce has to say some people disagree to Professor Winston is not because of scientific discovery, but because of Stonewall training.
	Absolutely correct, as we demonstrated with that podcast before.
	That is why she's saying that, because, well, the internals make her say such a thing.
	Also, if we carry on from this, I also wanted to make the comparison that some people have made to stuff like this.
	China will require more than 200,000 accredited journalists to take at least 90 hours of continued education a year to ensure they are politically firm or professionally excellent.
	Yeah, that's never going to happen in the West, would it?
	But you might wonder, why the hell am I wasting all your time with this?
	Some podcast shows that definitively what we've all known for Ava is that the BBC is infected with leftist intersectionality and it goes through all their editorial and work processes.
	Yeah, okay, fair.
	Except that it's having a huge impact, and that's why I spent my time on this, because the hoes are mad and unbelievably mad.
	So, all of the checkmarks, all of the leftists, are essentially treating this as the collapse, the utter destruction of their worldview in public bodies.
	And, um...
	Yeah, okay, good.
	Drop the red pills.
	Finally.
	So let's go to the next one here.
	We have some people screeching.
	So you have Stop Funding Hate, of course, with their checkmark.
	An open letter detailing the growing concern about the BBC's behaviour towards trans people.
	And it's signed by former BBC staff, of course.
	So the concern being that BBC Northern Ireland hasn't been infected with this, apparently, and isn't fallen for it.
	If we carry on, there's more checkmarks who are uber-mad.
	Angela Rayner, uber-mad.
	As I said two weeks ago in my speech to LGBT Labour, there is what appears to be a campaign in some parts of the media.
	The coverage of trans rights and trans issues is terrible.
	So I stand with Stonewall and what you said about the treatment of these issues in the media.
	Referring to Stonewall's influence being released from that podcast that then was reported on by BBC News again.
	We carry on.
	There's more of these.
	So if we go to the next one, we have some other guy.
	I think he's LGBT Labour chairman or secretary or something.
	Of course, very scared by the fact that they're being exposed.
	And we keep going.
	I find this campaign for reality quite scary.
	Yes.
	Jesus.
	The campaign for reality is the problem.
	If we carry on, we have Islamo-leftism, who is also very mad.
	Relentless attempts to vilify Stonewall.
	Yeah, because they provided legal and just wrong information consistently at the taxpayer's expense, No, not a concern.
	Simply because they stand up for trans rights getting lost.
	The BBC are using public money to amplify such a hateful campaign reminiscent of homophobic moral panic's beggar's belief.
	Right.
	But if they use public money to advocate scientific wrongs and nonsense and unlawful guidance, A-OK. But to point out that this was unlawful, improper, and just scientifically wrong, that's the problem.
	Always a problem.
	We also carry on.
	We have Owen Jones, who is very mad.
	He did a stream about this in which he was mad for about an hour 33.
	Isn't he always?
	About everything?
	You know, once he does.
	We go to the next one here.
	Women speaking for themselves.
	Owen Jones mad.
	I can't remember what order I put these in.
	So just as we go to the next one, there's another guy who's very mad.
	He's mad that the LGB Alliance is talking sense and Stonewall is looking more and more insane.
	And then the last one here, if we get the last one up, this is the last link.
	We just have him being mad, of course, because Pink News are reporting anti-LGBT plus hate crimes are up in Britain.
	And he's like, if you think this is unlinked to the constant attacks on the trans community from the UK media and other recent attacks on Stonewall by the establishment and the BBC, you haven't been paying attention.
	Right.
	Because people are watching that, realizing Stonewall's full of ass, and therefore going out and attacking gay people.
	Not happening.
	Nah.
	Just pulled out of your ass.
	And depending on how they're defining hate crime as well.
	Yes.
	There's also that problem.
	But anyway, I know that took a little while, and the reason I went through all of that, and you might think it's a little bit just like, oh, come on, we knew.
	Well, it's having a tremendous impact.
	They are getting defunded left, right, and centre, and also being exposed for what they are.
	People wanted good news, right?
	Yeah.
	Here's some good news for you.
	Far left being exposed on a national level within Britain.
	Yeah.
	I'm going to take the win.
	Based Ireland.
	Excellent.
	So, moving on, we'll try and get through these segments a little bit quicker, because that took a while.
	So Sajid Javid is pushing a new proposal this Thursday to encourage GPs to increase face-to-face appointments in their surgeries.
	So here we can see on the Telegraph, On Thursday, the government will unveil a blueprint for doctors that includes an extra £250 million for general practices to increase capacity over the winter.
	Practices will be told they must respect preferences for face-to-face care and should consider using the cash to extend opening hours and offer walk-in consultations to allow more patients to see a GP in person.
	Those failing to offer sufficient in-person appointments will be denied access to the fund.
	The measures, according to be announced by Sajid Javid, Eggman, Yes, Eggman, Yes, Eggman.
	Rules said to be hampering patients' ability to see a doctor in person.
	So this sounds like a good thing to me because face-to-face appointments with your GP are important.
	You're not going to get the same care over the phone.
	They're not going to be able to pick up on everything that could potentially be wrong for you because there is a lot that can be more physically obvious than just speaking to them over the phone.
	So it seems like a good thing.
	Also, we pay for it.
	Yes, also...
	Yes, also those two factors as well.
	And it's especially important because the number of face-to-face GP appointments has fallen dramatically since the start of the pandemic and has failed to recover.
	The latest monthly data showed that only 58% of appointments took place in surgeries, down from 80% of all consultations before the COVID crisis.
	And the true number, worryingly enough, is likely to be lower.
	With an investigation revealing that some telephone consultations are being counted as face-to-face meetings as well.
	Campaigners and patients groups have warned that many vulnerable people have been unable to access care, with coroners even linking a series of deaths to remote appointments.
	So there you go.
	Yeah, this is also an unintended consequence of tying healthcare as a state operation instead of a private one.
	Exactly.
	And they know that they're doing something wrong because they're actively trying to massage the numbers by saying, like, well, this telephone appointment was face-to-face, so a little bit suspicious.
	A key part of Mr.
	Javid's blueprint will from next spring see GP surgery appointment data published to help the NHS increase oversight of practices with the most acute issues in relation to access.
	Patients will also be able to rate their general practice by text message in a new survey scheme being piloted in around 60 surgeries.
	It will be rolled out across the country next year.
	Critics of the plan said it amounted to naming and shaming surgeries that do not offer enough face-to-face appointment.
	Because of course they're playing the victim card straight off is that a criticism I mean, it's holding people accountable, which people love that phrase, holding people accountable for the quality of service that they're providing.
	Yeah, it's a horrible thing.
	I know, exactly.
	I mean, I don't know if you've been to the doctors since COVID, but it is a nightmare to get through to any sort of face-to-face appointment at the moment.
	So it's unsurprising that the government's been having a lot of, well, the NHS has been having complaints about this.
	So, general practices will also be asked to devise local plans for increasing in-person consultations with money available from the new funding part.
	Greater use of pharmacists, paramedics, advanced nurse practitioners, and nursing associates are also set to form part of the solution.
	So it sounds as though some of the jobs that would normally be the GP. And for those watching in America who may not know, a GP is a general practitioner.
	They're basically a doctor who serves a community from a...
	Local doctor's office.
	They provide face-to-face consultations and do everything in regards to your day-to-day health rather than what you'd get at a hospital.
	I don't know if America has anything close to that.
	Yeah, exactly.
	But it sounds like they're trying to allow other people in the surgeries and the offices to take on other responsibilities so that the GPs will have more time to do this.
	this.
	I think it includes getting prescriptions done by other members of the staff as well.
	So Mr. Javid paid tribute to GPs and their teams for their enormous efforts in the most challenging times in living memory.
	So you've got to praise the whole the NHS, even when Telling them to get off their arses after delivering 300 million appointments in the past year and performing the majority of COVID vaccinations.
	But on Wednesday night, the British Medical Association said it was hugely dismayed at the rescue package and claimed it showed the government was out of touch with the GP crisis.
	Dr.
	Richard Valtteri...
	The BMA GP committee chairman said, And it sounds like as part of these procedures they are trying to...
	get GPs more time for it.
	There is a bit of me that is sympathetic to the bureaucracy angle.
	'Cause I can imagine since COVID, there's probably a bit more red tape in place that is slowing people down, but still this is just whining. - Yeah, I mean, they are a lobbying group It is what I expect of them.
	Government says we should make the department more efficient, and lobbying groups are like, yeah, but more money.
	Yeah, I know.
	You're always going to say that.
	The NHS always gets more money, though.
	Yeah, so writing on, if you skip to the next article...
	So he's gone even further than just saying that they are out of touch.
	Writing on Twitter, Dr.
	Chand Nagpul, the head of the BMA, said no other part of the NHS is subject to access league tables, blaming them for workforce shortages, publicly shaming with patient feedback tests, and CQC hit squads blaming them for failing.
	If general practice was an employee, it would claim harassment, discrimination, and victimization.
	Sorry.
	Being told you're not seeing enough people face-to-face.
	It's harassment.
	Being shown evidence that the lack of care that you're providing to certain patients is actively killing them, in some instances.
	Nah.
	Harassment, mate.
	What you want about...
	Being intimidated by the patients who want to meet me.
	Who don't want to die.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so skipping over to the next one.
	So the BMA themselves have pointed out that the number of, it seems that a lot of the workload that's potentially caused some of these issues is due to the number of COVID vaccinations that they've been having to do.
	So the number of COVID vaccinations delivered by GP practices has been falling since its peak of 8 million appointments in May, but still amounts to 1.5 million appointments.
	since last month by 1.9 million, but remains high at 23.9 million.
	So even of the millions of appointments that they get, the COVID vaccinations are becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of them, which really should result in some positive results for being able to see them face-to-face, right?
	Yeah.
	No.
	Still isn't.
	That's harassment.
	Yeah.
	And the thing is, as well, that COVID, as much as the media would like you to forget, is not the only disease out there.
	Certainly not the only deadly disease, especially given that most of the country is now vaccinated.
	You would expect this to be a lower priority for things.
	I mean, we've got seasonal flus coming up and other such things, which I believe are more deadly than COVID at this point, from what I'm aware.
	Heart disease, all the rest of it.
	Yeah, and everything else.
	So, yeah, and if we skip over again, the Surrey and Sussex Council Medical Council have recommended people not to engage with these plans at all.
	Thousands of GPs have been told not to engage in any aspect of the government's disastrous plan to increase access to face-to-face appointments.
	The Surrey and Sussex...
	I know.
	What a disaster.
	Don't see them.
	Don't see them.
	The Surrey and Sussex local medical council, an independent body representing 3,300 practices in the area, wrote to members calling the plan politically motivated.
	Good.
	If it's political now to be able to see a doctor, I'm on the side of, you should be able to see the doctor.
	I'll wait for that.
	Access to healthcare, that's political.
	Is it?
	Who's on the, you shouldn't have access to healthcare group?
	Well, we'll ask Stonewall.
	I have an answer that they would give.
	At this point, the LMC does not recommend practices engage with this initiative or respond to it.
	It has no contractual standing and there is no requirement to do so, it's added.
	Dr.
	Parker said that none of these proposals are in the GP's contracts.
	An NHS spokesperson said, some patients have experienced challenges and we expect primary care to engage with how they can use the resources being made available to maximize the access for patients over winter.
	So, they're basically at this point recommending people to just refuse to do their jobs.
	It's so irresponsible that they're just saying, like, you don't have to do it, and here's how you don't have to do it.
	It's not on your contract.
	To meet people.
	To do anything for them.
	Yeah.
	That's literally your job.
	I love it as like, that's right, I'm a doctor, I don't do anything.
	No, surely.
	Well, I mean, certain GPs, if you've ever been to them, that's relatively accurate.
	I was quite lucky where I lived.
	And just a reminder to skip over to the next one, all of this talk of lacking funding, lacking doctors, this is the NHS budget.
	This is in real terms as well, so you do not have to think that, oh, it's increasing because of inflation, it's increasing because of increased funding.
	Yes, this is what we're paying for.
	And people are actively not getting what they're paying for.
	Fantastic.
	So, wonderful.
	I never thought I'd end up agreeing with Eggman on something, but...
	I know.
	Yeah.
	Life throws you curveballs, I suppose.
	Yeah, so that's all for that one.
	If we move over now to something, well, equally serious.
	I mean, obviously, in the past week, we had the tragic murder of Sir David Amess.
	And for anybody paying attention, they may know that that was not the only Islamist attack.
	But first, before we get into that, since the attack, there has, of course, been the push from the Conservatives for repealing anonymity.
	Yes.
	On social media.
	You shouldn't be able to go online and post mean words with your name not attached to it.
	Presumably also where you live and your social security number attached to it.
	Because this is completely connected to the Islamist terrorist terror attacks.
	Yes.
	David Amis was killed by mean words.
	Yes.
	No, he was killed by enough.
	And so, even people on r slash Labour on Reddit have been making fun of this.
	You can see this meme here.
	Labour MPs in 1920.
	By hand or by brain, the workers will seize the means of production.
	Ban the landlords.
	Labour MPs in 2021.
	Lennon Ball69 called me a quick.
	Oh dear.
	Call the constabulary.
	I don't know how they don't see that in their own party with the hate speech laws, but whatever, I guess.
	At least they're on the right side of history on this one.
	I mean, you don't know how they don't see it at their own conferences.
	And then if you skip over, Preeti Patel has been putting this forward as well.
	She's considering removing the right to anonymity on social media.
	These YouGov polls that you can see 78% of Brits think that everybody should have to disclose their identity when signing up.
	Don't believe it.
	Just don't.
	With 37% saying it should have to be displayed on the profile.
	What was it?
	I'm surprised it's not 72%.
	Was that the number?
	I think it was 71%.
	71%.
	That's a classic.
	Yeah.
	But that was the one where they keep coming out with polls immediately after the government's been like, hey, it's this idea.
	They would just throw up a poll and be like, yeah, the public support it.
	71%.
	Exactly 71%.
	I mean, even if that was the case, YouGov, I think you've mentioned it before, is self-selecting.
	But also the fact that there's immense suspicion over the fact that the ex-CEO of YouGov was the health minister and now is education minister within the party.
	It's like...
	Yeah, I bet he has all the phone numbers of all the people he used to work with deleted from his phone.
	I'm sure he's not texting them.
	Yes.
	Also to mention, just for the context, this was put up after Sarah Everard and they brought it back to be like, hey, hey, yes, support for this, I swear.
	Yes.
	I don't believe it.
	The British people are definitely into this.
	And if we go over to the next one, we can see that...
	The press has been typically classy about this, ignoring the actual matter of fact that it was, once again, an Islamist terror attack and going...
	Ideological motive for the attack.
	Yep.
	PM faces calls for David's Law to halt online abuse.
	For the love of God, do not...
	Name this after him.
	Yeah, this seems incredibly out of touch and distasteful.
	It's very crass, I think, in a word.
	So that's what the press are doing to stay classy, British media.
	And surprisingly enough, all of this has actually caused Sir Keir Starmer, of all people, to say something relatively sensible.
	Which, if you go over again, this is a quote from a tweet.
	Are we sure this is what he's actually said?
	Yeah, she's been reliable.
	Okay, that's alright then.
	Yep.
	Keir Starmer says, civility in politics matters, but we must not lose sight of the fact that David's killing was an act of terror on the streets of our country.
	Congratulations.
	Again, how do you end up agreeing with the Labour leader?
	Yes.
	Yeah, he correctly identifies that, yes, the terrorism is the aspect of interest, not some mean tweets.
	And it's a pretty obvious position to end up at, but...
	Apparently some people have been failing there.
	Specifically the Conservative ministers.
	But yes, moving on.
	As I said, sadly, in the past week, this was not the only terror attack that has resulted in deaths in Europe.
	A Danish man...
	As you can see from this article here in Norway, went on a killing spree with a bow and arrow that resulted in five deaths.
	So, look in this BBC article here.
	Four women and a man were killed and two others wounded when a man used a bow and arrow to attack them in Norway.
	Police first received word of an attack in the town of Kongsberg, southwest of the capital, Oslo, at 6.12pm local time.
	A Danish man, aged 37, which we've now confirmed to be a man called Esperen Braven...
	Yeah.
	So there's some parallels that you can draw here as well, sadly.
	That's another Islamist attack just around the corner in Norway.
	Self-radicalised.
	By a Danish national.
	Yep.
	The attacker is said to have launched the assault inside a co-op extra supermarket on Kongsberg's west side.
	One of those injured was an off-duty police officer who was in the shop at the time.
	A spokesperson for the chain later confirmed a serious incident at their store, adding that none of their staff were physically injured.
	Local police chief Oivind Az confirmed that the attacker had managed to escape an initial confrontation with police before an arrest was finally made at 6.47 local time, 35 minutes after the attack began.
	Doesn't sound great, the police response, and if you skip over...
	We've got a bit of an examination of the police action at the incident, which, by all accounts, seems to have been atrocious and made the situation worse.
	The dude's got a bow and arrow.
	Yeah.
	They've got guns, right?
	Presumably.
	I mean, that's what we're going to hear.
	So the initial reports by the sound of it was that the police arrived at the place where the perpetrator was observed and were clearly unarmed.
	It turns out that this is now wrong.
	They were armed but lacked protective equipment.
	It was the lack of protective equipment...
	Excuse me?
	Such as bulletproof vests that led to the perpetrator initially escaping and managing to kill five people before the police caught up with him again.
	The police had to withdraw during the terrorist attack in Kongsberg, west of Oslo, because the officers were shot with arrows.
	I think that should say shot at with arrows, even though they were in possession of weapons that were both more powerful and more far-reaching than the arrows that came at them.
	So presumably they've got shotguns, pistols, rifles, something.
	Yes.
	All of which fire faster and further than a bow and arrow.
	Or so you can take cover?
	Yes.
	I'm not sure of the penetrative capabilities of an arrow, but I can imagine a bullet would do a better job.
	So then they didn't fire on him, he then walked off, killed five people with his bow and arrow, because they didn't just shoot him.
	Yes.
	Excellent job.
	I mean, that's just embarrassing.
	It is.
	It's embarrassing, and it drinks all round, lads.
	Yeah.
	So, obviously, it's the officer's duty to protect citizens, and these officers failed.
	But there is one silver lining to it, which is that there was one officer on the scene doing their job, He wasn't on duty, but he did his job anyway.
	So an off-duty police officer has been hailed as a hero for saving people's lives during a deadly bow and arrow attack in Norway despite still having an arrow stuck in his back after being shot.
	So this guy took an arrow, unarmed, and still tried to help people.
	I think his name, I'm going to butcher this pronunciation, Rigoberto Villarroel, 48, told The Telegraph that he was in the supermarket with his family when Espen Brathen began his rampage on Wednesday evening in Kongsburg, a picturesque town near Oslo.
	I saw him with his bow in the store.
	He started shooting, and I immediately called my colleagues in the police and told others to run.
	He said on Friday in his first comments to the media shortly after being released from hospital.
	Oh, this is a report from somebody who was also walking past the scene.
	I think he's a hero.
	He saved my life.
	I mean, that's an absolute chad of a man.
	Absolutely.
	A hero and a chad, as said.
	And he was the only one seemingly in the police, even off-duty, doing his job.
	I don't think you could ask for better.
	Yeah.
	I mean, that's actually fantastic.
	Putting himself at pretty lethal risk.
	He already had the arrow sticking out his back, so very impressive.
	Brathen, 37, continuing in this article, has confessed to the killings and is being detained in a medical institution rather than a jail.
	A judge ruled on Friday that he should remain in custody.
	Sorry, they decided that Islamism is a mental disease now.
	I mean, there's a strong argument you can make.
	He should remain in custody for at least four weeks while officials complete psychiatric evaluations.
	He's being held on five counts of preliminary murder and three counts of preliminary attempted murder.
	Preliminary charges are a step short of formal charges, and a terror-related charge could be brought if the evidence supports it.
	Police Inspector Mr.
	Omholt said that Braden appeared to have been motivated by a range of factors, including anger, revenge, impulse, jihad, illness, and provocation.
	It's just one of them.
	Just, you know, anger, revenge, a burning hatred for Western culture.
	You know, he wants to kill all the kofars.
	It stubbed his toe as well.
	I heard one of the guys in the store looked at him funny, so...
	Yeah, I think there might be one in there that's more relevant.
	Yes.
	And here's another silver lining for you.
	Local police were on Friday considering whether to report themselves to the National Bureau of Investigation over an apparently slow response to the deadly incident.
	Apparently.
	You literally had him.
	You had him.
	You could have just shot him, just duck behind your car, pull out your gun, wait for an arrow to go by.
	It takes a second or two to reload a bow and arrow.
	Shoot him.
	But no.
	So I do...
	Good.
	I think they should report themselves, personally.
	For being jihadist, thanks.
	But, I mean, it's another example of this situation we have, especially in Europe, which is the Islamist movement, let's say, is one that has been pouring into Europe and has resulted in attack after attack after attack, especially in France, where, I mean, just this year, there's been, like, two policewomen who were just brutally murdered by people who turned up and just killed them.
	And you've got this, you've got David Amos.
	It's a conversation that has to be had, which is, well, let's talk about Islamism, let's talk about Islam, and what we can do about it.
	And instead, we have the conservatives being like, yes, but, so, tweets.
	Yes.
	And, just to throw it out there...
	Could not be more irresponsible.
	To head the complaints off at the pass, it's not anything to do with race, because this man was Danish, and was able to self-radicalise either way, so it does point in a very specific direction towards a particular ideology.
	Yes.
	Such an easy argument to make.
	Yes.
	And yeah, the Conservatives are too busy just being like, yes.
	But Twitter.com has people on there that I don't know their names.
	But what about Lenin's balls?
	He's a terror!
	Yep, and some more details about the attacker that are quite illuminating, shall we say.
	So...
	We can see here through Sky News that Braden is a Danish citizen who lived in Kongsberg nearly all his life, so reasonably outside contact with these sorts of ideologies shouldn't be...
	you can't really see how he got it other than online and potentially through immigration and people like that.
	And the police have said that the suspect had been convicted several times in the past and confirmed that he had converted to Islam.
	He was given a six-month restraining order against two family members last year, believed to be his parents, after refusing to leave their house and threatening to kill one of them.
	He was convicted of burglary and cannabis possession in 2012, and Regional Police Chief Olbredrup Savard...
	Apologies.
	It's Scandinavia.
	It's all Viking talk.
	Well, that police chief said officers had prior contact with him over concerns he was becoming radicalised.
	In December 2017, a concerned friend also flagged up videos that Brathen had put online, reported the Afton Post and newspaper.
	Looking into the camera, he's said to have confirmed that he was a Muslim and It sounds like a terrorist threat if you've ever heard it.
	Exactly.
	The friend said that Bratham was a ticking time bomb who changed in his late teens and became more and more of a loner who pushed people away.
	So with this guy, every, every potential red flag seems to have been there, clearly out in the open, reported numerous times, So they could have got him before he got into the position where he could kill people, and they didn't.
	And then he was in the position where he was literally moments away from killing people, and they still didn't do anything.
	Not until he had.
	And it was down to the one guy off-duty to save lives.
	So, God bless that man.
	So, yeah, so, remember, Conservatives in the UK, these attacks have never had anything to do with online anonymity whatsoever, or bullying.
	He didn't start shooting people with a bow and arrow because, I don't know, he was able to post tweets.
	Exactly, and it wasn't because people were tweeting mean things at him, either.
	This wasn't some kind of incel attack, as they try to claim these things to be sometimes...
	He was already known to security services, quite similar to, what was his name, Ali, who had been reported to prevent.
	And, yeah, we should also remember the name of, once again, Rigoberto Villarro.
	I say that.
	Remember his name, however you pronounce it, because he was the real hero in this whole situation.
	That was some real heroism right there.
	Absolutely.
	Putting himself in the line of duty and putting himself at risk, just like police officers should do.
	Anyway, without further ado, especially we should get into the video comments.
	Let's start.
	Pick-up artists are recanting their entire careers and beginning to sort of burn their own books and turn to Christ.
	All of happiness at the moment as portrayed in popular culture is hedonism.
	Please not.
	You look really contentious.
	laughter Yeah.
	You do have quite the death stare.
	Sorry.
	Don't apologise.
	Just my resting face.
	He always looks like that in the office.
	Yeah.
	Although with that one, there was a special part of me that just really hated the way that guy wrote.
	Having listened to that segment, I do dislike the sophistry myself.
	It's a pain in the ass.
	You can just talk like, you can write like a normal person talking.
	It's like, I grew wings in my personal universe.
	Shut up!
	I ascended to the heavens!
	What are you, a goth child or something?
	Like, just write what happened.
	They're bringing emo back.
	But there were a lot of people who disagreed with me in the comments as well, who thought it was stellar writing.
	I just, I don't agree, so...
	I'm more on your side than their side.
	Yeah, it seemed to divide the audience.
	So, let's go to the next one.
	Hi, guys.
	I made this t-shirt a couple of weeks ago.
	It's a bit of satire based on Luke 4.24.
	Bit black-pilled now, maybe, given what's happened recently.
	But as a white pill, here are two wonderful dogs.
	This is my Akita, Kami.
	He's very, very gentle like a big bear.
	And this is Storm, my Labrador.
	That'll be a good one.
	Well, they're both adorable and that life looks fantastic with them.
	Well, that's just lovely.
	Yeah.
	More doggos.
	Great.
	Don't get the biblical reference, sorry, but doggos.
	I get the doggos.
	Yes.
	I do wonder, though, it's kind of a weird question, but just the ears.
	I'm sure there's some veterinarian or someone that knows this, but why do some dog ears stand up perfectly and some of them just don't?
	What's going on there?
	I know.
	It's just a question of interest.
	Not a complaint.
	It looks adorable.
	No, no.
	Both dogs look good.
	Let's get to the next one.
	News from Germany, I guess.
	The election was over three weeks ago, and we still have no idea who's going to rule.
	The Green Party and the Liberals seem to be the kingmakers in this, because it looks to be adding up into a weird three-party coalition with either the Social Democrats, who've barely gotten the most votes in this, or the supposedly Conservative Party, which suffered a historic loss.
	Sometimes I think we should just make minority governments standard or just coalition governments illegal straight up.
	Either way, I hate German politics.
	Yeah, it's probably one of the best arguments against PR as well, is watching the German situation.
	I've not been keeping up to date with that.
	So the CDU being the Christian Democratic Party, so meant to be the Conservatives, England, Merkel, and they're crap.
	They're not Conservatives, if anyone can see.
	Does all of Europe have a problem with supposedly Conservative parties?
	Yeah.
	Because it seems like it.
	The left also has this problem sometimes.
	So like the SDP, a lot of Socialists would say they're not our guys, which I disagree, but whatever.
	So you've got them, but then you've got, like, the Greens who came out of nowhere and took a huge amount of the vote, which I don't understand.
	Well, I mean, we've got that problem with Labour here, where as soon as Keir Starmer comes in, they're all of a sudden like, we're not Chavez-esque socialists.
	Hmm.
	But it's just such a mess, that outcome, and you're right.
	The only thing I'm obviously sad about is the AFD there, who we met in the German parliament, and again, I'm not German, so I don't know everything about these groups.
	Sorry if I mischaracterized some of them, but the AFD, when we met them, they're just wholesome as heck.
	The MP we met, for example, was a guy who grew up in Czechoslovakia, communism, and then had to flee with his family to Germany, and then a year later it collapsed, so he was annoyed about that, because it was like, well, it doesn't work for nothing.
	Yeah.
	Just thinking back, with the AFD, were they the ones mentioned in that New York Times?
	Well, I think it was a New Yorker article about the Kentler experiments as being trying to bring justice to those kids who were handed off to pedophiles.
	And the article was characterising the far-right AFD. This is typical standard.
	But, like, it's, you know, meeting one of the MPs.
	He grew up into communism, came to Germany, and is now annoyed that, like, socialist nonsense is coming back into power.
	So join the AFD and become an MP. And it's like...
	Man, that's heroic.
	Unbelievably liberal as well.
	And everyone else we met that was perfectly normal and liberal or conservative as well.
	The rap those guys get is just nonsense.
	Well, bringing pedophiles to justice is far right, don't you know?
	If that's far right, what are the rest of the party's doing?
	Exactly.
	Yeah, no.
	We should get Hugo's opinion on it, because I know he was a proponent of proportional representation, but...
	I mean, just look at it.
	I mean, when you're stuck there with no government and there's no real way anyone can see to get a government working.
	So I'm like, ah, crap.
	I wish we'd just have to pass the post.
	Yeah.
	My opinion, anyway.
	That's the point.
	That's the point.
	Oh yeah, I forgot that.
	Of course it's going to be Hugo's opinion when she just...
	Ah, perfect!
	Look, they're not in government.
	Eli's got me there.
	I am always happy when they're on holiday rather than in Parliament.
	Ah, fair.
	Alright, let's go to the next one.
	Before I go for bed, it gets worse.
	You see, at the start of the lockdown, my grandma and my mum's side got ill.
	The one I actually live with, as well as with my grandad.
	They wanted to get her to hospital, but of course we weren't allowed to.
	Only coronavirus patients were allowed in hospital to protect people.
	Now, of course, it turned out she was sick because she had cancer.
	She died.
	If it wasn't for the lockdown, there's an argument that could be made that she could have lived, so there's been many times when I have been really tempted to punch people for saying, oh, we're just trying to protect people by lockdown measures.
	Her restraint is more admirable and honourable, but there have been many times when I've wanted to punch people.
	Yeah, fair.
	You got my sympathies.
	This is something we talked about a fair amount as well, and I assume in like 10 years or something about some documentary exposing how lockdowns cost more lives than they saved or something like that.
	Oh, there's going to be some big exposés.
	Yeah.
	I'm at the end of this.
	That's all I can hope for.
	Yeah.
	Whoever's responsible is held accountable at some point.
	Oh, they won't be.
	Yeah.
	They'll skulk off like they always do.
	Let's go to the next one.
	I've had enough of these people.
	Liverpool's a Christian mother's gone.
	An appalling rise in hate crime against migrants, Muslims.
	What the hell?
	laughter I've watched that video so many times.
	I saw the full version as well at Baystate's YouTube channel, so go and check that out.
	But I was definitely too spicy to be played on this, so...
	Oh yeah.
	Yeah, I don't really know what to say in response other than...
	good edit.
	Yeah.
	Let's get into some historical context first, specifically about the Hebrew people.
	And they are Hebrew, not Jews.
	Judaism is a religion.
	The people are Hebrew.
	And the Hebrews had a different religion than that of the Jews.
	The Hebrew religion was a multi-pantheon religion.
	It did not have one God.
	It had three.
	God the Most High, the Son of God, Yahweh, Yeah, I never knew that.
	Very interesting.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I always thought Hebrew was just a language.
	I never thought it was a sort of group of people that aren't the Jews as well.
	Yeah, I have to look into that.
	Yeah, thanks for the knowledge.
	Hey Lotus Eaters, Tony D and Little Joe with another Legend of the Pines from the Forgotten Towns of Southern New Jersey by Henry Charlton Beck, Hockamick, New Jersey.
	Originally named in the late 1700s supposedly for Hawker Mick, a guy who hawked his wares, Beck concluded through his research it was actually named after a guy named Mick who had a terrible cough and thus Hockamick, New Jersey.
	Well, I mean, that's a really funny story about how the name of Ro, but also, I see Joan standing up there, so distractions.
	It's hard to pay attention when there's the cute dog in the corner.
	Yeah.
	Huckamick.
	Just coughs all the time.
	B-word.
	Fair enough.
	Do you want to read some, or do you want me to read the Do you want to go through the Stonewall ones?
	And I'll go through some of the other ones.
	So, on Stonewall, so Based Ape says they basically just admitted they would not have a good working relationship with you if you don't meet their demands.
	So they are admitting it's them who are creating the issue against you, not the other way round.
	Their hostile working environment is coming from them by their own admission.
	That's a fantastic point that I didn't pick up on from the pink new CEO there.
	He's like, look, the workplace was fine, we all got along, and then you people turned up.
	Until the dissidents arrived.
	I'm like, it's your pronoun.
	I can't work until I know the pronouns.
	Give us your pronouns.
	Don't put the pronoun in the bag.
	Oh, mate, you want some pronouns?
	I kind of, because Nolan ended up saying, I don't have one.
	And he was like, no, no, no, no.
	Do they call you he or she?
	And he was like, he, I suppose?
	I mean, the thing is, I've never cared.
	And most people I know have never cared.
	Well, he also tries to make the argument that, well, Nolan, if the CEO of the BBC turned up and he was keep calling you she in a meeting, wouldn't you feel offended?
	And Nolan's just like, no, I wouldn't give a toss, it's just funny.
	Yeah, it depends entirely on your temperament, and if you don't like it, you just go, oh, sorry, it's this actually.
	And you go, oh, okay, fair play, whatever.
	You know how normal people talk.
	Exactly.
	Well, these people don't talk.
	So George Happ says, I do find that funny.
	Have you seen all the, like, people going on Omegle or whatever?
	Oh, are they getting trapped, shall we say?
	Yeah.
	Ooh, it's spicy.
	Yeah, the guys who dress up as women very often end up looking like more convincing women than women.
	Well, they certainly put a lot more effort.
	I mean, feminism has pushed women to just throw away all kinds of beauty standards that they used to have.
	Femininity.
	Yeah, femininity.
	Whereas at least some of the T's, shall we say, do put that effort in.
	Yeah.
	Which is why you get Leo's standard of, if I'm having to do more work in your transition than you are, I'm not doing the pronouns.
	It's a great standard.
	Yeah.
	But I also love how it's...
	Carl mentioned that the pronouns thing...
	Like, why do you have to ask someone their pronouns?
	Because it's not evident.
	If it was evident...
	Yeah, that's true.
	You would just automatically...
	Yeah.
	And it also exposes that if someone asks you your pronouns, you should probably be insulted.
	So, dead baby...
	Oh, God.
	I can't say that.
	slash debate between the chaplaincy over gay marriage.
	Everyone in the little circle had spoken other than me.
	All were not gay, but they were pro-gay marriage.
	I was then asked my view.
	The Anglican chaplain intervened saying quote "This is a safe space for LGBT people.
	We wouldn't want them to feel unsafe, so let's shut this down." I was the only gay lesbian one there, but she knew as a Catholic I am against a gay marriage and advocate and live celibacy for people with same-sex attraction if I'm the wrong kind of gay.
	I feel bad for you, Mr.
	Dead Baby.
	I feel bad for you, Dead Baby.
	Could you imagine?
	You're the only gay guy in the room.
	And it's like, yeah, but for the LGBT community, you're not allowed to talk.
	And evidently, they must not have been wearing their badge.
	No.
	You need to get the badges out, mate.
	And fair play to sticking by your religious principles, to be perfectly honest.
	That must be quite difficult.
	Celibacy's not an easy life, I imagine.
	Very frustrating.
	I'm not a Catholic, I don't believe in any of it, but fair on you for living the life, I guess.
	So Jimbo G says, in an era where victimhood is weaponized and used to assert power over others, it is absolutely no surprise that being able to just declare you're an LGBTQ plus is an enticing prospect.
	If you're a young and impressionable person, it provides the same unity and safety of a cult.
	The fact that it has hegemony over our institutions is legitimately terrifying.
	This is what happens when we are sleeping.
	Yeah.
	This is why I'm especially also giving a segment to that podcast there.
	As I mentioned, you might think, well, come on, we knew.
	But we've all knew, and it's been going on for years, slowly creeping in.
	And now they're in a real position of it crumbling.
	I'm not joking when I say the fact that they put this front and centre on a BBC website, so that's easily accessible.
	I was surprised to have even seen it not just put out there, not just tucked away somewhere where you can't find it.
	Covered up by the BBC, like Jimmy Savile's documentaries, for example.
	Yes.
	Documentaries about him.
	But he also exposed the fact that the BBC were not willing to send a single representative or show the correspondence to the public of them talking to Stonewall.
	They are so guilty.
	They are unbelievably guilty.
	And hopefully they get John Sweeney kicked out.
	Hopefully.
	And yeah, what they were saying about it's exciting, enticing to just declare yourself as LGBTQ+. I assume that's why there's the allyship for a lot of people.
	It just allows you to ride the coattails of that privilege.
	Although...
	Just say you are.
	Yeah.
	What are they going to do?
	Make you suck a dick in the boardroom?
	Oh, you are, eh?
	Zip!
	Yeah, they're not going to make you prove it, so just do it.
	Why not?
	Get the advantage.
	Freewill2112 says, Invasion of the pronoun snatchers.
	It is terrifying how quickly this takeover is happening.
	Certainly is.
	Mario says, I do find it interesting and ironic that the BBC's Stephen Noland, who has been what I would class as an optimist, useful idiot SJW in the past, has its seemed jumped from SJW ship to, since it is sinking, gets the noggin jogging.
	Yeah, I don't know anything about Stephen Nolan, so sorry if I'm...
	Me neither.
	...if he used to be a useful idiot.
	Well, that was one of the things when I saw it.
	One of the reasons I sort of held off watching it at first, I thought to myself, is this going to be self-serving from the BBC in a certain way?
	But, I mean, if you're describing him as an opportunist, then I guess he's just following his opportunist instincts.
	And either way, if it's producing a documentary that's very useful and quite damning in condemning these people, then...
	Someone's got to do it.
	I don't know anything about the guy, so I'm not going to speak to that.
	But even if it was all the case, then if he's producing content that is factually accurate and exposes corruption, it doesn't really matter.
	Fundamentally, he's done a service to humanity.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So Chris Wolfe says, It's really nice to see someone calling out the term cis.
	It's such a presumptuous word from a group screaming about lived experiences.
	Yeah, I can't really stand it.
	You're a cis male.
	It feels like an accusation.
	Yeah, but it's also funny because you know how the chant trans women are women is like, well, why the trans part then?
	Yep.
	That's why they've added the word cis.
	I still don't get that either.
	It's like, well, why can't trans women just be trans women?
	What's so insulting about the trans prefix?
	Well, that's the thing.
	Why do they use trans women if trans women are women?
	Why don't they just say women?
	Exactly.
	They know.
	Which is why I think the term cis gets used a lot more.
	It's because they want to make that division less noticeable.
	Well, we have trans women and cis women, right?
	Therefore, that's just the way the world works.
	Yeah.
	It's like, well, why don't you say trans women are cis women?
	The authentic woman.
	It's because you can't.
	And you know you can't.
	So he finishes that with, honestly, if people call me cis, I'm calling them a three-letter word.
	I mean, get the pass first, convert, and then you'll have the right to say it.
	I was about to say you have the right, but then I realised, oh wait, no, we're in England.
	Yeah, you have to convert first and then get the pass.
	I don't know how you convert to...
	If someone calls you cis, you need to go nip to your surgery, get your transition sorted, and then come back.
	You don't have to do that, you can just say I'm gay.
	Oh yeah, true.
	Prove me wrong.
	Actually, don't prove me wrong, because that's not going to happen.
	Anyway, so Alpha of the Beta says, Absolutely true.
	Pravda still exists, by the way, in Russia.
	Oh, okay.
	They were the outlet for the Communist Party, the Soviet Union, and all the rest of it.
	It literally means the word truth, for people who don't know, in Russian.
	Just Pravda, like, the newspaper is called The Truth.
	I wonder where Orwell was getting it all from.
	Yeah, and they still exist in Russia and still funded by the Kremlin.
	I wasn't aware.
	No, the difference is the same.
	Christ.
	It is what it is.
	Freewill2112 says, if it is endorsed by Angela Tory Scum Rainer, it must be a good organisation.
	Stop paying the BBC tax, which you can do legally and still watch the streaming services.
	And if you want to watch BBC content, buy a second-hand DVD, so you're not paying them for that either way.
	previously I don't know if his videos are back up but there's a wonderful YouTube channel called crime bodge he had to take all his videos down because of legal problems okay I hope they're back up now and he went through well actually BBC guidance states that if they do get to the point of sending men to your door to say oh yeah you can just say no they have the legal right to come in and check but BBC policy says that they won't and if they do they'll be baking BBC policy I'm not to name names but I've had an advice from a number of people shall we say what just just don't answer the door
	They show up, just don't answer the door.
	Because the BBC policy states they could forcefully open the door, they could forcefully walk in.
	They are not going to, because their BBC policy says we don't want to look like that.
	Yeah, we don't want to look like the jackboots kicking doors in over a television license.
	So you just close the door, tell them to bugger off, they're not going to do anything.
	My general solution is not to watch BBC programs because they all suck nowadays anyway.
	Generally, yeah.
	I've never paid it, never will.
	Bom Tom Beardo says, it is a fact that sex cannot be changed.
	Yes, but some people disagree.
	What a conversation.
	I've heard it's a fact as well that people can't fly.
	But I'm going to go test that theory now because I disagree.
	Won't be such a tragedy if my opinion turns out to be incorrect.
	Please don't, Mr.
	Bomb.
	Have you ever watched Bill Hicks, the old American comedian?
	He had a great piece on drunk people jumping off buildings to test they can fly.
	Well, if you can fly, try taking off the ground, idiot!
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	Some people disagree.
	Yes.
	Like, you've got the number one scientist in probably the world, if not definitely Europe, for this.
	Yep.
	And you're like, yeah, but some people disagree with you, mate.
	Some people disagree that I'm not a deer, but I ate plenty of grass last week.
	I mean, it's literally the flat earther position of Gemma.
	Anyway, do you want to read your one?
	Yeah, so moving on to the GP's snowflakes, um, comments, Omar Awad, unlike shelf stackers and the rest of the plebs working during lockdown, GPs are the protected class, so asking them to do their job is tantamount to abuse.
	I can't believe anyone would ask these heroes to take time away from their all-important TikTok choreography to help actual patients.
	Good point.
	To be fair, the TikTok choreography was mostly in the nurses, um, Still, though, if they were so overrun in the hospitals, how did the nurses have all that time?
	That's true.
	I don't want to go too hard on the GPs themselves as being useless people or anything.
	But the idea that you shouldn't meet people face-to-face, come on.
	Yeah.
	I mean, they've got a point there.
	If people are going out and risking their lives stacking shelves, then a doctor can wear a medical mask and just take your temperature, if needs to be.
	Yeah, so, David Shipton.
	Seems simple to me when it comes to GPs.
	I would simply reduce their wages to 80% until they are willing to return to do their work properly.
	Fancy doctors thinking they can just stay at home and deny a service we pay for during a pandemic.
	Bit harsh.
	A little bit harsh, but there's some utility in it.
	I just like the references, like, wages will be reduced to 80% until the situation improves.
	Yep.
	Snow Dog As a result of where he is elected he needs to do loads of work to sort GPs they're currently discriminating against men with mental health issues I can't really speak on that No.
	Sorry.
	Alex Ogle, in an ideal world, all that extra money the Conservatives voted for the NHS would have been tied to targets on improved care.
	In an ideal world, Mr Javid would be absolutely based in setting targets to make the NHS management regret those diversity director positions being advertised.
	In an ideal world, the extra date would be specifically targeted to improve service and catch slackers.
	In an ideal world.
	That's basically what I was going to say at the end of that as well.
	An ideal old Eggman would have done what he said he was going to do.
	Yes.
	And be like, yeah, wokeism, that's banned.
	Not wasting money on that.
	Didn't he come out and was like, well, actually, I do support Black Lives Matter.
	Yeah, he did that after the court case with Derek Chauvin.
	It's just expected at this point.
	He just seems opportunistic to me.
	Yes.
	Soup can Harry.
	My wife is a GP and a partner in her firm.
	Neither of us are fans of the BMA. A big problem with GP surgeries is that you only have so many doctor hours per doctor.
	If you keep piling on tasks in any job, you eventually get to a situation where your expectations are greater than the ability to deliver.
	There's a major issue at the moment across all practices, not just some which may well be skiving.
	That's a good point.
	Not all of them are necessarily going to be the ones trying to inflate the face-to-face appointments numbers.
	But once again, calling it harassment and abuse.
	That was the BMA. Yeah.
	I can never get over how these lobby groups don't look in the mirror for a minute.
	I just think, how do we look?
	Absolutely not.
	But yeah, so it does sound like these new measures are trying to improve specific doctors' abilities to see patients by spreading the workload a little bit more, which may be effective, maybe not.
	We'll just have to see.
	Moving on to Danish terror comments.
	Oh, fair play.
	I know that he was using a bow and arrow in the attacks at the shop, so maybe when he got away and ended up killing those people, maybe he switched another weapon.
	Maybe we should focus more on the commonality of Islamic terrorists if we want to change.
	Yeah, excellent point.
	I'd also like to know, because both of the Danish boat chefs, sorry, Norwegian boat chefs, haven't come in for a video comment, but I imagine I'd like to know what the debate is there between the different parties.
	Like, is their response the same as ours, just to be like, yes, so, uh, tweets.
	Yes.
	Mr.
	Jack Dorsey, what are you doing about this situation?
	Well, he didn't even have a Twitter account, I would say.
	Yeah.
	X, Y, N, Z. Never let a crisis go to waste, eh, Preeti?
	You disappointment.
	Fair.
	Fair.
	Free Will 2112, like the Rush reference.
	Once again, the woke establishment hijacking Sir David's death for their own ends, adding insult to injury by naming their legislation after him.
	Yeah.
	I think that is just tasteless.
	I have no idea what his opinion on this stuff was, but I can't imagine he would be in favour from watching the interviews he's done.
	Yeah, I've not watched the interviews that he's done, but I just feel that it's so opportunistic just to try and get that emotional pull out of it more than anything.
	And to think, if you were going to do that for one policy, the one policy, as we previously mentioned, is the death penalty for the guy who did it.
	Because he was very adamant that that should be the death penalty for people who murder.
	Priti Patel is a person...
	Was that Amos' position on that?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, fair play.
	In the interview he did with Ian Dale a couple of years before this happened, he's quoting that a family member of his was stabbed to death in a car park, and he then says, well, you know, they took life, they have no right to their life.
	Well, it's certainly better than us funding their continued existence in prison.
	Because he would get a whole life order.
	Exactly.
	That's the argument, anyway.
	Yeah.
	So, Lord Nerevar, common sense bow and arrow control now!
	LAUGHTER Yeah, just what we were talking about there.
	It's probably true as well.
	You get this in America a lot where it's like, you know, Charlotte's law or whatever.
	Yeah.
	It's the emotional tug that pushes people to go, well...
	Yeah, but remember Charlotte.
	It's like, yeah, but the law might be a bad law.
	Yeah.
	That debate isn't had.
	Do you want to do the honourable mentions?
	Yeah, sure.
	I can see a meme here.
	Behold our new law.
	Priti Patel could remove your right to social anonymity.
	Are you sure this will stop Somali terrorists?
	Somali terrorists, yeah.
	Yeah.
	I love Stone Toss.
	Oh, yeah.
	Such good colleagues.
	He never misses.
	Nah.
	Anyway.
	So, of the honourable mentions, Edwin says, please introduce a thumbs up so we can like the episode.
	There wouldn't really be a point, because it's our website.
	There's no algorithm to beat.
	You're already here.
	We already know you love it.
	Yeah, give it a like.
	Like and shout, I don't know.
	L for like, F for respects.
	Comment love hearts.
	Yeah, I can do that.
	Just do that.
	That's wholesome.
	Yeah.
	There's the answer.
	So Heathcliff Lowen says, It is obvious that the political elite have zero interest in helping the public in any way.
	Even a horrific terrorist attack is just another opportunity to push a law through to appease their globalist masters.
	Does anyone even believe we live in a democracy these days?
	I'm not as black-peeled as you sound, but I just...
	I don't understand what the hell is wrong with them sometimes.
	Yeah.
	I'm not surprised that they want to limit online activity because they don't like criticism of the government or people sending the messages on Twitter saying, you're crap.
	I get that.
	But to do this in response to a murder of an MP, I mean, one of their own as well.
	Yeah.
	You know...
	If they're the privileged class, if MPs are a privileged class, which by definition they are, and then they do things in their interests constantly, one of them gets murdered, and their response is to do something completely random that has nothing to do with that.
	It does feel like one of those things where, after the Everard thing, they were like, well, we want to do it anyway, and this has just given us the perfect excuse.
	Yeah.
	Even then, I mean, she wasn't murdered by tweets.
	Yes.
	Useless people.
	God, there's so many Conservative MPs who have fallen for that as well.
	It's disgraceful.
	So, Ross Diggle says, During the Yugoslav Civil War, the Serbs started using bows.
	Of course they did.
	The arrows would penetrate through sandbags, whereas bullets wouldn't.
	People have videos on YouTube trying to disprove this and being massively shocked that it's true.
	I can believe it.
	Interesting, but I doubt they brought sandbags with them.
	What do you mean?
	The police.
	The Norwegian police.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	You just take cover behind a car or some bricks.
	Yeah, exactly.
	A wall or something, right?
	Well, you'd think.
	Yeah.
	I don't know how those police officers who had this shot can sleep tonight or forever.
	Yeah.
	So Duffy says, Archery of Peace.
	Yep.
	It is fast becoming a question of how longer will the powers that be coddle and excuse these terrorists?
	What is the end goal of the diversity in a pea brains of these advocates?
	I don't know.
	Maybe they just want us all to get killed.
	I'm going more and more to the Alex Jones position on this.
	You could argue demoralisation.
	That's happened.
	All you need to do is see Callum's resting face for that.
	I don't know, but the video-based Ape had of being like, yeah, well, a bunch of demonic worshipping, child murdering...
	Coming round to it!
	Yeah, look, a long enough time period, Alex Jones always looks correct, doesn't he?
	He does.
	Yeah.
	Speaking of which, check out our premium podcast on what Alex Jones was right about, if you're interested in that.
	Is it multi-part?
	No, we're going to have to do an episode two.
	And three.
	And four.
	Eventually, yeah.
	He doesn't stop making predictions, that's for sure.
	So a question from the site.
	Someone says, can we get a podcast of Callum's view on climate science?
	His physics background would be interesting perspective.
	I'm sorry to disappoint you.
	We didn't spend any time on such things during my degree.
	And my knowledge is so limited that when we do do segments on that stuff, I usually say there are going to be a million people who know more than me because I don't know climate science.
	It's just not something you did at my degree.
	I've got a few books on it that I need to read, so I can't really contribute much until I do.
	Oh, you see John is typing Naomi, so go and check Naomi out.
	What's her YouTube channel called, John?
	He's going to go get it.
	Naomi, people who don't know, is very interested in these things, and she's a German YouTuber who also gave a speech at the German Parliament about it.
	Oh, wonderful.
	Sorry to disappoint you, mate.
	It's not my realm.
	North Antonio Knight says, I can't help but think of that heroic Norwegian cop saying things like Monty Python's Black Knight.
	He has an arrow in his back.
	His reaction?
	Tis but a scratch.
	Tis a flesh wound.
	And then just carries on.
	Yeah, based.
	God, I really hope there's an image of him, if for no other reason than just for him to have his mantelpiece, be like my finest hour.
	With an hour sticking out of his back, carrying three different people at the same time.
	Throw them out of the supermarket.
	What a Chad.
	Does he look like Giga Chad?
	I imagine he must.
	I mean, honestly, whoever's in charge of the local authorities there ought to put up a statue in his honour outside that shop.
	There's just a bronze statue of him with the arrow in the back or something.
	And they're just like the pathetic cops at the side.
	But yeah, awesome guy.
	There's their channel as well for people who want to go and have a look at stuff about climate science or whatever it else is Naomi's talking about.
	Give us some love.
	Yeah, that's the only person I know who talks about this sort of thing, so...
	Catastrophic regression threshold, morning gents, nothing super relevant, but maybe worth a laugh.
	Got my second jab, had no reaction at all, but happened to get sick with the same seasonal cold I get twice every year that weekend, and missed two days of work unpaid.
	Sorry to hear that.
	Also, thanks to the audio tracks and the articles, I will be upgrading to Silver tier, because I just don't have the time to read all the quality writing, and my pronouns are F and off, if anyone asks.
	Cheers.
	Nice.
	Correct response to the pronoun.
	Question.
	Also, I'm glad to hear that there's no reactions and sad to hear that you ended up having to take time off, though, because of the sickness.
	There is nothing I hate more than being sick.
	I don't know about you.
	Yeah, I mean, when I was in school, it was great, but nowadays, no.
	No.
	I just feel useless and weary.
	But also, like, the physical aspects of having a blocked nose.
	I'd rather get cut than have to deal with stuff like that.
	I don't know if I'd go that far, but it does suck.
	So Robert Longshore says "The Q in LGBTQ+ means questioning." Really?
	I thought it was queer.
	I thought it was queer-y.
	What's questioning?
	Questioning, I suppose, means, oh, I don't know yet.
	Just by Curious or whatever?
	They change the rules.
	Transcurious?
	You need to get on the newsletter.
	They change it every few weeks.
	So you could include yourself under the umbrella if you want to question your sanity.
	You certainly could.
	Can we get privilege now?
	Yes.
	Wonderful.
	But I remember Santander had a big-ass acronym that they used.
	It was like LGBTQQIA2S. It was ridiculous.
	Santander's a bank for foreigners.
	And the two Qs I didn't get.
	I assume it's now queer and questioning.
	What the hell is questioning?
	I mean, they could just put multiple LGBTQQQQ+. Just write alphabet, people.
	It's faster.
	Less of a waste of everyone's time.
	John pointed out it's like agnostic, except it's queernostic.
	Queernostic.
	That's not bad.
	It's alright.
	It's a recommendation we had from chat to the live event about that they're based and they hate this nonsense so they spend their time on the diversity committees and panels and all the rest of it so they can subvert it from the inside.
	Oh, wonderful.
	And it's amazing work.
	I just filibuster Yeah, but also, if you want to get on these things, and maybe you want some more privilege on those things, they and everyone else should probably just identify as gay or queer or questioning or whatever else, and just be like, and what...
	You know, I like my wife, but...
	No, the bisexual one is amazing for that.
	Because you can say, I'm bisexual, but I love my wife.
	And people do.
	People do a lot.
	The amount of people I've met who are just like, I'm bisexual.
	Never done anything with the same sex or anything like that, but I'm pretty sure I'm bisexual.
	Well done, so brave.
	Why don't you go have sex with this man?
	I have a wife, so...
	I'll have to ask her permission.
	Anyway, on that bombshell, it's time to win the show!
	So, if you want more from us, go to lotushears.com and please do sign up to premium to get access to all the premium content and that's also how we fund the show.
	Otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow at one o'clock.

▲