Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 13, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:32:58

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #501

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello and welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters.
	This is episode 501 on the 13th of October 2022.
	I'm your host Harry and today we're joined by a special guest, Nick Buckley.
	Hello.
	And we're going to be going over a few stories including the fact that the charity Mermaids is in big trouble.
	Thank goodness.
	We're going to be going over Nick's solutions for crime and punishment in the UK, which I'm very interested to hear.
	And then we're going to be going over how red love is no love at all.
	Before we get into those, I'll just make an announcement that we are, of course, as part of our two year anniversary that we're going through right now, releasing a free premium piece of content Every single day for just one week so that you guys who haven't signed up yet know what you're missing out on.
	And the one that we're doing today that's going to be up for one week for free is a premium podcast I did with Thomas all the way back in April called What Are Leftists Teaching Our Kids?
	And I think this was a really good one because we went over a public school curriculum based in Seattle, Washington.
	That was just basic pure indoctrination and we were going through that critiquing it and it's very important to know exactly what it is that schools are teaching your children because it will have a massively important effect on their brains while they're forming to be fed all this stuff so check that out if you're interested and before we go any further again Nick is there anything you'd like to announce to the audience that you're doing at the moment?
	Yep, I've just started a new podcast, so I think we're seven episodes in.
	It's called Nick Talks.
	It's on all the platforms, YouTube, Spotify, all those places.
	Check it out, sign up, it's for free, and I hope you enjoy it.
	Excellent.
	Well, with all that out of the way, let's get into the news.
	So, Mermaids is in big trouble.
	For those of you not aware, perhaps you're over in America, Mermaids is a UK-based charity that says that what they do is support trans and queer young children.
	As if there is such a thing.
	And they try and get them the appropriate help they need, which of course means gender affirmation care.
	Basically get them in touch with the kind of doctors that are going to prescribe them with hormones as quickly as possible.
	Not something that I would say is particularly positive.
	For humanity, as it stands right now.
	But, before I get more into that, we do always have excellent premium content coming out on our website, Lotus Eaters, every single day that you should check out.
	And some of it isn't always related to politics and social issues, etc.
	Sometimes we have some more fun stuff, like Carl's continuing quest for Bigfoot, and his continuing quest...
	To convince Callum that Bigfoot is real, including this one, the most recent one, Bigfoot Part 2, where they're going over historical accounts of people supposedly seeing Bigfoot in the wild.
	So if you're interested in that kind of content, along with everything else we do, go out and check that out on the website.
	Anyway.
	Let's carry on.
	So, something I wanted to point to before we get into the main meat of this story is this recent event that happened on Twitter, I would say, and I believe that at the moment you're not on Twitter because you've been taken off, if you don't mind me saying.
	I've been kicked off.
	Yes, you've been kicked off for the sad atrocity of referring to a woman as a whore, or possibly calling someone white thrash, but it's Twitter, so I think...
	It was...
	Yeah, and they weren't directed at an individual per se.
	It was a comment on my own tweet about a story in the Daily Mail.
	So as a white man who grew up in poverty, I'm allowed to use the term white trash because that's where I grew up.
	I don't care about anybody using the term white trash.
	And the woman who steals another woman's husband and that family tuck her in to protect her and then she steals husband, to me, is a whore.
	I think your judgement is pretty fair there.
	But it's Twitter, what can you do?
	Yeah, Twitter disagreed, although I think Elon's in the middle of actually buying them now, finally, maybe, although Twitter themselves seems, as far as I'm aware, might be suing, so who knows what's going on with that.
	So if people want to find me now, I'm on Getter.
	Well, follow Nick on Ketter.
	But one of the things that happened was this person, Casey Miller, who is a trans man, just posted this tweet out saying, just for some perspective, this is what almost five years of hormones does to a teenage girl.
	Remember, I'm 21.
	As far as I can tell from having watched this little video, and you can find the link down in the description below.
	But from what I've seen, it's literally just this guy saying, well...
	I had a haircut.
	Here's my hairline right now.
	Five years ago, I was a teenage girl, and I went on testosterone, and this is what it's done to me.
	Nothing really saying you shouldn't do this.
	Nothing coming out and trying to be sensationalist about it.
	Literally just saying, this is the effects.
	As far as I'm concerned...
	Pretty, you know, fair thing to point out, because this isn't the sort of thing that I've seen anybody within the online trans community point out could be a side effect.
	But then, of course, you get the endless kindness and solidarity of the online trans community coming out with people like ContraPoints.
	Natalie Wynn, are you familiar with this person?
	No.
	Well, I'm envious of you.
	She is a trans YouTuber, barely fits that description anymore because I think she posts like one video a year nowadays, coming out saying this is what five years of testosterone does to anyone with genetics for male pattern balding.
	Should we put cis boys on puberty blockers until they're old enough to decide?
	I don't get what this kind of comment adds to the conversation other than just mean-spirited dunking on this Casey person who came out and made this original.
	What seems to have happened is, and we'll see this through a lot of the tweets I'm going to point to in a moment, is that people have seen any sort of referral to the reality of what happens when you go through these kinds of hormone procedures and trans surgeries, any sort of referral to the reality of that is threatening because they recognize that the reality isn't quite as sexy as what they're any sort of referral to the reality of that is threatening because they recognize that the
	Contrapoints, for instance, always portrays herself in these seductive, revealing outfits, in these low lights with pink and purple behind her.
	But the reality for most people is not going to be that you'll become this new wave internet icon.
	You're just going to be another person who ends up looking like this and maybe all of the problems in your life won't be solved.
	So they just see that and they just go, oh well that's a threat to what we're selling, as far as I'm concerned.
	I've spent two decades working with people like this, not trans people, but people who are actively damaging their own lives and then create their own narrative and their own lies and their own story about why it's great, what they're doing for them.
	So if you're looking at people who are rough sleeping and homeless, Living in a street corner, in a box, and I'll walk up to them, sit down, chat to them, and they'll say to us, I've chosen this life.
	I like this.
	I want to live outside.
	I want to do this.
	And you look in their eyes and all you can see is death.
	And you speak to them and you know they're lying to themselves and to you.
	And over several months of working with them, they actually then admit it, that I'm dying.
	I don't want to be here.
	But it's the masks we all wear and it's the masks they wear to get through the day.
	And to stop people asking them questions and to dig.
	So if I can say I'm happy and I'm wonderful and my life's fantastic, you'll stop asking me questions about it.
	That's absolutely what it is.
	Interestingly enough, relating to that, I'm reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt at the moment.
	Are you aware of it?
	Yeah.
	It's one of those ones I should have read ages ago.
	It's a fantastic book so far.
	But he's talking in that section I'm just reading about confirmation bias and how people's reasoning skills didn't develop so that we could find an easier path to truth.
	They just...
	Mm-hmm.
	Aren't they, sadly?
	And that's what I see this as, especially from someone like ContraPoints, who's been accused by many people of encouraging this kind of behaviour and this kind of transitioning kids, which is obviously very damaging for a lot of people.
	But you immediately go on the defensive.
	The only thing that these people throw out is, well, it's your fault.
	Everybody would have told you the real risks of it, so it's your fault.
	It's not my fault for making this seem like a glamorous and sexy lifestyle.
	It's everybody else's fault for just falling for it.
	Dunk on you when the consequences come back around.
	She has a point.
	I mean, she's also part of the problem, but she also has a point.
	I don't want to go down the path of people who are detransitioning or sorry they've transitioned.
	And I don't want to go down the path where we say to them, you've just been a victim because, do you know what?
	Unless you were the child when it happened, you weren't a victim.
	You wanted this.
	You convinced people you wanted it.
	So even though we can help them now...
	We still need to say to them, but this is personal responsibility.
	Yeah, we do need to emphasise a personal responsibility, but I also think it's important to remember this Casey Miller person says they're 21 right now, five years, so five years ago, 16-year-old teenage girl, which is not somebody I would say is in any position to make these kinds of decisions about.
	18.
	You're an adult at 18.
	Yeah, and even then, making such long-lasting, life-changing decisions is still a bit of a stretch, even for me.
	Yeah.
	But let's carry on and see some of the other outpouring of care that we've seen from the online trans community.
	So this is another person trying to sell themselves as this sexy, glamorous lifestyle.
	This is what testosterone does to a teenage girl.
	Makes her much cooler and smarter and sexier.
	Remember, I'm 21.
	Okay, so this is just another epic dunk, and you're looking absolutely ridiculous.
	This isn't the kind of lifestyle that I would wish on anybody, but okay, you're just trying to sell people an aesthetic.
	If we move on again...
	Just damaged people.
	That's all this is, is damaged people.
	Very damaged people, sadly.
	And this person just completely mischaracterises the original post.
	I regret a decision that I made with my body, therefore nobody else should have the freedom to make that decision, is the mindset that needs to die in a fire, utter authoritarian paternalistic nonsense.
	Once again, the original post seemed to just be like, well, here's the reality of what can happen.
	Didn't seem to be directed at trying to threaten anybody or tell them they can't do things, but that's how they've interpreted it, because they take it as a threat to their own sense of self-identity.
	And then we go, another person who's just making fun took testosterone and looked like George Costanza.
	Clearly this is everyone else's fault.
	Kind of funny.
	Not going to lie, the George Costanza thing.
	But still, not exactly the kind of solidarity that you expect from a community that advertises itself as being quite caring.
	You don't get solidarity when you change your mind and you sound like you're going against it.
	Then you're the enemy.
	Yeah, of course.
	It's just complete friend-enemy distinction.
	And then this last one, which I think is very telling of more than anything else.
	I also started hormones as a teenager.
	Eight years later, I'm a full-grown man with a full head of hair.
	Sorry, bald with a little wave.
	Which is, you can say that you're a full-grown man with a head of hair.
	And to be honest, this person obviously passes quite well.
	If I walk past this person...
	Walks like a man.
	Yeah, if I walked past this person in the street, I wouldn't guess they're trans.
	But still, acting like a petty teenage girl, if I'm completely honest.
	This kind of reputation, destruction, these petty comments are not masculine behaviour.
	I would argue that the majority of behaviour people take place in online is very petty teenage girl, very feminine behaviour.
	So once again, you can change the outfit, but you can't change your soul, in a sense, I suppose.
	A decent comment from this man would have been...
	I'm sorry it's not worked out for you, but it's worked out for me and my life's a lot better.
	I hope you find peace in the next decisions you make.
	That would be an acceptable tweet.
	Absolutely.
	You're not agreeing with that person that it's all wrong because it happened and it went well for you, but you're sorry it's not worked out for that person.
	They're the tweets we should be sending.
	Absolutely.
	That's actually a very nice thought, and it is a shame that a community that's Advertises itself as so inclusive and caring.
	The second somebody has basically blasphemed against their rituals and scriptures, you could say, they're more than willing to excommunicate, more than willing to mock and ridicule, because like you say, these people are people who need help, for the most part.
	So the fact that they don't offer each other help is quite sad.
	But that's just a reminder of what the online trans community is like, and just on to more important matters, such as Eddie Izzard sadly coming out as a politician.
	Which nobody was looking for, nobody was asking for, and advertising himself as, I'm for Sheffield, for Labour, I'm putting forward the ideas of fairness and equality, which are not, as Connor pointed out in a quote tweet that he put out, which are not two values that can live side by side with one another.
	If you want equality, you, by definition, cannot go for fairness, because equality, raising everybody up to the same level and keeping there, will necessitate a certain level of unfairness, whether that be in Hiring practices, the way that you treat certain people, it's completely unfair.
	So obviously that's just nonsense straight away.
	But an interesting thing at the end of this is he goes, oh, also, by the way, I happen to be trans.
	Because he knows, beyond what he's selling these people as in terms of policy, he knows that what he's selling them is an image.
	Labour voters of Sheffield, you can vote for me to show what an incredibly progressive and diverse and forward-thinking people you truly are, which doesn't add any value.
	Or he could be saying to people, and I'm trans, and I dare you to vote against me.
	Yeah, that could always be that.
	I dare you.
	Now, is Sheffield Central an all-female shortlist?
	Yes, it was.
	Is it still?
	Because I hope it is.
	Because if it is, he's done an amazing piece of work for us.
	Because he's now demolished a female-only shortlist for Labour.
	It's now not female-only because...
	Men.
	So, even though I'm against female on the shortlist, and he's destroyed it for everybody.
	So, thank you.
	Thank you, Eddie.
	Eddie Izzard, thank you for the public service that you've so obviously done.
	People don't understand what you're doing, Eddie.
	I understand you're trying to bring it all down from within, so...
	Good on you.
	Azard accelerationist confirmed.
	But anyway, let's talk about mermaids now that I've gone over all of that.
	As I mentioned at the beginning, they're a charity, supposed charity, who try and arrange affirmative gender health care for young children, and there has been a lot of scrutiny put their way recently as...
	A number of controversies have come out, which are, honestly, if you know anything about the online trans community and how it ends up manifesting in the real world, are quite unsurprising, sadly.
	The NHS doctor and trustee of controversial mermaid charities sparks fresh trans row after describing biological sex as a concept.
	This is just the tip of the iceberg.
	People, sadly, are quite accepting of this mindset, although people do push back, thankfully.
	So the NHS paediatrician and trustee of trans children's charity Mermaids has said biological sex is a concept and not as simple as it's made out to be.
	Dr Katie McDowell, who works at King's College Hospital in South London, complained that everybody is always obsessed with genitals when defining sex, which is the most disingenuous way of framing the argument, as far as I'm concerned.
	You can talk about many different things relating to biology.
	The genitals are only a very, very small...
	Element of that whole discussion.
	But whenever you do bring things up, you get these kinds of people just saying, oh, you're just obsessed with people's genitals.
	No, I'm not.
	I don't care.
	If you castrate a man, me and veg, completely castrate him.
	He hasn't got any genitals left.
	Is he a man or is he a woman?
	Well, you test his DNA and it comes back.
	Male, he's a man.
	Yeah, there'll also be all sorts related to bone structure, the way that your pelvis is...
	Strength, fitness, lung capacity, the brains are different.
	I think male brains have more grey matter, women's brain have more white matter.
	Yeah.
	I forget what it was.
	I was reading Charles Murray's book last year on human diversity.
	He was discussing how men and women, even if they can use similar tools in their brains to come to the same conclusions, the way that men and women use those tools that you're naturally equipped with is just completely different from one another.
	Women have a much more sensitive limbic system.
	They're much more sensitive to emotion.
	There's all sorts of things outside of the whole genitals argument.
	Men can open jam jars easier.
	We can.
	We can reach things on high shelves.
	We have many advantages.
	But they carry on.
	The Medica also accused the UK's very active gender-critical movement, those who maintain that biological sex cannot be changed, of being very, very anti-trans and spearheading the horrendous attacks on trans human rights.
	So they're just another charity that's designed to promote fear, promote divide within the public so that they can win your kids over by scaring them.
	This sounds like half the charities in the UK at the moment.
	Yeah, sadly it does.
	So this is not something that we're finding unusual.
	And once again, for those of you who aren't tuning into this live and are checking out on YouTube, you can find out exactly how much this is being pushed on children if you check out a premium podcast that I did recently called What Exactly Are Leftists Teaching Our Kids?
	This is part of our two-year anniversary special that we're doing, where every day for a few weeks...
	We're releasing an older piece of premium content for free for a week for people who haven't subscribed to the website so you can see what it is that you're missing and maybe think about signing up for some more.
	And this is my piece of content that I did all the way back in April with Thomas where we looked at a curriculum that was being put forward in Seattle schools in Washington in the US where they were just indoctrinating children.
	And I think it's important to know exactly how it is that they're approaching this in the way that they're trying to Frame this and promote it to your children so that you can know how to fight back against it.
	So please check that one out.
	But, carrying on again, so one of the most recent things that came out about mermaids was this freak.
	Have you seen this freak?
	I'm sad to say that I've seen far more of this freak than I ever really wanted to because there are some very disturbing photos floating around on Twitter.
	So if you're watching this, please be careful the next time you're scrolling through Twitter because It might get a little bit disturbing.
	So this trans charity worker who worked for Mermaid posed as a schoolgirl in explicit pictures.
	So this person has a schoolgirl fetish, is not the sort of person I want interacting with young children, young vulnerable children, who might be in need of safeguarding.
	I do not trust somebody who looks and dresses like this.
	To safeguard children.
	But I'll carry on.
	So parents of children who have used the transgender youth charity Mermaids have complained to the watchdog after a worker posted explicit images and sexualized pictures as a schoolgirl online.
	Darren Mew, digital engagement officer at the children's charity, who identifies as they them, posted an image of himself on Instagram with an upwards view through his short skirt with the words, Sorry I can't hear you.
	I'm just out here living my fantasy.
	So...
	Just openly admitting, this is my fantasy, this is a fetish, this is why I'm doing it.
	Also, please clap.
	Back in the day, people weren't clapping for people's fantasies and fetishes being displayed and exhibited publicly, except if you were going into some kind of seedy club.
	But now people are working for children's charities, posting this publicly, expecting for this to be, you know, just A-OK. Very disturbing behaviour.
	He was also featured in a collage of six pictures of himself naked, holding his...
	You know what?
	From the rear, with pairs of breasts with penises protruding from them for a shot for House magazine, an LGBT publication.
	And you wonder why people question the larger LGBT community.
	Sadly, I'm sure there are many plenty of normal people within that community.
	My own uncle is gay.
	Not everybody is like this, but it seems that the mainstream prevailing culture regarding it...
	Pretty freakish.
	More and more gay men and lesbians are turning against the community now and are calling it out.
	And good for them.
	They have to, because when this implodes and this will implode, it will be gay men who take all the flack because all these queer people will just disappear back into normal society.
	Gay men will take the beatings and take the assaults and take the abuses.
	Yeah, I mean, this is why you get organisations like Gays Against Groomers and the LGB Alliance, which are all doing good work.
	Yeah, they can see what's coming because the average person or the average huddling, you know, with an asbo and a baseball bat, all he sees is LGBT. All he sees is gay men.
	That's all they are.
	They're just different types of gay men.
	So more gay men need to speak up about this because they'll be the ones who suffer the most when this implodes.
	And also, I just think we all have a moral duty to protect children, so those people coming out and trying to do their best to protect children, I've got that back, as far as I'm concerned.
	But it continues by saying that Mew lists himself on LinkedIn as the digital engagement officer at Mermaids.
	He's featured in campaign material for the charity, and until recently on the Mermaids website, under a staff profile saying Darren joined Mermaids in 2021, Once again, judging by everything else I've seen of this person, not the sort of person that you'd want near children.
	I don't understand how mermaids, if they really do care about safeguarding and protecting children, wouldn't have done a background check on this guy or some kind of character assessment.
	To determine whether they want him interacting with their...
	It's not a sort of thing charities do.
	They haven't got the...
	They've not got the resources.
	Yeah, to do that sort of thing.
	At the moment, this gentleman has done nothing illegal.
	So...
	But as a charity...
	Your main concern is safeguarding the people you work with, and mermaids work with children.
	And there's nothing more important than that.
	Now, mermaids knew all of this.
	They had to know all of this.
	But it's not an issue to mermaids because of mermaids' aims and objectives in society anyway.
	So this is what mermaids wants.
	So that's why mermaids never pushed back and gave them the job.
	He's queer.
	We're for queers.
	We want children to be queer.
	This is just what queer people do.
	Yes, he's not touched anybody, but he likes to dress up as a pubescent girl with a short see-through skirt, and he likes to have an erection while he does it.
	Nothing wrong, because he's not touched anyone, so there's nothing wrong with that.
	But that's queer theory.
	Everybody else in the country is going...
	That's a step too far.
	Yes.
	And we know where this leads to, and we're not having any of this.
	It's just that queer theory and identity, gender identity theory and all that, have started warping some of this.
	But common sense is common sense.
	Yes.
	And where's the safeguarding...
	Has anybody read their safeguarding policies?
	Do they have safeguarding policies?
	That's why the Cavity Commission is on their bat now.
	I mean, even if they do have safeguarding policies, when we see things like this, I don't think they apply, really.
	If they do have safeguarding policies and they're hiring people like this...
	I've set up a Cavity, a multi-award winning Cavity.
	In our safeguarding policy, it never mentions any of this stuff...
	Why would it?
	Yeah, why would unions?
	Why am I writing that I don't want any staff online with an erection, playing with vests, dressed as a schoolgirl?
	Well, I never would imagine anybody would do that anyway.
	So it won't be in their policy.
	Yeah, well, that's a good point, actually.
	But anyway, I think they've removed this person from the organisation since it became public, because this is a PR disaster.
	But note that it only became relevant when it became a PR disaster.
	Before then, it was perfectly fine.
	Mermaids have brought all this on themselves.
	Absolutely.
	By trying to sue, not sue, by trying to remove the charity status of the LBG Alliance.
	Oh yeah, they did that, didn't they?
	Because they're in court, all this is coming out, a lot of this is coming out in court, and now the media is going, oh, let's have a little bit more of a look about mermaids, and this is all because mermaids thought they were untouchable, and believed everything they say, but now they're being examined, it's all...
	Mermaids are done, by the way, they just don't know they're done.
	Oh yeah, no, they're absolutely...
	When we get to the end of this, they are absolutely done.
	They're done.
	Thankfully.
	And as well as that, this article also mentions that Jacob Breslow, one of Mermaid's trustees, quit after it emerged that he was linked to an organisation that helps paedophiles live in truth and dignity.
	He was giving speeches at public rallies and stuff that they were doing.
	And the National Lottery has paused a £500,000 grant while the charity commission investigates them for handing out potentially harmful breast binders to girls as young as 13 behind their parents' backs and other claims.
	A mermaid source claimed that Mew is no longer employed there.
	However, the charity refused to confirm this.
	So I can assume that he's probably just gone.
	Even if the charity's not confirming it, I don't think you would want such a public relations liability.
	Well, all you need to do is go on a charity commission website, look up the charity, and it gives you the name of the trustees.
	There you go.
	If his name's not there, he's not a trustee anymore.
	Yeah, and that was one of the other things that was a big controversy as well that I just mentioned there.
	NHS staff have been warned that they must not promote mermaids anymore in the latest bloat of the organisation, according to the Daily Mail, and this has come out at the back of an undercover investigator, an undercover reporter, calling them up pretending to be an underage girl, about 13 years old, and saying, I need a breast binder, can you do that? calling them up pretending to be an underage girl, about
	And they were prepared to send it out without parents knowing, without any safeguarding concerns whatsoever, so this has got them in big trouble as well, to the point where, as Calvin shared in the Twitter post right here, they have been questioned in Parliament, they are being questioned in they have been questioned in Parliament, they are being questioned in Parliament, and Liz Truss herself, after being spoken to about this by Miriam Cates, the MP, saying that we need a police investigation into Liz Truss actually supported it.
	So we've got the PM herself saying, yes, it's time for an investigation here.
	So...
	The first line of any safeguarding policy should always be that you will engage and inform parents of absolutely everything, unless the parent is the abuser.
	So if a child says to you, my daddy's hurting me, obviously you don't go straight to the parents, but if it's not that, you tell parents everything because that's how you safeguard children.
	If you want to abuse a child, the first thing you teach that child is Don't listen to your parents.
	No.
	How to keep a secret.
	Oh, yes.
	And the first secret is not a big secret.
	You train a child how to keep secrets, little secrets.
	Here's a Mars bar.
	Don't tell anybody where you got it from.
	It's our secret.
	And that's how you do.
	So when a charity is sending things, chef binders to children and doing all these things with children and they're saying, and don't tell your parents, that is the first rule of safeguarding.
	Just shattered.
	That's a good point.
	Well, thank you very much for that input there, Nick.
	But after all that, I can only hope that, like you said, mermaids is done.
	They just don't know it yet.
	Anyway.
	And so people who are thinking, why did mermaids get away with us for so long?
	It's because historically, as humans, we have always sacrificed children on the altar of the latest deity, the Aztecs.
	We've always done it.
	This new thing about gender and queer is just the latest version, and we're still sacrificing the lives of children today on this new altar, and it needs to start.
	Yeah, it absolutely does, and I can only hope that if mermaids go down, that'll be the next step in shutting this down for good.
	Hopefully.
	All right, then.
	Let's hear about how we can improve England.
	So...
	Let me annoy you first of all by saying, are you sick of your taxes paying for criminals to be incarcerated?
	Of course.
	Yeah, of course you want them in there, so we're protecting the community, but you're sick of your money being spent on PlayStations, three meals a day, having a dentist.
	I've not been able to get a dentist for two years, but if I was in jail, I'd have a dentist tomorrow.
	And this is what everyone's sick of.
	So I wrote an article a few months ago called Make Crime Stop and Pay.
	And this is what I want to talk about today.
	So everybody would be in favour of less crime if it didn't cost us anything, the taxpayer, any more money to have.
	Because you can always triple the police.
	But can we afford it?
	No, we can't.
	So how do we get around this?
	And it's basically A new way of thinking.
	So 30 years ago I was chatting to a friend of mine and he came up with this flippant remark and we all are laughing a joke over it and he said every prison should be hooked up the national grid and prisoners should be sat on electric bikes pedalling eight hours a day generating electricity and that can be done now.
	Look at the next image.
	You can now buy these bikes online that create electricity to power your house.
	So when you're getting fit, you can do it.
	So I've done a quick calculation.
	80,000 prisoners roughly in the UK. Pedaling eight hours a day, five days a week because, you know, let's treat them fairly.
	They have weekends off.
	That would generate over a million pounds a year.
	I know it's nothing in the grand scheme of things.
	But 30 years ago, that got me thinking.
	I started thinking about, is there a way that prisons and the criminal justice system could make money so we as a taxpayer could stop funding all this?
	And the answer is yes.
	So we've got many empires that were built on forced labour, the British Empire, the Nazi Empire.
	And at the moment, we've got 80,000 men.
	In jail, doing nothing.
	We're not rehabilitating them because no one comes out of jail rehabilitated.
	It's a holding centre.
	The best that a criminal can do in jail is find out and learn a lot of new things to do when he gets out by the people he speaks to and shares.
	There's no...
	I think it's a quarter of all criminals who have been in jail re-offend.
	If you're in jail for theft, you're 50% likely to come out and re-offend.
	I think there was recent studies done in America regarding this, looking at the recidivist rates of people coming out of prison.
	And it was just ridiculous, because I think it was probably more something like, the more rehabilitative a prison that you go to, the more likely you are to go back to criminal offences once you're out.
	Because, like you say, it's so ineffective that people...
	And more likely to commit crimes again when they come out.
	It's because we've moved away from punishment to rehabilitation, and rehabilitation doesn't work.
	Now, does punishment work?
	Well, that's also debatable, but we know rehabilitation doesn't work because we've had it for 50, 60 years now.
	And at the very least, if we just look at it as a pure punishment, we're still getting them off the streets, we're still making the streets safer by that, and it's a good potential deterrent for others.
	Yeah.
	So let me have a look here.
	So it's estimated that crime in the UK costs us all up to 96 billion a year.
	Now that's not all government money.
	That can be, you know, when you've been robbed, it's your personal money that was stolen.
	So looking at 96 billion a year and put that into some sort of context, that's 10% of all government spending in a year.
	That's how much crime is costing us.
	And it's not costing us in just the ways you think of.
	Police, prison, fixing a window.
	Let's look at the NHS. The NHS spends half a billion pound a year on knife crime.
	Over a billion a year is internal fraud at the NHS. So crime is causing us in ways you cannot possibly imagine and it's about how do we stop all this?
	So I've got a three-point plan and it's corporal punishment, capital punishment and detention.
	So corporal punishment is basically what we used to get at school, what I got at school 40 years ago.
	So if you commit a low-level crime, you're 17 years old, you commit a bit of criminal damage, We drag you to the police station and there and then you get offered, right, you're in court tomorrow morning, not five months from now, you're in court tomorrow morning, we might even hold you overnight,
	you're in court tomorrow morning, you're going to see a magistrate and he's going to pass judgment on you and it's going to be five lashes and it's going to happen that day in court by a fully trained punishment officer with cameras so there's no abuse so we can get around all that sort of stuff.
	I think also, Carl has suggested this before as well, with the cameras it could be a bit more public, make people know that this is the punishment.
	There will be a public gallery.
	Oh, wonderful.
	There has to be, otherwise that opens up the punishment then to abuse.
	And I don't want people being abused.
	If they get convicted of five lashes, that's what they get in a humane sort of way.
	Not that it's kicked in because now no one's looking, but a gallery can watch that.
	The idea behind this is a short, sharp shot.
	So those younger people and adults will commit a crime and they get their punishment within 24 hours.
	That's how humans have been designed to learn is consequences straight away.
	No, I commit a crime today and six, eight months.
	I think the average is seven months to get to a magistrate's court.
	So That's just a lot of time to re-offend, to do all sorts.
	Re-offend, and you don't learn that lesson.
	So that's what I'd like to see with low-level offences.
	You commit too many low-level offences, then it gets racked up.
	I'd like to see capital punishment brought back.
	That's what I... Not hanging, because that's quite inhumane.
	I'd like a new capital punishment system for the modern world.
	So if we look at people we're never going to release...
	That's a type of torture.
	If we're never ever going to let you leave jail, well, why are we keeping you for 30, 40, 50 years?
	That is torture.
	On the taxpayers' money as well.
	Let's put them out of their misery nice and humanely.
	So nice injection where it's over and done with, no pain, no force.
	I don't want to punish these people.
	I just want them gone.
	And...
	People tell me that the general public will not go for that.
	Well, not the people I speak to.
	I rarely speak to anybody who doesn't want to see paedophiles and murderers.
	And those two guys who murdered the fugitive in London with machetes, on camera, They're never going to be released.
	They should be executed.
	And then people will say, oh, but you're going to execute innocent people.
	No, we'll have some strict criteria.
	You know, we'll have a list of it.
	It has to have DNA. It also has to be caught on video and it has to be witnessed.
	No, we could have it where there is no way it wasn't them.
	And then people will say, oh, somebody could forge the evidence.
	Well, an officer, a police officer, a court officer, if anybody...
	Medals with a capital case, the punishment for them is a capital punishment because that was attempted murder.
	That's how we would stop those sort of things.
	So we've got the technology now to look at this again.
	That's what I would do with capital punishment.
	But most people would end up going to jail or being incarcerated.
	I'd like to split that into two.
	I would like to have in-home incarceration and prisons.
	So in-home incarceration will be for people who are not violent, so tax fraud, right?
	You're still going to go to jail.
	You're going to get two years.
	Why are we sending you to a category C prison?
	And I'll go into the cost of prisons in a minute.
	Let's make you stay at home, tagged.
	We've got the technology now.
	I mean, from the area that I'm from, I've met plenty of people with the ankle tags and such.
	It's not that uncommon a thing.
	Yeah, so they will have curfews, they're allowed to go to work to keep their jobs.
	Well, actually, that's a good point as well, actually, because most of the people that I've known with ankle bracelets and tags and such have been violent criminals.
	So why are we letting them out?
	Yeah, I wouldn't let them out.
	You know, not violent criminals because they're a dangerous society.
	But ones are not dangerous.
	Let them fund their own incarceration.
	And if they break the rules of the incarceration, then it's a Category C prison to you, mate.
	It's not warning after warning.
	You went to the pub.
	No, you're straight to category C. So it's a one strike and that's it.
	You get one chance of being at home and paying for everything yourself.
	And then we look at prisons.
	And prisons at the moment are the naughty step for adults.
	That's all it is.
	I want prisons to be tough.
	When someone is looking at four years in jail, I want them crying because they know what's coming and they're going to have to work five days a week.
	They're going to have to earn all their privileges.
	If they want better, no, they're going to have basic food, but if they want better food, at the moment, you can buy extra food.
	You know that in prisons.
	Your parents can send money in.
	You can buy this.
	No, no, no.
	You've got to earn points in jail, and then you can redeem some of those points for better food, for this, for that.
	That teaches these individuals how to play by the rules and that you only get what you work for.
	And I wouldn't have people sat in jail cells for 22 hours a day.
	They will be working, they will be doing stuff.
	Well, I actually know somebody who did go to prison from the area that I'm from.
	And it was a good example, along with a different person that I knew who went to prison, of how The sentencing in the UK can be very strange in the way that they arrange different sentences for somebody, because the person who was my friend who I knew who went to prison, he got drunk, saw a person in town that he knew the night before had drunkenly come to his brother's house and beat his brother up, and just got away with it.
	He felt indignant at that, didn't want the guy to feel like he'd got away with it, so in a drunken stupor he went and beat up this guy in the middle of town in front of a load of people, so there was loads of witnesses.
	Very, very stupid thing.
	And he got seven years for that.
	And even at the time, he said that, because a bit of it was caught on CCTV camera, and he said when he was in the court, he can understand why they gave him that much, because from what footage was caught, it looked pretty brutal.
	And when he was in prison, he did a lot of these programs and such.
	He kept his head down and worked hard, and he came out and he is trying to better himself.
	So, you know, I'm glad for him, but he's also got a good support system and good people around him.
	But then there was another person that I used to work with when I worked at a call centre, Who used to take extended breaks so that he could visit his ill mother.
	And then a few, about a year after I started, he just vanished altogether until a few weeks later I saw his face on the front cover of the local newspaper.
	And what it turned out that when he was on these extended breaks he'd actually been going to Stoke and grooming an 11-year-old child and had been caught and arrested for sexually assaulting him.
	Two years.
	That's what he got for being a paedophile and grooming an 11-year-old.
	Two years.
	And my friend, who understandably made a drunken mistake that he shouldn't have done, got more than triple that time.
	It's ridiculous.
	Sometimes, a lot of the times, the sentences don't make any sense whatsoever.
	But at the moment, we rarely send people to prison because it costs too much and we've got no money.
	What does the average prisoner cost in the UK to house?
	I don't know.
	If we can scroll up.
	So two years ago, it was nearly £45,000 a year.
	So if you gave criminals £45,000 a year, someone would stop being criminals.
	You could pay them to stop being criminals, which I would never ever do.
	But that's how much it costs to house an average prisoner in England and Wales two years ago.
	It was nearly £45,000 a year.
	And that's only for an average prisoner.
	If you're a dangerous prisoner, if you look at the next one, The next image yet?
	£82,000 a year if you're a dangerous category A prisoner.
	Okay, so this East Yorkshire jail, is that one where they take the, like you say, the dangerous category?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	Category A, dangerous prisoners.
	£82,000 a year.
	This is why we're not sending people to prison because it costs the taxpayer a fortune and the government has no money and has it now for 10, 15 years.
	But this shouldn't be the answer of why we allow dangerous, violent people to prison.
	To mix with the ordinary citizens, you know, because that puts us all at risk.
	Now, this isn't even a lot of money when you look at a high profile person.
	If you look at the next image, Ian Brady, who was one of the Moore's murderers, who died a couple of years ago, he cost us £14 million to incarcerate.
	£14 million for one man.
	And that will also be relatives of the victims as well, through taxes, just having to pay for that.
	There's no justice in that as far as I'm concerned.
	The guy's off the streets, yes, but he died in prison.
	He spent 50 years there, wasting our money.
	The only argument I've really seen that's even remotely convincing against capital punishment in situations like this is that I've seen some people argue that the appeals process can end up wasting the taxpayers more money in a short space of time than they end up lasting...
	For a long space of time.
	But I also think that there's a good argument to be made for the deterrence of capital punishment.
	To a certain extent, if you're going to go to prison for 50 years, I know that you said it's torture.
	I think some people can see that as basically getting off with it.
	At the end of the day, you get to sit around for the next 50 years, not have to worry about how you're going to maintain or feed or clothe yourself.
	There's a certain leisure that you could take from that.
	Whereas if you know that, no, if I get caught, that's it.
	Lots of studies on sentencing, and a lot of them say there's no evidence whatsoever that sentences deter crime.
	Because when you're committing crime, you have no intentions of getting caught.
	Oh, that's true.
	So, what stops people committing crime is the likelihood of getting caught, not the sentence.
	So we need to make sure more criminals are caught.
	It's advertised more and everybody knows.
	That's how you stop criminals committing crime.
	Not by saying, you commit crime, we're knocking you up for 50 years.
	And they go, well, I've been committing crime for 15 years.
	You've never caught me.
	You never will.
	That doesn't work.
	But Ian Brady, we're never going to let him out.
	We should have executed him a long time ago.
	And the appeals issue.
	Well, we need to create a new system where it's not two decades of appeals because he's been proven guilty.
	It's all evidence is there.
	DNA, video.
	It's all there.
	So it should be a quick process.
	But again, not necessarily going to happen in my lifetime because we're missing one vital ingredients and it's politicians with a backbone.
	And we don't breed any of them.
	So this isn't going to happen.
	If we look at the next slide.
	How do we make prisons pay for themselves?
	Because that's what I basically want them to do.
	Instead of costing us $9 billion a year, I would like prisons to actually be making $5 billion a year in profit.
	So it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything.
	They generate money for the taxpayer.
	And how do we do that?
	Well, every prisoner should be working five days a week.
	Every prisoner will have different skills.
	So if we've got a computer genius, we've got a hacker, we've got a programmer, well, people can work from home now, so why can't they work from home in their cell?
	They have a computer, limited access to the internet, we put all that in, and they're making money for the prison, and they earn privilege points by doing it.
	So they could earn their keep.
	For the less dangerous people, we could have day release.
	We're short of fruit pickers and food operatives and warehouse packers.
	They could be bussed out every day to factories and do a proper full-time job and bussed back.
	And those wages go to the prison.
	They earn some extra privileges because of it.
	All these things are definitely doable.
	Some of them can even be trusted in the open prisons to go out and work by themselves and come back by themselves because they know if I mess this up, I'm not in open prison anymore now.
	I'm going to a category B. So we give them the responsibility to improve their own lives as well as make money.
	And if they mess up, Well, they get punished and they go to a higher category of prison and everybody else knows what the punishment is and we've got to teach them personal responsibility.
	That's how they would work.
	And then if we're looking at some of the minor offences, so if you got pulled in court now for graffiti or littering, let's say you're walking home drunk and you smash loads of bottles on your own, please turn up and arrest you for disturbance of the peace.
	In court, and it's like, yep, guilty, £100 fine.
	Well that's fine.
	£100 is fine.
	And let's say you're unemployed.
	A £100 fine to an unemployed person is approximately 130% of your weekly wage benefit.
	So if you're a multimillionaire and you do the same thing, should you get a £100 fine?
	Or should you be fined 130% of your weekly income, which then might be £9,000?
	Because that hits you the same as it hits that person.
	Yeah, I've heard of a phenomenon like this where people who are rich will be the ones speeding down the motorway, they'll be the ones breaking traffic laws, because you can afford to pay them off when you get fines and tickets.
	We have footballers in Manchester City Centre, the big rich footballers, who park outside a restaurant in double yellow lines and get a £30 parking ticket.
	Well...
	Why do they care?
	So they know what they're doing.
	They're not inconsiderate.
	They're just, well, I'll just pay it.
	And that is unfair to poor people.
	We need to be treated equally.
	So it should be a percentage of your wage of how we find you.
	All that money then gets ploughed back into the taxpayer.
	We also need to look at full cost recovery.
	So if you end up being investigated by the police, going to court, being found guilty, There needs to be a simple slide rule of working out how much that costs the police and the court time.
	Not 150 pound contributory cost.
	You may work out well that's that's nine and a half grand.
	So not only you found guilty you're now subject to a nine grand full cost recovery plan because we want all that money back off you because you were found guilty.
	The argument will be, well, these people haven't got money.
	I'm tired of people saying to me that only poor people commit crime.
	Everyone commits crime.
	If you commit crime and you've got a nine grand bill and you own your own house, you've got collateral.
	The government can put that nine grand bill on your house, which means the day you sell it, the government gets nine grand the same day.
	You own businesses.
	People own businesses.
	It's not just council estate kids who commit crime, you've got nothing.
	And let's say you've got nothing, but then a year from now you win the lottery.
	There needs to be a way we can then claw some of that lottery money back off you because of what you've cost us in the past.
	So it's never written off, it's never forgotten.
	If you allow the government and the taxman the power, they will find that money and get that money off you somehow because that's what they've been doing for hundreds of years.
	This is the way we need to start looking at it instead of you being convicted, you go to jail, you're out and it's all okay.
	Well, no, you owe all society a huge bill, mate, and we're going to get it off you.
	There's ways we can make prison and the criminal justice system pay for itself.
	All very interesting.
	The only thing I would say would be the potential worry of if we have, you know, such open work schemes in, obviously it wouldn't be open work schemes or anything like that, but there could be the potential of people within prisons competing with people who are just, you know, trying to live their lives outside of prison, but competing for the same work and jobs which could push wages down.
	But I think at the moment...
	We have that now, it's called less immigration...
	Yeah, exactly.
	We've got that right now.
	So if we were able to calm down the immigration a bit, then it certainly would work out.
	And we've also got a huge shortage of workers in the country.
	Yes, I think across the West right now, there's a massive amount of people who are just quitting.
	Not because of the fact that they can't work anymore, but because they don't want to work anymore.
	because I think a lot of people are realising that their jobs are worthless and meaningless and don't provide any satisfaction in their lives.
	So if those sorts of people are looking to quit and find different ways of living their lives, then yeah, if we've got shortages, I'm sure there are plenty of people in prison who can make up for those shortages.
	So very interesting.
	Thank you for sharing that all with us, Nick.
	And I'm sure the comments below will be very interesting.
	We can take a look at those in a few minutes.
	Make crime pay.
	Yes, absolutely.
	But, moving on to our final segment today, I want to discuss how red love is no real love at all, because we're returning to the well-worn topic of family abolition that some leftists want to push on us.
	A lot of the more radical socialist types have been arguing that we need to abolish the family.
	For nigh on 200 years, and it of course is a completely utopian subject that will never actually work, and thankfully most people out there don't like the idea of it just on the face of it, because if somebody comes up to you and says, why don't we abolish families?
	Even the concept of families, most people know straight off, that's not right.
	Every society, every civilization since the dawn of time has revolved around the family.
	As far as I'm concerned, the family is the main unit of society.
	That's what everything revolves around, and that's what everything should revolve around.
	And interestingly enough, Connor and I recently did a book club talking about a book by Louise Perry called The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, where she's approaching this case that she's putting forward from a feminist perspective.
	If feminism was almost purely about...
	Safeguarding the well-being of women and how men and women can live together a bit better.
	And the final chapter that she puts forward is that have a family.
	That's what she says.
	Whereas on the other side of the feminist coin, the far more radical feminists, they have been putting forward this idea that family is chains, family is unnecessary obligations, family is just another form of patriarchal oppression.
	They've been putting forward that idea for...
	centuries at this point, and it's never made sense, never will make sense, and I can guarantee it almost always comes from resentment for these women's own parents that they have decided to put on the rest of society.
	I'm writing my third book at the moment, I'm halfway through, it should be released spring next year maybe, and it's on feminism.
	Oh really?
	So I've covered some of this.
	Have you read Louise Perry's book?
	I saw an interview that she's given about the book.
	Yeah.
	And for me, feminism is basically trade union for other feminists.
	It's a power grab.
	All it's ever been is a power grab.
	And the word feminism now means absolutely nothing because there's a multi-million different versions of feminism.
	And in the book, I even make a joke of we've even got the Palestinian liberation feminism, you know, taking the mickey out of life a brain.
	Yeah.
	We've got feminism supporting Eddie Izzard hitting the top of an all-women shortlist.
	Thank you again, Eddie, for breaking through the barriers that the system is putting forward for us.
	It's, feminism has done nothing for women.
	When you go back, you know, 100 years, 150 years ago, when women were, again, when some women were campaigning for the vote, they were only a minority of women.
	Most women didn't want the vote because they knew with the vote came responsibility.
	And some of them were talking about, well, I don't want to be drafted into the war.
	No, of course not.
	I think that was the argument for male suffrage, wasn't it?
	If you've got the right to vote, you've also got the right to be drafted for war.
	Yeah.
	But women have got the vote now.
	I've got nothing against that.
	But we need to ask women, or we need to ask families, when is enough...
	What more do you want?
	Feminism really should have ended, or this type of feminism should have ended in the early 70s when we got the equal pay law in the UK. That was the end of any discrimination against women.
	Since then, it's all about not equal rights.
	It's all about special rights.
	I want all the equal rights you've got, but I'd like these extra ones because I'm a woman.
	Well, yeah, the new rights that are being made up, let's be honest, regarding this, are all trying to liberate women from the constraints that reality and nature puts upon them now.
	Patriarchy.
	Yeah, well, that's how far we've got.
	I think patriarchy and hierarchy in general Just the reality of the world around them has become too much for some women.
	If you understand that nature is putting this particular pressure on you, if, say, you're getting to your mid-30s and your biological clock is running out, I don't want that oppression.
	I don't want anybody to judge me for this sort of stuff.
	Sorry, there are some things that, as human beings, we just can't help.
	Yes.
	And that's just how it is.
	But anyway, let's take a look at this article and read through some of the wacky reasoning that is put forward here.
	As you can see, the article title is for the new statement.
	It's a statesman.
	It's called Red Love for All with the subtitle, Family is a terrible way to satisfy our desire for love and care, according to the writer and academic Sophie Lewis.
	The solution?
	Abolish it.
	So Sophie Lewis is the author of the book that is being published.
	Reviewed in this article, and it's very entertaining to just read through some of the arguments that are made through here, because it, once again, is just exemplifying the lengths that some people will go to to try and unchain themselves.
	And this image, first of all...
	The idea that having the white picket fence, a home, a happy family and children is being chained.
	You're not being allowed to experience the full range of love.
	I would love, I would absolutely love if my fiancé and I could afford a house.
	With a white picket fence and afford to be able to comfortably raise a few children.
	And she wants that as well.
	But sadly, the reality of the matter right now is that we can't afford that because everything's going up in price.
	The society that we live in is not supportive of people trying to start new families.
	We're being encouraged left, right and centre to not have children.
	Politicians over in America are saying should we shame people for having more than three children?
	I say we should celebrate families.
	People for having more than three children, especially if they're actually native to England, because we need to up the birth rates.
	I think there was one person in the Conservative Party who put forward the idea that we should give tax breaks to women, and I disagree with this because I think it should be tax breaks for couples, once they've got three children or more, because that would encourage them, that would be an incentive for people to have more children.
	And leftists and Labour voters went mental.
	Hungry have done something very similar.
	Yes, and it's been very successful for them as far as I'm well.
	Yeah, John's putting forward married couples as well because we want to incentivise people for marriage.
	Yeah, for marriage.
	Marriage and family, the biggest beneficiary of those two institutions are women.
	Of course.
	It protects them and makes sure, you know, that they've got protection.
	I'm tired of feminists telling me that marriage is about buying a woman and that's why you take their name, they've been bought.
	Well, if I was going to buy something, then there's an exchange of goods.
	I take off you and I give you something in return.
	In a marriage, a traditional marriage, you take a wife, but you also take a dowry.
	And that dowry basically is the father of the bride saying, she was my responsibility to look after and protect.
	She's now yours and I'm paying for you to look after her.
	And that's not buying.
	No, of course not.
	I would go even further than using the language of responsibility.
	I would say that if you're married as the man, you have a moral duty.
	To look after your wife.
	You have an obligation.
	You are then the king of your castle, and what does the king do?
	He has to protect everybody who falls under his protection, which is his wife and his children.
	Yeah, and I think this whole idea of just unchaining yourself and being able to do whatever hedonistic nonsense that you want with no consequences ever is not my idea of liberation.
	It's not my idea of liberty.
	The desire to live, the ability to live a good life, a good wholesome life, for me, is my ideal of liberty and liberation.
	I think it's called the female paradox.
	There's too many to count of those.
	It's some studies that have been done, and it shows that from the 50s onwards, women are getting more and more unhappy.
	Oh, yes.
	They're having more and more freedom.
	They've got more stuff.
	They can do whatever they want.
	Men have stayed the same.
	Women used to be higher than men.
	They're now more unhappier than men, and it's still going down.
	So whatever feminism doing, whatever we're doing in society to help women, to help women, We're doing it all wrong because the happiness across the Western world is going down continually.
	Yeah, now that you've brought that up, you're right, because Louise Perry mentioned it in her book, just saying, like, it seems that men can weather lots of different situations because, like you say, their general happiness has remained the same for the most part, even if there is stuff in society right now that I would argue is actively anti-men going on.
	We can kind of, sadly, it's very easy for us to shut ourselves off Stay out of the public world and kind of return to a lifestyle where we just stay in all day, play video games, order pizza.
	And there's a certain base level of contentment that a man can get out of that.
	Women are not able to experience that same privilege.
	And that's because historically, if we weren't sat in a halt relaxing, we were out at war, dying.
	So we're still built like that.
	So the fact that we're not dying means our lives are okay.
	That's an interesting way of putting it, but it's true though.
	When a woman has been developed, she sits at home looking after the children and that made her happy.
	And now she's being dragged out of that into the man's world and has not been designed for that.
	Some women can go quite fine with it, not a problem.
	And we wonder why they're becoming more not happy because they think they want the role and when they get it, it's making them unhappy.
	It's the Midas touch.
	What I think I want is killing me.
	Yeah, but let's take just a quick look at what some of the arguments that are made in this article.
	So it starts off amusingly by just saying, let us begin by abolishing our kitchens, which you might think sounds symbolic purely, but they have actual practical reasons.
	For wanting to abolish the kitchen, so they carry on.
	For the 19th century silk merchant and socialist philosopher Charles Fourier, so a French 19th century socialist is not a good start, as far as I'm concerned, if you want practical ideas.
	Utopia was the kitchenless house.
	Men and women would live collectively, cooking instead in open, common kitchens and free canteens, serving up marmalades and pastries and lemonades in abundance.
	I... It's the word collect.
	Once you said collectively, it's like, right, I fully understand the whole article now.
	Yeah, there you go.
	I fully understand all.
	Collectively.
	Now, if you want to look at a collective...
	Let's look at the kibbutz on Israel.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	They've nearly all gone now, especially the way they were born in the 60s and 70s.
	And why?
	It's because they had lots and lots of people there.
	People were bringing up each other's kids collectively, cooking collectively.
	Everything was communal.
	And what happened when all those children grew up?
	We heard about tremendous and horrendous child abuse.
	But why?
	Because you had no parents there protecting you because it was all communal.
	Then we found out about the bullying, the abuse, the almost slavery, that because that's not my kid, I can treat that kid really poorly because it's not my kid.
	I've got no bond with that kid.
	For some reason there's this strange assumption that love is a scarce resource that if you just put off the constraints of privatisation, which is how they consider the family, they consider the family the privatisation of love, that all of a sudden you'll have this super abundance where love can just be exchanged and put on everybody else equally, like Like, I could love some stranger the same way that I could love my wife or something like that, which is just nonsense.
	There's things that are much deeper than just we live, obviously, community, very, very important, but there needs to be boundaries within a community.
	That's how you establish the relationships that you have with one another.
	As somebody said, I don't know who to attribute this quote to, but good fences make for good neighbours.
	If you don't have that boundary, everything falls apart.
	Everything becomes anarchy.
	Everything becomes chaos.
	And like you say, it's the same with children.
	Nobody is more incentivized to look after their children than blood relatives.
	It's just obvious.
	Obvious to everybody except these people for some reason.
	It's spelled into us genetically.
	It's the same with the animal kingdom.
	This is genetic.
	It's the only way we can pass our genes on is to make sure our children, our relatives...
	Live and breed, and that's why we dedicate them.
	That's why we have parents who will die for their children.
	Your next door neighbour probably won't die for your child, but you would.
	Absolutely.
	I've got a granddaughter.
	If my granddaughter fell into rough seas at Blackpool...
	You'd be the first one jumping in.
	Yeah, and I'm not even a good swimmer.
	If your child fell into the water at Blackpool, I don't think I'd jump in.
	No, that's somebody else's business.
	That's somebody else's problem.
	I know that I might not survive because I'm not a good swimmer, but if it was my granddaughter, I'm not thinking about it.
	No, of course not.
	But the funny thing as well is they say that this new communal life would relieve women of the thankless and unending drudgery of an inconceivably stupid and inefficient system by which her labours are confiscated...
	So they're trying to make it seem as though this ideal life that you and I look towards as being a good thing, as thankless and corrupt.
	No, I think most women who are providers for their families, providers in the feminine sense of, you know, providing nurture for the children, providing care, providing support for the husband, cooking meals and such, are very loved.
	And it's the kind of love that you don't get from just getting everybody on the street to come and cook together in the same kitchen.
	I mean, for one, I've lived in university accommodation.
	Sharing a kitchen with people is awful.
	It is absolutely awful.
	The arguments that break out purely over who's not washed the dishes...
	Is terrible.
	So imagine bringing the entire neighbourhood into that argument.
	Callum and I were talking about it before, and if you can't even get something like this to work practically on the small scale of three or four people living in uni accommodation together, how?
	How is it going to work on a larger scale, especially a societal scale?
	It's just nonsense to try and...
	These articles have also...
	The undercurrent really is women have it so bad, but men are sat on that gold throne with servants having grapes peeled for them.
	And, you know, men, it's like, no, no, the men, the husbands of these women should be out working and will be working and will be doing jobs they don't even want to do, but no, they have to do it to bring the money in.
	They may even take promotion at work to do a job they definitely don't want to do, but it's more money, so I better do it.
	I can provide a better standard of living for the people I love.
	Or there's an even better job.
	I might have to drive two hours there and two hours back every day, so it now turns into a 14-hour day I'm working.
	But I'll do that for my family.
	And these are the sacrifices men make that nobody ever notices and no one ever talks about.
	Because men don't want gratitude.
	And women also make sacrifices.
	They give up their careers to raise their children.
	Life's about sacrifices.
	Life's hard.
	But I'm sick of people talking this nonsense about being collective and how bad women have it because we all have it bad at some point.
	And families is about a team.
	And in a team, you have different roles in a team.
	Your defence, I'm an attack.
	You're a goalie.
	I'll shoot the baskets.
	It doesn't matter.
	We have roles in that.
	That fits the best thing for us.
	And the family is a team.
	Absolutely it is.
	And it needs to be looked at that way.
	Whereas the neighbourhood, the community, is also a team, but a very different team.
	Yes.
	That needs to be managed and structured in a very different way.
	But amusingly, this person, Charles Fourier, if that's how you pronounce his name, he's French, so I don't really care that much.
	They mention these furious communities got set up in France and in parts of America in the 1800s.
	Yeah.
	What this person fails to mention is the outcome of these communities.
	And if I just take it off the top of the Wikipedia page regarding furiosism...
	Sex abuse is one of them, is it?
	That's probably one of them.
	But even beyond that, just the main thing that it says here.
	Never tested in practice at any scale in his lifetime, furiosism enjoyed a brief boom in the United States of America during the mid-1840s, only largely to the efforts of the American populariser, but ultimately failed as a social and economic model.
	Not going to mention that part.
	Not going to mention that their ideas they're putting forward as new and revolutionary have been tried time, time, time again, and failed every single one of those tries.
	But there's way more to this article, but I think you've got the gist of it.
	If we move to the next article that I got, thankfully, there are Plenty of other women out there in the world, in fact I would say the vast majority of women out there in the world, who read this book and books like it and go, this is nonsense, this is not the kind of thing that I want, such as this Ryd Wildermuth who says, why I am not a family abolitionist, as if you need to explain it in the first place.
	But one of the interesting things that she says here is that people who want to abolish the family have a certain image of it in mind.
	The institution they want to destroy has a father at the head, the dutiful and subservient wife at his side, and the children he's sired struggling against his authoritarian impulses while becoming socialized into the very situation that creates him.
	The son hates him, yet learns to become like him, to treat women as objects or servants.
	The daughter learns from the mother how to please a man like her father, how to become a fragile pretty thing that puts out and doesn't argue.
	The mother, of course, is both burdened and elevated by her role as lady of the household.
	I'm sure such families exist because film publishing and other industries seem to make a lot of money telling us that they do, and I don't believe that many families like this actually exist in this kind of oppressive structure.
	I think that most people who write Hollywood films, most people who get book deals, because, of course, the publishers are going to be gatekeeping themselves, are going to be from a very particular cast of people who are all, Rich, upper class, entitled, and very resentful of their parents.
	And they project it onto the rest of the world.
	But yeah, they make a lot of money telling people that these families exist, but I've encountered a few of them.
	This may be because, unlike Lewis, I lived well below the poverty line for my entire childhood and adolescence.
	Until I was 12, I didn't know anyone whose parents had a college education.
	Not unrelatedly, I knew hardly anyone whose parents both lived at home.
	In other words, I was part of a class that Lewis is not really addressing the poor.
	For the poor, family is all you've got.
	So I love that point there, which is that family, like you say, in situations where people are in terrible dire straits, It's the one thing that can keep them together, one thing that can provide some kind of stability in their life.
	And I'm sure in dealing with homeless people, as you have done in the past, I'm just making a wild guess here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that reconnection with family and reigniting family ties is one of the things that helps people get back on their feet, I would imagine.
	Yeah, let me give you...
	Have you got two minutes for study?
	Yeah, of course!
	Working in the city centre, we saw someone, the homeless guy sat there begging for the first time, never seen before.
	So we made contact with him and he gave us a two pound coin and he went, I'm going to spend this on drugs.
	But when I lived at home, I used to always give every two pound coin I got to my niece for a piggy bank for holidays.
	If I give you an address, would you post it to them?
	Because if I keep it, it's drugs in half an hour and I've not sent them anything since two years I've been gone.
	So we took it.
	We sent it to his mum to give his niece.
	Next day, she phoned us because our phone number was on the letter we sent to her.
	And she went, yeah, I'm his mum.
	Where is he?
	I've not heard of him in two years.
	I presumed he was dead.
	And I went, well, he's in Manchester City Centre.
	She went, right.
	Can you meet me?
	She goes, he lived in Plymouth.
	She goes, I'm actually halfway to Manchester now.
	Can you meet me in two hours' time?
	So we met her in Manchester to take her to wherever he was.
	We said, this might take hours to move around.
	We went to where we saw him yesterday.
	He was in the same spot.
	We're trying not to cry.
	Both of them crying, hugging, and she took him home because she says, you're going to live with me.
	Why are you living on the streets?
	And that's family for you.
	She drove all the way to Plymouth because we sent her a two-pound con which went in the piggy bank to pick him up.
	And she was already halfway by the time she called you because just getting that letter set her off.
	She got the letter.
	She got an account she went because she knew the letter was from Manchester.
	And she was already on her way, because if you want to answer the phone, I'd have walked around Manchester looking for him.
	I wasn't coming back without him.
	That's what family does.
	That's what family does.
	And that's why it's important as well.
	And that's why I'm glad that no matter how often this stupid, destructive and evil idea to just abolish the family comes up.
	I'm so glad that articles like this show 99% of women don't want this, and 99% of people don't want this.
	And as we referenced earlier, the government should be doing more to try and encourage people to start their own families, and try and do more to support people in general.
	But anyway, that's that.
	Let's move on to the video comments, and thank you for sharing that story with us, Nick.
	No problem.
	Oh, yeah, you'll need your earpiece in.
	This gentleman has a fine moustache.
	Mm-hmm.
	Although born in India, Rudyard Kipling had part of his education in the North Devon seaside village of Westwood Ho.
	Now a resort town, his history is still celebrated, and the words to his famous poem If are written in pebbles along promenade by the seafront, so you can walk the entire poem from some apartments to the Braddock's Pier house.
	Oh, that's really cool.
	I wasn't aware of that.
	I'm not actually that familiar with Rudyard Kipling's work, personally.
	He was a poet, as far as I'm aware.
	John has done some readings of his work for the podcast, not for the podcast, for just the website, so I should probably check out those.
	Anyway, thank you for that, Alex.
	Alex.
	One serves a practical purpose, while the other is a display of barbarity for the purpose of intimidation and cruelty.
	Guess which one they're showing.
	Unsurprising, really, isn't it?
	I didn't get the chance to check out that entire IMDb thing there, but The Walk-In, starring Stephen Graham.
	Yeah, I don't read it.
	Yeah, I assume it's about...
	Yeah, okay, it's about that woman who was shot before Brexit by the sounds of it.
	Joe Cox.
	Obviously a tragedy, but once again, it's interesting to look at the way that these things are portrayed and the actual attention they get from the media.
	But thank you for that, I'll make sure to avoid that show.
	There's no issue with them making a programme on that.
	No, of course not.
	It's where are the programmes on all the other acts of terrorism that we have?
	So we never have BBC programmes on any of that.
	It's only when the nutcase is a white British man we can make a programme about that, and so we should, because there's lessons to be learnt, but we won't make programmes on any of the more complicated stuff.
	Well, the more complicated stuff, the lesson might be let's just not let these people in, and there's no way they want to be pushing that message, is there?
	Anyway, let's see what the next one is.
	A story surfaced recently of anti-Semitism at the University of California, Berkeley.
	While the reductive claim of banning Jews is false, the truth is just as interesting.
	This is just another viewpoint being silenced at the heart of the free speech movement.
	I watch from afar as the radicals further break down and attack the very minorities they try to pander to.
	This is the California Refugee.
	Well, thank you for that information.
	It's no surprise the universities in America and England have been doing this kind of thing for a very long time now, at least for five years and longer than that.
	It's always that conflation between Jews and Israel and Zionism, and they all can be different things altogether.
	I don't care about Israel.
	I don't care about Palestine.
	Neither do I. I do care about British Jews.
	Well, I don't care about Israel, really, and I don't care about Palestine.
	And I'm tired of people conflating all this, that just because you're a Jew or a British Jew, you've got something to do with Israel.
	And not a lot of them do, but that's immaterial.
	I don't care.
	I just care about British people.
	And if you're a British Jew, I care about you and I want the best for you.
	Yeah.
	Let's see what Tony Jay has to say. - Tony D and Little Joan with another legend of the Lotus Eater, De Peel from the Netherlands.
	The closest I could find was Grubber Verst Ruins, which is west near the Maas River.
	There in the 16th century, a man caught his lover cheating on him with another man, The other man pushed him into the ruins and killed him as he lay dying.
	He cursed his girlfriend.
	She is now a spirit in a white shroud who wanders the ruin.
	She will grab men at night, force them to dance with her until they die of terror.
	I think I've dated her.
	So you put the curse on her then.
	Glad that you managed to climb out of that river, at least.
	No, Tony D's always got some great stories, and one of these days we're going to convince Callum that at least one of them's true.
	I think we should take him around some of these spooky sites, don't you, John?
	Take Callum on a tour.
	That can be his next YouTube documentary.
	He's been to Afghanistan, now for the next most dangerous place, spooky haunted sites.
	Anyway, let's move on to the written comments on the website.
	So Matt P says, great to see Nick back on again.
	Always refreshing to hear what he has to say.
	Thank you.
	It is.
	And on to Little Mermaids.
	Andrew Narog says, given how easily influenced children are, child services ought to be the most scrutinized industry.
	Absolutely.
	I think it's very difficult to find an argument against that, wouldn't you say?
	It is, but we need to be careful because the more we scrutinise, not scrutinise, the more we want to control charities and projects is why we've got into a situation where we can't do anything with kids.
	We can't take them here, we can't do that because of all the red tape.
	There's always a balance.
	Now where that line is...
	It's always shifting and it's hard.
	But extra legislation, extra powers for the council, I'm against all that.
	We need to get back to common sense and we need to get back to we obey what the parents want.
	That should always be the first mantra.
	Of course, whereas Mermaids has shown themselves time and time again to be an organisation that does not care what the parents have to say.
	Anti-parent.
	Yeah, anti-parent, which when you're talking about girls as young as 13, and boys as young as 13, I'm sure as well, but it seems that the overwhelming trend has been that as young girls have hopped onto the trans trend is that these people are not in the right mind to be able to make such long-reaching decisions in their own life, but...
	Anyway, moving on.
	We don't allow children to smoke and drink.
	You know, you've got to be 13 to be on social media, technically by all the apps, you know.
	And even that's way too young as far as I'm concerned.
	So if we don't allow children to smoke or drink, but we can allow them to make life-changing choices or to damage themselves, that's why we call them children because children need to be under protection of a parent and parent make those decisions.
	Absolutely.
	George Happ says, That's all true, sadly.
	And the interesting thing about the Soviet Union was that article, the original one, Red Love for All...
	Reference, let me find her name because I've got it noted down in here.
	It was some woman called Alexandra something or other.
	Sorry, I'm just trying to find it.
	Oh my goodness, where is it?
	Some Soviet woman.
	Anyway, she was some Soviet woman.
	Oh, here we go.
	Alexandra Colony, who was, you know, she was part of the October Revolution.
	She said, we need to abolish the family.
	It's one of the cornerstones of capitalism.
	We want to smash capitalism, therefore yada, yada, yada.
	And what happened was they tried putting her ideas into play.
	They failed immediately, and she was this close to getting shot by Stalin, who instead decided to exile her because she was a woman, and he thought it would be uncouth of him to have her executed so publicly when she'd been a woman as part of the October Revolution.
	So it's only because...
	More female privilege?
	Yeah, only because of male sexism and chauvinism did she avoid a bullet to the head because her ideas were so awful.
	And I think she even changed her mind about family abolition towards later in her life, but that might be me.
	Embellishing there.
	Anyway, Lord Nerevar says, I wasn't aware of mermaids as recently as a month ago, but now I use them as an immediate red flag.
	If I see an organisation supporting, endorsing or working for mermaids, they are immediately blacklisted in my mind.
	No money, business or time will be afforded to them.
	I'll go straight to the competition.
	That's great, and I'm glad to hear that you're sticking by your principles and doing something like that.
	Right, well, on your list, you need to add Starbucks and you need to add Wagamama, best of all.
	Wagamamas at the moment are giving 20% of profits on certain meals straight to mermaids.
	And Starbucks were, I'm not sure if they're still doing it now, were giving money to mermaids.
	I was not aware of Wagamama's.
	I'm away from Starbucks altogether in the first place, because I think they've gone completely cashless, and the cashless society is not something that I welcome, but Wagamama, thank you for letting me know about that one.
	Andrew Narog says, You know, why not?
	Let Eddie Izzard run, and perhaps even gain a seat.
	It just shows how ridiculous and clownish the left has become.
	Let Eddie Izzard define the left.
	That's true.
	It's Sheffield, so I think you get the politicians you deserve.
	Sheffield...
	I've been there once and it was fine, but it was incredibly lefty.
	And he should be able to run, and good luck to him, because if he wins it means that people want him.
	And even though I disagree with Labour on many things, I don't want to stop him running.
	I don't want to stop him running because he's trans.
	I don't want to stop him running because it's a female only shortlist.
	Let the man run.
	Yeah, let the man run, and if he ends up being good at what he does, I mean, who knows, maybe he'll turn Sheffield around.
	Well, he's already abolished female only shortlist.
	I mean, there's a step in the right direction straight away.
	I think he's doing okay.
	Colin P says, again, please explain to me exactly what rights they want.
	Genuinely, please explain, because if you can't, I'm going to start calling you trans-privileged activists.
	And, yeah, they are just looking for privileges.
	All these rights they want are basically made-up privileges.
	They only want one right, and that's the right for you to believe anything I say.
	That's the right they're struggling with.
	Well, it's the right to avoid consequences, really, both in terms of their actions and their words.
	I don't think they care about the consequences.
	I think what they really want, it's all about, the right I want is for you to believe everything I say.
	Oh, it's definitely power.
	That's the right they want.
	They're after power, but I do also think these people tend to be, and this is from experience, extremely sensitive to anybody questioning them.
	So the consequences they're more afraid of because it makes them feel bad, not because it will actually negatively impact them in any other way.
	It makes them feel bad because they don't have answers to the questions you ask them.
	Of course not.
	When you follow an ideology, all you know are the mantras.
	So when someone asks you a question, You don't know the answer.
	That's what upsets them, because they don't know any answers to any questions.
	Only the set prescribed trans rights to human rights.
	Black Lives Matter.
	It's the slogans.
	They know the mantras, the slogans, that's all they know.
	I've started taking to calling them the incantations, because it's like, they just think, if I repeat it enough, some magic will manifest, and I'll get what I want.
	It's an incantation.
	But we'll go on to the comments for your segment, Make Crime Stop and Pay.
	Carl Gardner says, a new capital punishment system for the modern world.
	Nick Buckley is my new hero.
	Sir, run for any office, the higher the better, and you've got my vote and my bow.
	Well, if we have any multi-millionaires out there who want to help fund a potential MP, I'm seriously looking at standing in the next general election.
	In the Greater Manchester area?
	No, it looks like it's going to be Warrington South, because that's where my new house is going to be, and I want to stand where I live.
	Yeah, Warrington...
	But to run an MP, you need backers, so if there's anybody out there who wants to back me, please get in contact.
	Warrington's very close to where I'm from in the first place as well, Cheshire, so, you know, start to improve the local area, it might come over to us as well, because our MP up there, I forget what his name is exactly, he's a Conservative MP, but he's useless.
	Yeah.
	Well, there's not much of me being able to improve the local area because one MP doesn't have that much power.
	Of course.
	But what I do promise is...
	Parliament will never be the same again.
	I'd love to see them trying to answer your questions in Parliament.
	Parliament will never be the same.
	It'll be a much more professional version of when Ali G was in Parliament.
	Remember that film?
	I've not seen it, but I've seen some clips.
	I know what you're on about.
	Bald Eagle, 1787, says there's one massive problem with using prisoner labour for things.
	Yeah.
	in Paris, over in the US, they intentionally ignore prisoners that earned their parole and kept them locked up indefinitely.
	Her reason?
	We needed the prison labor.
	Yep.
	What I'll reject there is always comparing criminal justice systems or anything to American systems.
	We're not America.
	We have a completely different system and we will run it the way it needs to be run.
	So just cause other countries have corrupt systems doesn't mean ours will be corrupt because many of our institutions are not corrupt.
	They're woke, but they're not corrupt.
	Okay, so you're arguing for just a greater sense of moral fortitude.
	And the British public will need to hold those institutions to account because I don't want corruption.
	I don't want people who are due to parole not getting parole because they're making money.
	All that is horrendous.
	And again, people who are complicit in that...
	Also then, need to do time.
	So I'm big on our representatives and people who run our organisations.
	We need to start locking some of them up when they're committing fraud and when they're doing things they shouldn't be doing.
	Yeah, I think the first step to being able to make a system like this would be to, first off, have a greater level of accountability for the elected officials and people that we have.
	Because if we can't clear out the corruption at the top, then we can't sort everything else out below.
	We need a strong and moral small group of elites to clear them out, and then we can start to look at getting all this in.
	We need public oversight over everything.
	We should never be afraid of the public being able to see what happens, how much it costs, where the money goes.
	We need more public oversight.
	That's how we keep things fair.
	Yeah.
	Alex L says, I've always been against the idea of capital punishment or even any physical punishment or public embarrassment for one simple reason.
	What if you're wrong?
	I hear this argument all the time and it can happen, but I have always heard this referred to in the abstract far more than I've heard of actual examples given of it happening.
	Do you know of any examples where they've got it wrong?
	Oh yeah.
	Our criminal justice system is not perfect.
	It's not 100% accurate.
	People will be convicted today of crimes they didn't commit.
	But it's based on the evidence and it's also based on the history of that individual.
	So a lot of the criminals who may not have committed that crime have committed 72 others they didn't get caught for.
	And you'll also, every now and again, you'll also have an individual who never did anything wrong, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, something happened, and it looks like he did it, so therefore he was convicted.
	But our system at the moment still punishes those people now anyway, still locks them up.
	But there will always be those outlying cases, but that shouldn't stop us punishing 99.9% of people.
	Absolutely.
	Razcek was right, says, Give them half a year to live their lives before sentencing,
	and why wouldn't they act like they got away with it?
	Which is an excellent point that you were bringing up as well.
	Yeah.
	Community service, waste of space.
	I've done a lot of work with probation.
	I used to get the probation people to come and clean streets and paint buildings when I worked for Manchester Council.
	I used them all the time.
	They were good.
	They did what they did.
	But speaking to the...
	It was always lads.
	Speaking of lads who were on probation, it was like...
	None of these lads are learning anything.
	This is a complete waste of time.
	They turn up for five hours because a couple of hours they've got to wait for people to turn up.
	You've got to provide a toilet for them.
	They're constantly having cigarette breaks.
	It's like, this is no punishment.
	This is like people slacking off like anybody does their job.
	The whole thing was a farce.
	Those lads who turned up on probation never learned anything and never went home thinking, I'm not committing crime again because they made me paint a wall today.
	It's like community service, almost a complete waste of time.
	Well, thank you for the insight there, because I wasn't aware of how it worked.
	But the last comment, because we've got to the time now, so I'll just say, Ewan Baker says we need to bring back the stocks.
	If you want to bring public punishment back into it, public humiliation, I'm not entirely against it.
	We do.
	Whether or not it has to be the stocks, what we've lost is societal shame.
	Nobody shames anybody anymore now.
	And I write about this in my second book which got published yesterday.
	It's called The Making of a Beggar.
	And you can trace it.
	So if you look at something like The Jerry McHale Show.
	So Jerry McHale Show...
	For me, it was one of those landmark opportunities, one of these landmark points where that destroyed societal shame.
	So you could look at the show, and the show might be about my grandfather has now married my babysitter, and my grandfather also has a gay lover, and he steals money off my nan for his heroin addict.
	So that's the title of the show.
	So everybody else watches this show.
	It's a freak show.
	Probably point and laugh at them.
	And they go, thank God that's me.
	God, that's not me.
	So I'm only...
	I only do benefit fraud and I only do domestic violence against my husband.
	So therefore...
	I'm pretty normal compared to them.
	So it normalised lots of antisocial behaviour because you weren't as bad as the freaks on this show.
	That's a good point.
	But I think that's all we've got time for.
	We've gone a little bit over now.
	So thank you for everything you've contributed here and thank you very much for tuning in.
	Before we finish, do you want to remind people where they can find you?
	Obviously, Getter.
	So, yep, lots of social media, apart from Twitter at the moment.
	So, Nick Buckley, MBE. Look at my YouTube channel.
	I put lots of videos on there.
	My podcast is on there.
	And find me on Getter.
	I'm mostly on Getter now.
	Talking in rubbish.
	Wonderful.
	Well, check Nick out, and thank you once again for tuning in today.
	Check out the freemium content that we've got available for one week.
	Once again, my video on what are leftists actually teaching our children is available for anyone who even isn't subscribed, so check that out if you're interested.
	Thank you again for tuning in.
	We'll be back at one o'clock tomorrow.

▲