Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 4, 2022 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters

01:31:26

The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #517

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good afternoon folks.
	Welcome to the podcast of the Lotus Eaters for the 4th of November 2022.
	It's Friday and I'm joined by David Curtin of the Heritage Party.
	David, how are you?
	I'm doing well, thank you, Carl.
	Very good to be here.
	Good, good.
	Just for anyone who doesn't know, can you give me a brief overview of the Heritage Party?
	Yeah, we've been going for about two years and we set up to be a socially conservative party, something I really think the country needs because we don't have a real conservative party anymore.
	And I think a lot of people have been shocked in politics and have really seen it over the last month or so that the conservatives aren't conservative, as well as the liberals not being liberal and Labour having nothing to do with the labouring man anymore.
	We set up the Heritage Party, or I set it up two years ago, to be for and stand for socially conservative principles.
	Just things which I think everybody thinks is common sense, like traditional family values, free speech, liberty, financial responsibility, controlling our borders, but then also...
	Preserving the countryside.
	Exactly.
	All of those things.
	And, yeah, so we've had a lot of interest over the two years, and especially in the last month or so with the chaos in Parliament.
	But...
	Yeah, we're building the Heritage Party and I hope we can be a challenger to those parties that are in Parliament that aren't doing the best for our country anymore.
	Where can people go to find more?
	Our website is heritageparty.org so you can have a look on there, you can join and you can look at our manifesto there.
	Great.
	We'll talk about it a bit after we've done the stuff that we're going to talk about mostly during the podcast, because I'd like to go through just the manifesto and talk about it later.
	But anyway, before we begin, though, we have another day 24 of our birthday celebrations, a freemium live hangout, where Connor and Harry will be discussing Parliament's farcical COVID vaccine damage debate.
	Because there's a lot to talk about on that.
	And of course, they're not going to do it in our Parliament.
	Why would they?
	But anyway, let's begin.
	So, the 2021 census was finally released, or at least part of it has been released.
	And so we at least get to know how many immigrants, as in people who were born outside of the United Kingdom, are living in the United Kingdom.
	Well, England and Wales, actually.
	For some reason, Scotland's always left off of it.
	done quite a lot of work on the censuses that we've had since the 60s about the population of England and Wales, and so we'll talk about that shortly.
	But before we begin, if you want to support us, you can go over to lotuses.com and watch this latest hangout that I did with Callum.
	I wasn't able to persuade him that Bigfoot exists, but I am able to persuade him that there are in fact big cats in the UK.
	This is something of a census of the big cat population of the UK.
	Are you aware that there are actually big cats wandering around in England?
	I know there's garden cats.
	I didn't know there were really big, big cats.
	You mean lions and cheetahs and lynxes?
	Punas, leopards and jaguars, it seems.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	I hear stories about this from time to time and you think, is this really made up or is it someone who's just seen a big dog or...
	Not to spoil anything, but actually there's loads of evidence that this is going on.
	And a few people have actually been attacked by them.
	Okay, that's nasty.
	It doesn't make too much headlines for some reason.
	So anyway, if you want to know more, go and check that out.
	So let's begin with an article that I wrote about a year ago, I think this was.
	In March, I'd just gone through all of the censuses since 1961 on the NOMIS database.
	The numbers on there aren't actually very well presented, but I'd crunched all the numbers.
	If you can scroll down on this, I put them into a few charts, just so you can see.
	So this chart, this here, population of England and Wales, this is the total population in millions.
	And as you can see, the blue majority at the bottom is the native population, those who identify on the census as English or Welsh, just in white and British, they call it.
	So there will be a small percentage of Scots in there as well.
	But for the sake of this argument, you can see that this has remained at roughly 45 million for decades now, since about 1991 to 2011.
	It's been about 45 million English and Welsh.
	But as you can see, the red slope going up there from about, well, the 90s, in fact, it starts to get quite dramatic, doesn't it?
	And so we knew in 2011 that there were 10 or nearly 11 million people who didn't identify as English or Welsh living in England and Wales, which is a lot.
	And then the new census came out.
	So we go to that.
	I wrote another article because this is a bugbear of mine.
	I thought we'd just go through some of the statistics.
	I'll quote from the official census statements.
	They say one in six usual residents of England and Wales were born outside of the UK. An increase of 2.5 million since 2011 from 7.5 million to 10 million.
	So now they say that's 16.8% and that is correct.
	That is people who are born elsewhere who live here, but that is also not taking into account people who are born here who are second or third generation.
	Residents from the parents of immigrants.
	And so this, of course, does not include the figures for Scotland or illegal immigrants.
	So, I mean, what do you make of that?
	That's a massive number, isn't it?
	It's interesting you say that the data is hard to actually delve into and find answers.
	I think that's deliberate because they must know that there is an easier way to present all this data if they wanted to.
	They could put it all together like you have.
	Why do they present it in such a way that someone like you or is interested has to look at multiple different spreadsheets and pull out numbers and then make up your own chart and your own table?
	They should be giving that to us in an easy format, easy to find manner so everybody can see what's going on.
	But I think this is political dynamite, which is why they hide it.
	And then it needs someone like you to come along and actually say, well, this is actually what's happening.
	Look at the trend here.
	The number of foreign born people in the country has gone up.
	You know, not just as the headlines are in the papers over the last 10 years, but over the last 40 or 50 years, it's gone from like 1 million up to 10 million, which is not just a 33% increase, but you know what's a 900% increase, if you like, over the last 40 but you know what's a 900% increase, if you like, over It's mad.
	The interesting thing, the previous figures, when I was showing, what they don't actually reveal, if you go into the depth of the ethnic breakdown, half of those are Irish as well.
	So, you know, like in 1961, there were 1.4 million foreigners living in England, but half of those were Irish.
	So actually, really, like, you know, if you can say that Irish foreign to Britain, I mean, I suppose you...
	It's a different country, isn't it?
	But obviously Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but I guess you're talking...
	It's had such an intrinsic relationship with Britain for the past few hundred years.
	It's hard to say, well, they're foreigners, you know, you can't really look at them.
	It was part of the United Kingdom up until 1937, wasn't it?
	So it's not really...
	You know, culturally very, very close to us.
	Exactly.
	And that's the issue, isn't it?
	And so really what you had is about 750,000 people who are culturally very different to us living in England and Wales.
	And so that's a very small amount.
	And now it's obviously completely changed.
	So they noted that since 2011, the gross population has grown by 3.5 million people.
	And so now they put it at 59,597,542 in 2021.
	So I'm just going to round that to 60 million just for ease of use.
	But that's staggering, isn't it?
	So if we look at the 45 million English and Welsh, there are now 15 million non-English and Welsh living in England and Wales.
	I think that, you know, 60 million was the population of the whole United Kingdom about 20 years ago, something like that.
	Because these figures that you're putting are just England and Wales.
	They don't include Scotland and Northern Ireland, too.
	So I wonder, you know, if you...
	And that's a very strange thing.
	Why do they not include the rest of the United Kingdom?
	Is this another bit of obfuscation?
	So you look at this and go, oh, it's only 60 million.
	But actually, you add Scotland and Northern Ireland, that's...
	67 or 68 million, and that doesn't include people that aren't on the census because not everyone who's here is going to be on the census.
	Which I'll get to in a minute, in fact.
	And so the question then is, well, where are the growths coming from?
	Where's the population growth coming from?
	They point out that the birth rates account for, in the 10 years, 1.5 million extra people, which is interesting because the birth rates are not evenly distributed among different groups.
	The average white British family in 2008 had 2.2.
	This appears to have actually gone down, but the average for Indians was 2.6, Pakistanis was 3.2, and Bangladeshis was 3.6.
	And so the population growth, again, we'll find out if and when, and it may be that they don't end up releasing the actual self-identified ethnic breakdown of the United Kingdom.
	And again, I suspect you're right, it's probably because they're like, oh god, that's going to look bad.
	Well, I would sort of question that a little bit, because that says this is a 2008 study by the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
	That puts the figure for white British at 2.2, but there are other figures that suggest the total fertility rate for white British people in the United Kingdom is actually much lower than that.
	They do.
	Much more like 1.5, 1.6, which is below replacement rate.
	And that's exactly what the ONS say.
	And I do include it in this as well, in fact, the line above.
	At the moment, the ONS puts it at 1.61 children per woman.
	But the thing is, that's a composite figure that includes 15 million non-white British people.
	So it's like, okay, well...
	I mean, we don't know.
	I mean, in 2008, that was merely the average number of children at the time that they had.
	So, frankly, I couldn't find more accurate information.
	This was the most accurate information I could find when writing this article.
	I think it's probably worse than that.
	See, that's another thing.
	See, if this is the most accurate information that's out there, and that is...
	Well, I'm not saying it's the most accurate that's out there.
	It's the most accurate I could find.
	If anyone's got any better, send it across.
	I want it.
	I'm not at all blaming you, but my point is that there are people, you know, the census people, the ONS, they will probably know this.
	But they're not putting it out.
	So we've got a figure there from 14 years ago.
	It must have changed since then.
	So why are we not easily presented with data on this figure that we can easily find out year by year?
	They must know it because they do have records of how many people were born each year, how many people died each year.
	They know exactly their names.
	They know what households they're living in.
	You had to fill out the census.
	It's a legal requirement.
	They know.
	You're right.
	So why are they not presenting this data, which is something they would think, if you're making a census, people will want to know, but they're not giving it to you.
	So this makes me and you, I imagine, very suspicious about what they're presenting and what the political motivations are for them not presenting this kind of data in a manner which is easily accessible.
	And if it wasn't the Conservative Party, I might be slightly less suspicious.
	But because it's the Conservative Party, I'm very, very suspicious.
	I'd be suspicious of Labour as well.
	And the Lib Dems and the Greens as well.
	No, no, I would just assume malice on the part of Labour.
	Yes, indeed, yeah.
	If it was a party that didn't obviously hate the country, I'd presume incompetence.
	But no, I'm just...
	I'm going to...
	I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt.
	No, no, not at all.
	I don't think anyone should.
	No, no.
	They're just the same, basically.
	I don't see any difference, really, politically between...
	Well, the taxes were lower under Labour.
	That's true.
	I know.
	Immigration was lower under Labour, actually.
	It is quite astounding, really, isn't it?
	You talk about Tony Blair destroying the country, but actually it's this fake Conservative Party who have done more damage over the last 13 years than Labour did over there.
	What I think it is is that Tony Blair put the party on a certain path, and the Conservatives just continued on down the path.
	Exactly, yeah.
	They could change at any time.
	They've just not got the spine for it.
	But anyway, so this is forcing various places to admit that, yes, the majority of the population growth is, of course, from immigration, which we knew.
	I mean, I assume you heard that last year the Conservative Party gave out over a million visas.
	Right.
	Yeah, I heard that.
	It's just insane.
	I don't know how that compares to 20 years ago, but I think, you know, far, far fewer.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, 300,000 was sort of the beginning of Labour.
	It'd be 300,000 a year, which is a staggering number.
	Yeah.
	But the Conservatives, I mean, Tony Blair, I think the most his government gave out were 500,000 in one year.
	And that's, again, ridiculous numbers.
	But the Conservatives are like, yeah, why don't we just double that?
	Yeah.
	It's mad.
	I was pushing it half a million.
	That was pushing it at the time.
	People weren't happy about that.
	It's crazy, that's why.
	And the worst thing about the Conservatives is, well, Labour, you expect it.
	You know they're going to ruin the country.
	They say that's what they're going to do.
	It's totally true, yeah.
	They don't pretend to be any different, but the Conservatives, they pretend that they're going to look after the country, and they do far worse than Labour.
	I mean, it's absolutely insane.
	I mean, you've got to break that down as well, because some of them will be student visas, some of them will be work visas, low-skilled work visas, general work visas, seasonal visas.
	I mean, I'm fine with giving visas to people who are coming to the country to contribute, to start a business, to employ people or, you know, to bring skills that we haven't got in this country, high-level skills.
	But we really don't need to be giving out visas for low-skilled work.
	There's enough British people in this country that can do entry-level jobs.
	There's enough foreign people in this country who can do their jobs.
	That's true!
	In fact, let's talk about some of the numbers, because this is just mad.
	So they gave us a breakdown.
	There are 900,000 Indians who moved here in the last 10 years.
	So that's not including, again, the million or so who came here during the Tony Blair years.
	750,000 Polish?
	A staggering number.
	Like, doesn't Poland need those labourers?
	Like, could Poland not benefit from those works?
	I mean, okay, maybe in India, where you've got 1.4 billion people, you're like, okay, you guys can go, you know.
	But in Poland, do you have that problem?
	600,000 Pakistanis, 500,000 Romanians.
	Remember when Nigel Farage in 2014 was like, oh, quarter of a million Romanians will come?
	Yeah, he was optimistic, wasn't he?
	Quarter of a million, no, half a million.
	Double that.
	There's 300,000 Irish, which is not surprising.
	250,000 Italians.
	Why?
	I'm not sure.
	That's a strange aberration in the figures.
	There's such a large number of Italians living here.
	250,000 Bangladeshis, 250,000 Nigerians, 250,000 Germans.
	You know, no, Brexit meant Brexit, damn it!
	And then 200,000 South Africans...
	There's some surprises in there, aren't there?
	Italians and Germans, I know.
	Romanians is not really much of a surprise.
	You know, in the last decade, the decade before last, the 2000s, you could hear more Polish people around, but now you can visibly see and hear more Romanians around.
	We've got Romanian shops that sprung up in the town centre.
	It's like, brilliant...
	Anyway, let's talk about where these people are living, because it turns out that, well, they're actually now the majority of lots of places in the United Kingdom, in England.
	English cities, many, or at least parts of them, are now majority immigrant, not even, like, second or third generation, like, descendants of immigrants.
	So you can say, okay, well, you know, born and bred here, fair enough, you know, maybe I won't count you as a foreigner, even if you're not English or Welsh, you know, fair enough.
	But no, this is now the point where 40% of London was born outside of the United Kingdom.
	That's mad, isn't it?
	Yeah, I mean, it's unbelievable, isn't it?
	I mean, you know, there's a difference between people who are culturally British.
	You know, I'm not white British, but, you know, we never even mention it.
	You know, no one even really thinks about that at all.
	It's just, you know, you're born here and you're British and so on.
	Yeah, I don't care about the skin colour.
	I want the Germans to go home.
	You know, as white as the driven snow, but go out!
	Yeah, it's London especially, East London, North London, you can see all the building and development that's going on.
	So actually a lot of it, one of the drivers of this is that property developers make a lot of money out of this and they want mass immigration to continue because they're just building 20, 30, 40 storey skyscrapers all over the place, ruining our towns and cities.
	But they love it because they can make money, but they don't care.
	Because they live in rural Oxford here or something and they're not affected by it.
	You know, I looked at this the other day.
	20% of the Conservative Party's donors are property developers.
	20%.
	It's the party of property developers, isn't it?
	It's mad, you know.
	With a Conservative Party, we're going to pave over everything.
	Hmm.
	What have you conserved?
	But anyways, so getting back to this, this is fascinating.
	So, like, areas of London that are, again, if it was like second or third generation, like children of immigrants and stuff like that, I'd be like, okay, fair enough, that makes sense.
	But instead, in places like Brent, 56.1% are foreign-born.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	More than half of the people, and that's not including the second or third generation.
	That's astounding, isn't it?
	Because you would expect that, you know, with a high ethnic minority, well, majority, ethnic majority now, a lot of that would be people who have, like, come over before second or third generation.
	It's astounding.
	You've got more than half the people born abroad that have moved here.
	In Westminster?
	That's absolutely astounding.
	Well, Westminster is unique, in a way, because that's the place, you know, that is the centre of London.
	Fair enough.
	It's always going to attract more people than anywhere else.
	Newham, 53.7.
	Kensington and Chelsea, 53.9.
	Harrow, 51.1.
	Ealing, 50.8.
	I mean, it goes on into the 40s and stuff like that, but those are just the ones that are more than half immigrants.
	Wow.
	So you could go down the other London boroughs and they'd probably be a lot more over 40% as well.
	Yeah, 47%, you know.
	Wow.
	But I just thought, save the time.
	And then we get to just other English cities, which have a very large number of, again, first-generation immigrants.
	Leicester, 41%.
	Goodness me.
	Nottingham, 24%.
	Bristol's only 18%, 19% nearly.
	Swindon, where we are, 20%.
	Peterborough, 28%.
	Luton, 38%.
	Reading, 33%.
	Slough, 44%.
	Milton Keynes, 25%.
	Southampton, 24%.
	Bedford, 21%.
	Cambridge, 38%.
	Oxford, 35%.
	Okay, fair enough.
	They're university cities.
	Maybe that makes sense.
	But, you know, what's going on with Manchester at 31%?
	It's just an enormous percentage of these cities is born outside of the United Kingdom.
	Like you say, there are a lot of students, and one of the things that they've been doing with these 1.1 million visas given out is a huge number are given to foreign students.
	A quarter of them are given to students, yeah.
	Which is way, way more than we had 10 or 20 years ago.
	But again, universities love that because they're making lots of money, and they've become places which are just there.
	To make money for their vice-chancellors and so on with huge salaries these days rather than centres of excellence.
	And it's like, you know, these things and these people are involved in bringing mass immigration to the country just for the purposes of profit.
	They know the price of everything but the value of nothing.
	We want our universities to be centres of academic excellence which contribute to the culture and society, not just money pits.
	That would be nice if they weren't like, yeah, but we can get loads of money out of foreign students.
	It's like, yeah, I don't care.
	You get some that they don't care what the quality of the teaching is, and the students don't care what the quality of the teaching is either.
	They just love it.
	They come, they get a visa, they do whatever naughty course they do, and then they can stay afterwards.
	So there's no quality in that at all.
	Speaking of illegal immigration though, in 2019 Pew Research believed there to be somewhere between 800,000 and 1.2 million illegal immigrants in England and Wales, so we'll just cap that a million.
	And of course Migration Watch have estimated the invasion of the Channel migrants to be 79,000 in total so far.
	So that's just a drop in the bucket really.
	Yeah, we see that, and it's shocking because you see the boats coming across the channel, but it's tiny, like you say.
	Compared to 1.1 million visas in one year, and this research, about a million from Pew Research, I question that that is accurate.
	I think there's probably a lot more.
	I mean, remember when we came out of the EU, sort of.
	We didn't do it properly, obviously.
	That's our whole other issue.
	But they were giving these, what are they called, settled status to EU citizens.
	And they said, well, that's going to be 3 million, approximately.
	And actually, there were 5 million they gave out.
	So there's an extra 2 million right there that the government didn't know about.
	And, you know, where's that in the figures?
	I don't know.
	And that's just the ones that we know about now that are here legally.
	Do you remember in 2011 that Tesco estimated there were 80 million people living in England and Wales?
	I remember that.
	In Britain, I guess.
	Because they were like, well, we're feeding them.
	We know how much food they're taking.
	And it makes you wonder, doesn't it?
	You just don't know.
	They would really know.
	The people that really would know, supermarkets, but also water companies and wastewater companies, they would know exactly how many are here because, you know, people use about the same amount of water.
	You try to do a Freedom of Information request on them, oh no, not in the public interest.
	They won't tell you.
	Speaking of Brexit, the effect of Brexit on immigration has been very small.
	Before Brexit, the pre-Brexit migration levels from the EU were nearly 200,000 a year.
	And so the net migration has gone down by 100,000.
	So we're still getting 100,000 Europeans net in a year, which is why we've got half a million Romanians and 250,000 Italians, 250,000 Germans.
	I think there's 200,000 French as well, but they didn't quite make that noise.
	And it's just like...
	I thought we did have Brexit.
	Get away from you people.
	I've got nothing against them.
	I lived in Germany for eight years.
	Yeah, I lived in Germany too.
	It's a really lovely country to live in.
	It is, and they're all lovely people.
	But the problem is just the numbers.
	Absolutely.
	This is the problem.
	And, you know, jokes aside, banter aside, it's just one of those things where it's like, there has to be some sort of control.
	There has to be some sort of control.
	But they cap this off by saying, look, we might not have any further information about the ethnic breakdown of the United Kingdom in the future.
	They say, we're changing the way we produce population and migration statistics to include all available data for the census, and so they're discontinuing our population of the UK by country of birth and nationality series.
	That's just...
	Why?
	They can do it.
	They know exactly how many people are here by nationality.
	Why not tell everybody?
	I mean, this is, again, keeping us in the dark, isn't it?
	Why wouldn't you want us to know?
	Yeah, why?
	Exactly.
	This makes me very, very suspicious.
	I'm sure it would make everyone suspicious.
	Why would they not tell us?
	The cover that they've given for this is they've got this migrant worker scan system, which is linked to the pay-as-you-earn real-time information.
	And they think there's an underlying data issue with the MWS system, and so they're not going to bother.
	Oh, fix your data issue then?
	You're the office for statistics.
	Surely they can fix a little data issue that they've got.
	That's their job.
	So let's have a look at some of the consequences of this immigration.
	Here's one BBC reporter, I'm going to go to the next one, who just tweeted out today or yesterday, in fact, Kent's council leaders say that secondary schools in Canterbury and Ashford currently have no Year 7 and Year 9 places for local children due to the unexpected and therefore unplanned arrivals of refugee children disproportionately placed by the Home Office in these two areas.
	You say this as a BBC reporter.
	Simon Jones is a BBC reporter.
	This is not the kind of thing you'd expect the BBC to report, but it must be really serious.
	You'll notice how he reported it on Twitter, and not on the BBC. Right.
	He's only got 20,000 followers on Twitter.
	The Guardian decided, and there's been very middling coverage in this.
	They give the basic data that I've given and they say the more detailed figures illustrating the changes in ethnicity, gender identity, religion and language and education of the people of England and Wales are due to be released later this year along with data and health and other things.
	So hopefully we do get the full ethnic breakdown at the end of this month is the estimate.
	But who knows?
	I mean, at any point they could just tell us no.
	The BBC put a positive spin on all of this.
	So, like, yeah.
	And if you scroll down on this, John, just about halfway down the article, you can see they go through all of the data that we've just been through.
	Keep going down.
	And then the...
	Keep going, keep going, keep going.
	There we go.
	Oh, it's less deprivation, though.
	Oh, that's positive, isn't it?
	Oh, that's lovely.
	I don't know how they work that out.
	Well, they define it by people having an adult unemployed or long-term sick and not a full-time student, no one with five or more GCSE passes and no full-time students, and anyone with very bad long-term health problems, or living in overcrowded accommodation and without central heating.
	Seems a little bit inconsistent with what they say most of the rest of the time because they're always telling us how there's more deprivation, especially among, you know, black people or ethnic minority people.
	But here they're saying there's less deprivation.
	The two things don't really tie up, actually.
	They can pick and choose their figures and spin whatever narrative they like.
	Normally, 10 years ago, when I used to walk through the town, I'd bump into people I knew all the time.
	I'd be like, alright, mate.
	I actually, the other day, bumped into a friend of mine walking through town, and he was just like, mate, I don't even know where I am.
	He literally said, I feel alienated from this town, and I've been here my whole life.
	It is a shocking thing, you know.
	I mean, I see that in some places, you know.
	The buildings are the same.
	Well, actually, they're not, because they're building so many new buildings.
	But where they are, you know, they can be the same.
	But the culture changes.
	Yeah.
	When you have a complete replacement of people.
	And in some, you know, like you've got these boroughs, you say, with now over 50% of people in Brent, for example, are foreign-born.
	That is a replacement.
	Yeah.
	And the way there are people like, oh, but, you know, what if the city expands or something like that?
	I say, yeah, but London can't expand.
	You know, when you're in an inner part of London, you've got no room for expansion.
	Brent is a small area which is bounded by everything else.
	Exactly.
	You can't.
	The only way it's staying is going up.
	Yeah.
	And they're building all these high-rises and they're getting filled with people, you know, because there are loads more of these high-rises, especially around Wembley and Brent, they've built loads of them.
	So they're just placing people in these, you know, slums of the future from abroad who are coming in.
	And, you know, there's, again, a lot of student accommodation there for the, you know, naughty universities of London.
	I won't mention their names, but...
	No, universities that do gender studies and things like this.
	Yeah, but there's loads of student accommodation there, which is what you get in some of the other cities you mentioned earlier, but yeah, they're going up and...
	Yeah, the skyline is changing, the topography is changing, the culture is changing because the people are changing.
	You know, it's like, you know, when you change what the place looks like and you change the people, you're just creating a whole new thing.
	It's a whole new world.
	It's a whole new state.
	You know, this is...
	Transformation.
	And, you know, you get people talk about, we want to transform London, we want to transform the country, reset, renew, reshape.
	I don't want any of that stuff.
	I'm happy with my country.
	Yes, it is.
	Or as it was, you know, 20 or 30 years ago.
	I was genuinely attached to it.
	It was very lovely.
	Yeah, it was.
	And that's the thing, like you say, you know, the buildings change.
	Well, in Swindon, actually, the buildings haven't really changed.
	And so they are all the same buildings, just with, you know...
	Just an amalgamation of people from all around the world now just sitting around.
	And it's like, who are you people and where have you come from?
	Why are you here?
	How did you end up in Swindon of all places?
	Anyway, let's move on.
	So Chris Snowden, the Telegraph Report, the head of lifestyle economics at the Institute for Economic Affairs, responded to the figures by saying they're not a massive surprise.
	It's like, well, no, I suppose if we're letting in a million immigrants a year, it's not a massive surprise that these numbers add up.
	Everyone knew that once access was granted that people would come in very large numbers, it was bound to happen.
	Well, yeah, but we always complained and it was never stopped.
	A lot of people don't understand that England is a more desirable place to live than many countries in Europe.
	Well, that's not going to last very long, is it?
	I mean, are the right things going?
	Well, with what's happened over the last two years, it really isn't anymore, is it?
	I don't know.
	I mean, there's still some really wonderful things about our country, but it's been hollowed out and battered about by, you know, Tory Labour, Tory Labour, and the governments we've got.
	I mean, so it's...
	General erosion, isn't it?
	We're really being treated harshly in this country.
	But we still give really great welfare packages to people who come across the channel.
	So it is desirable for people, because they get rewarded if they make it across the channel.
	I'm frankly against social welfare these days because I have to pay for it.
	I don't get to claim it.
	I don't like that.
	The Times reported that Alp Mehmet, the chairman of Migration Watch UK, called the foreign-born figure of 10 million astonishing.
	He said, the high and uncontrolled level of immigration has meant young people struggling to get on the housing ladder, worsening strains on the NHS and irrevocable loss of green space.
	All true.
	But I'm sick of the Labour narrative.
	Oh, the NHS is underfunded.
	It's like, no, it's overburdened.
	There's never been a cut to the NHS budget.
	There's just been increase, increase, increase, but it's not keeping up with demand.
	And they also say, the Times frame this, they're like, well, businesses who have been losing billions due to Labour shortages want more immigration.
	Labour shortages?
	How on earth can they say they've got a labour shortage when actually there you've got it right there in the figures?
	You've got another three and a half million people.
	It's mad, isn't it?
	The Guardian had the same opinion.
	Just let them all in and give them all visas.
	What are you talking about?
	Britain needs immigrants.
	It needs high skills to sustain health science and technological industries.
	However cruel the theft of India's trained doctors and Nigeria's nurses.
	Alright, so this is the new colonialisation.
	This is the Guardian, the left-wing paper, saying, oh, we should be pilfering Africa and India's resources.
	India doesn't need those doctors.
	We don't need those doctors.
	They've become, like, far-right.
	Yeah, exactly.
	It's a really imperial perspective.
	But it's also a totally false narrative.
	I mean, like, we go to the next one.
	The unemployment rate in 2022 is 3.5%.
	Like, that suggests a very, very engaged workforce.
	That's massive.
	And even for 16 to 24-year-olds, it's only 9%.
	So almost all, 91% of young people are employed, and like, you know, 96.5% of...
	Because what you have there on that curve, when it started to go down, it was in Cameron's time, it was in 2012, he put in this ridiculous rule that school leavers...
	Well, had to stay in school from 16 to 18.
	So before then, you could leave school at 16.
	And a lot of people did and got entry-level jobs.
	Now they've said, you need to stay in school until you're 18.
	You can't just go and get a job in a supermarket like you used to be able to do.
	And then, obviously, with Tony Blair's plan of getting more people staying in university up to 21, 22, that has actually taken two or three million young people out of the workforce.
	Yeah.
	Because you've got people who would have gone into work at 16, and now they're staying in education for 2, 3, 4, 5 years.
	And it's ridiculous for them, because they don't learn anything in university if they're not cut out for it, if they're not cut out for the academic pathway.
	There are so many people with degrees in things they don't need.
	Absolutely.
	It would be much better for them to get five years of experience in the job, learning, maturing, and actually earning a wage.
	They might actually step into lower management when they're 21, rather than stepping out of university with a head full of Marxism.
	Anyway, let's leave that there and go on to the Twitter layoffs.
	So the day has come, the doomsday has come for Twitter, where everyone, well, I say everyone, but it's actually only half of Twitter employees are getting completely laid off, because apparently this is the amount of time that Elon Musk is required to write his doomsday book, which, if you want to support us, you can go and watch our latest epochs on the doomsday book.
	Where William Conqueror just went and created an account, an entire account of his kingdom, and Elon appears to have done the same, and what the purpose of this is.
	Very interesting.
	So let's begin with a cartoon that one Twitter employee had written.
	Any Twitter employee who speaks out against our tolerant policy of absolute free speech shall be immediately fired.
	Yeah.
	That's actually a good policy.
	He's the owner of the company.
	Exactly.
	It's a private company.
	As all these people used to say, it's a private company.
	We can do what we like.
	Exactly.
	He can fire who he wants, can't he?
	But notice the people who are deeply intolerant are now appealing to your tolerance.
	So why should I be tolerant of you?
	They are intolerant of absolute free speech.
	Yes.
	So they're actually saying that there should be censorship.
	Yes.
	And if you call for censorship, you'll be fired.
	Okay, fair enough, because Twitter is a free speech platform.
	And he's got rid of all of those people who have got rid of all those sort of lucrative accounts that people join Twitter to watch and view, like President Trump and so on.
	And so their complaint is...
	I'm annoyed that you're censoring me instead of letting me censoring others They're not actually being censored, though, really, are they?
	Because they're not actually writing anything of any value.
	They're just stopping other people from being heard.
	They're also not being prevented from speaking.
	You're not entitled to have a job at Twitter.
	That's just obviously wrong.
	But the crux of the complaint is just, I want the power to censor, and I don't like it when you have the power to censor.
	It's like, well, sorry, Elon Musk had the money to buy your platform.
	Maybe you should have thought about this.
	So anyway, the rumour going around is that Elon was going to fire 50% of the staff at Twitter.
	Of course, he had said, and we covered this yesterday, that for every engineer that they have, there are 10 people managing, which I believe, to be honest.
	There's a problem with a lot of companies like this, isn't there?
	There's too many chiefs and not enough Indians, to use a phrase.
	You're not allowed to use the phrase anymore.
	Literal Indians.
	Although there were a couple of literal Indians who actually censored President Trump, weren't there really?
	Indian Americans, I think.
	Yeah, but there we go.
	But you are right.
	But that's the thing, isn't it, with some of these.
	I mean, what are some of these people doing in all these management positions just...
	Doing equality, diversity and inclusion and censorship and looking for so-called hate speech, which doesn't really exist.
	And you don't need them.
	They're providing nothing.
	They're not any value to your company, to your profit.
	They're actually just getting rid of people.
	Which is precisely Elon's perspective, in fact.
	and it's actually quite remarkable just how ruthless Elon has been here.
	Quote, The company said its offices will be temporarily sealed and all staff badge access will be suspended in order to help ensure the safety of each employee as well as Twitter systems and customer data.
	As in, we are remotely, because Elon's team has taken over Twitter, his technical team, and they've just completely blocked all of the Twitter staff's access to anything about Twitter so they can't go in and, you know, sabotage anything on the way out.
	Staff reported access to their email as other communication software such as Slack had been cut with little or no warning.
	They also reported being remotely logged out of laptops this is quite hard.
	It's just what banks would do if they fire someone, wouldn't they?
	It's what happened in Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns back in the financial crash like 15 years ago.
	This is nothing new.
	It's just that this time it's happened to people who thought, it's never going to happen to me because I'm on the good side of getting rid of all these people who are standing up for freedom and, you know.
	No, no, that is exactly right.
	How could this happen to me?
	You know, like one Twitter employee told BBC, my MacBook remotely logged out, Slack access gone, email gone.
	If you're in an office or on your way to the office, please return home, a staff memo said.
	In an effort to replace Twitter on a healthy path, we will go through the difficult process of reducing our global workforce.
	We recognize this will impact a number of individuals who have made valuable contributions to Twitter, but this action is unfortunately necessary to ensure the company's success moving forward.
	I'm not sad for them at all.
	It's great trolling actually, isn't it?
	For your safety, we're locking you up in your laptop.
	It's absolutely brilliant trolling.
	Because it's the sort of thing they'd say to you.
	We're going to keep it safe for our online community.
	But the thing is, I really have trouble summoning up any sympathy for these people, because honestly, I think they're all very entitled and spoiled.
	One chap called Kershal Dave on Twitter, who's an ex-employee, says, Honestly happy to be laid off, but the veil that Elon Musk has pierced.
	As messy as Twitter was pre-Elon, it's a veritable clown town of politics and toadyism and psychological abuse now.
	Afraid to get into my Tesla with what I learned this week.
	Oh yeah, aren't we all afraid to get into our Teslas these days?
	Pre-Elon.
	I mean, really, is this a phrase now that they're using?
	It apparently is.
	But imagine thinking that Twitter wasn't a veritable clown town of politics and toadyism pre-Elon.
	It's disgusting how obviously monomaniacally left-wing Twitter has been.
	And so, you know, you get people posting like, well, it's horrible to be fired, whether it's a factory being closed or a tech company being rebuilt.
	No gloating over the Twitter layoffs.
	Let's hope everyone who loses their job can quickly find something rewarding and productive to do.
	They can.
	They should grow some tomatoes or something.
	Yeah, learn to weld or something.
	Absolutely, yeah.
	Do something that's good for...
	I'm sure every single one of these little S's were gloating when they got suspended on Trump.
	Oh, of course they were.
	And everybody else.
	Yeah.
	They loved it.
	Alex Jones, you know, whoever else.
	Yeah.
	They were thrilled.
	You know they were thrilled.
	I mean, in fact, we've got...
	They've been tweeting their L's, in fact, and posting how...
	I mean, this is Declan Cashin, who was formerly of Twitter.
	The thing is that anyone who ever worked at Twitter will tell you is the company never had enough resources to deal properly with all of its problems and fulfil its true potential.
	Now, half of those scarce resources are all gone.
	This platform is finished.
	His bio, if you can hover over it, John, just to show everyone, formerly of Twitter, TikTok, BuzzFeed.
	Oh, dear.
	He's got it all there.
	He, him.
	Yeah, so...
	And there's sympathy for this guy.
	Some flags there as well.
	Yeah.
	LGBT flag.
	Is that a transgender flag?
	I think it's an Irish flag.
	A French flag or an Irish flag.
	Okay, whatever.
	Yeah, or maybe Italian actually, I'm not sure.
	But this is the point.
	It's all these things.
	If we go to the next one, again, just, oh no, I just got locked out.
	She, her.
	Another one.
	It's been a year working at a place I never imagined I'd get to work.
	I'm glad I could represent for Africa, and I didn't let us down.
	If you look at his...
	Can we look at his...
	You can see on his t-shirt there, successful black man.
	On his t-shirt, it's like...
	Okay.
	These just...
	Dreamer and doer, I'm sure.
	That'll go down well in Africa.
	And if we go to the next one, again, just all of these people are like, oh, this was all so brilliant.
	It's like, yeah, because it was run according to extremely left-wing ideals.
	Again, if you can hover over his bio, John.
	Yeah.
	All the same kinds of people.
	Right, pronouns in your body, which is a completely new thing that no one actually needs to do.
	They're trying to change the culture by getting everybody to do this.
	It's a group signifier.
	It shows I'm on board with the intersectional progressive narrative, and I support the current thing.
	I don't think I am, because I don't write my pronouns in my bio.
	No, I would say you're not.
	Do you think so?
	If you're leading a socially conservative political party, I'd say you're not.
	It would just have to be that way, wouldn't it?
	Well, that's why I got you in.
	The next one is an algorithm programmer, which, again, these people are acting as if they deserve sympathy.
	But remember, these algorithms that they're designing are destroying the West and...
	Driving massive divisions among groups of people.
	It's actually incredible how they don't understand how they are the villains that are causing all of the problems.
	But they're complaining, oh, my ethics algorithmic team has been completely disbanded.
	This is the hypocrisy of this.
	They were cancelling everybody and loving it and enjoying it.
	And now they've got cancelled.
	They don't like it.
	But remember, these are the people who create the algorithms that promote certain content and suppress other content.
	Based on their particular ethical perspective.
	But we know what their ethical perspective is, and it's not the same as mine.
	I don't share their ethical perspective.
	All of these platforms should be neutral.
	They shouldn't have any algorithms like this.
	They shouldn't have any censorship, unless it's content that is actually illegal.
	That's right.
	Inciting violence, which you have in America in a way you don't have in the UK. Unfortunately, I'd like to bring that in if we possibly could.
	Yeah, you've got all these platforms and then they just violate that.
	If they're going to do any kind of censorship like this or algorithms, you should treat them as publishers.
	So then they can be held to account in the same way that newspapers are held to account as publishers who decide what their content's going to be.
	And that's exactly what these algorithmic designers have been doing, literally designing and deciding what content you will be able to see.
	And so these people presided over the sort of absolute centralization and hegemony of left-wing narratives over political discourse.
	I mean, remember the censoring of the Hunter Biden laptop?
	You weren't allowed to talk about, you know, vaccines or the effects of COVID or the origins of COVID. All of these things were bannable offenses on these platforms.
	Well, I've been censored by them at very sensitive times, you know, just before elections.
	And there is that too, you know?
	I mean, you know, you could probably make the case that, like, you know, well, you know, the vaccines are about a public health issue and fair enough, you know, okay, fair enough.
	Maybe, maybe if at our most charitable, we can give you that one.
	Now justify the Hunter Biden laptop.
	You know, you literally prevented people from sharing the New York Post link on your platform.
	It's unjustifiable to me.
	And the thing is, all of this, I think, really began when they suspended the Babylon Bee for making a joke.
	Yeah, that's it.
	Jokes and banter are considered hatred by these people.
	Elon Musk, though, personally was a fan of the Babylon Bee, and now half your company has been fired!
	LAUGHTER Maybe.
	Maybe you should have been a bit more even-handed about it.
	Maybe that's it, you know?
	That could be it.
	Maybe there's a lesson there.
	That's what led to the progression that you see now.
	It may well be, actually.
	That would be quite incredible, wouldn't it?
	Great turnaround.
	I think that might actually be the case, to be honest.
	And so, you know, if you're a Twitter employee, you are a participant in the culling of free speech.
	You brought this upon yourselves.
	All you had to do was not censor your political opponents.
	You know, you were part of this.
	All you have to do is be even-handed, and you weren't.
	Now, it's not all bad for the Twitter employees.
	Now, they have legal recourse here, because, of course, California, like us, we've got extremely strict labor laws, and Elon Musk didn't give them a mandatory 60-day notice of this layoff period.
	And so they'll be able to take legal action against Elon.
	It's great.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	He's the richest man in the world.
	He can pay you a few million or whatever.
	Well, you know, they might get a loss of earnings for 60 days.
	Yeah, there's probably more to it.
	I'm not an expert on California law, but the point is they can take legal action.
	And they should.
	You know, why not?
	But at the end of the day, you don't work at Twitter anymore.
	And so the final thing I thought we'd talk about today is this article that came up at The Atlantic, which I thought was remarkable.
	Should we have a pandemic amnesty?
	What was the Heritage Party's position on lockdowns?
	Well, no, we shouldn't have an amnesty, but I think you all know what I think of lockdowns.
	Absolute disaster.
	It should never have happened.
	It was dreadful from the very beginning.
	It was awful, wasn't it?
	Just, you know, March 2020.
	It was on my birthday, I think.
	Bad things always happen on my birthday, because it's like, it's the spring equinox.
	I was born on the spring equinox.
	For some reason, people think they...
	You know, they announce really bad stuff on the spring equinox or the autumn equinox.
	I don't know.
	The Iraq war started on my birthday.
	And then the lockdown started on my birthday as well.
	It's very bizarre.
	It's nothing to do with me.
	I would do the opposite.
	But yeah, I mean, Boris Johnson coming out and just saying, we all have to stay at home and then businesses are closed.
	It was just dreadful.
	I mean, you're thinking...
	What on earth is going on in our country?
	You know, it just flipped like that.
	And then, yeah, businesses were destroyed.
	Families were torn apart.
	You couldn't see your friends.
	Police were arresting people for sitting with people in a park or going for a walk in the park or going to church on a Good Friday in South London, which we saw in London.
	All these terrible, terrible things that you could never imagine happening.
	In the UK. And not just the UK. It happened around the Western world as well.
	Of all places, though.
	It feels like it's worse that we're doing it.
	Okay, China's going to do it.
	You expect China to do that.
	Exactly.
	Maybe the Germans are going to do it.
	Okay, you expect the Germans to do it, to be honest.
	I lived there for eight years.
	Exactly.
	But here, you know, here you would think that, I mean, we've got such an ancient tradition of limited government, you'd think that everyone would be like, no, you don't have the authority to do that.
	You know that Boris didn't feel initially like he had the authority?
	Like, his initial thing was, well, we've just got to take it on the chin.
	Yeah, we do.
	That's exactly it.
	We've just got to take it on the chin, like every other, you know, disease and pandemic.
	You don't have the authority to end public life in the country.
	That's terrible.
	It was stirred up by the media as well.
	Dreadful, dreadful people in the media.
	How about China?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	But you had these terrible press conferences where, you know, at the beginning I wasn't really, you know, it takes you a bit of time to sort of work out all what's going on and what the people are doing.
	So I did have a little bit of sympathy for Boris at the beginning.
	Because I thought, oh, he doesn't really want to do it, and his hand's been forced into it.
	I don't think that at all now.
	I think he's totally part of it.
	Well, why did he do it?
	He had the power to say no, and he didn't.
	He capitulated.
	If you're a leader and you want freedom in your country, you've got to stick to that, no matter what.
	Piers Morgan and Jeremy Vine and Emily Maitlis.
	And Laura Koonsberg are saying to you and questioning you, no matter how they put it, you say, no, this is what I'm doing, and we're going to...
	They actually had a resilience plan for this kind of thing, and they said, no, we don't need to lock down or social distance.
	We're like, yeah, maybe shield the most vulnerable people, and then life for everyone, for the majority, will carry on as normal.
	But they totally ditched that plan and went for the Chinese Communist Party system.
	Yeah.
	You've got to stand up and say no.
	And he didn't do that.
	No, I totally agree.
	And it's all on him.
	I totally agree.
	Well, not all on him, but the other people as well.
	The buck stops with him.
	Obviously, there's many more people who are culpable, but he is the one who had the final say.
	Yeah.
	And he could have made an affirmative moral argument saying, well, look, A, I don't have the authority to just tell everyone to stay at home.
	I just don't have that kind of authority.
	We're a constitutional democracy.
	I can't.
	And B, it's going to have knock-on consequences that will harm other people in the future.
	And like you say, we'll take as many actions as we can, as in...
	We'll make sure that people in nursing homes are treated in some way, blah, blah, blah.
	But I can't just unilaterally tell everyone in the country to shut down their businesses.
	I can't do that.
	That's what I would have said.
	Or to not visit each other in their homes or to stay in.
	Yeah, to declare where you get to go.
	Only go out and exercise once a day.
	Yeah.
	That was ridiculous, honestly.
	I'm not exercising once a day.
	I mean, how could you enforce that anyway?
	I don't know.
	I went out at least twice a day.
	Anyway, before we carry on and actually examine this argument, if you want to support us, go and check out this article we've got by an artist called Alexander Adams, who's a really great guy.
	He's written an article for us called Erasing the Dead.
	And this article is about the sort of reconciliation between the North and the South after the Civil War.
	I chose it to promote now because it's actually remarkably similar in framing to what the Atlantic is asking of us now.
	Because they're effectively admitting we've lost this kind of COVID civil war.
	You know, we were on the wrong side of the issue.
	It turned out actually lockdowns were way worse than the disease.
	And can we have an amnesty?
	If we can get to the next one, you can see this Emily Oster here who has decided, oh, actually, maybe I don't know as much as I thought I know.
	And maybe I supported massive actions that were actually unjustifiable in hindsight.
	But yeah, but that's what we were all saying before, because we are just prudent people.
	You know, if the bodies were piling up in the streets, maybe I'd understand.
	You know, maybe I'm like, oh Christ, you know.
	Literally, I'm looking at a trail of bodies in the streets, like the Black Death.
	I'd be like, okay, maybe we do need to do something.
	But since there wasn't, Maybe we don't need to do anything.
	It's a strange article.
	I read this, and it actually seems to be written from the point of view of someone who was against lockdown measures, but is now saying that, oh, we need to all forgive each other.
	But it's a very strange article, because I don't think anyone who was against lockdown measures would actually be saying, no, we need an amnesty now.
	Oh, she was in favour of them.
	Oh, okay.
	She definitely was.
	She says that, you know, she begins like this.
	In April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes.
	We all wear cloth masks that I'd made myself.
	We had a family hand signal, which the person in front would use if someone was approaching on the trail and we needed to put on our masks.
	Once, when another child got too close to my then four-year-old son on a bridge, he yelled at her social distancing.
	What a horrible thing.
	Four-year-olds yelling, get away from me.
	And she says these precautions were totally misguided.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, they were.
	They were totally misguided.
	In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking.
	Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare.
	Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn't have done anything anyway, but the thing is, we didn't know.
	So that brings us to the question, why did you act like you thought you knew?
	If you now can say, I didn't know, why were you so certain then?
	Because you had deluded yourself into thinking the science, quote unquote, was on your side and you knew everything.
	That's what this is all about.
	It's about claiming a level of knowledge, and that's what they've been doing for the past two years, claiming a level of knowledge that they believe is infallible and that they believe they can impose on everyone else that turns out not to be true.
	I mean, someone just, you know, putting on a mask for themselves isn't going to hurt anybody else, but it's the people who actually coerced everybody else to do that.
	Forcing masks on children.
	Absolutely.
	And sticking these test sticks up their nose, which was even worse.
	That's all child abuse.
	I mean, masks...
	You know, that's horrible enough.
	But you've seen pictures of babies screaming.
	They didn't want this horrible, painful thing right up their nose, right up to where your blood-brain barrier is.
	Millions of children got that.
	It was absolutely hideous child abuse.
	the people who did that and the people in the governments and the media who are coercing parents and teachers and doctors to do that as well, they're all culpable.
	And they're treating you as if you were morally deficient if you didn't go along with this regime.
	And they know now the science suggests that, well, actually, that was all nonsense and it was no benefit whatsoever.
	So, oh, brilliant.
	You know, brilliant.
	The thing is, some people did know, didn't they?
	They did know from the beginning, because they had the plan that this wasn't going to happen, and they knew that children weren't affected by this thing.
	They knew very early.
	So what's the excuse for closing the schools?
	Well, we just want to.
	This is about control now.
	This is about power.
	I mean, I have to say, I never even got a test.
	I didn't get tested, didn't get vaccinated.
	You are not coming anywhere near me.
	I'm not cooperating with this at all.
	And my wife as well, when it first started, she said, oh, should we get the kids vaccinated?
	I was like, no.
	None of you are getting vaccinated.
	No one in my immediate family is vaccinated at all.
	Because I forbade it.
	Yeah.
	No mask, no jab, no tests, no track or trace app.
	Weirdly, no particular fear of a sudden heart attack either.
	It's just remarkable.
	We can't go on on that.
	So anyway, she says, I've been reflecting on this lack of knowledge thanks to a class I'm co-teaching at Brown University on COVID. We spent several lectures reliving the first year of the pandemic, discussing many of the important choices we had to make under the conditions of tremendous uncertainty.
	And this is entirely the problem of the managerial technocratic class, right?
	They have got the ultimate power to do anything, but they don't have the ultimate knowledge to make sure that the consequences of what they do aren't damaging.
	And so, I mean, look at the child development that's the problem now, where babies who have been growing up, like, looking at half a face, have trouble speaking, they've got trouble with learning difficulties.
	It looks like an entire year of children are going to be essentially intellectually retarded by an entire year.
	Like, that's...
	Unbelievable.
	Yeah, all across the board, isn't it?
	But particularly for younger children because they haven't got the brain development from seeing people's facial expressions and interacting with other children and adults and the world around them is terrible for them.
	And it turns out the experts didn't realise that babies need to see your mouth move.
	They didn't realise, they didn't think about it.
	They were like, oh, how can we stop old people from dying?
	It's like, okay, but did you ever ask a single old person If they were okay with a couple of extra years of life or the stunted growth of their grandchildren, you didn't ask any of them, did you?
	Because I doubt you'd find a single old person who'd be like, yeah, of course, ruin my grandchildren's future in brain development so I live a couple more years.
	But this is the thing, they should think about it, because you've got someone from Brown University, one of America's top universities, they should have the intelligence, if they're in that kind of position, to think about all of these things.
	That's what they're there to do, they're academics.
	They're supposed to think around the issues.
	But they were in the grip of a moral panic, and they thought they had the power to fix all of the problems, which they didn't, and they should have been more conscientious of.
	But anyway, she says, there was an emerging, if not universal, consensus that schools in the US were closed for too long.
	The health risks of in-school spread were relatively low, whereas the cost to students' wellbeing and educational progress were high.
	The latest figures on learning loss are alarming, but in spring and summer of 2020, we only had glimmers of information.
	Reasonable people who cared about children and teachers advocated on both sides of the reopening debate.
	But that's the thing.
	As you said, we knew very early this wasn't dangerous to children.
	So, the people on the other side of the debate should have been written off as hysterical fear-mongers, and we should have kept children in school.
	I mean, obviously, I'm against all of the lockdowns completely, and I always have been.
	But, you know, even then, okay, the school's closed for, what, a couple of weeks?
	The numbers come out, oh, children aren't really affected by COVID, great, okay, get them back in school.
	And we had examples of countries which didn't have any lockdowns, like Sweden in Europe.
	And then this is an article from the USA, but you had states like South Dakota and Florida that didn't lock down and didn't keep kids away from school.
	And you saw they were doing fine.
	In fact, they were doing better.
	There were fewer deaths and there were fewer incidents of infections or anything there.
	I'll just pause this a second for Callum, who's probably going to have to edit this.
	You're probably watching on YouTube at this point, and you're going to be wondering, well, where's the rest of the discussion?
	And that's because YouTube has editorial policies on discussing COVID and lockdowns and various other things.
	And so I'm putting this little bit in here that hopefully Callum can edit out into the front of a little clip that will go onto YouTube that will direct you with a link in the description to go and watch this episode online.
	On the website.
	Because I don't think I want to put this up on YouTube now because I'm worried about getting a strike for daring to question the COVID narrative.
	So yeah, come over and watch it on the website.
	Anyway, for those of us on the website, let's carry on explaining how bad everything is.
	So she says, remember when the public health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach?
	No.
	No, they didn't at all.
	No, I don't recall that.
	This was a complete misinterpretation of something that Trump said.
	He was talking about peroxide.
	That's right, yeah.
	But then they were saying, well, what he meant is you swallow bleach.
	He didn't say that at all.
	No, no one took it like that.
	He was talking about, well, peroxide kills bacteria, which it does.
	You know, he didn't say swallow bleach.
	Where does the Heritage Party fall on the Trump question, pro-against?
	Well, I mean, I was a huge, huge fan of Trump from 2016 to 2020.
	You know, I supported him through the election.
	I said that the election result has been fixed.
	He's the rightful president.
	I said that.
	Well, I mean, I actually have got...
	There is a clip of me questioning Sadiq Khan about this in the London Assembly because he congratulated President Biden.
	And I said, Mr.
	Mayor, don't you think that you're...
	That was a bit of a premature congratulation of President Biden because the results aren't all in.
	And they won't be in until they finish counting.
	And he mocked me and the other people laughed and they thought I was...
	I actually stand by that.
	I mean, there's now evidence coming in that the results were fixed in a huge way.
	You know, the film 2000 Mules and so on.
	I'm less of a fan now because he was pushing the injections.
	And I don't know why he did that, because clearly they are not safe and effective.
	At the beginning, he was amazing.
	He talked about hydroxychloroquine, talked about ivermectin, but then suddenly it's like, warp speed, we're going to get everybody injected.
	He's lost me there.
	I think it's just a fear.
	Like with Boris, I'm pretty sure that instinctively they're like, well, why do I have to do anything?
	But when you're surrounded by people who are all day all saying this, you've got no other counter-voices, maybe you just end up going, okay, well, I have to do something.
	But I agree with you.
	I didn't like that either.
	But generally, I was a big supporter of Trump.
	Good to know.
	Anyway, she says, most errors were made by people who are working in earnest for the good of society, though.
	Those people who wanted lockdowns and so on.
	Mandatory injections and have you ostracized from society if you weren't vaccinated and make sure that you couldn't work, make sure you couldn't travel.
	All of those people were, quote, working in earnest for the good of society.
	They've just totally lost their moral compass, haven't they?
	En masse.
	Some of it is mass psychosis and people just going along with it, but there are so many doctors and nurses who knew that it was wrong.
	Who got censored.
	Yeah.
	And they injected themselves with saline.
	Yeah.
	Because they knew this stuff was dangerous.
	But then they went on and carried on injecting other people.
	Oh, I don't know about that.
	But I mean, I was just paying attention to the medical experts who were like, you know, well, I actually invented the mRNA.
	I don't agree with this.
	You know, all the sorts of stuff.
	And it's like, okay, but you're censored.
	You're censored.
	It's like, well, look, there's a medical consensus because we've silenced all of the dissenting voices.
	Yeah.
	You know, this is terrible.
	And so, you know, if you're like, well, we were working in earnest for the good of society.
	I don't think you were.
	I think what you were doing is working in earnest for your own influence and power.
	I really do.
	Anyway, she carries on.
	The people who got it right, for whatever reason, may want to gloat.
	Well, I'm just saying I'm not in any danger of getting myocarditis, am I? It doesn't keep me up all night.
	No, I mean, I wish people had just listened to us earlier.
	It's good that people see that we were right, because this massive censorship is stopping, and hopefully people will stop injecting each other with this stuff, but it still seems that that's going on.
	The CDC have just approved it in the United States.
	You still get the NHS in the UK encouraging people to come and get their fifth booster or whatever.
	I had to go to the hospital the other day, not for anything important, but like, you know, just sort of check-up.
	I had to wear a mask in there, and it was like...
	I've had COVID, like, at least twice, probably three times.
	You know, it's a flu.
	Don't worry, it wasn't fun, obviously, because it was a flu.
	But I've had it multiple times.
	Why do I have to...
	But anyway.
	Yeah, nonsense.
	But anyway, she says, treating pandemic choices as a scorecard, which some people have racked up more points than others, is preventing us from moving forward.
	Oh, it's us now, is it?
	That's nonsense.
	It's not a scorecard.
	It is a scientific debate.
	And in science, science is not settled in many cases.
	Sometimes it is when you have a law, okay, of Newton's laws of physics.
	We know that's settled.
	But these kind of things, you know, you can debate and you need to challenge things when data is coming out.
	Actually, Newtonian laws of physics were kind of overthrown by Einstein.
	Well, that's true.
	You're right.
	There are some things that basically, you know, there's no point, you know, going into them.
	But that's the point, isn't it?
	It's like, oh, well, it's preventing us from moving forward.
	It's like, what do you mean us?
	I'm a dangerous anti-vaxxer.
	I'm in the out group.
	I was one of the evil COVID deniers, lockdown skeptics.
	I was one of those horrible people that was killing grandma.
	And now it's us, isn't it?
	Oh, it's us!
	Oh, it's just us, right.
	Okay, got it, got it.
	Unbelievable.
	You know, I just can't take it.
	All the smears they threw at us, and now they don't want to be treated in the same way.
	The thing is, we won't be treating people in the same way.
	You know, I mean, I don't hold any hatred or bitterness in my heart, because it's good not to hold hatred and bitterness, because that only hurts yourself.
	It doesn't hurt them.
	I'm very much on the Roald Dahl side of this.
	If you hold hatred and bitterness in your heart, it comes to show on your face.
	You know, and I'm not that kind of person.
	But we shouldn't forget.
	No.
	And we should still seek justice for what happened and for all the people who died, who got injected with midazolam in hospitals, who got injected with this poison.
	The footballers.
	Yeah.
	The footballers just thumped on the pitch.
	They deserve justice.
	It's unbelievable.
	Yeah.
	It's like, oh, well, who could have predicted this rise of heart attacks?
	It's just like, dude, this isn't normal.
	They're trying to act like this is normal.
	It's like, no, it's not normal that a 25-year-old footballer just drops.
	That doesn't happen.
	And that's the thing, you see, this person who's writing this is calling for an amnesty, but they're still trying to promote and propagandise that this stuff is normal and change society and get people injected still.
	They're still pushing this narrative, and they want an amnesty.
	Well, you haven't stopped.
	They haven't stopped yet.
	And you know they would do it again in a heartbeat if something else came along.
	Tomorrow they'll declare the next pandemic, and now this is serious.
	It's like, oh God, I just...
	Drives me mad.
	But she says this, we have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty.
	I don't think we do have to, actually.
	I actually think we're not going to forgive you on this.
	And anyone who advocated for any of this nonsense through the pandemic shouldn't be listened to in the future at all.
	We can leave out the willful purveyors of actual misinformation while forgiving the hard calls that people had no choice to make but with imperfect knowledge.
	But you were purveying misinformation willfully.
	Like, you are the people who we shouldn't forgive.
	And she gives another example.
	Los Angeles County closed its beaches in summer 2020.
	Yeah.
	What a terrible, stupid decision that was.
	Well, that's the one place you could go to get some sunshine and get some vitamin D. It was actually good for you.
	Which would help you.
	Yeah, it was actually good for you to go to the beach.
	And Los Angeles is like, yeah, we're closing that.
	It's just mad.
	So you stay inside all the polluted estates and neighbourhoods rather than going to the healthy beach.
	You are right, though.
	She did want schools reopened, saying that kids weren't at high risk, and she was called a teacher killer for this.
	And it's like, well, there we go.
	Why would I want to forgive those people?
	But anyway, I think we've made our points clear on this one.
	No, I don't intend on forgiving people for stealing two years of our lives, for possibly ruining my children's education and development, and everyone else's, and for lying and making a massive profit while doing it.
	All of the censorship, all of the smears, I'm not over it.
	I don't see why I should be.
	Anyway, let's finally have a quick chat about the Heritage Party.
	I thought we'd have a quick look through your manifesto, which I thought would be a good idea, because this is something I think is not getting enough air.
	I think there are a lot of people listening who would probably agree with pretty much everything you have in here.
	So if we can, as you put it here, manifesto for social conservatism.
	You seek to promote and preserve life, liberty, prosperity, and national sovereignty.
	Yeah.
	They seem like good things.
	They are.
	They are.
	I don't see why anyone wouldn't agree with them.
	But, you know, actually, you look at the mainstream media and the political parties we've got in Westminster, and they would sort from a lot of the time across those things.
	They'd recoil like a vampire in a cross, wouldn't they?
	They would, you know.
	Oh, liberty.
	We don't like that.
	Our culture and heritage.
	I mean, let's go to the first one.
	So, protecting our culture and heritage.
	We're a great country with much to be proud of systems of common law, development of democracy and liberty, the abolition of slavery, and the numerous world-beating innovations in science and technology.
	But isn't this something that we should be ashamed of?
	I think we should be very proud of our country.
	It just irks me so much when you get so many people saying, you know, all the time just trying to bring out the bad bits of our history.
	Yeah, there are some bad bits, but there are some fantastic bits as well.
	We've done some great things as a nation.
	We've had some wonderful people, innovators, artists, sports people.
	You know, we've done, the military has done so much to abolish slavery in the 19th century that the Royal Navy went round the world and not, didn't just abolish it in the British Empire, but stopped the French and the Spanish and the Arabs and the Turks from carrying out slavery as well.
	I'll ask about Zanzibar sometime.
	Yeah, exactly.
	There are cases where apparently British sailors had to be sent away because they heard there was slaving going on and they got angry about it.
	But one of those things was like, okay, well, our culture and heritage seem to be pretty good, actually.
	And the thing is, even if they're not good, do we have to justify them to anyone?
	Is it not enough that they're just ours?
	Absolutely.
	Every country's got good and bad things in their history, every civilization in the world.
	But, you know, let's stop people bashing us over the head, like Sadiq Khan, for example, with his commission for equality in the public spaces and all this nonsense.
	You know, let's be proud of our history, celebrate our history, the good things we've done.
	We've got a great heritage, a great culture.
	And I love it.
	You know, I was saying at the beginning, you know, before all this sort of destruction has happened, especially over the last 20 years, you can see, I really, really liked the 90s when I was a young man, you know, it was a really positive time.
	It was a positive spirit all around the world, you know, communism had fallen.
	9-11 hadn't yet happened.
	There was, like, hope everywhere.
	Everyone just saw each other as a person, you know?
	But if you were here in this country, there were so many good things going on.
	And it was so positive, and we were looking forward to, you know, a great future based in a great heritage.
	Well, that's the thing, isn't it?
	Like, there are people who will be like, ah, well, you know, the sort of 90s was doomed to end at some point.
	Yeah.
	So yeah, okay, fair enough.
	But there was never something that was against the continuum of the country, right?
	It was always like, yeah, no, we're going to be Britain going on into the future.
	This is fine.
	So it's based in a kind of old traditionalism, and that was fine.
	I would like to have a kind of traditional, optimistic view.
	Yeah, I think whatever people are doing now, and there is so much that is attacking the foundations of our nation and our culture, we can restore it.
	If we all just get together and say, we're not going to have that anymore.
	We're not going to have you breaking this down and spreading cultural Marxism and all this kind of stuff.
	We're going to restore and rebuild our nation and restore the heritage which we've got from our forefathers.
	I think it begins with just the...
	The commitment, this is ours and we're not going to give it up.
	It's not for negotiation.
	That's the thing.
	We've negotiated way too much because one of the points that they, again, they're like, oh, justify yourself.
	No, I don't have to justify yourself.
	This is just mine and I like it and I don't have to say that it's good or bad, either way.
	And I wouldn't go to some Arab and be like, right, justify your culture.
	I don't expect him to go, it's mine, I like it, I don't care.
	And I don't think I have a right to take it away from him, to be honest.
	So, yeah, I'm not going to justify it.
	I'm just attached to it, and that's how that goes.
	Let's go down to the next one, John.
	So, liberty and free speech.
	Well, they sound like radical proposals in this day and age, don't they?
	They do!
	Can you even imagine?!
	After the last two years, my goodness.
	Yeah, wow.
	They've been trying to take away our liberty and our free speech, but also our freedom to protest.
	I mean, we literally can't put Segment 3 on YouTube.
	No, gosh.
	Because of lack of free speech.
	That's astounding, isn't it?
	We're just having a conversation about scientific principles, scientific methodology, and they're not allowed to put that up on some platforms, isn't it, really?
	We've got a lot to do to restore this.
	So what would the Heritage Party do?
	Let's say there's a massive sort of 380 majority for the Heritage Party, hopefully next election.
	What would the Heritage Party do?
	We would introduce a Freedom Act or Freedom Bill into Parliament, which hopefully will become a Freedom Act 2024.
	That would be great, wouldn't it?
	What would that do?
	And what we would do is it would repeal all the legislation which has been put in place over the last 10, 20 years to take away our freedom.
	So the Communications Act, Section 127, the Equality Act, the Public Service Equality Directive or whatever it's called, that makes you...
	You have to promote good relations with anyone with any protected characteristic.
	And this means that public bodies and anything in the public sector, like universities and so on, they can't allow anything that anyone with a protected characteristic might say, oh, I feel that they're being hostile to me.
	Because that goes against the Equality Act.
	Yeah, the Public Sector Equality Directive, I think.
	Well, it's not directive, it's something else.
	I can't remember the name of it, but I know the thing you're talking about.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Obligation, yeah.
	Yeah, obviously get rid of all that.
	Yeah, get rid of all those laws.
	But the ones coming in as well, the Public Order Act, which is going to take, you know...
	Require social media platforms to get rid of speech that is legal but harmful.
	Apparently they've said they're going to take that out now, but I mean...
	Oh, wow.
	The fact that they're even contemplating.
	Yeah.
	We're going to criminalise legal speech.
	Anyway, let's move on because it's depressing me.
	So, traditional family values.
	Again, what a radical perspective you've got.
	Radical, isn't it?
	It's crazy.
	Let's support families to be wholesome so that mothers and fathers stay together and bring up their own children and pass on their traditional values from generation to generation.
	That's mad.
	As a married father.
	It's mad that people think that this is mad, isn't it?
	It's mad that people are against this.
	You know what though?
	Have you noticed the number of childless people in politics these days?
	Like if you think back to when we were young men, it would be unthinkable that the, for example, Theresa May, you know, be prime minister without any children.
	Why would you ever want a prime minister who didn't have children?
	You know, and like, look at like on the continent as well.
	In Europe, there are loads of childless.
	It was Merkel, Macron.
	Yeah, lots of people weren't there.
	Europe is dominated by childless singletons in this society.
	Why are you in charge?
	You know, what good is that?
	But again, in previous generations, it's been unthinkable.
	It's the norm now.
	So it's just like, okay, well, it's crazy.
	It's unusual, isn't it?
	I mean, it's like, you know, I don't think this is a plan or so on, but it's just something that's happened, isn't it?
	Which is very strange.
	But it's just weird how people aren't selecting...
	For an eye to the future.
	Yeah.
	You know, which is bizarre to me.
	This is just the breakdown of society again, because the traditional family has been under attack since the 60s.
	You know, if you want to have an alternative lifestyle, fine.
	I'm not going to say, you know, you can't do that.
	But it's now being presented in schools, this phrase that, you know, families come in all different shapes and sizes.
	Therefore, we can't say that one family type is superior to another, when clearly it is.
	Yeah.
	And I didn't grow up with a mother and father.
	I grew up with a single mother.
	She did the very, very best that she could for me.
	Absolutely.
	She's wonderful.
	But I never had a father there, so I never had a father figure.
	So I had to figure out a lot about how to be a man on my own.
	It would have been a lot easier if I'd have had a father figure.
	There's no disparagement to my mother at all.
	But it's just the way it is.
	The fact that you turned out as a good person is a testament to her.
	But you are right.
	Your particular example, probably more of an outlier than the norm, right?
	That's the problem.
	There are lots of young men, and young women as well.
	We have a habit of saying, well, this is a thing that affects young men.
	It's like, well, yeah.
	But I think it does also affect young women.
	Look at the number of using OnlyFans at the moment.
	You're just handicapping them.
	From the word go.
	It's much better to have both parents around.
	So I know it's the...
	Go back to that, John.
	The controversial final line there.
	Marriage is that of a covenant and union between one man and one woman.
	There are going to be a lot of people upset by that.
	Well, there are, but this is something I'm taking a stand on because I do not agree with the redefinition of marriage into 2013 by David Cameron.
	I don't think it should have been redefined.
	Marriage is one man and one woman.
	Because marriage is essentially, the primary purpose of marriage is for reproducing and having your own children.
	So, you know, a couple with...
	A man and a man, a woman and a woman.
	You have like that, and then you have polyamorous marriages coming in in some places.
	Where's the end of it?
	Legalized in Colombia and other countries.
	Then would you have polygamy after that?
	It might be worth looking into just how many gays actually do get married.
	It's not very many.
	Not too many.
	It's very small.
	And there are studies that suggest that in fact there's no such thing as gay monogamy either.
	Which, I mean, I'm not making a judgement.
	Live your life as you want.
	But at the end of the day, you kind of have a point there.
	Anyway, let's go on to the next one.
	National sovereignty.
	Again, these are just extreme positions, David.
	Like, this is far right, isn't it?
	Well, I get called far right all the time.
	I haven't got a far right person on my far right podcast, have I? Well, if you're talking to, like, David Lammy, you might say I'm far right.
	So the United Kingdom should be governed only by our own citizens, and all legislation to be passed by Parliament should be formulated with the primary respect of the national interest and the liberty and prosperity of the British people.
	This is insane.
	How could this become the dominant paradigm of the United Kingdom?
	I think it should become the dominant paradigm again.
	Do you think life would be much better, wouldn't it?
	Yes, it would.
	It would be infinitely better.
	If we didn't make decisions for the benefit of bureaucrats in the EU or the World Health Organization or the World Economic Forum or whatever.
	Or Joe Biden.
	I'm laughing because it's just so obvious, but it's...
	It's also so far away from where we are.
	Right.
	It's the opposite of what the Conservatives and the Labour Party are doing.
	This is the shocking thing, isn't it?
	The Conservatives are not conserving our national sovereignty or anything.
	But they still, it's like they've got a spell over so many millions of people who think, they're Conservative, I've got to vote Conservative because they're Conservative.
	But they're not.
	They've got the name.
	They should be stripped of their name, I think.
	It's a skin suit that they're wearing, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Let's go down to the next one then.
	Self-sufficiency and energy.
	Right.
	So you're suggesting we shouldn't be dependent on Russian dictators for our energy needs.
	Oh, well.
	That's crazy.
	In the short term, we do actually need to go back and buy Russian oil and gas for this winter and the next winter.
	And we need to stop this crazy war in Ukraine.
	You know, we shouldn't be sending money over there to prolong it.
	When it doesn't need to happen in the first place.
	Very base position.
	But in the long term, we've got so much energy in our country.
	We've got oil, coal, gas.
	We've got some nuclear power stations.
	We could easily build some small modular nuclear power stations to make up the shortfall.
	We've got an abundance of energy.
	How do you feel about nuclear power generally?
	Because I'm a massive advocate for it.
	I think it's great.
	Why don't we use that?
	Modern nuclear power stations are very, very safe.
	You can have smaller ones.
	You don't need these huge ones, the 4 gigawatt ones.
	You can have 500 megawatt ones around the country, which is much smaller, much cheaper to build.
	Much easier to maintain, safer, and so on.
	There's ones going, you know, Rolls-Royce have had one going since the 50s.
	It's been working fine for, you know, 70 years or so.
	So, yeah, there's no reason why we can't...
	Oh, I've spelled self-sufficiency wrong, have I? No, I haven't.
	Let's go.
	Self-sufficiency...
	Yeah, let's go.
	No, so, yeah, self-sufficiency in energy.
	There's no reason why we can't be self-sufficient in energy.
	We have so much of it.
	And it's absolutely insane that we've dismantled our coal power stations and We're dismantling our gas power stations and putting up wind turbines.
	They're decommissioning one of the nuclear ones as well, aren't they?
	I think size well is up.
	It's near the end of its life, but it could keep going for another 10 years or so.
	It doesn't have to be decommissioned.
	Just replace them.
	I just don't see why nuclear energy is by far the cleanest, safest, and most efficient form of energy.
	It's a pro-human form of energy development.
	That's the thing.
	And so the fear mongering around it is irrational.
	But anyway, let's move on.
	Let's get to the next one.
	Low immigration.
	We should have low immigration.
	That's a good idea, isn't it?
	That's a great idea.
	We should control our borders.
	Everything you've got here is, A, pretty much my dream list, but also the total opposite of what's happening now.
	Yeah.
	I get so many people saying, wow, I wish I'd seen this before.
	I've read your manifesto.
	I love it.
	It's a breath of fresh air.
	And it's just, you know, the issue we have is getting this out so more people see it.
	Yeah.
	Because we don't have a lot of money.
	You know, I don't have a massive Tory donor.
	I probably wouldn't want a Tory donor because then I'd have to change half of the stuff, you know?
	Well, yeah.
	I don't have one.
	But it's just simple common sense that everyone could agree with.
	It's not extreme at all.
	It's just very normal.
	And what everyone would have thought 30 or 40 years ago was what everyone thinks now.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But they're just told all the time and messaged by the media that this is far right.
	It's nonsense.
	I mean, controlling our borders.
	I mean, they make the far right sound great.
	Yeah.
	If this is what the far right is, sign me up.
	It's not that we're far, it's everybody else is far left.
	That's the problem, isn't it?
	Yeah, no, that is exactly right.
	That is exactly the problem.
	They're really far left.
	Is there more?
	Let's keep going.
	Preserving the environment.
	Oh, I like the sound of that.
	I love the countryside.
	It is beautiful.
	We have such a beautiful countryside, but it's been ruined with solar panels and housing estates.
	Wind farms.
	Wind farms.
	The ugliest things in the world.
	Why?
	Solar panels and wind farms we don't need if we have a number of, you know, few small power stations around, which are already there.
	We don't need to build all these horrible wind turbines everywhere, which, by the way, kill loads of birds.
	You know, they talk about being green, but we put these things up which slice up peregrine falcons and so on, so absolutely idiots.
	And also with the mass immigration, they're concreting over our countryside and our prime agricultural land and turning it into housing estates.
	So some people make a lot of money.
	It is genuinely unbelievable.
	My parents live in Cornwall, and they've lived there for 25 years now, something like that, 20, 25 years.
	And I remember, like, just every time, you know, I'll go down there every Christmas and I'll go and visit.
	And you see, you know, every year the spread of the concrete jungle across what was otherwise beautiful terrain.
	and it's just this is depressing I think it's deliberate to try to demoralize us, you know, demoralize our spirits to do this.
	This is part of the destruction of our nation.
	It is being destroyed, and we need to stop it.
	So that's why I've written this and set up the Heritage Party to stop the destruction of our nation and turn it back.
	Let's go to the next one, John.
	Self-sufficiency in skills.
	So we're not going to be stealing Indian doctors anymore.
	We don't need to steal Indian doctors.
	We could train enough British nurses.
	It's crazy there's a cap on places for doctors and nurses and midwives in this country.
	Must be done intentionally.
	Yeah, and also the nurses and midwives now is a degree-only profession, whereas before, they trained on the job much quicker, and then they'd be straight in, and they'd spend most of their lives actually helping patients.
	Now, if you're a nurse, you learn all this management stuff.
	And half the time you're sitting in an office directing people.
	You know, they're not actually doing proper nursing.
	It's all crazy, this thing.
	The blarization of it, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Should we go to the next one?
	Equality before the law, really.
	So we're not going to have laws that privilege some and none of us.
	Certainly, laws have changed with the Equality Act and so on, and the whole edifice of hate speech and hate crime, so that if you have a protected characteristic and you complain, you're fast-tracked through the justice system.
	But if you don't have a protected characteristic, well, you can't expect much help from the police.
	I could be arrested for something I could say to Sadiq Khan, but he's never going to be arrested for anything he might say ethnically about me, because of the colour of his skin.
	Because that wouldn't be considered to be racist, because you're white.
	Yes.
	And yeah, so anyone can say anything about you.
	And they do.
	Yeah.
	Well, I don't know about that.
	You know, I'm fine with that, actually, but it's just kind of annoying that the law is only cutting one way on this, right?
	It shouldn't have a cut on So I disagree with this sort of aggravating factors and mitigating factors on the basis of protected characteristics.
	You know, they shouldn't be there.
	Every crime should be taken seriously.
	You know, whatever it is, whoever the perpetrator is.
	I've thought this for a long time.
	It's like, really, is it worse for me to murder my neighbour because he's black or because he's having an affair with my wife?
	Either way, I've still murdered him intentionally.
	So what difference did it make?
	Yeah, exactly.
	I'm not saying that you should punish people less if someone is black.
	Those punishments are probably right, but if someone murders you and you're white, and it's not aggravated on the basis of race, yeah, it's still a murder.
	You get an equal sentence.
	I still intended to murder you.
	It's just, who cares what the reason was, really?
	If it wasn't a willful intent to murder that person, yes, well then, it's the same crime.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Because he was a racist, and it's like...
	But that's still, yeah, it's still a crime.
	You treat all crimes the same.
	And also, you know, rich and poor, that's another thing.
	You know, the rich should get the same justice and sentencing as someone who's poor.
	And, you know, it's actually deplorable that some people get off because of their connections.
	Wow.
	I mean, that's a problem that's as old as time.
	Yeah.
	But it never used to be that we had, like, this racialized justice system, which I just can't stand.
	It's just wrong.
	Yeah.
	Should we keep going?
	We're running towards the end, but let's keep going.
	Financial...
	Should we have financial responsibility?
	No!
	That's crazy!
	Let's get international debt and spend all the money that we don't have.
	These are insane positions, David.
	That I totally agree with.
	I would love financial responsibility.
	We don't spend more money than we get in.
	That would be great because we would have to cut so much that draws illegal and legal immigrants to this country.
	It would fix so many problems.
	Billions and billions of pounds we could cut.
	HS2, foreign aid, home migrant hotels, diversity offices.
	Guys, can you even imagine if this was implemented?
	Cut all of that stuff.
	I bet you can't stop imagining.
	Okay, let's carry on.
	I totally agree.
	Totally agree.
	Let's keep going.
	Free market economy.
	Wow, we're not going to be communists.
	I don't think communism's that good, really, do you?
	Really?
	No, I'm not a fan.
	I'm not sure it's worked too well.
	Maybe it's worked some places, but I can't think of anywhere.
	No one can think of anywhere, no.
	I would like it, yeah.
	We're individuals are rewarded for our endeavours, and there's an incentive to work efficiently and avoid poor decisions.
	Almost the way that Elon Musk is taking over Twitter at the moment.
	Right.
	Yeah, no, okay, carry on, let's keep going.
	You like that?
	I like all of this.
	Maybe you'll find something you don't like in a minute.
	Who knows?
	No, being a pro-life party, that's very interesting in British politics.
	Yeah.
	Well, there isn't one.
	No, there isn't.
	But we need one.
	Yes, we do.
	Because there's so many people who are shocked at the horror.
	How many abortions take place?
	Of abortion, 220,000 plus every year now, children killed.
	That's what it is.
	It's awful.
	You've got to call it like it is.
	I mean, some people think, oh, it's only a couple of thousand.
	Well, that would be bad enough, but it's over 200,000.
	Yeah.
	And it's one in four pregnancies end with a child being killed in its mother's womb.
	That's so awful.
	In this country.
	You know, you need to realize this is going on.
	Yeah.
	And it's a horror that we have to stop.
	Yeah.
	I was always kind of, you know, ambivalent about the abortion issue, but the thing is, the left has just pushed me to being like, no, I'm against it now.
	Because they were like, no, no, we want abortion up until the point of birth.
	I'm right, okay, zero abortion then.
	Yeah.
	You know, if you want it to the point where the child can just literally, the difference between him living and dying is the passage through a birth canal, then you're evil.
	Yeah.
	And that's got to stop.
	When they brought it in in 1967, it's not legalized, by the way.
	It's still illegal, but it's just decriminalized.
	It's still illegal under the Offences under the Person Act 1867.
	Abortion is illegal.
	But the Abortion Act, sorry, 18-something, I don't know exactly, but the Abortion Act 1967 makes it decriminalized illegally.
	Under certain criteria.
	So if two doctors agree that there's a criteria that it's met, then an abortion can be carried out without criminal consequences.
	But it's still actually illegal.
	It is horrible.
	But it doesn't stop it, because they said, oh, it's going to be rare.
	It's only for rare cases, but it's not rare.
	It's 200,000 plus a year now.
	Well, I hate to say it, but we're out of time.
	So, David, I take it people can go to heritageparty.org to contact you.
	Have you got social media that people can follow you on?
	I'm at David Curtin on Twitter.
	It's my main one.
	And at Heritage Party UK on Twitter as well.
	Great.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you so much for joining me.
	And thanks for following and joining, folks.
	We'll see you on Monday.
	Have a great weekend.

▲