Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 6, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:37

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #301

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 6th of January 2022.
	I'm joined by Harry.
	Hello.
	And today we're going to be talking about Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, the nonce, officially now, has been convicted.
	The trans kids debate rages on.
	Specifically, I'm very excited to see Tom Harwood versus Posey Parker, to be honest.
	And also Colston's statue vandals walking free.
	So if you decide to destroy a statue in the UK, go ahead.
	It's completely legal.
	At least that is the statement from the jury there.
	In that case.
	There is one particular statue in London that we can think of.
	I can think of a few.
	Anyway, so some things to mention first.
	So the first thing on the website here being the best thing ever article from Bo.
	So this is an article, I believe, about the Hubble Space Telescope.
	Go and check that one out.
	That one's free, so that's why I especially wanted to mention it.
	Also, Bo did a lot of work on that.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So Try This in Texas.
	This is republished, where we now have an audio track here for Silver and Gold Tier members.
	That's Hugo's article there, so go and check that one out.
	And then the last thing to mention was the new article from Bo, The Westminster Traitors, talking about who he believes is essentially...
	Not doing their job.
	And you can go find out in your full time.
	And that one also being free.
	Picture unrelated.
	Picture.
	I don't know, actually.
	We'll find out.
	And the last thing to mention, of course, Getter.
	Logis, he does underscore com being the app for Getter there.
	So go and check us out on there if you want to keep up with what else is coming up.
	Oh, without further ado.
	Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, the nonce.
	Officially that is now his title, or at least that's how I'm going to use it from now on.
	Yes, I mean the Queen's giving out all sorts of titles.
	Yeah, so we'll get this article up.
	This is from BBC News.
	So everyone knows about the Rotherham scandal, we'll go into a bit of depth of that in the middle, but the Lord of Rotherham, Lord Ahmed, one of the first Muslim lords in the House of Lords, convicted of also being a nonce here, this time in the So let's go through all the details first and then please stick around because this is going to get worse and worse, which seems to be a running theme for some of our segments.
	A former Lord Peer has been found guilty of sexual offences against two children in the 1970s.
	Lord Ahmed of Rotherham was convicted of a serious sexual assault against a boy and attempted rape of a young girl.
	Sheffield Crown Court heard the repeated sexual abuse happened in Rotherham when he was a teenager.
	Who is shocked?
	The 64 year old, who appeared under his real name of Nazia Ahmed, has denied the charges.
	During the trial, prosecutor Tom Little QC told the court Lord Ahmed had attempted to rape the girl in the early 70s when the defendant was aged 16 or 17, the age of consent in the UK being 16.
	But she was much younger.
	So she was much younger than 16.
	I don't give the exact date because I don't seem to.
	But the attack on the boy, who was aged under 11 at the time, also happened during the same period.
	The attack on the boy, who was under age 11...
	Sorry, we're reading the same sentence there.
	Mr.
	Little said Lord Ahmed claimed the allegations were a malicious fiction, but a phone recording of a 2016 conversation between the two victims showed that they were not made up or concocted.
	The woman's call was prompted by an email from a male victim saying, I have evidence against that pedophile, the jury previously heard.
	Lord Ahmed was charged along with his two older brothers, Mohamed Fouruk, 71, and Mohamed Tariq, 65.
	But both were deemed unfit to stand trial.
	Both had faced charges of indecent assault against the same boy, abused by Lord Ahmed.
	Though the men did not face a criminal trial, jurors concluded that they did commit the alleged acts after hearing the evidence from the case.
	So there's two brothers as well.
	Also convicted there.
	So there's all three of them.
	But apparently too old.
	Or too ill.
	I don't know the details.
	Did they not give the details?
	Okay.
	No.
	Last part here.
	So you can see there.
	Um...
	Hmm.
	What a piece of work.
	Yeah, John, I can see how to have a link that big.
	If you can load up a highlighted link I've got there as well, because they mentioned the fact that this was a retrial.
	This wasn't the initial trial.
	And the reason for that is because the trial they ran before, as you can see from the judge here, saying it was sabotaged.
	Sabotaged by who?
	The police, apparently.
	As in the police didn't do their jobs, and therefore the case fell through, and then they had to rerun the whole thing.
	So we should have had this a year sooner, and instead, the police messing up there.
	I'm sure perfectly innocently.
	Just like they always have.
	We'll move on.
	They also mention the fact that he was kicked from the House of Lords, frankly, on the basis that he had also emotionally and sexually abused another girl.
	This was not in the 70s.
	This is, as the UK Parliament link here shows, this was an inquiry into Lord Ahmed's conduct sexually assaulting the complainant on 2 March 2017.
	So that's very recent.
	A few years ago.
	Still up to his old tricks.
	So that means that there's a quite large gap in which we don't know about any activity that may or may not have been going on, basically.
	In which he becomes a counsellor in Rotherham, a lord of Rotherham, heavily connected to the Labour Party for the past 37 years at least.
	Hmm.
	I have no questions.
	Lying to the complainant about his intention to help her with the complaints to the Metropolitan Police regarding exploitation by a faith healer.
	So that's what the complaint is about, the fact that he ended up sexually assaulting this complainant who came in.
	He also exploited the complainant emotionally and sexually despite knowing she was vulnerable.
	The committee noted that at no point in the process did Lord Ahmed show any remorse or take any responsibility for any aspect of his conduct towards the complainant.
	So he didn't even fake it?
	No.
	The entire inquiry went through the whole time, found all the evidence, and then even at the end, Lord Armour didn't care, didn't show any remorse.
	What kind of scumbag is this that he doesn't even think to himself, oh, I should probably try and come across at least a little bit sympathetic here?
	Either the first or one of the first Muslim lords in our country.
	Good God.
	And I thought we'd go back to Rotherham for a minute, because it's obviously important, and maybe someone doesn't know about the Rotherham Child's sexual exploitation scandal, and you can go and find just the Wikipedia link here I'm going to use, because quite frankly, for this purpose, it's good enough.
	And in here they have 34 convicted nonces and they have one yet to be sentenced on the books.
	Obviously not the full roster of those involved.
	And as you can see, they listed 1,400 supposed victims or just estimated victims because we don't have the exact number because the police never did their jobs.
	Lord Armand had something to say about this back in the day.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah, because this is his, well, not constituency, but backyard.
	What did he have to say about it?
	Lord Ahmed calls on mosques to speak about sex abuse in 2012.
	What did he say?
	Quote, It's important that the community, rather than going silent, talk about it.
	Is that it?
	The rapist has an opinion on grooming gangs in Rotherham raping young girls.
	And his opinion is we shouldn't be silent about it.
	We should brag about it!
	Instead, just go ahead.
	Just become a lord of the realm whilst you're at it.
	I don't know.
	I have no idea.
	I mean, just what a scumbag.
	But it gets worse.
	Because if we go to the next link, you have the sexual scandal in Rotherham also allegedly including counsellors as suspects.
	Lord Ahmed also being a counsellor for quite a period of his life.
	It's said in the previous BBC article that the woman from 2017 was someone who came to him for help, so...
	Came to him for help, and he sexually abused her.
	If we go to the next link, you can see in here they say 300 suspects.
	Apparently the National Crime Agency ended up upping that to 420 suspects in Rotherham, alone.
	How many is 420, really, when you think about it?
	420 in one town.
	Well, it's time for statistical analysis, isn't it?
	Let's go to the next link.
	This is just data.
	Pure data of Rotherham.
	Empirical facts.
	2011.
	And in here they say there are 9,614 Muslims.
	Or 4%.
	Or, if you don't like that, it pretty much matches the 4% Asian population, in case you're squeamish about such debates.
	So, if you just run the data there and end up removing a proportion of that, which should be children, so you end up removing about 2,500 children from that original number, and then you remove women, because women are not caught in these extremely often.
	It's extremely rare that they're suspects in this case.
	And you get about 3,500 Muslim men living in Rotherham.
	Men.
	420 suspects.
	That's quite a few of them.
	420 over 3,500.
	That's about 12%.
	Leave that in your heads.
	Moving forwards.
	Let's go to the next link.
	Sorry.
	Next link, Rotherham Grooming, South Yorkshire Police, not recording the ethnicity.
	You may remember when we covered this.
	I wonder why.
	The police, to this day, apparently was still not recording the ethnicity of those they were arresting for such crimes, after being told, twice, by the Home Office, to do it, and still not doing it.
	And then Priti Patel has to come in and tell them to do it again.
	I don't know what they'll do in response.
	I wonder why.
	Hmm.
	We have the statistics.
	Might look bad.
	Moving on.
	Ahmed has also been asked about this in the past, and has an excuse for those engaging in the raping of children.
	Which isn't a very wise political move, if nothing else, but he did it anyway.
	What was his excuse?
	Grooming of girls by Asian gangs, fuelled by unhappy arranged marriages to cousins, claims Muslim peer.
	They're just married to their cousins and not happy in the relationship.
	Right.
	Don't marry your cousins then.
	Quote, They are forced into marriages and they are not happy.
	He's talking about the rapists.
	Oh, those poor sympathetic rapists.
	I know.
	Can we have some feelings for them?
	They're married to their cousins.
	F's in the chat, boys.
	Why's that, boys?
	They are married to girls from overseas who they don't have anything in common with.
	And they have children and a family.
	Speaking of the rapists.
	An adult woman, if you're having an affair, would want your time, money, and for you to break up your marriage, the Pierre added.
	Therefore they rape kids.
	This sounds less like an explanation and more like an excuse.
	Yes, that's why I call it an excuse.
	Yes, unsurprising coming from this man.
	But this is what we're dealing with in the UK. In case you wondered how just effed our political discourse on this subject is, a, well, the first or one of the first Muslim lords in the realm ever, what was his response to the Muslim grooming scandal on his own doorstep, make excuses for the rapists.
	Directly.
	So here's the quote.
	It's not like he doesn't seem to have a vested interest in making these excuses.
	But you'll notice the excuse actually does come within Islamic practices, saying that Islamic practices cause Muslims to rape non-Muslim children.
	That's what he's arguing, saying about the permissence or the common parlance of marrying your cousin.
	Studies have shown that 55% of British Pakistanis marry their first cousins, usually from abroad.
	In Bradford, this figure can be as high as 75%.
	This, the male there.
	And one thing I thought I'd never say, but John, if you could pull up the incest map, we can have a look at it.
	Do you see any patterns?
	Any at all?
	There are, of course, outliers, but what's the big pattern among the most high-prevalent countries there?
	It does paint a picture, doesn't it?
	Allahu Akbar.
	Moving on.
	But it's not just Pakistanis either, is the point I'm making there.
	It is an Islamic thing.
	Moving on, because this is now all that's taken place.
	I've given you the background of Lord Ahmed and the bit of scumbag that he is.
	There is some justice here, and a long-awaited justice, for a certain somebody from the Netherlands.
	So, this is the Nederlander, Gert Wilders, who has finally got at least some comeuppance out of this.
	I mean, not just the two people who were victims, but also, of course, the political fallout from this.
	And as you can see here from Hearts of Oak on Gedder, Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox were the parliamentarians who invited Gert Wilders to show his excellent film.
	This was Fitna, I think I'm pronouncing that correct.
	And Gert Wilders says...
	Lord Ahmed managed to stop me entering the UK in 2009 by threatening to mobilise 10,000 Muslims if I visited Britain's Parliament to show my movie Fitna about Islam.
	Today, he is found guilty of attempting to rape a young girl.
	And apparently sexually assaulting a young boy, I believe it was.
	Not Go Builders.
	No, Mr.
	Ahmed.
	Living up to the stereotype, let's say.
	And I thought we'd check this out because I couldn't believe this was a real thing.
	I hadn't heard of it.
	Just my ignorance.
	So I went and checked out some of the articles written at the time.
	And as we can see here, we have an article from the Mail written at the time saying, Lord Ahmed, a supposedly moderate Labour peer.
	Moderate?
	This is what a moderate peer looks like.
	Is this moderate Labour?
	This is moderate Labour.
	These are the normal MPs that they wanted to get in.
	Ah, the ones that they're going to be conscripting soon.
	Yes, the Labour Party.
	Literal nonce party.
	So the moderate Labour MP had been reported as saying that he would mobilise 10,000 of his co-religions if Mr Wilders were allowed to come here.
	Though he strongly denies that he ever said this.
	Why, you would, wouldn't you?
	Trying to cover your tracks.
	Although I'm actually surprised that he bothered trying to cover his tracks at all.
	He didn't seem that sad about anything else he'd done before.
	Regretful at all.
	Yeah, and they add some of the things he's done that should be regretful, included in his long line of crime, in which we have the same Lord Ahmed who invited an Al-Qaeda terror suspect to visit Westminster three years ago.
	But Gert Wilders, saying that maybe Islam isn't Western, nah, he's gotta go.
	Is Ahmed a good friend of Jeremy Corbyn's?
	He condemns all bombing.
	Ah, okay, okay.
	But we will mobilise.
	Yeah, and if we go to the BBC article on this, there's some more information in here.
	Labour peer Lord Ahmed, who expressed his concerns, as the BBC put it, I mean, calling to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to fight or presumably kill Gert Wilders, that's expressing your concerns, to parliamentary authorities about Mr Wilders' visits, said he welcomes the decision to ban the MP, because the British response was to just ban Gert Wilders from coming, apparently.
	Boy, I can taste the liberalism from here.
	Wow.
	It would be unwise to have him in the UK because this man's presence would cause hatred.
	Man?
	Shows film?
	You kill man?
	The man was the hateful one.
	This is just really giving more credence to my theory that Islamophobia is caused more and more by knowledge of Islam.
	Continue, quote.
	He has a case against him in Amsterdam court for inciting hatred.
	I don't know how that case worked out because I didn't get a chance to look it up, but I don't care.
	The point was whether or not he should be able to come here and criticise Islam by showing a film, and your response was no.
	You got your way.
	If the case in Amsterdam was brought on by the same sort of circumstances that this was, then...
	Yeah, I mean...
	Ridiculous.
	I'm accusing you of hatred, says the nonce.
	Right, okay.
	Final off here.
	Chris Hewn, Lib Dem Home Fair's spokesman, said he had watched the film, which he called revolting and backed the ban, because I'm a liberal democrat.
	I'm for liberalism.
	That's why I'm for banning people criticizing Islam.
	I care about British liberties, yes.
	So the Lib Dem's always been a bit of a joke on this issue.
	But let's move to the next link, the New York Times, who wrote about this at the time as well, who spoke about the fact that Lord Pearson had invited Gert Wilders to come and show his film.
	And, you know, all duties to Lord Pearson for doing the right thing, which is, can we talk about a thing?
	That's his stance.
	Is this about to smear Pearson?
	No, it's just a quote from Pearson, but a very revealing quote.
	Lord Pearson, an Eton-educated former insurance executive, suggested that Muslims were less tolerant of dissent and criticism than Christians.
	How could he prove such a claim?
	He asked the question, Why, if you are a Muslim and convert to Christianity, do you become an apostate?
	And why, if you are a Christian and convert to Islam, do you suffer no problem at all?
	He asked.
	Good question.
	I actually love how Lord Pearson is just so polite about the whole thing, because he could obviously be more terse, and he doesn't.
	He's just like, well, there's the evidence.
	Run it in your own head.
	Moving on.
	So let's go to the other Islamist BS Lord Ahmed has done throughout his time as, well, I don't know, representative of the Muslim community in the House of Lords, as he's been called in the past.
	And this is a website called, what is it, Pakistanis101.com.
	Sorry, 101Pakistanis.com.
	And they are celebrating members of the Pakistani ethnic group who are in the UK and have done amazing things.
	And they list Lord Ahmed, of course.
	Oh, okay.
	Lord Ahmed has taken a stand on another issue affecting the Muslim community when he criticized author Salman Rushdie's knighthood.
	We should have got him.
	We should have killed him.
	I don't know if that's praise, is it?
	Lord Ahmed called on the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to withdraw the honour, accusing the author of the Satanic Verses of having blood on his hands for offending Islam in his writings.
	But if we murder you, there's no blood on my hands.
	The only people who got killed in response to Salman Rushdie's book were the Islamists killing innocent people.
	Translators.
	Embassy staff.
	Didn't they kill a publisher or something?
	I know the Japanese translator was attacked.
	The embassy staff.
	I mean, multiple Danish embassies, I think.
	I don't know, that's the Danish cartoon I'm thinking of.
	But there were also, I think it was British embassies were attacked or something at the time.
	A ridiculous number of people were attacked because of what?
	Because of the book?
	No, because the Islamists have no tolerance.
	That's why they were attacked.
	Let's move on.
	He told the BBC there was a constant theme of demonization of the Muslim community.
	I mean, the goal of these people.
	I mean, people who criticize Islam, such as Salman Rushdie, they should not be allowed in the UK, they shouldn't get nighoads, they should be banned.
	Also, he's going to make excuses for Muslim rapists, and they'll be like, damn, why is the Muslim community so demonized by the press?
	Look in the mirror, Ahmed.
	Well, look in your prison mirror, as you contemplate the fact that you're a rapist.
	Then the politicians were jumping on the bandwagon of having a go at Muslims.
	Stop making it so easy.
	Stop the stereotypes.
	You know how you stop that?
	Look in the prayer.
	He said people were exploiting the fact that some within the Muslim community threatened national security.
	Some, such as Lord Ahmed himself, being a rapist and continued abuser up until at least 2017, as we have the evidence, by his own House of Lords inquiry into his own actions.
	This is what I can't get over.
	A man who lives so much of a life of, well, you can't demonize the Muslim community for X, Y, or Z... There is hatred throughout this society.
	Oh, I can't believe people are raping you.
	We must be.
	You're a rapist.
	Like, Lord Ahmed, you're the rapist as you stand here and give this moral sermon.
	Sorry.
	Let's go to the last link here, which is just Lord Ahmed resigning from the Labour Party.
	So this is before he lost his position as a lord, but instead had left the Labour Party in 2013.
	Why did he leave?
	Because people alleged him to be a nonce?
	Because he was making excuses for noncery?
	Because he had called for the knighthood to be replaced from Salman Rushdie?
	No.
	No.
	Anti-Semitism.
	I am shook too that this could be...
	Labour and anti-Semitism?
	A peer has resigned from the Labour Party days before he was due to face a hearing after reportedly blaming Jewish-owned media organisations for his imprisonment for dangerous driving.
	He was done for dangerous driving.
	He was texting while driving.
	And the Jews did this.
	They got him in prison.
	He needed to tweet some anti-Semitism on Twitter.
	He was tweeting his views on Israel, which I'm sure were totally kosher, and just crashed.
	So they say in here, a quote from him, Having known all the facts of this case, would observe that I am not going to get a fair hearing of the complaints against me.
	What, did he find out like a Jew was on the panel?
	Because of the global Jewish conspiracy.
	Now that I know all the facts, I know where they are.
	That sounds like Varg Vikens, if you're aware of him.
	But that's the end of Lord Ahmed, I suppose, and there's the long list of just a horrible individual that he was, as well as now convicted nonce, excuser for noncery, anti-Semite.
	We could go on, frankly.
	And this guy was made a lord, a lord under Tony Blair.
	He got his counselling position and then got made lord.
	Wasn't an MP. I don't know what the hell he did.
	The right honourable knight of the garter.
	Looking into it, the only reason he seems to have been made a lord is because he was a Muslim.
	Oh, that's...
	Even the lords have diversity hires now.
	Yeah, and this is what diversity hires will do for you.
	Well, that's what you'll end up with.
	But we can also expect him presumably to blame the Jews on his second imprisonment as well as his first.
	That's the end of Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, the nonce.
	Good God.
	Sorry, I find that stuff rather draining.
	You know what's annoying is when we put the clips out, it'll be me saying, if you enjoyed this segment, blah blah blah.
	Yeah, who's going to enjoy that segment?
	Good God.
	Yes, let's move on to something a little bit more amusing, I would say.
	It's something regarding the trans issue, as we have discussed it many times before.
	Obviously there is a big discussion going on in Britain and across most of the Western world right now regarding kids transitioning for some reason.
	Trans kids, yes.
	People who have definitely got the mental faculties to truly understand the consequences of their actions at 12 years old.
	But, there has been some relatively good news, I suppose, regarding this.
	You can see here we've got this Times article talking about trans pupils are being turned down by girls' schools as a threat to their status.
	So just to go into the detail on here...
	You're not a girl.
	Yes, shockingly enough, you have a penis, therefore not girl.
	But a leading group of girls' schools is to close its doors on boys who identify as girls to protect their status as single-sex institutions.
	And once again, it must be pointed out there, the distinguishing factor of sex, not gender, not any alphabet soup ideology regarding the differences between sex and gender, whatever differences you may want to point out there, this is about sex.
	Which is unchangeable.
	You can shift your gender identity, whatever, but these are girls' schools for girls.
	So, no.
	You're not allowed in here if you're a boy.
	Girls' Day School Trust, which represents 25...
	Sorry, I reminded that Ben Shapiro meme.
	You know, he's like, well, how do you know it's an all-girls school with the word girl on it?
	Yeah, there you go.
	Sorry, here's the girl sign.
	There you are.
	Do I need to explain any further?
	How do you know your gifts are from Santa when it says from Santa?
	Sorry, I love that meme.
	That is a great one.
	Yeah, Girls' Day School Trust, which represents 25 schools across England, has updated its gender identity policy.
	Previously, most girls' schools had been unclear in their admissions policies about whether they would accept transgender pupils, probably because before this wasn't much of an issue worth talking about.
	This probably didn't come up anywhere near as much as it does nowadays.
	While many have pupils at the school who've changed their gender identity, asking to be treated as male or non-binary, they have avoided explicitly stating whether they would admit biological boys who identify as girls.
	Which, once again, is pointing out that there seems to be a recognisable difference that we can see between...
	It's the Klaven thing all over again.
	I know.
	But even then, even within what you would call trans people, there's a difference between trans boys and trans girls that we can all recognise as well.
	I know, it seems simple.
	I feel like I'm talking down to people here.
	The state of Western political discourse is, hmm, maybe we can tell the difference between boy and girl.
	Well, how could you do that?
	Consult the ancient texts.
	Brings out biology textbook.
	Yes, GDST, which includes Wimbledon High School, Royal High School Bath, Oxford High School and Newcastle High School for Girls, says in its new policy, GDST is committed to single-sex education for girls.
	Admissions to GDST schools are based on the prospective students' legal sex as recorded on their birth certificate, so not just what you declare yourself as being.
	It says of applicants who are legally female but who identify as trans or non-binary, applications will be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis.
	Single-sex schools present a particular context for transgender students.
	There may be cultural challenges involved in a trans student who does not identify as a girl attending a school, which deliberately tailors its ethos and educational approach to cater specifically for girls.
	And once again, this is especially important when you are a kid, and unless, of course, you're being prescribed...
	What is it?
	Blockers.
	Hormone blockers.
	Yes, hormone blockers and other such stuff which I find to be incredibly questionable and we'll get into those sorts in a little bit.
	Obviously, before you transition, before you have any hormones or anything like that, you are still going to be biologically a boy.
	And therefore it might cause issues when communicating and being educated alongside girls.
	The Trust says of children who are legally male but identify as trans or non-binary, GST schools are able to operate a single-sex admissions policy without breaching the Equality Act 2010 on the basis of an exemption relating to biological sex.
	GDST believes that an admissions policy based on gender identity rather than the legal sex recorded on a student's birth certificate would jeopardize the status of GDS schools as single-sex schools under the Act.
	For this reason, GDST schools do not accept applications from students who are legally male.
	We will, however, continue to monitor the legal interpretation of this exemption.
	So, altogether, under the law, it sounds pretty reasonable.
	Once again, you are a boy.
	This is a girl's school.
	No.
	It's simple as...
	I know it's complex for maybe some leftists out there, but...
	This is a very difficult subject to wrap your head around.
	But yes, of course, just because you say you're a girl does not entitle you to anything.
	You are not to be handed out entitlements just because you identify with some kind of marginalised class.
	Cheryl Giovanni, the GDST chief executive, said that the schools were trying to offer a supportive environment to pupils exploring their gender identity...
	Our trans students are welcome in our schools and our policy primarily sets out ways in which schools can support them, she said.
	So, even though they're not admitting trans girls, they are still kind of...
	Playing into the elements of the ideology, but obviously, if it's girls saying that they're boys, it is less dangerous, potentially, to the safety of the other girls around them.
	So, even though I disagree with it, it makes more sense to treat it that way.
	But, overall, it seems like a relatively straightforward thing to do.
	There has been some controversy stirred up by all of this, and from who else but prime conservative thinker Tom Harwood.
	Who's decided to have a spiral somewhat on Twitter.
	Not that he's been someone that I have been particularly respectful of his viewpoints a few days ago.
	We covered how he was stating that Sir Tony probably deserves the knighthood.
	Very conservative perspective there, Tom.
	But he's come out, he posted this article on Twitter and put a blanket ban is insane.
	Young trans girls are indistinguishable from their non-trans friends.
	Then how are they trans girls?
	Yes.
	If they're indistinguishable, how do you know that they're a trans girl, Tom?
	Yes, and indistinguishable to you maybe, but for those of us with eyes, not so much.
	Feels like this country is uniquely in the world sliding backwards on trans rights.
	So just to...
	Just to really put the point, sliding backwards on trans rights, nobody has the right or entitlement to be in a girls-only school if they are not biologically female.
	You could probably make an argument that you are stepping over women's rights by trying to do that, as has been the case with...
	Yeah, exactly.
	The whole aspect of it never really made much sense to me, because it's like, well, if you're an individual and you're above the age of 18, you can do whatever you want, but when you're a child, you're not really in any position to be making those kinds of decisions.
	Because we also have human rights, and then we have sexual rights such as women's rights or men's rights, for the fact that you can't go into someone else's bathroom because of the threat of...
	Ah, but if I say I'm a woman, I can feel free to flop it out in front of little girls.
	Yeah, the trans right seems to be to say that you shouldn't be, if you're trans, you shouldn't have to abide by women or men's rights.
	Yes.
	That's the argument.
	We just have the blanket right to completely flip any perspective.
	But that's the thing.
	I have X right, it's just I have the right not to respect these rights.
	Yes.
	Doesn't make any sense.
	It's as sensical as the argument trans women are women.
	Circular logic.
	And also, once again, this is coming from Tom Harwood, supposed conservative with his incredibly conservative viewpoints.
	Let's move on because he just, you know, you see that and you think, okay, that's kind of dumb, Tom.
	But he just kept doubling down whenever anybody called him out about it and then decided to go on long Twitter threads explaining his viewpoints.
	And he says this, funny how these stories always focus on trans girls and never trans boys.
	That's not the own that you think it is, Tom.
	It may be noted that...
	Yeah, and what?
	Trans girls and trans boys?
	What are they?
	They're indistinguishable from boys and girls.
	Oh, wait, they're not, are they?
	Oh, no, they're not, and you might want to check out one of our premium podcasts on Laudun, is it?
	Loudoun County?
	Loudoun County for more exposition on the differences that can be expected.
	But yes, trans girls are obviously known to be more of a threat to a certain extent, if you want to put it that way, than trans boys.
	Well, men are more of a sexual threat than women are.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's that simple.
	There you go.
	And if you move along again, we can just follow this thread.
	We can just keep pulling at this thread to see how far it goes, because it is quite entertaining to see him try and wrap his head around basic biology, to be perfectly honest.
	Here he says, I mean...
	They, biologically speaking, they still are.
	What are they, Tom?
	Yeah, what are they, Tom?
	And two, presenting trans women, an incredibly vulnerable and tiny category of people, as a threat to other women, is straight out of the pretending gay men are a threat to men playbook of the 1980s.
	It's as inaccurate as it is offensive.
	No, no, you idiot.
	No, this is the argument that men are more likely to be rapists than women.
	You know, the feminist argument that kind of got turned into the man-hating-all-men-are-rapists discussion.
	No, the reality is that men are more likely to be rapists than women, therefore we take that into account, we're making public policy, and Tom's like, to hell with that, I want more rape in society.
	And you also need to take into account that there is a certain proportion of these people who are going to find any loophole they can to get around barriers to what they want.
	We have examples.
	Yes, and that will include just saying, well, I'm a woman now.
	Let me in.
	Let me into your changing rooms.
	I'm a woman now.
	No.
	No.
	And then, we can just carry on, he found some YouGov polls that say, ah, you see here, 40% of people say transgender woman is a woman, and 41% of people say transgender man is a man.
	I don't care.
	Okay.
	That's a YouGov poll.
	One, they're self-selecting, and we all know the problems with YouGov polls.
	But even let's just take it at face value.
	Let's say it completely true.
	It doesn't matter, Tom.
	Because what's in people's heads isn't what is important about this discussion.
	The reality, physical reality, is what is important.
	I don't care.
	People don't always know what they're talking about, especially if you're asking pollsters.
	Let's ask female inmates.
	How's that one going to be?
	Yes.
	And then if we move along again, we can see his reaction to some of the responses.
	There's such a Tory response to things as well.
	I hate it.
	It really is.
	What about public opinion?
	What about physical reality?
	The truth?
	You know, the thing that's meant to matter?
	No.
	Yep.
	Yeah, John points out he's going for a truth by democracy.
	More people agree with me, therefore I'm right.
	More people agree that the big sun in the sky is our God.
	Okay, whatever.
	Okay, then we'll go to certain countries and ask their views on racism, and when we go to a certain country and they're like, yeah, racism, good.
	Tom Harwood's there, well, racism, good, I suppose.
	Well, I've got the power of the people behind me.
	Yes, we'd much rather our national conversation focused on the cost of living, housing, taxes, crime, health, family, and individual emancipation than on how...
	May I just say, from a man who was very supportive of lockdowns for a long time, individual emancipation, that's a joke coming from you.
	Surely, Tom.
	Surely.
	Then on how nasty and exclusionary some people can try to be towards a very tiny and oppressed minority of people.
	And as you can see there, we've got a comment from our own John saying, you only disagree with me because you are nasty.
	That's basically the argument that's going on here.
	Nasty and exclusionary.
	This is full on leftist argumentation right here, Tom.
	Unlike me, I stand with the rapists of female prisons.
	I'm not a nasty person.
	Wow.
	Yes, and as well as going on this sort of tangent, which seems to be taking notes from the Hassan and Vorsch-style textbook on how to have an argument with people online, he also really doubled down on this on GB News as well, because of course he is one of the presenters of GB News, and we've got this clip of him arguing with Posey Parker, noted turf.
	If you want to play this, Tom, er, John...
	I can only assume that you don't have any trans friends, that you've never met anyone who is trans.
	Well, I might assume you don't know any women.
	If you were to walk past someone in the streets who was trans, how on earth would you be able to tell?
	Do you honestly think that most women don't recognise men?
	Do you honestly think the human race has got this far without recognising biological sex?
	We do it in a matter of seconds.
	What do you mean by biological sex?
	I don't check you for your chromosomes.
	I look at you and see you as a woman.
	If I were to see someone walking down the street who had secondary sex characteristics of a female, I would say they were female.
	Are you just deluded?
	I'm so with Posey just bursting out laughing.
	You can't even take a person like that seriously.
	And also, just go back, you can see here, he posted this on his own timeline.
	190,000 views there from people being like, Tom, you're an idiot.
	Tom, you've just posted this absolute self-own.
	Are there men posting their L's online account yet?
	There should be.
	Well, it'll just be clogged up with Tom Harwood.
	But also, I feel bad for Mercy, who's just had to sit next to so much cringe.
	You can also see her, again, like the knee.
	Yeah, like the knee.
	She's just sat there like, oh, God.
	I expected better from this.
	But yeah, also, once again, you can see that he's taking everything in the absolute worst faith interpretation of what they're saying.
	Ah, yes, I can't tell if you're a woman unless I check your biological chromosomes.
	Blood sample, please!
	You can't hold those opinions unless you've met no trans people.
	You've never met a woman, Tom.
	There you go.
	I wonder, is Tom gay or not?
	Do you know?
	Because I'd love to ask him about his dating preferences and how does he know?
	I don't want to go by any stereotypes or anything here, but he has to be.
	I'm sure he'll let us know, but how does he decide who he's going to date?
	Yeah.
	I mean, as she said, do you think the human race would have got this far if we didn't recognise it?
	It's kind of evolutionarily programmed into us that I can just look at you from a glance and go, Boy, has penis.
	Not good for mating.
	Very monkey-age brain, though.
	Exactly.
	Sorry to break the hearts of some commentators out there, of some viewers.
	But yeah, we move along.
	He also did a debate, it seems, with Calvin Robinson, who's got some good perspectives on this.
	And I just want to show the clip of Calvin summing up Tom's problem at the end of this here, if you want to play this.
	Exactly, and we're talking, and I think I think the point here, if we take away, what we're doing here is, we're saying that women don't exist, you choose to be a woman or not.
	What we're talking about, the number of trans children in this country is so very small, 12 million children, maybe 2,000 of them trans.
	And that is the point.
	Edge case is very small.
	We shouldn't be doing broad brushstrokes.
	30 seconds left.
	Calvin, you've got the final work.
	I just think we shouldn't confuse the two.
	Trans women should be able to live their lives as ever they see fit.
	Trans men, the same.
	Identify however you like, but that does not make you male or female.
	You cannot change your sex.
	You can argue about gender all day, every day, but sex is your biology.
	You are born with the XY or XX chromosome.
	You are born either producing sperm or eggs in most cases, and you cannot change your sex.
	In most cases.
	Some people have problems, absolutely, and we shouldn't laugh about it.
	I understand you've been charitable and trying to support people, but you're conflating ideology with truth, and that's dangerous.
	Yeah, and there you go.
	We've kept that fairly civilised.
	Thank you, gentlemen.
	Good point there from Calvin, that you are just going purely by ideologically...
	Z-jock in the corner.
	Pure ideology.
	Yeah, pure ideology rather than basing it in any empirical fact or truth.
	But there was the mention there of intersex.
	Just a little reference to it.
	And of course, Tom Harwood went full leftist in going, Ah, don't you understand that intersex people exist?
	Therefore there's no such thing as true biological sex, you see.
	Look at this graph.
	Scroll down a bit.
	I know.
	Ah, this proves my point.
	This proves your point, you moron!
	Ignore the overwhelming percentage of population who conform to their biological sex.
	But he's admitting that sex exists, and it's something you can measure, and it's something you can put on a graph.
	And show that 50-50% of the population are in one or the other.
	Tom, you've destroyed your own argument, you bloody idiot!
	And the funny thing as well is, intersex does not necessarily mean, inherently, a hermaphrodite.
	I've seen people classified as intersex, who have been born biologically male, where, as part of the development, they seem to have developed some kind of non-functioning, tiny, dead uterus.
	And they've gone to have surgery for something else, and the doctor's gone...
	Oh wow, you've got a tiny uterus in there, I'm just going to take that out.
	Doesn't affect them, never affected them, and then they go, aha, see, he was never a man to begin with!
	Got him!
	I love the idea the surgeons are just like, I'll keep that for later.
	Put that on my shelf!
	But yeah, it's a completely ridiculous argument that doesn't really hold any ground in...
	Reason?
	And then if we move along...
	He's just admitted the biological sex is real and measurable.
	Yes, as somebody felt the need to point out, here, someone's response to this, I don't know who this is, Emma Hilton, if she's a commentator or anything, but she says, Tom, promise me you'll never teach statistics.
	The graph you have posted clearly shows two overlapping normal distributions.
	Each normal distribution is associated with either the female or the male sex.
	So he just can't help but be handed L's.
	Left, right and centre.
	No matter what he does.
	Look at this graph, it's wrong.
	Look at this graph, it's wrong.
	But he just won't stop.
	He just won't stop.
	And if we move along we can see some more of the responses here.
	Oh wait no, there's another one.
	Where he's decided to start writing articles about this as well.
	Talking about blanket policies in this area are bonkers.
	I mean, that's your perspective, Tom, but the perspective of most people looking at this are going, girls' school, biological boy...
	No.
	These things do not need to smash into one another.
	Me and my ape brain can follow that amount of logic.
	Tom's ape brain is like, maybe.
	We can find some way.
	And let's not also kid ourselves at the fact that there is going to be some subsection of boys who are very much likely to be going, yes, I'm a girl, just so that it can be in the same changing room as other girls for PE or something like that.
	Let's not kid ourselves that that is a definite possibility, as, once again, we've seen.
	We've seen in the prisons, at least.
	Yes.
	Move along.
	I think this is where we get to the responses.
	Yeah, we are fair cop coming at him with...
	If we were at school together, you might have had a very distinguishable three or four-inch feature that I didn't.
	Stop trying to shame girls into removing their much-needed boundaries.
	It's weird.
	Then if we move along again...
	4Win Scotland saying the girls who have reported countless examples of sexual assault in schools know that genitalia matter.
	If you pretend it does not, you facilitate this.
	Another one...
	I should mention, it's not just presence, of course, because Loudoun County, as we've mentioned previously.
	Yes, there you go.
	And then, once again, if we move, Chris Rose saying, is keeping all girls schools for girls the only correct and safe decisions?
	Yes, yes, or yes?
	Yes.
	I vote yes.
	I vote yes also.
	Moving on.
	Yes, and I think there's a point to make there as well, which is that obviously you can say, well, there's not all of this incident going on in mixed schools, but I think the difference there is the fact that there is a much higher proportion of boys in those boys' schools.
	In mixed schools, we don't mix them in the changing rooms.
	Oh, obviously not in the changing rooms and stuff, but you could still make the argument, ah, because there are people who've made these arguments of, well, why are we still segregating schools in the first place?
	And why doesn't this happen in mixed schools then?
	And there's the argument of, well, greater male presence is more of a threat to other males.
	Therefore, it kind of regulates itself.
	Well, this is just a debate between whether or not you should have the sexist segregate and whether or not that's good for you.
	Yeah, it's a completely different argument there.
	But yeah, and then Dominique Samuel's putting out that Tom doesn't seem to know the difference between a penis and a vagina.
	Unsurprising.
	I don't know if you've seen either.
	Move along again.
	And then he said, he responded to this with, are you implying that you would look at children's genitalia?
	Tom, you do not need to do trouser inspections to tell men from women, for the love of God!
	Penis inspection day wasn't real for the rest of us, Tom.
	I don't know what to say.
	Tom's the one boy who read that and was like, oh, it wasn't just me.
	No, she's obviously making the point that you're an idiot.
	Evidenced by your own graphs, incidentally.
	But you didn't even get that, so I don't know why I'm even speaking to the camera.
	He doesn't know what the hell we're saying.
	I know.
	And there is another dimension to look at this from, which John points out in the next...
	Link here.
	Yep.
	Confused children need guidance, not indulgence.
	80% of children with gender dysphoria grow out of a transgender phase with a link to a study examining that, which is an excellent point to be made as well.
	If we keep just pure affirmation every single time, how many more detransitioning stories that are rather harrowing, as Carl has pointed out, are we going to be hearing, say, 10-15 years from now?
	Will people like Tom ever be held to account for that?
	Yeah, will there be a reckoning?
	No.
	No, of course there won't.
	Of course there won't.
	And you'll be able to go on your merry way just thinking that you were the good guy.
	I was on the right side of history the whole time.
	Yes, and that does seem to be the sort of line that his argumentation is going towards.
	And also, on that basis as well, there are predatory...
	Oh, I was hoping you'd have scrolled down because that page has some dodgy stuff on it.
	If you want to scroll down to where...
	No, no, no, not...
	Oh, good.
	There's a part on this page...
	There's some very disturbing imagery that I don't think will be on YouTube and I don't think any of us want to see.
	But there are some very predatory trans-surgeons, well not trans-surgeons, but there are surgeons who transition...
	And transition kids, such as this woman called Sid Gallagher, who I believe operates out of Florida in America, who has a section on her website here saying, minors and top surgery.
	We are happy to offer top surgery to minors with consent of parents and the recommendation of the parent's mental health professional.
	When we evaluate each patient, keep in mind the risk-benefit analysis and understand that it may well be much more detrimental to the patient to wait until the age of 18 for surgery.
	Each case is evaluated with patient and family.
	What the hell is top surgery?
	Top surgery is when a woman who's transitioning to be a transgender man will have their breasts removed.
	And stitched up.
	You know, there was that image recently of the trans man where he had a bit of skin taken off of his thigh that was going around?
	Yeah, that bit where you can see all the scars going across the centre of the chest, that's a result of top surgery.
	So it's permanently removing the breasts and scarring people who are not 18.
	Did she do the reverse as well?
	Did she give breast implants to boys?
	Yes.
	Because this is literally a South Park episode.
	Yeah, it is, isn't it?
	Life is a South Park episode.
	But she's happy to...
	I mean, it's in Florida, so they're very open with, you know, what you can do there.
	But still, it is disgusting that this woman can transition children.
	Like, there are reports of 12 and 13-year-olds being transitioned by this woman.
	We should probably do something on her specifically, to be perfectly honest.
	Because she does some absolutely revolting things.
	But, yeah, it reminds me of in The Madness of Crowds how Douglas Murray's talking about, you know, that person who detransitioned, who thought they were trans for a while, and they go to the surgeons and they go to the mental health specialists who are basically just like, ah, you're a girl, but you enjoy football.
	Interesting, interesting.
	It's all coming together.
	Turns out you're a boy.
	It's probably that level of discussion going on here.
	And just to end this segment off briefly, there is an article that Tom Harwood has written for the New Statesman, famous conservative publication, the New Statesman.
	Is it 18 crowns as you write it?
	That would explain a lot.
	Why the right should champion trans rights, where he talks about how he's a Brexiteering, tax-cutting, family-backing, free-trading, marketeering kind of individual.
	So why am I irritating much of my conservative following by taking a stand over the rights of trans people in this country?
	Because you're denying reality, Tom.
	That's the only answer.
	There's more that I can go into.
	You could find...
	Okay, let's clone me, and I agree with him on everything politically, except he thinks that Play-Doh is edible.
	I'm going to call him an idiot.
	I think mud is good for you.
	I'm going to disagree with you a bit there.
	It doesn't matter that we might agree on tax reform.
	It's the whether or not you can identify something being true, and if you can't, then I'm going to call you dumb, because it's obviously not true.
	What do you mean I can't murder children?
	I also like the free market.
	There's that level of argumentation.
	Tom, we have a very distinct disagreement here on the basis of reality.
	So, I mean, good God.
	But I just want to point something out, because we've gone very hard on Tom here, but it's not like he's...
	Particularly unique in mainstream Tory types, is he, really?
	Because we've seen so many times the Tory party members afraid to acknowledge that biological sex is a thing.
	When Boris Johnson was asked about it, and he just deferred to, oh, everybody should just be treated with respect and blood.
	Yes, I agree.
	That doesn't answer the question, though.
	And this is where the mainstream Tory party, as far as I can tell, seems to be heading.
	I think he's a litmus test for where we're going in the future with the Tories, so...
	Be careful everybody.
	Let's move on.
	That was really funny.
	That cheered me up plenty.
	Yes, I'm glad because that first segment was very depressing.
	Well, now prepare to be mad.
	Unironically, I read this and I got really mad at writing it.
	So, Colston statue vandals are walking free.
	You may remember this story being the Colston statue in Bristol in the UK. There are many a story in the United States, of course, as well, of, well, national heroes or just random Polish people having their statues attacked because he's white, therefore he evil.
	He's Polish, get him!
	Yeah.
	Anyway, so this is the jury here, and this was just before they were found not guilty by the jury, and I wanted to read this because it is just a mad example of how the rule of law can just be completely ignored in a country because political correctness.
	Because right side of history.
	Not legal correctness.
	Not the correctness of reality, but political correctness.
	That's why it's called political correctness, because it is not actually correct.
	Instead, it is only politically correct.
	Quote here: "In closing speeches, defense for the four accused of damaging slave trader memorial say judgment will reverberate around the world.
	In closing speeches at Bristol Crown Court on Tuesday, barristers for the accused argued that the statue, which stood over the multicultural southwest city for 125 years, as if that means anything, was so indecent and potentially abusive that it constituted a crime.
	The statue existing.
	Tell me where the statue touched you on the doll.
	Show me where it abused you.
	Yes.
	Show me what crime the statue committed.
	Zero.
	Reminded me of history.
	Quote, Colston's statue normalised abuse.
	This is a direct quote from their defendant.
	Was there a plaque on it that said something questionable?
	Said the N-word?
	No.
	It condoned the shrugging acceptance of racism...
	No, it didn't.
	They didn't put the statue up to be like, yeah, he enslaved black people, that's cool.
	That's not what the statue was built for.
	No, they weren't like, you know, what was based, oppressing black people, put a statue up to the fella.
	4chan organised to get the statue put up.
	It was celebrated the achievements of a racist mass murderer.
	What?
	I'm pretty sure he's not a mass murderer.
	I'm pretty sure he just profited off the slave trade.
	He wasn't out there killing black people.
	We weren't celebrating his racism.
	No, we weren't like, you know, most based man around.
	Why?
	Because he oppressed black people.
	No, again, 4chan did not write the plaque or make the statue.
	I don't know what to say.
	The continued existence of that statue was a racist hate crime.
	The statue existing is a crime against me.
	Why?
	Because my hurt feels.
	I've decided that morally it is wrong, and therefore it must be gone.
	So if the defence's argument is that you can go out and destroy any statue you like if it hurts your feels, this was legitimately their closing statements.
	And somehow they got off on this.
	Quote, You may think it would bring the criminal justice system into disrepute if a person were convicted of criminally damaging something by adding value to it or by improving it, the defendant said.
	I'm not taking that out of context.
	He's literally arguing that the statues are hate crime, therefore if we destroy it, we've added value to the statue that is no longer there because we've destroyed it.
	Therefore it's not a crime to add value to things.
	It's fucking insane!
	See, this book was damaging to the human race, so by burning it, I'm adding value.
	Yes.
	I can go to the British Library, take out every copy of Mein Kampf, and burn it in the streets, and that's legal, because...
	I'm adding value!
	Because book bad.
	Right.
	Quote, ask yourselves, what value did this statue have before the 7th of June 2020, and what value does it have now?
	Well, it had the value of the statue at whatever estimated price it would get at auction, and now, well, it has more value because it's an international story.
	These are people who hate England.
	Yes.
	And everything it stands for and everything that came before them, and have taken it upon themselves to change the course of the nation in their image.
	They have decided that this is bad, therefore I'm allowed to destroy it and legally get away with it.
	Why?
	Because the statue existing itself is a hate crime.
	You can go read the full article.
	If you've got that kind of attitude, just move to France.
	I would have thought this would be a Babylon Bee post, but it's the Guardian quoting the defence.
	And of course the Guardian's probably going, well done, justice is served.
	Let's go to the next link, which is again a Guardian article.
	I'm using left-wing saucers to make this point.
	Look at these ponces.
	Look at the state of them.
	Look at these...
	Hmm, they remind me of the...
	Of the Rittenhouse case.
	BLM supporters.
	No, we don't.
	They're always white people, aren't they?
	There's no evidence of that, but they are BLM supporters.
	There is evidence of that.
	I wasn't trying to draw that distinction.
	That's what I thought you were making, so I thought I'd shut it down.
	Anti-racism campaigners, that's how The Guardian lists them.
	So professional brainlets.
	Have hailed a jury's decision to clear protesters, again protesters, not rioters, they destroyed property, public property, responsible for toppling a statue of slave trader Edward Colston as a huge step in getting the UK to face up to its colonial past.
	As if we aren't aware of the colonial pattern.
	As if we're just...
	No one knows.
	I mean, the ancient records and all the books from the time have all been burned.
	Someone ran around and they got all the inscribings of anything colonial.
	They chipped them off like they're the new pharaoh.
	And now we have no idea what happened between 1600 and 1900.
	We don't have any books from that period.
	How could we know?
	Literally no historical documents.
	No coins.
	It's all gone.
	We have no idea.
	Also, the irony is not just that they're white.
	If you just go back up to that image again, John.
	They look like a bunch of rednecks.
	Nah, they look like posh Bristol poncers to me.
	Nah, I think the baseball cap makes everyone look redneck.
	Nah, I don't buy it.
	Fair play.
	So, quote from here.
	After just under three hours of deliberation, working hard that jury, a jury of six men and six women found the so-called Colston Four not guilty by an 11-to-1 majority.
	There was one sane person who applied the law and 11 activists on the jury who decided, uh, no, jury notification.
	We're just not going to do it.
	I pissy that one person.
	Could you imagine?
	That four hours must have just been him banging the table going, the law is the law, and the rest of them going, yeah, but screw the law.
	My feels.
	He went in with a full head of hair and came out with just tufts of it ripped out.
	Whoever the hell you are, just do an interview.
	I'd love to hear just what went on in that room.
	Also, the Colston Four, can we not give them a cool-sounding name?
	I don't know.
	BLM ponces?
	Yeah, there you go.
	Quote, This verdict is a milestone in the journey that Bristol and Britain are on to come to terms with the totality of our history, said David Usuga, a British broadcaster and historian of the slave trade who gave evidence during the trial.
	You may recognise him, we featured him previously, because he's a race activist.
	He's a leftist race activist who spends all his time doing a specific narrative that Britain bad, why, because blah blah blah and then just moves on.
	He's got that book Black and British, which I've not read, but I'm sure is one of those attempts to try and change the history, basically.
	I believe he has also been invited to on BBC shows endlessly to try and gin up that black people existed in Roman Britain, and then as debunked history will show, it's just bollocks.
	I see, there's this one painting where a man looks slightly brown.
	Yeah.
	Clive Lewis, the Labour MP, what did a normal Labour MP have to say?
	A British jury has confirmed the toppling of Edward Colston's statue was not a criminal act.
	The real crime was the fact that the statue was still there when protesters pulled it down.
	This is the Labour understanding of the law, which is that the law doesn't apply to us.
	That is what has happened here.
	This case is a direct attack on the rule of law by them saying, if we break the law, doesn't apply to us.
	Whatever we do, whatever we break, whoever we harm, whoever we kill, frankly, we don't have the law apply to us.
	That is how the law should work.
	That is what the left is saying in this.
	Directly from a Labour MP. Quote, No, not a majority of the British public.
	11 nutters in the jury.
	I don't know if they were threatened.
	I don't know if Clive Lewis sent them threatening letters, because I don't know how else they come to such a conclusion that the law just doesn't apply.
	Except threats, as we've seen in other cases throughout the Western world.
	And it's just insane.
	Again, I'm not even going to focus on his stupid point of coming to terms with the colonial past.
	We know!
	We had this discussion.
	You are just a liar.
	You do not care about anything.
	All you are here to do is badger people with a club.
	Quote, today's, sorry, but some critics reacted with fury.
	Scott Brenton, a conservative MP, denounced the verdict as absolutely appalling decision, tweeting, are we now a nation which ignores our violent acts of criminal deluge?
	This sends out completely the wrong message.
	Yes.
	Yes, we are.
	Conservative MP talking sense, which is that rule of law is important.
	It's one of the foundations of British values, ideology, law.
	I mean, everything about us.
	I know we're trying to throw history out the window, but it is one of the defining traits.
	Well, there we go.
	I mean, we'll get to terms with our colonial British history by throwing out the rule of law.
	That is what has happened.
	After the statue was toppled on the 7th of June 2020, the Home Secretary Priti Patel had demanded that the police pursue those responsible, saying their behaviour was utterly disgraceful.
	The Home Office did not comment following the verdicts.
	And as much as people dislike her, I imagine she's actually pretty mad about this, as most of the Conservatives have responded to this.
	This is a victory for Bristol, said one of those accused after being released.
	This is a victory for racial equality, and it is a victory for anyone who wants to be on the right side of history.
	There it is.
	Always the phrase.
	You know what the right side of history is?
	The law not applying to the left.
	We are a lawless community.
	As far as they're concerned...
	In the trial, in which a few facts were in question, the four defendants argued that their actions were justified because the statue was so offensive.
	Again, not just their lawyers, but then themselves.
	Each defendant described being motivated by sincere anti-racist convictions.
	Frustrations that previous attempts to persuade the council to remove the statue had failed, and a belief that the statue was so offensive it constituted a indescent...
	Indecent.
	Indecent display of a hate crime.
	Again.
	So, right.
	This is the playbook.
	This is the playbook for any right-winger.
	If you want to know what the lessons are from this, the lessons learned, according to the defendants, is complain about the thing.
	Have a sincere conviction that the statue shouldn't exist.
	Let's say it's a communist statue, for example.
	We'll go through a few minutes.
	They're very specific.
	Then, if you have a sincere conviction, write to the council or council, don't you bugger off because, quite frankly, statues are statues.
	Go to hell.
	No, go and destroy it.
	That's the lesson learned.
	That is the lesson taught by these people.
	And that's not us advocating for that either, that's the courts telling you that that's fine.
	That is the courts telling you it, that is the Labour MPs telling you it, and that is the defendants themselves telling you it.
	The judge, Peter Blair QC, who also in this case comes out quite bad, the recorder of Bristol, allowed expert evidence from the activists I've named before...
	Oh, it was so good.
	Yeah.
	Despite past comments that he desperately wanted to join the protesters that day, which were raised as signs of potential bias by the prosecution.
	Well, let's allow expert evidence from a man who, if he'd been able to, would be on trial today.
	If he'd been there.
	That's how the judge ruled.
	Wow.
	So it's not just the jury, the judges were utterly corrupt.
	Just utterly corrupt.
	I don't know what else to say.
	Openly.
	Openly doesn't give a S about the rule of law.
	That's a judge.
	The prosecution argued that the fact Colston was a slave trader was wholly irrelevant, for the Crown said that the case was about the cold hard facts and the rule of law.
	Lies.
	As you should.
	The case is about the rule of law.
	I mean, this is the people trying to prosecute them.
	They're just like, you know what doesn't matter?
	Why they did it.
	Because why they did it is not the law.
	The reason of why they did it is not included in the law.
	The law is you broke public property.
	Well, sadly, apparently the case was purely about ideology and moral reasoning.
	That's all it is.
	I tell you, that's making me fucking furious.
	Jurors were shown CCTV capturing each of the defendants playing roles in toppling the statue.
	They can't act ignorant.
	They're given literal video evidence.
	You couldn't ask for better evidence.
	Here's your face.
	Here's you toppling the statue.
	It doesn't sound like they were denying it.
	They were like, oh, well, we just were motivated by our pure, blessed, anti-racist cause.
	They all pleaded not guilty.
	Oh, did they?
	Even though they're on camera doing it.
	And then the jury were just like...
	And it's just worked!
	I just don't care.
	They're just going to vote no.
	The judge.
	He's not even going to care about the rule of law either.
	He's just going to allow someone in who would have been with them.
	Bristol Council's Head of Culture, John Finch, gave evidence of damage to the statue, which lost a cane as part of its coattails.
	He confirmed £350 worth of damage to the harbour railings and £2,400 worth of damage to the pavement, including whatever damage you could say has been done to the statue or the plinth or whatever else.
	Yep.
	Presumably coming out of your tax money.
	So we've got direct evidence of damage that now has to be paid for.
	We've got direct CCTV footage of the guilty people doing it.
	And then just plead not guilty, even though they're obviously guilty.
	And then the jury just says, yeah, whatever.
	And the judge also rigs the trial in their favour.
	There is no law.
	There just is no rule of law.
	Did they hand out sleeping tablets to the jury during the case?
	They were like, oh, you'll need a little nap for this one.
	Well, soon they have a Molotov cocktail to the head.
	I don't know.
	So if we go to the next link, we can see another conservative response to this.
	This is actually a dividing line on partisan lines, thankfully, at the bare minimum.
	You can see here, Tory MP Robert Jenrick claims court Colston's statue verdict undermines rule of law.
	No S. What do you mean he claims it?
	It's evident.
	States.
	States.
	And then we'll go to the next link, because I think we should look at the four.
	As you can see here, the four people here.
	These four people are children who have been radicalised into extreme leftism, and have gone out and commit crimes, and have just been let go.
	And the message sent to everyone else who is doing the same rabbit hole, or pipeline, Do it.
	Go out.
	Do a riot.
	You'll get away with it.
	You won't be held accountable.
	Break whatever you want.
	That is the lesson being taught by this court case.
	We'll go to the next link.
	There's, of course, people pointing out that they're also all white.
	At this BLM rally, all these white people tearing it down, and there's the name.
	That's a great picture.
	They've been declared the king of the black people, as I saw in Getter.
	If we go to the next link, we can also just take a look at Bristol as well, in case people don't know.
	It's a hive of left-wing extremism, and this is another direct message to those left-wing extremists.
	Do as you please.
	We will not charge you, or we will not convict you.
	We will let you go on your merry way, even if you're caught on camera, even if you've caught damage, and we've got all the evidence against you and nothing for you.
	We will just let you leave.
	This is an example here of when Carl was doing his Southwest tour, and in Bristol was one of the places where we had anti-far people turn up and try and attack Carl.
	Yeah, so this absolute chad of a man right here with his bulging, crazy eyes.
	Yeah, if we go to the next link, there's more of that as well, in which one of them was shouting at him to punch him, and he was just like, no, go away, you weirdo.
	And if we go to the next link, we also just have the riots, which you may remember.
	And if you can scroll down on this, John, until you get to the burning police car, again, just a hive of leftism.
	There you are.
	I assume these people have also just not been charged or convicted, because to hell with that.
	Can we just port these people?
	Yeah.
	And as I mentioned, what is the right?
	What are the rightists to learn from this, Mr.
	Judge?
	Remember how you say the outcome of this case will be heard around the world?
	You think it's only going to be heard by left-wing ears?
	There are no right-wing ears who might be listening in.
	I might get the message, as you have given, that violence pays.
	That if you topple statues that offend you, that is legal.
	Or at least, I will rig the trial in favour of you to try and get you out.
	And the jurors will just ignore the whole thing because my feels...
	If you call a statue a hate crime against your community, let's say it's the English, do as you please.
	That is the lessons that are being taught by him and his jurors.
	Let's go to the next link.
	Because, of course, this was learnt by some people, making the point.
	As you can see, Darren Grimes saying here, with a statue of Karl Marx, which is, I believe, in London or something, how about it lads you in?
	Hashtag atoppermarks, hashtag legal now.
	I mean, what argument do they have against it?
	This is German imperialism on British soil.
	Yeah.
	This is offending the indigenous people of this land.
	As a capitalist, as someone who believes in property rights, my community is seeing this as a hate crime, as an English person, this is imperialism upon my lands, by some foreign ideology and foreign man.
	Also, just the numbers of people killed by his ideology.
	I mean, do none of the Poles who live in Britain, none of the Ukrainians, none of the Lithuanians, or on and on and on we could go.
	Ethnic minorities, because you care so much about them, I'm sure, who live in London.
	Mark's had a few choice words about ethnic minorities, I'll tell you that.
	What about the Jews?
	What about black people, or the N-word as he loved to call them?
	So, of course, I mentioned the Jews because Karl Marx was an anti-Semitic, even though he was Jewish, which is a weird thing.
	But if we go to the next link, of course, there is the response to Darren Grimes here from one leftist who got put on left-wing cringe.
	Darren Grimes inciting people to topple the headstone of a Jewish man in a cemetery.
	A self-loathing Jewish man who denied that he was Jewish.
	We should be able to do it.
	We should be able to break the law.
	Just not you.
	That's the argument.
	If we go to a liberal response to this, of course, we can check out Stephen Knight here, who's saying, here's a statue of Friedrich Ingels, located in my hometown of Manchester.
	It's an authentic piece of Soviet propaganda salvaged from Ukraine.
	I strongly resent everything it represents.
	However, I want anyone caught destroying it to be convicted of a crime.
	Too bad, Steven.
	I am sorry.
	You know, I could agree.
	I've made this argument many a times, even if there are statues that Adolf Hitler found out in the wild.
	And Engels was part of the Manchester community, he helped to run a factory there, so you could make that argument.
	But, you know, I've made this argument before, especially in regards to Russian statues or the tomb of Lenin or Stalin, or even if there's a statue to Hitler or whatever else, you keep them because it is a memory of what people did, especially your people.
	You know, you learn what people did in the past and they were sincere about it.
	It is a piece of history regardless of what you feel about it.
	And, uh, no, too bad.
	The law now in England, de facto, not de jure, but de facto, evidenced by this case, is the rule of law does not matter if your feelings are hurt.
	That is what this court and this judge have put out to the world.
	I'm sorry, I'm just really mad about it.
	Like, I can't believe this has happened.
	I mean, it's open season!
	Is what they're telling us.
	Let's go to the video comments.
	Sitting in the pub for the last time for at least a month, thanks Ontario Premier Doug Ford, you fat f***.
	I was asking a retired gentleman what work he used to do.
	He said he used to be a reporter with the local paper before getting jobs in the local university in communications and research.
	I asked him if he thought the quality of reporting had changed since his time and he replied that good journalism was still around and mentioned how he subscribes to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Globe and Mail.
	I had to laugh when he handed me an old business card that was translated into Chinese on the rear.
	That says it all.
	Interestingly enough, I do have a book coming soon.
	I've got a book coming soon, which I might be interested in doing a book club on.
	The Greater Lady winked about all the times the New York Times has willfully misrepresented the truth for ideological purposes.
	Does everybody remember the Holodomor?
	Because the New York Times denied it.
	I think it was the New York Times, so I did my speech at the live event about how the Germans are a question, according to Theodore Kaufman, and his proposed solution to solve the German question.
	Which was?
	Sterilise them all.
	The New York Times did a review for that, if I'm getting it right, and they reviewed it by saying it was a permanent police plan for our time or something like this.
	The New York Times comes out saying, remarkably based.
	I'll have to dig that out again.
	Thanks, Alex.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Sophie, in relation to your comment, you know how Carl once spoke about the militant atheist autistic screeching?
	That's what Carl is when it comes to anime.
	No matter how correct you are on something, it doesn't matter.
	It's just more autistic screeching, anti-wee-pre-autistic screeching.
	So with that said, sometimes I can be a bit sadistic.
	And I know Carl's weakness.
	So for me, also Cal as well I guess, for me, I like doing it to be a dick to be a troll.
	I'm not going to address the anime question, but I will say, people do occasionally wonder where Carl is on the podcast.
	If you want Carl on more often, don't be posting anime in the video comments, I'll just say that.
	I also just, I don't even care if I come off as autistic, I just don't care, frankly.
	It's just not for me, and I've made that clear.
	Fair play.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So the trick to big shoulders is big arms.
	The best way to get big arms is to get big weight, big triceps.
	90 pounds for done.
	One for cheese.
	Nice!
	Where are those Tide?
	You get a belt and you sort of tie it on and there's a chain.
	It's not tied where you think it is.
	You look very Buddhist to me.
	To be fair, anybody who may be confused about that, the triceps are 70% of the upper arm.
	Biceps are only 30%.
	If you're at the gym, don't just focus on the biceps.
	Triceps will make it look much bigger.
	Just for some fitness advice out there.
	I have found the New York Times review of Kaufman's genocidal plan.
	A plan for permanent peace among civilised nations.
	Genocide equal peace.
	New York Times.
	New York Times.
	I'll send you the link.
	You can add it to your...
	Oh yeah, that'll be interesting.
	Well, I mean, they did the 1619 project as well, so...
	Let's go to the next one.
	Howdy, ladies, eaters.
	Alright, so this is the 3D printer that I was asked about.
	So this is the Anycubic Viper.
	It's a simple, lazy FDM printer.
	I like it.
	Need a resin printer, though, for better quality prints.
	These are all my prints, plus some actual Warhammer 4K bits.
	I don't actually play Chaos.
	I just collect it because I like the aesthetic.
	That's just my whole wall of my workspace, along with a record player playing American...
	Retro Americana, basically, because I have a lot of those from family.
	Nice.
	I love it.
	I know, I don't know, I haven't been to your house, but like Josh, whenever I go around to people's houses, I'm always looking for interesting things.
	So I appreciate someone who's just got some interesting things in their room and like, yeah, look at this.
	Oh fair, I've got all sorts of knickknacks scattered about the place, so you'll have to come over sometime.
	Yeah, I'll come look at your things and go, that's interesting.
	Yeah, you'll come poke them.
	Yeah.
	Although I love that he's like, no, I don't play chaos, I just collect them.
	There is no such thing as innocence.
	Sorry, I just like the image of you just walking into my place now, scanning it once, going, hmm, interesting.
	Turns around, leaves.
	There is no such thing as innocence.
	There is only degrees of guilt.
	If you so are guilty of hard and chaos.
	Let's get to the next one.
	Well it's a negative 20 outside so the air is really dry and it's gotten really staticky.
	So sometimes when I'm petting my cat then he generates a static charge and gets zapped and he doesn't like that.
	But he does like getting pet.
	So I'm gonna keep petting him and hopefully he doesn't get zapped too much more.
	Oh isn't he cute?
	Everybody should have their own fetch playing cat.
	Look at the smile on him.
	That's sweet, yeah.
	Look at the cat's smile there.
	I know, it's really sweet when cats get like that.
	I don't have anything to say, mate.
	Just I like it.
	Yeah.
	I like the cat.
	It's nice.
	I like the happy cat.
	Let's go to the next one.
	...in Little Joan with another legend of the pines, Harrisville, New Jersey.
	The town was built in 1750 and then a sawmill was built around 1815.
	The sawmill wasn't very successful, but then in 1850 it was converted into a paper mill and the town thrived.
	It was originally called McCarthyville, but it was renamed Harrisville when a family bought the paper factory.
	Unfortunately, the entire town burned down in 1914, but the ruins of the town is still in the Pine Barrens today.
	Oh, that's pretty neat.
	I always wondered back in the day, like back in those days, like...
	Back in the oldie times.
	Back in the slave days, no.
	Like, how do people make decisions about spending a huge amount of money on opening a lumber mill or a paper mill or whatever?
	Because you don't have the kind of market analysis I imagine people do these days.
	Is it literally just like hot luck?
	I suppose it was probably more based on intuition.
	There would have been some ways of recognizing gaps in the market.
	It probably just wouldn't have been obviously as convenient as it is nowadays.
	Thanks for that.
	Today is the anniversary of the worst day in American history.
	One year ago, violent armed inter-examuses were personally led by their dictator into the Capitol building where countless amounts of damage took place.
	We as a nation may never recover from Donald Trump.
	I still cry when I think about all the lives that were lost that day.
	The only solid second take is knowing that George Floyd wasn't alive to witness it, because had Derek Chauvin's knee not killed him, this certainly would have.
	I hope everyone has a safe day and remember to support any friends and family who identify as Cheeto fascist supporters.
	I'm actually getting anxiety.
	That was very accurate.
	Happy January 6th, everyone!
	I should have mentioned I didn't.
	We did the BLM story as a bit of a January 6th tribute as well.
	Well, you always remember, BLM killed a hell of a lot more people than the Capitol Hill insurrection.
	That is something to point out as well, though, on January 6th.
	We say that the rule of law has been completely overturned, and they have shown that you can just go and topple any statue now, as long as you're leftist.
	Yeah, because that's the thing.
	January 6th was just the right doing what the left had been doing the entire previous summer.
	Yes.
	And they track them to the ends of the earth.
	Like, we're going to ignore the political side because we're not allowed to talk about it anyway, but if you went in there, like, they caused some violence, sure, okay, and those people have been tried, a lot of them have been tried way too harshly, they're being treated like Whitmo.
	Yes, a lot of them were just being held without charges at first, or charges of trespassing for months at a time.
	But I did a video at the time, a direct one, in which we talked about it, and I was just like, are you kidding me?
	All these people being so outraged about, oh my god, the right wing are being violent!
	Not at all like us left-wing.
	The hell have been happening for the last year, you morons.
	It was a struggle to get Kyle Rittenhouse off after people had assaulted him.
	Yeah.
	There's also, I love, if people are having a merry January 6th, you can also go and find on the other channel the short clip I put together of the media response to the BLM riots.
	We're like, this is a peaceful protest.
	This is not a riot.
	And you just put it over footage of January 6th and just play it to your friends.
	If you've got a friend who's arguing with you about January 6th, go and find that video and send them it.
	I want to see the response.
	One person died January 6th.
	How many in the riots?
	They were a protester as well.
	Oh, yeah.
	Go to the next link.
	I probably recommend anybody be able to go back and watch his old episodes, especially with older eyes now, and be able to see the lineage of the hard left talking points, the way how they do things, their tactics, the way how they really tried to sell socialism in a lot of ways.
	It's very interesting to see where all this came from.
	He's very charismatic and he's damn good at what he does.
	Who was that?
	Who was he talking about?
	John, did you catch that?
	Sorry, we didn't catch the voice who you were talking about at first.
	Was it Vorsch?
	I don't know.
	I don't think you could use Vorce and Charismatic.
	I was too busy looking at the bookshelf, because I was like, oh, some good books.
	Yeah, Unmasked.
	He's even got some Dragon Balls.
	Not to open the anime question up.
	You've got cool visuals there.
	Come on, you've got...
	What is that?
	Is that an AK or an RPD? He's got a gun.
	Yeah.
	So it's got lost.
	Although I see Unit 731 there.
	Is that the...
	I can't remember.
	I think that...
	Is that the Japanese unit in Korea that did all the chemical weapons experiments that were all messed up as hell?
	Because I'm actually...
	In the middle of this, and I got to the point in which, people wondering, the impossible state in which they're talking about the chemical weapons North Korea has, and they basically got it all from the Japanese, like all the training and the technology, because the Japanese just left it behind.
	Yeah.
	Another aspect of that, but...
	Sorry we kind of butchered your question!
	I feel embarrassed.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Good evening, gentlemen.
	I'm not exactly sure how I'm going to format this series of video comments whining and complaining about the Amazon Wheel of Time series.
	But I know that my foremost complaint is absolutely that it is, in every way, the progressive skin suit of the thing that I know and love and hold dear.
	Also the fact that it's written by a pack of retards who have no idea what they're doing.
	And that's 99% of Western media at the moment, sadly.
	Yeah.
	Progressive skin suit?
	Retards.
	You know anything, because there's not much you can do about it either.
	Because, you know, they've got all the licenses or whatever.
	Yeah, I mean, you can just not watch it.
	Sure.
	That's what I do.
	I mean, I've...
	This isn't...
	It's not a skin suit.
	Well, it's not a progressive skin suit, at least.
	But I really like the Fallout series.
	I love the world.
	Oh, yeah.
	I really hate Fallout 4 and 76.
	Just because...
	Not because of, like, any story change elements.
	I'm not really too mad about that.
	Just the way the game plays, I can't stand.
	And that's a personal preference.
	Yeah, I gave up on Fallout 4 pretty quickly, and Fallout 76 I just avoided completely.
	I saw Bethesda, massively multiplayer online game, and I just thought it's going to be trash.
	It's going to be garbage.
	And it was!
	I only love the Fallout series really for the lore, and I don't think they've done too much damage to that, as far as I'm aware.
	There are people who probably disagree with you vehemently, but I don't know well enough to articulate the arguments.
	I didn't really bother finishing 4 or playing 76, so I didn't really know how much they've changed.
	But the people running it are just morons, clearly, by the way they're handling games.
	From what I'm aware, they mostly kind of homogenised a lot of the lore, whereas Fallout 1 and 2 tried to change things up because they were set in different areas and different time periods.
	Fallout 3 kind of made it so it was just like the memes...
	Yeah, there was an annoying point about, like, why are there super mutants in Boston?
	Yeah, why?
	Well, because it's Fallout-y!
	It's like, because they're made in My The Master over in California, and then, okay, they might have migrated to New Vegas, that makes sense.
	Yeah, there's a small band of them, really, isn't there?
	They got over to Washington, D.C.? Oh, no, there's FEV in Washington, D.C. and a bit of the enclave there?
	Okay, sure.
	And it just happened to produce the same kind of super mutants?
	Okay, well...
	Bit of a stretch.
	There is a lot of just like, it's a Fallout thing so we'll have it in the game and it's like, why can't you just make something new?
	Yeah.
	We have to have the bottle caps in there.
	Do you know about the bottle caps?
	What?
	Do you know why bottle caps have value?
	Well, in the series.
	Yeah.
	Not originally.
	So they're pegged to the price of water in, like, one town in, like, Fallout 1 or 2 or something?
	And then, well, that makes sense.
	Like, you can trade them for water.
	Yeah.
	Okay?
	And then they've spread across all of the United States somehow.
	Yeah, on the other side of the country, in Washington, D.C., they also came up with the same system, except there's no clean water.
	How did that make...
	Whatever.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Just finished in the gym.
	And guys, like all the people who keep saying that Australia's all in super heavy lockdowns and stuff, well, this is what it was for Sydney just after New Year's Day.
	Like, hardly any masks, no one's social distancing, businesses are open, everyone's getting on with their lives.
	Please distinguish between my state, New South Wales, and the rest of the Labour sh**holes.
	That is asking a lot.
	Fair play.
	From what I'm aware at the moment, it's mainly the northern territories that are going into full crazy mode.
	My Australian geography is absolutely awful, and I should improve it.
	But it's awful like most other people's as well.
	But you're right.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Just as a reminder from someone who's read the Harry Potter books and is well familiar with them, the main theme of the story is not anything like, uh, we're all in this together or any hippy-dippy bullsh**.
	The main theme is death.
	Rowling lost a parent when she was very young and the writing process was her grief, I suppose.
	But she's very upfront about that.
	Fair analysis.
	I mean, I read them again a few years ago.
	I actually enjoyed them.
	I don't like reading, so I didn't read them.
	Oh, that's fair.
	I watch the movies.
	That's fair.
	Let's go to the next one.
	For people listening, we're watching a guy carve out a pattern in wood as well, so it's not just music.
	Pretty cool.
	Yeah, awesome.
	What is the instrument that makes that sound?
	Is that just a guitar?
	That's an electric guitar with a slide on it.
	A slide is like, you can use metal ones, or you can use glass bottles, where you just put them on your finger, and you tend to tune a guitar differently if you're playing slide, and it means that instead of having to articulate each note when you're playing it with each individual finger, you can just slide it up and down.
	Tarnag.
	Alrighty.
	My main question was just, are electronic banjos are real?
	Uh, yes.
	Wait, really?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, electric banjos are real.
	You can get electric violins.
	You can basically get electric anything.
	Electric flutes?
	Probably.
	I've not heard of them, but probably.
	Huh.
	I bet some nerds made it on an electric triangle, just because.
	I bet they have that shocked you.
	Wasn't that just what a pheromone is, technically?
	Well, no, a pheromone you don't touch, do you?
	Yeah, a pheromone is, I don't know how it does it, but you wave your hand in front of it and it produces a signal based on where your hand is in relation to it.
	I don't know anything about music.
	Let's go, okay.
	Welcome to 2022 Headline Prediction.
	Ilhan Omar's nudes were leaked.
	This is why it's a national security threat.
	Despite what the alt-right says, Joe Biden did not throw up in his speech.
	3D printed guns are used in 30% of mass shootings.
	Transgender ASU student accuses Kyle Rittenhouse of raping them.
	It is not any different from petting your dog, brave zoosexual speaks out against stereotypes.
	Thank you for playing 2022 Headline Predictions.
	We'll be back with you tomorrow.
	Unfortunately.
	Alright, number seven there.
	The super straights are back, and they're violent.
	That's definitely gonna happen.
	Yep.
	I mean, I will say, it's not any different from petting your dog.
	You watch SFO, right?
	Short Fat Otaku?
	Yeah, on occasion.
	Yeah, he did a video recently about the strangeness that there is a suspicious amount of women who do just post online on Twitter being like, yeah, I F my dog.
	What of it?
	Better than men!
	So that's basically already true, sorry to tell you.
	What of it?
	Who hasn't smeared peanut butter around there and just let him go wild?
	Are these like the feminist types?
	Yeah, of course.
	They would rather F their dog than F a man.
	Well, that's all they're getting, so...
	Yeah, there you go.
	Yeah, number two and number seven.
	I'm placing my bets on those two.
	We'll see how it goes, I suppose.
	So, on the written comments of Lord Ahmed the Nonce, Anon Immy says, Islam is so accepting and tolerant that I have to hide my status and live a double life from fear of being beheaded from the community I used to be in.
	Lord Pearson's point being proved correctly, and I hope you're alright, mate.
	Freeborn JJHW says the Rotherham police haven't identified the other 88% and won't.
	They are part of the problem.
	That's the thing as well.
	Everyone keeps saying, or at least this is the message we get from people on the ground and everyone doing the reports, which is we have no idea how many rapists there are.
	These are the only ones we have on the books as suspected, so what percentage really is it?
	Who knows?
	I'd add Lord Ahmed to the percentage of nonces from Rotherham.
	Because he is.
	Alpha of the Bates, if you're charged and convicted of noncery and your entire defensive, it's a malicious prosecution, you wouldn't show remorse, fake or otherwise.
	Clearly Lord Nonce of Rotherham is guilty AF, but his attitude shouldn't be a surprise.
	Yeah, it shows how normalized it is within certain communities.
	It's just like, yeah, what about, what of it?
	But there's the thing, he did that in 2017 when he first got accused of someone who came to him, and then the case was brought forward of those who were raped by him, or, sorry, attempted rape by the girl, or sexual assault by the boy that he'd done it to.
	So, I don't know, I don't know.
	Just what a piece of shit.
	Yep.
	I don't know why I'm saying anything.
	We all agree on this.
	Woodchipper.
	Henry Ashman.
	So the current rate of COVID infections in Rotherham is about 2%.
	A Muslim man from Rotherham is six times more likely to be a suspect in a noncery case than have Omicron.
	An interesting framing.
	Sadly true.
	Could you do it again for how likely you are to die from COVID in Rotherham versus being a nonce if you're Muslim?
	That'd be like a million times.
	I just want the number.
	Carbohydrate Crusader.
	MP for Rotherham is a nonce.
	This cannot be.
	Call me shocked.
	He's a lord, not an MP. This is the other funny thing, which is that he became a councillor for like two years and then was just made a lord.
	I literally can't figure out why.
	And presumably it's because he's a Muslim and Tony Blair wants a Muslim lord.
	Because he is often quoted as the first Muslim lord, but it's in contention.
	And what a great track record he set.
	Because basically two Asians were picked to do this role of the first lords.
	And the other one is done for expenses scandal in which she ended up stealing £120,000 from the taxpayer.
	So those are the first two Asian lords in the country.
	One of them a nonce, the other one stealing £100,000 from us.
	I'm not trying to have a go, but it's not going well, is it?
	Rhys Sim says, The former councillor of Rotherham, Lord Nazir Ahmed, will finally face recompense for over 50 years of noncery.
	Sadly, the actions of this vile man could have been sorted half a decade ago if they weren't in fear of being labelled racist for locking him up.
	Back in the 70s, Labour must ensure he loses his lordship and condemn those individuals and group to allow this nonce to get his lordship.
	They're going to condemn themselves.
	I don't really know how that's going to work.
	However, we all know most of them are too yellow-livered to even condemn Nazir, let alone the midwit Blairites who recommend him to be a lord.
	Yeah.
	I have nothing to say on that, I suppose, because I'm out of energy.
	Let's just go to the next one.
	Yeah, on the trans kids issue, Alpha of the Beta says trans women are women.
	Conservative Tom Harwood is conservative.
	Great parallel.
	Hello?
	Yes, trans conservatives are conservatives.
	Carbohydrate Crusader again says, All of the kid's surgery stuff seems so manipulative.
	Considering my recent news about the baby, I'm worried about how to keep these gender-critical views away from my kid.
	In essence, I view it as people who are either pretending to be well-meaning, manipulating kids for weird, perverse purposes, or well-meaning idiots.
	Any tips on how to essentially keep these ideas away from kids when they're promoted in schools?
	I'm kind of hoping this S show plays out in schools, return to a level of normality before my kids get there.
	Homeschool.
	As an individual parent, at least from what we've seen from people on the ground, the best thing to do, because if you can't homeschool, there are reasons not to be able to, of course, or you might not think it's a better idea, is keep an eye, a hawkish eye, on what the school is teaching, which is going to take up your time, it's going to be annoying.
	Keep an eye on whatever councils or whatever they have that you can be on or listen to.
	I just ask these questions.
	I mean, like, you know, this speaker's coming in to talk about this stuff.
	I want to hear.
	I want to hear the speech beforehand.
	If they're starting to promote such things, no, that's not happening in my school or my kid is exempt.
	We have seen from America that these parent-teacher meetings where the parents will just come and scream bloody murder.
	They're incredibly effective.
	Yeah, they are very effective.
	So if you are unable to homeschool or anything like that, like Callum says, keep an eye on it and if you do spot anything, make sure not to keep quiet about it.
	That's the best that we can do.
	You've got to take an active role in protecting your children.
	I mean, if you're well off enough as well to be able to do private schooling, it's such an easy relationship, I imagine, because you could just go in and be like, I'm fucking paying for this.
	Yeah, exactly, there you go.
	With a public school, they always argue that, oh no, it's our duty as a public school.
	Well, to be fair, you could probably make the same argument if a public school is like, well, my taxes are paying for you.
	You are obviously also paying for it, but it's...
	I imagine there's more leverage.
	Pete Reynolds, hey Pete, says, Yeah, it's a ridiculous argument and no one should really pay any attention to it.
	Yes, we have in the office referred to him as a bad take machine.
	It's all he comes out with.
	Whenever I see him pop up on my social feed, he's just dribbling such a name twaddle, I'm genuinely impressed that he still has a following.
	I imagine there's quite a few hate followers at this point, and maybe some of the current Tory bunch who are in agreement with him for whatever reason.
	Tony boys.
	Yeah, the Tony boys as they are now.
	Almost on point, so it's a question for you both.
	Would you allow a transsexual woman into a woman's prison if they agreed to have their manhood chopped off before they go in?
	I mean, my solution was just build a different prison.
	Yeah, I was going to say probably not, to be perfectly honest.
	Whether or not they have their manhood chopped off, they are still much larger and more dangerous than the rest of the inmates in there, so...
	And that's probably about time we've got for comments unless you want to read any more.
	I suppose I'll do one or two on the last subject because people have.
	Chris Wolf says we should call out the people wearing racism goggles because that's why they see racism everywhere.
	They certainly do.
	There's also someone asking if I don't like insert name here and my feelings are hurt by his statue am I now allowed to go and tear it down or is it only native English statues?
	So far, it's only native English statues that are hate crimes, by definition, in the courts.
	If there are more cases from the right, all I'm saying is I wouldn't be surprised, and I have no...
	I don't know why I should have feeling for being shocked about the whole thing.
	Whatever, fine.
	If the courts are just going to destroy the rule of law, why would you be surprised that the rule of law breaks down?
	Anybody who comes out screeching about it, if that does happen, I feel no sympathy for.
	They will.
	They will screech and screech and screech.
	It could be anything.
	I don't know.
	There are multiple statues around this country that have been put up in recent times, especially by Wokis as well.
	Well, what's defending them now?
	The law?
	Of course not.
	We're out of time.
	But if you want to support the show, we'll get access to the premium content on the website.
	Go over to lodosiers.com and subscribe, or just go over there and check out the free stuff we have up there.
	Please do.
	And we'll be back tomorrow, 1 o'clock.

▲