Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 28, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:38

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #424

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 28th of June 2022.
	I'm joined today by Kim Isherwood.
	How are you doing, Kim?
	Hi, how are you doing?
	Thanks for having me.
	No problem.
	Do you want to explain your backgrounds, just for everyone who might not know you?
	Yeah, so I'm Kim.
	I'm chair of an organization called Public Child Protection Wales.
	I'm highly qualified in, well, I'm a criminologist.
	I am.
	I've got degrees in social policy and things like that.
	Highly trained in child sex abuse, exploitation, harmful sexual behavior, all the dark things that nobody likes to discuss, the things people like to pretend is not happening.
	I'm in the thick of it.
	That's pretty much me.
	One of the worst aspects of human society, frankly, having to deal with that.
	I suppose we'll get into what we're going to be talking about, because some of that obviously will come up.
	So firstly, I just want to talk about leftists getting mad at what they want to happen, and then getting it, and then being mad still.
	And also, grooming never ends, in the case of Oldham.
	And the hate crime flag, which I just thought would be a nice fun thing to end on as well.
	But otherwise, we shall get into the news.
	So we'll start off with leftists getting what they want.
	So leftists have finally got what they want in some regard to Roe v.
	Wade.
	And this was just sort of a personal thing for me, which is just that I saw the debate, and I'm sure you have, about Roe v.
	Wade and, you know, when should abortion be allowed and blah, blah, blah.
	Yeah, we've actually been discussing that on the way up, funny enough.
	Yeah, but one of the things I found most interesting is some leftists are actually a bit confused deeply in regards to all this, because they've always wanted to be on the side of, you know, we should fight the Supreme Court because they're going to overturn it, and then it happens.
	And what happens, obviously, is now it's a question for the states and not the Supreme Court.
	So, those of them who are arguing for, well, of course, to be an aspect for the people rather than some random court they don't have interaction with, are now kind of stumped because they still want to be mad leftists.
	So, they're still writing articles being like, actually, this is a terrible idea now.
	We're the same people.
	So, I thought we'd just go through that for a laugh first.
	So, firstly, just to mention on the website, of course, you can go find some of the premium content we have on there.
	This one being the Cultural Revolution, a place of also complete madness.
	And I suppose we'll start off with Vox being completely confused as to what's going on So this is an article I saw this morning saying, the case against the Supreme Court of the United States.
	So, you know, it's a perfectly rational response.
	You could say, oh no, I mean, there's now a debate of where should we have the limit on abortion?
	No, just ban the Supreme Court because I don't like them.
	They made a decision I don't like.
	Very grown up.
	We see this a lot, don't we?
	You know, if they don't like something, you've just got to get rid of it.
	You find this one small group of people overrating everyone else, really, isn't it?
	It's just the entire institution has to go.
	You've got to burn the whole house down because there's a spider in it.
	But they say in here, editor's note, June 25th, the following is an updated version of an essay that originally ran in Vox in May, and we are republishing it with revisions in light of the Supreme Court's decision overruling Roe v.
	Wade.
	And this is why I really wanted to go through this for a laugh, because it becomes such a mess, because it's obviously someone panicking and trying to rewrite their arguments, so it makes more sense.
	And they say in here, the Supreme Court's public approval ratings are in freefall.
	A Gallup poll taken in June before the court's decision in Dobbs found that only 25% of respondents have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the court, a historic low.
	And that's after nearly a year worth of polls showing that the court's approval is in steady decline.
	Number one, who cares?
	They're a court.
	They don't have to get re-elected.
	So I don't think that's going to bother them in the slightest.
	So I don't know what that point was.
	To do this, I say, good.
	The Dobbs decision is the culmination of a decades-long effort by Republicans to capture the Supreme Court and use it.
	Not just to undercut abortion rights, but also to implement an unpopular agenda they cannot implement through the democratic process.
	That's a really weird historical telling of what happened.
	So, let me get this straight now.
	So what are they saying?
	The Supreme Court make the decisions?
	Or is it the states?
	Well, that's the thing.
	It's obviously being rewritten to a point where...
	So, the obvious reality for a second is that it was up to the states, then Roe v.
	Wade happened, it became a federal court decision, and now the court has said, actually, that was a stupid decision.
	Yes, go back to the States, yeah.
	A nice democratic process.
	But of course, Vox are now furiously rewriting their articles to be like, no, no, no.
	Actually, it's something else that was a problem.
	Because they're saying here as if, like, the normalization of abortion wasn't via the democratic process, which it wasn't.
	It was a subversion by the courts.
	Does it say that the Republicans are the ones subverting the courts?
	It's like...
	No.
	Like, that's what you guys did with the original ruling.
	Yeah.
	Which is to take it out of the hands of the states and the people who live in them, obviously.
	So it's now back to them.
	What's the complaint?
	Why are you upset?
	It's like, no, you're just terminally upset, aren't you?
	The kind of people who just screech endlessly, no matter what's going on.
	He says, And the court's Republican majority hasn't simply handed the Republican Party's substantive policy victories, it is systemically dismantling voter rights protections that make it possible for every voter to have an equal voice.
	Sure Jan, I just don't believe it.
	I clicked on his links and checked out what he was talking about, and he never got to a point in any of those articles, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to go into that.
	It just seemed pointless.
	He goes on.
	I hate this.
	That's the entire retelling of the Supreme Court's history now, is it?
	Well, it keeps coming back to that all the time, doesn't it?
	You know, everything keeps coming back to black people and concentration camps, you know.
	They always try to take us back to a bad time to try and emphasis their point.
	It doesn't work, does it?
	It's never in context, you know.
	It's not like you're talking to a human being who could say, okay, yeah, the institution did these things and those things, and there's a long history and, you know, the reasons.
	No, they're just bad.
	Yeah.
	Every Western institution just has bad.
	Yeah.
	And therefore, there's nothing good about it.
	And therefore, presumably, as he says, you must just destroy the whole thing.
	Well, if there's nothing good about it, why do they want the courts to have the ruling?
	What?
	Only when they agree with them.
	It's as simple as that, apparently.
	I never get over how every time you read something like this or have a debate with someone like this, regardless of what political side they're on, you do get to the point where just any Western institution just has to go.
	That's the root of their argument every time.
	Anything to do with the West.
	Anyway, he goes on.
	He says, moreover, while the present court is unusually conservative, I don't know what that means, frankly.
	I presume he means the fact that it's got more Republicans on than usual, but it's been...
	Or maybe it's just a bit common sense.
	Yeah, but also just the fact that he also goes on to say that the structure itself is conservative.
	I'm like, duh.
	Like, that's the whole point of the judiciary, is to review what's going on and say, is this legal?
	Yeah, because it's facts.
	You've got to base it on facts, not opinion.
	Is it constitutional?
	I mean, that's the whole purpose of the thing.
	They don't come up with, you know, new quote-unquote progress that the left love to call progress.
	Instead, they just knock that down, and that's why he's mad.
	Courts have had a great deal of power to strike down programs created by elected officials, but little ability to build such programs from the ground up.
	Yes.
	That's what a court is.
	It's not a Senate or a Parliament.
	It does what it's meant to do, which is knock things down for being illegal.
	Not, you know, make-up programs, as he calls it.
	I love how he doesn't call it, you know, like, diktats or something.
	Thus, when the anti-government political movements control the judiciary, it will likely be able to exploit that control to great effect.
	I'm like, good.
	I mean, I don't know about you, but I'm very like, keep the government away from me as much as possible.
	100%.
	State intervention is never good, is it?
	But it's in almost every aspect.
	I mean, like, the only things you can argue where, you know, the government can do good is in policing, if it's done well, obviously, and defence.
	I mean, those are the ones that pretty much everyone is, you know, it's not arguable.
	But in every other case, I mean, typically, I would revert to, it's probably a pretty good thing.
	To go to the courts, yeah.
	To have the courts being anti-government and saying, we don't want anything to do with these people in our lives.
	If we didn't have a court system that was slightly anti-government, then there would be no opposition.
	There is no opposition anyway, but if we didn't have a court system that we could turn to, then we'd just live in a dictatorship.
	Yeah, if the executive and the judiciary were the same body, essentially.
	They'd be governing themselves.
	There's no checks and balances in place.
	The fascistic tendencies of these people being like, yeah, I'd like them to just agree with me as well, otherwise burn it down.
	Quote, but when a more left-wing movement controls the courts, it's unlikely to find judicial power to be an effective tool.
	It's like, what?
	But that's what all Roe v.
	Wade was about, which is the fact that your position on this was able to take control of the courts and therefore change the entire country overnight.
	Made abortion legal.
	I mean, didn't just make it legal, sorry, forced every state to make it legal.
	Because it wasn't even up to them in the slightest.
	So the idea that they can't get power out of that is just lunatic kind of possession on this.
	But he goes on to say, Okay, Marxist, calm down.
	You're a reactionary.
	That's a reactionary.
	It's like, yeah...
	It's there for a reason.
	It's a court.
	It reacts to things the government does and says it is legal or not.
	But then there's just the obvious rhetoric about what about the fact that it's harming those who are the most vulnerable and helping those who are most powerful.
	Have you seen the news from Microsoft and Google?
	No, I haven't.
	To be honest with you, I don't really watch the news much and this is the reason why.
	But it's hilarious because all these billion dollar companies, of course, publicly profess because they live in California and New York and whatnot.
	They've got to profess with the Democratic Party, so they endlessly talk about, oh no, this is horrible.
	But also, because it's so horrible, we're going to pay our female employees to go and have abortions if they live in a red state?
	And you think, why?
	Oh, because it's more profitable.
	If she doesn't take time off a baby, it's good business.
	And, yeah, I feel like maybe the rich and powerful here, being the billion-dollar companies, are not the ones being harmed by this.
	They're getting more profit out of it.
	Well, this is an industry, and this is what abortion's being used a lot for now, is contraceptive measure.
	You know, it's being...
	It's been easy come, easy go, isn't it?
	And it is an industry, you know?
	This is what we need to realise.
	The difference between the UK and the USA, because they've got their private healthcare system, we think that we get everything free, when actually we don't, because we pay for it, so they're still getting our money.
	And these are industries, they're all industries.
	IPPPF, they're all industries, and they're all left for money.
	They're billion-dollar industries at that as well, you know?
	There's no money, there's no point doing it.
	If it was healthcare, we wouldn't be debating it.
	Maybe.
	But I just, I also love the aspect of like, so the billion dollar companies, the rich and powerful, okay, they actually need the abortions because they need the women to stay and work as drones.
	Yeah.
	So they get better off with Roe v.
	Wade being law, which, so no, it's not at the expense of them.
	Like, this actually harms them.
	But then it's harming the most vulnerable in society.
	But you would have thought, I mean, I'm not a huge abortion guy.
	Like, I don't take the conservative position that at birth, it's conception.
	I don't, obviously don't agree with the, you know, at nine months, go ahead and kill it either.
	Somewhere in there I can probably agree to as a concession.
	But the most vulnerable in this conversation surely are the unborn child.
	Yeah, I agree there.
	But this isn't like a split thing, isn't it?
	Like I said, everything is circumstantial.
	Therefore, there shouldn't be a blanket solution to anything anyway.
	This shouldn't be a blanket solution.
	There's a law against this or a law for it.
	This should be on an individual basis.
	And the fact that it's not on an individual basis, you know somebody's behind it and they're going to get something from it.
	Well, even in the most red states, I mean, they obviously make the exemptions for horrific circumstances, such as, you know, if you were raped or blah, blah, blah, blah.
	The argument is made still, even in those circles.
	So the idea that people aren't taking this seriously in those regards definitely isn't true.
	But then you go to the blue states and they're like, yeah, nine months, go ahead.
	What?
	I did hear that.
	I didn't know if it was true or not.
	But I have heard that.
	That's not good.
	There was a bill, I think it was a few years ago now, in the New York State Senate.
	They brought it forward and it would have legalized it up until nine months.
	And the lawyer who had written the bill realized that whilst being questioned and was like, oh, fuck.
	What am I going to do now?
	She looked like a right...
	She was like, oh crap.
	Anyway, the whole other story.
	Anyway, he goes on to end off here saying, and it currently appears to be reverting back to the historical mean of the Supreme Court by, you know, doing its job and reacting to the law.
	How dare they?
	Whereas it doesn't help the revolutionary future, presumably.
	If Alito truly wants to put the question of whether pregnant individuals have the right to terminate that pregnancy up to free and fair democratic processes, polling indicates that liberals can probably win that fight on a national level.
	Okay then.
	I mean, again, this is why I don't get this whining.
	It's like, don't you know we'll win anyway?
	Then do it.
	Just pass the laws.
	You don't have to subvert the court and get Roe v.
	Wade passed, based on a lie as well.
	He goes on to say that he interviewed some person from an opinion polling station and said, In all the work I've done, qualitative focus groups, in-depth interviews, surveys, the bottom line is the public wants people to be making these decisions around abortion, not the government.
	But there you are!
	You've got it!
	I mean, this is what I found amazing, because this article was published before the change, and they're like, oh yeah, shouldn't it be up to the people?
	And then, you know, the Republicans...
	Now it's up to the people, they complain about it.
	How dare they?
	This is wrong!
	This doesn't make any sense.
	Like, you are clearly just utterly confused, or someone who's just looking to be mad, otherwise you're not taking this seriously.
	But public opinion may not matter much in the coming political fight over abortion, he writes, because Alito and his fellow Republican justices have spent the last decade placing a thumb on the scales of democracy.
	Alito authorized two opinions and joined a third that, when combined, almost completely neutralized the Voting Rights Act.
	Yes, black people can't vote in America anymore.
	Don't know if you heard.
	No, I didn't do that.
	No, just a new thing, apparently.
	It's not true.
	It's obviously just made...
	It's just like, yeah, it just gets rid of the Voting Rights Act that allows black people to vote.
	It's like, no, it doesn't.
	What are we talking about?
	Like, this has not happened.
	We just made that up.
	One of the most troubling aspects of the court's jurisprudence is that it often seems to apply one set of rules to Democrats and a different, more permissive set of rules to Republicans.
	Last February, for example, Alito voted with four of his fellow Republicans to reiterate the Alabama congressional map that the lower court determined to be unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
	You know this idea, I'm sure you've heard it, where it's like, the American left, don't engage in gerrymandering.
	The American right always, that's how they fix things.
	You hear it constantly.
	I don't know why I have to keep bringing this up.
	Can we take a look at the next link here?
	This is a congressional map for New York.
	Can you see the hollowed out bit in the middle there?
	Yeah.
	The ghost parts that cross, you know, two islands, down one side of one of the islands, and then across, you know, the boat walk back into a different district.
	Yeah.
	Pretty gerrymandered, you would have thought.
	This is New York, so of course it's Democrats.
	This is a Jerry Antifa doesn't exist Nadler's constituency.
	I don't know if you're familiar with him.
	He became famous basically for just going out and saying that Antifa don't exist.
	Oh, right.
	During the summer of love, you know, when they were petrol bombing everything.
	Oh, right.
	Yeah.
	Okay, mate.
	But if we go back to the whining, because they're still whining, he goes on and says, I could list more examples of how the court, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, is bad in so many words.
	And then he goes off to say that on areas of religion, vaccination and the rights of workers to organize.
	I checked out the links.
	The first one is the court stopped Cuomo from limiting churches from their occupancy levels.
	So, okay, defending religious rights seems like a good thing.
	They also stopped Biden mandating most workers having to get vaccinated or routinely tested constantly.
	That seems like a good thing that they stopped.
	My body, my choice.
	Surely that's what this was all about?
	Bodily autonomy?
	No?
	Don't ring any bells.
	Don't worry about it.
	And the last one is that they defended in employer property rights so that unions couldn't come on their property regularly just to promote.
	They were like, no, this is still my land.
	You can promote your union elsewhere, but just not on the site.
	Again, like, okay, defending property rights, defending religious rights, and my body by choice by the court there.
	None of those are bad.
	No.
	All of those seem good to me.
	They think they are.
	Yeah.
	So they then go on to say that the whole institution is designed to stop government overreach.
	And it's like, yes, that's a good thing.
	Idiots!
	I don't know why we're having this debate, but this is what I mean by just the panic that's set in after the change, at least in this aspect of trying to change everything.
	but if we go to the next one here there's also other articles that they're finding in um there should be another link in there but don't worry about it it's just the fact that they're like uh don't you know this is not about abortion it could be about other things as well and so vox go on to list a bunch of things but the the funniest i've seen i don't know if you have some people have said that interracial marriage might become illegal because of this No.
	It's not going to happen.
	But it's just, you know, if we let this fall, don't you know everything else will fall?
	Yeah, of course it will.
	No, it won't.
	There are fundamental differences between a gay marriage and abortion.
	I mean, in one of them, people die.
	The babies die.
	That's the argument from the Conservatives.
	But the funniest one being the interracial marriage will become illegal because it's obviously just nuts, them living on another planet.
	That is just insane.
	That is...
	Trust me, it'll happen, bro.
	This is how people can't take these subjects serious because you've got people saying such insane, radical stuff and then you can't have a proper debate on these issues because you've got something saying something radical and crazy over this side and the people on this, they're not going to listen.
	You know, they're not going to listen.
	So they switch off and then these things happen to go through then because the people have switched off and let these ones carry on.
	Yeah.
	And in that example, it's just the most extreme.
	I saw another one which was funny.
	They tried to argue that slavery will return because of this, which...
	I think slavery is already here.
	Slavery is already here.
	It's just been made to look posh.
	Oh, what do you mean?
	We're all slaves, aren't we, to the system, you know?
	But people don't realise that.
	They certainly think of it as slaves.
	We're all slaves in our own way, you know?
	But...
	That's another story for another day, I suppose.
	Okay, look forward to that one.
	But this is also just, for anyone who doesn't know, all based on a lie as well.
	I don't know if you're familiar with this, but you remember, you know, it's Roe v.
	Wade.
	This is Roe, this lady here.
	Right.
	And she went, well, she got pregnant, wanted an abortion, went to the cops, and I couldn't find a link in here, but in the Wikipedia page it says that she said that she was raped by black men.
	She didn't want any of them prosecuted.
	Which, you know, is normal.
	A rape victim.
	And then she got picked up by the law firm to go to the Supreme Court and argue, look, I'm a woman who's been raped and I can't get an abortion.
	How terrible is this?
	And later in her life, she admitted all of it was a lie.
	100%.
	She was never raped.
	There were no black men doing it.
	She just got pregnant.
	But just, yeah.
	And it's just, what it is?
	You need to victimize and demonize.
	And that's what's going on here.
	She needed to be the victim to demonize the law.
	Yes, and they used her.
	I mean, even herself said that.
	She spent the rest of her life actually campaigning against Roe v.
	Wade as Roe to overturn the thing, and unfortunately she died in 2017, so she didn't get to see the badness that she saw undone, that she did.
	But it is just interesting that that always gets dropped from the conversation.
	It just never happened.
	And the last thing to mention here, which is just a map about the whole thing as well, so you can load up.
	Should be a map for you to load up, John.
	Which is just the fact that the idea that this is now, you know, abortion is just illegal in the United States.
	Have you heard?
	It's just not true.
	Just demonstrably not true.
	I mean, you can still get abortions in the United States.
	I mean, there's a map there of just where abortion rights are still a thing.
	Whether or not, where it will be changed.
	And it's not even that big a change.
	I mean, this isn't like the whole country overnight flipping.
	Yeah, that's pretty even, I'd say.
	But also, you know, where are the people who are most adamant that you should be able to have an abortion whenever you want?
	Well, they're in New York and LA, which are fine.
	So I did love, I saw a tweet about this, just someone saying, you know, if there are any riots about this, it will be Democrats burning down Democrat cities where abortion is still legal.
	Yeah.
	It should just be hilarious.
	Yeah.
	But anyway, that's just my, I wanted to go through that because I just found it unbelievable, the frantic, like, quick change the narrative by the leftists here, but otherwise, we'll end up there.
	Let's move on to something that's a bit more in your wheelhouse, perhaps.
	So, this could be depressing, but that's the question, actually.
	So, we cover stories like this a lot in regards to grooming or child sexual abuse and whatnot.
	As someone who deals with this a lot, how do you stop yourself from just getting utterly depressed by the subject?
	Right, so you have to desensitise yourself.
	What I used to do is 10 weeks on, 4 weeks off.
	Since I've been dealing with this new, the new work I'm doing now, I haven't been able to have that 4 weeks off.
	So I actually did get ill.
	I got really ill because you can actually suffer with post-traumatic stress disorder from this kind of work.
	So it's all about desensitising.
	You have to desensitise.
	For me, it's a personal thing.
	I saw people I was 18 at the time.
	They were 15.
	They had no teeth in their head.
	They were cutting up.
	So for me, it was always, how can I help?
	And the only way you can help is by taking it from the inside.
	So for me, I always thought if I can get this information, bring it back and do something with it, you know.
	So for me, it's always been about desensitization.
	You can't just go into it.
	There is no way you can go into it.
	I think I'm fine.
	I think I'm great.
	And I always set myself the bar, like, if I could interview a paedophile.
	That's what I've always tried to aim for.
	But there'll always be something that will come along.
	I read the The sentence and remarks and things like that to get details.
	And there will always be something, every so often something will come up and it'll really...
	Oh, it'll wind me.
	You know, it'll really wind me.
	Some story of a girl who's been through hell again and you just think...
	Well, that's it.
	I... Right, so reading these horrific things happening to the children, that is really bad, yes.
	But you know what I find even worse?
	I find it worse reading it from the offender's perspective.
	Acts, the sexual acts that they force these children to engage in are something I would only do when I am fully in love and in this consensual relationship and when I'm really, you know, really with someone.
	And when you're reading...
	What should be special, being forced onto a child, it just takes...
	It's shocking.
	I can't put a word on it, really.
	It's...
	You're not human if it doesn't affect you.
	If you can't read what they've done.
	Yeah, you're not human if it doesn't affect you.
	But it does take time.
	It does take practice.
	And you have got to be passionate about it.
	What you'll find is people don't want to talk about it because it's so taboo.
	This is why people get away with it so much.
	Nobody wants to talk about it.
	But I'll talk about it like the weather.
	I'll talk about it all day long.
	I'm the crazy woman up the street that talks about this stuff.
	I suppose that leads us into just the first link here, which is just how you see here.
	This is an article from Manchester Evening News saying how the long shadow of grooming gang allegations changed Oldham's politics and took down two leaders.
	And they detail in here about how the report has come out about Oldham's grooming gang, another one.
	I mean, I don't know how many there's been in the UK, frankly.
	Can I just say something before we go further on the issue of grooming gangs?
	So I'm a criminologist, so I... I graduated my degree in 2017 and I've just done my Masters now.
	I remember back in 2015, bearing in mind I've been doing a lot of work in child sex abuse, institutional abuse is my thing.
	I remember going back, I think it was about 2015, and I had never learnt about this.
	And I remember being on social media.
	Yeah, honestly, honestly.
	And I remember being on social media.
	It had come out in the news about the grooming gangs, but I was being told that it was a long issue.
	You know, it's been going on for decades and I wouldn't believe it.
	No way would I believe it.
	But I'm one of those people, if you give me something to look at, I'm going to look at it.
	So I was directed to a book, I was, called Easy Meat, and I cross-referenced everything in there, and I was absolutely amazed at how long this has been going on.
	And there has been convictions going back to 1987, mind, you know, from the south of England and everything.
	So I really wanted to mention that to you, because the fact that I've done this work for such a long time, and I stood there arguing that this does not go on.
	It was like a one-off kind of thing.
	That's the...
	The mentality you were faced with.
	Yeah.
	You know, and so I have to say that because I wanted to say that because I was one of those people that didn't believe this was a huge problem when I should have known about it.
	I should have known about it.
	I should have known about the in-depth details.
	I should have been studying them, but they wasn't available to us, you know?
	So I was...
	I thought it was like a one-off or something that's just come about, you know?
	So I just wanted to mention that because I'm supposed to know about this stuff and if I didn't know about it, then that's food for thought, isn't it?
	I mean, it's a real interesting aspect of where we live, I mean, just as a country, because these, you know, small scandals have come out in the United States or whatever and the details get widely shared.
	I mean, the scale of what has happened in the UK with regards to that kind of stuff that's gone on for decades and the repression of that conversation, I mean, the fact that that happened to the extent that even someone working in this industry...
	You know, dealing with these kind of cases, didn't know about the extent of it.
	But what I found was, what I found really interesting was, these things were reported in the media, but only in the local rag.
	So if you go to the book Easy Meet, you'll see it's only...
	That's why I had to go to the Manchester evening paper for it.
	Yeah, it's only in the local rag.
	And like, if I'm talking back, going as far back as 1997, it would have been a printed paper.
	So the chances of the next town knowing about it is zilch anyway, you know.
	But that's what I picked up on.
	It was only ever recorded in local rags.
	And it started at the south of England.
	I mean, you're so right, though, because you very rarely, if ever, find it on the, like, even now with the internet age on the front page of the BBC, whereas whenever I do a story about it, I do actually notice I always have to go to the local ones.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Do you think that's purposeful?
	Yeah, of course it is, because it's a way of controlling the information and creating a border around it, and it kind of, we're seeing this with everything that's going on now, but it kind of isolates it.
	I can certainly see it.
	It's like you're showing the locals that you're dealing with there, but you're also keeping the problem hidden from the rest of the population.
	So there's no pressure from outside to actually do much.
	But anyway, so this newest story here is that a new report was released.
	I believe we went through some of it, and it was pretty horrific, but just a cliff notes here that they write down.
	The appalling findings of a review into cases of child sexual exploitation in Oldham have been revealed for the first time this week, yet the political ramifications have already been far-reaching, contributing to the dethroning of two council leaders in successive years.
	The review, carried out by experts Malcolm Newsome and Gary Ridgway, found that vulnerable children have been failed despite efforts to protect them between 2011 and 2014.
	And that's just in that small period there.
	Of course, this problem goes on much longer than just a couple of years.
	A specific case dating back to 2005, funnily enough, involving Sophie, a 12-year-old girl who was repeatedly raped, is singled out for intense criticism of the way the authorities dealt with the investigation into her assaults by strangers, and for the failure to take action when she was being groomed online.
	I don't know if you're aware, but the worst aspect of that that we read was she was sexually assaulted or assaulted.
	The reports differ depending on which article you're reading.
	She turned up in the police station and said, help me.
	This has happened to me.
	The police told her, come back when you're less drunk.
	I don't know if she was drunk, but a strange response when she was saying there was someone trying to rape her.
	Car turned up.
	Muslim man.
	They put her in the car.
	The chap was then later played in Three Girls, that series.
	Right.
	Because he was a prolific rapist and trafficker.
	And yeah, got in the car, raped him all the time.
	It's just like, okay, thanks police.
	Like, you literally handed over the girl who was saying she's a threat to the rapist.
	They should have just taken her in.
	12 years of age as well.
	Look...
	Even if she's drunk?
	Yeah, but 12 years of age.
	Look, when we're looking at this with children, the law is kind of, well, it's split in many ways.
	When we're looking at children, we know age 13 and under has started to be raped.
	So anyone under that age should never have walked up to our police station.
	You know, it's rape anyway, anyone under 16 as far as I'm concerned.
	But when you're looking at anyone 13 and under, that is a massive, massive failure.
	That's a huge failure.
	The police should have been diving in there.
	They should have had the specialist team with her and everything.
	That's absolutely disgusting.
	The fact that she was 12 is even worse.
	I mean, the only defence I've seen, just from the comments last time we covered it, was someone who said they were an ex-police officer who said that, well, because she was drunk, it's standard procedure if someone's drunk to send them away to then get them back.
	And I was just like, no way.
	Even in that case, you would have just said, okay, we'll just put her in a cell, wait till she's sober, then we go through it again.
	Even if you're concerned that...
	That girl was walking forensics.
	That girl was walking forensics.
	She was walking evidence.
	She should have been preserved.
	So that they could find out what happened, but they weren't interested.
	You know, they can even get DNA from touch if somebody touches you, you know?
	So she should have been totally preserved, you know?
	Just to find out, you know, what's happening.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So they continue in here.
	Speaking at the publication of the report, Oldham Council leader Amanda Chatterton said,"...on behalf of Oldham Council, I want to apologise to all the victims of child sexual exploitation that are referenced in this report.
	What happened to Sophie is absolutely indefensible." I read that report and I'm sure, like everyone else, I was horrified.
	She wasn't protected by the police and the council as a 12-year-old, but then to reinforce that trauma as an adult as well is absolutely appalling.
	I want to apologise wholeheartedly for that.
	So, in Sophie's case, both Greater Manchester Police and Oldham Council were said to be more concerned with their reputations and, quote, covering up their failures, then acknowledging the harm done to the young girl.
	And, unfortunately, this is...
	Not even a shock.
	Something we see happening over and over again.
	I mean, it's like finding out that local politician embezzles money.
	I mean, in this country, this is just completely normal.
	Yeah, it is.
	It is becoming normal, especially in the larger cities.
	Like I said, I argued against this when it first came in mainstream media.
	I argued that it wasn't on its grand scale.
	It is on its grand scale.
	And again, this has been happening.
	The councils are to blame.
	The police force says, and there's a pattern as well.
	They seem to be labour-led counsels.
	Hmm.
	Almost every time.
	Yeah, almost every time they seem to be Labour-led councillors, and I wouldn't just say that, I've looked.
	Yeah, I mean, in this case, it just happens to be the two council leaders who lost their positions with both Labour.
	Don't know why.
	Anyway, so they say in here, however, when assessing the claims about a widespread cover-up of abuse in the borough, the review team's claims that there was no evidence to support that, except the evidence that they were covering up their failures, which isn't a cover-up, because...
	I don't know who thought that through.
	That statement was like, yes, well, the police and the council were covering up their failures to not embarrass themselves, but there was no cover-up.
	Do you listen to yourself before you speak?
	Like, what is wrong with you?
	Right, so it's bad enough the information's coming from them, right?
	But who are we to just accept it?
	We accept that.
	Nobody trusts them either.
	Yeah, but the vast majority of the population are reading and accepting that.
	Well, just the, oh, there was no cover-up, don't worry about it.
	Yeah, you know, oh, there was a cover-up, there wasn't a cover-up.
	And people will just read that and carry on as normal.
	Well, maybe not, but we'll get to the footage in a minute, at least for the locals, which don't seem to be doing that.
	But they say, in fact, the jury stated, quote,"...we have concluded that we have been provided with no evidence, either through our interviews or documentary review, to suggest that senior managers or counsellors sought to cover up the existence of child sexual exploitation in Oldham,
	or the complexity involved in tackling the perpetrators." We always followed where the evidence took us, we don't make our conclusions lightly, and we are absolutely confident that the allegation that senior politicians were covering up both the existence of child sexual expectation and the complexity of tackling it, that there is no basis for that allegation.
	Funny thing there, I actually happen to remember when we first covered this.
	They did say that, though, because they said that the politicians and the police didn't want to investigate shisha bars because the far right were making up claims that Muslim men were involved in this, so they just didn't want to investigate the shisha bars and run up to the reality that there is a connection.
	What's going on?
	Shisha bars, you know, beautiful British institution.
	The delay at the start of the new year meant that long-promised findings of the review were not made public before the May local elections, and the allegations of a cover-up would continue to dominate the debate.
	This included the production of leaflets branded misogynistic and racist by Labour, Of course, because, you know, they're anti-Labour, so of course they are.
	Which were seen being delivered by opposition candidates in crucial wards.
	These leaflets included the claim that Miss Shah had played a disgraceful role in the cover-up of child abuse.
	Which is a racist statement, because...
	She's brown, therefore we can't say that she's done anything wrong, presumably.
	Or you are racist.
	Shah happened to lose her seat to a conservative who was campaigning on this basis as well.
	So, that's interesting.
	And then, this, you would think, is somewhat of a conclusion of the story.
	I mean, this is typical for what we usually see, or at least from what my wheelhouse is what I see.
	You know, a report comes out, they get told nothing happened, don't worry about it, and then everyone just sort of moves on.
	And then another one happens, and so forth.
	Not so much, in this case, it seems.
	So this is Inaya posting here from GB News.
	Ooh, I haven't seen this.
	So let's enjoy a flavour of the state of debate.
	For the testimony to be given.
	And I'm answering that directly because I want that to be known from my point of view.
	You were there and you haven't answered the question!
	That wasn't the question, Andy!
	You have not answered the question!
	Elaine, shut up!
	You're going away talking about me!
	- You don't know what you're talking about? - Shame on you! - Shame on you! - Shame
	on you! - Shame on you!
	There was more than that, obviously.
	That was this week?
	That was yesterday.
	Oh, right.
	So right up until midnight, they had this debate going, talking about this, and there were councils asking questions, of course.
	But all the locals who turned up were pretty pissed with, well, everyone involved, and also their responses.
	I think this is the first time they've had the opportunity to do something like this.
	Is it?
	Because I've never seen anything like this before where the public can speak to the councillors about what's going on in the area.
	I mean, just directly turning up to the meeting and being like, we hate you.
	What you've done is terrible.
	We don't trust any of you.
	Any of your report either.
	We don't even trust that.
	Can I show you the signs?
	So there was also, as you can see here, there was a prayer before they started the council meeting and all of the protesters who turned up, all the public turned their backs and just had the sign saying cover up as well to make it clear about their opinion on the whole group of people there.
	Which, to be honest, I'm kind of I'm happy to finally see something.
	Even something as small as, you know, it's a council meeting and disturbing it.
	But to have the politicians face, people have to deal with it.
	I'm actually surprised.
	I'm actually surprised they had that kind of meeting because that's one complaint that we've had that we don't get the opportunity to do things like this.
	So I'm quite impressed with that, to be honest with you.
	I did read that they tried to have this before and they had to call the police.
	What do you expect?
	What do you expect?
	They are living in areas where these girls are suffering.
	The boys too.
	There's boys involved in this as well, but people don't mention the boys.
	We know it's hundreds of thousands of children.
	We know it's gone on for decades.
	So what do they expect?
	No, they expect everyone to just move on.
	I expect everyone to be like that.
	Yeah.
	I'm wondering why they're not.
	I mean, you hope it's just because people don't know.
	Yeah, that's a lot to do with it.
	People don't know, and I'm proof of that.
	And the repression, as you say, the fact that you try and contain the whole thing.
	But anyway, so if you go to the next one here, there is actually some local who was just tweeting out some of the goings-on in this meeting.
	Some of it is just...
	I mean, it cripples me that we still have this conversation this far on about what we should do, but it happens again.
	And as you can see here, this is a conservative candidate here who called the whole thing a whitewash, just wasn't even interested in the report that was released.
	She's like, nope, you haven't looked into it properly.
	We think you're BSing.
	I don't know the details fully, but that's the position there, which is from the protesters and the conservative councillors that you guys are, again, trying to cover up stuff.
	And if we go to the next one here, you can see the response from everyone in the room.
	I should have clipped this, but if you could just play it for five seconds, because it's only five seconds long.
	There, John.
	But that was just, you know, he called it a whitewash up there, just banging on the tables.
	Be like, yep, totally in agreement.
	Well, we know it's going to be a whitewash when there's no convictions, you know, there's no accountability.
	Because that's what we want, is accountability.
	And when there is no accountability, you know it's a whitewash.
	You don't even have to read it.
	You get, because from every case I've seen, there's hundreds of suspects in a given town.
	Yes, yeah.
	And you might, if you're lucky, get seven guys convicted.
	You know, okay, well, that's pathetic.
	But then the following question turns out, which is, okay, you convict the rapist, sure, you know, usually don't end up getting rape charges, but at least they get convicted of something.
	But then there's also all the officials that were involved in this, because remember, as you say, a decades-long process.
	People knew.
	I mean, officials knew.
	People in those circumstances.
	People in positions of trust.
	Yeah.
	There's a new law out now.
	It's the Emergency Services Act, I think it's called.
	And if you assault anyone, an emergency service worker, which includes prison officers as well, you'll get double the time.
	So why aren't these people getting double the time for failing in their positions?
	They're in positions of power and positions of trust.
	And if they have failed, they should get double the time.
	I mean, they certainly should be on some kind of list that doesn't allow them to be in this kind of work ever again.
	No.
	If not.
	But if you hear the next one here, there's an individual, one of the councillors, who definitely agrees, just started calling for the arrest and imprisonment of the officials involved, who covered it up, or turned a blind eye or anything.
	It's just like, okay...
	Fair point, frankly.
	I'm definitely at that point where, you know, if there are councillors who didn't care or tried to turn it down, I mean, who were the individual councillors and politicians who said, I don't believe the shisha bar thing?
	That's a far-right narrative.
	Exactly.
	They should all be held accountable.
	If something like this happened to children on my watch, I would go to prison for it.
	I mean, it's gross negligence at the minimum, if not.
	But there you have it.
	And what was the Labour Party response in all this debate?
	Can you guess?
	Oh, I don't know.
	Do I want to know?
	There's a councillor here who said she doesn't support another review into the whole thing.
	I think we'll just let it die here.
	Don't you know?
	We've done enough looking, methinks.
	I was like, okay, great.
	I did read a tweet from a Labour politician who said the victims of grooming guaranteed to shut their mouths for the sake of diversity or something.
	That's Naz Shah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Do you know the whole story of that?
	No, I don't.
	So, she's a Labour MP. She liked and retweeted Owen Jones, saying that was a parody account.
	And then she was like, oh, you know, it was an accident that I did this.
	I thought it said something else.
	I was like...
	No, no, no, no.
	What did you think it said?
	So then Sarah Champion spoke out and said this is a problem.
	She was women's minister, so, you know, women's issue.
	Women being raped, you would have thought.
	She lost her job because of that.
	And then they made Naz Shah women's minister in the Labour Party.
	The lady who said they should shut up for the sake of diversity was made women's minister.
	You couldn't write that, could you?
	No, it was like a comedy sketch.
	Do they get promotions for this kind of behaviour then?
	I think they do.
	Well, she directly did.
	Yeah.
	So, there you have it.
	I think she has since been put in charge of, like, community cohesion or something equally hilarious to give them.
	I mean, you know, it's like giving a serial, you know, arsonist putting you in charge of the fire brigade.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Unbelievable.
	But there you have it.
	There's the local news there from what I can see.
	And this just happened yesterday, and they went to midnight talking.
	So, I mean, this is about as much as the information we have there.
	I'd love to see what does blow up out of this.
	I mean, those individuals there, there weren't a small number of people who were, you know, pissed off, thankfully.
	And I'd like to see how that grows.
	But I thought we'd end this off just with one more story, which is, you know...
	Typical.
	Again, I really hate this, but this is to do with the fact that we can't actually get rid of these people, either.
	The foreign rapists.
	Those with dual citizenship.
	Ringleader of Rochdale grooming gang won't be deported to Pakistan because of a loophole that let him renounce his citizenship of his native country just five days before the key hearing.
	That's wrong, isn't it?
	It's so pathetic.
	I find these loopholes...
	Why are the loopholes there for criminals?
	I don't know what this...
	I don't even know how this can possibly be a loophole.
	I mean, surely if someone's like, you won't send me to Pakistan, I renounce my citizenship, you could say, no, you're clearly taking the piss.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Ta-da!
	I don't believe you, like, surely.
	That would be the response.
	But what are they saying here?
	Abdulaziz...
	Beautiful British name.
	Known as the Master by his fellow abusers, was stripped of his UK citizenship in 2018 after using human rights laws in a bid to avoid being thrown out of the country.
	But while fellow gang members, Adil Khan and Kari Abdulrof, are still fighting efforts to send them back to Pakistan, the status of Aziz has been shrouded in secrecy.
	I remember talking about this, because you remember, I don't know if you do, but Aziz walked into one of the girls he abused, because he's been released from prison.
	Yeah.
	So he walked into Asda, she walked into Asda, they locked eyes, and then she had a breakdown.
	I don't know, one of them was pregnant and they were trying to make her give the rapist access to the child as part of his human rights.
	Don't you know pedophiles have a right to children?
	Oh, God.
	Oh, wow.
	They say in here, the 51-year-old taxi driver, well, I suppose former taxi driver, unless he's still doing it, who ferried victims to sex parties as far away as Leeds and Bradford, was convicted of trafficking and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child, and jailed for nine years in 2012.
	But yesterday, to the outrage of campaigners, it was revealed that, in reality, Aziz actually won his fight to stay in the UK almost four years ago.
	And the Home Office just wouldn't tell anyone.
	Because, well, it made them look bad.
	Well, surely his victims have a right to know for a start, don't they?
	You know, if anybody should be informed, they should have been his victims.
	And then, obviously, they could have gone to the media, whatever.
	But his victims, at the very least, should have been informed of that.
	They weren't, which is why one of the victims ran into him in Asda and then was like, what the hell is he doing here?
	He should have been deported.
	And the Home Office just didn't respond.
	I remember we covered it quite a lot.
	And this turns out to be the reason why.
	They basically just accepted that, well, he's renounced Pakistani citizenship.
	Just like that.
	He's just got the power to do it like that.
	They say the truth was revealed when a barrister representing Ralph in his battle against deportation read out a document which she said then Home Secretary Savit Javid wrote to Aziz on Halloween in 2018.
	It revealed that Aziz renounced his Pakistani citizenship in July 13th, 2018, five days before the hearing, before a court of appeal, where he, Ralph and Khan lost their battle against being stripped of British nationality.
	So the other two also have renounced their Pakistani citizenship after they figured out that you could do that.
	But they did it too late, so it seems that Aziz did it just soon enough that there now is no legal way of getting rid of him.
	He's allowed to stay here.
	It's wrong.
	They shouldn't just be allowed to do that, should they?
	No.
	It is obviously insincere.
	Yeah.
	And how can they say it's a loophole?
	How can that even exist?
	I suppose it exists that you can renounce your citizenship and therefore you can't deprive him of the one he's got.
	But we could also just refuse to accept this because this is obviously insincere and just speaks to the Pakistani.
	Oh, it's a faster loophole.
	And then obviously he needs to lose some of his freedom because he needs to be under supervision.
	He's a dangerous man and if they can't send him out to the country, there needs to be some way of monitoring him all the time.
	I also just find it strange how these three guys in particular were desperate not to go to Pakistan.
	And I'm just like...
	Why were they desperate not to go there?
	What have they done there?
	But it's also just because in Pakistan, this is more accepted because this is part of the problem, obviously.
	Yeah, well, if it's more accepted in Pakistan, why are they too scared to go there?
	This is what I mean.
	So if they are too scared to go back to Pakistan, what is the real reason?
	I mean, I think maybe they just want to remain here and carry on doing what they were doing.
	They're enjoying it.
	Just like the book says, easy meat.
	Yeah, which everyone should check out, by the way.
	Peter McLaughlin, isn't it?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Great guy.
	But in here they say, as a result, the Home Secretary has decided not to make deprivation order in respect to you.
	The letter went on, meaning Aziz retained his British citizenship and still does to this day and will stay with us forever in this country until his dying days.
	Thank God that we took him seriously.
	You know, he's a very sincere man, renouncing his Pakistani citizenship.
	Just can't go back.
	The Home Office last night failed to deny the disease, was therefore no longer facing deportation.
	So they're still denying it.
	If you actually write to the Home Office, they just won't tell you.
	Presumably the victims also, if they write to the Home Office, just won't be told.
	I mean, everyone knows now, thanks to a leak, essentially, from one of his other buddies who was in court and got read out that letter, but...
	In response to the anger of delays, the Home Office has said that foreign criminals should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them.
	A whole zero determination.
	Literally none.
	I mean, you've got three guys who are convicted of raping kids.
	They've got dual citizenship.
	Easiest job in the world.
	Okay, you don't even have to keep them in the UK forever and deal with them like they're homegrown criminals.
	You can deport them to Pakistan.
	You can't even do that.
	I mean, you couldn't have been given an easier case if you were the government to get rid of a foreign rapist.
	Couldn't even do that.
	And the thing is, if the government are not...
	If the government can't show responsibility, then why should we trust them anyway?
	They'd obviously...
	Is there any cases where they've deported anyone?
	Because I haven't heard of one.
	You hear the occasional flight, and then it gets stopped by, you know, some Greenpeace activists who turn up, insisting that this murderer should be sent back to Jamaica.
	I've never heard of anyone being deported back to their country for harming their children, not once.
	That's why I asked if you knew, but...
	I happen to know the figures are pathetic.
	So in Douglas Murray's book, The Strange Death of Europe, he notes that on Theresa May, there was an effort to try and get rid of people who had just immigrated here illegally.
	As a scale of a crime, child rape seems more prescient to get rid of than the illegal immigrant, right?
	But even in those cases, it was like 5% or something pathetic were actually sent back.
	The rest of them just disappeared.
	Convictions for child sex abuse is at 1%.
	I mean, it's terrible everywhere.
	It's at 1%, but I actually carry a conviction list on me, and I think it's 31 pages long.
	So considering it's at 1%, this conviction list is for councillors, so that means they're school governors, there's been children's ministers, but it's mostly councillors and mayors on this 31-page conviction list that we carry.
	It is certainly true that people keep getting involved in this.
	You know, and they keep saying that's less than 1% of the convictions, but these people are still in their jobs.
	They say in here at one point, I didn't write it down, but they say that the councillors respond by saying, no one would ever get into a position like this to try and further child sexual abuse.
	And it's like, yeah, they would.
	Don't give me that.
	Of course they would.
	What kind of pedo wants to get into a position of power?
	All of them.
	All of them, yeah.
	Anyway, but they say in here, Khan and Ralph also renounced their Pakistani citizenship.
	However, these applications were signed off two months later than Aziz's application, the tribunal has heard.
	Khan previously told the tribunal that he shouldn't be deported back to Pakistan, as he is a role model for his teenage son, and needed to teach his teenager right from wrong.
	Is that a joke?
	No, that is a genuine quote from the court.
	The court responded by saying he's not a role model, obviously, because he's a nonce.
	And the third guy there, so you've got the three guys.
	The third guy just quoted as showing no repentance for anything he'd done.
	His second guy is saying, well, actually, I'm a role model.
	He thinks he's even higher, because he's done this, presumably.
	And you've got the third guy who renounced his citizenship in time to stay here forever, and we're never going to get rid of him.
	I mean, this country is screwed.
	It is.
	It is unbelievably screwed, and it always seems to be around the children.
	Simplest things.
	Everything, all our feelings seem to be around the children.
	We're damaging our entire population.
	It's probably bad to quote Putin at this time, but he did have a good quote on this once, unfortunately, which is that he said, a country that fails to defend its own children, it has no future at all.
	Yeah, that's true.
	I agree with him.
	In that respect, even he gets the point better than the British justice system, which literally worse than Putin.
	There has been reports written by, now I don't even like this place myself, the United Nations, I'm going back years now.
	They have written reports and they've asked the question in Parliament, why do you hate the children so much?
	Because our policies have always reflected terrible risks.
	Terrible risks.
	We have never, ever been a leading country in child protection.
	Not once.
	In the entire history.
	We're supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world, advanced, you know, and we can't even look after the children.
	Yeah, and in this case, they can't even do the most basic things of getting rid of a rapist who's a foreigner.
	Anyway, I suppose we should move on to the last segment because we're running out of time.
	So the last one here just is talking about the hate crime flag.
	Do you know what the hate crime flag is?
	No, I haven't seen theirs.
	Have a look.
	Okay, so the hate crime flag is, of course, the new progressive flag of tolerance.
	You know, the one with the big...
	Oh, right.
	I've seen that.
	I've seen that.
	So just to start off, just going to mention that on Latesties.com, of course, you can go and check out the Origin of Intersectionality podcast that me and Carl did, which explained the fact that the flag fundamentally does stand for the ideology of intersectionality.
	And I'll explain why in a minute, but do go and check that out if you're a subscribe member.
	But let's go to the next link here, because we start off with Propaganda Street, as I'm sure you've seen.
	So this was an area in London that's very touristy, very famous, got lovely shops on it, they're very expensive.
	And they put up a load of flags, British flags, to celebrate the Jubilee.
	And this was called Nazism at the time, by the modern British left.
	And so a month later, it's Pride, so we put those up.
	And the stunning and brave.
	The stunning and brave flags.
	And if you go to the next one here, I went down there just to have a look.
	It's really creepy.
	Like, it's because this picture doesn't capture it all.
	Because, of course, it goes on forever.
	Just walking down the street.
	These huge symbols of domination.
	But then every third shop you get to has another flag or a symbol or a sticker that says, you know, pride and love or love is love or whatever.
	If only they know the origins.
	Yeah, and then you go to the Microsoft store that has like four flags outside it.
	And it really just comes off as like some kind of conquered territory with people pulling up signs that are like, please don't hurt me.
	Like, please don't destroy my store.
	You know, like BLM. It's just, for me, that just screams insecurity.
	Yeah.
	It's insecurity.
	If you need to find a community or you need to wave a flag, you're insecure.
	Yeah.
	And if you scroll down on this, John, you can see just some of the extent of this as well, because it's not just the main street as well.
	Oh, yeah, there was a side street that still has some British flags, but it's not, you know, central tourist bit.
	And I was just wondering, you know, if you were a tourist and you came to the UK. You're going to see, uh...
	Okay, okay.
	There were quite a lot of Muslim tourists as well.
	I really wanted to interview them, but I don't speak Arabic.
	So I couldn't do that one.
	But if you keep scrolling, you can see there are some other stuff.
	So these are like the stores, just every so often.
	There's more flags, in case you don't know.
	You tried to look away and forgot your place in the world.
	And if you go to the last one here, you can see just side streets have this on.
	This is just a side pub.
	I have them around the corner.
	And then the last, if you scroll down, just the underground as well.
	So even if you go into the tunnels to try to escape it, there's more signs being like, don't you remember it's pride?
	Well, this is it.
	Like, Pride.
	But, you know, I'm going to do a podcast and my podcast is going to be on the development of LGBT. Well, LGBT was back then.
	And if they actually knew how it started and where it came about and how they've been exploited and used, the last thing they would be is Proud.
	I mean, there are some people involved in this that are very funny.
	But you could always make the argument, you know, previously, the original, traditional pride flag, just the rainbow, in which you could argue, okay, toleration of homosexuality, you know, let's not be illegal, you know, back in the day when this used to be a thing, and then say, okay, you know, equal treatment, okay, fine.
	But that's not what any of this is.
	No, it's not.
	You'll notice the black and brown stripe that came out of nowhere.
	Yeah.
	That got added on, as if the yellow stands for Chinese.
	It doesn't.
	Because the brown and black stripe are meant to stand for queer people of colour.
	Are they really?
	Yeah.
	And AIDS. Which seems a bit racist, but I'm not joking either.
	We covered it previously.
	Sesame Street.
	We're explaining it because, of course, Sesame Street has to explain it.
	Oh, yeah.
	But the thing is, the three-year-olds are going to be explaining this to us, aren't they?
	You know?
	Yeah.
	And they had the black and brown show.
	Like, yes, it stands for queer people of colour and those who died of AIDS. Are you allowed to say that?
	But just, again, separate but equal stripes for brown people.
	I can't take this stuff serious, but I've done a lot of research into the background and the history and things like that, and if people actually knew what they were promoting and what they were saying, they wouldn't be doing it.
	No.
	They really wouldn't be doing it.
	Not to mention then you have the transgender aspect, the new chevron part there, and then the circle they've added is apparently intersex.
	But it could be any minority group, because as intersectionality dictates, what this is about is fundamentally trying to organise the margins of society, which is any minority, and just organising them against the centre.
	So, this is about the minority.
	Why aren't ginger people again?
	One day.
	One day it'll be on.
	I'm ginger.
	I am the true minority and I'm still waiting.
	I'm still waiting, you know?
	Why don't we have a national don't pick on a ginger day?
	We don't have that, do we?
	Because they don't have souls.
	No, but every single year you see something else getting added on.
	Eventually I think there will be a ginger stripe somewhere.
	Maybe we can get in some talks if that comes along, but until then, I'm out.
	But if you go to the next one here, you can see that there was some rebellion I saw.
	There were some stickers all along the side streets around.
	And some people obviously attack them and try and scratch them off.
	But they're all there.
	So some locals, very upset about, well, all of those being put up.
	Wondering who they were.
	Couldn't get to interview them, obviously, because they're just stickers.
	But I have my theories, which is that it may be some people we'll get to in a minute.
	If you go to the next one here, you can see Andrew Doyle posting that this is Wimbledon, apparently.
	More stripes.
	Which again, I mean, if you genuinely wanted to make the kind of comparisons to Nazi Germany, I mean, this would be easier.
	Because if you're putting up British flags, okay, well, you're putting up the flag of the kingdom.
	Yeah.
	We live here.
	Makes sense.
	Putting up ideological flags as huge stands along the road, the party flag, so that everyone must conform and remind themselves of their place in the world.
	I mean, that certainly does come more across as the kind of totalitarian symbols that it is.
	And anyone who thinks the opposite, I just don't think is looking at it properly.
	We've got the next one here.
	This is who I presume is putting up the stickers, such as Gays Against Groomers.
	I don't know if you're familiar with this account that came out of nowhere, which I'm interested in.
	Because we used to joke, Douglas Murray's book, The Madness of Crowds, because you know Douglas Murray is a gay man.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But he's a gay man, not a queer man.
	No, I know.
	I know.
	I don't think they know what queer means, to be honest.
	But he makes the distinction in his book, in which he says, they're gay men, like me, and, you know, my boyfriend, and we do whatever.
	And then there are queers!
	Douglas goes on this big rant, it's like, the people who make it their whole entire personality, I can't stand them!
	Well, no, what we don't realise is, the queer is there for a reason, so what they've done is, they've queered gender, which they've done that lovely, now they've queered gender, we've got people with breasts and penises, and the next step is to actually queer the sexuality, so that's what the Q stands for.
	And the research for queer and sexuality has already been done, you know, in Kinsey's book, Sexual Behaviour of the Human Male, Chapter 5, Table 34.
	So what we are actually seeing here are the end stages of a massive long-term agenda which started back in the 50s, you know.
	So where we see people getting their knickers in the twist about this kind of stuff, me and my team, we're actually cringing because you know how close we are.
	To the end.
	And we've just got to push it through faster, you know?
	I'm expecting a P to be added to the alphabet at some point.
	Well, it's MAP, isn't it?
	They've changed the terminology.
	And I've got recordings of myself in lectures speaking about this and speaking about the academics bringing this in.
	And I did not think it would be this soon.
	We used to joke on the podcast that, you know, gays against queers would become an organization.
	And it's up then!
	Because of Douglas Murray's perception on it.
	I was like, yeah, guys, come on, set up a...
	Yeah, it's happened now!
	Which is to have gays against groomers.
	So we're just like, yeah, do you remember schools then versus schools now?
	With whatever the hell is going on there.
	But if we go to the next one as well, I did see some of their posts have made me laugh.
	I thought it might make you laugh.
	So you can see here, this is them posting, gay man demolishes straight with facts and logic.
	Because this straight guy is at the parade being like, what's the problem?
	You know, just wave the flags.
	There's no problem with any of this.
	Why are you being upset?
	Why are you full of hate?
	And the gay guys are like, no.
	You guys are lunatics.
	We have nothing to do with you.
	Get lost.
	You with your weird-ass flags and your desires for the future.
	But if you go to the next one here, this is where it becomes a hate crime.
	Yeah.
	I've seen this.
	Because it turns out, for those who don't know, if you take the new flag and add a few, turn them on their side, you get a swastika, which is very funny for everyone, of course, and Lawrence Fox decided to make it his new profile picture, which was incredibly funny, because he's a funny guy.
	I'm surprised he didn't get banned for that.
	Oh, he did.
	No, he did, did he?
	No.
	If you go to the next one, you can see he got locked out of his account.
	It's like, well, there you go.
	You can openly call the flag of the kingdom a symbol of fascism and totalitarianism on toile, but you cannot criticize the holy pride flags.
	And of course, there's the funny aspect, because the flag of the kingdom, the United Kingdom there...
	Is, obviously, if you try and call that Nazi, that doesn't make any sense, because we were standing alone against the Nazis at one point in Europe.
	Exactly, exactly.
	So, I mean, no one is insulted by that.
	We just laugh at it.
	It's, you know, okay, whatever.
	Was he the Welsh flag with the pride in the back?
	I have.
	It looks ridiculous, doesn't it?
	That's the worst out of them all.
	It's no aesthetics whatsoever, is it?
	But with the racial pride flag, as you can see there, because, of course, it is identitarian.
	You know, it's the identitarian left.
	So, yeah, funnily enough, they do take it personally, and rather, you know, insulted when they actually get pointed out that, did you know the Nazis were also massive identitarians, like you?
	Yeah.
	And they can't have that, so that's why they locked Lawrence Fox there.
	If you go to the next one, though, we can see a lot of the intersectionists were very mad, because we've seen this for a while, you know, that meme's been shared a lot, but it's not really gotten to, like, the London mainstream, I don't think.
	No, it hasn't.
	And Lawrence is a great way of, you know, getting it in front of those people and realizing how crazy they look to the rest of the country.
	So you see India here.
	This is a transgender newsreader, I'm told, that she decided to go with the tweets tonight from Lawrence Fox, a truly disgusting, 48 hours after the killings in Oslo gay bar in Pride Month 2.
	Weird way of phrasing it.
	In some countries, he'd go for jail for displaying a swastika.
	I hope Twitter issue a permanent ban and the Met Police prosecute him.
	Because remember, it's a crime.
	But he's not displaying a swastika.
	He's just pointing out what a flag makes when it's put together.
	He's not displaying that sticker.
	He's just celebrating pride.
	What's wrong with that?
	If that's offensive, oh no.
	Everything's offensive.
	But there's also just one thing to mention, because Andy notes on it here, which is that she's like, oh, did you know that 48 hours ago some people were killed in Oslo?
	Yeah, who by?
	What happened?
	They trip and fell.
	No, they were killed by a man.
	Just a man.
	Wasn't that...
	Where's he from?
	I don't know.
	She's a man.
	I suppose we'll leave it there.
	What kind of men would be engaged in killing people at gay clubs?
	Don't know.
	Anyway, she doesn't know.
	Nobody else knows.
	Who knows?
	We'll move on to the next one here.
	Because we then have the fact that she's the very individual.
	She, he, was the one who was very upset that the British flags were putting up for the British holiday of the Queen's Jubilee.
	Because that's very improper, apparently.
	As you can see, that person there saying that this is Nazi Germany.
	You know, India, pot, kettle, black.
	You know, I was wondering, after the Jubilee, I was wondering, because there was all these Union Jacks about, and I was wondering how long it would take somebody to come up with the whole Nazi thing, and it was on Twitter all along.
	Oh, it was a day.
	It took a day off, nine hours.
	There you have it.
	Let's go to the next one here.
	The London authorities are actually very mad with Lawrence.
	It's serious.
	So this is a London Assembly member saying as a member of the London Assembly, a member of the Police and Crime Committee, I hope the Met Police will look into Lawrence Fox using pride flags to create a Nazi imagery and posting the images on a public platform.
	This is a hate crime.
	The thing is, she's right.
	It's no joke.
	This genuinely is a crime in the UK. Yeah.
	The swastika is.
	Not thanks to, because we have anti-swastika laws, but we have laws against gross offence.
	How does that mean?
	Whatever you want it to mean, mate.
	So, in this instance, it's whatever the police of vice and virtue find offensive.
	And, well, in this case, indeed, an individual from the committee is upset that they find this offensive.
	In which case, yeah, Lawrence Fox has actually broken the law.
	And I think, go for it.
	But has he though?
	But has he, you know, that flag, at the end of the day, he did not create that.
	He can argue that, but that won't matter.
	Yeah.
	Because I'm sure you're aware, I mean, like, do you remember the Nazi pug story?
	Yeah, but I'd argue his story anyway, because at the end of the day, they shouldn't have done it in that pattern anyway, you know, if they hadn't have done that pattern, Lawrence couldn't have done that, you know?
	So he hasn't cut up the other flag and made it into that shape, so it's their fault for incorporating that shape.
	But I don't think they'll actually go after him, because they'll know that they'll lose, and it'll look really bad for them, and we'll make everyone question that law, because that's a very powerful tool for them to keep that in dissent.
	And frankly, that's why I'm really hoping.
	Go for it.
	I really dare them to try and take Lawrence Fox to court over this.
	I wonder what will happen.
	You'll lose.
	Badly.
	But if you go to the next one here, you can see Lawrence responding to this, just being like, well, this is the UK, not China.
	Good to know you would like to see your political opponents prosecuted for hate, locked up, and probably worse.
	So thanks for proving my point for me.
	Yeah.
	You guys, you have no problems becoming the Nazis, just for your own movement instead.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Just from a different angle.
	I quite like Lawrence, to be honest with you.
	He's good on this subject.
	He doesn't mince words whatsoever.
	No.
	Happy to do it.
	And unfortunately, I don't think we will get them taken to court, because this individual from the Green Party seems to be retarded.
	Because if you go to the next one here, she decided to respond, because people were like, how is this a crime?
	And her response was, he created Nazi symbols out of the LGBT flags, Jewish people will see this as a religious hate crime, and hate is being directed at LGBT people.
	That's not...
	Can't be directed at both, can I? No, nor is that a law, you idiot.
	Section 127, Communication Act 2003.
	There you are.
	That's a law.
	You guys got it up.
	You know, if you actually knew anything about crime, I mean, it's good to know that people on the crime commissions don't know anything about crime, but if you wanted a crime, you could admit, you point to the friggin' law, not just something you made up in your head, and just say, didn't you know this is illegal because it's hate?
	No.
	You could have at least put a link over there.
	Yeah, you would have thought she was like, nit, hate.
	Okay, okay.
	Idiot there.
	We'll move to the next one here because some people did decide to start doing this for the British flag.
	You can see Martin Daubny here, so if you scroll down, he turned the British flag into a Nazi flag as well.
	That post wasn't taken down.
	Wasn't there no?
	No.
	You can blaspheme against Britain.
	Blaspheme against the Kingdom's flag all you want.
	That's not a crime.
	That's not a permanent deletion from Twitter.
	But do it with the Holy Pride flag, which shall not be mocked.
	Like it's Mohammed or something.
	You can't upset the community, to put it lightly.
	But obviously the point being, and the reason for that discrepancy, if you mock the British flag and call it Nazi, no one will believe that, because we fought against the Nazis.
	They're trying to make out that it is, though.
	They're trying to give it a new identity, aren't they?
	But there's no ideological similarities between the Nazis and the British Kingdom.
	Well, exactly.
	You have to really look at that to make out the symbol, whereas with the pride flag, it fits perfect.
	What a coincidence.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, and also it's the ideological similarities between the two.
	Yes.
	I mean, the fact that they're leftist identitarians rather than, you know, German identitarians, but it's the same case.
	That's why they're so upset, because it is really just a mirror.
	Yeah, of course it is.
	Realising what they're up to.
	But there's also, if we go to the, this individual goes on saying that gay men have been suffering untold murder from the Nazis, and it's just like, okay, sure, like, that happens, but also it's still happening.
	Idiot.
	He says in here...
	Gay men experience untold suffering under the Nazis, including murder, castration, and medical experimentation.
	Who did everyone else?
	Yeah, but also just...
	You know what, so did the entire German population!
	There's no medical experimentation going on still, in the name of progressivism, is there?
	There's no chemical castration.
	No, not at all, not at all.
	Nothing like...
	Only from age three.
	Nothing like that goes on in the West, because of you people.
	And it certainly doesn't go on in the Left.
	No.
	This individual here also at the Holocaust Memorial Day trusts I'd to chime in because, I don't know, they just don't like Lawrence Fox.
	Because obviously they can tell this is nonsense to moan about.
	They're saying that, you know, how dare this happen.
	Saying, oh, don't you know they hadn't went to the medical experimentation?
	Yep, still happening.
	Don't worry about it.
	Carrying on a tradition of leftist thought.
	If you go to the next one here, though, this is where Police Scotland didn't get the memo, though, that maybe they should tone down the fascism for, I don't know, a week, and decided to tweet this out.
	Pride boots here with laced up, as you can see, transgender flags in the laces.
	So whilst the police stomp on your neck and beat the crap out of you, they're wearing pride boots as they do it.
	And I think, I mean, if you read 1984, I mean, presumably the police haven't, No, definitely not.
	They haven't read it.
	Because there's the quote in there from Winston with him saying, if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
	Well, there you have it.
	Here is the ideological boot that will stamp on your face.
	Fantastic.
	But until then, I suppose for the foreseeable future, we can just enjoy our intersectional overlords.
	We've got the last image here.
	We'll just end on this one.
	Being that, yeah, that's our future, frankly, which is the flag of the kingdom and anything to do with our actual country can go to hell and wallow and be not taken care of.
	Whereas the pristine, multicolored rainbow flags of diversity and inclusion, which will only get larger, can continue to fly.
	You know, at least when it was in its original form, it was quite attractive.
	Like that now.
	It's not a very attractive flag, is it?
	I can't even see kids falling for that now.
	They've spoiled it.
	They've ruined it for themselves.
	Unbelievable.
	But otherwise, we should end it there.
	So, I suppose, do we have video comments today?
	Looking at the state of the current Ukraine conflict, I find my thoughts drifting back to my early observation of it, where I was wondering whether there was an example of a conflict where the side that was sending millions of its citizens off to other countries as refugees wound up winning the war.
	I can't really think of any conventional examples of it, but maybe there's one that I haven't thought of.
	I don't know either.
	None of that comes to mind.
	Just because you may not know what's going on, but at the end, so these guys send in video comments because they pay a little bit extra for it, and then we'll read through the written comments.
	Okay, okay.
	But let's go to the next one.
	You know that guy who said that one woman trapped in a room full of men would feel terrified?
	I honestly wish I was trapped in a room with you guys.
	I stuck around for the entire swim call because I feel like I'm learning stuff from listening to you guys.
	You are all interesting and insightful and I'm learning stuff.
	I love you guys.
	Cheers.
	Oh, well, that's always nice.
	So, we do a Zoom call every month just with the Gold Tears subscribers.
	Yeah.
	Everyone's always got something interesting to say about, you know, what's going on, just from everyone else, and it's always wholesome.
	Let's go to the next one.
	When you turn a chicken upside down, the blood rushes to its head and it stops struggling, and it gets decreased sensations.
	Oh, what?
	So we put them upside down inside of these cones before we behead them.
	That way they don't suffer or feel any pain.
	Bit of a weird one to send in.
	Last week we were looking at them and he was like, oh yeah, we're feeding them.
	Okay, so right.
	I guess we got the tail end of that one.
	Well, that's where chicken comes from.
	Boys and girls, let's go to the next one.
	Hello, my name is Angus McCang, and I'm here to talk to you about Scots Lives Matter.
	Our communities are being torn apart by substance abuse, the failure of the state to provide for its citizens, and more importantly, increased division and hatred.
	The cause of these problems are obvious to anyone with a brain.
	The problem is the English and Anglo supremacy.
	They spread hateful stereotypes, painting us all as drunkards, and pretend the problem is Scots on Scots violence.
	It's time to dismantle Anglo supremacy.
	Well, you're not white.
	Well, maybe if you all stopped drinking Buckfast, we wouldn't have to worry about it so much.
	There we have it.
	I like that.
	Let's go to the next one.
	So as we get closer to Freedom Day, also known as July 4th, I thought I'd share with you my 6.5 Creedmoor.
	This is a great rifle for deer hunting, elk hunting, good for medium to mid-range.
	It's got a 12x scope on it, and it shoots at a nice flat trajectory.
	And, as an American, I can own it!
	Well, I am jealous.
	I don't know if you're big into guns, but every time the Americans send us in videos, I'm just like, damn it.
	I've got a crossbow, is that alright?
	That's very good enough.
	I feel like it's a bit French though, isn't it?
	Should it be bow and arrow?
	Yeah, it should be.
	Anyway, let's go to the next one.
	So to expand on pleasure versus fulfillment, pleasures are usually associated with a very specific action or item, whereas fulfillment tends to come from achieving some sort of goal or honing a skill or maintaining a relationship.
	So examples of pleasures would be things like eating sugar, spending money, taking your car for a drive, Whereas sources of fulfillment might be things like earning a promotion, crafting a masterpiece, or mentoring your child.
	Sorry then.
	It's just a question that I was thinking while he was saying about that, but when you're dealing with the victims of this sort of thing, what's the point, or is there a point, at which the victims can feel comfortable about what has happened?
	Or does it never get comfortable?
	No.
	So I don't like to work with victims.
	The reason why I don't like working with victims is because there's so many emotions going on.
	There's so many different levels to these emotions.
	So I'll just give you an example.
	If it had come out that there's been some sex scandal in a school, so say there's five children involved and two have admitted yes, it might take another 30, 40 years for the other three to come forward, even though you've gone to them to ask them There is no point.
	I don't know how far you want me to talk with this, but they do a lot of self-harming, not just with drinks and drugs, they sexually harm themselves as well.
	It's an ongoing thing.
	It just gets hugely complicated.
	Yeah, you could have somebody who's been molested just touched, and you could have somebody who's been raped, and you could have somebody who's been raped go on and do some great work, but the person who's been touched then, they can never get over it.
	It's like having stuff on your plate.
	Some people got a paper plate, some people got a ceramic plate, you know, and they can't handle...
	Some people just deal with it.
	Yeah, some people can carry a lot and others just can't do it at all.
	But it's lifelong.
	It's lifelong work and it's lifelong trauma.
	Because I've met a few who have grown up.
	Like, it happened when they were younger and now they're, you know, full women.
	And some of them seem mentally stable and some of them even, like, you know, almost joke about it in the sense of, like, well, you know, what happened to me?
	What am I going to do about it?
	Yeah.
	And there are some that are just...
	You can sense they've never really recovered.
	Yes, I'm never really facing either.
	There was a case where the Catholic Church was being taken to court by the Blair brothers and a few others.
	I think there was, I can't remember if it was 25 or 15 of them starting off.
	And by the time they got to the actual court process, there was less than a handful left.
	Because the system keeps re-victimizing them.
	So like you've seen with the grooming gangs, how they've dealt with that.
	That's not uncommon.
	That is how nearly everything is dealt with.
	If a child goes to the police now because something's happened to them, the chances are it's happened to them by someone of good character.
	So do you know what I mean?
	It's like us adults, we don't believe the children.
	We don't side with the children.
	We look at the adults who are accused of it.
	And we say, well, our brains won't accept that that person can commit this crime.
	It's a sad world.
	It's a really sad world.
	It's complicated.
	It's complex.
	That's why we should be running a preventative system.
	Because there's no cure for this.
	No.
	There's no cure.
	All we can do is prevent.
	You're never going to eliminate it completely.
	But if you speak about it, you're creating an environment where they're afraid to offend.
	Because this can only exist in secrecy.
	Yes.
	And behind closed doors.
	But if you blow those doors open and you're constantly talking about it, you're creating an environment where that perpetrator then is less likely to offend.
	That's the only thing we can do, really, is work towards prevention.
	And we're not doing that in this country.
	We're not doing it anywhere in the world.
	Well, I think you're totally right.
	Good point.
	especially good the next one just to blast through these for the new viewers who don't know who i am but have heard the website a lot i'm c.s cooper and i sell my awesome sci-fi fantasy books that i wrote myself and i use lotus eaters to advertise I am also the person at the top of Callum's hitlist.
	And to make sure I bloody well stay there...
	CSCooper.com.au CSCooper.com.au CSCooper.com.au That's burned into my head.
	His website.
	Which I can't get rid of.
	Thanks to him.
	So that's that.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Is your best reason for thinking that all the woke weffer crap is gonna lose?
	I agree with Carl's analysis, Craig, that progressives have already won, but they are failing to push their latest claptrap.
	I observe that progressives are so uninventive and charmless that the younger generation are actively working against them.
	Fortunately, they can still see lectures and presentations from the past that counter the narrative and questions from earlier progressives who are just as clueless as those as today, but missing the recently invented parrot points.
	I recommend the 2012 Reith Lecture on the Rule of Law and its Enemies by Niall Ferguson.
	Alright, well, I'll put that on the list.
	That sounds pretty good, actually.
	Let's go to the next one.
	And while Ferris was the technical blacksmith of the Primarchs, he was missing one thing.
	Presentation!
	Which is where my boy Vulcan comes in.
	Now, he's actually immortal.
	Any wound he sustains, he'll just regenerate back from, even being just nuke.
	However, eventually he decided to pile drive an orc into a power generator, and he's not been seen since.
	However, his chapter believed that if they gather his nine sacred relics, it may herald his return.
	Sorry if this is all going over your head.
	This is Warhammer stuff, just on a side note.
	People can send me videos about whatever they want, so that's where we get the variety.
	Let's go to the next one.
	Put down the top of the ground.
	Put down the top of the ground.
	Thank you.
	Good luck with that.
	He brought this house.
	He's doing it up and showing us up step by step.
	Everything seems to be rotted or broken.
	Overgrown.
	Such a mess.
	See the next one.
	Hi.
	So, if women are saying, no uterus, no opinion, shouldn't we say, no fire, no opinion, before we go to 2A? I feel like that would be a bit far otherwise.
	Sick gains, bro.
	I don't know what to say to that, but let's go to the next one.
	Harry has two moods, happy and pretending not to be happy.
	On a more serious note, I wonder if you'd consider doing a bit about how to stay positive even in the midst of so much negativity.
	I feel like it's a very underrated life skill that far too many people really need to learn badly.
	Far too many men get emotionally compromised and become ineffective due to being demoralized.
	I feel like a large part of it has to do with focusing on what you can control, but maybe between the two of us we can come up with some better advice for people.
	I mean, maybe it comes back to the chap who was saying about what was a fulfillment is really something that genuinely makes you happy over time.
	So focusing on things like that instead of, as you said, pleasure.
	Probably my main thoughts to that.
	But otherwise, let's go to Tony D and Little Joan.
	Tony D and Little Joan with another legend of the pines, the Ocean City life-saving museum in Ocean City, New Jersey.
	Dedicated to all things lifeguard, the museum is haunted by the ghost of a small blonde boy.
	The museum curator's Keeps seeing him and mistaking him for a live kid.
	Maybe he was rescued and likes the lifeguards.
	They've even built a creepy mannequin to represent the boy and what he looks like.
	So this guy's got a list of a million ghost stories, and we must have been through about 600 at this point, and it's still going.
	Just everything in New Jersey is haunted.
	It's all the less you get from it.
	But I suppose we're out of it.
	So I'm going to skip over just the written comments, firstly, on the grooming gang stuff, because it's more relevant to yourself.
	I want to get more of your opinion on it, frankly.
	So we'll start off with just what we have to say.
	So Matthew Hammond says...
	As a criminologist, what would be the most effective way to resolve this issue with the grooming gangs?
	It seems existing law is certainly not effective.
	Well, it's not just grooming gangs, because like I said, this pattern is a systemic problem anyway.
	So my work is institutional abuse, and it's mostly politicians.
	So that's where my thing is.
	So the politicians are no different to the grooming gangs.
	The grooming gangs are no different to the institutional abusers.
	We have to do massive safeguarding procedures in this country, period.
	We have to have proper...
	We have to have real laws.
	There's no such thing as a rape charge for women.
	That needs to change.
	The sentencing as well.
	Sentencing, like I said, we get less than 1%, which are convictions.
	So what we need to be looking at is preventative models on child sex abuse and exploitation in general, rather than looking at this particular area.
	What these all different crimes have got in common is children are being abused.
	So we go back to protecting the children.
	And when we look at protecting children, tougher sentences, brushing nothing under the carpet.
	There is nothing we can physically do.
	We need to sort our system out.
	I mean, I agree with you on all the systemic stuff.
	That's definitely true.
	I would say just one of the reasons that we focused on it, but a lot of people obviously have as well, on the grooming gang issue, is just because there's also the vector of political correctness around the fact of the groups of people that engage in that particular crime in those particular circumstances.
	So I get that.
	Yeah, that's what makes it different, then, is people are scared to...
	Well, they say the police are scared to take the reports in case they get accused of racism.
	But it's like I said, it's the same all across the board.
	So why don't they take the reports about the politicians then?
	You know, there's massive problems.
	You might be scared of the politicians' power.
	Well, yeah, exactly.
	This is what I mean.
	So it's a power.
	It's an abuse of power.
	That's where it is.
	The problem lies...
	That's an interesting aspect, though, because then, you know, a Pakistani taxi driver has power in the same way that a politician does.
	Well, actually, what you'll find is they're a large voting population.
	Yeah, you've got that as well.
	So what you'll find is they are in big groups and they vote.
	Sorry to take it back to politics, but it's the truth.
	They tend to vote for Labour.
	And they're in each other's pockets.
	I think it was Anne Cryer, if that's her name, who was one of the Labour councillors, I believe in Rotherham, who made a huge deal about this and no one believed her and then she went to the local mosque and was trying to argue with them to make them change their votes and practices and issue statements and just nowhere.
	Well, you know, it's really funny because we get, like I said, it's like it is a political issue, right?
	So you've got, they're all voting from in politics anyway.
	But then when it came to the issue of sex education, the politicians left them high and dry.
	You know, so they're all in each other's pockets.
	That is the political correctness.
	And I'd be lying if I said there wasn't.
	But most of that is created by the politicians anyway.
	Yeah, boils down.
	Jimbo G says, I wonder that, actually, because in regards to the grooming gang aspect, there's a depth of feminist outrage on that, frankly.
	The traditional, well, not intersectional feminists, I should say, the traditional one to do.
	Do you get that anywhere else in this kind of situation or not?
	Sometimes.
	Well, you'll find people you think you could rely on that you suddenly can't when it comes out.
	You can't rely on anyone.
	Really that bad?
	It's really that bad.
	You can't rely on anyone.
	Any politician you go to who you think is going to help you, they will not see the next term in office.
	Whether they suddenly disappear off the ballot form or their votes drop from 25,000 to 1,200.
	You know, there's a lot of stuff going on.
	What I find is the politicians who do speak out about this, they don't live to see another term.
	Every time?
	Every time.
	That's in my experience.
	So this is sort of like, there hasn't long been an election now.
	So this is why I'm after politicians.
	Look, you're alright for five years.
	You're alright for five years.
	You know, they vary fair and far between.
	And as far as I'm concerned, if you're turning a blind eye, you're just as bad, you're complicit, either negligent or complicit.
	There's no two ways about that.
	I think that's true.
	JJHW says all the officials, police, etc.
	should be charged with misconduct in public office, a crime that carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
	Yes.
	There's a question, actually.
	I wonder, from your experience, what do you make of the death penalty in relation to this?
	Do you think it would work as a deterrent?
	Right.
	To know what, I am actually, this is something I would campaign for, is the use of something called three strikes and out.
	So if you committed a very serious offence of three times, you would be lifed off.
	I think this should be brought back.
	And the reason why I think this should be brought back is because this is a progressive crime.
	So the crime doesn't happen.
	It's not an opportunist crime.
	It happens inside the head, first of all.
	So you'll see things, so there'll be porn and child porn and things like that.
	We know this escalates.
	We know this does develop.
	They desensitize to what they're viewing.
	We know this is a path leading down the road.
	There's no two ways about that.
	So what we should be doing is, obviously we also know as well there's a psychology of the developing brain.
	It's not fully developed to 25.
	So everyone over the age of 25...
	Who are engaging in what they believe to be a victimless crime of child porn online and things like that.
	If they get caught doing that three times, they should be out.
	Simple as.
	Because we know this crime progresses onto bigger things.
	That's a fact.
	That's why we should bring that back in.
	For death penalty or for life imprisonment?
	So life imprisonment for the less...
	I'm saying for the lesser crimes.
	But the crimes, what is...
	Look, we got DNA evidence.
	There are times, though, where it's...
	You can't dispute death.
	So, yeah, they should be...
	When you harm a child, there's no coming back from that.
	There's something wrong with you.
	There's no coming back from that.
	And yes, I know people who have been victims of Miss College of Justice.
	I've got a very good friend.
	South Wales Police set him up.
	But this crime is different.
	This crime is different.
	And when you're totally bound to rights, especially with DNA evidence as well, they don't deserve to be here.
	I think a lot of people in the chat probably agree with you on that one, for sure.
	Baron von Warburg says, Now that the master of rape has used that loophole that prevents him from being deported, the first thing any conservative government will do is remove the loophole to prevent any more rapists from using it to escape justice.
	Of course, we all know Boris won't actually do a thing.
	No, he won't do nothing.
	I don't understand how on earth that can be taken seriously in a court of law.
	But I've revounced my citizenship, like...
	Everybody in this room, your fucking lawyer knows you've done this just to get out of this.
	Like, nobody thinks that's sincere.
	No one in the Pakistani government thinks it's sincere.
	It's premeditated.
	It's premeditated.
	So if you committed a crime which is premeditated, you go twice as long.
	Well, obviously, what he's done here is premeditated.
	He's tried to dig himself out of a hole.
	All these avenues should be closed down to these people completely.
	Jonah Lord says, I renounce my citizenship to foreign country to stop deportation.
	Okay then, bring back the death penalty for child abusers and we'll get rid of him the hard way.
	That's actually the easy way, isn't it?
	It's the easy way, actually, rather than going through the goddamn courts again.
	I don't want my kids living in a country filled with predators who will not be properly prosecuted.
	Yeah, I mean, this isn't fair to everyone else who lives in that town.
	I mean, never mind the abusers as well.
	It's doubly not fair to, obviously.
	Maureen Peters says, handle it like how you deal with house pets.
	Pests.
	Don't leave it unchecked.
	Find the nest and get the job done.
	But last but not least, make sure it can never happen again.
	And under no circumstances, do not empathize with it.
	It causes damage that must be dealt with as such.
	I think he's getting more of the death penalty there, but without straight words.
	Kevin Fox says they don't want to go back to Pakistan for a very good reason, even though their behavior may be more acceptable in Pakistan.
	There's got to be a reason for that.
	The pool of potential victims is far, far smaller.
	Give a fat kid a choice between living in a sweet shop and living at home with his three packets of polos.
	Which one do you expect them to choose?
	I mean, because that's...
	That's a good analogy, really, that is, isn't it?
	With the cultural and religious aspect, there is obviously...
	I mean, I'm sure you've seen it.
	There are plenty of times, even in the courtrooms, after they've been sentenced, there's guys screaming Allahu Akbar in response, or justifying what they did, because they were like, well, they're not Muslims, so...
	What does it matter?
	They're just filthy white slags.
	They would just justify it that way, you know, because they're not...
	They're allowed to do it to non-Muslims, but to Muslims it would be a crime in their own minds.
	It would be more respect, yeah.
	It would be a sin.
	And it's like, yeah, if they went up to Pakistan, I think they would have less options.
	Sure.
	So maybe that's why.
	I don't know.
	Captain Charlie the Beagle says, What?
	London's first Muslim Lord Mayor defended a Muslim nonce.
	Imagine my shock.
	Did he?
	I don't know where we got into that one.
	X, Y, and Z says, Ah, another episode of This Week in Nonsery.
	Before we begin, a word from our sponsor, Silth Woodchippers, who make excellent woodchippers.
	Henry Ashman says, Good to see North FC turning up to the council meeting and giving it the what for.
	Yeah, to be honest, I think that is probably one of the most enjoyable things in this.
	Well, the only enjoyable thing in this area that I've seen in a long time is people turning up and just saying, you know, The truth is, I come from the mindset that you would run these people out of town with a pitchfork no matter who it is.
	Why are we not doing that?
	I remember Helen Dale, because you would have thought it's such an easy thing as well.
	Helen Dale made this joke once where she was like, you know, if you want to appeal to, especially the northern areas, which have had a big problem with this, you know, around Manchester and whatnot, it's very simple politics, you know, front the NHS, hang the nonsense.
	Yeah.
	And...
	You know, there was only one, I don't know who this woman was.
	She was a councillor and it was a news report on grooming gangs, but it was a good couple of years ago.
	And this is the only statement I have ever heard to be true.
	And she sat there and she said, if you think grooming is not going on in your town or city, you're simply not looking hard enough.
	And that's true.
	Yeah.
	That's true.
	I remember living in Canterbury and even down there, there was a town near us.
	Tommy Robinson got in trouble for leafleting around there.
	But it was just some pizza joint that, you know, we knew of.
	We, you know, were aware of.
	And it just sounds like, yeah, there as well.
	Yeah.
	In the middle of, you know, lovely Kent.
	There's, you know, in Canterbury, a Christian capital.
	It's going on as well.
	But yeah, I suppose we're out of time, actually.
	But I suppose that's that.
	Thank you for coming on.
	No, thank you for having me on.
	Where would people find you if they'd like to go and find out more?
	We're on www.publicchildprotectionwheels.org.
	There we are.
	Otherwise, we're out of time.
	So if you want more from us, lowseers.com, of course.
	Otherwise, we'll be back tomorrow at one o'clock.

▲