Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 17, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:30:48

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #460

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast Lotus Eaters This is episode 460.
	I'm your host, Harry, joined today by our special guest, Nick Bookley.
	Thank you very much.
	Thanks for having me again.
	How are you doing today?
	No, no, good.
	I drove down from Manchester.
	Motorway was clear.
	It rained, which was great.
	Hearing the motorway is clear is just, I don't believe you.
	I do not believe you.
	The M5 and M6, especially going through Birmingham, is absolutely awful for me.
	I was quite surprised how quiet it was.
	That's alright then.
	Today we're going to be talking about Clown World being completely inescapable.
	We're also going to be talking about Elon Musk and Twitter preparing for their day in court, and also how we need to keep them out after record numbers of channel migrants have just been recorded.
	Before I go any further, Nick, do you want to tell people?
	I know you've been on before.
	Do you want to tell people about yourself, where they can find you, what you're up to?
	Sure, yeah.
	My name's Nick Buckley.
	I'm a free speech advocate.
	I'm slightly famous for being the charity guy who got sacked from his own charity two years ago.
	Mounted a fight back, beat the board, beat the bullies online and got my job back and my charity back.
	So that's what most people know me for.
	Find me all over social media, NickBuckleyMBE, Twitter, Facebook, and I've just started doing a lot of work now on YouTube.
	So I'm uploading videos every day to YouTube.
	What's your channel name?
	NickBuckleyMBE.
	NickBuckleyMBE.
	So if you're interested in Nick's content, go check him out.
	You've also got a sub stack, don't you, that you've written for?
	Yes.
	So Substack, for people who don't know, it's like a blog.
	So I write on there every week, maybe, maybe every fortnight.
	I pick social topics ranging from begging to immigration to LBGTQ stuff, trans stuff.
	And I give my opinions and do a bit of research and say, this is what I discovered and this is what I think on this website.
	Alright then, well, if you're interested, once again, check it out.
	Let's get into it then, shall we?
	So, Clown World is something that we're all very familiar with by now.
	We've all been living it for years and years and years.
	You understand what I mean when I say Clown World?
	Unfortunately, yes.
	Unfortunately.
	It's such a ridiculous term, but it's just too true to not use.
	Because you can't escape it.
	No matter where you turn, no matter where you look, clown world is everywhere, manifesting in every aspect of day-to-day life that we encounter.
	And as part of that, you should all go check out this recent premium live hangout that Carl did on cultural colonization, talking about how all of this stuff has come over here from foreign cultures, foreign countries, from France, from America, plenty of places.
	None of it's particularly British.
	As far as I can tell, and now it's starting to colonize our folktales, our culture, our media.
	So, for instance, you've got the Robin Hood adaptation that's coming out soon, where Robin Hood is going to be an independent, strong, young black girl, which is a very interesting interpretation of an old English folktale.
	Isn't that racist, having a young black girl being a criminal and robbing people?
	I would class that as racist.
	Perhaps.
	Perhaps.
	You do a good point, but you know, the stereotypes are fine when they do them.
	So, there you go.
	It's alright.
	But you should check that out if you're interested.
	It's very, very good content.
	But let's get further into this now.
	So, recently, it has been announced through certain leaks that have been made.
	I saw you post about this on Twitter as well, actually, that the RF... The RAF, the Royal Air Force, is seeming to pause job offers for white men as they try to meet impossible diversity targets.
	And if we go to the next link, we've got the article talking about it a little bit more.
	the head of RAF recruitment resigned in protest at an effective pause on offering jobs to white male recruits in favour of women and ethnic minorities, defence sources have claimed.
	The senior female officer apparently handed in her notice in recent days amid concerns that any such restrictions on hiring, however temporary and limited, could undermine the fighting strength of the Royal Air Force.
	I mean, that should be pretty obvious that something like that would happen.
	I mean, it's more than just the potential decrease in the skill of the fighting forces.
	At the end of the day, generally speaking, English people defending England, English people historically are white.
	So if you're going to be aiming to get people who aren't white, you're going to be getting people from different cultural and ethnic and historical backgrounds, making me question, what connection do they have?
	To this land if they're going to be protecting it.
	How far will they go to protect this place if it actually came to it?
	Let's be honest.
	Yep.
	Two quick points.
	The first point is, well done to that female officer for designing.
	That's what you call a patriot.
	She's given her job up and resigned and will take a financial hit now because she's decided this policy will damage the country she loves.
	That's what you call a patriot.
	And then we're trying to get more, you know, anyone can apply to join the IVF. There is no colour bar, you know, it's open as it possibly can be, but some people don't want to join.
	And there's many reasons why people don't want to join.
	So if we're looking at newly arrived immigrants and their children, let's be perfectly honest, They've already abandoned their country to come here.
	So patriotism and love of a country isn't a trait that's high up on their list because they've already proved that they hadn't for their own ancestral homelands.
	And that's not a criticism of them.
	I'm just saying it's a matter of fact.
	But what we're doing now is we're looking at what we can do to make the RAF represent the nation as a whole.
	Who cares?
	Do we look at a basketball team that's all black and do we say that doesn't represent the country as a whole?
	No we don't because what I want and what I've always wanted is the best person for the job.
	Of course.
	Well, meritocracy, once again, is something that I think most people on some base level do aspire towards.
	They want to believe that the people who are in positions of importance or positions of power are the best for the job, and when it's I don't know.
	From what I remember, what I'm reading, on medical doctors in the NHS, I think it's more like 48, 49% Bain, so black or Asian.
	I would imagine a lot of that is, say, Indian people.
	Yeah.
	And if you look at non-medical staff in the NHS, it's something like 55, 60%.
	So are we going to look at that and say to these people, you don't keep that job now because we now need to get a white person there?
	And we shouldn't do that because it's wrong and it's wrong here.
	It's...
	It's as you said, clown world.
	Where does this stop?
	With the NHS, I would question how those people got those jobs in the first place, given that every single trust in the UK for the NHS has a big diversity and equity department, where the people are getting paid ridiculously exorbitant amounts.
	So that they can go around all of the trusts and say not enough BAME, not enough black people, not enough brown people.
	So I'd be questioning how those people got those jobs.
	The NHS has got vacancies and has done for 30 years in every single department, in every single hospital.
	So it's not like they pushed black and Asian people into these roles and didn't take white people because there's vacancies everywhere.
	They're crying out for more staff to come work for the NHS, but people don't want to because who wants to work for the NHS? Yes.
	Continuing on from this, so the person who came out and sort of blew the whistle on this said that the service was attempting to hit impossible diversity targets.
	The defence sources accused Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, the head of the RAF, of appearing willing to compromise UK security at a time of growing threats from Russia and China in pursuit of albeit important goals such as the proving of diversity and inclusion.
	So Sky News unsurprisingly capitulating there, just going...
	Well, you know, it might be compromising security, but we do need to admit that this is, albeit, very important stuff to make ourselves feel better through virtue signalling, the sorts of things that always ends well, wouldn't you say?
	Yeah, I think Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston need sacking.
	I think a lot of people need sacking.
	All these stories, when it comes to public services, We always have a go at the people who run these public services and we have a go at the civil servants and we have a go at the staff in there and we have a go at their diversity departments.
	But who we always forget about is the government.
	They all work for the government.
	Oh, I never forget the government, I'll tell you that.
	And we need to be saying to the government, this is wrong and we're sick of this.
	What are you doing at the wheel?
	Well, would you like to hear about what the two potential leaders of the government...
	have said about this.
	So primarily, it was Rishi Sunak, a spokesperson for his campaign, said the only thing that should matter in recruitment is the content of your character, not your sex or the colour of your skin, skin, that the Ministry of Defence would allow Britain's security to potentially be put at risk by a drive for so-called diversity is not only disgraceful, it is dangerous.
	And, you know, I think those are all very pretty words.
	I think those are fantastic rote talking points that he's bringing out there, but I don't believe that he's actually going to do anything about it.
	If he was going to do something, the final line would have been, and if I become Prime Minister...
	I'll sack any head of department who promotes any of this stuff.
	In the Air Force, the Army, Civil Service, I'll sack them.
	That's how we should have ended it.
	It's not going to do that, though, because as far as I consider it, the Conservatives in the Conservative Party, especially those in the leadership race, when they're on the campaigns, when they're talking to the public, when they want you to vote for them, and that includes the Conservative Party members, they will talk like Conservatives, but they will rule like Socialists.
	Every politician always...
	No matter who the politician is, politicians always tell you what you want to hear.
	Oh, yeah.
	That's the job of a politician.
	So, yeah, once again, I put no stock in any of the words that these people are putting out.
	And the RAF, to be fair, have disputed the allegations.
	They've said there's no pause in Royal Air Force recruitment and no new policy with regards to meeting in-year recruitment requirements.
	Royal Air Force commanders will not shy away from the challenges we face building a service that attracts and recruits talent from every part of the UK workforce.
	But then they carry on to say, as with the Royal Navy and British Army, we're doing everything we can to encourage recruiting from underrepresented groups and ensure we have a diverse workforce.
	So what they've said there is, we're not doing it, but also, we are doing it.
	We're not going to outright say, yes, we're preventing white people.
	But by focusing on recruiting from underrepresented groups, I feel like they're going to be neglecting other people who are going to be potentially employed.
	What I've read there really is...
	We have no official policy or emails on this, but I spoke in to a couple of officers' ears and said, stop taking on white men because you're affecting our table of looking at diversity.
	Yeah, of course.
	And that's how things work in these big corporations.
	It's not always an official email with a government stamp on it.
	It's an informal thing, isn't it?
	Stop doing that because at the end of the year, this isn't going to look good.
	It's not going to look good for you.
	It won't look good for your career.
	Yep.
	Always passing favours.
	But yeah, so that's how that's going, and Admiral Sir Tony Radekin, head of the armed forces, used his first public speech post-last December to stress the importance of striving for better diversity.
	So it's everywhere in this whole thing.
	He says, it was not about wokefulness, it's about woefulness, the woefulness of too few women, the woefulness of not reflecting the ethnic, religious, and cognitive diversity of our nation.
	And what an absolute joke!
	To hear something like that.
	If I look at armed forces, and if I saw nothing but strong young white men, I wouldn't go, oh no, where's all the women?
	I would go, oh good, we're protected.
	That's what I would think.
	As long as I know that these people have been put in those positions through merit, for instance...
	When the war with China comes, and it will come, not Russia.
	Russia is a nobody.
	Russia's shown the world they're a nobody, apart from to their weak neighbours.
	But Russia's not a threat to the West.
	China.
	When the war comes with China, and, you know, we're sending our armed forces over there, and we've got 50% women, and we've got so many, you know, Bane, and we've got so many black, we've got so many gays, and none of them can fight.
	And they're all crying because I broke my nail or I've tripped up.
	And am I allowed to shoot an enemy soldier who's black?
	Well, you can do, but that doesn't count on your score.
	In fact, don't kill too many because you can't be killing black soldiers who have enemies.
	You've got to be killing only white ones.
	I'd be surprised if China was recruiting black soldiers.
	They've taken over most of Africa.
	Oh, that's true.
	And when the war comes, you never know.
	But I mean...
	When war comes, you need an army with so many psychopaths in it and so many highly trained soldiers.
	It doesn't matter who they are because that's how you win a war.
	Well, I'm not so sure that war with China would necessarily be coming, especially after Josh and I have been covering a bit recently in contemplations and other such things we've been doing, talking about the disastrous state of China's economy more than anything.
	The question would be for me whether China could even afford to really go to war.
	And that's why they'll go to war.
	Because if their economy is cumbling, then they're looking at civil invest.
	China has had a lot of civil invest over the centuries and millennia.
	And what every dictator does to keep power is you need an enemy.
	You need to invade somewhere else.
	You need your population focused on someone else.
	Because if they're not, they focus on me.
	Well, that is all true, but I just don't know whether, if China did attempt to make any massive moves like that, especially towards the West, I don't know if their infrastructure would be able to handle it, or if it would just collapse.
	Well, not at the moment.
	It'd be slant tactics.
	First of all, they'll take Taiwan.
	Then they'll take Vietnam.
	Then they might take Japan.
	But eventually, they'll run out of Asia.
	Then they'll be strong.
	They'll have natural resources.
	They'll have a bigger army.
	Where are they going to look then?
	Don't forget, China was humiliated by the West, especially the British, for centuries.
	We made a lot of their population heavily addicts so the British Empire could make money on it.
	They've been humiliated, and that's in their history.
	And I think if they do slimy tactics and get to that stage, there's only one way to go, and it's always West.
	Well, potentially.
	Either way, I do absolutely agree that national defence is of the utmost importance, and this is not putting our own national defence as the top priority.
	It's putting the current agenda, it's putting the current trends above national security, which should be very important for everybody who, for instance, lives here, including those who maybe don't have an attachment to this place, but as long as you're occupying it As a geographical space, you probably should care about your safety and well-being while you're here.
	But this is something that's also happening over in America as well.
	This isn't necessarily with their armed forces.
	Are you aware of Chris Rufo?
	No.
	He's a fantastic activist.
	He's helped with people like Ron DeSantis exposing critical race theory in schools, and he does focus a lot on what's going on with children in the schools, because obviously, you know, that's how you get them.
	You get them when they're young, that's how you indoctrinate them.
	And over in Minneapolis, he's exposed that the teachers' union over there has negotiated a contract in which the district will fire white teachers first, and that this is the inevitable endpoint of equity, which is absolutely true.
	And we can see a little bit from here where it says, starting with spring 2023 budget tie-out cycle, if accessing, which means just removing, a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the district shall access the next least senior teacher who is not a member of an underrepresented population.
	So just get rid of the white people first, basically.
	If you go to the next article over, there we go.
	It's just written down in here.
	So just get rid of the teachers.
	And the really strange thing for me is that the teachers unions over in America especially are very responsible for protecting all of the teachers who, say, libs of TikTok and other such people are exposing.
	And a lot of the teachers unions, they're very happy to go ahead with all of this wokeness.
	So these white teachers are probably more than happy to fall on their swords on behalf of their black and minority ethnic compadres, their brethren in the teaching thing.
	So, you know, as long as you get another insufferably woke person in to teach my kids, because of course these teachers all consider it to be my kids, not...
	Not kids who I am teaching.
	These are my kids.
	They belong to the state.
	They don't belong to their own parents.
	So, you know, I think just break up these unions personally.
	They're destroying education.
	This must be illegal under American law.
	Well, I would imagine that it is only in one direction, though.
	Affirmative action laws in the US since the Civil Rights Act have always been very one-sided.
	I forgot about that, yeah, affirmative action.
	Yeah, I think some describe the Civil Rights Act from, what was it, 64?
	64.
	64, 66, as the new constitution of the United States.
	And honestly, given that other than a few decisions made recently by the Supreme Court, most laws in the US, as far as I see, seem to be far, far more interested in protecting the sanctity of what was set down in the Civil Rights Act than the Constitution.
	Well, let's wait for these white teachers to start getting sacked, and then let's see how these white progressive teachers react to that, because I can guarantee they won't like it.
	No, they probably will say that they like it.
	They'll talk about how it's a great honour for them to be able to lay down their careers for the sake of marginalised communities.
	I don't think you'll find one saying that.
	No, I think you'll find them saying that, but what they'll be thinking is, oh God, how am I going to put food on the table now?
	I don't even think they'll be saying that.
	I think what they'll be saying is, this is unfair and I'm going to sue.
	Potentially, I suppose...
	It's easy being woke when it doesn't affect you.
	The second it affects you, I mean, lose your job.
	I mean, that is affecting you.
	Oh, massively, sir.
	No, they won't like it, and then they'll...
	No, and we'll see what they say and do then.
	Yeah, I mean, they also point out that they're doing this so that they can, you know, as with everything else, we need to rectify the past problems that have been caused to people of this community by the district, yada, yada, yada.
	And whenever I see that sort of stuff, I go, okay, right, okay, if there was terrible treatment to people based on, you know, immutable characteristics, you know, I'm not a fan of people doing that sort of stuff just arbitrarily for the sake of it.
	Okay, if that's the problem, then...
	Go after the people who did that.
	Don't just go firing random white teachers just for the sake of reparations.
	That makes no sense to me, but then again, is not supposed to make sense at the end of the day.
	It's supposed to be a force tactic, a power play, to show you who's in charge and who gets to call the shots.
	Can you imagine a meeting where this was discussed?
	Who would say no to this in that meeting?
	You would have to be a very brave person to say, this is wrong.
	So everyone's just gone.
	Yep.
	I mean, speaking of China, you'd be involved in a complete struggle session right there.
	They'd break out the dunce hat for you.
	And we've got more stuff.
	We've got the Crown Paints advert, Crown Paints being a brand of paint that we have over here in the UK, putting out an advert that was dubbed misogynistic and massively offensive over a song featuring a man and a woman's relationship where the song states, now a baby's coming and they don't know what it is.
	Hannah's hoping for a girl.
	Dave's just hoping that it's his.
	It's a bit cheeky.
	It's kind of, you know, just old-fashioned homely humour as far as I'm concerned.
	It's funny, but I'm quite shocked that they did it.
	I know.
	I'm shocked that a company in the modern UK actually went ahead and tried something like this.
	But then we had female comedian.
	I know, contradiction in terms, but I'll just carry on.
	We'll take it seriously anyway.
	Jenny Eclair wrote on Twitter, I'm watching the Crown Paint Babycoming ad, and I can't be on my own thinking it's beyond mad shit.
	I find this massively offensive.
	And now as a result of this and more than 100 complaints about the ad, the Advertising Standards Agency is talking about and currently assessing carefully to determine whether there are grounds for an investigation.
	So, you know, this cheeky little fun song thrown into a paint advert, some female comedian and over 100 people writing to complain, oh, we might have to put an investigation forward.
	How stupid.
	I know a bit more about this than you may imagine.
	I'm writing my third book at the moment on feminism.
	And one of the chapters, I forgot what the chapter's about now, but I've been looking into this.
	So there's research now from Germany that roughly about 10% of fathers in Germany who think that child's his, it isn't his.
	10% in Germany.
	In France, because the number got so high, it's now illegal in France to DNA test your child without your mother's consent.
	Really?
	So that's just protecting women from consequences of their actions there?
	Okay, very interesting.
	And there's been some British studies, and they're saying in Britain it could be up to as much as 20% of men are raising a child that isn't theirs.
	I assume without their knowledge.
	I mean, yeah, yeah.
	I'm not about step-parents.
	I'm talking about they think that child's theirs.
	And it only gets found out, and the reason why they've done these researches in certain hospitals, is the child's had an operation, the dad's had an operation.
	So they've got samples, they've got tissue samples.
	Yeah, and they can see.
	And they do, it's all done blindly, so they never tell their parents.
	But they've done these tests, and they've worked out, they reckon suspect maybe 20% of British men are raising a child that's not theirs.
	God, that's just awful.
	That's horrifying to hear, to be perfectly honest, because, I don't know, as a man, the one thing that you really want to do is have your children and raise them how you want, pass on your bloodline, pass on your genes, etc.
	And it's so deceptive and awful, but...
	Just a product of modernity, as far as I'm concerned, sadly, where you've got no accountability, no responsibility for people's own actions.
	Women are actively encouraged to go out and be whores.
	Let's be perfectly honest.
	And then, you know, when the inevitable consequences come as a result of that, you basically get the state and other apparatus around there protecting them from the consequences of their own actions.
	Because, I'm sorry, if you've cheated on your significant other and basically subterfuge, got them to raise a child that isn't their own, that man has no responsibility to look after you or that child.
	As horrible as that could sound, especially on behalf of the child, but, you know, one should have thought that.
	The worst place for this to happen to you is America.
	Oh, really?
	Even if in court, if you can prove that child's not yours in court, in most states, it doesn't matter.
	You thought you were a child's father, therefore you will pay alimony for the next 18 years.
	Pure absurdity.
	Pure absurdity.
	So maybe Crown Paints have done as a public service by raising this, because I bet nobody knew what I just said then.
	No, Crown Paint's actually doing some good service, public service announcements right there, just maybe getting people to think a little bit more.
	Maybe you should keep an eye on your significant other's DMs.
	Don't be intrusive or anything, but just be a bit suspicious sometimes.
	Anyway, moving on to a little bit more.
	So Ezra Miller, are you aware of Ezra Miller?
	He's the Marvel nutcase who's gone off the plot.
	Yeah, DC nutcase.
	I've been keeping up track with him, and he is a prime example of clown world as it stands right now.
	The man identifies as non-binary, which just gives him a shield to be able to say, no, you can't do anything to me because I'm they-them, actually.
	He's been arrested multiple times, including for assaulting women in Hawaii.
	He has threatened people.
	He's basically groomed a child.
	And he's a millionaire, I take it.
	Of course he is.
	He's the Flash in the DC movie, so he's getting paid ridiculous amounts.
	And yeah, he's just completely off the rails, but he's broken his silence.
	The only other time he broke his silence was when he went on the run from a restraining order that somebody's family put on him, because he was grooming an 18...
	Well, a A child turned teenager and then 18-year-old when he said that he was no longer in our universe and didn't identify as a human being anymore, which I've pointed out before.
	Then your human rights don't count in that case.
	But he's broken his silence finally, so he can apologize to everybody that he's alarmed.
	And yes, I would say in the lightest terms possible, your actions are completely alarming, Ezra.
	But this is a brilliant trick.
	He wants his job back.
	Oh, of course.
	I don't think they've even stopped him from being able to be in the next Flash film or anything like that.
	He's trying to save his career now.
	He's trying to save his career.
	I don't mean it.
	I don't care.
	Just say this.
	Well, I find it startling that the man has not been put in prison yet, or at least arrested and put in jail.
	I mean, I know the man's got money for bail, but it's still absolutely ridiculous.
	He's been able to get away with everything that he has for so long.
	And then he just gets to apologise.
	We'll see if any other consequences come to him, because as far as I'm concerned, this is a fantastic trick that he's pulling.
	Hey, lawyers hate this trick, you know.
	Just apologise.
	Groom the child, apologise.
	Beat a woman, apologise.
	You know, as long as you've got a protected class or a protected identity, whatever.
	Whatever.
	Who cares?
	This is a good example of the only privilege that really does exist, and it's money privilege.
	Because when you've got his sort of money...
	The normal rules of society don't apply to you because money talks.
	I think he does have two privileges.
	He's got the money, but then he's also got this stupid non-binary identity that he packages along as well, which provides him with a weapon.
	A bludgeon to hit people with.
	For instance, those video clips of when he was getting arrested by the police and they were shouting, and he was shouting, like, you can't call me him, you're using my wrong pronouns, it's actually they, them.
	Okay, I'm sorry about that, sir.
	And then he's like, I'm going to throw a civil lawsuit at your way.
	And the fact of the matter is, anti-discrimination laws probably would let him get somewhere in a lawsuit if he were to throw that sort of accusation there, just because he's saying, I'm not a man.
	I'm something else.
	I'm something completely separate from that.
	I'm a criminal.
	Yeah, he's a criminal.
	You can identify that way if you want, Ezra.
	No one's going to disagree with you there.
	We also had Graham Saunas, who made some recent comments calling football a man's game, which got some controversy on social media.
	And to be fair to him, this is pretty good when he was saying, you know, it's a man's game all of a sudden again.
	I think he was saying this in reference to a football match that he was watching and commenting on.
	I think we've got our football back as I would enjoy football.
	Men at it, blow for blow, and the referee letting them get on with it.
	In a statement through Sky, he said, to clarify my comments from yesterday, I was referring to two Premier League matches I watched live on Sunday afternoon rather than the sport of football.
	Football is a game for everyone to enjoy.
	Asked early on TalkSport if he regretted his comments, he replied, not a word of it.
	And why should he?
	Football is a man's game.
	It was invented by men to be played by men.
	In fact, if you go to the next link, Carl and I did a weekend segment recently.
	Great screenshot there for my face, Michael.
	Thank you.
	We were talking about the Lionesses versus the boys.
	And this is not necessarily to denigrate the women's football team, who, of course, recently won, I think it was the UEFA Cup.
	Fantastic bringing it home for England, even if it is just the women's team.
	That's still a fantastic achievement.
	But we were talking about how them, and quite a few of the other leading women's football teams across the world, keep getting beaten by teenage boys.
	So it's a man's game, but it also seems to be a boy's game as well.
	And the girls, fantastic for them to be able to win something for England, but they can't keep up with teenage boys, let alone men.
	It's because it's a different game, just like tennis.
	You know, you have women's tennis, which is a completely different game to men's tennis.
	We don't let male boxers and female boxers fight.
	And same with football.
	Women's football is almost a completely different game to the way men play football.
	So when you're watching men's football, that's a man's game.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Well, the interesting thing is that we, I think John told us while we were doing this, was that there's, I don't know about boxing, I imagine it's probably in place for boxing, but for football, there's no divisions in any of the rules preventing women from performing in the men's leagues.
	No.
	It's just the fact that they can't, because on terms of merit, they aren't good enough.
	You'll find that in almost all sports.
	Yeah, that's why we make women's leagues.
	It's not because we want to keep the women out.
	It's because otherwise the women couldn't compete, which just says it all, really.
	And the final thing I just wanted to point out is your most recent Substack article that I'm aware of, talking about the cookholding of the English man.
	I think if you want to explain a little bit of this, just so you can point people to your Substack, because I read this and I thought it was a very good article.
	Yeah, so it's one of those questions I've been thinking about for quite a while, as in, what the hell has happened to Englishmen?
	Look at the state of the country, look what's going on, look at the woke nonsense, look at our police force, look at the army, and I'm looking at everything thinking, what's going on?
	So then I did a bit of research and I was looking into it.
	And, you know, we need to remember that Englishmen conquered the world 200 years ago.
	Biggest empire ever.
	We conquered the world.
	Englishmen stormed the beaches of Normandy and saved the whole continent from Nazi tyranny.
	That's who Englishmen used to be.
	But we're not that anymore now.
	You know, if we had real Englishmen at home, With the families, do you think we'd have grooming gangs raping tens of thousands of children if we had real men at home?
	Do you think we'd have trans women using female spaces if we had real Englishmen protecting their daughters and their wives?
	We'd have none of these problems.
	Do you think we'd have 1,000 or 20,000 illegal immigrants storming our beaches every year now for three, four years?
	If we had real Englishmen in government, in the armed forces, in the lifeboats, if we had them, real Englishmen of only a few decades ago, 50, 60 years ago, most of our problems would be gone.
	But something's happened, and I sort of go through what's happened.
	The first thing really is, it started with feminism.
	So feminism said to men, you're no good.
	We don't need you.
	You're evil.
	All the problems of the world are yours.
	And we wonder why some men go, all right, well, I'll be a woman.
	And we wonder why, you know, we have thousands of men killing themselves every year because every message they get is negative.
	You're evil.
	You're an abuser.
	There's no place for you in the world anymore.
	So that's feminism.
	Then we start looking at political correctness.
	Englishmen made a mistake there.
	They started shutting up and not pushing back and that sealed their own fate.
	Yeah, I don't want to put too much blame on the previous generations and trying to absolve, you know, millennials and Gen Z from anything, but my generation and the generation immediately after are more the symptoms rather than the cause of the disease.
	Because at some point in the 1960s, 1970s, like you say, for some reason, men just let all this wash over them.
	They were just like, oh, feminists say I'm evil?
	Yeah, probably.
	Not all men.
	Not all men, no.
	So what I'm talking about now is a gradual approach.
	So feminism by itself didn't destroy men.
	It destroyed some men and they became weak men.
	But then, you know, same with political correctness.
	There's things as a man now I want to say, but I daren't, so I better be quiet.
	We set the stage for the kids and young people we have now.
	This has been a slow process over 60, 70 years, since the Second World War and since the creation of the welfare state.
	So since...
	A man didn't have to be a man anymore because the state would look after him.
	That's quite tempting.
	I don't want to do hard work.
	I'll just lean off the state.
	When single mums got so much power and the government paid them to be single mums, I don't need a father in the house anymore now.
	So you get out, I get more money.
	So all these things have chipped away, chipped away, chipped away.
	And that's what's led us to where we are now.
	Not one incident.
	Yeah.
	Seven decades.
	Absolutely.
	I mean, there's some that say that culture is downstream from law, and you can definitely see in those sorts of policies that you're talking about there how that has been the case.
	When the law says you don't have to be the man of the house, you don't have to be the breadwinner, when the law says, oh, you don't even have to work if you're able to find an excuse for yourself to be on benefits and such, even if you don't necessarily would qualify for them otherwise, then yeah, people are going to take advantage of those opportunities.
	People...
	At the end of the day, they prefer leisure to work.
	And if you give them all the opportunity in the world to have as much leisure as they want, what are they going to do?
	They're going to take it.
	They're going to take it.
	And what that does then is that starts degrading how they feel about themselves and the value they put on masculinity.
	So even when they decide, oh, I want to do something, they haven't got the confidence, the skills anymore to be a real man because they've allowed the state and the law and our community just to chip away so much from an empty vessel.
	They don't know what it is to be a man anymore.
	Our boys growing up now have no male role models.
	You know, They can't even say I want to join the police or the army because they're men-men.
	No, look how woke and silly they are.
	There is no role models.
	And then, you know, boys like to hang around with boys and learn from other boys.
	But every time we have a boys-only initiative or club, girls invade it like they did with the Boy Scouts, with cries of equality.
	So even boys can't be boys anymore because girls want to get in there, and that changes the whole dynamics.
	So we're not even teaching boys how to be men.
	Very true.
	Sadly, it is all just true, everything that you're saying there.
	And hopefully something can change in the future, but I don't think it can really change until potentially we get those sorts of laws and such that are struck down that are encouraging people to do these sorts of things.
	And that will take concerted effort to change the minds of the elites.
	And with Rishi and Liz in the run-up for Conservative Party leader, I don't see that changing any time soon, sadly, personally.
	But that's just a quick dip into clown world.
	Let's move on.
	So the next thing I want to talk about is Elon Musk and Twitter preparing for court, which is quite interesting because Elon Musk is a self-stated free speech absolutist, as he's putting it, and free speech is something very important to you, very important to people like myself as well.
	I believe that society should have standards for discourse and such, but I don't necessarily try Trust a government, a state, to be able to implement those standards.
	And, you know, you've been cancelled.
	I also have been cancelled quite recently.
	Sadly, I don't want to go any further into it there.
	But before I go any further, just check out this recent Hangout that Carl did again with Josh talking about the despicable debauch...
	Let me just try that again.
	Despicable, debauched degeneracy of Hunter Biden, because, you know, I thought this was relevant mainly because Twitter, who are the centerpiece of this whole Elon Musk fiasco, are one of the main culprits of trying to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	And there's been quite a lot of leaks regarding this, and even more come out recently, which is what Carl and Josh go over in this video.
	And some of it's quite nasty.
	Some of it's not very nice, but so check that out if you're interested.
	So yeah, free speech is something that's on the tip of everybody's tongues nowadays and not always in the most positive light.
	For instance, we've got this article, this very recent one from The Guardian talking about, do you want free speech to thrive?
	Then it has to be regulated now more than ever.
	And that's very interesting because my immediate question to this is, well, who gets to regulate it?
	Can't regulate free speech because then it's not free speech.
	Well, yeah.
	Who gets to regulate speech?
	Why do they want to regulate speech?
	I found out something interesting a while back.
	Obviously, the Constitution of the United States of America, the First Amendment, you know, I found out that, I think it was John Jay, one of the federalists, argued for days over the use of one word in that amendment.
	And that word was the, for the freedom of speech.
	because he wanted to make it clear the freedom of speech is something that exists outside of the purview of the state.
	It's something that exists outside of the reach of the law.
	At the end of the day, you as a human being have the right to speak your mind, and we can't touch that.
	But then these people go ahead and go, "It has to be regulated." Now, I don't think necessarily that schools should be having conversations with small children about transgenderism or any form of gender ideology or critical race theory, for instance, And that does not impede on my own belief in freedom of speech because these people are state employees.
	They're working in a public or private, if you're in a private school, capacity to raise other people's children.
	You have a duty of care.
	But this guy is basically just...
	It's a really confusing article.
	It waffles around the topic for a while, talking about after the stabbing of Salman Rushdie that happened recently, because the fatwa was still active against him and somebody got hold of him and stabbed him, I think, 15 times, when it's been almost 40 years, something like that, since the Satanic Verses came out.
	And then the article ends like this.
	this.
	This is the debate now thundering into review.
	The correct response to the Rushdie outrage is not to plead for freedom of speech, but to ask what it really means and how it is to be sustained and regulated.
	This is not done through silence.
	I don't understand what this means, other than just overall coming out and saying we need to regulate freedom of speech, in which case he doesn't answer in any of this.
	I suppose it would probably be a bit more implicit to say, like, well, regulate the speech that I don't like, keep the speech that I do like...
	It's kind of a nothing statement.
	His real emphasis on this really is, I know better than everybody else.
	So we all want free speech and I want free speech, but you all can't be trusted with it.
	So therefore, someone like me needs to regulate your free speech because you're all morons.
	Yeah.
	We've tested you before, and you all voted for Brexit.
	And we've tested you before, and you've done other things we didn't like.
	So you can't be trusted with free speech.
	Therefore, it needs to be regulated.
	Now, I understand there can't be total free speech.
	I can't say to you, I'd like you to go get a knife and stab that guy because that's incitement.
	So it's still free speech, but we have laws.
	So I don't like the word regulated because regulated means bureaucrats.
	It means non-elected bureaucrats telling you what you can and can't do.
	What we do and what we have in this country are laws.
	So we have free speech.
	We can do whatever we want up to that point because when you cross that point, you've now broken the law.
	Those laws are initiated in a democratic country by elected politicians.
	If we don't like those laws, we can change those politicians and get new ones who will change that law.
	So that's the only caveat I would have for free speech would be it can't be completely the Wild West.
	But it has to be done through legislation.
	Legislation that the population can change if they disagree with it.
	While I agree with all of those checks, sadly I think the past few decades have shown that it hasn't worked that way.
	While it should work that way, it certainly hasn't worked that way for a very long time.
	Every new piece of legislation that's been put in that does regulate speech in the way that this man wants to has been to criminalise offensive speech, to A criminalised speech that, you know, ten years ago would have been considered perfectly rational to the point where people like yourself and I are getting chucked out and potentially even persecuted purely for stating facts of biological reality or pushing back against political ideologies that they don't like.
	Every single piece of legislation has only moved to push the state of our culture further into a leftist paradigm.
	Right.
	Because we have no real Englishmen left.
	They've been cuckolded.
	Certainly none in government.
	That's for absolute sure.
	You know, Boris Johnson would be saying, you don't tell me what I can say in my house.
	My house is my castle.
	Don't tell me where I can go and what I can't do.
	That's what an English man would have done.
	That's when we had the Peterloo massacre in Manchester because the local people there were saying, we've elected our MPs to represent us, but the laws won't let them vote on the importation of cheap wheat.
	So they had a march and then got charged by soldiers.
	18 people died.
	But they said, we're not having this.
	But because we've allowed all this to happen, we've allowed it to happen because governments have had no pushback off anybody.
	So we'll do that.
	Oh, no one's noticed.
	No one cares.
	We'll do a bit more.
	No one noticed.
	No one cared.
	And you can also look at, you know, same thing with the grooming gangs.
	Oh, we raped a thousand girls.
	Oh, no one seemed to care.
	Police will just, you know, turn a blind eye.
	No one seems to care.
	And it's...
	Where is the outrage?
	Where are the Englishmen going?
	No, we're not having this.
	This is our country.
	Well, certainly in terms of the grooming gang things, there has been outrage from certain particular people who have been almost completely proscribed from public discussion and social media to the point where, you know, Callum and I refer to him as Romy Tomblinson, for instance, but he has been completely ostracized, been branded all sorts of horrible names, censored to, you know, beyond censored at this point where the man couldn't even open a bank account.
	Yeah.
	So that's sadly what happens to Englishmen nowadays.
	So that's one example.
	But then if we look at the young people in Harrods the other day, opening up all the bottles of milk and pouring it on the floor because we shouldn't be milking cows because it's some sort of torture.
	Where were they when the girls were being raped?
	When we've got Insulate Britain on the roads gluing themselves to the roads or gluing themselves to masterpieces in museums, they weren't gluing themselves to stop girls being raped.
	It's only, when it's a trendy course, trendy cause, then it's something to talk about, because I will get some value, I'll get some bounty points out of this.
	It's not just that it's a trendy cause, it's their trendy abstract causes.
	I'm fighting against climate change.
	It's not like I can point at climate change and say that's a bad thing.
	You have to point to all these abstract metrics.
	We've got the science to listen to.
	When it's like, oh, these cows are tortured, I can't ask a cow how it feels about this particular situation.
	It could be perfectly happy, but at the end of the day, it's a cow.
	I'm a human being.
	Sorry, that gives me dominance over that.
	So as long as I'm not being maliciously cruel, I can kind of do what I want.
	And a cow in the wild, not the cows we have now, but the...
	What cows used to look like a thousand years ago in the wild would have the throats ripped out by lions.
	But nature's cruel.
	Nature is absolutely cruel.
	If anything, we're a lot less cruel than the old force of Mother Nature.
	But all of a sudden when you put the grooming gangs into effect, that's not abstract.
	That's very concrete.
	There are faces we can put to these people.
	They are real human beings.
	Well, if you want to call them human beings after everything they've done.
	of physical confrontation with them and you're also going to be decried by the mainstream media as being some kind of islamophobe or racist or xenophobe or something which most of these people you know if insulate britain or just stop oil if they go out and do some kind of stupid protest they're going to get people like us complaining about it and saying it's a bad thing but the guardian bbc they're going to be giving a big round of applause Congratulations.
	And the judges.
	And the judges as well.
	You just send them back out onto the streets because you had a right to protest and it is very serious what you're doing.
	Sorry, you destroyed the Colston statue.
	Well, congratulations.
	You're just holding us accountable for our evil history.
	Absolutely ridiculous.
	And the reason why it happens is because they know there'll be no outrage.
	Government spent a fortune getting rid of plastic straws.
	Government spent a fortune protecting African elephants.
	Do you know that our army are in Africa on the reserves, training the gamekeepers on how to fight poachers.
	The British army soldier was killed a couple of years ago, shot on the head by a poacher.
	So we're doing those things.
	Do you know why?
	Because the British public tell our politicians we care.
	So if we tell them what we care about, they will do what we want them to do.
	It's just that we're so beaten and we're so pathetic and weak that most people just keep their mouths shut.
	And it's our fault.
	When you live in a democracy, you get the government you deserve.
	And this is what we deserve because we voted them all in over time and time and time again.
	And we all need to take some personal responsibility and say, this is our fault.
	It's too easy going.
	It's their fault.
	So that takes and removes the blame from you.
	We live in a democracy.
	It's our fault.
	Well, I would say this next little thing that I've got here may point not necessarily to it be all the English people's fault, although obviously there's a definite share of the blame here, but more I would say the interests of special interest groups affecting corporations and politicians especially,
	because I got this interesting one which someone sent to me about censorship, where it was a YouGov poll asking what should happen to old movies and TV shows that contain racist, Sexist or homophobic content.
	Me, personally, I would say nothing.
	Just leave them unedited.
	Who cares?
	If the content isn't for you, you don't have to watch it.
	Nobody's forcing this stuff on you.
	Not in the same way that, say, for instance, woke agendas are being forced in every mainstream film nowadays, apart from maybe one or two off to the side.
	But one very interesting thing, if you scroll down to the graphics they've got here...
	You can see they've compared the responses from Britain's to BAME individuals.
	And as you can see there, apart from two choices, Britain's overall seem to be much less eager to censor these sorts of old programs and other such things.
	So only 10% of Britain said that they shouldn't be available at all, as opposed to 27% of BAME individuals.
	6% said they should only be available if their content is removed, whereas BAME were 13%.
	The only ones where we got a higher percentage was should be available unedited and without a warning label about the content, which is 12%, which I would have hoped to have been much higher, but okay.
	And the only other one was should be available unedited but proceeded with a warning about the content, got 60%.
	And, you know, that's...
	That shows to me that the English are still trying to be fair and still trying to give ground, but I think that giving that ground over just allows more room for people who want to advocate for this sort of censorship.
	I think of a whole different reason why this could be like this.
	A simple reason that many of the Britons remember Alf Garnet.
	And watched Alf Garnet and found it funny.
	Or Love Thy Neighbor.
	Many of the black age and ethnic minorities weren't even in the country.
	So if they're being asked the question, do you think we should show this whole program that's racist and homophobic?
	What a leading question that is.
	So the answer is, of course, it's going to be, no, you shouldn't be showing that.
	But the British people are going...
	Oh, I remember Dad's Army.
	I remember it ate half hot months.
	Supposedly, it's Blackadder as well that they're going to be putting some warnings ahead of.
	It all depends on how you ask the question.
	If these people have never heard of these programmes, Why would they want a homophobic racist programme?
	That's an excellent point, actually.
	I hadn't considered that.
	They probably are asking...
	I mean, it is YouGov, so they're definitely asking leading questions.
	I don't even know.
	I've heard of YouGov.
	I have no idea.
	YouGov, they're very slimy.
	I believe that if you've shown yourself to answer in one very particular direction, perhaps a more conservative direction, they're less likely to email you for potential future surveys.
	Yeah.
	It all depends who's funding them.
	You know, I've done quite a bit of reading on these sort of things where when you hire someone, not just YouGov, but other examples, you're hiring them because you want an outcome.
	You know what you want them to prove.
	And as a good business, they'll go out and get you what you want.
	It's not fraud, but they will twist it and ask the questions and lead to get what you want because you're paying my wages.
	Of course they're going to do that.
	I would do that.
	That's why I don't trust many of these things.
	Most of these YouGov polls, there was a run of them where they all had, I think it was 71% in favour of, obviously, what the government wanted to be in favour of, and it was very suspicious.
	One after the other, they all came out, 71% say, 71% say, 71% say.
	So it is very good to sort of cast a suspicious eye on these sorts of surveys.
	But carrying on onto Twitter...
	This was an article that Connor sent to me by Alex Berenson from his Substack, where he's talking about how the White House had privately demanded Twitter to ban him months before the company did so.
	Now, Berenson was involved in a lawsuit with Twitter, which he won, where he was able to get a load of access as part of that to, I think it's a messaging app called Slack.
	Slack messages, where he was able to see the sorts of discussions that Twitter employees were having regarding him.
	And he goes on to explain in detail how these messages showed that the US government had been in touch with Twitter employees and made it very clear that because of Berenson's views, his questioning of the steps taken to combat COVID, shall we say, and the efficacy of certain things, meant shall we say, and the efficacy of certain things, meant that they couldn't have him on there.
	And they were asking very pointedly, why is he still on your platform?
	Why are you allowing to send him to send all of this information?
	And it shows that these companies have become just another branch of the state.
	In America, you're protected by the First Amendment, but this does not apply to private companies.
	Private companies, you know, you can be discriminatory over the sorts of content you want on your site.
	But it doesn't really apply when the government is actively strong-arming you into censoring certain people on your site.
	That shows that, especially when you're willingly going along with it, you've just become another branch of the government right now.
	And that is something that Elon Musk seemingly has been trying to repair.
	Trying to fix.
	After, obviously earlier this year, what he was talking about was potentially buying Twitter.
	There was a big thing about whether he was actually going to or not.
	And then he put the application forward to buy it, I think with $44 billion to get a majority stockholder, which was immediately met by resistance by Vanguard, I think it was, immediately trying to Outbuy him.
	Outbuy him on the amount of stocks that he earned before it just became an outright takeover bid.
	But that has changed recently.
	Again, it's been an ever-evolving situation.
	When he decided he didn't want to buy it anymore because he thought that Twitter was committing fraud by keeping information secret about the true extent of spam accounts on there, where the fake accounts were...
	A little bit suspicious to Elon, but now, due to court action, because Twitter was like, actually no, you do have to buy us, even though you don't want to anymore, and we might have to dob ourselves in for fraud through this action, Twitter is now needing to give Elon Musk documents from a former Twitter executive who said Musk was a key figure in calculating the amount of fake accounts on the platform according to a Monday court order.
	Bottom spam accounts on Twitter have become a central issue in the legal fight over whether Musk, who is Tesla's chief executive, must complete his $44 billion acquisition of the social media company.
	He accused them earlier this month of fraud from misrepresenting the number of real active users on its platform, which Twitter denied.
	The company has accused him of breaching his agreement to acquire the company and wants McCormick to order him to complete the deal at $54.20 a share.
	And I got this next bit from a separate article, so sorry if you can't find it in here.
	Musk could be on solid legal ground to pull off the deal if Twitter had attempted to defraud him during the takeover process.
	Lawyers for Twitter and Musk have issued a flurry of subpoenas to banks, investors, and attorneys involved in the deal as the two sides prepare for an October 17th trial in Wilmington.
	Twitter claims that Musk...
	...is using the concerns about spam bot accounts as an excuse to get out of the transaction, whereas he's saying they've failed to show the spam bot's account for fewer than 5% of its active users, as it is said in regulatory findings.
	And the interesting thing about this is one of the ways that it could be important that Twitter has so many spam users would be, what are those spam users doing?
	What are those fake accounts doing?
	They might be actively targeting people with the wronged opinions...
	For some ulterior motives, they could be used for any reason that could be very damaging to look at.
	But there is something I also wanted to point out here, which is that Elon Musk, despite being a free speech absolutist, does potentially, well no, not potentially, he does have some strange connections with China.
	Where he writes articles for the Chinese Censorship Bureau's magazine, which is China Cyberspace, and is very quick and eager to praise China for the sorts of things that they do as a country, including the state of their economy, which how he can have anything positive to say on the state of their economy, I don't understand.
	But he's also said that he wants to push for a brighter, cleaner future with all the green energy.
	And he said specifically Chinese companies will be a force to be reckoned with in the case of energy innovation.
	This could all be because he is trying very hard to maintain a good business relationship with China.
	He's a businessman.
	He's not a politician.
	He sells lots of Teslas over there.
	But at the same time, while I understand from a business perspective, I do think the eagerness to capitulate to China Could be a bit compromising for him, personally.
	But before I move on, I just wanted to point out as well, we do have at 3 o'clock, obviously this will be mainly for those who are watching live.
	If you're watching this on YouTube, you'll be able to find this on the website later once the video's gone out.
	At 3 o'clock, we'll be posting a video to the website where it's an interview with Jason Miller, the CEO of Getter, with Carl talking about Getter, talking about Twitter and talking about Elon's takeover.
	So if you're interested in that, check it out.
	But other than that, let's move on to the last segment, which I've titled Keep Them Out, because we need to keep them out, because there are record numbers of migrants coming in, both legally and illegally.
	And honestly, I don't think it's shown itself to do anything good for this country.
	It's had nothing but negative repercussions, as far as I'm concerned.
	But hey, at least I can get a nice curry on the weekend, eh?
	It's shown us how, again, how weak we are.
	You know, Russia's looking at us, China's looking at us, and saying to themselves, they can't even keep dinghies out of the channel.
	It's made us look so weak and so pathetic.
	It's not that we're not keeping dinghies out of the channel either, it's that we're ferrying them in.
	Yep.
	We're using, as Nigel Farage has said, and I'll quote this in a bit, that we're just using them as a big, expensive taxi service.
	Yep.
	That's what we're using the Royal Navy for at the moment.
	I don't understand why we're not pushing these people back.
	Because if one of these boats overturns and people die, politicians are scared stiff about what everyone's going to say.
	That's really why we're bringing them here, putting up in hotels.
	And nobody wants to see anybody die in the channel.
	I don't.
	But the answer should have been...
	Pushing them back to France, taking them back to shore.
	Upset the French.
	That's what we used to be good at.
	Exactly.
	Upset the French.
	If the French are blocking their access to their part of the channel and we can't do it, then we then have a big ship in the channel and we take them to that ship.
	The ship's there for a month.
	We fill the ship up and then we take them somewhere like the Ascension Island in the Atlantic.
	And we've got army bases there that are probably not used anymore.
	We store the people there.
	And then we give them a choice.
	You stay here forever or you tell us where you came from and we'll send you back.
	Sounds simple enough to me.
	It won't take long.
	It'll take one ship full going there and that happening to everybody else going.
	I'm not paying five grand to be taken to the Ascension Island in the middle of the Atlantic.
	I mean, that's what the whole Rwanda deal was supposed to be about, but then it was so useless.
	300 a year.
	That was what was going to...
	I think earlier on this year they were going to fly off 47 people, and then the European Court of Human Rights was like, no, you can't do that anyway.
	So, completely neutered, completely pathetic.
	And 300's not a decent number anyway.
	No, of course it isn't.
	All you'll do then is, you know, 30,000 are coming over a year, and you go, 30,000, 300 go to Rwanda.
	I like those odds.
	They're not bad odds at all.
	No, of course.
	And 30,000 coming over illegally is also looking to potentially be a bit of an underestimation as well as we carry on.
	But you should check out, for everybody watching, you should check out this recent video by Carl talking about the conservative paradox.
	I've not watched this one, but I mean, just for the sake of this magnificent thumbnail that Michael did here, I think you should watch that.
	But yeah, so the Channel migrants, the BBC have reported, have hit record numbers from Channel migrants for this point in the year, whereas over 20,000 have arrived in the UK just this year.
	Just this year.
	That's absolutely ridiculous.
	And this isn't even taking into account legal migration as well.
	These are just the people who we ferried over from the Royal Navy.
	It used to be the Border Patrol's job to do this, but now it's the Royal Navy's.
	They wanted to make sure that we didn't lose track of any migrant ships crossing the Channel, just to be sure that they don't get into the country unprocessed.
	What's the point of that?
	What's the point?
	We're just making it easy for them to get over here, a bit safer.
	I understand what you're saying about we don't want people, you know, drowning in the channel.
	We don't want them doing that.
	But at the end of the day, if we don't push them back, that's just an encouragement for more people to come over.
	Especially when they know we've got such a bloated welfare system that they can come over, get housed in a nice fancy hotel room, get all their benefits of everything provided for them.
	And then there's what?
	Like a 0.01 chance...
	That they'll get kicked out of the country.
	And even then, the European Court of Human Rights is liable to block it.
	Because no human is illegal, or some other pithy saying.
	This is a good example of how the UK cannot solve problems anymore.
	When was the last time the UK solved a problem?
	That's a good question, actually.
	I can't think of one in my lifetime.
	I know Labour supporters would probably say that we've solved the problem of too little immigration.
	You could argue that point.
	Blair supporters, perhaps, but I wouldn't have said that that was a problem in the first place.
	I mean, I grew up, I was born in 96, so all my life that I can remember, I've lived in this multicultural world, except where I'm from, around Cheshire, it's still very communal, still very insular, it's full of English people, except for a few Polish people, but, you know, not everything's perfect.
	LAUGHTER It's full of English people where I'm from, and there's a real greater sense of safety, even just safety on the streets.
	I remember going from living with my parents and crew, and then moving to Manchester for university.
	And I loved Manchester at the time when I was there, but even at the time when I was still a bit, you know, had the blinders onto it, it still feels a little unsafe for me in the streets.
	All cities have always been unsafe.
	Even before immigration.
	So cities have always been unsafe.
	If you look at the Manchester City News, go to their archives.
	I live just off Deansgate, which is a big road in Manchester City Centre.
	And you look at the archives for Deansgate.
	Deansgate was a no-go area for the police over 100 years ago.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah.
	So, you know, cities have always been dangerous.
	But getting back to that, so let's look at the problems in my lifetime.
	Failing NHS. Failing education.
	Illegal immigration.
	Not being able to assimilate and integrate legal migrants.
	Poor jobs.
	Poor paying jobs.
	People living and surviving on benefits and being trapped on all their lives and their children being trapped on benefits all their lives.
	Crime.
	Look at all the problems from when I was born in the 60s but probably raised in the 70s.
	We've got all the same problems now.
	None of these governments have fixed any of our problems because all they do is, all they're thinking about is the four, five year political cycle.
	What I'm going to do is whatever I can in the next four years so I look good, so I get elected again.
	None of these problems can be fixed in one cycle, one five year cycle.
	It has to be 20, 30 year plan.
	But politicians who start such a plan will never get the benefits of it and will never get elected because of it.
	So we have short termism.
	And the reason why we have that is because we've got career politicians who only want to be elected again.
	And what we're missing is states people, people who go, I'm going to do these things.
	And I don't care if you like it or not.
	And I don't care if I get voted out next election.
	I'm doing these things.
	Oh, this is going to improve the country.
	Instead of saying, here's an idea.
	Let's, let's leak this a daily mail.
	See what people think.
	Oh, no one likes it.
	Well, that goes in the bin.
	But if you like that idea and you think that idea was going to improve the country, you should have implemented that idea.
	And then if you lose your job over it, well, who cares?
	Because you improve the country.
	And that's why we just got constant problems that never get fixed.
	Well, yeah, I think personally that the problems built into the system as it stands right now, anyway, just because, like you say, we get five-year politicians.
	With an issue of national defence or something like that, or protecting the borders, You're right.
	We do need people who are unafraid to say, like, I don't care if you all vote me out.
	I'm going to do this and it will improve things.
	And, you know, if I'm proven right in retrospect, when you all realise, hold up, this has improved everything, fantastic.
	But you don't get people with spines like that anymore.
	You don't get people who care.
	And because of the fact we've got career politicians and other such people, then I don't see it changing.
	One of my favourite quotes from Margaret Thatcher is, she said, when I retire from politics, I'm going to open a business.
	It's going to be called Rent-A-Spine.
	Hmm.
	Yeah.
	But we can also take a look, not just at illegal immigration, but we can see the government summary of legal immigration as well, and this is up to March of 2022.
	And I'll just go through a few of these figures here, because they are ridiculous amounts of people coming into the country.
	Overall, obviously, you get people leaving the country as well, but that still leads to net immigration being in the hundreds of thousands of people.
	So there were 277,000 work-related visas granted in the year ending March 2022, 129% increase on the year ending March 2021.
	In the year ending March 2022, 466,000 sponsored study visas were granted to both main applicants and their dependents, a 58% increase from March 2020.
	And obviously, just to point out as well, there will be discrepancies in these numbers because 2020 and 2021, we still had some lockdown effects going on.
	But I wouldn't say that's an excuse for it to be going up so much.
	I don't think these numbers should be going up at all.
	If anything, even during lockdown, they should have been absolutely plummeting, and they should continue to plummet, as far as I'm concerned.
	Obviously, we can attract, you know, talented people from across the world if we need them.
	But I don't think immigration at these numbers is useful for the country.
	It's actively damaging to the country, not just in terms of infrastructure and the economy, but in terms of cultural cohesion as well.
	There were 301,000 visas and permits granted for family reasons in the year ending March 2022.
	90% more than the year ending March 2021.
	400,000 decisions on applications to extend people's stay in the UK, including including dependents in the year ending March 2022.
	57% more than a year earlier.
	So this is for the people who are already here on a limited visa getting it extended.
	Anyway, so they're not going anywhere.
	So they're still using the NHS. They're still using all of our infrastructure and services and probably not putting as much back into them.
	At the end of March 2022, there were 1,440 people in immigration detention, including those detained under immigration powers in prison, which was more than double at the end of June 2020.
	But 12% fewer than pre-pandemic levels at the end of December 2019.
	And in 2021, enforced returns from the UK decreased to 2,761.
	18% fewer than the previous year, and 62% fewer than in 2019.
	So every number is going up for people coming in, and every number is going down for people we're pushing out.
	This is not sustainable.
	It's not sustainable, but this feeds straight into what I said before, that our governments cannot solve problems.
	And the reason why we have this is because we have far too many British people on benefits who should be working.
	So therefore we've got shortages, staff shortages.
	So what do we do?
	A quick fix is immigration.
	So we know.
	I've got to a stage now where I'd like to see a 10-year ban on all immigration.
	And I mean all immigration.
	I wouldn't take any science whizzes who have got a doctorate and a Nobel Prize.
	No, no.
	I mean, all of it.
	Funny thing with that is if people are like, oh, we desperately need them over here.
	It's like, well, Zoom exists now.
	So do we?
	Do we really?
	And if we can...
	You couldn't do it overnight.
	You couldn't just wake up tomorrow and say, right, no more immigration.
	You'd have to say, right, in the next two years, We're going to phase it out.
	We're going to phase it out.
	And in two years' time, there'll be no immigration for the next 10 years.
	Businesses then know what to expect.
	We then need training programs for the people who are on benefits.
	We need to raise their skills and their aspirations.
	These are British people we allow to sit on benefits and just have an awful life.
	We've got disabled people sat on benefits all their lives who may be disabled.
	It doesn't mean they can't work.
	It doesn't mean they can't contribute to society.
	It might mean the person with two broken legs can't be a roofer.
	But it doesn't mean he can't work in a shop or can't be a programmer.
	So we just put people on benefits and just dump them there because it's easy for the government because we can lie on cheap foreign labour.
	But then we also have to look at the damage this does to other countries.
	So what we do is...
	We get the brain drain from the other countries, don't we?
	We suck out...
	Anybody with an aspiration, where they get up and go, with money, with an education, and we suck them out of the poor countries, and we leave behind the poor and the stupid, and we wonder why these third world countries can't make it on their own, why we're having to send them money every year to keep them going.
	It's because this is a type of slavery, it's a type of colonialism.
	We're reaping their people, and it's just a nice way of raiding the coast and stealing people.
	That's all we're doing.
	And then people will say, oh, but they bring so much to the country, which is debatable.
	But a lot of the money they earn in this country is then sent home.
	And I understand why it's sent home, because their families are poor, and of course they want that money.
	And that's why they've come here.
	I get that.
	But then the UK gets no benefit then.
	It's something like, I think it's 8 billion a year is sent out of the UK. So that's a big issue for the UK. There's a drain of money that could be spent here, then creates new businesses and new jobs.
	And it's unfair.
	I think it's unfair for the immigrants as well because We advertise them as this is a panacea for them.
	Come here, sneak in here, you'll do well.
	They don't do well, most of them, because they haven't got an education, and they get exploited by other migrants, and they're not with their families.
	It's a bad life for them.
	It's a type of modern slavery, and that's why I think we need to say 10 years, no more immigration.
	One of the arguments will be, Who's going to look after our old people?
	Well, all these immigrants will get old, so who's going to look after them?
	It's that thing again.
	And then we're also being told...
	Doesn't that say it all when it's just like, family?
	Family, this is how disconnected people are from the old-fashioned ideas of familial ties and loyalty.
	Oh, who's going to look after the old people?
	You should.
	You should.
	You should look after your parents when they get to...
	Too old to look after themselves.
	You shouldn't just be sending them off to some housing or some kind of retirement home where foreigners will look after them.
	They looked after you when you were in nappies, so you should repay the favour.
	Another thing is, who's going to do all the crap jobs?
	And my answer is, you think immigrants?
	All they can do is crap jobs.
	That's an argument I've been hearing since high school.
	Yeah, it's not...
	The reason why British people won't do the crap jobs is because they pay too little.
	The reason why they pay too little is because we have far too much immigration and those people will work for less than British people because they're on benefits.
	If those crap jobs started paying more and more and more, British people on benefits will go I'll earn 50% more money a week if I work.
	So they'll get a job and they'll work.
	And all of us will have to pay a little bit more in the shops and we'll all have to pay for this.
	But I don't mind paying a bit more if it improves the lives of my fellow citizens.
	And the final point on this, what people keep telling us is AI is coming.
	And once AI comes, there'll be no more jobs.
	I've been saying that kind of automation talk for years.
	But if that's true, why are we importing all these people?
	Because there's going to be no jobs soon.
	All the taxis are going to be automated and this will be automated.
	They've got machines now that make pizzas.
	You type in what you want at a shop.
	And there's no staff in there.
	And it goes to the oven, things drop on.
	So everything can be automated.
	But if AI is coming, and AI is coming, it's not going to change the world like people think it's going to.
	But a lot of jobs will go.
	So we need to stop importing people.
	You are right.
	That argument of if everything's going to be automated, it doesn't really matter in the end anyway.
	Well, if global automisation is coming, why are we having all these immigrants come over here to just sit around and have everything automated that they could back home?
	It's certainly not for the climate, is it?
	The answer is, it's better here than there.
	But there's never going to get any better when their stars and their talent all leave and abandon their own country and their own family and their own people.
	Those countries will never get any better.
	We need to say to them, you need to improve your own country, just like our ancestors improved the UK. We had a civil war here.
	We live in poverty.
	We've had to make those challenges and those changes ourselves, and some of these other countries need to go through that.
	I want them countries to be better.
	We can't leave them as failed states and just steal their talent, because they'll always be failed states.
	Yeah, and with all of this that's going on, there are people like Tony Abbott as well from Australia talking about how we need to just say the way is closed.
	Now, Over the past two years, because of all the COVID lockdowns and such, we've been very critical of Australia and their approaches to tackling things.
	But on the subject of immigration, I don't see any reason to not listen to what they're saying when they were able to stop all of the illegal immigration coming over from Indonesia over there, where he says the serious countries do not allow themselves to be taken advantage of.
	And he was speaking to Nigel Farage on GB News, and he says, does...
	Question that we're asking.
	Does the British Conservative Party have the muscle to do this?
	Is the question that Farage asked, to which Abbott replied, in the end, and I'm talking about Australia, you've got to have the will to do it.
	And the problem was the previous government didn't have the will to do it.
	And I remember going into a very early meeting of very senior officials with heavy responsibilities in this area, and I was told that we might risk serious conflict with Indonesia.
	To which I said, so be it.
	If boats were coming from Australia to Indonesia, do we think for a second that the Indonesians would hesitate in taking the strongest possible action and stopping those boats?
	Serious countries don't allow themselves to be taken advantage of by criminal gangs who are smuggling people in for all sorts of purposes, as well as people who just want a better life.
	One way or another, the British government has to say that the way is closed, and I think the Rwanda deal was a big step in the right direction, and it's a real pity that the legal work had not been done to avoid the jurisdiction of the European court.
	I agree with most of what he's got to say, apart from that little bit at the end, because I think even without the jurisdiction of the European court, our politicians don't have the willpower.
	They don't have the spines to be able to do what needs to be done there.
	The Rwanda deal...
	My two-and-a-half-year-old granddaughter could have said, what about the European Court of Human Rights?
	And when they announced it, I thought, do you know what?
	They've finally got a backbone.
	They're going to take this fight to the European Court of Human Rights, and this is what they're going to do.
	I thought, they've looked into this.
	It's so obvious they've locked into this.
	They've got an answer to this.
	European court won't be a problem.
	And then, I know, that's how I felt.
	I'm sorry.
	And that's how I felt.
	It was like, you're kidding me.
	You've allowed the court to stop the flight.
	And that should have been the top of your list, as in, what are the problems for this scheme?
	And you've not even solved that one problem because they're incapable of solving anything.
	The whole establishment I mean, the agreement in the first place, if you read it, there was a paragraph in there, I forget which section it was, that was basically saying that, yes, we'll also agree to take in Rwandan nationals as part of the agreement.
	So it was basically a trade.
	So the agreement was neutered in the first place.
	And then, you know, it's just no surprise that we didn't have the political will to be able to actually push it ahead anyway.
	If Boris Johnson wanted to keep his position as Prime Minister, he should have picked a fight for the European Court of Human Rights.
	He then would have been...
	He then would have had the rebellion he had.
	No, he would have been lauded by the public.
	He'd been lauded and taking on...
	He could have done his Churchill speech.
	You know, I'm taking them on, European courts, da-da-da-da-da-da-da.
	And he would have been...
	He'd have come across as formidable, but they're just all weak and pathetic.
	Oh, the European...
	What are they going to do?
	Take you to The Hague and then send you to Helena, island of Helena, where they sent Napoleon.
	No.
	We'll spend 20 years in court.
	No, it's not your money.
	It's our taxpayers' money.
	I'd rather see you spend it in courts than what you're spending it on now.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Housing migrants.
	And then just pull out of the court.
	Pull out and say we're not part of it anymore now.
	Not going to happen though, sadly, right now.
	We don't need a court of human rights in this country because you know what?
	We don't have an issue with human rights and we haven't for a very, very long time.
	Churchill helped design the European Court of Human Rights for the Europeans because they're the ones who keep killing each other and keep killing their own citizens and concentration camps.
	So he designed it for them to keep them under control.
	We've never needed it.
	We're a sensible people.
	Absolutely, we are.
	But following on from all that, the Royal Navy, which I mentioned earlier, was supposedly saying that they were going to relinquish their role in managing the migrant boat crisis in the English Channel, which has not been managed at all, as far as I can tell.
	The numbers have gone up since the Royal Navy was put in charge over the Border Patrol, so completely useless, completely ineffectual.
	Just an expensive taxi service, as Nigel Farage stated.
	But then Liz Truss went out and said in the Daily Mail that she will vow that military will not pull out of tackling dinghy crossings if she becomes the Tory leader, which, once again, is just another ineffectual statement to make, because they're not dealing with it.
	They're not tackling it.
	They're not solving it.
	They are just ferrying these people across so that they can be processed and then stay here indefinitely, which is what happens.
	Just like the Rishi quote before, I'd have taken it seriously if an extra line was put on that and she said, and if our admiral or whoever runs it all doesn't solve this, he will be sacked.
	That was the line that's missing from that.
	Once again, not going to happen, though, because these people have jelly for spines.
	And the only other thing that I wanted to mention was Ben Habib, former member of the Brexit Party, or current, I think, talking about how the Navy and Border Force should be physically repelling these people.
	As opposed to the person who was debating against, Mary Ann Okota, saying that we have a duty of the citizens.
	I would play that, but I think it's unnecessary at this point.
	We've covered pretty much everything.
	But at the end of the day, what we really need to do is keep these people out.
	Just completely phase out visas, completely phase out allowing people to emigrate over to this country for 10 years.
	As you were saying, sounds like a good first step.
	And in those 10 years, that's when we start fixing some of our social problems.
	We integrate the legal migrants who are already here.
	We start building up a better community spirit.
	We start integrating.
	We start simulating.
	And give us some time to do that because many of the people who are here will be here to stay.
	And many have been born here.
	But we need to fix the problems we've got.
	We need to make sure we all see ourselves as English or British.
	And we're not going to do that when more and more and more just constantly come.
	Sadly, very true.
	And with that, I think we should move on to the written comments on the website.
	The first one here is from Andrew Narog, who's responding to the discussion that Nick and I had about China, and he says, Sorry to say, Harry, but I think I agree with our guest here on both China and the likely reaction of leftist teachers.
	Desperation is a strong driving force, and I think it's prudent not to underestimate it.
	Well, with the whole leftist teachers thing, I don't think I'm underestimating what they're saying.
	I'm just thinking that they will still try and put up a face like, oh, it's actually a good thing that I've been fired.
	No, I absolutely agree.
	On the inside, they'll think it's completely unfair, although they might fight back.
	If they think they can sue, they'll fight back.
	America is a society that likes litigation.
	That's true, but you've got parents who are basically offering up their kids as sacrificial lambs to the transgender cause of ideology and getting them to do all sorts of ridiculous, irreversible things to their bodies, purely for the sake of social points.
	So I don't think underestimate how far people will go.
	Let me counter that.
	Travestock Centre is now being closed down.
	You know the Travestock Centre?
	Of course, yes.
	We now have up to a thousand parents now lining up to sue them.
	Oh yeah, that's good.
	Why?
	Because...
	There's money here now.
	So, none of them were complaining about their children before, and most of them will probably agree with the surgery, but now they're going, cha-ching!
	And now it's like, well, I agreed with it, but I believe now they didn't talk me round enough with my child, or they didn't do, I'm going to sue them.
	Oh, complete opportunists.
	Vultures.
	You're right.
	And that's a human trait.
	But that's only come about once it's become politically viable to do that sort of thing.
	That's because, just like the teachers, once they get sacked, and those ambulance-chasing lawyers are all going down going, we can sue...
	They'll all be going, hello...
	Well, potentially.
	I guess we'll see.
	We'll see.
	We'll see when it's put into practice.
	But moving on to the next one, Clown World General Hai Ping of the Chinese Internet Battalion says, Britain has this persistent issue with willfully accepting people who despise the country to be allowed in with open arms, whilst groups like the Gurkhas, who will literally fight and die for us, are brushed aside.
	Yeah, I'm not that familiar on the Gurkhas, but I know Callum's spoken about them a few times and spoken to someone who runs...
	Charity involved in getting them over here, I think.
	And they do sound far more amenable to British culture and British values than most of the people that we're importing in.
	They are, but I'd also ban the Gurkhas.
	The Gurkhas are paid mercenaries.
	We pay them to do a job for us.
	But just because someone pays you to fit a boiler in their house, I don't give you any right to go then move into that house because you fitted the boiler.
	Of course.
	So the Gurkhas get paid for a job and they're very good and they're excellent fighters.
	I've been to Nepal.
	I've been to Kathmandu.
	But yeah, the Gurkhas paid mercenaries to do a job.
	Fair point.
	I was just wondering as well, when you were talking earlier about, you know, people being on benefits in the UK and getting them into jobs programs, being the head of a charity, have you been involved in those sorts of programs before?
	I have.
	I'm not involved with the Travici anymore.
	Oh, you're not?
	No, I left.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I've got homeless people jobs.
	I've got drug dealers jobs.
	I've got drug users jobs.
	I've sat with rough sleepers on the streets working out what's the best job for them.
	We've got them jobs cleaning on building sites.
	I've got lots of people jobs.
	Fair play.
	And how do you find that it helps to be encouraging and help them to get jobs rather than just allow them to wallow?
	It can take months, it can take weeks of working with them.
	They've got to want it.
	You can't talk them into it and you can't force them because they may go along with it, but all falls apart because they never wanted it.
	The first thing we always did was make them prove to us they actually want it, they want the chance.
	But if they don't, it just means they're not ready yet.
	We'll keep on working with them until they are ready.
	Because when you're working with these people, a lot of them will do anything to make you think that they're on your side.
	And some of it will be like, yeah, I want a job, but really don't want a job.
	But when we get them jobs, the first thing you notice is increasing self-confidence and self-respect.
	And the best thing you ever see with any of them is when they get paid for the first time.
	So the first thing is the smile on the face, and then we actually explain the pay slip.
	And the second question is, what's all this tax?
	Why am I paying tax?
	And the answer is, remember all those years you got benefits and your house paid for and all your mates who don't work.
	Now you're paying for them.
	Yes.
	And none of them like it.
	Oh, I bet they don't.
	Yeah.
	And none of them are like, oh, that's not fair.
	Well, that's the system.
	And the next thing, especially with homeless people, the next thing, which I always surprised the first time, a couple of times surprised me, was once I've got a job and the first pay packet, the first thing after that they say is, going shopping for food.
	Because I've spent that long eating what people give me.
	I'm going to buy the food I like and I'm going to pick it.
	And you can see the change in him.
	Yeah, I'd not even considered that that would be a part of it, but that's actually quite sweet, almost.
	I imagine all of that was very rewarding.
	It's because you feel suddenly you're human.
	The only things we give feed to are animals.
	You don't ask a rabbit what he wants to eat today.
	And that's what we do with rough sleepers and homeless.
	It's like, we don't ask you what you want.
	It's like, here you go.
	And basically, you're lucky you're getting anything.
	So we treat them like animals.
	So when they get paid, it's like, no, there's certain things I like, and I'm going to buy them.
	Like you say, they finally regain a bit of their humanity.
	That must have been very rewarding work.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that sounds excellent.
	But carrying on just for a few more minutes while we've got the comments.
	Somebody says, Sophie Liv Peterson says, Well, honestly, this entire feminist woke model is just unsustainable.
	It can only go for as long as there is someone willing to work hard to keep all the rest up.
	But when those people are gone, the entire thing is going to collapse.
	Though the second it collapses, I guarantee all the gender roles will return in a snap.
	All of this feminist woke stuff is pure luxury of society in decadence.
	As soon as the decadence is gone, when there is a real emergency, it's all just going to revert in an instant.
	Yeah, another quote from Thatcher.
	I can't remember this one word for it.
	It was something like, socialism is great until they run out of other people's money.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	I've seen that one before.
	That's a good quote.
	Colin P says, get rid of those from an overrepresented communities first.
	A few years later, we have 35% white pupils and no white teachers.
	We must only recruit white teachers.
	No, that's not going to happen.
	You know that's not going to happen.
	These standards are not applied evenly.
	If it's a...
	Underrepresented group being favoured, it's only because those, as far as I'm concerned, it's only because those in the elite positions of power see benefits to be taken from supporting those groups.
	Whether that be votes, whether that be donation money, whether that just be sort of a cultural air of power that they get to exert.
	It will never come back on British people, because British people are, you know, if put to our full potential, a threat against the powers that be, as they stand right now.
	Like you say, the strong Englishmen It will come back.
	It's just a pendulum, and the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way.
	It's going to take a few decades, but it will come back.
	I can only hope that it'll be in my lifetime, to be honest.
	And hopefully it'll be through the sorts of work that we do here as well.
	Freewill2112 says, buy books, DVD, or Blu-ray off eBay.
	This is regarding the Elon Musk Twitter segment.
	The only way that they can deprive you of your films is if you institute a digital Nazi-style purge of books and films.
	That's true.
	With films and TV that I really like that I don't want to be censored, obviously you've got to buy physical copies of it.
	You cannot trust streaming services to retain the sanctity of any of these things.
	That's why I've got a nice DVD box set of Blackadder.
	No one's going to sneak into my house and just edit all of the nasty parts out of it or put a warning in.
	Unless it becomes illegal and then someone glasses you up that you've got...
	Well, in that case, I'm...
	You've got Savies 2 of Blackadder.
	Ooh, dear.
	Don't you know there's an episode in that where a girl pretends to be a man but then turns out to be a girl?
	Ooh, can't be having that.
	And Blackadder forces her on the floor and dominates her.
	Oh, he does as well.
	Ooh, can't be having that nowadays.
	Bloody hell.
	Anyway, I think that's all the time we've got for now.
	Do you want to just remind everybody before we're done?
	Yep, follow me on all social media.
	My sub stack is...
	Yeah, just Google sub stack Nick Buckley MBE. Sign up to my YouTube channel.
	Lots of stuff going on there now almost every day.
	And get in contact if you want to.
	Alright, so check Nick out if you're interested.
	Thank you so much for tuning in.
	We'll be back again tomorrow at 1 o'clock British Summertime.

▲